Chamber and committees

I support the amendments in this group in the name of my colleague Martin Whitfield. It is incredibly important that any young person is supported to fully understand the process that they are going through, and I echo all that he has said so far.

My amendment 205 would require that, when a child who is subject to proceedings is residing with an individual who has committed a domestic abuse offence or when the child has been witness to domestic abuse, a referral must be made to a specialist domestic abuse support provider. That is in recognition of the fact that many young people—60 per cent—who are remitted at ages 16 and 17 to young offenders institutions have witnessed domestic violence.

The provision acknowledges the unique vulnerabilities of children who have been in an abusive environment. In speaking to similar amendments in earlier groupings, I highlighted that children who witness abuse may also suffer emotional, psychological and developmental challenges. I emphasised then, and I re-emphasise now, the need for targeted specialist support and intervention that is delivered in a safe and secure environment, so that the child is able to express their feelings and experiences, to process emotions, to build resilience and to develop coping mechanisms.

As I said earlier, it is really important that as many touch points with the state as possible, such as this one, are used as an opportunity to identify where support could be needed in a domestic abuse situation and to provide it at the earliest opportunity. That will be critical in mitigating the potential long-term effects on mental and emotional wellbeing and contributing to the child’s overall health and recovery from trauma.

On that basis, I urge committee members to support my amendment 205 and the others in the group in the name of Martin Whitfield.

Will the minister accept an intervention?

As far as I can hear, a number of things are being suggested by the minister. The first is that another bill could be used for that, and the second is that there will be a round table to discuss it. I am getting a bit concerned, not least—given some of the concerns that we expressed earlier—because it is not this particular minister who is arranging the round table.

Who is arranging that round table, minister, and what conversations are you having with that person? Is it not possible to bring that forward so that the bill can be the best that it possibly can be? With respect, the committee is trying to do the best that it possibly can by ensuring that we do not miss an opportunity, as my colleague Willie Rennie highlighted, and that we do not subsequently have to revisit the bill.

I appreciate that. It feels a bit peculiar that it is more like a statement as opposed to a debate in which interventions are taken. That makes it difficult to have a detailed discussion on very detailed parts of legislation, which, of course, this is about.

To the substance of my intervention: on the amendments in Martin Whitfield’s name, the minister seems to be saying that part of the concern is not about the particular overreach into the judiciary, which I will leave for a moment, but that the effect could be to delay processes because there might not be enough buildings or the case might have to be moved. I look forward to debating my amendment on the numbers of panel members, because that, too, could frustrate and delay some aspects of justice—I hope that the minister will take a similar view on that.

I am a bit concerned that the minister is relying on the fact that the ECHR and the UNCRC are enough. Although the ECHR is international legislation to which we hope that the courts would adhere, there are reasons why we introduced domestic legislation in the area, such as the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (Incorporation) (Scotland) Act 2024. This is an opportunity to include in the bill part of the UNCRC, which may not cover all aspects of the bill because of the recent amendments that had to be made to the 2024 act. That concerns me.

I cannot see, from the points that the minister made about my amendment 205 on domestic abuse and violence, why my amendment to the Domestic Abuse (Scotland) Act 2018 would be a problem. It appears to me that all that it would do would be to strengthen the ability of the state to provide support. It is well known that failures can happen in the justice system, particularly for women who have experienced domestic violence. Therefore, at every point at which we have an opportunity to address that, we should do so. I believe that my amendment 205 does that and I see no reason, on the basis of what the minister has set out, why she would not support it.

I appreciate that. My amendment does not undo any of that. It literally adds another point at which someone could be caught from the system—another safety net, as it were—to ensure that that support would be in place.

I appreciate that, and I appreciate that the timetable is the timetable, but can the minister explain why the round table will not take place until 20 February, given how important it is to the bill that we have in front of us?

Yes.

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?