Chamber and committees

My question follows on from Liam Kerr’s point. We understand that more discussion is needed and we understand the complexity of the issue, but what often happens in such cases is that we agree to further discussion and consultation beyond the bill and then there is no vehicle for delivering it. If the matter will not be addressed in this bill, I hope that the minister has thought about what bill it would be addressed in—perhaps the Victims, Witnesses, and Justice Reform (Scotland) Bill. If so, has she had a discussion with the cabinet secretary about that possibility?

We want a degree of urgency about the issue. We know that it is complex, but, as Ruth Maguire said, it should not be beyond the wit of us to come up with a solution. My fear is that, as the minister has outlined it, we might be making perfect the enemy of good. She has highlighted some conflicts that there might be within families—of course there will be those; you get them in all legal cases, in many circumstances—but that does not mean that we should not go there. We need to make sure that the courts and the system are empowered to make the right decision in the best interests of what they believe is the balance of rights in the circumstances.

I want to be confident that the minister has thought through where the issue will be addressed, so that we are not here in five years’ time, saying that we have missed the chance.

Could you list what those vehicles are?

Victim support organisations have concerns relating to the ability of the children’s hearings system, as currently funded, to manage an increased volume of serious offences. It is therefore important that the outcome of those cases and the impact on the persons harmed are monitored so that we have access to the necessary information to shape the system in the future.

I want the outcome of referrals to the children’s hearings system that involve an offence to be monitored. That includes referrals on welfare grounds that involve offending behaviour. Monitoring would include the numbers of referrals on offence grounds, offence type, outcomes, age, gender and council area. There should be engagement with the people harmed by children and victim support organisations to provide feedback on experiences.

I will briefly comment on Pam Duncan-Glancy’s amendment 172, which we will support, alongside the other amendments in the group. Local authorities already provide domestic abuse support. It should not be a requirement for a person to have to go to court or a children’s hearing before they can access such provision. We want to ensure that local authorities do not set a higher bar for access to such support. Otherwise, we support the amendments in the group.

Yes. I will make a few more points. I will not support Roz McCall’s amendments 12 and 14, which remove the reporter’s discretion on information sharing in a way that could harm children who have been referred to a hearing.

I support Pam Duncan-Glancy’s amendments 178, 175 and 180, which are about providing information to support safety planning, and sharing other information that might be relevant and proportionate with those who have been impacted by harmful behaviour. That broader set of amendments would assist with information sharing.

I turn to my amendment 123, which creates a reporting requirement to support an informed and constructive debate about how the wider redesign of the children’s hearings system can ensure that all children have their rights fully respected and that no children are left behind. With the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (Incorporation) (Scotland) Act 2024 soon to be in force, there is more reason than ever to take steps to ensure that children’s human rights are reflected in legislation that the Parliament passes. As well as ensuring the availability of child-suitable justice up to the age of 18, there is clear need for better support and connections to recovery and protection for children who have been harmed. To me, article 19 of the UNCRC, on protection from abuse, and article 39 of the UNCRC, on access to recovery, as well as support and safety planning, should be available regardless of whether decisions have been taken to process further action through the children’s hearings system or the criminal justice system, or through no system at all.

Those two ambitions are not at odds with each other. It is possible to do better by children whose actions may harm others and by children who are harmed. Ensuring that that happens is critical to maintaining public support for the children’s hearings system as a whole, which is a point that is clearly made in the “Hearings for Children” report. I am concerned that there is too little understanding of the experiences of children who are harmed when the matter is referred to the children’s hearings system. With a more extensive redesign of the children’s hearings system on the horizon, that needs to be addressed.

I am also concerned that, although once the bill is passed the debate might be over, we will have only begun on the process of reform. We need my amendment to create a reporting requirement to support a wider, constructive and comprehensive debate that considers all those who are involved with the system.

Yes, that is right. We do not want to alter the fundamental approach of the children’s hearings system. We accept that it has been built up over many years. However, there is a feeling that, especially when we are moving a group that was previously in the criminal justice system into the under-18s children’s hearings system, the existing rights will not be continued. Having it intrinsically built into the children’s hearings system that a broad-based risk assessment is made, empowering the professionals who are making that judgment, is the best way to proceed. That approach is not unreasonable or restrictive and I think that it would address Michelle Thomson’s point.

I support amendments 218 and 219, in the name of Martin Whitfield. Amendment 17 would also be appropriate.

I support amendment 173, in the name of Pam Duncan-Glancy, in relation to CSOs, which would consider the impact on a person who is affected by offending behaviour. That should allow a proportionate consideration of the full facts behind a referral, while still maintaining the needs, not deeds ethos.

I support amendments 4 and 5, in the name of Roz McCall, as including more places in the restriction conditions is sensible. However, amendment 6 is a promise to absolutely prevent contact, which could not realistically be met in all circumstances. We need to be straight with people about the limitations of what is possible.

Amendment 183 does something similar to amendment 182 in the previous group. I am conscious of what the minister said about having further discussions on the issue. I would like to make sure, whether through the bill or otherwise, that we have a system that includes more details so that we can analyse the effectiveness of movement restriction orders. However, I will not press amendment 183, considering the minister’s reassurance on that front.

Yes, certainly.

Certainly.

I think that the Government has certainly moved, including on the CSOs and on sharing information in a much more specific fashion, which is helpful. Amendment 17 is also helpful, although it is a bit vague and we could do with a bit more precision on exactly what the service will look like. That might not be appropriate for legislation, but there is a bit of scepticism as to whether that will be forthcoming.

I accept what Ross Greer says, but I do not understand why an empowering, more comprehensive system, in which you empower the reporter to make that risk assessment for all children, making sure that no children fall between the different stools, is not appropriate. It seems broader and more empowering than the specific and narrow provision that the minister wishes to put in place.

Okay. I would prefer more of a reassurance than a discussion, because I think that we have got to—

I have three amendments in the group, so I will go into a little bit of detail. I apologise.

The purpose of my amendment 122 is to establish an information-sharing system between the children’s hearings system and the single point of contact service or elected victim support organisation. It will be based on a robust assessment of the risk posed to the victim or person harmed by the subject child. The degree of information that is provided to the victim will depend on the level of risk that is established by the assessment.

The aim of the amendment is to successfully balance the subject child’s right to privacy with the rights of the victim to information and support to recover, especially if they are a child. That will help to ensure that UNCRC rights are being fulfilled, where possible, for all children and not just the subject child. The right to privacy is important. However, it is not an absolute right and should not infringe other people’s rights to safety or recovery. An objective and robust risk assessment is the best way to achieve a balance of those rights.

I am proposing a three-tier system. The first tier is the information that all victims will be entitled to, whether or not their case is reported to the SCRA system, and when it is processed through the children’s hearings system. The SCRA should operate that opt-out information system. All victims should be entitled to information about both how the system works and victim support resources. They should get basic information on the dates of hearings and the final decision of the hearing. They should also be told if the case has not been referred to a hearing. That is the basic level.

The second tier would provide further case-specific information, particularly in relation to compulsory supervision orders, when it is deemed that the child poses a significant risk of harm to themselves or others. It will include information on how a CSO works, dates, conditions and what happens if the rules are not stuck to. All of that should enable a victim to plan for their own safety. Conditions under the CSO that relate to engagement with social work or personal details about the subject child will not be allowed to be shared. That would not be appropriate.

The third tier of information sharing will be reserved for cases in which the panel has deemed that the subject child must have their liberty restricted in secure accommodation due to the risk to the person who has been harmed or to the wider public. That will be in cases in which an offence has taken place. However, that will not be restricted to referrals on offence grounds.

Under the third tier, victims will be notified when the child is released from secure accommodation or transferred to an adult prison. The information that is provided should, where possible, replicate that which is provided through the victim notification system in the criminal justice system. Of course, victims can opt out of that. They can also choose to communicate through a trusted adult.

I am pleased that the Government has introduced amendments 13, 15 and 17 to share information with regard to CSOs—amendment 13 is particularly relevant in that regard. However, I cannot understand why the Government has not introduced an amendment like mine, which empowers the reporter to carry out a risk assessment for all child subjects and their victims. By restricting the scope, the Government potentially restricts the powers and discretion of the reporter to inform and share. It would be beneficial for all victims to have a basic understanding of how the system works and what they might expect. The dates of hearings that are included in tier 1 do not include private or personal information.

I urge members to support amendment 122. It is comprehensive—it does not cover only CSOs. It empowers the reporter and it is tiered depending on severity, so it is sensitive and more sophisticated.