Chamber and committees

I hear what you are saying and I am sure that, in extreme circumstances, they would have to do so. I suppose that I am thinking of examples—I will not start talking about specific ones—whereby harm can be caused that is not reaching that level, which we could be preventing.

I am grateful that you raised that, because another of our concerns is the subjectivity of that change. In its submission, SWS also mentioned some concerns in that area. Is there anything that you would like to share in that regard?

Good morning, panel. Thank you for your evidence so far. It has been really helpful.

I want to ask about movement restriction conditions. We have received written evidence from Includem and from Who Cares? Scotland, and we have picked up on some of the issues in that regard.

Meg Thomas mentioned the lack of automatic legal representation for a young person who might be subject to an MRC. Meg, can you say a bit more about that and why it is an issue?

Do any other panel members have views on that?

Thank you. That is helpful.

Forgive me for not being able to remember exactly who this came from, but something else that was raised in written evidence was the change to considering “harm” done, rather than “injury” caused, and the subjectivity of that. An MRC might be used to prevent a child from causing physical or psychological harm to others. Do witnesses have a view on that change?

Do you have a view on access to legal aid for children with an MRC?

Good morning. I would like to ask about the changes to movement restriction conditions. Do you think that the provisions in the bill go far enough to support the rights of children? Alison Gough, you spoke a little bit about the balancing of rights, so I will come to you first.

Thank you. That is all very helpful.

Thank you. You answered my two follow-up questions in one answer, which was great.

I had a question on the subjectiveness of psychological harm. I am interested in hearing about the victim’s perspective from Kate Wallace, because there are two sides to that subjectivity.

However, I will come to Laura Pasternak first. Laura, you spoke about stigma and the potential issue that the place where someone is allowed to be is not actually safe for them. Do you want to say a bit more about that issue? Is there anything else that you want to scoop up around that?

Thank you. That is helpful.

Kate, we spoke about that point, and the committee is quite aware of the balance of rights that exists, because, often in those instances, it is two children or young people that have been affected by whatever is going on to cause involvement with the justice system. Do you have any comments, from the perspective of a victim, on the widening out of the provision to include

“physical or psychological harm to another person”?