The Scottish Government

« Previous | Contents | Next »

Listen

Chapter five: Supporting Children's Hearings better

5.1 This chapter reviews the findings of the consultation exercise in relation to providing better support to Children's Hearings. The consultation paper made a number of proposals concerning providing better support to Hearings:

• Proposal 19: Ensuring the provision of legal representation
• Proposal 20: Withholding information provided by the child
• Proposal 21: Removing the required link to local authority boundaries
• Proposal 22: Modernisation of the arrangements for Panel Members

This chapter also looks at the views of respondents in relation to the future role of the Safeguarders.

Proposal Nineteen: Legal representatives

5.2 The consultation paper suggested that current arrangements for protection of children's rights at a Hearing are not working as well as they should. It proposed that a legal representative should be appointed where the case may raise complex issues that the child is unlikely to understand or if deprivation of a child's liberty is possible.

5.3 The consultation paper also suggested that the procedures for appointment of legal representatives are cumbersome and do not enable a legal representative to be appointed, where they are necessary, well in advance of a Hearing. This may reduce the ability of legal representatives to discuss issues with the child in advance of the Hearing. The consultation paper noted that the Scottish Executive will consult on how best to ensure that legal representatives are skilled in working with children, whether through a code of conduct, accreditation scheme or training.

5.4 The consultation paper proposed to place a new duty on the SCRA to ensure the provision of legal representation for children, where this is necessary, under current criteria to protect their rights. This proposal would place the Reporter under a duty to identify those cases where a Legal Representative may be appropriate and to initiate the appointment. The business meeting or the Children's Hearing (or both) would still have the power to make an appointment if necessary, but the Reporter, acting under this duty and drawing on legal advice from within Scottish Children's Reporters Administrator ( SCRA) as required, should ensure a timely appointment is made.

5.5 Over 85% of respondents were in agreement with this proposal as opposed to only 5% who clearly stated that they were against the proposal. Over a quarter of respondents made comments on further or different measures that they felt were required in relation to this proposal.

5.6 Councils generally support the use of Legal Representatives, where appropriate. There is particular support for accreditation, a national code of conduct and better training for Legal Representatives.

5.7 COSLA argues that it is crucial not to assume that legal representation is required in every case and that it is:

"… Important not to allow increased involvement of legal profession to change the nature of Children's Hearings or to undermine the roles of others."

5.8 Many Local Authorities also argue that there is also a need for the development of better advocacy services, and highlight the important distinction between this role and legal representation. There is a general feeling that the requirement of legal representation should be considered carefully in case overuse makes Hearings more adversarial. South Lanarkshire Council sum up this view by stating that:

"The Hearings system is specifically designed to avoid the formalities of having to go through court processes and this could undermine the fundamental values and benefits of the current system."

5.9 Clarity is sought on payment arrangements by many different organisations. COSLA and Scottish Legal Aid in particular raise this issue. COSLA assumes SCRA will be taking on this role, and seeks clarity. Scottish Legal Aid notes "it is unclear who or what body will fund such legal representation".

5.10 SCRA are also keen for legal representation to be put in place timeously. They argue that:

"Where legal representation is appropriate such provision needs to be accessed quickly for the full benefit of the child."

5.11 This view is supported by Edinburgh City Council which states in its submission that it is:

"… Important that children and young people requiring legal representation have access to this before their Hearing so there is adequate time for legal advice and preparation."

5.12 Some national organisations and many voluntary agencies feel there needs to be more clarity around the roles of different people in representing the child. The Scottish Commissioner for Children and Young People states in her response that the:

"Current framework is complex, with various actors claiming a role in representing the child ... The roles can be distinguished, but what nuances there are may not be clear to many of the people involved."

5.13 Voluntary agencies in particular are keen for the duty to be broadened to ensure that advocacy support is available to children who need it. Save the Children argues in its submission that it would be:

"Helpful if one agency has overall duty to ensure the child has appropriate level of advocacy support when they require it."

5.14 There is some concern around the damaging affect of overusing Legal Representatives, but also a recognition that if the nature of Hearings becomes more formal then the role of Legal Representatives will increase. For example the Association of Directors of Social Work argue that:

"With an increasingly punitive tone behind the Hearing system, children's right to legal representation seems ever more important."

The Commissioner for Children and Young People expresses a similar view and argues that:

"Any shift in the character of the system away from a welfare focus and towards a more punitive one has implications for the character of the representation required."

Views of the safeguarder role

5.15 The consultation paper suggests that the Legal Representative proposal may remove the necessity of a Safeguarder being appointed. The consultation paper invited views on whether the role of the Safeguarder should be maintained and be made available to any service which requires an independent assessment of the child's best interests.

5.16 Many respondents note that they welcome the current review and state that any decision on the role of the Safeguarders should be:

"… postponed until after the outcome of research on approaches to advocacy and the voice of the child". Barnardo's

However, where respondents have given their views, there is widespread support for retaining the role of the Safeguarder. Safeguarders are perceived to be especially useful when agencies fail to agree on an action plan or where there is a conflict between services and the family. For example the SCRA Branch of Unison Scotland states:

"The Safeguarders role is a valuable one, particularly in cases where there are disputes between the family and the social work department."

5.17 Where respondents have also commented on whether the role of Safeguarder ought to be available to other services many feel this would not be appropriate. Many respondents in support of retaining the role of Safeguarder highlight the importance of their independent status and this is a frequently given reason for not expanding the availability of Safeguarders to other services. This view is summed up well by Angus Children's Panel:

"We are in full support of the status quo. The independence of this role is valued by both members of the children's panel and local authority staff. Panel Members feel the Safeguarder is independent of social work staff and not influenced by resource issues regarding the cost of a service. Social work staff feel that the Safeguarder can provide independent support for their recommendations, often acting as an intermediary with estranged parents or children."

Edinburgh Council Social Work Services agree with this and believe that:

"[Safeguarders] should only be appointed by Hearings. Appointment by another agency would compromise their independence. Panels are in best position to decide if further information is required or if there is any conflict of interest."

5.18 Although the appointment of the Safeguarder by the Panel is seen as a way to preserve the independence of the role, Queen Margaret University College Children's Hearing Training Unit note that the Safeguarder's report could be usefully shared with other involved services.

"We don't understand why it would be relevant to other services, although we see no reason why a report should not be provided to other services."

Edinburgh City Council also suggests the need for "agreed procedures for access to, and sharing of, Safeguarder reports".

5.19 Some respondents, including Capability Scotland, and the National Autistic Society, are in favour of expanding the role of Safeguarder to be available to services. The East and Midlothian Safeguarders would like to see an "enhanced role" for Safeguarders involving them with statutory and voluntary agencies. It suggests that:

"… multi-agency meetings should consider appointment of Safeguarders in same way as the Panel does."

5.20 Very few respondents are in favour of removing the role of Safeguarders altogether. Where responses lean towards this view, it tends to relate to the lack of clarity surrounding the role of Safeguarder. For example, Edinburgh, Lothian & Borders, Child Protection Office note that:

"If integrated assessments are properly child-centred, and supported by robust evidential base, the role of Safeguarders in assessment is less clear and maybe not required at all. It is not helpful that Safeguarders are used to provide further information to compensate for poor quality/focus or inadequacy of evidence provided by local authorities or other agencies."

5.21 The children and young people who participated in the focus groups organised by Children in Scotland were also confused by the Safeguarder role. Many of the participants saw it as "just another adult you have to speak to". They were more likely to say that they wanted someone who could act as an advocate for the child and speak up for them at Hearings and in other meetings with adults than to support the role of Safeguarder as they currently perceive it.

5.22 A small number of the children and young people involved in this consultation had previously had a safeguarder appointed to them. The general opinion of these children and young people was that, the role of the safeguarder was not beneficial to their experience of the system.

5.23 If the Safeguarder role is maintained there are three significant recurring issues raised by respondents. The primary concern is around clarity of roles, the second issue is training and standards and the last relates to payment arrangements.

Clarity of Roles

5.24 Scottish Safeguarders Association ( SSA) highlights the need for clarifying the distinction between different roles so that correct appointments are made. They note that:

"[The] Scottish Executive seems to believe that advocates and legal representatives can discharge the same function as Safeguarders. This is clearly wrong."

North Lanarkshire Council concurs by pointing out that the consultation paper:

"… does not address difference between the role of child advocate and Safeguarder, which are entirely different."

Lothian & Borders Child Protection Officers also suggest that:

"The role of the Safeguarder is to safeguard the interest of the child. This is quite different to that of a legal representative or someone expressing the views of the child."

5.25 The important concern surrounding clarity of roles is succinctly summed up by Barnardo's who note that:

"This is a complicated area, with legal representatives, Safeguarders, children's rights officers and advocates all having a potential role. While each of these may have a distinctive role the areas of overlap can be significant and could be confusing for the child."

5.26 Others, such as North Lanarkshire Council, go on to raise concern about children being interviewed by numerous individuals and suggest "it would be beneficial if this coordinated and reduced where possible".

The Department of Child and Family Psychiatry at Glasgow Royal Hospital for Sick Children also state that:

"Great care needs to be given to considering the role of the Safeguarder as against the roles of a variety of advocates and of legal representatives."

It calls for:

"… clarity around specific reasons for appointing a Safeguarder alongside the other options for advocacy and legal representation … care should be taken to avoid unnecessarily complicating complex cases by involvement of professionals with overlapping roles and tasks."

5.27 Finally, in relation to clarity of the Safeguarder role, the need for Panel Member training is mentioned to ensure Safeguarders are appropriately skilled. Edinburgh Accommodated Children Review Team explain that:

"Sometimes Panel Members can use a Safeguarder, not because they don't have enough information, but because they are finding it hard to make a decision. Careful thought and training needs to be given to Panel Members when to use Safeguarders."

Safeguarder training and national standards

5.28 The second issue raised by a number of responses is the need for better Safeguarder training including the introduction of a code of practice and/or national standards. Edinburgh City Council raises concern about the variable quality of Safeguarder practice, and the delays introduced by time taken for Safeguarders to complete their reports. It calls for set criteria or standards and training. North Lanarkshire Council notes that:

"Agreed standards and competence of interviewers would be helpful."

While the Edinburgh Accommodated Children Review Team state that:

"… clear standards, timescales and guidelines should be adhered to by Safeguarders."

5.29 Many Children's Panels and CPACs have similar views. The Scottish Association of Children's Panels note that Safeguarders "need to be properly trained in [their] role". While Area 4 Glasgow Sub- CPAC highlights the:

"Need for Safeguarder to be suitable qualified, trained and accredited."

They also state the need to:

"… consider how best to monitor and supervise Safeguarder practice."

5.30 Many others voice their concern in this matter. For example Lothian & Borders Child Protection Officers call for a "more clearly defined remit and improved training" and Aboyne Primary School also states that the:

"Safeguarder role can be inconsistent and misleading perhaps due to lack of qualified people at present to take up the role."

Payment Arrangements

5.31 The third key issue concerning the role of the safeguarder relates to funding. In particular Legal Aid Scotland notes that Safeguard payment arrangements need to be addressed.

"There are current difficulties surrounding payment of Safeguarders and curators in children's cases. It is assumed that this consultation may result in amendments to the Children (Scotland) Act 1995 and associated rules."

5.32 Some councils, such as North Lanarkshire Council, also raise concerns that:

"… extension of the role to other services would require further resourcing to local government. Currently local authorities fund Safeguarders with resources dependent on number and complexity of cases. This in itself is unsatisfactory from budgetary control perspective."

Proposal Twenty: Withholding information provided by the child

5.33 The rights of parents and others involved in a Children's Hearing to full information about a child can potentially lead to the disclosure of information that may place children at risk. The consultation paper proposed to legislate to enable Children's Hearings and Reporters to withhold information provided by the child when its release may place the child's welfare at risk.

5.34 Almost 90% of respondents expressed support for this proposal in their response. A similarly high proportion of respondents stated that they felt the proposal would meet the objectives stated in the consultation paper.

5.35 There is strong support for this proposal. Responses highlight that the best interests of the child should be paramount and that the child should have the right to confidentiality to speak about their abusers or a difficult situation. Many respondents acknowledge that this already happens to a degree and a formal mechanism is welcomed. In particular, there needs to be clear criteria for withholding information, and guidance on how sensitive information should be managed at each stage of the process. For example, Glasgow City Council states in its submission that there is an:

"Acknowledged need to set clear guidance in ensuring child's safety is not contradicted by working of the proposal."

5.36 SCRA argues in its submission that:

"Withholding of information should be set against clear criteria and only allowed to last for as long as the criteria can be met."

5.37 Qualified support tends to be concerned with the need to think though the further implications, including the rights of the parents/adults and how this sits with the European Convention of Human Rights. For example Children in Scotland states:

"We support [this proposal] but are concerned about potential conflict between child's and parental rights in relation to privacy under Article 8 of the European Convention of Human Rights."

5.38 A few respondents express concerns that the withholding of information might not always be the best solution. Professional Advisors on the Child Protection Reform Programme note that the criteria for determining when and why to share information and purposes of sharing the information must be mutually understood and complied with. They comment that:

"Children must feel safe and protected in a process. Passing legislation to allow information to be withheld does not solve the dilemma and could actually exacerbate the situation."

Other respondents suggest that the Special Measures for the Vulnerable Witnesses (Scotland) Act 2004 may offer some additional learning as much work has been done in this area.

Proposal Twenty One: Remove required link to local authority boundaries

5.39 The consultation paper proposed amending the Children (Scotland) Act 1995 to remove the requirements that Children's Panels and Children's Panel Advisory Committees be linked to local authority boundaries. The proposal states Panel Members should continue to work in their own locality as much as possible, but that removing the barriers to Panel Members sitting on Children's Hearings outside their immediate local authority would introduce flexibility into the structure of the Children's Hearings system.

5.40 A majority (58%) of respondents expressed their agreement with this proposal, however, there was a significant minority (32%) of respondents that said they were opposed to the proposal and a similar proportion expressed qualifications about their support for the proposal. Support for this proposal was strongest amongst individual respondents (62% in favour) however only a minority of organisations that responded said they were in favour of the proposal (49%). The strongest opposition to the proposal came from Children Panels and CPACs although a number of their responses did recognise the need for greater flexibility.

5.41 National organisations and voluntary organisations realise this proposal is responding to a practical necessity, but feel this should not diminish the overall link between panels and their local community. So although there is general support, many state that the local nature of decision making should not be lost and that the strength of Panel Members is in their local knowledge. There are also some suggestions that this proposal could be perceived as moving away from the Kilbrandon approach to community representation.

5.42 National organisations are more likely to support changes to the administrative arrangements for Panels. The Scottish Association of Children's Panels states that the current arrangements are a source of frustration to many Panel Members who live and work in different areas or who live close to local authority boundaries. SCRA argues that the proposal would:

"… remove an unhelpful impediment to availability of Panel Members that impacts most often in small areas. However, it is critical that the link between Children's Panels and local communities is maintained for the integrated response to children and the local delivery to be as effective as possible."

5.43 Councils who responded are divided on this proposal, but a majority are not in favour of removing the link to local authority boundaries. Local knowledge and the community link are seen as vital to the Hearing system. COSLA states:

"It is a fundamental principle of the Hearings system that Panels are grounded in local communities and we would oppose any move which diminished that principle. This does not preclude more effective working amongst CPACs or local authorities."

5.44 Some councils are in favour of greater flexibility. Edinburgh City Council states that:

"We would support greater flexibility for Panel Members in relation to the area they serve, but primarily recognise importance of Panel Members having links with their community and coterminous boundaries should be the aim."

Inverclyde Council echoes this view in its submission and states that:

"There are pragmatic reasons for developing greater flexibility, due to the difficulties some areas have in recruiting Panel Members. We support this, but not to the detriment of local community ownership and identification with the system."

5.45 Although the community link is mentioned by many councils, Panels and CPACs there is also an appreciation that some flexibility may be useful. The response from ASDW suggests that there may be a dichotomy between these two issues.

"There needs to be a degree of flexibility in using Panel Members across LA boundaries, both in terms of economies of scale and to ensure that Panel Members can cover each authority when there may be peaks and troughs [in availability]. The ethos behind the Hearings system was that local people who knew the area were making decisions on the basis of local knowledge, understanding and accountability; local joint initiatives for training and discussion help to promote a shared understanding of the issues and to build trust and credibility on both sides."

Importance of Flexibility

5.46 On the issue of flexibility some councils, such as Angus and Clackmannanshire, feel that the existing flexibility within their current system works effectively. Angus Council notes that:

"The system works very well in Angus, and we would not wish to suffer through the abolition of boundaries. The mechanism already exists for a Panel Member to serve just over a local border. Areas that work effectively together should not be unfairly penalised."

While Clackmannanshire Council states:

"The existing system works well in Forth Valley, and there would be no real benefit to change in this area. Panel Members also wish to preserve the status quo as there is a very positive Forth Valley network which is valued by those involved."

5.47 Some Councils agree there is a problem around the availability of Panel Members, but feel this could be addressed by other arrangements such as relaxing the current rules. Falkirk Council notes that:

"… perhaps more work could be done in relation to recruitment and retention around conditions ( e.g. expenses training and support) being available to the same level nationally."

Shetland Council suggests:

"… good practice guidance for local authorities to implement could be put into in place without breaking the local authority link."

Many concur with Midlothian Council and CPAC who feel the problem of Panel Member availability:

"… could be achieved by simply relaxing existing rules on concurrent Panel Membership."

5.48 Many respondents agree that it would be desirable to introduce greater flexibility and this would help in a number of circumstances including:

• When Hearings have to be held outwith authority ( e.g. in secure units) (Aberdeenshire Council)
• Where this is necessary to allow a fair and just Hearing to take place (Midlothian Council)
• If a young person moved to a neighbouring authority there could be continuity of Panel Members across the Local Authority boundaries (Stirling Council, Social Work Department)
• Where a particular Panel has difficulty with finding, e.g. male members for its rota (East Renfrewshire CPAC)
• To enable gender representation and emergency Hearings (North Ayrshire Children's Panel)
• Have an understanding with joining authorities that their Panel Members can be called on in emergencies (North Lanarkshire Children's Panel)
• Helpful in smaller localities where Panel Members may know children or families personally ( SACRO)

5.49 CPACs and Panels also note they would like to see the Panel Member transfer process improved. Scottish Borders CPAC comments that:

"… removal of some of the bureaucracy surrounding the scheme would simplify the process."

Importance of Local Knowledge

5.50 Despite recognition that flexibility is a practical necessity in some circumstances, many respondents in favour of more flexibility also call for the need to retain some local link. For example Fife Council's Childrens Services agrees in principle with the proposal but notes that:

"… it will be important not to lose the local community element."

Argyll and Bute Council, who are also in favour of the proposal, suggests that:

"… safeguards should be established to ensure that the Hearings reflect the particular nature of the communities that they serve."

5.51 Children Panels and CPACs express the importance of Panel Members' local knowledge. North Lanarkshire Children's Panel voices a typical response:

"Panel Members gain local knowledge of difficulties, concerns, resources, etc. in the communities they serve, work and live in. This knowledge is invaluable and would not be there if Panel Members sit on Hearings in areas they do not know … It is imperative that Panel Members know the area they sit on … [It] gives them credibility when making a decision."

Even the few Panels and CPACs who support the proposal, such as North Ayrshire Children's Panel, feel that:

"… the strength of the system is in providing support to local communities that Panel Members have knowledge of."

Working Relationship between Panels and Local Authorities

5.52 In addition to losing the local knowledge of Panel Members some Councils are concerned that the proposal would have a detrimental impact on the working relationship with their Children's Panel. The following three Councils express this view well.

Angus Council feels that:

"… local contact and knowledge of Panel Members [is] essential to effective planning and delivery of services. The Chairperson of the Children's Panel is an important and effective bridge between the Panel and the council, helping to ensure local needs are identified and that service development is supported and valued by members of Children's Panel."

Similarly Glasgow City Council emphasises that:

"… the council needs good communication to meet and evaluate all services and systems [so] close links with Panel Members would be critical for good running and development of [the] Hearing system."

Aberdeenshire Council is keen to note that:

"… linking the Children's Panel and the Local Authority has enabled good working relationships to be built up", helping them to "streamline process and discuss the way we work together which is to the ultimate benefit of children and young people."

Ultimately the Council is:

"… concerned that this element might be lost if we do not continue to link Panels to Local Authorities."

West Lothian and East Dunbartonshire CPACs echo these views by praising the current local recruitment system and suggest that:

"Breaking the local link with CPAC would endanger the personal bonds that are vital to ensure that recruitment and reappointment are carried out with a thorough understanding of local needs."

Negative Impact on Panel Members

5.53 Finally, there are concerns that removing the link with Local Authorities may have a negative impact on Panel Members' recruitment and retention. Falkirk Council points out that:

"Panel Members tend to be local people with a commitment to their local area. They feedback into their communities and have a sense of contributing to their local area. Removing the requirement to link them to local authority boundaries might result in difficulty in retaining Panel Members and therefore a resulting decrease in availability."

This view is reinforced by Midlothian Council and CPAC which comments that:

"It is also essential not to lose sight of the fact that many Panel Members volunteer their services in order to service their own community. They may not therefore wish to [attend] Hearings in another local authority or community. It is important that this aspect of Panel Member commitment is not overlooked."

5.54 In rural areas there is the further concern that asking Panel Members to sit on Children's Hearings outside their immediate Local Authority area will be asking too much of volunteers in terms of travel. Highland CPAC comments that:

"… travel distances to areas such as Perth and Kinross, Moray and Argyll and Bute, etc. are such that the time demands on volunteers would make this unattractive."

Angus Council agrees with this and concludes that:

"… there may well be a detrimental effect to recruitment in rural communities such as Angus if a change to boundaries goes ahead."

Proposal Twenty two: Modernisation of the arrangements for Panel Members

5.55 The consultation paper proposed improvements in, and modernisation of, the arrangements for the recruitment, training, support and monitoring of Panel Members through the establishment of either a single national body or a local authority regional structure.

5.56 The consultation paper invited views on two options for improving support. The first option was that local authorities should retain their administrative responsibilities for the Children's Hearings system and work in regional groupings. The second option suggested that support arrangements should be managed by a national body with local administration. Under either option, the supporting body would work to national standards for recruitment, monitoring and training. The regional or national body would support the activities on recruitment, training and monitoring which is currently the responsibility of CPACs.

5.57 There were mixed views amongst respondents about this proposal. Just over 40% of all respondents state that they would be in favour of the establishment of a national body to manage the support arrangements for Children's Panels. A further 27% of respondents favoured the establishment of a regional structure. However, a substantial minority of respondents favoured the retention of the status quo with individual local authorities maintaining their role in providing support to Children's Panels in their areas.

5.58 COSLA is supportive of improving and modernising the recruitment, training and monitoring of Panel Members, but does not believe that it is necessary to move to a regional or national arrangement to achieve this. Concerns are raised by individual councils about the practicalities of how a regional or national arrangement would work in practice.

5.59 Councils are, however, keen to see the introduction of national standards. They also support training to ensure a more consistent approach by Panel Members. They see a need to ensure Panel Members across Scotland achieve adequate levels of training and support. For example Angus Council states in its submission that:

" CPACs have already taken steps towards national standardisation, with training for Angus Panel Members undertaken across Tayside. This works well and would be preferred over a national approach."

National Consistency

5.60 There is also a strong view amongst respondents that the functions currently performed by CPACs are crucial, and that more national consistency can be achieved through better sharing of good practice and not necessarily through the creation of a new body.

North Ayrshire CPAC supports this view and states that there is a:

"Need to improve consistency in relation to expenses, allowances, training and support. [We] agree with the need to work to national standards for recruitment, monitoring and training [but] councils should retain their administrative responsibilities for the Children's Hearing system whilst working in regional groupings."

5.61 Many national organisations are keen to see national standards while keeping sight of the balance between national consistency and local focus. For example SCRA is aware of some inequality of treatment of Panel Members. They state that proper support is vital and that a single national body would ensure consistency and transparency.

5.62 In many cases national consistency is the main reason for respondents supporting a national body. Fife Children's Services and East Dunbartonshire Council believe this option is required to ensure consistency. Similarly, Dundee Children's Panel voiced:

"… support for a national approach organised on a regional basis to ensure consistent standards".

Local Focus

5.63 Although CPACs and Panels are keen to see national standards and consistency, many are concerned about losing the local dimension of the Children's Hearings system. As a result many CPACs in particular are against any regional or national arrangements. This is reflected by North Lanarkshire CPAC's comment that:

"… there is no merit in changing to a regional or national system which will inevitably diminish the local culture of the Children's Panel and be a significant departure from the system envisaged within the Kilbrandon Report …"

5.64 There are concerns about retaining the local nature of the Hearings system. ADSW for example believe that:

"… a Regional Consortium could combine necessary improvements, whilst not compromising strength of local people with local knowledge and a commitment to their local community."

This common view is also expressed well by Perth and Kinross Children's Panel:

"We felt very strongly that Panels should remain linked to their local authorities: to be 'of the community - for the community'. Links between families, communities and local services should be strengthened not weakened."

5.65 However, some Councils, such as Inverclyde, feel that a regional approach could deliver improvement whilst keeping sight of the local dimension. It suggests that:

"… a consortium of local groups so that training, etc. could be provided on an expanded 'local level' supplemented by events at a local authority level … Consortium type structures could combine the necessary improvements require, whilst not compromising the strength of local people with local knowledge and a commitment to their local community."

Recruitment

5.66 Views from the CPACs often emphasis the need to maintain the local recruitment model. Highland CPAC states that:

"… the very great advantage of the current system is that it is local and appears local to the communities it serves. Centralisation of it would remove this advantage particularly for recruitment."

West Lothian CPAC comments that:

"… given the principles behind Panel Member recruitment in terms of representation from the local community we believe that a Regional approach is infinitely preferable to a National one."

5.67 Although there is strong support for a national training programme amongst CPACs and Panel Members, are keen for recruitment to remain local or regional at the very least. Fife CPAC suggests that:

"… a key factor in the motivation of people applying to be considered for Panel Membership has been a willingness to serve their local community and any move towards a national administrative structure could lead to difficulties in recruitment."

5.68 Similarly most individual respondents support a national approach and are open to an arrangement that will ensure consistently high quality of support and promote good practice. However, many believe there is a need for a local or regional recruitment model. This quote from a volunteer involved in the Hearings system is indicative of many responses from this group of respondents:

"There should be a national body looking at best practice. Recruitment needs to be done locally to understand the needs of the local area."

Existing Good Practice

5.69 There is an understanding that the proposal was based on the dissatisfaction with the level of consistency and support provided to Panel Members and the arrangements for the payment of their expenses and allowances. Although Councils recognise that the quality of support varies across Scotland quite a few Councils are not persuaded by the proposal of a regional/national approach and are keen to see more evidence to support the proposal For example Midlothian Council feel that the fact that one or two areas may have encountered this difficulty is not a justification for the proposal and Argyll & Bute Council is "uncertain" whether the case for change has been fully made.

5.70 A number of Councils highlight the good work being carried out in their area, and feel this can be built upon. Angus Council states:

"Neither a regional or national approach is viewed as preferred and in the best interest of either children of Panel Members. The system in Angus with volunteers from the Angus community which are interested in supporting Angus children … works well. This local dimension is greatly valued and any alternative model is not supported."

Similarly Clackmannanshire Council states that:

"… the current Forth Valley systems work and can see no benefit to a national structure being imposed. We support the idea of consistency and national policy but would prefer to see this driven by the Scottish Executive within existing structures."

5.71 Some Panels also note that they receive extremely good support from their local authority and are strongly in favour of the status quo. For example, North Lanarkshire Panel Members express:

"… a high level of satisfaction … regarding the support afforded to them by our local authority administration and certainly do not wish this to be altered. The Scottish Executive should take the lead from the authorities that are performing well and draw up guidelines of good practice that all should adhere to."

Need for Improved Training and Support

5.72 There is a strong consensus that training and support needs to be improved in some areas. The Scottish Association of Children's Panels feel training should be organised nationally and best practice guidance developed and adopted on a national basis. They acknowledge that current support for Panel Members is patchy, with some feeling very isolated. This is echoed by ADSW that argues that:

"… there is a real need to improve the quality of some of the training offered to Panel Members. Panel Members should not be presented with additional barriers to recruitment of local people from a wide range of backgrounds. The necessary training and support to fulfil their duties needs to be easily accessible."

5.73 In terms of modernising the Hearings system many respondents view consistent, high quality training and support for Panel Members as the key priority and are keen to see a national training and support programme developed. A group of Edinburgh Social Workers suggest that:

"… training of Panel Members is clearly an issue of concern. Current feedback is that there is an over emphasis on legal training with Panel Members not informed about decision-making process."

A number of respondents make suggestions in relation to training programme and support. Voluntary organisations are especially supportive of proposals designed to raise the consistency and standard of training and support for Panel Members. Capability Scotland, for example, calls for the need for disability equality training and better support for disabled Panel Members. Scottish Women's Aid would like to see improvements in training in domestic abuse issues. Further suggestions include:

• a greater emphasis on practice, realism and knowledge of what really happens in practice (Edinburgh Council)
• involvement of children, young people and families in key aspects of the training (Scottish Borders Council)
• modern methods including distance and online learning (Edinburgh Children's Panel)
• training relevant to the local perspective and ensuring all relevant local agencies are included (Scottish Borders Council)

5.74 Many national organisations are keen to see national standards while keeping sight of the balance between national consistency and local focus. For example SCRA is aware of some inequality of treatment of Panel Members. They state that proper support is vital and that a single national body would ensure consistency and transparency.

5.75 The Scottish Association of Children's Panels feel training should be organised nationally and best practice guidance developed and adopted on a national basis. They acknowledge that current support for Panel Members is patchy, with some feeling very isolated.

5.76 Voluntary organisations are open to explore the possibility of a national body for Panel Members in Scotland so as to direct research and evaluation on the Children's Hearings system independently of the Scottish Executive, to give greater independence to Panel Members, and to play a role in local and national publicity/promotion.

5.77 The Scottish Association of Panel Members highlight that they are currently the only national forum for Panel Members, but that they suffer from lack of support from Panel Chairs, which has resulted in difficulties of national co-ordination and communication across the current CPAC structure.

Summary of Key Findings

• While a large majority of respondents support the proposal for the appointment of a legal representative in appropriate cases there are concerns that if this provision is overused then it could undermine the informality of the Hearings system.
• A large number of respondents suggest that clear guidance should be issued setting out in what circumstances legal representation would be appropriate in order to ensure that a consistent approach is adopted and that it is based on demonstrable need rather than becoming the norm.
• A substantial number of respondents suggest that there is a danger that the roles of advocates, Safeguarders and legal representatives could become confused and that there is a need for more clarity about their respective roles.
• There are mixed views about the role of Safeguarders and some issues which respondents say need to be addressed if their role is to continue. However, a substantial number of respondents say that any decision about their future role should await the outcome of the current research project.
• While the vast majority of respondents recognised the need for withholding information in certain circumstances, many respondents suggested that detailed guidance on the criteria for withholding information was required to ensure that this power was not abused.
• There is support for greater flexibility in the arrangements for allowing Panel Members to sit in Hearings in different geographical areas but strong opposition, particularly from local authorities, to removing the formal link with local government boundaries.
• There are mixed views on the desirability of establishing regional or national arrangements for the recruitment, training and support of Panel Members.

« Previous | Contents | Next »