Seòmar agus comataidhean

Will the minister accept an intervention?

It is my intention to abstain on amendments 60 to 62 and to vote for amendments 63 and 64, if that is helpful, convener.

Will the member take an intervention?

Given that the minister did not support six of the amendments that I lodged last week in this space, which would have given victims the opportunity to ask to intervene at various points and which were slightly more narrowly focused than amendment 206, where does the minister intend victims to have their say, and at what point?

My amendments in this group seek to ensure that we foster a system that is able to understand and support the unique needs and vulnerabilities of young people.

Amendments 210 and 187 require training for criminal justice agencies and the children’s panel, respectively, on child development, children’s rights and domestic abuse. Training that promotes a better understanding of child development will equip professionals to interact with children in a manner that recognises their age, their circumstances and their specific needs; indeed, it is, I believe, a cornerstone of providing appropriate and sensitive care. Training on the UNCRC ensures that professionals in the system are better positioned to uphold the principles of fairness, equality and respect throughout legal proceedings, equipping and empowering them to create an environment in which children’s voices are heard and their rights prioritised.

In the context of domestic abuse, specialised training ensures that professionals can identify signs of trauma, address immediate safety concerns and adopt a child-centric approach that prioritises the wellbeing of the young person involved and seeks to avoid or minimise the risk of exposing them to the recurrence of past or further trauma. Amendment 169, in my name, dictates that children’s hearings must carry out their functions in a way that accords with trauma-informed practice. The Scottish Government has recognised the importance of trauma-informed practice in improving the experiences of victims and witnesses, and the standards of service to which criminal justice agencies are held include, of course, a commitment to such practice. Many of the children who come into contact with the children’s hearings system, regardless of the grounds on which they are referred, will have had adverse childhood experiences. Therefore, ensuring that the system carries out its functions in a way that accords with trauma-informed practice will, I believe, be beneficial to all those engaging with the system, including those who have been affected by a child’s offending behaviour.

Beyond training, a multi-agency approach to supporting children involved in criminal proceedings is also vital to comprehensively addressing the diverse needs of children in the system. Such an approach allows for a holistic understanding of the child’s circumstances, recognising that their wellbeing is linked to various areas of their life, and enables tailored interventions that go beyond legal proceedings by facilitating co-ordination and communication among different agencies. I believe that that will ultimately contribute to the child’s development and rehabilitation of the child. Amendment 211 recommends that the Government promote such an approach, and I also support amendment 188, in the name of Martin Whitfield, which calls for reporting each year on the steps that it is taking in that respect.

I urge colleagues to support my amendments on the basis that I have set out and, in so doing, to recognise the value of a multi-agency approach as well as the importance of training to criminal justice agencies and panels. That cannot be overstated, particularly when it comes to child development. A well-trained workforce is fundamental to creating a justice system that is responsive, empathetic and capable of safeguarding the rights of the child and their wellbeing, the rights of victims, and legal protections in all processes.

I move amendment 169.

You are quite right, convener—that is exactly what you did. Forgive me.

I will not press amendment 169 at this time, in the hope of making changes at stage 3, instead.

Amendment 169, by agreement, withdrawn.

Amendments 170 and 171 not moved.

My amendments in this group support the principle that anyone who is subject to proceedings on either welfare or offence grounds should have access to legal representation on the basis that the outcome of such proceedings may have a significant impact on their life.

Legal aid plays a pivotal role in addressing the inherent inequalities that can arise during legal proceedings. Children who are entangled in the children’s hearings system may come from diverse socioeconomic backgrounds or from difficult family circumstances. Legal aid can level the playing field, ensuring that every child has the means to present their case effectively and comprehensively, and that they fully understand the process in which they are involved. That inclusivity is aligned with the principles of justice and fairness that underpin the legal system.

Many, including the Children and Young People’s Commissioner Scotland, have consistently called for extension of legal aid to children in all circumstances. The UN Committee on the Rights of the Child has made a number of recommendations to that effect, most recently in its 2023 concluding observations.

We know that organisations that support children’s rights have come across situations in which a young person has not understood that accepting a referral to a children’s hearing on the ground in section 67(2)(j) of the Children’s Hearings (Scotland) Act 2011 can result in their effectively having a conviction on their PVG certificate.

The emotional and psychological toll of navigating the legal system can be overwhelming for all young people moving through it, and the committee’s report recognised that. My amendment 186 would give all children who are undergoing proceedings a statutory right to access legal aid, regardless of the grounds on which they have been referred to a children’s hearing. The protection of that right in legislation would provide a fundamental safeguard for children’s rights and is essential for creating a system that is fair and just, ensures that children are not left unsupported and is compliant with the UNCRC.

I urge members to support my amendments.

I move amendment 185.

I am sorry, colleague.

On that basis, I think that there are gaps that need to be looked at.

The minister talked about “minor” offences. If something, no matter how minor, could lead to a conviction that could appear on someone’s PVG, people should have access to legal aid at that point. That principle is really important. Would the minister be prepared to work with me, and possibly other members who have indicated an interest, on amendment 185 to see whether there is something that we can do specifically?

On amendment 186, a young person can sometimes be referred to a panel on welfare grounds, and, through the conversation that happens through that panel, it can appear that there has been some criminality. That is what amendment 186 seeks to address. I do not hear any indication that the minister is willing to consider extending the scope for referring to a children’s hearing on welfare grounds, but I would appreciate it if she could say whether she would work with me and others on at least amendment 185, which deals with offence grounds.

I thank the minister for that. On that basis, I may consider not pressing amendment 185. However, amendment 186 is still important to enable a discussion of extending legal rights in other areas, because of the reasons that I mentioned earlier, and I urge committee members to support that amendment when we come to vote on it.

There are several amendments in my name in this group. They focus on the importance of actively engaging with and considering the views of victims, recognising the impact on victims of behaviour that has led to proceedings and taking victims’ safety into consideration when discharging the duties of the panel in the disposals.

The amendments seek to ensure a fair and responsible legal framework that aligns with the principles of justice, respects the rights of victims and acknowledges their potential vulnerability and the need to safeguard their wellbeing. In short, I believe that they balance article 39 on rights to rehab and article 12 on the right of the child to be heard. A balance must be struck to ensure that the bill and the processes that it creates remain within the scope of children’s rights, particularly those in the UNCRC. The amendments in my name seek to strike that balance by satisfying the victim’s right to information while safeguarding the child’s best interests.

Amendment 168 makes provision for the panel or the sheriff to allow the victim, in so far as is practicable, the opportunity to express their views and to have regard to those views when making a decision whether to impose a movement restriction condition or a compulsory supervision order.

Amendment 173 looks to incorporate the impact on victims into the process by stipulating that, when a compulsory supervision order is imposed, the concerns and safety of the person affected must be taken into consideration.

Amendment 178 speaks to the safety of victims by making provision to expand the information that a victim is entitled to request to include whether a compulsory supervision order has been issued and, if so, the conditions of that order and how they are to be enforced, while amendment 180 allows the victim to be notified if such an order has not been complied with or if any review has been carried out as a result, as well as the outcomes of such a review.

Amendment 175 ensures that victims can be informed when such an order includes a movement restriction condition as well as what the arrangements specified by that condition are. Unlike some of the other amendments that colleagues have lodged, this amendment allows for the information to be withheld on the basis that sharing it could be detrimental to the best interests of the child subject to the condition.

Amendment 181 requires Scottish ministers to establish a single point of contact for the sharing of information with victims and—crucially—that that be introduced under the affirmative procedure.

I would just note that although I agree with much of my colleague Willie Rennie’s amendment 122, which suggests a similar system, I also feel slightly reticent about it because I am concerned that its section (2)(a)(i) disregards any major consideration with regard to the rights and welfare of the child. I will be listening carefully to the discussion in that respect.

I support Roz McCall’s amendment 4, which adds a clear provision for a compulsory supervision order to specifically prohibit the child subject to the order from entering the home, workplace or place of education of the victim of their offences.