Chamber and committees

I do not like to show disrespect to my former legal colleagues, but lawyers make mistakes—they are not infallible. Before coming to this place, I sat on another form of tribunal; we did not always get it right, and there were three of us.

To pick up on Mr Mason’s point, there is no right of appeal for the child or for anyone else if that change is made. My concern is that there could be occasions where the chair gets it wrong. In such cases, what right would the child, social work staff or anyone else have with regard to reversing that decision?

I still have concerns about the flexibility that the minister seems to want. At the moment, the principal reporter must prepare a report, but that does not necessarily have to include the results of the pre-hearing discussion, so there may be no record of what took place. That means that others are not privy to that information—they are not made aware of it.

I will press amendment 50, and I will move amendment 53. I appreciate that the amendments might not be agreed to this morning. However, we must look at what is in the best interests of the child, and of others, and at whether new regulations could be introduced that would guarantee that the principal reporter does not overstep their mark.

I press amendment 50.

If the minister is asking the committee to reject all the amendments in this group today, is it the Government’s intention not to lodge amendments at stage 3 about increasing the amount of legal advice and help that a young person can get at a children’s hearing? Is it the Government’s view that everything is fine in the garden and no changes need to be made?

I apologise to you, convener, and to the committee, because this will take me a wee bit of time, but these issues are important.

In its stage 1 report, the committee asked for

“clarity on whether the Bill will offer further opportunities”

for legal representation. With my amendments in this group, I seek to strengthen a child’s legal rights as they go through children’s hearings.

Children’s hearings, particularly those that relate to offence grounds, can play a pivotal role in a child’s outcomes and future. Legal representation is essential to ensure that children and their families are fully aware of their rights under the law. However, concerns have been raised that children are not currently aware of their rights and often use advocates or other advisers at hearings, which can diminish their understanding and representation. That is why it is important, as we discuss and debate these amendments, to make a distinction between advocates and advisers and those who are legally trained and qualified.

The Promise Scotland said that one of its key asks for the bill was for there to be an automatic right to legal representation for children who are referred on justice grounds.That right is what I seek to ensure with amendment 77.

The introduction of rights of audience to children’s hearings, linked to specific child-centred and trauma-informed training and training on the ethos and practice of children’s hearings, would go a long way to ensuring that standards are set and maintained in the system. That is what amendment 112 seeks to ensure. There is precedent for introducing rights of audience in a specific forum—for example, the rights of audience that will be introduced for the sexual offences court.

It would take time to build capacity in the sector, although the Law Society of Scotland already offers accreditation for child-centred practice. To allow such capacity to be built, amendment 112 could have a delayed commencement before its provisions are formally introduced into Scots law.

Amendment 113 would introduce a legal aid duty. Amendments 113 and 114 seek to introduce the concept of duty solicitors in the children’s hearings system so that children’s rights are adequately protected throughout the system. The process of introducing duty solicitors is started by amendment 115, which would amend section 18 of the bill to provide information about rights to access legal advice.

I believe that it is really important that the child is offered a lawyer and that, if they want a lawyer, one is provided at the earliest opportunity. If we do not provide for that, the child will always be put on the back foot. We could not imagine that that would be fair to an adult in a criminal or other procedure. We also need a definition of child-centred legal advice, which is linked to rights of audience and training, as I talked about before.

12:45

I lodged my amendments in the group because, back in 2020, “The Promise” said:

“Children and their families must have a right to legal advice and representation if required. Scotland must be clear that the provision of advocacy does not replace rights to legal representation but the two roles (advocacy and legal representation) have a separate, distinct purpose.”

However, there is no reference to the right to seek legal advice anywhere in the bill. That is problematic, particularly given the proposed landscape of complexity being added to grounds hearings, meetings with the reporter after the grounds have been decided, and single-member panel hearings.

My amendment 115 seeks to make the distinct roles of advocacy and legal representation clear and to ensure that the child is provided with information about their right to access legal advice and how to do that at an early stage. It has to come under legal aid, because no child would be able to afford that legal representation. I appreciate that the Government is working on legal aid and that a bill on it has been promised in the next session of Parliament. However, as Ross Greer pointed out, this is our last opportunity to deal with the matter in the current session, and if we do not at least move in the right direction with regard to giving young people independent legal advice, we will miss an opportunity.

I look forward to hearing what members and the minister have to say about my amendments.

I move amendment 77.

Will the minister take an intervention?

I have a couple of quick follow-up questions. First, you talked about free school meals, but could information be shared with local authorities in relation to other benefits, such as school uniform grants? We have had conversations about data sharing on numerous occasions. We are a fairly small country, and it can put people off if they have to keep reapplying for different benefits and grants. How far can we take data sharing?

Secondly, if I may say so, you gave a very good political answer, but I am still not quite sure how we will measure the impact. What process is there to ensure that we know whether, in three years’ time, the system is working better than it is now?

Thank you.

That is very helpful.

I have a broader question, although I might be going down a bit of a rabbit hole. If we go all the way back—you are too young, cabinet secretary, but for those of us who are slightly older—

At our meeting on 22 January, David Wallace told the committee that Social Security Scotland can drive public service reform and efficiencies. He referred to its new payment platform and to data sharing, for example. How will you evaluate whether that happens and whether it contributes to efficiencies across the whole of the public sector?

Thank you for that.