Seòmar agus comataidhean

Finally, convener, I do not want to offer more of a comment than a question, but I ask to be indulged. The hearings system is there to support a child who has caused harm. It is absolutely right that that child’s family circumstances are taken into account. However, I want it to be on record that we also need an understanding of what the victim is going through. At the moment, that is not there.

Thank you.

I appreciate that answer, minister. We have shared our report and had the response. I acknowledge that you and your officials have met the organisations that are also raising those concerns and do not feel that enough progress is being made. Some of those organisations were with us last week.

It might be helpful for the committee to hear from you. You said that there is a fine balance to be struck. We have to hear that all children are important and that the safety of all children is important.

I said that a colleague will come in to talk about information. However, the right to privacy is not absolute. A person who is going to harm another does not have a right to privacy. We need to be clear in the language that we use, and I need the young women and their families who might be watching to know that our Government understands domestic abuse, the harm that it causes and how it is perpetrated, and that we will absolutely take action to make sure that those young women are safe as well as making sure that the other children who are involved—the children who are causing harm—are assisted with their behaviour.

I accept that you do not want to talk about specific measures. It is challenging for us not to hear about them, but the committee can take that away and act as we might.

I will ask about funding for multidisciplinary training under the bill. Anyone who understands violence against women and domestic abuse will understand the absolute necessity for a victim to be given information and assisted with safety planning. In the examples that we have been given, that has not happened through the hearings system. What multidisciplinary training will the Scottish Government implement?

Shona Spence said that there is clarity that the measures cannot be the same as those in the criminal justice system in terms of victims. Can I get some clarity that, whatever the specific measures are—I appreciate that you do not want to go into that—a child victim will have the same rights whether they are harmed by a 16-year-old or by a 21-year-old?

I think that a colleague is going to ask specifically about information sharing.

When we began our scrutiny of the bill, we received a letter on behalf of a mother of a child who had been murdered, asking that we not reference the child by name. We have taken evidence on the impact of reporting on the families of victims, particularly where the victim has lost their life; on how that can be retraumatising; and on the impact, particularly on siblings, when their loved one’s name and the details of what happened to them get brought up in the press whenever something similar happens.

From evidence that we took last week, I understand that—and I am quoting those witnesses—not

“a huge amount of headway”—[Official Report, Education, Children and Young People Committee, 25 October 2023; c 3.]

has been made on addressing the issue. Can you share your reflections on the matter with the committee and perhaps give us a flavour of your thinking on it?

I suppose that, in such situations where there are competing wishes and balances to be struck, it might be helpful to go back to the principle of what we can do to ensure that families are not retraumatised. If the Government is not going to consider amendments in this respect, can you tell us whether any additional action can be taken or anything done to reduce retraumatisation as a result of media coverage?

I hear what you are saying about behaviours needing to be managed by secure care centres. I would reflect that the committee’s concern might be that we do not bake into law a situation that exacerbates harm or inequality. Willie Rennie gave an example of young women being placed in secure care on welfare grounds and then male children being put in there who have caused sexual harm. That is not something that should be managed by a centre. We must be careful that we are not legislating to exacerbate such a scenario.

I apologise, minister, but I will have to come back in on this. I accept everything that you are saying, but can we imagine that a victim of sexual abuse or domestic violence who is in a secure unit on welfare grounds is in a therapeutic environment for recovery if she is in there with perpetrators of those crimes? They are crimes—or harms, if that is what we want to call them.

I gave you the example of Chloe. She was 14 and the boy who harmed her was 16. Is it right that they would be in the same place if she needed to be there on welfare grounds?