Chamber and committees

Good morning to you both, and thank you for joining us this morning. I have a couple of questions that build on some of your comments about how we hear children’s voices and how we give those voices their due weight as the UNCRC requires. In Glasgow, there are specialised hearings suites for criminal cases, and I wonder whether you have any thoughts about using pre-recordings, or giving evidence remotely, although I take on board what Sarah Axford said about some of the issues that people have with virtual hearings. Do such specialised hearings suites offer sheriff courts as well as criminal courts the opportunity to enable the child to participate in a safe space and more relaxed environment?

That is super.

Thank you, that is really helpful. I want to pick up on the final point about access to justice not needing to be difficult but sometimes involving really easy and—once we think about them—obvious adaptations and measures. What lessons should the sheriff court system be learning from the additional support needs tribunal system to enable and enhance access to justice in that safe, informed and consistent way that all three of you have spoken about?

I will follow up with a connected but separate question about advocacy services. The 2020 act makes provision for advocacy services to be provided as ministers consider necessary. I am interested in whether you believe that that provision should be enforced and whether there need to be restrictions or stipulations around it. How do we balance the right of the child to be heard with their right to be supported and have their views heard through an advocate? Is the advocacy there to support them to have their views heard?

Good morning and thank you for joining us today and for your opening remarks. You have already given us a lot of information and a lot to think about.

I will put this question to all three of you, if that is okay. Following on from the questions about advocacy services that I asked the first panel, can you tell us a little bit more about the role that the children’s advocate performs in the current hearings system and tribunals? What can we learn from that—what are the pros and cons of having a system that has a significant role for children’s advocates?

Jordan Croan spoke about the distinction between advocacy and independent advocacy. How do we draw that out in the children’s advocate issue?

Lesley-Anne, what are your views on the specialised hearings suites and associated possibilities?

It was about that element of independence, but I think that Jordan Croan covered it.

May Dunsmuir, I want to come to you and talk about your experience. I have a question about access to justice, which you ended on, and I will come to that later. However, on advocacy in additional support needs settings, how is that distinct or different? What benefits do you see it having in such settings?

I want to pick up on something that you said about how the child does not always get time with the child welfare reporter. Should we be thinking about how we ensure that the child gets that time, or is it not always appropriate for that to happen?

Do you see advocacy as a potential way of dealing with some of the challenges that we have discussed at previous meetings, such as the tension between the child’s welfare and their right to be heard and to participate?

I thank the cabinet secretary for her statement, which I welcome. There is much to commend in it.

I will ask about support for digital solutions to social and environmental problems. The sharing economy for good can play a key role in designing new solutions for certain challenges that we face, not all of which have commercial or commodifiable elements. Therefore, such solutions will need continuing investment or support, especially if they have rapid growth trajectories predicted. What support will be available for the mission and challenge approach to designing new solutions and for the sharing economy for good more generally?