Scottish Government

Section 1 - Children's and Young People's Participation in the Children's Hearings System

Legislation - Historic

The principle of participation of children and young people in the Children's Hearings System has been firmly established in legislation and statute since the System's inception. Whilst this basis in law does not guarantee participation by children, the importance of the legal foundation means it is essential and useful to consider the legislative provisions in the first instance.

Kilbrandon Report

The Children's Hearings System was set up on the basis of recommendations made in 1964 by a Committee led by Lord Kilbrandon. The Kilbrandon Committee, charged with finding solutions to the rise in the rate of youth offending and delinquency in post-war Scotland, found that the majority of cases coming before the Scottish juvenile courts were on offence rather than care grounds, and that the vast majority of offences committed by children were trivial in nature. The Report by the Committee put forward a set of rather radical and far reaching recommendations for a new national co-ordinated system to deal with children in need of compulsory measures of care. This system would remove children under sixteen years of age from adult criminal procedures, with the exception of extremely severe offences, and bring all cases in need of "compulsory measures of care" to a the Children's Hearing comprised of three lay volunteers. Kilbrandon believed that this informal, relaxed setting would promote effective communication between all concerned, and, importantly, provide an atmosphere conducive to the child's participation.

'We do not consider that it is either necessary or desirable to seek to lay down any rigid framework governing the panel's proceedings. The questions arising are in our view likely to emerge most clearly only in an atmosphere of full, free and unhurried discussion.' (1964, s109)

Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968

Kilbrandon's recommendations were realised in statute via the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968, and the Children's Hearings System was established following the implementation of the Act in 1971. Although there is little specific reference within the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968 to children's participation in the Hearings process, the Act does require local authorities, when they are making a decision which relates to a child, to "so far as practicable ascertain the wishes and feelings of the child regarding the decision and give due consideration to them, having regard to his age and understanding" (Social (Work) Scotland Act 1968 s20(1)).

Statutory provisions more specific to the participation of children and young people in their Hearings were provided through the Children's Hearings (Scotland) Rules 1986. Under Rule 19(2) the Chairman of the Hearing is expected to discuss the case with and seek to ascertain the views of the child and their parent(s) on what particular decision with respect to the child would be in his/her best interests.

Legislation - Current

The Hearings System as envisaged by Kilbrandon and established under the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968 has been retained, largely unchanged, for over 30 years. However, it was given a new statutory framework by the Children (Scotland) Act 1995 which introduced some important, and more obvious, qualifications relating to the participation of children and young people in Children's Hearings.

First, the child is granted the right and placed under an obligation to attend all stages of the Hearing. This represents a significant change form the previous situation under which the child had a duty, but not the right to attend. As such, the current provision allows that, unlike previously, if the child insists on attending the Hearing, he or she is entitled to do so and cannot be excluded from any part of the Hearing. Secondly, under section 16 of the CSA there is an express statutory obligation on the Children's Hearing, taking account of age and maturity, to give the child "an opportunity to indicate whether he wishes to express his views", to "give him an opportunity to express them" and to "have regard to such views as he may express" (Children (Scotland) Act 1995 s16(2)).

Changes in the primary legislation were also reflected in changes to the Children's Hearing Rules. Updated in 1996, the new rules repeated the fundamental sentiments of the previous arrangements, but provided more detail and appropriate mechanisms through which the views of the child may be conveyed to the Children's Hearing. For example, in clear reference to Article 12 of UNCRC, the 1996 Rules allow that the child's views may be provided either by a representative or may be submitted by the child in writing, audio or video tape or may be provided by any safeguarder appointed by the Hearing. Furthermore, a Hearing may not reach a decision unless an opportunity has been given for the views of the child to be obtained or heard (Children's Hearings (Scotland) Rule 1996 (Rule 15)).

From Principle to Practice?

Whilst participation by children is laudable in theory, and providing a statutory basis to allow children to participate in their Children's Hearings is essential as an elementary step, legislative arrangements supporting the principle of participation do not automatically equate to participation of children in practice.

Erickson (1982), in research conducted over 20 years ago, found that children displayed varying levels of participation in their Hearings. Of the 105 Hearings observed, ¹ she noted that one third of children were recorded as actively speaking out and elaborating, whereas around half demonstrated a more moderate level of involvement when responding to questions (1982:97). More recently, Hallett and Murray (1998) in their observations of 60 Hearings which took place in 1995, found that, on average, the child or young person made 17 contributions to their Hearing. However, the researchers are quick to qualify that "the number of the contributions does not really indicate the level of participation, as their contributions were notable for their brevity" (1998:47). Indeed, of the 904 contributions by children and young people recorded during these observations, three-quarters (76%) were of one line or less of typed text comprising one-third where the response was monosyllabic or a simple affirmation or negation (1998:47).

Whilst the above evidence suggests that opportunities for participation, albeit limited in many cases, exist within the Hearing, the opinions of children and young people themselves often run contrary to this where they feel they haven't been given an opportunity to speak and subsequently consider that Panel Members haven't listened to them. Young people attending a seminar on Children's Hearings in Scotland, held in 1992 to mark 20 years of the Hearings System, stated that in some cases they felt 'left out' at the Hearing, with the general discussion and specific questions being directed around them rather than with them:

'I feel left out. They talk to your ma and da all the time.'

'At my panel they were asking my parents more questions. They weren't asking me enough.' (Milne, 1992:17)

Similar sentiments were voiced by young people interviewed by Hallett and Murray (1998). The researchers found that a number of young people thought that Panel Members had not really listened to them and one young person thought that Panel Members had not attempted to seek her opinion as no questions had been addressed to her (1998:66). Given that this research was conducted pre-1995, it is possible that the provisions introduced through the Children (Scotland) Act 1995 and the Children's Hearings (Scotland) Rules 1996 which place greater emphasis on achieving the participation of children and young people in their Hearings may have impacted on this situation. However, evidence from young people attending a consultation event on the Hearings System in 2004 (Who Cares? Scotland, 2004) suggests the sentiment remains. Young people attending the event stated a general desire to be more involved in the Hearing itself, beyond simply being able to attend. In particular, they felt that Panel Members should provide them with more opportunity to speak and to listen to what they had to say.

'Panel members should listen to young people, speak to you more, make you feel more comfortable.'

'If the Panel is there for the young person, why do they only talk to adults?'

'It's about the young people so you should be more involved.'
(Who Cares? Scotland, 2004:1 & 2)

In reference to these sentiments, the same young people attending the Who Cares? Scotland consultation suggested that many of the characteristics of a 'good' Children's Panel Member were related to the extent to which they involved young people in the Hearing. A good Panel Member was overwhelmingly considered to be "someone that listens to you" and that involves you in discussion (Who Cares? Scotland, 2004:11 & 12).

In concession, there is considerable acknowledgement in the literature that seeking the views of children and young people is not only one of Panel Members' most important but also most difficult tasks (Scottish Executive, 2003; Scottish Committee of the Council on Tribunals, 2002). Griffiths and Kandel (2000a) for example, in their qualitative and ethnographic study of proceedings involving children in Scotland and New York found that:

'While panel members who were interviewed all agreed that it is essential to hear the child's story about the circumstances giving rise to a referral directly from the child, most admitted that this is an uphill struggle.' (2000:175)

Hallett and Murray (1998) found that Panel Members often employed 'warm up' topics using informal subject matter directed at the child or young person covering for example, what they liked at school or the sports that they were interested in as a method of making the child or young person feel comfortable and encouraging him or her to subsequently discuss more difficult topics later in the Hearing (1998: 49). Although the researchers found that this was generally unsuccessful as a strategy for involving the young person, they added, in accolade, that "there is no doubt that panel members tried often and hard, even in the face of difficult topics and angry or withdrawn participants" (1998:50).

Such findings are further evidenced by the views of children and young people themselves.

The Who's Hearing? seminar report (Milne, 1992) states that even when young people were asked their opinions by Panel Members, this did not always represent effective participation in the eyes of the young person. As one young respondent revealed:

'Just because the panel says to you "are there other things you'd like to say?" it doesn't mean you can start and tell all your problems. Anyway, they only ask you at the end of your hearing and you just want to get out of there as fast as possible and have a cigarette and think about something else.' (Milne, 1992:13)

Similarly, Hallett and Murray (1998:60) found that in some cases, when Panel Members asked the children and young people what their views were, they received limited responses. In one example they reveal that five young people, when asked 'was there anything that you wanted to say about that recommendation?' said 'no'.

Inhibitors to Participation

Such findings reveal the complicated nature of facilitating discussion at a Hearing and the difficult task that Panel Members are faced with when trying to engage with young people. Further evidence demonstrates the complex mix of factors that constrain children and young people from participating in their Hearings. These factors can be grouped into three broad categories, as noted by Griffiths and Kandel (2000a:178).

1. Conflicting loyalties: in this situation, the child may be reluctant to portray their parents in a negative light or to undermine their parents by voicing a preference in opposition to theirs.

2. Fear: children may be reluctant to talk because they are unfamiliar with the Hearings System and fear what the Hearing may do.

3. Disaffection: either through

a. the procedures and formalities of the forum which are often quite technical;

b. a lack of communication where they are excluded from discussion in terms of the language used and/or because the discussion is directed towards adults; and/or

c. miscommunication where what children and young people say is misinterpreted by Panel Members.

Conflicting loyalties was an inhibitor voiced by young people and some professionals in most of the research studies examined. One young person in Hallett's and Murray's research noted that her participation had been inhibited simply by the attendance of her mother and father:

'I was stuck in the middle of my Mum and Dad as if we were a cosy wee family. Nobody seemed to see the pressure my Mum and Dad were putting on me just by a movement or a look.' (Hallett and Murray, 1999:37)

Further testimony from the Scotland's Children: Speaking Out report supports this position, as one young person commented:

'My stepdad always used to cough, just a little cough to warn me. He gave me that cough in the Hearing and I couldn't speak.' (Scottish Office, 1994:4)

Milne reports that one young person felt very embarrassed when asked to talk about his mother in the Hearing when she was sitting next to him (1992:19). Who Cares? Scotland also reported general feelings from young people about not being able to talk freely in front of family members and agency representatives (2004: 3 & 4). In addition, Hallett and Murray (1998:80) found that, amongst Panel Members and professionals interviewed, the presence of parents/carers as an inhibitor to participation for some children and young people was noted more than any other single factor.

Fear is something Griffiths and Kandel (2000a) attribute especially to those young people who are attending their first Hearing. However, it is clear that, first Hearing or not, young people are often nervous and frightened about having to speak in front of strangers. Hallet and Murray noted that in one instance a child had been so overwhelmed by the occasion that he just put his head down (1998: 68). In many cases this could be attributed to a lack of knowledge amongst children and young people about the Children's Hearings System, the powers of the Children's Hearings and what will actually happen at the Hearing itself. Milne notes the comments of one young person who "didn't have a clue" what was going to happen at his first Hearing (1992:14). Whilst the child has a right to written notification of their Hearing, the research evidence suggests that very often this notification is problematic for recipients (Hallett and Murray, 1998:63). Indeed, a report by the Scottish Committee of the Council on Tribunals (2002) concluded that the letter is "too formal and perhaps even frightening". The Scotland's Children Speaking Out report reached a similar conclusion stating that young people found the pre-Hearing papers to be "confusing and alarming" (Scottish Office, 1994:4). Evidence from the Who's Hearing seminar demonstrates the problems. One young person commented:

'The first I knew of the date of my hearing was when a recorded envelope came and on the back was a stamp "Reporter to the Children's Panel". It made me feel ashamed and I couldn't understand the language on the letter they sent me.' (Milne, 1992:14)

The procedures and formalities of the Hearing in some cases lead to confusion for young people and work against the child's ability to participate (Griffiths and Kandel 2000). Erickson reports that:

'… the hearings were observed to proceed, in most cases, directly to the grounds of referral, either without any explanation of the purpose of the hearing or with one couched in legalistic terms regarding the establishment of the grounds.' (1982:95)

Erickson's respondents noted that the legal aspects of establishing the grounds was one of three significant areas of difficulty affecting young people's ability to participate, the others being 'big words' and contradictory decisions (1982: 96). The language used within the Hearing is in fact widely cited as a difficulty by children and young people. Although in many cases this appears to be directly related to the legal nature of some of the vocabulary being used, for some children even the language of the general discussion presents difficulty. The children participating in the Who's Hearing seminar complained variously about Panel Members use of 'jargon' and 'long words' (Milne 1992: 28). Young people in Hallett and Murray's research stated that they felt panel members were speaking "too posh" and that sometimes "there were some words that were confusing" (1998:68). Problems with language often extend beyond the Hearing discussion - problems have already been noted with the language used on the Hearing notification letters.

Mechanisms for Participation

The evidence above has focused on the problems that some children have participating in their Children's Hearings. As such, a rather negative picture has been painted of the participatory principle underlying the Hearings System, clouding the fact that some children and young people are satisfied with their Hearings experience and feel that they have been able to contribute effectively to the decision-making process. Erickson noted that "the majority of children expressed satisfaction with their participation level" (1982:97) and Hallett and Murray report the comments of one young person who considered their contribution to the hearing to have influenced the final decision:

'I thought they listened to me and took in what I said and actually used what I said to make their decision.' (1998:66)

However, the principle of participation is not about achieving effective participation for some children but rather allowing the views of all children to be heard, should they wish, in the Hearings System. In an effort to achieve this, and to avoid some of the difficulties expressed by children and young people, a number of mechanisms currently exist which seek to ensure the voice of the child is heard in their Hearing. They are:

• Excluding relevant persons from the Hearing
• The ability to bring a representative - including Who Cares? Scotland young persons' workers and Children's Rights officers, but no indication of the extent to which these are used and how effective
• Safeguarders
• Legal Representation
• Papers for children

Excluding Relevant Persons

A wealth of evidence was cited surrounding the difficulties children and young people have speaking out in front of their parents/carer. To encourage the child to participate in these situations, the legislation allows that such persons can be excluded from the Hearing for a period to allow the child to speak privately (Children (Scotland) Act s46 (1)(a)). Indeed, Panel Members and professionals interviewed in Hallett and Murray's study identified this method as a way of facilitating discussion more than any other (1998:80). The extent to which this is effective in all cases is questionable however, as the Chairman of the Hearing is under the obligation, at the end of the exclusion, to explain to the excluded party the content of the discussion that took place in his or her absence. It is not possible therefore, to use the exclusion as a method of protecting the child's confidentiality. One Children's Reporter in Hallett's and Murray's research commented:

'If you say to a child who has been abused "well, we're going to talk to you now, but when your mum and dad come back in we're going to tell them what you've said", you might well just say, "well don't bother".' (1999:37)

Inviting a Representative

The Children's Hearing (Scotland) Rules 1996 in Rule 11 gives the child and parent a right, separately, to invite a representative to attend a Hearing. The representative may assist the person represented in the discussion of the child's case and can be anyone for example, a sibling, a friend, a teacher or a lawyer. In this context, however, a lawyer does not attend in the role of a legal advisor and indeed, until recently, there was no provision for paid legal representation at any Hearing. In other words, this provision allows a child or young person to invite someone to a Hearing who may encourage or facilitate the child's participation by supporting them or indeed speaking on their behalf. Fraser (2004) notes the role that Children's Rights Officers and Who Cares? Scotland workers often play in this respect but as she rightfully acknowledges no research has been undertaken on the "efficacy and availability of these children's representatives" (2004:56).

Safeguarder

Safeguarders were introduced into the Children's Hearings System in the mid-1970s. Currently, under section 41 of the Children (Scotland) Act 1995, a Hearing or a Sheriff may appoint a Safeguarder in any circumstance where they feel it is necessary to safeguard the interests of the child in the proceedings. The purpose of appointing a safeguarder is drawn from the paramountcy principle and seeks to determine what action is in the best interests of the child. Whilst the role of the safeguarder is not expressly detailed in either the 1995 Act or in any related rules and regulations, safeguarders are expected to prepare a report based on consultation with the child, the child's family and any other significant persons. This report should attempt to identify the relevant issues and make a recommendation as to what disposal would best serve the child's interests.

The lack of detail surrounding the safeguarders' role means that it can be interpreted in slightly different ways. Lockyer suggests that in some cases safeguarders consider it to be part of their function to assist the child or young person in expressing his or her view (1994:58). In contrast, evidence also exists which suggests that, perhaps owing to the fact that many safeguarders are lawyers, they do not view their role as one of child advocacy, but rather as one of making recommendations based on an assessment of the child's welfare (Griffiths and Kandel, 2000a:177).

Legal Representative

Legal representatives are provided in specific circumstances at Hearings as a result of the impact of the European Convention on Human Rights ( ECHR) becoming embodied in UK legislation (via the Human Rights Act 1998). In the case of S v. Miller (2001b), the Court of Session considered whether the non-availability of legal aid at a Children's Hearing contravened the child rights under Article 6(1) of the ECHR. The court found that in certain cases, the absence of any possibility of paid legal representation may represent an infringement of the child's rights in this sense. Accordingly the Scottish Executive, in the Children's Hearings (Legal Representation) Scotland Rules 2001, provided for the appointment of legal representatives in two specific situations:

• Where legal representation is required to allow the child to effectively participate at the Hearing; or
• Where it may be necessary to make a Supervision Requirement which includes a secure accommodation authorisation (deprivation of liberty).

Whilst the introduction of legal representation in such cases is to be seen as positive in terms of ensuring that the rights of the child are being protected, opinions are mixed on the usefulness of legal representatives in ensuring the participation of the child in the Hearing. For some commentators, the introduction of legal representatives to the Hearing forum is a move away from Kilbrandon's informal setting which promotes 'an atmosphere of full, free and unhurried discussion' (1964, s109). Indeed, as Hallett and Murray note:

'The extension of legal representation may be viewed as a challenge to the cherished (relative) informality of the hearings and the unwelcome import of adversarial practices from the criminal justice system into a welfare-based arena.' (1999:45)

Papers for Children

Papers for children were introduced in 2003 following a challenge in S vs. Miller (2001a). The basis of this challenge was that the lack of provision of Hearing papers to the child amounted to a breach of Article 6 of ECHR. More specifically it was accepted that the Hearing did not satisfy the requirement of a 'fair tribunal' due to an 'inequality of arms'. As such the papers for children scheme allows that, generally speaking, children over the age of 12 years automatically receive the same reports as Panel Members and relevant persons. Children between 8 and 12 years may receive reports, if they wish to see them. Report writers can indicate to the Reporter, on a separate sheet, information which they feel would be detrimental to the child - this information is not sent with the child's papers. The papers for children scheme may go some way to assist participation by ensuring that children are informed of all the circumstances of their case.

Suggested Mechanisms for Participation

Clearly, the provisions set out above go some way beyond the overarching principles enshrined within the primary legislation in ensuring effective representation of the best interests and legal rights of the child in the Hearing, allowing that the child is more informed of their situation and, to some extent in some cases, facilitating the child's participation in the Hearings process. However, it is also evident that such provisions do not stretch widely enough to ensure that all children referred to the Reporter have the opportunity to effectively participate.

In a number of the papers reviewed, academics, professionals and young people offer some suggestions which they believe would improve on the current situation in the Children's Hearings System and it is useful to consider these before examining practice in other systems.

Being Better Informed

Children involved in the Who's Hearing? seminar made a range of suggestions that they considered would have improved their experience of the Hearings System and allowed them to feel that they had satisfactorily participated in the process (Milne, 1992). The children and young people suggested that better information could be provided beforehand which would inform them on what to expect at a Hearing and what they could and could not do. One young person commented that being able to speak to someone who had already been through the process would have been very useful:

'I think there should be some kind of helpline for kids, not run by adults but by kids who've already been to a panel. Because if you've been to a panel you know what to tell people who've never been before.' (Milne 1992:15)

A number of families in Hallett's and Murray's research (1998:63) highlighted the role that social workers had played in preparing them for a Hearing by explaining aspects of the written notification as well as the grounds of referral, the purpose of the Hearing and the possible outcomes.

A Personal Written Report

The Children's Hearings Rules (1996), as discussed above, allow the child or young person to submit their views to the Hearing in written form. This mechanism already exists through the 'Having Your Say' form although there is little evidence on the extent to which it is used and whether it is effective. Indeed, some young respondents contributing to the Who Cares? Scotland consultation were not aware of the 'Having Your Say' form but considered something of this nature to be a good idea in allowing young people to have their views considered by Panel Members without the young person having to speak. Young attendees at the Who's Hearing? seminar voiced support for a similar mechanism, suggesting that being able to write their own report for consideration by the Hearing and having someone to help them prepare it would be extremely helpful (Milne 1992:13).

'There should be a form for a young person to fill out before they attend a panel to get their views taken into account.' (Who Cares? Scotland 2004)

'I do think children should get to write a report of their own but I think they should get help - like from a secretary or someone - to do it properly. That way they've more chance people will read what they think and take it seriously.' (Milne 1992:13)

Child's Representative/Advocate

Two papers considered in this section put forward proposals for the introduction of a children's 'representative' or 'advocate' role into the Hearing to facilitate participation by children and young people (Duquette, 1994; Fraser, 2004). These are proffered by experts on the System rather than children and young people themselves, and indeed the existing research is lacking in terms of young people's views on such a role. A further paper presents the views of Scottish children and young people more generally on issues around the provision of an advocacy service for them (Cameron and MacFarlane, 2004).

The first proposal is put forward by Duquette (1994) who suggests that children and young people should be "independently represented" in a Children's Hearing by a child advocate who would "look out for the interests and wishes of the youth who is the subject of the hearing" (1994:133). Duquette broadly defines the role of child advocate as follows:

• Continuous: An advocate is appointed to assist the child from the very beginning to the very end of his or her involvement in the Hearings process.
• Consistent: As far as possible, the same advocate will be available to the child throughout his or her time in the Hearings process.
• Independent: The advocate would be employed by an organisation separate from all other parties to the Hearing.
• Universal: The advocacy system would be available, without discrimination, to all children coming before a children's hearing.

Duquette's advocate would not only pursue the interests of the child in the Hearing but also beyond the Hearing forum with the local authority, the police and the education system. Such a role would be best filled by a range of people working together including lay volunteers, social workers and lawyers rather than one person from a particular profession. Duquette compares this arrangement to the Court Appointed Special Advocate ( CASA) service that has been established in some American jurisdictions. This system combines social workers, lawyers and volunteers within a single child advocacy enterprise (1994:135).

The benefits for children and young people are four-fold. First, the introduction of child advocates would enhance the protection of children's rights within the Hearings System without losing sight of the overarching welfare principle or the informal, non-adversarial approach of Hearings. Secondly, advocates would allow the voice of the child to be heard in the Hearing by meeting with the child in private beforehand and teasing out the issues pertinent to the child and presenting these views on behalf of the child in the Hearing. Thirdly, the advocate would be in a position to assist the Hearing by providing independent assessment and assisting with the decision-making process. Finally, the advocate can independently evaluate the effectiveness of the service being provided to the child.

Whilst broadly agreeing with Duquette, Lockyer (1994) offers a number of criticisms, principally that a separate child's advocate detracts from the "consensual model of the hearing" (Duquette 1994: 141). He suggests such a role would more effectively be played by a social worker or parent. The introduction of another professional into the Hearing forum, Lockyer adds, would only result in making the forum more adult-oriented, detracting from the child-centred approach of the Children's Hearings System.

Fraser (2004), drawing on Ormston (2002), argues that a child's representative in the Hearings System may require to be different in different situations (2004:52). A supporter would be in the form of a trusted adult providing reassurance and support to the child throughout the process. A facilitator is an expert on the System and uses his or her knowledge and skills to help the child participate more fully. Finally, a legal representative is necessary in situations where the child's legal interests need to be protected. Whilst the children's representative may take a different form at different times, Fraser argues that the main quality a representative should have is "the ability to engage with children of all ages at a level which is meaningful to them" (2004:54). She notes further:

'A child's representative needs to have time to explain the Hearing process so that the child feels confident that he/she understands what the Hearing will be like … a representative needs to commit time to get to know the child, discuss his/her situation and the areas in which they would like to make their views known. The child needs time to understand that he/she can have a view on what happens and that this view will be taken seriously.' (Fraser, 2004:53)

Research on advocacy services for children

Research has been conducted on the provision of advocacy services for children and young people more broadly in Scotland. Cameron and Macfarlane (2004) undertook a study to explore four key issues surrounding advocacy for children and young people.

• Whether young people would use an advocate and in what situations they would find advocacy helpful
• What kind of advocacy service and models of advocacy young people would find helpful
• Potential barriers preventing young people using advocacy and ways of overcoming these
• Appropriate stakeholders views on the issues that need to be addressed to take forward advocacy for children and young people at a local and national level in Scotland.

The research found that young people did identify a need for advocacy, particularly in situations where they feel vulnerable such as in the Children's Hearings System, when homeless, using hospital services or when in contact with police or social workers. Confidentiality within the advocacy service was a key issue for young people. Whilst the young people didn't mind their parents knowing that they were using an advocate, they did not want what they discussed with the advocate to be shared with anyone else. Respondents stressed the importance of the advocate explaining what information could be kept confidential and what would be disclosed to parents/carers. As some young people commented:

'The advocacy role could be explained to parents, but not divulge to the parents what the young person has talked about.'

'They [the advocate] should explain what the boundaries are - what they would keep to themselves - and what they would tell others.' (Cameron and Macfarlane, 2004:6)

The young people identified a number of key characteristics that they considered important in a good advocate. They were concerned about the advocate being patient, trustworthy, loyal, effective and able to listen; they were not concerned about independence. Views on the optimum age of the advocate were mixed, which, the authors suggest, demonstrates a need for choice (2004:6). Whilst gender was not a major issue it was acknowledged to be more important when dealing with more sensitive issues. The competency and knowledge of the advocate were both considered to be important to the young people - they wanted someone who was "clued up" and "knew their way round the system" (2004:6).

The main barrier to advocacy for the respondents was lack of information. Many of them had never heard of the concept before, indeed they found the term off-putting and suggested using a more practical term in its place. A number of ways were identified in which young people could find out about advocacy services including posters, leaflets and magazine articles. Such information, they added, should be in a format agreeable to young people using bright colours and humour with no jargon. Flexibility of the service was considered necessary to allow for the often chaotic and demanding lives of some young people.

The young people interviewed highlighted the need to recognise the links between rights, advocacy and participation. Similarly, they acknowledged the importance of understanding the difference between representing the child's views and the best interests of the child. The considered it a necessity to have each concern represented separately by an advocate and a rights worker, although it was believed both could sit within the one organisation. Advocacy would be a "specialist" service rather than the universal one Duquette suggests. Resources would require the advocacy arrangements to be targeted at children in vulnerable situations. The young people also recognised the need for flexibility and information, although in the latter case they stated that adults must also be made aware of the services and their benefits to children.

Cameron and Macfarlane's research identifies both a need and a backing for the provision of broader advocacy services for children and young people in Scotland. The current situation is, however, far from what their respondents would like as demonstrated by evidence in the Advocacy Safeguard Agency's Map of Independent Advocacy Across Scotland (2004). On examining independent advocacy provision across fifteen health board areas in Scotland, the report identified gaps in advocacy services for children and young people in all areas.