 Well, this talk is about the children's hearing system, and that immediately brings to light, well, it's a confidential system, so can I say anything? Yes, but it's not secret, and it is important that we all know about it, so that lets me off. I think we can speak a little bit about it. The title may seem curious from mass infanticide to compassionate care via the wind and the willows. You'll have to work that out for yourself as we go along. You probably won't get it unless you stay till the end, but never mind. I'm only a panel member, a member of the children's hearing panels, so I have no in-depth expert knowledge, and I know some of you, probably quite a few of you, are involved or have been involved in the children's hearing system, so if I need a bit of help during the discussion, I'll be very grateful for your assistance. In fact, there are many thousands of people, volunteers in Scotland who contribute in some way to the children's hearing system. At any one time, there are about two and a half thousand volunteers working, and if you add people who have been at some time in the past, you're in the tens of thousands. There are a lot of people involved in it. No, let's try it this way. You might think this is an idealised image from childhood. Well, perhaps it is, but the little one on the right here is obviously, it looks a bit untidy, and she's obviously been left to get herself dressed in the morning, but nobody's brushed her hair. And her big sister, who's a bit more together, is in charge for the day, while the parents are off in the pub about two miles away and won't be back till very late at night. How deep does the water get out there? So things are, I would invite you to be a little wary, are not always what they might seem. So what is my interest? Do I have a past history? Well, it's long standing. Perhaps I wasn't as well behaved as I would like to remember, because age nine, I was inspired by the wind and the willows. You will remember Toad. He was very childish by nature and irresponsible, and therefore, he seemed to me a good proxy for how children get into trouble when left to their own devices. My own role model was ratty, but that's another talk. We don't need to go on. So what about Toad? It's Shepard's drawing in the original 1908 edition. Toad is in court for stealing a motor car, dangerous driving, and gross impertinence to the police. The clerk says this last is the worst of his offences. In short, Toad is the incorrigible naughty boy. Here is the panel. Much as it is today, there are three lay members, legal representative, and the clerk in Scotland is called the reporter. Of course, the reporter doesn't have a ledger anymore, they have a laptop in front of them, but I think you get the idea of something is going on. Well, Toad's sentence was 12 months for the theft, three years for dangerous driving, 15 years for giving cheek to a policeman, and that makes 19 years in jail, and the chairman concludes, excellent. Let's make it 20 years to be on the safe side. Well, my own first offence called the bicycle incident. I was 12 and I received a warning from a very large policeman who seemed about twice my size for riding my bicycle on an empty pavement in an empty street. There were no houses because it ran along the side of a railway line, and I thought there was something not really very fair about that, and I think it might have instilled in me the idea that police court procedures really weren't the right things for children. But there was one of these unstated awarenesses that was inside me. It certainly wouldn't have dared to discuss it with anybody. I wasn't really very, so I'm very political. Now, the next element in my trip-titch is the controversy provoked by the co-branding report in about 1964. I was 19 at the time and a student, and reading the correspondence in the Glasgow Herald, I was surprised at the resistance to co-branding's proposals, and I'll come to them in detail, of putting the child first. You may recall that even 10 years later, Teddy Taylor MP introduced a bill to Parliament to restore the death penalty, and it included flogging for the delinquency. Now, after 10 years as a panel member, these are my conclusions, and they are mine. I haven't lifted them for anyone else. There aren't any bad children, but there are plenty of parents who are hapless and feckless. Absolutely lovely words that really are precise for this application. But even so, they are very rarely malevolent, and it makes no sense to blame the child. In many cases, their behaviour is driven by impaired development of brain function. I think I need to explain that a bit. For many children, social and environmental circumstances are not ideal. From birth, high stress levels lead to permanent raised cortisol, stress hormone, and that has behavioural consequences. Now listen to this bit. Alcohol in the last trimester of pregnancy, it gets a bit technical, but it's worth listening to, when the limbic system and the hippocampus of the brain are developing, we end up with defective executive functions, because that is the part of the brain that's responsible for that. That means things like self-control, mental flexibility, anger control, emotional stability, ability to learn from experience. They are all damaged by even a moderate exposure in what is often considered I'm all right and towards the end of my pregnancy. The alcohol is even perhaps more damaging there, because it's less obvious. Now, add to this the cumulative effect on following generations, lack of parenting skills, not passed on obviously, neglect, children who lack stimulation, and in today's circumstances, we must perhaps more than ever recognise that it takes a whole village to raise a child. Well, back to alcohol. This is the tomb of a Glasgow entrepreneur, Charles Tennant, who patented the chlorine bleach process in 1799. In his long dead left hand, you will see, does anybody recognise it? I'm sure some of you do. A bottle of Buckfast tonic wine invented in Tennant's lifetime by the Benedictine Fryers in about 1830. It is 15% alcohol. Now that's not quite as bad as whiskey or gin, but if you drink a whole bottle of it, you're getting quite a dose. Now, famous as a driver for loutish behaviour in central Scotland. Quite geographically specific. I don't think it happens anywhere else. It's cultural. Alcohol is much more damaging as an influence on our society than illicit drugs. I have an inside track because my wife was involved in drug management. It is much more damaging, but it doesn't get nearly enough attention. Well, is that anything new? Media attention about 260 years ago, there was great interest in lack of parental care and in alcohol. I take you to William Hogarth's print of Gin Lane, 1751. He had published this to support legislation to control the misuse of gin, called Gin Lane, obviously. Hogarth, together with the other super celebrity of the era, and that is George Frederick Handel, they were great sponsors and financial supporters of destitute children, and they were the prime founders of the Foundling Hospital in London. Now, in the picture you will see on the left couple, ponning his work tools, her pots and pans, the basis of stable family life. Pondbroker seems to be doing quite well. So is the undertaker over here. Body woman being put in a coffin, an orphan child. This lady's had a bit too much gin and probably snuff, or is it cocaine anyway. This is a kind of non-accidental injury that clearly things were not as they should be, and the whole town, the whole society is falling apart, and up here at the top, gentlemen are stripping the lead off the church roof. Those are things that are going on. Children will be fed gin, all sorts of things are happening. Now, I'm not going to show you the companion print, which is Beer Street. Beer was being recommended as an alternative to gin, and in Beer Street, look it up when you get home, everything is thriving, people are looking well, they're well nourished, they're being happy and they're all drinking beer. I don't think it's politically correct, so I'll just gloss over that part of it. However, we must give Hogarth and handle the credit for trying to do something. Anyway, that's a digression. Let's go back to the children's hearing system. The co-branding report, he convened the committee in 1961, he was one of Scotland's law lords. He reported to Parliament in 1964 with his committee, and the proposals were implemented in 1971. Let me just quote what he says in the report. He said that there is a clear need to integrate two strands, criminal court proceedings for children who offend, and increasingly those who are victims of offences, with the second strand, the need to take action based on the welfare of the child with the aim of prevention and education. It had long been clear children showing delinquency and offending behaviors had similar backgrounds to those who were victims of cruelty or neglect. Yet, it was seen as I've alluded to already with Teddy Taylor's mob, a radical and controversial proposal that the welfare of the child should be paramount, and to bring together in the one process the criminal justice system and the protection system for children. There isn't any evidence that more punitive approach does any better or makes any difference to the outcome, but, and this is an important caveat, it makes some members of society feel better. The words which I've lifted from Kilbrandon, now these words are important in meaning, but they are beautifully crafted and precise, so forgive me if I indulge myself in reading them out to you. I think he was a word master. Where the needs of an individual child are not met by the family or environment, the means by which the special needs of this minority of children comes to light are largely fortuitous. These children, more than most, are in a real and special sense, hostages to fortune, and he goes on. An offence, while the essential basis of judicial action, has significance only as a pointer to the need for intervention. In the 1970s, at the start of the system, about 75% of the cases referred were of offending behaviour, delinquency, if you like, kids causing havoc. It's quite reversed. Nowadays, over 70% of referrals are for neglect. It's a remarkable change, but on the good side, the number of teenagers who are offending throughout society, nothing to do with the children's hearing system, has dropped quite dramatically. Maybe they don't go out so much sitting on the computers or other sort of things, but there is some hope things are better. There are now very few children's units, residential schools, and most children are under compulsory, through the hearing system, compulsory social work support, but at home or with relatives. Now, this is a bit of a dry bit. The legislation, firstly the Social Work Scotland Act 1968, there have been various modifications of the legislation, but all these modifications have to do with procedure and organisation. There is absolutely no shift in principle. And we come to, rather belatedly, the important worldwide and European recognition under the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child and European Convention on Human Rights Article 12. I think that's the one about the right to fair hearing, fair trial, and Article 8, which is the bit about right to private and family life, free of interference of the state. They came along later. They could be included easily. There was no radical shift to what was already in the Children's Act we had in Scotland. It is a uniquely Scottish arrangement when Lord Hope was asked at a children's hearing lecture. Why didn't they introduce it in England? So good. And if you read some of the newspaper reports about children's problems in England, they can be in a bit of a mess at times. The procedures are difficult. His law-lord friends Westminster would say, yes, it's a good idea. We would like to do it, but it's a bit difficult. When Dutch or Norwegian visitors have come to look at the Scottish system, they say, this is really wonderful. We would like to do it, and we would like the people to take part. There's always an excuse. How could Brandon got it? Given the difficulties of the time, I think he is to be complimented. Well, what happens? If the allegation is serious, well, it'll go before three independent lay members, and the reporter, I showed you an illustration of that earlier, and it seems a little bit, but you must note there is no legally qualified chairman, and there is no legal assessor. And that is an arrangement which is unique in all the legal tribunal system in the UK, and perhaps further afield. We are on our own as panel members. We can get a view from the lawyers if they are any present, and we can get a view from the reporter. The legal decision and guidance, the panellists are on their own, and I'll come to reasons why that's actually very simple. The process needs a bit of explanation. The allegations or the grounds or the facts of the case, if they are serious enough, the panel has to send them to the sheriff to be tested for proof at the full sheriff court hearing, and they make it as informal as possible. I'm told the sheriff doesn't wear a wig but it's still in a court hearing, and it's a bit intimidating for the family. The panel gets the findings proven back from the sheriff and has to consider what compulsory measures are necessary. No, it has to be necessary. Not just, well it might be a good idea or it would be better if, it has to be absolutely necessary. And there are four magic words we all have to learn, and they're very useful to cover every eventuality. Guidance, protection, treatment and control of the child. Self-explanatory, I hope. Any appeals, of course, go to the sheriff. And that is a usual straightforward case. Where possible the panel must consider the children's view and sometimes it's necessary to appoint a safeguarder who is a kind of independent private investigator, I try and explain to the families and look into the facts of the case and find out what is best for the child and what the child thinks and what the family might want to say but can't say in a hearing. The panel has various disposals. You can decide, yes, compulsory measures for social work support are necessary but the child can live at home. But there's no option. They can't just ignore social works intervention. Or they may have to stay with relatives, kinship care because that situation has improved in the past 10 years because it's now possible for kinship carers, your relatives, your granny or whatever to get financial support. That wasn't the case before. Foster carers, amazing amount of really good foster carers for everything from a really sick neonate who always needs intensive care at home to a bulletproof couple who can deal with all the vagaries of a 14, 15-year-old having absolute havoc. Residential units, there are fewer of them. That's the disposal. And we have to add to the decision any measures or restrictions who can the child see. What are the conditions that they can have contact with the mother? Maybe once a week, once every day, whatever. And for how long? And that all has to be tested what is in the best interest of the child. If the address of the foster carer can be revealed what is the danger to the child, what technicalities you can put into it. But basically, they all have to be given really good reasons. I'll come to this in a minute, but enjoy it meantime. Who are these thousands of panel members? Well, we come from all walks of life and certainly I wouldn't wear a suit and tie at the hearing. Might give the game away, but we have from a retired Army Colonel to the lady from the chip shop. Taxi drivers are especially useful because they have a fairly flexible timetable and they can turn up at short notice if somebody doesn't turn up. They're very useful. What should you wear? Well, we don't really wear wakened guns. And the twin set and perils outfit is really a disappeared fashion item although that would have been dairigair in the 1960s, I believe. I had a very useful co-panel member a few months ago. She was an aging punk with tattoos from her wrist all the way up to her bare shoulder, both sides and lots of facial piercings. She was really useful dealing with a 14-year-old girl who was really disturbed and causing havoc. Immediately the panel had street cred. Things are not always what they seem. It's one of the joys of doing it. You really have fun on the panel. It's much better than a cocktail party because you get to know these people very quickly because you've got real business to get on with. All the evidence is in the reports. It's not led in the formal court sense. But most of all, you don't need a legal training. You do need to have common sense and a sense of fairness. How often will a child shriek? That's not fair. The skills you need, communication, explaining things, respect, you've got to keep calm. And that's especially important where anger and emotional outrage may explode at any time with the family and the circumstances they're under. Actually, it happens very rarely. And I've been amazed that in these really distressing situations if it's handled right, people can be very calm. OK, just to close. This is a picture from 1640. Jacob Jordan's from the Netherlands, and this was 100 years before the industrialisation of society prompted Hogarth to publish Gin Lane. And all is well in this family. Absolutely ideal. But some social work reports might raise concerns about this household. The children seem exposed to irresponsible behaviour, certainly too much alcohol, there we go again, and unknown male visitors of doubtful moral values. So there is, like the first picture, not everything is what it seems. Those of you who have stayed, thank you for listening. But I mentioned infanticide at the start. Perhaps in the 17th century, society still had its protective village structure. Years later, Hogarth was worried and things got much worse in the 19th century industrialised era. And by the time you get to the second half of the 19th century, things are really bad. Three examples, three women. Jesse King, at age 27, was the last woman to be hanged in Edinburgh on 11 March 1889. The habit at the time was for unwanted, usually illegitimate children, to be advertised for adoption in the newspapers. Jesse and her alcoholic partner were paid up to £5, now that's £600 in modern money for adopting a child. And this was the third child she adopted. Each child had lived only a very short time, a few months at the most. Her partner became a crime witness and therefore escaped prosecution and Jesse was hanged. The last woman to be hanged in Glasgow, Susan Newell, 38 years of age, was hanged in 1923. Now, in fairness to Glasgow, and there's always a bit of competition with Glasgow in Edinburgh, that may seem more recent, but it was the first hanging of a woman in Glasgow for 70 years, so we don't need to feel too bad about that. She was hanged for a strangulation of a 13-year-old newspaper boy. And so for that case too, child protection is at the heart. But none, none, compare with the third example I give you, the baby farming, because that was the process of dealing with these adoptions informally through the newspapers. The baby farming case of Amelia Dyer, who was 59 at the time, she was hanged at Newgate in 1896, convicted of murdering two infants, although she's thought to have disposed of over 250 in her 20-year's career from the time she became a widow at age, about 39. She had trained as a nurse and was a part-time midwife. And the children were killed on her own admission by strangulation or suffocation at birth, or she administered opiates and produced what was called the quietness, meaning the child became inert, didn't feed and just faded away or died of respiratory failure. Now, that was her expert knowledge applied. She worked on an industrial scale, adopting these illegitimate infants, or, and this is the interesting part, sheltering for a fee the women in later stages of pregnancy to protect them from the disapproving attention of society. Well, for all our complaints about modern society, we've come a long way from mass infanticide to compassionate care for families and children who are in difficulty. That's it.