THE KIDS ARE ALRIGHT, OR ARE THEY?

A seminal court judgment on the welfare of children slipped through barely noticed last week. The Court of Session – prompted by European human rights legislation – ruled in favour of a 14-year-old boy, that he should be able to participate fully in his brother’s Children’s Hearing. Until that judgment siblings were, because of the wording of the relevant act, effectively prevented from appearing. In practice the dearth of foster placements means brothers and sisters are often put in different foster homes and as local authorities often perform poorly in ensuring they remain in contact, they often lose touch.

All well and good, and congratulations to Clan Childlaw for backing the boy and the case and changing the law. But isn’t it time to time to have a wider scrutiny of these hearings, children’s panels in the vernacular, because they have changed out of all recognition since they came into being in 1971 (modified in 2011 to take in EU law)? The original idea, and an excellent one, was that kids who had broken the law in some way could go before a lay panel of three volunteers and be dealt with sympathetically, hopefully steering them away from a life of crime – and that these proceedings and judgments would be confidential. However, there’s been a massive sea change, a tsunami, in the types of cases panels deal with today. The overwhelming number – 11,268 of 13,240 cases referred last year, over 80 per cent – were care and protection ones, with just over 3,000 dealing with offenders. This certainly isn’t what the original drafters intended.

The bulk of these cases involved alleged abuse of some kind, with the consequence of often taking children into care, ruling against a parent’s rights of access, or even sending kids to the far ends of the UK to live with relatives they have rarely met. Parents are allowed representation, often through Legal Aid, and the panel Reporter – not necessarily a lawyer – is tasked with conveying the judgment and writing it up. The panels overwhelmingly support the view of the social workers appearing before them on behalf of the children. Kids, according to the legislation, must attend to express their preferences, but often don’t, the usual reason being that it might upset them, although the only defined reason for absence is the risk that it might psychologically damage them. And where they don’t attend social workers, with the best of intentions no doubt, don’t always endorse the children’s wishes.

The only appeal is to a sheriff, who does have the power to amend the order but because he or she hasn’t viewed the evidence invariably sends the case back to the panel system for review. Contrast this with the court process in Child Welfare Hearings which are continuously judged and monitored by the sheriff and progressed over months and years with multiple hearings. These hearings are again in camera. If, at any point, one of the parties dissents and, following extensive independent reports, then it might eventually go to a full proof, every word recorded, with lawyers arguing for both sides, but this is rare.

In 2015, Alistair Gaw, then head of children’s services at Edinburgh City Council, argued that the system should be reviewed and the children’s panels professionalised with, at a minimum, a trained, paid chair, similar to employment, immigration or mental health tribunals. He was defending social workers but he made the point that the needs of children were sometimes getting lost. The Scottish Government responded that there were no plans to review the system.

Well, it’s three years on, with mounting concern, and still no plans to examine whether it’s working properly and whether there is sufficient accountability and redress. So Maree Todd, new Children’s Minister, will you now prioritise it?

GULLIBLE’s TRAVELLER

The emperor’s new clothes! What about the President’s new toy? Just because he can't see it doesn't mean it isn't there. Donald Trump isn’t just the Prez, the most powerful man on earth, he is also the commander-in-chief of all the US forces and armaments, which are expanding hugely under his watch. Although he doesn’t actually get to play with them, he can drool over them, as he has been doing with the new Lockheed Martin F-35 fighter-bomber, each one of which costs $100 million for starters, with the pilot’s hi-tech helmet coming in at $400,000. The F-35 is a stealth plane, in theory invisible to radar, but according to Donald it truly is invisible.

“You can’t see it. Literally you can’t see it,” he said. Quizzing a defence chief about its dog fighting abilities and assured it was unbeatable, he chortled. “It’s very tough to beat a plane you can’t see.” Later, pointing to the all-powerful Marillyn Hewson, chair, president and CEO of Lockheed Martin, he added, “She makes the plane you can’t see…F-35.” Coming next the president's invisible army. "Just look at them sir, truly fearsome aren't they?"

A NEW TARTAN ARMY RECRUIT

A new tartan made its debut last night. Nothing unusual in that? However, this one was unveiled in Lorient, Brittany, France, at the annual Interceltique Festival. It was designed by a French husband-and-wife team featuring local colours – blue, yellow and red. The material was woven in China and the inspiration came from the “elegant Scottish actor Sean Connery”.

It turns out that anyone, anywhere can register a tartan at the Scottish Register of Tartans. There are no pre-conditions. Which kind of raises the question, what’s the infernal point of the register?

The latest tartan was created by Jean-Pierre Camard and France Hetier through a new start-up company and they have even started a kilt club, hoping to spread all things Scottish. Next they’ll be pirating our haggis! Jean-Pierre turned up to the launch wearing not just his new tartan kilt, obviously, but plaid, jacket, waistcoat and sporran.

Ah, but what was under the kilt? “The future of Lorient, of course,” he responded.

THE THATCHER EFFECT

The council tax is 25 years old this year. It was introduced as a desperate, quick-fix replacement for the Poll Tax, which essentially brought down Maggie Thatcher. It was meant to be linked to property values, and perhaps it was in 1991 when it was introduced, but it hasn’t been updated since. It’s a deeply regressive tax. Someone living in a £100,000 house has a tax rate five times higher than a billionaire living in a mansion in Mayfair.

If John Swinney has the backbone and believes in equality then he should immediately upgrade the top bands of tax, a tax which few, if any, can avoid, unlike income tax. Better still, he should scrap the abomination and introduce a fair one, based on house and land value. It would also produce millions more for his treasury.