Chamber and committees

I am sorry to interrupt, Fiona. Can I just make sure that I am picking you up right? Are you saying that most of the children who are in secure care would not meet the criteria?

Good morning. I want to ask about compulsory supervision orders. The bill makes several changes to movement restriction conditions, including broadening the criteria for MRCs to include

“consideration of ‘harm’ rather than ‘injury’”,

and the use of MRCs

“where it is necessary to help the child to avoid causing physical or psychological harm to others.”

We have received written evidence from the SCRA on the use of “fear, alarm and distress” as a subjective test. I would be keen to hear the panel members’ views on those proposed changes. We have heard about the positive side of using subjective approaches, but there is also risk in there. I am particularly interested in the point that has been raised that

“there is a risk that children could be placed on MRCs, and have their liberty and behaviour restricted for a far wider range of behaviour”

than might be intended in the bill. It is your evidence that I am referring to, Alistair, so I will come to you first. We can then hear from the other panel members.

Your evidence also mentions the potential absence of legal representation.

You all agree. Thank you.

That was helpful. Claire, do you have any comments on the matter?

As a panel, do you all agree that the automatic right to a solicitor is crucial for that level of intervention?

Witnesses indicated agreement.

My question is about movement restriction conditions. A number of submissions have raised concerns about changes to them. The evidence from Clan Childlaw specifically mentions the uncoupling of MRCs from secure care orders and the lowering of the threshold for use of MRCs. Why do you have those concerns?

Fiona, do you have anything to add to that?

Is that because their behaviour is harmful or because of their welfare needs?

Yes. Does anyone else have anything to add?