Children's Hearings Redesign Board minutes: April 2025

Attendees and apologies

Members

• Brian Taylor, Scottish Government, Co-Chair 
• Neil Hunter, Principal Reporter, Scottish Children’s Reporter Administration
• Elliot Jackson, National Convener, Children’s Hearings Scotland (by teams)
• Lindsey Byrne, Social Work Scotland (by teams)

Officials

• John Urquhart, COSLA
• Gordon Main, Our Hearings Our Voice
• Elaine Adams, CELCIS
• Emma Wilson, Scottish Government
• Susan Downes, Scottish Government (secretariat)

Apologies

• Laura Caven, COSLA, Co-Chair

Items and actions

Welcome and introductions

Brian Taylor started the meeting acknowledging apologies from Laura Caven and Tom McNamara. Brian also noted that Elaine and Gordon have joined to discuss the work of the planning group and in particular the development of the project initiation documents (PIDs) and workstreams.

Members agreed the minute of the previous meeting in January, the minute of the meeting with Sheriff Mackie and authorised publication on the Children’s Hearings Redesign Board webpage.

​​​​​​​Members discussed expectations for the future relationship between themselves and Sheriff Mackie and the desire to have a more formal definition of the relationship. It was noted this is a decision for the board and is completely separate from the relationship Sheriff Mackie has with the Minister. It was agreed that once the workstreams are fully established and there are products to share would be the most appropriate point to invite Sheriff Mackie back to the board.

Action

Secretariat to publish both sets of minutes from the previous meetings on the Children’s Hearings Redesign Board webpage.

Miro Board Update

​​​​​​​Elaine Adams introduced this section by sharing the Miro board with members, this has been shared with the planning group and the planning and preparing for hearings project team and has been positively received. The Miro board is designed to be used mainly by planning group and project team members to maintain an oversight of the workstreams and to help identify any potential cross over. This will complement not replace formal programme management reporting tools.

​​​​​​​The Miro board will be further developed as additional workstreams are agreed and initiated, also to demonstrate the relationship between existing and ongoing work by key partners. It may also be used to help demonstrate the relationship to other boards such as the strategic CHIP and local CHIP’s.

​​​​​​​There is potential for screenshots of the board to be shared publicly to demonstrate the scale, scope and complexity of the work being carried out, in legislation, policy, and practice.  The board welcomed the development of the Miro board and noted its potential for supporting programme delivery.

Culture Workstream

​​​​​​​Significant effort has been made to refine the culture project initiation document (PID). Vivien Thomas as project lead has been working closely with Elaine Adams to ensure the workstream has clearly defined objectives and deliverables.

​​​​​​​Elaine explained that the plan is to keep the project team relatively tight for this workstream and use the strategic CHIP as a sounding board, given its multiagency membership. The vision and values previously published by CHIP will be considered as a starting point for the workstream, a considerable amount of this work is still relevant today. Work will need to be done on developing a framework for implementation.

​​​​​​​It was noted that it would be useful to define the relationship with CHIP and how they will be linked into this and other workstreams in the redesign process. There is a need for clarity on how all of the groups will interact.

​​​​​​​Elliot Jackson noted that the cultural workstream could have substantial impact across redesign as a whole, previously the board discussed developing a base line to measure against to demonstrate what success looks like. There needs to be a sustainable approach to implementation.

Referral

​​​​​​​Emma Wilson explained the PID for this workstream was initially based on a projected developed by SCRA. Roma Bruce-Davies, Elaine and Vivien have been working closely to make changes to broaden the scope of the original project to fit the needs of this workstream.

​​​​​​​Elaine and Vivien have been trying to bring in some focus on information for good decision making, specifically in the pre-referral to look at practice and thresholds. There is a need to look at where hearings sit within the timeline of a child’s journey and what supports are put in place along the way. The focus needs to be about getting ‘the right support to the right child at the right time’ and not doing things in isolation.

​​​​​​​There is a need to be conscious of connections with other work, specifically culture. Members noted that there is potential for scope creep within this workstream and a need to be careful not to broaden the scope so far that the objectives become undeliverable.

​​​​​​​Neil Hunter noted that this needs to be delivered within the context of GIRFEC. In the future we need to be able to look back and clearly see how this work has influenced the journey to ensuring that hearings have the GIRFEC principles at the centre. This should not be a numerical exercise to increase or decrease the number of referrals, it is about getting the right support to the right child at the right time, it is the relationships that are important.

Preparing for Hearings

​​​​​​​Gordon Main introduced this item noting that the first meeting of the project team happened on Thursday, the meeting was positive. Lots of discussion about where the boundaries between and connections with other workstream are and what the communications process across the programme will be like. A draft terms of reference for the group was agreed with the initial schedule of meetings being on a monthly basis with tasks undertaken by members in between meetings.

​​​​​​​The initial focus for the workstream will be on what good planning looks like, so a lot of information is already held on this from the 40 Calls to Action, Care Review, Hearings for Children report and the Children’s Hearings consultation. It is important to make sure we have common ground and all work to ensure that children and families are at the centre.

​​​​​​​Gordon is establishing a young people’s group to work alongside, in tandem to this workstream to ensure the views of children and young people are not only included but central to this work. The group will be made up of young people, not just from OHOV, but also Champs Boards, CHS experts and beyond. It is important this is not about rubber stamping proposals, it about ensuring that children and young people are actively involved in the conversations in a way that is appropriate for them.

​​​​​​​Emma wanted to highlight the work that Gordon, OHOV and Champs boards had done on responding to the consultation. It was a lot of work and was useful in terms of feeding into the drafting of legislation and the direction of the policy development. The responses highlight that children and young people do not have just one voice, that experiences vary, and views reflect the complexity of the hearings system. The feedback from children and young people has been highlighted to the Minister.

​​​​​​​Gordon noted that young people are very keen to take a positive approach to redesign, they want to consider what good experience has looked and felt like, what are the components to this that could be rolled out to ensure that everyone gets that positive experience. Young people have produced the idea of a listening event which will hopefully be held later this year, and members of this Board will be invited.

​​​​​​​Elliot noted that this workstream is a key enabler for the Redesign Vision. We need to reduce the number of children and young people not attending their hearing because of negative experiences, we need to ensure that they have understanding and agency to ensure they have the positive experience they want. The work on the digital strategy is designed to encourage new ways for children and young people to contribute their views and engage with the process in a way that suits them.

​​​​​​​Neil commented that all of the PIDs are of high quality, clear and concise and appreciated the culture PID’s acknowledgement of the importance of CHIP. Mindful of the particular emphasis on the three key statutory roles, the Panel, the Social Worker, the Reporter being central to this, it also makes clear the connection between spectrum of language, behaviours and ways of working together. There are many parts to this project, much to be gained by this detailed multi-agency approach and embedding change in practice, approach, unity of purpose, complementary use of roles and responsibilities.

Vision Paper

​​​​​​​Emma noted that Tom McNamara had circulated a draft vision paper for comments and feedback, specifically on where the vision should sit, how it should be used and disseminated. ​​​​​​​

Neil commented that a balance need to be achieved between inquisitorial and adversarial nature of hearings, there is a need for both approaches, but should be proportionate to the individual circumstances, where possible adversarial processes should happen outwith the actual hearing. There needs to be a clear understanding of what it means to take an inquisitorial or adversarial approach, when and where it is appropriate to use each. There needs to be a more holistic empathetic approach embedded in UNCRC.

I think the point is both are needed in the system, though adversarial processes need to be outwith the actual hearing.​​​​​​​

UNCRC is now incorporated, and we must show how we are committed to promoting the rights of children and young people, seeking to offer as constructive and positive an experience that meets their individual needs. The hearings system is not generally seen as welcoming due to the compulsory and formal nature, but we can make it a more welcoming and positive experience for children and families. ​​​​​​​

The audience for the vision will be everyone who has a vested interest in the hearings system, they will likely view it with a critical eye. Some members felt it was written with a very adult focus and there is an opportunity to explore and explain the system through the eyes of a child, it might be useful to add a "what does this mean for me?" column or section.

​​​​​​​Action 

Consider how a column could be added to the vision that explains "what does this mean for me?" in more child appropriate language.

Action

Members to provide any feedback as soon as possible and no later than 31 April 2025.

Bill Update

​​​​​​​Emma advised that the team are starting to get responses to the policy instructions from the Parliamentary drafters. Important to note the drafting of policy instructions relied heavily on the responses to the children’s hearings redesign consultation and several  quotes have been used within the policy instructions to help demonstrate points.  ​​​​​​​

As has been stated before not all the key elements of redesign will require changes to legislation, much can be done through practice, procedures and culture. Relevant change in these areas will form parts of future workstreams for the Board to agree. Discussions have continued with academics, specifically on some of the more complex areas as the focus is not to leave a vacuum around any of the recommendations from the Hearings for Children Report.  ​​​​​​​

The Board noted, the majority of the important preparatory work has been completed with the drafting of the PIDs and programme approach has been established thought the planning group.  Developments can now be demonstrated, through progress reports and the developing work plan, to those not directly involved in this work

Date of Next Meeting

​​​​​​​Wednesday 18 June 2025 at 10:00 in St Andrew’s House