Calls to replace volunteers with professionals in Children’s Hearings system
Scotland’s unique Children’s Hearings system, currently run by volunteers, could be replaced with paid professionals.
Proposals to professionalise the system have been made before, but the new suggestions are part of 97 recommendations for the Scottish government to review.
The recommendations stem from an expert report on the redesign of Scotland’s Children’s Hearings System, authored by the Hearings System Working Group (HSWG). The group is advocating for “transformational change”.
If enacted, the change could result in dismantling a system of its kind that is unique globally. It would see volunteers replaced by a professional chair and salaried panel members.
Historically, juvenile courts during the 1960s were primarily courts of criminal law. However, the 1964 Kilbrandon Report changed the focus for children from “needs not deeds”, setting the foundation for the Children’s Hearings System.
An organisation called The Promise Scotland recently published the Hearings for Children redesign report, after gathering insights from experts and children who have had firsthand experience with the system.
Fi Mcfarlane, from The Promise Scotland, said: “This group and report has been dealing with difficult, challenging and complex issues. Many individuals must be recognised for the contributions they have made to the Children’s Hearing System, but as we look to the future our priority must be a system that listens to and works for Scotland’s children.”
Sheriff David Mackie, the group’s chair, commented: “If implemented and resourced in full, they will herald a step change not only for the Children’s Hearings System but for how we work alongside children and families across Scotland.”
Natalie Don, minister for keeping the promise, said: “The Children’s Hearings System is unique to Scotland and for over 50 years, the dedication and commitment of those working within it has been outstanding. However, the Promise is clear that the system needs to change, as children’s experiences haven’t always reflected that investment. We’ll reflect on the implications of these proposals before responding more fully.”