I, too, would like to reflect on the question about children’s experiences of the hearings system. I respectfully suggest that we should think about the children’s experience more widely. If we understand the hearings system, and if people’s experience of a hearing is positive, that does not necessarily mean that the views of children and young people have been well taken on board in advance of the hearing or that their pre-hearing or post-hearing experience has been positive.
I propose thinking about the question in the context of the United Nations “Guidelines for the Alternative Care of Children”, which give a much broader picture of the necessity principle and the suitability principle. The challenges in the hearings system exist because it functions as the gate-keeping mechanism between deciding whether a compulsory order is absolutely necessary for a child and deciding what the most suitable placement is for a child.
In the wider context, we recognise that a range of tensions play out in the hearings system in relation to things such as using compulsory orders only when needed but respecting the urgency of children’s developmental timescales. The compulsion is placed on the young person, and yet the family are key to ensuring that things turn around so that the family can continue to care well for the child. There are also tensions in understanding what is in the child’s best interest; sometimes, that can be at odds with the young person’s view. Significant judgments are required in such decisions.
The question was about whether there has been progress as a result of the 2011 act. We are definitely on the right track. Our experience at CELCIS is that the principles are still the right ones—they are based on the Kilbrandon principles that the hearings system was established to deliver.
I will describe the three biggest concerns that remain for us. The first is that the changes that the 2011 act brought in have increased the disaggregation of power across the panel. As a result of the act, additional solicitors have come in, which is essential to respect the rights of parents, and the reporter’s role has changed. That raises questions about the ways in which power is dispersed in the hearing and whether there is sufficient leadership to take things forward in the way that is needed in the hearing.
We have undertaken research in which we have interviewed safeguarders, social workers and panel members, as well as solicitors, that has shown that they continue to misunderstand each other’s roles. Interestingly, each set of professionals felt misunderstood by others; the issue is not so much that people feel that they do not understand other people’s roles but that they feel misunderstood. In the context of people around the table feeling misunderstood, it is a bigger challenge for us to ensure that the children’s views and their welfare are paramount in the hearings. Who is responsible for understanding what is happening for the child if there is a risk of the power being dispersed?
If we are not confident that the child is the focus of the decisions, we need to look at how we can improve that further. As I said, I think that we are moving in the right direction. A huge amount has been achieved. Next, we need to look at how to ensure that the quality of the evidence that goes to the panel allows the members to make really good decisions and that it comes not just from social work but from a range of professionals. The CHIP is already looking at that.
We rely on the skills of panel members, so it is great that the education of panel members is increasing and that there is more consistency in that. I suggest that the next stage is to look at how panel members can be supported even more in relation to their confidence about taking really difficult decisions in what is a much more complex arena than it was when the Kilbrandon approach was first established.