 Can I welcome everyone to the 10th meeting of the Education and Skills Committee in 2017? Can I please remind everyone present to turn on mobile phones and other devices on to silent for the duration of the meeting? The first item of business is the decision on whether to take agenda item 5 in private. Item 5 of this meeting is consideration of the committee's work programme. Our members are content that we take item 5 in private. The second item of business is on the children's hearing system. Last week we heard from members of the legal profession on the role of solicitors in children's hearing and the week before we held a round table on the topic. This morning I am pleased to welcome Mark McDonald, the Minister for childcare in early years and two of his officials, Tom McNamara, head of youth justice and children's hearings in Thicligarland, children's hearings team leader. My apologies for the slight delay, minister, but I believe that you wish to make an opening statement. Yes, I do, convener, and I understand the reasons behind the delay, so no problems there from my perspective. I begin by thanking the committee for its interest in and its support for our children's hearing system. I welcome the chance to take stock and to update members on our progress, as well as the priority work for the next period. The main structural and procedural changes were introduced in June 2013, so the reforms are not quite four years old. There was also a phased approach to transitioning over from the 1995 act, so we now have around two full years to reflect on the 2011 act reforms. The main themes of the 2011 act reform were rights-proofing, clarifying roles and responsibilities and improving children's rights and participation. Children's hearings are independent tribunals making life-changing and legally binding decisions. We need to see hearings that are confident, purposeful and child-centred. There is work to be done, but the system is in good shape overall, having been enhanced by our reforms. It is set to be further strengthened through the leadership of our key partners. The 2011 act's structural and procedural changes have been secured. We have a distinctly Scottish system that is globally admired. Parliament has only lately tested it and reaffirmed its fundamental tenets. We have refined the system to meet the challenges of the 21st century. We have thousands of fantastic volunteers who are willing to give so much to children in need or at risk simply because they care and because they can. I am hugely grateful to our partners, especially to panel members and other volunteers for rising to the challenge of getting it right for children who may need compulsory supervision. We have system leaders across diverse professions who are collaborative, reflective and principled. They remain alert to additional chances to do better yet. We have a programme to add further value for children from a position of real strength. We need to see that it reflected at local level across Scotland, and that is a major theme in the next phase of our work. We have clear priorities for the next two years to address the remaining challenges. There are issues around confidence, participation, advocacy and demonstrating effectiveness, but we have an ambitious shared programme to tackle them. We need to be united around delivering better experiences and better results for children and young people. The modernisation process and scrutiny of practice has highlighted the priorities around which we must all focus, which is to better meet the needs of our children and young people who we are all here to serve. Thank you. I have a couple of questions. One is on the role of solicitors. Do you think that the role of solicitors has grown in children's hearing over the past few years? Is it that solicitors can make children's hearings less focused on the outcomes of children? It is important to reflect, and I recognise the discussions that have taken place at the previous committee meetings in relation to that. It is important to reflect that solicitors have always been present within the children's hearing system since 1971, but previously it was essentially the preserve of those who could either afford to instruct a solicitor or who could secure pro bono representation at the hearing. In 2002, changes were made that allowed for an interim provision for representation for those who were not in those positions. The 2011 act essentially brought in the opportunity for parents to have legal representation at a hearing through the legal aid board. There is a code of practice that is in place for solicitors, and we have a clear expectation that that code of practice is adhered to. It is worth reflecting, convener, because I recognise that there was quite a degree of discussion around that. Since March 2014, we estimate that there have been around 4,000 cases per year that have had solicitor involvement. Over that same period, we have seen 12 complaints regarding solicitor conduct. If you take around 12,000 cases, that is one in every 1,000 cases where a solicitor is involved, we have received a complaint regarding the conduct of a solicitor. That is clearly 12 cases too many, but at the same time it sets in perspective that where solicitors are engaging with the system, they are doing so on the basis of ensuring that the rights of parents are reflected as well within the system. Thank you very much for that useful answer. We have just heard some inspirational evidence from Who Care Scotland and Bernardo's. One of the issues that came up in the Who Care Scotland session was that they found in many occasions the behaviour—not that they are doing anything wrong, but the manner and the behaviour of solicitors is being kind of intimidating as if they are trying to prove that they are the most important person in the room, as opposed to being there to make sure that the system runs smoothly and that the best interests of the child are looked after. I accept that there have been very minimal complaints, but is there anything that we can do to make the hearing system much less intimidating for the children involved? There are steps taking place in terms of how hearings are conducted, in terms of the way in which the rooms are set up. I saw in a visit to Inverness one of the rooms that had been set up in a much more conversational style, rather than being a table with the panel members and then everybody sat on the other side of that table. So there are attempts to try and reduce some of what you describe in terms of the atmosphere that can exist within hearing. I reiterate that there is a code of practice there. It is obviously for the Law Society of Scotland to ensure that training is provided and is taken up by solicitors who are going to be representing clients at a children's hearing, but at the moment, in terms of the actual complaints against the conduct of solicitors within hearings, there are very small numbers of actual complaints. I take on board the point around how those behaviours can be interpreted, and that is certainly something that I can take away and look at further. Just a couple of points on the question of whether it is for the Law Society to decide on the training. There would be circumstances where solicitors would be involved who hinted that training. I wonder if you are looking at how that could be monitored. I note that you said that there are only 12 complaints, but clearly things have to get to a pretty far along the line before somebody complains formally. Is there a process where you keep an eye on this? It is also worth reflecting that we are talking about 10 per cent of all hearings where there is solicitor involvement. The overwhelming majority of hearings are taking place without solicitors being involved. That is partly because there has to be a demonstration of legal complexity and parents have to be able to demonstrate that they would not be able to effectively participate without the support of a solicitor. That is in order to get a solicitor through accessing legal aid. In terms of those who privately instruct solicitors, I am happy to look at how we could better regulate that system and have discussion with the Law Society of Scotland on that. However, my clear expectation would be that those solicitors who are taking on representation at children's hearings would see it as incumbent upon themselves as professionals to ensure that they, firstly, were aware of how they should conduct themselves in a hearing and then conduct themselves appropriately in a hearing itself. That would be my expectation in those regards, but I am happy to look at what further steps could be taken. I can understand what was the thinking behind the 2011 act. One of the things that I raised with the Law Society panel was that it was concerned about whether there is a damage to the ethos of the hearing system, where a solicitor might advise a parent not to say anything, when, in fact, one of the things in my view that is very powerful about a hearing system is that people have the confidence to say, well, actually, I have a problem here. It is a bit of a challenge indeed in the past to have advice parents to refer their young person to the hearing system, because it was seen as a supportive place where you could maybe access resources. Is there an issue about the culture of the courtroom coming into the hearing system, even in that very moderated way, which is round? Be careful what you say here, when, in fact, the hearing system thrives and people have been honest and frank about the challenges that they are facing. I think that the code of practice was drawn up in such a way as to ensure that that didn't happen and that we didn't get into a courtroom style setting, rather than what the hearing system is intended to deliver. I sat in on a couple of children's hearings in Aberdeen, not long after becoming minister. One of those hearings had solicitor involvement, and I have to say that I felt that, looking at it from a layman's perspective, it didn't feel that that created a courtroom environment. At the same time, that solicitor conducted themselves in a way that was entirely about ensuring that not just that their client's interests were represented, but also ensuring that their client respected the process of the hearing, which is also part of the role that the solicitor plays in a lot of those cases, as well as about looking after the best interests of their client, but also the best interests of the process. I agree with you on the hearing system that I sat in and there were solicitors there, and it didn't feel like a courtroom, so maybe I am overstating it. Is there this question about whether people are advised not to be as frank as they might have been? The solicitor instinct is to say that we will be cautious here, when, in fact, if it is possible, panels can support the family when there are challenges. If they are advised by the solicitor just to be careful what they say, is that change a question? Are they changing the culture? I think that it is difficult for me to comment on that, because I am not present in all of the hearings witnessing how those interactions take place. Certainly, the feedback that I have had from the hearing system is that they see that solicitors have an essential role to play. As I have said particularly in those cases where they are representing in some of our most complex cases, but I will reflect on that and give consideration to it. At the end of the day, I am not sure that I could take a position that would define that solicitors have to let parents speak, because ultimately that is a matter for the relationship between the solicitor and their client rather than something that I, as a minister, could necessarily direct on. I think that there is a bit of a knees at the involvement of solicitors on a large scale in the hearing system. I am looking at figures here from the legal aid people. I am looking at the 2013-14 versus 2016-17 figures where legal aid for the child has gone from 130 to 367, but to relevant persons it has gone from 1,179 to 3,066. The vast majority of legal aid seems to be going to the parents so that they can present their case, as opposed to the child, where they would hope that they would be getting the representation and protection in the hearing. There is an incumbency inherent within the system. For example, the chair of the panel has to ensure that the voice of the child is heard and reflected within the hearing that takes place. That is an incumbency on the panel chair to ensure that that happens. In a number of cases, safeguarders are appointed and again their role is to listen to the child and to reflect the child's views as part of their representations within the hearing. In terms of the legal representation in relation to parents, I reiterate that in order for a parent to access legal aid in order to instruct a solicitor on a hearing, they have to demonstrate legal complexity in relation to the case that the solicitor is being instructed for, and they also have to demonstrate that they as a parent would be unable to effectively participate in the hearing without representation from a solicitor. There are tests that have to be met before legal aid can be accessed. It is not simply the case that a parent or a relevant person could go to the legal aid board and say that they require legal aid in order to be represented at a hearing and access that. They have to demonstrate that they meet those criteria before they can access legal aid. I understand what you are saying, minister, but to me, just as a layman sitting here looking at a tripling of the number of legal aid granted to parents, it seems exponential, does it not? Where does this end? Is this a growth market? No, I do not think that it is. It is a demonstration of us ensuring that, in those cases where a solicitor requires to be instructed because of those two key criteria that we have put in place as part of the stipulations to the legal aid board, that that is happening and that parents who require legal representation are receiving it. I do not think that it is a growth market, as you would describe it. I think that it is entirely about ensuring that, in the appropriate cases, representation is made where necessary. We are going to move on to training, make-up of panels and the role of lay members. I am going to bring in Liz Smith in the first instance. I suppose that, before we move on from solicitors, we should reiterate the point that, as a small number of cases that solicitors involved in, there is an even smaller amount of tiny percentage of cases where there has been complaints. However, I think that the point that we are making is that we should try and make it as less intimidating as we possibly can for the children to make sure that the panel experiences all it should be. I would recognise that, convener. Obviously, I would also recognise that, although we are talking about a small percentage of cases, every individual case is absolutely critical for the individuals and families who are involved. I do not diminish that, but when we are looking at the totality of the hearing system, it is important that we have the perspective of what we are actually looking at in terms of both solicitor involvement and solicitor conduct. Minister, I wonder if I could ask about panellists. You quite rightly referred to the fact that there are hundreds of them who do the most fantastic job right across the country. However, the committee and its predecessor committee heard some concern that we perhaps do not have enough panellists to be able to cope with the system. Is that something that you agree with that comment? Well, we just saw the recruitment of hundreds of new panel members, which was entirely designed to ensure that we had sufficient numbers working in the system. It would be fair to say that there are regional variations in the system. For example, when I was at the hearing system in Aberdeen, I was told that, at that point, they were sufficient in terms of numbers and they were not looking to recruit in the Aberdeen area. However, I recognise that there will be other parts of the country where there will be requirements to recruit additional panel members. We saw that in terms of the recruitment campaign, which I understand has seen a number of individuals coming forward. Can I just pick up two points? I think that you are right. I think that there are regional variations. I wonder if you feel that the Government can take any steps to try to reduce the gap between the different regions. I think that the second point is that it has been put to us—in fact, it was put to us by a young person this morning who was very eloquent about the experience that he has had—that sometimes the panellists change so frequently that it can be a wee bit of a difficult problem. Is that an area that could be looked at by the Government just to ensure that there is some continuity in the panellists who are dealing with a case? I suppose that there is always a balance to be struck there in the sense that the panellists who we are dealing with are volunteers who are giving of their time to support the children's hearing system. Obviously, depending on when cases are coming back, particularly if they are coming back having been appealed or grounds being agreed, having the same panell members throughout a case might then lead to delays depending on availability. We want to ensure that we have a consistency in training and competence in panell members. While they might not be familiar with the case from its inception, they will have all the relevant documents and paperwork in relation to the case, and they will have the competence and confidence to be able to discharge their functions in relation to that. I think that that is more what we would be looking to focus on. On the point that Liz Smith makes about the ability to deal with difficulties that may arise in certain regions, one of the issues that I have discussed with members of the children's hearing system is about whether, in specific locations, there are enough opportunities for panell members to see cases and to develop their skills. That is something that I am giving active consideration to, because, obviously, some locations see a much higher volume of cases by dint of population than others do, so we have to bear that in mind as well, ensuring that panell members are having the opportunity to enhance and use their skills in terms of the number of hearings that they are sitting on. On that point, Minister, is there a geographical trend within some of those regional variations that it is more difficult in some of the more rural communities to find sufficient numbers and for people to access the service? I think that it is undoubtedly the case that there are some locations by dint of population where you will have, I would say, challenges rather than difficulties in ensuring consistent recruitment of panell members, but that is something that, as I say, I am giving consideration to. Obviously, it is an active consideration for children's hearing Scotland as well. Thank you very much, Phil. You wanted to come on with me. Minister, picking up on Liz Smith's point there, do you think that it would be worthwhile giving guidance to reporters that even if one panel member—I know the issue about them being volunteers—given some of the evidence that we heard in the who cares group this morning and other evidence, even if attempts were made by the reporters for one panel member to remain consistent? Do you think that that is something that is worth considering? I will certainly give it some consideration and look into what the logistical practicalities of that might be, but I am certainly happy to take that away and look at it. I would like to follow up on some of the points. One of the points that was made lively and clearly in the who cares Scotland session that we just had was that children in these hearings quite often feel that there is a room full of strangers and that, while the intent behind children's hearings is about their voice, that that room full of people makes it very difficult for them to feel comfortable and express that. Therefore, I am interested in the role of the chair and the training that chairs have. You mentioned that that is their primary responsibility. What are your thoughts on what we need to do to improve chair training? Boyd McAdam is evidence to us that they sometimes struggle to give chairs the confidence to cut in and control hearings and cut through some of the legal and professional jargon that might be taking place. What are your thoughts on that? If we look at the mandatory training that takes place in relation to chairs, management of hearings, effectively communicating with children and families, managing conflict within hearings, attachment and resilience, revisiting decisions and reasons and the 2014 act in GERFEC are essentially the themes for the mandatory training. Contain within that are some of the points that Daniel Johnson raises. That essentially comes down to assessing and analysing the effectiveness of the chairs, which is the responsibility. Essentially, there is a feedback system whereby panel members' reporters can look at how chairs have performed. Often, as will be the case, you will not know for sure how effective a panel member will be chairing a hearing until they chair a hearing. There is an element in relation to that, but certainly we are putting in place much more training and capacity building in relation to chairs of hearings to ensure that they have the confidence and the competence to be able to address the issues that you raise. I think that one of the things in the session that we just had that became very clear is that the culture of the hearing room is important, the language used. For example, there is a requirement for children to confirm their age. One of the things that was said was that the difference is that children get asked, can you state your date of birth rather than being asked for age a year? I am just wondering whether there needs to be a concentration on the language and the way that hearings are conducted. The other point that was raised is that there seems to be a focus on the paperwork and the procedure rather than the relationship and the conversation with the child in the hearing room. I am just wondering if there is scope in the training for chairs to address those cultural issues and that focus on that relationship with the child in the hearing room. I think that it is important to emphasise that the hearings are legal tribunals. There are elements of process that do need to take place. However, what we are keen to do and taking steps towards is moving away from some of that more scripted element, which can feel quite alien for children and move to a more conversational approach. That is something that I saw reflected in terms of the hearings that I was witness to. It is certainly some of the feedback that I have heard in terms of how hearings are starting to move more into that conversational direction. That relates to the point that I made in my answer to Johann Lamont about the way in which the rooms are being set up differently in order to perhaps move away from the panel sitting on one side of the table and everybody else on the other side in some hearings. Obviously, it is not suitable for every hearing. There is a more rounded conversational room design, which is there to try to remove some of that distance that can be felt. I forgot to ask one final question. I think that one of the things that we just heard makes it a big difference is having a relationship-based advocate in the room, somebody who knows that the child before the hearing can help them to articulate what they want to say. We also heard that only 2 per cent of children attending hearings have such a relationship-based advocate. Is that something that could be reviewed and maybe made a mandatory part of the system? We have not yet enacted section 122 of the act, which sets out a requirement for the chair to inform a child or young person of the availability of advocacy. We are currently operating pilots in Fife and North Lanarkshire to look at how that will be taken forward. I have just recently agreed to put funding in to take those pilots forward. That is with a view to us creating a sustainable advocacy system, which can be rolled out on a national basis by an acting section 122. I understand entirely the important role that advocates can play, but it is important that we ensure that if we are going to introduce that availability of advocacy on a nationwide basis, we absolutely get it right and ensure that children are well served by it. Do you ever want a supplementary on this? Because it was on the issue of advocacy, following the pilots minister, would there be any consideration given to the role of a relationship-based advocacy worker who has been part of the grounds of a hearing? For example, I might be thinking about the box here, but just based on my own experience and some of the comments that we heard today, if a child is here and obviously works based where a child believes that they have somebody who is in their corner and who is listening to them and advocating for them, would it be possible for a ground if a hearing needs to establish early on, is there somebody in this room, whether that is one of the local authority workers, a social worker or a teacher, or in the case where it is not possible to be one of those somebody else that the hearing actually cannot go forward without that being in place? Is that something that is potentially on the radar and under consideration? Obviously, at the moment, the chair can determine whether a safeguarder needs to be appointed. Part of what we are looking at in terms of the pilot is how the best model would be in terms of advocacy within the system. The point that you make is certainly worthy of consideration and we will look at that in terms of how the pilots pan out. We will look at what the right point in the process for advocacy to be both advised but also then taken forward. Obviously, there is a balance between the advocate being available and the advocate being taken on by the child. We have to ensure that they are able to make an informed decision in relation to taking forward advocacy. We will give that some careful consideration as part of the pilots that we are taking forward. I would like to move on to multi-agency training. Some of the sessions that we have had recently with a lot of different people who were involved in children's hearings at social workers, Barnardo's, lawyers and so on have talked about their individual training that they go through in almost like a silo, but there has not been much in the way of multi-agency training bringing them together and understanding each other's roles. I would like to ask you what movement there has been on that, but it is a secondary question that I would like to ask you what involvement in that training that there has been for children's hearing-experienced young people in informing that training. We have taken forward some multi-agency training. We did that in Glasgow, looking at GERFEC and the principles behind the hearing system. We are looking at rolling that out further. We are looking at doing a session in Edinburgh and looking to roll out from there. Obviously, those are being our large population centres of the areas where we see a huge number of hearings. In terms of the role that children have, care-experienced children have in that process, there are children involved in panel member training, so that is forming a part of the training that panel members will receive. I will look carefully at how we can expand that role. Obviously, part of the multi-agency approach is getting a better understanding of the different roles that individuals play within the hearing system. It is also worth noting that the board of children's hearing Scotland has recently appointed three new members. One of those new members is a care-experienced young person. Obviously, I have spent some time this morning with some people who have been through the hearing system themselves. One of the clear things that came out in terms of their asks was that their experience was taken more into consideration when any development of the children's hearing system was taking place. They were able to give us examples of when they had been involved with the training that the individuals involved with the panel members or whatever had a different view of going into the children's hearing system, which was really child-centred. I wonder whether we have talked about lawyers and solicitors, as well as whether we should be making that part of their training. They are hearing the views of young people and how their experience of having solicitors in the room makes them feel and perhaps how they can modify their demeanour—maybe not their behaviour but their demeanour—to be more child-friendly. If we look at the landscape that exists at the moment, we have the care review, which is being led by Fiona Duncan. That is absolutely going to look at the system throughout, so the hearing system will form part of that. We have the children's hearings improvement partnership, which has a range of stakeholders involved, some of whom are there advocating on behalf of children and young people and representing their views within the children's hearing system. We are firmly of the belief that, if we are going to get improvement within the system right, we have to have the voice of children being part of that. All of those different components will work together to ensure that children's voices are being heard in terms of the reforms and the improvements that we take forward. The other thing that came out this morning was an ask that we may be looking into how technology might be able to help in a situation where a child feels particularly vulnerable, where there may be, as we have mentioned, too many people in the room for them to feel comfortable and to feel supported. If that has come up in your dealings with this and how that has been looked at, will you be able to look into that? Yes, absolutely. I think that digital opportunities cover a number of different possibilities, both in terms of young people being able to be involved within the hearing system, perhaps without having to travel for long distances or travel out of school in order to do that. We have taken forward funding in the coming budget of just over £2.5 million to the Scottish Children's Reporter Administrator and Children's Hearing Scotland to join the developer digital strategy. We are very much looking at how technology can be utilised within the hearing system to improve the experience for children and young people, and that is something that we will be taking forward as part of the digital strategy. My final question is about the information and the documentation that is given to children before they go to the panel or throughout their time where they are actually going through the hearing system. It has been mentioned that a lot of it is impenetrable and not age-appropriate. I wonder whether the minister has looked into the idea of having an age-appropriate summary of what is in that documentation so that the child can understand who is going to be in the room and what is going to be discussed and possibly what the outcomes of that hearing might be in a way that they can understand and prepare. That is a very sensible suggestion and one that I am happy to take away and look at. If we want that to be a system that has children at its heart, then children have to be able to understand the process that they are going to be involved in, so I will take that away and look at it. In the session that we had with Who Cares Scotland, one of the asks that came out of that from one of the participants is that young people should be involved in the recruitment process itself at every stage for panel members so that they feel that they are having that involvement in the system and they feel that they are involved in selecting the people who are going to be there. Is that something that the Government is going to take into consideration? Yes, we will give consideration to that. One of the steps that has been taken forward is appointing a care-experienced young person to the board of children's hearing Scotland. I think that that suggests that direction of travel. However, there are examples of young people being involved in the recruitment process, so I am more than happy to give careful consideration to how that could be expanded and perhaps better publicised so that young people are aware of the opportunities to get involved in that process. Following on from Julian's question on technology, one of the benefits would be that young people are not taking out of the classroom. For many of them, they do not want to, because they do not want to have to justify where they are having to leave, they do not want to be taken out of that environment. When we listened to the evidence from the lawyers, they suggested that technology could be more beneficial because for those who are on the panel, they become more aware that the child is there. They said that sometimes it is too often to forget the child that is sitting in the room, but when they are up on the screen on the television, it is much more difficult to not acknowledge that they are there. Is there anything that we can do to look at how technology could be better used in those situations, not just to make it more accessible to young people, but to ensure that the voice of young people is heard in itself? I would hope that irrespective of whether the child was in the room or on a television screen, that they would be recognised as being in the room and that there would be an acknowledgement of them within the hearing. I would be concerned if that was not the case in those circumstances, but we have to ensure that we get the balance right in terms of when hearings are being held and how appropriate that is in terms of the ability of children and young people to attend the hearing, where that is the right thing for those children and young people to do. Obviously, there are some circumstances in which children and young people do not attend the hearings that are taking place, and that sometimes instead it is the safeguarder who attends on their behalf. We have to make sure that the balance is right to ensure that they have every opportunity to attend without creating some of the difficulties that you have highlighted. In relation to the paperwork side of things, it is great that you have agreed to follow up on that question about what we can do to make some of the information more friendly and accessible. One of the pieces of the paperwork is the have your say part. Sometimes of just presenting a young person with that, it can be daunting for them in even knowing where to start. Some of them that we have spoken to today suggested that sometimes the social worker can direct them down a particular line. We had evidence today that it can be changed, and it is not really reflective of their view. What more do you think that we can do to ensure that the voices of young people are heard? That is where the role of the chair is so critical, because the chair of the panel has to ensure that the child's perspective is central to the discussion that is taking place. There is a role there in terms of the chair being strong enough to ensure that the views that are being expressed by the child or on behalf of the child are reflective of the child's views. On exactly that, some of the young people said that they were not aware when going into the hearing that they could have a one-to-one with the panel or the chair, and sometimes that was not made clear to them. That is something that they would take up if they knew about it. Do you think that there is more that we need to do in terms of making young people aware that you do not just have to fill out the form, but you can sit down more informally with the panel and have that sort of discussion about what you want? That needs to be emphasised in the training that is taken forward, though young people have to be made aware of that opportunity. As you rightly highlight, if they have that opportunity, they can set them at ease for the process that is about to be undertaken. My expectation would be that that would be very clearly emphasised to panel members as part of their training. Can I come back on that point, minister? That is good news that you emphasise that as part of training, but is there something that could be put in the papers that are sent out to a child, particularly in that summary that says, remember that you are entitled to address the panel on your own or with an advocate? The three very impressive young people that we were speaking to today, all of them says that they never knew about this until years into the process. One of them has been out for a number of years and still did not know until four weeks ago that she had went through that process and could have addressed and did not. I think that it is important to reflect on the example that you have highlighted there, which will predate the reforms that have been put in place if they went through the system a number of years previously. It is important to reflect that the system has moved in terms of the reforms that have been put in place. Things such as mandatory training are much stronger training now around panel members and the recognition of the child-centred nature of the children's hearings. I think that there is a change that has taken place in relation to that, but I am not going to sit here and say to you that, in every single instance, we will be getting it 100 per cent right. That is why we have an improvement partnership in place. I will look at that in terms of whether we have the balance right in terms of making sure that children and young people are aware of those opportunities and I will give that some careful consideration. In previous sessions, we came across evidence that an issue that was coming up—in particular from teachers whose interest was to support young people who were aware of going through the system—was communication between local authorities, so that young people in those situations are more likely to move accommodation, to move school and often to move between local authorities when they are doing that. If they were moving school within local authority, there were some issues, but it did not seem to come up too often. However, when it was movement between local authorities, there was a breakdown in communication and teachers in particular found it more challenging to support those young people. How do we improve the structures that are in place to ensure that there is not that communication breakdown or that lag in communication that would find a young person moving school, moving local authority and not receiving the support that they need during the process? That is something that we need to have discussion with local authorities in relation to and ensuring that the practices that are in place are as strong as they can be. Obviously, I made a statement recently around our steps to improve the child protection system. One of those was looking at a national child protection register. Many of the examples that you will be speaking about will sit below the point at which child protection is an issue. While we can take that forward in relation to those children who are subject to child protection measures, there will be children who have either been in or are part of the hearing system and ensuring that that information is appropriately conveyed. There are issues around ensuring that data protection is complied with, and we have just gone through a process in relation to how information sharing is taken forward, which is entirely about that level below child protection and welfare concerns, which will give some careful consideration to how best we can ensure that that information is appropriately shared within the requirements of the data protection act. Thank you very much. I suppose that you are loosely around the question of the feedback loop, which is trying to figure out what works and what is effective. Some of the evidence that we got, particularly from the guidance teachers that we met with, was a suggestion that, even when a hearing made a decision that certain things should happen, resources should be allocated for some kind of support, or whatever, those things did not happen. I wonder how you are monitoring recommendations by panels that are then not met. One of the really important points about that was if a decision was made and then nothing happened as a consequence of it, the actual system itself was undermined, particularly around recommendations for the kind of support the young person might have, whether social work involvement would follow from the hearing decision. My question to you is, are you monitoring perhaps the impact of the lack of resources before, for example, a school might go to a hearing system? The teachers said in the past that they might be able to do things themselves, that they no longer have those resources. A young person is referred to that as a prospect, but the second bit, and I think it's more important, is where a determination is made at the hearing, which by the time they come to the next hearing nothing has happened, and the consequence is an impact on the young person who needs that help, but an impact on the attitude perhaps of the family, nothing has happened, it doesn't really matter, and the impact of going before a hearing is diminished in terms of the family's view of it. The feedback loop is in its early stages, and the report that was laid by the national convener highlights that there is work to be done to accelerate efforts to ensure that recommendations are being carried out and to ensure that the appropriate feedback is coming to us, to ensure that we can take the necessary steps that are required. I have a meeting coming up with the national convener to look at how we respond to the feedback loop and what steps we put in place. One of the other steps that we want to take in relation to that is to have an early meeting with whoever it will be that succeeds Councillor Primrose as the education spokesperson for COSLAF, or the local government elections. Obviously, there is a key role for local government in ensuring that decisions are made by children's hearings, that they are effectively implemented and also monitored. We are drawing the session to a close, is there anybody else? It's got a final question. Good afternoon, minister. Just to say that clearly members have highlighted very eloquently many of the issues that have come to attention of the committee, particularly some of the powerful informal evidence that we have taken from young people who have been through the hearing system. It's quite clear that they have some specific ideas of how to improve the experiences of young people. I wondered whether you would be willing to speak to them and ask them perhaps to compile a brief report on some of the measures that could be taken and see if we can take them forward. I have constant discussions with Who Care Scotland and the young people who are from the part of Who Care Scotland and who you will have heard evidence from today. I may not have spoken to the specific individuals, but I have certainly had lots of discussions with young people with care experience and I look forward to continuing those discussions. I think that that is going to form absolutely an integral part of the care review that we are taking forward, is ensuring that the voices of children and young people with care experience who have been through the system are reflected in terms of the improvements and the changes that we make on the other end of the care review. As I said, we have a landscape of different reviews and improvement programmes taking place, but I see them very much as complementary to one another and as part of that, ensuring that children and young people have an opportunity to have their views reflected within that is certainly a central priority for myself. Thank you very much. In that case, Minister, can I thank you and your officials for attending today? We are going to move on to the next item of business and I will briefly suspend. Thank you very much. Before I go on to the next item of business, the performance and role of key education skills bodies, I am sure that most of you will know that Richard and this is Richard and Fulton's last committee appearance, so I just want to say thank you very much for your contributions. It has been greatly appreciated. Your wisdom has always been very useful, and yours as a social worker has been very, very handy over the last few sessions particularly, so you will be missed from the committee, but I am sure that you will enjoy the committees that you are going on. Thank you for everything and good luck in your new committees. Valuable input and equally impressive wisdom. Yes, yes. Who could argue with that? To fellow committee members and wish you all the best in the future. I thank everybody as a new member as well. I think that, while we might not have been eating everything in this committee, I think that this is a very, very strong committee and actually some of the members, like Liz and Joanne, who are experienced from other parties. I feel I have left a lot of time in my year, so I will take that for others. Thank you very much. Very good wise convening. Yes, very, very wise man. Remember that this is in public, so let's have a wee bit less of the complementary stuff. The next item of business is the consideration of a number of responses to the committee's report on the performance and role of key education and skills bodies, which was published on 17 January. The committee made recommendations on the performances of the SDS, the SFC, the SQA, Education Scotland and COSLA and local authorities. We have received responses from those bodies and also the Scottish Government, whose response covers the work of all those bodies. I thank all of those organisations for their responses. I suggest that we consider the responses to our recommendations on each body separately in the order that they are set out in our paper. If members have any comments on the public body or government's response or any suggestions of future work, please catch my eye. Skills Development Scotland. The key issue with SDS was localised delivery of services. Would anyone like to comment? Essentially, SDS argues that it provides a very localised service and the evidence would receive casts some doubt about that. Can I suggest that we explore this question further as part of any future work that we do on skill and SDS's work? I gave you a chance. Did we ever get feedback from their meeting with the Chamber of Commerce? That's something that they're going to undertake. Remember following some of the criticism? Scottish Funding Council. Does anyone have any comments on the SFC recommendations? The committee did make a number of recommendations and observations, much of it to do with the Enterprise and Skills Review, so we're likely to consider that review further. Anything that we do have, we can bring up at that point. Scottish Qualifications Authority. Any comments? I think their response, especially in terms of means of communication, is unsatisfaction in two fundamental ways. One is that the key point around communication is that they are not responsive to teachers and people on the ground, yet their response is more one-way traffic downstream communication. That wasn't the point. The point was that they needed to listen more. Secondly, they have a problem with technology. They described the problem with the amount of guidance, because technology makes it more complicated. However, their response seems to be more technology. They're not an organisation that, at the moment, inspires me in terms of their ability to use technology well. On that very narrow point around communication, but it is a fundamental one, I don't really find their response certainly comforting. Any comments on the SQA? I think that it would be helpful. Obviously, there has been a bit of publicity in newspapers about payment rates for markers and people who are invigilators, etc. I don't know the full facts about any of this, because I think that it's quite difficult to find the full facts, but I think that it's in the interests of the SQA to be very upfront about all of this, because it does impact on people who are motivated to take up positions as markers and invigilators. It would be helpful if we could perhaps get some clarity. I see that we've had a few comments here, but it doesn't really give us the full explanation. It's hard to say that there's a real problem here or that it's being solved, but I find it difficult to know whether it has been solved because we don't give the right information. Two points brought up there. One on communications, but we also asked them about the new national qualifications when we raised the issues and the markers one. My suggestion is that we have them in early in September to see how they've been going on after the exam years and what we should do. We should certainly write to them about the markers issue and reinforce the point about what exactly we're talking about, about the communication issue, ask them for a response and then even if we don't get a response, we'll all get a response before September, they will know what it is that we're going to be asking them about when we get them in September to Tavish. That's where the connection to the curriculum for excellence management board also matters, because what we found when we took all that evidence was that Education Scotland and the SQA were doing all these things in isolation. The curriculum for excellence management board is meant to be there to oversee exactly the point you've made about a new interpretation of the exam setting and the exam criteria. We don't want to be sure, as committee, that that has been properly discussed in that forum so that all the agencies are putting it in one direction and not adding to the teacher workload that comes up time and time again as far as I can see hasn't gone back at all, so I just want to know that that will be covered in some way in September as well. I don't want to lose sight of the curriculum for excellence management board which, as far as I can see, has not done its job over the last seven years. Yeah, I was just about to say that September would seem to be the appropriate time to give them a bit of time for that. Is there a busy time, very busy time, just the other day when I'd like to come out? Yeah, there's a couple of things on in schools, isn't there? And does anyone have any comments on the Education Scotland recommendation? Oh, sorry, do you want to go on the SQA? This question of having to be self-financing and doing international and work beyond Scotland's boundaries in order to manage that, I expect. I don't think that we have had a satisfactory answer to this, whether the focus on that delutes the ability to focus on their day job, if you like, and I think that there is a question that you would want to pursue with them. They were talking about it being Scotland's profile internationalist on, but if there are concerns about what is happening within Scotland in terms of our education system, that damages our international reputation more than is enhanced by them taking on extra works. It's something that we'd want to continue to have a focus on. We could certainly ask them if there's any evidence that shows—or if they could send us the evidence that shows the benefit to their well-being. Many have listed a whole number of reasons or things, but to me, those are assertions. It's opportunity cost and focusing on that in terms of their ability to do what is their core business, and perhaps in the longer term reflecting—we have had this discussion before—should the SQA be self-financing? Why should it be if it's something that's absolutely integral to the work of our education system? I'm not convinced that it should be, and if it's having to go looking for work in order to make sure that it's doing its core business, I think that there's a problem with that, but I think that it's something that's at least some questions that we should continue to pursue. I would agree with you that that's one for another day right now. Brief on—I've found, in general, the SQA's response to be defensive and patitudinal. If you look at the fourth point around their work code and resources, I have learned nothing from the SQA's response to that point. You suggest that there's still an issue with communication? Exactly. That's a point that we can raise in the letter. The more perhaps accepting there's an issue, because so much of it has been about the problem is people just don't get it or don't understand it. That's not about communication, it's about recognising there might be a problem that just goes beyond people not being clever enough to understand what they're trying to say to them. There has been a pattern of— we highlight an issue and the SQA simply reiterates what it is doing, rather than responding to the issue that we've highlighted. Okay. Roger's note needs down. Education Scotland Start on this, because I feel very strongly about this issue. Just to take up the point that Johann Lamont's made regarding SQA, I think that the problem with Education Scotland is the inability to recognise exactly what the problem is. I know that we'll have a debate this afternoon about some of this, but the report that Education Scotland has undertaken itself has identified five key areas of improvement, and in almost all of them, in fact, you could almost argue in all five, the problems have been created by Education Scotland itself. Therefore, I think that there are big question marks over the ability to recognise why the problems are there and what we have to do to address them. I think that what we got in the response that was given to the committee was an outline in theory of what should happen and what structures should work in Education Scotland, but it didn't deal with the practice of what is actually happening on the ground. That's my overall look at the evidence that we've received. It's very clear that people in the profession are struggling to understand what responsibilities they have in the delivery of the curriculum for excellence because a lot of the guidance is not clear in SQA partly, but in Education Scotland. That's a real worry to me that the body that is paid to oversee the implementation of curriculum for excellence has got some real issues about delivery. I think that there's not a cross-party thing, sorry, there's not a political thing, it's a cross-party issue, and it's coming through almost from every teacher that you speak to. I just say that we've already agreed to speak to Education Scotland after the recess, so somebody's issues. I think that section 3 and 4 in particular are quite mind-boggling in the sense that section 3, if you read through their response, you'd think that they only had a peripheral responsibility for a curriculum for excellence. They point in every other direction other than their own, and that's certainly not my understanding in terms of their role of curriculum for excellence. Secondly, on 4 and perhaps more fundamentally, all they do is talk about the inspection ratio. Now, the point raised was about whether we can assess how well curriculum for excellence is actually working. That was about data, it was about the OECD, it was about the points that Lindsay Patterson make, and they simply ignore those points and talk about something else. I find that deeply unsatisfactory. We are going to have them answer. I'm sure those points are going to be raised with them at that point. Any other comments? Education authorities? We received a very interesting response from Aberdeen City Council and the Northern Alliance, and the key issues we identified was how local authorities influence national policy and support their teachers. Imagine that these are issues that we will look at once a Government's education review is completed. We've also discussed doing some work in the north-east and looking at the Northern Alliance, so maybe we should just park this for just now and pick it up when we know more about the Government's proposals. Does anyone have any other comments at all? If not, then that brings us to the end of the public part of the meeting. Can I ask the gallery to clear, please?