Seòmar agus comataidhean

Amendments 22 and 46 will mean that reporting restrictions will apply from the point that a child aged under 18 becomes a victim of, or a witness to, a suspected offence, and will continue to apply until the disposal of any criminal proceedings, even where the victim or witness has subsequently turned 18. That will provide parity with the provisions for child suspects and accused, and will avoid a situation in which a child suspect or accused and a child victim or witness both turn 18 prior to the commencement of proceedings but do not both have the protection of reporting restrictions remaining in place, including in the event of subsequent court proceedings.

The change will bring greater parity of protection and address concerns that were raised by stakeholders, particularly victim support organisations. At introduction, the bill was framed to enable childhood victims and witnesses to self-identify in adulthood. However, following amendments 20, 24 and 48 to 50, which were debated in the previous group, the bill will now allow victims and witnesses of childhood offences to self-identify at any point in proceedings without breaching reporting restrictions.

The provisions in amendments 22 and 46 are more consistent with our trauma-informed and person-centred approach and will ensure that those who are victims or witnesses when aged under 18 have their privacy protected, regardless of the date of publication or when criminal proceedings are commenced, if they are commenced.

I move amendment 22.

Amendment 22 agreed to.

I will address that in a second.

As I was saying, I reiterate the commitment to considering the issue in more detail. I appreciate Ms Maguire’s comments about wanting action, not just discussion. I believe that the steps that the Government is taking are leading towards that. The round-table event is focused on deceased victims. As far as I am aware, victim support organisations will be at the event. I am not organising it, but I am more than happy to seek out information on who will be in attendance and provide that to the committee.

The amendments as drafted have the potential for unintended and adverse consequences that could negatively impact on the very people whom they seek to support. It is for that reason that the Government will work closely with Ruth Maguire and other members as we fully consider these matters.

Amendments 124 to 136, taken together, seek to extend reporting restrictions in relation to publication of information that could identify deceased child victims of a crime and their families prior to any court proceedings, thereby providing a right of anonymity. As I said, I have concerns about how certain aspects of the amendments could work in practice. For example, they would require bereaved relatives to go through the emotional and financial costs of applying to court to be able to publicly identify their deceased child as a victim of crime. Also, they could risk criminalising, for example, the child’s peers who wish to publicly express their grief at the loss of their friend in such terrible circumstances and who may not understand that there are any restrictions—

Convener, I know that you want to get through a lot of business today. All the amendments in this group are minor and technical. I am more than happy to go through them in detail and explain any of them, if committee members desire that, but I am equally happy just to move amendment 26.

Amendment 26 moved—[Natalie Don]—and agreed to.

Amendment 127 not moved.

Amendment 27 moved—[Natalie Don]—and agreed to.

Amendment 128 not moved.

Amendments 28 and 29 moved—[Natalie Don]—and agreed to.

Amendment 129 not moved.

I appreciate the intent behind the amendments, but I have concerns and issues with each of them, which I will lay out now.

Amendments 193 and 194 are similar to amendment 165, which the member withdrew last week, in respect of the children’s hearings system. The amendments seem unnecessary, as the courts already have extensive obligations under the ECHR and the UNCRC. Additionally, the task of balancing a child’s rights and their welfare can be even more challenging in the criminal justice system. For example, a child’s right to liberty is not a definitive one and can be interfered with, if that is justified, under the ECHR and UNCRC. Although the child’s rights and welfare are, of course, a primary consideration, they are not always the paramount consideration. Therefore, the amendments would be unworkable.

Amendments 195 to 197 seem to be based on provisions from the Children (Scotland) Act 2020, which the amendments would insert into the Criminal Procedures (Scotland) Act 1995. However, the provisions in the 2020 act were drafted to account for the views of younger children, particularly those under 12, in the unique context of children’s hearings proceedings. Inserting those into the criminal justice environment fails to account for the inherent differences between the two forums.

If I can continue with my points, I will be happy to take it once I finish them.

Last week, the member asked where responsibility for referring a child should sit. When an offence is reported to the police, the police will usually provide information about victim support organisations, although I note Police Scotland’s previous evidence to the committee that that is not always the most appropriate time at which to provide such information. The key must be to ensure that there is access to appropriate support throughout the child’s journey through the justice system, not just at the point when it meets the court process, surely.

On all occasions requiring police attendance, when children are present during a domestic incident, or when they reside in a household where such an incident takes place, regardless of their presence, officers in attendance will consider all information, including previous incidents, to assess whether there is a child wellbeing or child protection concern. That response is outlined in our child protection guidance.

Domestic abuse is always a wellbeing concern. Although I cannot get into a full discussion about information sharing as set out, for example, in the getting it right for every child guidance, information can be shared in a lawful, appropriate and proportionate way, if there are concerns about protecting a child or a young person’s wellbeing. Reasonable efforts must be made to inform the child or young person and appropriate family members that that information has been shared.

Almost all local authorities operate multi-agency risk assessment conferences—MARACs—as part of multi-agency risk management work for domestic abuse cases. MARACs also allow for the sharing of relevant risk-focused information in a safe environment to support the development of a co-ordinated multi-agency safety plan to increase victim safety. Any specialist support that a victim might require can be part of such considerations. Such cases might involve child protection concerns, if there is evidence that significant harm has occurred or may occur, with clear multi-agency procedures that are based on national guidance requiring to be followed in such cases. The response could include referral to specialist support services.

I cannot, therefore, support the amendments, and I urge members not to press or move amendments 193 to 205. I encourage the committee to reject them if they are moved.

Just to be clear, my statements are quite long, but I am more than happy to take interventions and to have a debate.

I believe that I said in my comments that officials have been discussing the matter with key stakeholders and that I am more than happy to share details of that.

Yes.

As I have said, it will be up to the panel to determine what information it requires to deal with an individual child’s case, and that will be done on a case-by-case basis.

Do you mean if there was an overcapacity problem?