Chamber and committees

That is another important question. As I have said, like any measure through the children’s hearings system, an MRC can be imposed only if it is better for the child than not having it, when it is necessary and when it meets the child’s welfare needs, which is a paramount consideration. An MRC is intended to be a restriction on a child’s liberty, not a deprivation. As I said, it is the most extreme measure prior to secure care.

In terms of its effectiveness, if a child does not comply with an order, the local authority must notify the children’s reporter to require a review of that order. A children’s hearing will reconsider the child’s whole circumstances in order to consider whether any additional or alternative measures are needed in order to address the child’s behaviour. The scheduling of those hearings are prioritised, given the potential requirement for more restrictive measures to be put into place. As with other elements of a child’s plan, including the risk management plan, monitoring and reviewing the risk, vulnerabilities and potential adverse outcomes are key. A MRC can be reviewed and monitored on an on-going basis.

I am sorry, Mr Doris—I missed the beginning of your question.

Before court proceedings in which a suspected offence involves children, those children, including victims and witnesses, will benefit from automatic reporting restrictions. A court can currently dispense with reporting restrictions only if it is in the interests of justice, and the extended protection is important because the implications of a child’s being identified are similar and significant at any stage of proceedings. Identifying a child during a police investigation undermines the protection offered by the presumption of anonymity during subsequent court proceedings.

In direct response to the minister’s question—I am sorry; I mean Mr Macpherson’s question—we are considering that. I am sorry; I was thinking of a few weeks past.

We are not complacent. We understand that new investment is needed to implement the bill’s measures, as there are costs associated with them. We have worked with partners to quantify the financial memorandum, which outlines about £11 million a year of additional spend. We are listening to views that are coming forward at stage 1, and we will consider where further work can be done as scrutiny progresses. I am more than happy to keep the committee updated on that. I will appear before the Finance and Public Administration Committee next week to discuss some of the finances in more detail.

I think that you originally asked about whether the last bed approach will be increased. We do not require legislative change for that—that will be taken forward but not necessarily through the bill and its implications.

As I said, the situation tends to fluctuate. I am more than happy to write to the committee with more information on the exact costings around that as we move forward, if the committee would like that.

I can provide a brief response to that. Yes, absolutely, the Government will continue to assess any potential differences in provisions between the two bills. As noted in the policy memorandum for the bill, the Scottish Government committed in its 2022-23 programme for government to introduce a bill that will make provision granting a statutory right of automatic lifelong anonymity to complainers in sexual offence cases.

The Victims, Witnesses, and Justice Reform (Scotland) Bill delivers on that commitment by providing an automatic lifelong right to anonymity to the victims of sexual offences and other offences of limited scope that share the same underlying concerns. It should be noted that the provisions governing restrictions on the publication of identifying information, in so far as they extend to victims of those offences in this bill and certain other limited offences, are subject to change in the future, given the planned provisions on automatic anonymity for complainers, which Mr Macpherson has referred to.

For assurance, we will continue to assess any differences in provisions between the two bills as each one continues to undergo parliamentary scrutiny.

Yes, that could certainly be considered.

If there was a suggestion that handcuffs should be used to protect the child or other people, that would be a decision for the people involved. I do not know whether I am best placed to say yes or no, because I would not be dealing with the incident, but I can understand that there might be instances in which restraint would be necessary. However, we would want to ensure that that was the case only in extreme or exceptional circumstances and that it was done appropriately.

Absolutely. I recognise that that is a problem. I would not want to say exactly why it happens, although there could be issues with the fact that it is not a regulated or registered service.

I confirm that further consideration is under way as to who is best placed to provide a secure transport service. That includes consideration of whether secure transport should be a regulated, registered service. That should provide more solidity.