Meeting of the Parliament 18 March 2026 [Draft]
The good news for the chamber is that these are the last amendments that I will be speaking to tonight and, hopefully, in this session.
Amendment 74, in my name, and amendment 75, in the name of Roz McCall, look to do similar things and I hope that the Government might be willing to consider agreeing to one of them.
Amendment 74 follows the report of the children’s hearings review, which recommended that there should be
“consideration of the development of rights of audience so that lawyers should demonstrate certain skills and attributes before being able to appear”
on behalf of children and relevant people at a hearing. The amendment therefore states that solicitors have a right of audience at a children’s hearing only if a solicitor meets certain requirements, such as
“an approved course of training on child-centred trauma-informed practice.”
The amendment also states that
“The Council of the Law Society of Scotland must keep, and make publicly available, a record of the solicitors who have a right of audience in children’s hearings”.
That will allow training to be given that will ensure that lawyers, and solicitors in particular, act in a way that is accessible, understandable and not overtly adversarial. There is already a precedent for that type of training being required for specific hearings—for example, the rights of audience that were introduced for sexual offences courts.
I understand that the Law Society of Scotland is not supportive of the amendment. It points out that there is no training for advocates, but that is simply because it is so rare for advocates ever to appear at such hearings. Secondly, it says that it will take time for what is proposed to come about. I accept that, but, as we go forward with the hearings, it is important that families, children and panel members are addressed by those with the appropriate training. I think that it is possible to do that, and that having a child-centred and trauma-informed manner is important. I therefore urge members to accept my amendment or to accept Roz McCall’s amendment 75.
Amendment 77 defines child-centred legal advice and representation. The amendment was brought to my attention by the leading children’s charity, Clan Childlaw, and I put on record my thanks to it not only for its assistance with the amendment but for helping me to understand the bill better. Rightly, there is a lot of talk about the need for a child-centred approach in the bill, which is welcome and has to be the right direction for legislation that is being taken forward. However, I suspect that, if I went around all the other 128 members and asked them to define “child-centred”, they would all come up with slightly different definitions. There is no consensus on the term, which means that there is some difficulty with legislation that contains it.
The amendment relates specifically to section 18, which says that local authorities must provide the child in question with information on the children’s hearings process, the availability of child advocacy services and child-centred legal advice and representation. Following discussions with Clan Childlaw, I felt that the phrase
“child-centred legal advice and representation”
should be defined in secondary legislation brought by the Scottish ministers to ensure that it is understood and complies with the good intentions of the bill. Those regulations would then be subject to the affirmative procedure to ensure that Parliament is happy with the definition, and I ask that members consider the amendment carefully.
Amendments 189, 192 and 195 would make additions and clarifications as a result of Parliament agreeing at stage 2 to my amendment 115, which involved ensuring that children are aware of their rights to legal representation.
At stage 2, amendment 115 was drafted with regard to what happens when the local authority has given the principal reporter information about the child with regard to children’s hearings. The local authority must, at that time, inform the child about what will happen in relation to the referral, about the children’s hearings process in general and about the availability of children’s advocacy services in particular. The amendment added a further paragraph to ensure, at the same time, children were also given information about
“the availability of child-centred legal advice and representation.”
That was agreed to unanimously by the committee at stage 2, with the minister’s backing.
However, it has come to my attention that that additional paragraph needs to be expanded so that it applies not only when a local authority refers a child to a principal reporter but in other referral situations. Amendments 189, 192 and 195 would ensure that children are made aware of the availability of child-centred legal representation and advice, however they are referred. Amendment 189 would ensure that that happens if a constable makes a referral; amendment 192 would ensure that it happens if a health board makes a referral; and amendment 195 would ensure that it happens when the principal reporter informs the child that they need to make a determination in relation to that child.
I understand from the minister’s correspondence with me that she does not believe that those amendments are necessary. I have to say that both the Law Society of Scotland and Clan Childlaw disagree. With due respect, Deputy Presiding Officer, you will appreciate that, if you have four lawyers in a room, you will get 12 different answers. The minister says that the amendments are not necessary but, obviously, other legal opinion disagrees with her. The minister also concedes that the amendments would not do any harm, so I would still ask the Government to accept them, because they would clarify the situation and leave things in no doubt at all.
Finally—the Deputy Presiding Officer will be glad to hear—I will speak to amendment 201. I thank the minister and her team with regard to it. It aims to enhance existing automatic legal aid provision for children who are involved in the children’s hearings system. It would, importantly, guarantee the availability of automatic legal aid in cases in which a child is referred to the children’s reporter in respect of an offence that would likely have been prosecuted on indictment had the procurator fiscal decided to pursue a conviction. It is a helpful move forward, and I again thank the minister for her help in drafting amendment 201.
I look forward to members agreeing to all of the amendments in my name.
I move amendment 74