Chamber and committees

I get that there will be fluctuating numbers of hearings and volunteers needed for those hearings. How does the Government reassure itself that things are working as they should be, that hearings are not being delayed and that there is enough capacity? What mechanism is used to do that at the moment?

Do you mean that the on-going dialogue with the system is how the Government is reassured?

Thank you.

Good morning. I thank the witnesses for being with us.

When I heard Justina Murray talk about the 11,000 people lost to alcohol, I thought about the families and children around them, so I will ask about them. I hear the frustration that we are just talking about minimum unit pricing; that is the legislation that we are scrutinising, but feel free to add any extra comments.

My questions are for Justina Murray and Tracey McFall, because I think that they will have rich evidence from families. The Public Health Scotland evaluation report says that researchers

“felt unable to determine if”

minimum unit alcohol pricing

“had positive or negative impact on the lives of children and young people affected by”

parental drinking, and it says that

“there was no evidence of change in any parenting outcomes”.

I think that we probably all intuitively understand the harm that drinking causes, but could you say a bit about the impact on children and families?

We are carrying out post-legislative—that is my least favourite word to say, because I find it difficult to do so—scrutiny, but, when legislation moves through the Parliament, we often talk about the other things that are needed. I am sure that, when the Alcohol (Minimum Pricing) (Scotland) Bill was being considered in 2012, which was a bit before my time in the Parliament, the need for treatment and additional interventions would have been discussed. Has there been progress on those things?

The first thing that I want to say to colleagues is that it is not just the Government that gets to decide how legislation is formed. Any round table must involve the families—it absolutely must. Victims’ organisations will be more than happy to share contributions, but the issue will be too easily dismissed if the victims’ families are not there. Therefore, I urge that the families be there.

We could probably go round in circles talking about the media stuff, but I make the point that it is not all media outlets that report in detail the harms that have happened to children. Many behave responsibly. Legislation would create an even playing field for them to continue to behave in a responsible manner.

I do not accept that the fact that there are international examples of where things have not worked out is a reason not to legislate. I think that that is a gift, because it shows us what not to do. We can learn from that. Therefore, I do not accept that argument.

This is quite challenging because, to be frank, I have not heard a sense of urgency from the minister, and I feel that colleagues around the table are getting restless. I say to them, to the families who might be watching and to the victims’ organisations that have worked with them that I will take what the Government has said in good faith and will not press amendment 124 or move my other amendments. I also urge colleagues not to press amendment 124 or to move my other amendments.

However, we will not stop the campaign for the proposed changes or the awareness raising. If progress is not made, I will bring my amendments back at stage 3, because minds need to be sharpened and they need to be focused on the action that needs to be taken.

I appreciate the complexities. This is not easy—nothing that is worth doing is easy—but there are children who are being harmed by our legislation. The Children (Care and Justice) (Scotland) Bill is absolutely the right place to make sure that the rights of children who are involved in our care and justice system are upheld and championed.

I will make more substantive remarks in the later group, with your permission, convener. At the moment, I will say that the focus of the bill is children and their rights. Children can cause harm or be victims of criminal harm, either directly or as a result of a sibling or family member being harmed. All of those children matter, no matter what they are experiencing that has led them to come into contact with the care or justice system.

They should be equally entitled to their rights. I acknowledge that balancing rights is not straightforward, and I hear all the reasons to not take action, but it cannot be beyond us to uphold and promote the rights of all children. This must not be put in the too-difficult box because of the challenges around finding a solution to what is most definitely a problem that causes trauma and stress to families and siblings. That is all that I want to say just now.

Will the minister take an intervention about the use of social media by peers or aunties, for example?

Thank you, convener. Forgive me for that.

I understand the argument that is being put. However, if we think about rights and children’s rights, surely we are not suggesting that a cousin’s or a friend’s right to broadcast their feelings about the deceased is more important than the right of the family of the deceased to privacy in family life? That is a challenge.

I will lay out what my amendments intend to do. They can be grouped into four main categories. They intend to extend the reporting restrictions that the bill would apply in respect of victims aged under 18 so that they also apply to deceased underage victims; give the court the same power to extend reporting restrictions in respect of an underage victim, alive or dead, as the bill confers in respect of an underage offender; provide a mechanism by which offenders, whether suspected, alleged or convicted, live victims or the close family of deceased victims can request an order requiring the takedown of information that would have been covered by a reporting restriction while an offence was suspected or during proceedings; and provide a mechanism by which offenders, whether suspected, alleged or convicted, victims or the close family of deceased victims can request an order reinstating in whole or in part reporting restrictions.

Folk will have seen the open letter sent from 65 families urging change, but committee member colleagues will remember that it was a letter from an individual family member that first drew our attention to the area. It laid out the significant impact that continued and traumatising press and social media coverage had on them, and asked MSPs to be mindful of the impact of our words and to not name victims when discussing the topic.

Since then, Victim Support Scotland has led the way in campaigning for change, and I commend it for its work in ensuring that the voice of victims has been heard. I fully understand that this is not a straightforward matter to solve and I understand that, in legislation, we have to be alert to unintended consequences. I acknowledge that the committee has not taken extensive evidence on the matter, but I am absolutely certain that there is a need to address the matter—not just to discuss it further but to actually address it.

The evidence that we have for change is compelling. A parent who lost their child to murder said:

“When my child died as a result of murder, every detail of their life, their siblings and school was in the public domain. This was put under further microscopic detail during the trial, while the perpetrator was afforded significant privacy and protection. The media intrusion which followed my child’s death further compounded the trauma I was already experiencing. My children cannot be children because of the constant fear of what the media will print next. It still goes on to this day, and I am constantly worried when and how my other children will find out more distressing details about their sibling’s death.”

They went on to say:

“I have had several articles and pieces of inaccurate information removed from the mainstream press and social media, but the coverage feels never ending. Every day I am constantly reminded about the traumatic nature of my child’s death. This could all have been prevented had my child’s name not automatically been released to the public when they died.”

I acknowledge and thank the minister for her words about further discussion and engagement. She mentioned a round-table event, which I think would be hugely important. It is crucial that the voice of victims is at the table, and I seek reassurance that those with direct experience of the trauma that is caused to surviving siblings will be part of the discussion.