Chamber and committees

Yes.

Good morning, minister. As you say, the bill is about advancing children’s rights, and I would like to cover some areas where concerns have been raised in that regard. On compulsory supervision orders, concerns have been raised with us that the imposition of movement restriction conditions could amount to the deprivation of liberty of a child or young person, without legal safeguards. Have you considered whether more needs to be done with regard to access to legal representation for young people?

That is helpful. Thank you.

If that would be acceptable, yes, I do.

Children’s Hearings Scotland had raised that point in relation to children’s rights to privacy.

Does SWS have an opinion on the fact that some of the conditions mean that the focus might be on the child keeping away from harmful people or places rather than on us doing something about harmful people and places?

If that support goes with it, is that where the greatest opportunity to be helpful to children lies?

Is that element of the safety of the victim covered in existing guidance for practitioners and professionals?

I am skipping the queue—thank you, convener, and apologies to other committee members.

We have heard some concerns that compulsory supervision orders might not attract the same safeguards—the obvious one is the entitlement to legal representation—against depriving children of their liberty. I noted that Children’s Hearings Scotland had some concerns about the methods for tracking people, which the Information Commissioner might share in terms of the right to privacy.

I am keen to hear reflections on that point so that we can get on record what the concerns are about that. Does Jenny Brotchie want to go first?

I would like some clarification from Stephen Bermingham. You said that we could not tell a victim details of a compulsory supervision order, which I absolutely appreciate. You will all have real-life examples of where harm has been done and there is a victim. In terms of the victim’s safety planning, you said that there could be informal ways that children and their families might be able to understand—I will just say it bluntly—that they would be safe and they would not encounter the person who had harmed them in certain areas. Is that the sort of thing that you mean, whereby their victims could be partially informed without getting the details of the individuals? Does that make sense?