Meeting of the Parliament 18 March 2026 [Draft]
My amendments 54 and 55 deal with pre-hearing meetings with the principal reporter. Pre-hearing meetings between the principal reporter, the cared-for child and their family do not currently take place in the children’s hearings system but will be a new procedure as set out in proposed new section 69A of the Children’s Hearings (Scotland) Act 2011. They have caused concern and confusion in the children’s hearings sector, and those concerns were raised at stages 1 and 2. However, I am not sure that the Scottish Government has answered those concerns from those who are at the coalface of the work.
Pre-hearing meetings are a good idea. They will allow the principal reporter to meet the child and their family outside the hearing room in a more relaxed and informal setting. The principal reporter will be able to explain the format of the hearing as well as who will be in the room and what support will be available to the child, such as advocacy or legal aid. The reporter will also be able to help to calm nerves and reassure families about what will happen during what can be a stressful time.
Although well intentioned, however, the meetings could create unforeseen problems. What if a child or a family member starts asking questions that would be better heard in a grounds hearing? What if the principal reporter accidentally strays from the brief and starts discussing details of the case or how it might proceed? There is also no clear indication of how such a meeting will be documented, recorded or used in any future hearing.
Although I and others see the benefits of such meetings, it is our duty as parliamentarians not to leave it to others but to ensure that there are clear standards and rules about the meetings in order to safeguard children and families and ensure that reporters clearly understand what can—and, more important, what cannot—be discussed outside the grounds hearing.
The bill refers to
“such other matters in relation to the children’s hearing or, as the case may be, the hearing before the sheriff as the Principal Reporter considers appropriate”.
I am concerned by the wording “considers appropriate”, which is too vague, open to interpretation and thus confusing. It is possibly overspill. I therefore brought back what is now amendment 54, as I believe that it would provide a safeguard for children, their families and the principal reporter and ensure that pre-hearing meetings are dealt with in the right way.
My amendment 55 simply proposes that the new regulations regarding pre-hearing meetings be subject to the affirmative procedure. That would allow Parliament to scrutinise and vote on them, ensuring that, when they come into force, members have had their say.
I intend to move both amendment 54 and amendment 55.