When the Scottish Government announced its plans for reforming the children's hearing system, they seemed uncontroversial - boring even.

But although consultation on the reforms will last for three months, the proposals have already provoked anger and passionate debate.

It is a sign of the huge investment different groups around the country have in Scotland's unique system of youth justice.

Children's panels, made up of lay members, are set up to address both the needs and the deeds of young people. They are based on a fundamental understanding that young people who end up in front of a hearing for offending behaviour are as vulnerable in their own way as those who are there because they are at risk from abuse or neglect.

The reform plans, announced by Minister for Children and Early Years, Adam Ingram, last week, were presented as a way to strengthen the system, by streamlining it and integrating its component parts into one national body.

The government suggests that more than 100 different organisations, are currently involved in the system - creating too much bureaucracy and variability across the country. Centralising tasks like the recruitment and training of the lay members who sit on panels will help with consistency and cost, it is claimed.

During the Strengthening for the Future consultation, Ingram is seeking responses to the suggestion of a single national body which will unite the work of the Children's Reporter service, the delivery and administration of Children's Hearings, and the recruitment and training given to panel members.

Children's Reporters make decisions about whether a child needs to be referred to a hearing. They can also give panel members legal advice during hearings.

The new body will also assist the work of safeguarders, who provide children's hearings and courts with an independent assessment of what action is needed to ensure the best interests of a child.

Ingram said the proposals would benefit everyone involved. But that is not the view he will hear from Morag Driscoll, director of the Scottish Child Law Centre and herself a former reporter.

Driscoll believes the plans threaten the credibility of the entire system, and safeguarders may simply withdraw rather than be part of the new set-up.

By bringing together reporters - who bring a child before the panel, safeguarders - who provide the child with independent representation, and panel members - who decide what action is needed, under one "roof" the government is undermining essential legal distance, she says.

"We would never do this in an adult system of justice - it would be regarded as unacceptable. The equivalent would be amalgamating a district court with the procurator fiscal and the social workers who provide the reports."

It is vital for children and families to believe that those who contribute to the system are not all the same as each other, Driscoll argues. "A lot of families at present are very dubious. Panel members will say we don't work for the reporters', but families see them and reporters as part of social work and think it's everybody together against us'."

Driscoll fears the government proposal will confirm that perception, but adds that: "It is not just perception, it is a possible reality."

If the new national organisation comes into being, and there were budgetary constraints, it is possible to see panels coming under pressure to send fewer young people to secure settings, for example, or reporters urged to bring fewer children to hearings, she claims.

The proposal that "firewalls" within the organisation would prevent such conflicts of interest is implausible, she says. They wouldn't work and people wouldn't trust them. "I don't think you can minimise the importance of the perception of people going through it.

"They won't perceive it as being independent and they will be right because it will not be totally independent."

Driscoll particularly fears for the role of safeguarders. "The safeguarder is often the only person putting the child's view," she says. "That is often a child whose life experience has been being let down by every adult in sight. They don't trust easily. Under these plans safeguarders wont be independent and they must be. I think many safeguarders would flatly refuse to do it."

There is a need for more consistency in the Children's hearing set-up, she adds, but amalgamation is not the answer. "We have a unique system. It is not perfect but it is a darn sight better then what happens in many other areas and we jeopardise it at our peril. Would you ever do this in adult system of justice? Why are children always getting the cheap end of the stick?"

The consultation has also angered Jonathan Sher, head of policy at Children in Scotland, but for different reasons. He praised the government's good intentions in preserving the principles behind the children's hearing system, but complains that the views of children and young people appear almost invisible in the reforms.

"While mentioning support for seeking the views of children and young people to be heard and heeded, this is not meaningfully reflected in the reforms proposed, questions posed or process announced.

"That's not just ironic; it sends the wrong signal about what really matters. Whether the proposed reforms to the Children's Hearings system are good or bad ought to be judged first and foremost on the basis of whether they really will result in significantly better lives for the children concerned," he said.

He called for a robust, meaningful effort to solicit the views of young people. "The children who end up before Children's Panel already are troubled or in trouble. Their well-being deserves to be at the heart of every aspect of this consultation."

Others have been less outspoken, and some are reserving judgement until they have a chance to give the proposals more consideration. But other key areas of controversy are emerging, including the question of how children should be provided with legal provision and whether they should have the right to speak confidentially to a panel. At present, a child can give evidence in private but the content of that session must be reported back to others, such as parents, involved in a hearing.

Anne Houston, chief executive of Children 1st, said that situation should end. "We suggest that advocacy services for children be introduced, and that separate time at each hearing be available for the child to speak to the panel members in private."

Michelle Miller, convener of Children and Families Standing Committee of the Association of Directors of Social Work, says that situations where that is necessary would be rare. "I do think it is important children get a chance to say what needs to be said. When it does happen it can be quite critical."

Regarding formal legal representation, views are mixed, Miller adds. "Those against it say it makes the hearing an adversarial setting, when it is not meant to be. But a panel can have a major impact on children's lives - making them live somewhere away from their parents or sometimes sending them to secure conditions. From a human rights point of view you can't deny them representation."

Steven Paterson, acting director of the Scottish Institute for Residential Childcare, said the reforms should be judged on what delivered the best outcomes for young people. The consultation shouldn't exclude consideration of resource shortages, at a time when many councils have shortages of alternative accommodation for young people who they look after, he added.

Plans to change the workings of Scotland's Children's Hearings system include: