Chamber and committees

That is incredibly helpful, but I want to be sure that I do not misinterpret that. The current situation feels very process driven. It seems that people say, “I’ve got a policy, I’ve got a document, I’ve got a process. It’s published, it sits there, I’m compliant—tick. Let’s move on and brace ourselves for what requests come in now. We’ve got a policy for how we process those requests” as opposed to turning the whole thing on its head and saying, “We’re an open public body. How are we going to actively publish the information that we think is in the wider public interest to have that transparency?” I want to be sure that I have captured that correctly, because the committee will need to consider the evidence that we have heard this morning.

That is helpful. I apologise for cutting you off in full flow. You were going to talk about the rest of the scope of the consultation.

That is very helpful. I understand that you made a specific recommendation in relation to the report by the Public Audit and Post-legislative Scrutiny Committee in session 5. You said that you would like to replace the current requirement for a public authority to maintain a publication scheme with a duty to publish information. I am keen to know the difference between those. I know that the duty would be supported by a legally enforceable code of practice. It would be helpful for the committee to know the distinction between the current requirement and a duty and the difference that that would make.

Can I check whether the Lord Advocate’s guidance will be updated?

No, not on that.

I am not sure whether Mr Hogg wants to come in, but that point leads nicely into my final question, so I will ask it now, and Mr Hogg can reflect on both issues.

When the committee initially spoke about this in private, one of the things that we grappled with was that 16 and 17-year-olds who are not currently on supervision orders can theoretically still be referred to the children’s reporter. Although there is no presumption that they will be referred, in theory, they can be. Can witnesses confirm whether that is the case?

I checked again on the Scottish Government’s website before asking that question, and it says that they can still be referred to the children’s reporter. That might happen only in specific circumstances, but they can still be referred. They do not have the protection of not being kept in a cell or being unable to waive the legal right to a lawyer, and safeguarding protections might not exist, but my understanding is that they can still be referred to the children’s reporter. Does that happen or am I wrong?

I knew what IRD stood for, but my colleagues possibly did not, so thank you for explaining that, Claire.

I have one final question but, first, would Mr Hogg or Mr Donnelly like to add anything on that point?

That is very helpful. Maybe I was a daft laddie during the briefing session, but I do not think that that was made clear to us. Mr Hogg, do you want to add anything?

I have just a couple of questions to finish what has been quite a lengthy evidence session. Our briefing papers suggest that the bill’s provisions might have an impact on Police Scotland’s reporting jointly to the procurator fiscal and the principal reporter offences committed by children. I am keen to understand how that process operates currently and how it might have to be adapted in the light of the changes to the definition of “child” that the bill proposes.

Perhaps Claire Dobson is best placed to answer that question in relation to Police Scotland’s reporting requirements.

Just to push you on that, are you both saying that a referral can still happen but that a person has to have had direct interaction with the court system before they are sent back to the reporter? Otherwise, I am reading something very different on the Scottish Government’s website.