���˿���

I do not believe that it is incorrect. I think that we are agreeing to disagree here.

I would just say, in all honesty, that something unexpected could happen. I am talking about one example and one situation here—this will happen on a case-by-case basis, and every situation will be different. The chair might make that decision initially, but that does not mean that difficulties will not arise in the hearing that follows, based on that decision. Therefore, I do not think that it would be right to allow such decisions to be made.

Mr Kerr referred to open justice and the Scottish courts in his opening for the amendment. Yet again, I reiterate that the children’s hearings system is not a mini-court system. It is based on the welfare of the child and the outcome that would best rehabilitate that child. I am sorry, but I do not agree with the premise that what Mr Kerr is looking for would be congruent with those aims.

Children’s hearings must be conducted in accordance with article 8 of the ECHR, which requires respect for private and family life. That is why attendance should be restricted to those persons whose presence is necessary for the proper consideration of the case.

Furthermore, the UNCRC, which is supported by all parties, places obligations on children’s hearings to uphold every child’s right to privacy and says that

“No child shall be subjected to arbitrary or unlawful interference”

with their private and family life. Allowing any member of the public to attend a hearing, with no justification, would be a regression in children’s rights and would potentially be incompatible with them.

Amendment 179 fails to consider the fundamental differences between the approach of the children’s hearings system and the approach that is taken by the criminal justice system, as I have just outlined. Amendment 179 does not take account of the fact that the majority of hearings deal with highly sensitive care and protection cases, often for very young, vulnerable children. They are not simply juvenile courts dealing with young offenders.

On the basis that such an approach would disregard the child’s wellbeing, rights and best interests, as reflected in the legislation as it currently stands, I cannot support amendment 179. I ask Mr Kerr not to press the amendment to a vote, but, if he does, I strongly urge the committee to reject it.

No. We have set out our intended aim with the amendments. I think that I have spoken to that perfectly well and have explained the premise behind them. If there was any danger of that being the case, I would not be taking forward the amendments in their current form. So, no, I do not have any such concerns.

I ask members to support amendment 16 and the other amendments in the group.

I move amendment 16.

As we have heard, amendment 186 would make children’s legal aid automatically available to every child who is subject to a children’s hearing that is fixed by the children’s reporter, including all deferred hearings, irrespective of the grounds of referral. I can see that the intention behind it is to ensure that there is legal representation when it is needed and appropriate. However, that is already in place. Amendment 186 risks bringing an overly adversarial approach into the system when we have a successful national advocacy scheme, and advocates can also draw on legal advice where that is needed.

According to the Scottish Children’s Reporter Administration’s annual report, 22,341 children’s hearings took place in the year 2022-23. The operational effect of the amendment would be to require the SCRA to notify the Scottish Legal Aid Board of every hearing. SLAB would then, in turn, have to arrange for a duty solicitor to be made available to every subject child, assuming that the subject child did not already have a solicitor of choice. To establish whether every subject child already had a solicitor for every hearing taking place under the Children’s Hearings (Scotland) Act 2011 would be a logistical impossibility given the number of hearings, and it is simply unnecessary.

I absolutely agree that, if there are issues, they need to be looked at. I would certainly be happy to look into that, especially given the further work that will be done in relation to the “Hearings for Children” report. I also agree with the member that the blanket approach is not necessarily the best way forward but, if there are children falling through those gaps, that needs to be looked at.

I would not want any kinship carer to feel that they are stuck in a situation and cannot come forward to seek the advice, guidance or support that they require. I will hand over to officials to go into a little more detail on that.

Although it is the responsibility of local authorities to ensure that that information is available, we appreciate its importance, as I said at the beginning, and we want to ensure that people have the information and support that they need.

The launch of the refreshed guidance will provide a really good opportunity for everyone in the care sector to promote kinship care as an option for children and young people. We will ensure that the information on the Scottish Government website, as well as that from the Kinship Care Advice Service, is regularly updated.

There is a lot of work going on. As I said, that is down to local authorities, but the Scottish Government is providing support to ensure that the information is available and accessible, and we will continue monitoring that to look for ways in which we can improve.

Yes, absolutely. I am absolutely confident that there is sufficient funding there to support the roll-out of the recommended allowance. The £16 million figure for the funding was based on the difference between the cost of paying the Scottish recommended allowance or higher and the current local authority expenditure on foster and kinship care allowances, and it was worked out through negotiations with COSLA. It was modelled using current local authority expenditure on children in foster and kinship care, including informal kinship care, and the most up-to-date data from the children’s social work statistics.

In relation to when they will receive that funding, on 18 October, the Scottish Government issued a letter to local authority directors of finance detailing how much funding they were receiving. The letter would enable local authorities to implement the allowance knowing the level of funding that they will receive. The actual money will be transferred from the Scottish Government at the end of the financial year through the local government settlement funding mechanism. As the committee will be aware, that is standard practice.

The £16 million of funding is being distributed on the same basis as the existing kinship care allocation. The distribution has recently been changed to—I have the figures here—35 per cent of children aged zero to 18 in low-income families, 35 per cent of children in receipt of Scottish child payments and 30 per cent of the zero-to-18 general population. That is for the full 2023-24 financial year.

Absolutely. Making decisions based on budgetary practice would go against everything that we are aiming for with the Promise. The answer to Bob Doris’ question is, therefore, yes—absolutely.

Absolutely. I have heard some of the commentary about that. The group that undertook the 2018 national review of care allowances, which was informed by consultation with stakeholders, caregivers and children and young people, decided that the allowance payment rate should be broken into three age groups: 0 to 4, 5 to 15 and 16-plus. Those age bands are comparable with those used in Wales for its allowance.

It is fair to say that the evidence is limited and rather mixed. Some people think that young children—babies and toddlers—are more costly to look after, while others think that older children are more costly to look after. The most recent research that we have seen, which was conducted by Moneyfarm, suggests that, in 2023, it is more costly to support a six to 11-year-old than it is to support a 12 to 14-year-old, and it attributes that to the cost of age-appropriate toys for younger children and the rate at which clothes—including school uniforms—and other such things need to be replaced.

The allowance has only just been introduced. It is a hugely positive move, but we are open to feedback from kinship carers and stakeholders. We will continue to gather that feedback and will consider the issue when we formally review the system’s implementation in the future, as I said.