Seòmar agus comataidhean

Will the minister give that consideration and lodge an amendment?

The minister set out concerns about Miles Briggs’s amendments, but is she opposed in principle to putting that guidance on a statutory footing, which is what many campaigners are calling for? If not, will she consider lodging an amendment at stage 3 to do exactly that?

I realise that the issue that I am about to raise would probably be for the regulation stage.

Some people argue that restraint should almost be excluded completely, because they see its use as a failure to manage the young person in a more effective way. Do you envisage a minimalist approach? I know that you are not in favour of banning restraint completely, but where would you draw the line? What guidance should we give on that for the next stage?

My question follows on from Liam Kerr’s point. We understand that more discussion is needed and we understand the complexity of the issue, but what often happens in such cases is that we agree to further discussion and consultation beyond the bill and then there is no vehicle for delivering it. If the matter will not be addressed in this bill, I hope that the minister has thought about what bill it would be addressed in—perhaps the Victims, Witnesses, and Justice Reform (Scotland) Bill. If so, has she had a discussion with the cabinet secretary about that possibility?

We want a degree of urgency about the issue. We know that it is complex, but, as Ruth Maguire said, it should not be beyond the wit of us to come up with a solution. My fear is that, as the minister has outlined it, we might be making perfect the enemy of good. She has highlighted some conflicts that there might be within families—of course there will be those; you get them in all legal cases, in many circumstances—but that does not mean that we should not go there. We need to make sure that the courts and the system are empowered to make the right decision in the best interests of what they believe is the balance of rights in the circumstances.

I want to be confident that the minister has thought through where the issue will be addressed, so that we are not here in five years’ time, saying that we have missed the chance.

Could you list what those vehicles are?

Victim support organisations have concerns relating to the ability of the children’s hearings system, as currently funded, to manage an increased volume of serious offences. It is therefore important that the outcome of those cases and the impact on the persons harmed are monitored so that we have access to the necessary information to shape the system in the future.

I want the outcome of referrals to the children’s hearings system that involve an offence to be monitored. That includes referrals on welfare grounds that involve offending behaviour. Monitoring would include the numbers of referrals on offence grounds, offence type, outcomes, age, gender and council area. There should be engagement with the people harmed by children and victim support organisations to provide feedback on experiences.

I will briefly comment on Pam Duncan-Glancy’s amendment 172, which we will support, alongside the other amendments in the group. Local authorities already provide domestic abuse support. It should not be a requirement for a person to have to go to court or a children’s hearing before they can access such provision. We want to ensure that local authorities do not set a higher bar for access to such support. Otherwise, we support the amendments in the group.

Yes. I will make a few more points. I will not support Roz McCall’s amendments 12 and 14, which remove the reporter’s discretion on information sharing in a way that could harm children who have been referred to a hearing.

I support Pam Duncan-Glancy’s amendments 178, 175 and 180, which are about providing information to support safety planning, and sharing other information that might be relevant and proportionate with those who have been impacted by harmful behaviour. That broader set of amendments would assist with information sharing.

I turn to my amendment 123, which creates a reporting requirement to support an informed and constructive debate about how the wider redesign of the children’s hearings system can ensure that all children have their rights fully respected and that no children are left behind. With the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (Incorporation) (Scotland) Act 2024 soon to be in force, there is more reason than ever to take steps to ensure that children’s human rights are reflected in legislation that the Parliament passes. As well as ensuring the availability of child-suitable justice up to the age of 18, there is clear need for better support and connections to recovery and protection for children who have been harmed. To me, article 19 of the UNCRC, on protection from abuse, and article 39 of the UNCRC, on access to recovery, as well as support and safety planning, should be available regardless of whether decisions have been taken to process further action through the children’s hearings system or the criminal justice system, or through no system at all.

Those two ambitions are not at odds with each other. It is possible to do better by children whose actions may harm others and by children who are harmed. Ensuring that that happens is critical to maintaining public support for the children’s hearings system as a whole, which is a point that is clearly made in the “Hearings for Children” report. I am concerned that there is too little understanding of the experiences of children who are harmed when the matter is referred to the children’s hearings system. With a more extensive redesign of the children’s hearings system on the horizon, that needs to be addressed.

I am also concerned that, although once the bill is passed the debate might be over, we will have only begun on the process of reform. We need my amendment to create a reporting requirement to support a wider, constructive and comprehensive debate that considers all those who are involved with the system.

Yes, that is right. We do not want to alter the fundamental approach of the children’s hearings system. We accept that it has been built up over many years. However, there is a feeling that, especially when we are moving a group that was previously in the criminal justice system into the under-18s children’s hearings system, the existing rights will not be continued. Having it intrinsically built into the children’s hearings system that a broad-based risk assessment is made, empowering the professionals who are making that judgment, is the best way to proceed. That approach is not unreasonable or restrictive and I think that it would address Michelle Thomson’s point.

I support amendments 218 and 219, in the name of Martin Whitfield. Amendment 17 would also be appropriate.

I support amendment 173, in the name of Pam Duncan-Glancy, in relation to CSOs, which would consider the impact on a person who is affected by offending behaviour. That should allow a proportionate consideration of the full facts behind a referral, while still maintaining the needs, not deeds ethos.

I support amendments 4 and 5, in the name of Roz McCall, as including more places in the restriction conditions is sensible. However, amendment 6 is a promise to absolutely prevent contact, which could not realistically be met in all circumstances. We need to be straight with people about the limitations of what is possible.

Amendment 183 does something similar to amendment 182 in the previous group. I am conscious of what the minister said about having further discussions on the issue. I would like to make sure, whether through the bill or otherwise, that we have a system that includes more details so that we can analyse the effectiveness of movement restriction orders. However, I will not press amendment 183, considering the minister’s reassurance on that front.

Yes, certainly.

Certainly.