Chamber and committees

That highlights the importance of advocacy and the question of who would be there to support the child. The offer of advocacy will now be made at an earlier point. The provisions will open up opportunities to streamline the system to make it more effective for children and young people. I can certainly consider ways to avoid those concerns from arising. Perhaps, if it is a fear among children and young people, we can try to appease them. However, I believe that the provisions will have more benefits than negative impacts.

Data suggests that the position is a little bit more nuanced than that. I do not think that you can necessarily say, “The public sector sits here, and the private sector sits over there, and over there is better.” Again, it needs to be seen on a case-by-case basis, and we really need to delve into that a little further.

As for the work that is under way, I might bring in Gavin Henderson to respond to the more specific points that you have raised, but, as I have said, there is a clear ambition to remove profit—or excessive profit—from the system. Likewise, similar efforts with the same aims are going on across the UK, and we will work with our counterparts to explore the challenges and complexities arising in those systems.

Gavin, can you speak to some of the points that Mr Mason has raised?

That is exactly what I am receiving advice about. Ms Duncan-Glancy knows that I am more than happy to discuss different aspects of the bill. I am more than happy to continue conversations around that point specifically, once I have received fuller advice in relation to amendments for stage 2.

North Yorkshire is not a country, whereas we are delivering legislation that is Scotland-wide. We provide the powers for local authorities to be able to enhance their support further if they wish to do so, which is the decision that North Yorkshire Council has very admirably taken. I am more than happy to look into its successes. However, I point to the differences: we are speaking about passing legislation on a countrywide basis, which is different from a local authority taking the decision to further enhance the support.

I have the number 147 in my head, but that might be a different consultation—I am dealing with five at the moment. We will follow that up. I am pretty sure that I can confirm that it is definitely not 1,000.

Yes. I am talking about what would have happened if we had chosen to consult prior to the introduction. There is a timescale involved in arranging consultations, then consulting and then carrying out the analysis that has to follow.

The decisions were not taken at the same time. As I said, I had to consider a range of factors in relation to what would be in the bill and the appropriate timescales for those. I am very clear that the timescales would not have allowed for a consultation to have been undertaken prior to the introduction of the bill.

I am not necessarily going to put yeses or nos on the record in response to these questions, because, as Ms Duncan-Glancy will be aware, I will be receiving advice on what are complex matters. Therefore, I do not want to say yes or no, because a range of different circumstances and complexities could be involved that could mean that that might be okay sometimes, and sometimes not. If we want to get into a fuller discussion on these matters, it will be much more helpful if we take it out of the committee space and if I can, as I have committed to doing, discuss amendments with all members ahead of stage 2.

Ms Duncan-Glancy will be aware of the changes that we are making in relation to establishing grounds. I am sure that, from that particular section, you can understand the complexity involved. There are cases in which grounds can never be established, and those are now going to be put right over to the sheriff. Perhaps that could be a decision for a single-member panel; that is not something that I would want to commit to saying yes or no to at the moment, but I can see how there might be a way forward in that respect.

In relation to other grounds on which there is clear agreement, we are now going to take that straight through to the three-member hearing, but those grounds would still be established. In other words, we are getting rid of the grounds process at the beginning, but we are still establishing the grounds at the start. Establishing the grounds is an extremely important part of the process of the children’s hearings system.

As I have said, there are complexities in how that can be taken forward, but the position that we have got to with the bill is a very positive one. I do not know whether that helps you in trying to understand the level of complexity here and why I feel that your question does not necessarily merit a yes or no answer.

The provisions in the bill are very clear, so there is a level of information in it that the committee can, rightly, scrutinise. I will bring in Tom McNamara again to speak to some of those specific aspects.