Chamber and committees

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.

I wish to clarify that the purpose of setting those matters out in this piece of legislation relates to the nature and purpose of the general bill. Domestic abuse is included in recognition of the evidence that the committee heard from various organisations, including Police Scotland, on the likelihood of more domestic abuse cases coming to the children’s hearings system. On that basis, I do not see any reason not to include that training as compulsory under legislation. The training that is given to panel members is of a high standard, but not all of it is mandatory and there is nothing in legislation to set what that training should include. Given the changes that the bill proposes, I think that it is particularly important to set that requirement in legislation at this time.

The minister will be aware that those plans are of an aggregate nature; they cover all young people in a particular local authority on a more general basis. The amendments from Martin Whitfield and me would apply the multi-agency approach to the specific child who is being considered at the time. The plans that the minister mentioned do not apply to individual children; they are plans that organisations put in place that say that referral agencies will be available to them. Our amendments will make the plans much more specific to an individual child and will ensure that agencies dispose of their duties in a way that is relevant to that child, not on a wider basis.

Thank you, minister, I appreciate that, and I appreciate the context of a handout amendment. It was more the content of the handout that I was seeking to get further assurance on.

However, on that basis, I am prepared not to press amendment 169 when asked. I am still considering moving the other amendments in my name that are in this group. Is this the appropriate time—not to move them but to talk to them?

I am slightly confused because, in her reasons not to support amendments 185 and 186, the minister set out, on the one hand, a range of measures that are available and said that there is already support in place, and, on the other, said that the requirements in the amendments would be unwieldy. Either we are close to being able to put the support into legislation and give people a right to it or we are far from being able to do that. I think that those two positions somewhat contradict each other.

To speak to Ruth Maguire’s point, it is important that we address the issues and the gaps that were highlighted to us. That is what amendment 185 seeks to do. It seeks to extend to the young person availability of legal aid—availability, incidentally; not necessarily delivery of legal aid or the making available of a lawyer in that space at that time—should it be required, particularly to address the gaps that my colleague Ruth Maguire highlighted and that I highlighted in my opening remarks around specific offences, such as those referred to in section 67 of the 2011 act. [Interruption.]

Yes, I will take an intervention.

Good morning, colleagues. My amendment 172 would put a duty on the principal reporter, in a case in which he or she identifies that a child who is subject to proceedings

“has, or is likely to have, a close connection with a person who has”

carried out domestic abuse under section 66(2) of the Children’s Hearings (Scotland) Act 2011, to refer that young person

“to a provider that specialises in domestic abuse support.”

I believe that the amendment acknowledges the unique vulnerabilities that children in situations of domestic abuse have and that those who witness domestic abuse can suffer emotional, psychological and developmental challenges.

The amendment emphasises the need for targeted intervention that is delivered by appropriate professionals who are equipped to address the needs that can be born out of the complex trauma that those children face. It would also provide an opportunity for early intervention by having a touch point early on in the state’s involvement with a referral, and to take an approach that I believe should be replicated across legislation, where appropriate.

I urge colleagues to support my amendment. I also encourage them to support Martin Whitfield’s and Miles Briggs’s amendments in the group.

I understand that some decisions will need to be taken on the basis that the minister has just described, but that is how equalities legislation works in general. It is not about treating everybody entirely the same, but about making sure that people get equal access to various opportunities and that they are treated similarly in systems. To me, that represents a bit of a misunderstanding of how equalities legislation would operate.

Okay.

Would the minister be willing, before stage 3, to discuss the final point that she made about how to define the services that would be involved? If so, I would consider not moving the amendment. If the minister does not intend to work with me between now and stage 3, I might move it.

I appreciate the minister’s explanation of amendment 17. Would there be any scope at stage 3 to consider using in amendment 17 the affirmative rather than the negative procedure to give more scrutiny of that regulation to parliamentarians?