Seòmar agus comataidhean

The issue that Roz McCall brings to me is the same in what is currently happening. As we have said, there are three members, but they could be from outwith that area. I do not understand how the provisions mean that there is any more risk with of the issue that she raises happening. I have spoken to what the provisions aim to do in relation to reducing drift and delay, which I imagine would help to increase capacity in the system and, in relation to the chairing member, would, I hope, allow for more localisation and consistency.

I am very conscious that Roz McCall and I have not spoken about this in detail, and I would be more than happy to consider the concerns that she has raised, if not the specific amendment, in more detail. I thank her for bringing those concerns to my attention. I ask Roz McCall not to move amendment 105, with the assurance that I am happy to discuss the concerns that she has raised around rurality and consistency.

I also do not agree with Roz McCall’s amendment 106, which would remove flexibility from a system that deals with cases that involve significant levels of complexity. I am sympathetic to her desire to ensure safe decision making, but removing flexibility from the system is not necessarily the correct way to achieve that. There are circumstances in which it will absolutely be appropriate for a full hearing to consider the circumstances of an interim order and whether it should be continued or varied, but there are also circumstances in which it is entirely appropriate for that to be done by a chairing member who is specially recruited and trained to take those decisions. We would argue not that a single member will take those decisions at all times—and perhaps not even in many cases—but that they should be able to do so where it is appropriate, and with the relevant safeguards that we are introducing in the bill. I hope that that explanation reassures Roz McCall and that she will not move amendment 106. If she does, I encourage members to vote against it.

I do not have much to add, but I will reflect on a couple of the points that members made. I emphasise that single-member panels have been proposed in the bill in an effort to keep children safe. It is not envisaged that their use would become a regular occurrence. The measure would be implemented because there may be times when an urgent decision is required that will help to keep a child or young person safe, when that is needed, in the short term. That is when it is expected that a single-member panel would be used.

My amendments in this group make some essential changes to the grounds process. Amendment 60 gives the grounds hearing wider scope to appropriately consider the views of more people than just the principal reporter when considering the child’s understanding of the grounds. That might include a child’s advocacy worker, legal representative or safeguarder, whose views will be essential to the hearing’s decision.

Amendment 61 makes sure that the hearing is not forced to proceed immediately to consider the child’s acceptance of the grounds when a child has attended despite no appropriate person having discussed the grounds with them. It means that the hearing can give the child’s capacity and acceptance the necessary and appropriate consideration in their decision making.

Amendments 64 to 66 make it clear that the chairing member has flexibility when explaining the grounds and supporting facts to the child and relevant persons. It means that such discussions can be less formal, and these amendments allow for a more proportionate approach to each case, especially where there has been a lot of early work with the child and family to help them understand the grounds.

Sheriff David Mackie previously raised concerns about the formality of the process, and those amendments seek to address those concerns. Amendment 67 is consequential on those amendments.

I understand the intent behind Martin Whitfield’s amendments 191 and 192, and we absolutely need to be thoughtful about the capacity of very young children in grounds hearings. However, I am concerned that an arbitrary age limit cuts across individualised and child-centred approaches that are already being applied in practice.

An automatic cut-off age is inappropriate, because it fails to reflect the different rates at which children’s capacity evolves, as required by the UNCRC. It is expected that, in practice, the voices of very young children will be gathered and reflected to hearings in ways other than a consideration of their capacity to understand the grounds.

Ultimately, it is for the hearing to respond to the individual child’s needs in that regard. However, in practice, it is highly unlikely that there will be disproportionate or inappropriate consideration of the child’s capacity where the child is very young. Moreover, in line with the UNCRC, recent reforms made by the Parliament, such as the Children (Scotland) Act 2020, have moved away from presumptions about a child’s capacity based purely on age. Apart from age, there may be other issues affecting a child’s capacity to understand a statement of grounds. I would be concerned that a bright-line age limit might also potentially lead to unlawful discrimination contrary to article 14 of the European convention on human rights. I hope Martin Whitfield agrees, and will not move amendments 191 and 192. If he does, I would ask members to vote against them.

I hope that members can support my amendments.

I move amendment 28.

I do not believe that that is what the amendment truly reflects, and I believe that what it provides for is already in place.

On the point about the provisions ensuring wider understanding and knowledge of advocacy, I absolutely agree with Mr Balfour that there will be instances, including complex cases, in which advocacy has not been taken on board. As I said to Mr Greer, there should be frequent, regular opportunities for advocacy to be offered to the child. I accept that such provision should still be there as late as that point in the children’s hearing, but, as I said, that is already in statute. The chairing member of the children’s hearing must inform the child of the availability of children’s advocacy services. However, I am saying that there are earlier opportunities for such information to be given, as I have said in my assurances to Mr Greer.

The provisions that are already in section 18 will more effectively ensure that the child receives appropriate information about the availability of such services at the earliest opportunity, well before a children’s hearing is organised. Therefore, I oppose amendment 80 for the reasons that I have outlined.

Amendment 78, in my name, clarifies that children’s advocacy services under section 122 of the Children’s Hearings (Scotland) Act 2011 can be provided to support a child in relation to a children’s hearing

“whatever the child’s age or capacity”.

So-called non-instructed advocacy recognises that a child might be unable to directly instruct someone to provide such services, so the provision of those services can be arranged on behalf of the child, following appropriate engagement with their family.

I acknowledge that Ross Greer’s amendment 205 seeks, in part, to achieve that. In principle, I support the intention of his amendment, but the term “non-instructed advocacy” might need further clarification, so I would prefer Mr Greer not to move amendment 205, based on my assurance that we will find a workable means of realising our shared intentions.

Non-instructed advocacy supports children who cannot express their views due to age, disability, illness or trauma. That reflects some of the conversations that we have already had in the committee. It ensures that a child’s rights are upheld in children’s hearings through observation, relationship building and consultation with relevant others.

In delivering non-instructed advocacy, the advocacy worker’s role is to factually present an advocacy statement to decision makers based on what they have observed directly or been told by significant others in a child’s life. No projection or opinion is offered by the advocacy worker as to what action would be in a child’s best interests. That is an important distinction from the role of a safeguarder.

In order to promote further dialogue, inclusion and future flexibility, the Government’s amendment 78 proposes setting out the framework for, or connected to, the provision of non-instructed advocacy through the existing regulation-making powers in section 122(4) of the 2011 act, following a process of consultation and engagement. That will allow for further collaborative work on training, awareness raising and practical application to specify when information on non-instructed advocacy services should be presented to children’s hearings panel members and be given due regard by decision makers.

I will not move amendment 78, in my name, if Ross Greer agrees not to move amendment 205, so that we can work together on an agreed solution at stage 3. As I said, I support the intention behind amendment 205, but further work is needed on the wording.

In summary, I encourage members to support amendments 51 and 79, in my name, and to vote against amendment 189, if it is pressed, and amendments 109, 200, 202 to 204, 80 and 206 if they are moved. As I said, if Ross Greer is happy to not move amendment 205, I will not move amendment 78.

Does Roz McCall agree that, as I have highlighted, it would be more helpful to follow what those groups have said about offering the best opportunities and frequent opportunities for advocacy and explaining exactly what advocacy entails, rather than focusing on an opt-out model?

No, that is not at all what I have said. I think that I assured Mr Balfour that I would be happy to explore opportunities to strengthen children’s access to legal aid prior to stage 3, and I would be happy to do so, whether that is in a legislative sense or a non-legislative sense, given the host of work that is already under way to improve access to legal aid. I am not shut off to more discussions, but I do not know that an amendment at stage 3 is the appropriate route. However, I am happy to follow that up with the member.

On amendment 115, the Scottish Government supports the proposed signposting to the availability of child-centred legal advice and representation by a local authority, while reserving the right to propose minor adjustments to the wording at stage 3.

I invite members not to move amendments 113 and 114 today. If Mr Balfour’s concerns relate to removing barriers to legal aid I am, as I have said, more than happy to commit to considering that again and have those discussions. I support amendment 115.

Yes.

Okay.

Martin Whitfield’s amendment 195 would create the new role of infant safeguarder, when there is already a well-established safeguarder service. The national safeguarders panel, which was established under the 2011 act, is a fully demand-led specialist service that is available for any child for whom there is an identified need.

Under the 2011 act, it is a statutory requirement that a children’s hearing or sheriff consider appointing a safeguarder. In 2024-25, 1,482 children were appointed a safeguarder to represent their best interests in hearings proceedings. Most of them were younger children. However, we can do more through that existing service to promote and protect the needs of babies and infants.

I appreciate that. We are already going to have probably a full day’s meeting to discuss a number of things, so I am more than happy to pick that up then as well.

We will work with Children First, which is the contracted manager of the safeguarder panel, on further strengthening the training offer relating to our very youngest children. That will be directly informed by the support and expertise that will be offered to panel members through upskilling work led by the NSPCC, in partnership with Children’s Hearings Scotland.

Roz McCall’s amendment 197 proposes that ministers, through regulations, assign independent infant representatives to children who are under three. I do not consider that an appropriate or necessary innovation. The proposal did not feature in the “Hearings for Children” report.

Independent decision makers should be respected and trusted to appoint additional rights, voice and representation supports to children only where individual children need them in specific or individual cases. There is a long-standing and clear responsibility on panel members to minimise the number of additional adult actors who are imposed on children. An artificial age-bound approach that takes no account of individual children’s needs will not improve matters for all children.

Representatives are already an established statutory part of the system.

Safeguarders are also independent and, where deemed necessary, are appointed by children’s hearings or sheriffs to protect a child’s best interests through the proceedings. Where required, panel members can also appoint independent report writers to assist them with decision making.

Of course I want to ensure that we are doing everything that we can and should be doing to protect and promote the interests and needs of babies and infants in the children’s hearings system. That is why we have identified the potential for non-instructed advocacy to play a part in the redesigned hearings system, to better support children who are unable to speak for themselves. I intend to work with Ross Greer ahead of stage 3 to introduce that in an appropriate way.

I want to see what change and improvement the workstream proposes—if, indeed, it makes such a recommendation. If it does so, I would like that to be developed for potential testing over the next two years. Seeking to determine whether practice and process need to be improved before legislating for change seems the appropriate way forward.

Given the assurances that I have provided on record in the debate that we have had so far, I hope that members will agree with the points that I have set out, and I ask Roz McCall and Martin Whitfield not to press their amendments. If they do, I encourage members to vote against them.