Chamber and committees

Alison Penman, in your statement, you mentioned the bairns’ hoose approach. Could you expand on how that will help you to support offenders and victims?

Yes, I understand that.

Good morning. I will direct my first question to Wendy Hart and possibly Martin MacLean. We have spoken about the huge increase in the figures that you have for recorded online child abuse. Do you have any notion of, or can you even hazard a guess at, the actual level? You are talking about recorded levels. I know that it is a difficult question, but how much more online child abuse do you think is going on that is not recorded?

You are saying that we should be empowering children to say no and to take control.

That is interesting. I might have missed this in your opening statement, but can you give us an idea of the gender balance of the people whom you support? Is it mainly men or women?

I will be quick. I agree with a lot, if not all, of what Katy Clark said. First, regarding women going to the custody units, I have heard that there might be an issue relating to eligibility criteria. It would be useful to ask whether eligibility has been set too high and whether the criteria are realistic. We should definitely chase that up, as well as Katy Clark’s points about remand, data and so on.

Secondly, we have talked about young people being put in YOIs instead of secure care when there is capacity in the latter. I understand that point, and it would be useful to find out why that is happening. The situation might change when the new legislation is passed, but that really should not be happening now anyway.

Lastly, a thread runs through many of the responses, in that there are references to reviews and reports being published in spring. It might be helpful for us to have a wee table of stuff—I do not want to put more work on the clerks; the Scottish Parliament information centre might be able to produce it—so that we know what is coming, what is late and what is expected, because there are so many reviews and reports out there.

I echo what my colleague Fulton MacGregor said. I do not think that Mr Greene responded to his question about the fact that we did not hear any arguments in support of such a change during our evidence taking. I will not support amendment 70 for that and other reasons.

Will the member take an intervention?

I am struggling a wee bit with your explanation about why you object to that approach. The very nature of an emergency means that there is not time for scrutiny, and regulations need to be made incredibly quickly. I cannot see the reason for objecting to that—an emergency is an emergency. As I said, having that facility available is just a safety net. I cannot see that there is any hidden meaning behind it—what it is for is clear cut.

Thank you for that clarification. I have nothing else to add, convener.

Amendment 90 agreed to.

Amendments 12 and 13 moved—[Angela Constance]—and agreed to.

Amendments 91 and 92 moved—[Rona Mackay]—and agreed to.

Amendment 93 moved—[Jamie Greene].