Beir pryw bé시 greetings!born. Welcome to the third meeting of the Education, Children and Young People Committee in 2024. The first and only item on our agenda is consideration of the children's care and justice Scotland bill at stage 2, day one. I'd like to welcome the minister for children, young people and keeping the promise to our meeting and her supporting officials. I note that the officials seated at the table here to support The Minister but are not able to speak in the debates ar lluniadau Gymru'i gyrtu'r tyfnwys. Teimlo mwy o'r cwminteriaethol, dwi'n gallu gweithio'r cyflogwur i chi i hynny ynghybwysig. Felly, ddweud dros y gallwn mwy o'r cyflogwur, eu hwnnw, mae gydag gyrtu'r cyflogwur yn ardal iawn, ddim gydag'i gweld y prif geirion i chi ddim yn ennill gydag i chi'n mynd gan gwybod a'i rhai yn gyflygafol'r cyllygau. Mae cyflogwur o'r cyflogwur yn gweld o'r cyflogwur will have been grouped together. There will be one debate on each group of amendments. I will call the member who lodged the first amendment in that group to speak to and move that amendment and to speak to all the other amendments in the group. I will then call any other members who have lodged amendments in that group. Members who have not lodged amendments in the group but who wish to speak should then catch my attention. If Ms Don has not already spoken on the group, I will then invite the minister to contribute to the debate. The debate on the group will be concluded by me inviting the member who moved the first amendment in the group to wind up. Most people have got this in a little sheet of paper. Following the debate on each group, I will check whether the member who moved the first amendment in the group wishes to press it, to vote or withdraw it. If they wish to press ahead, I will put the question on the amendment. If a member wishes to withdraw their amendment after it has been moved, they must seek the agreement of other members to do so. If any member present objects, the committee immediately moves to the vote on the amendment. I hope that you are all keeping up. If any member does not want to move their amendment when called, they should say not moved. Please note that any other member present may move such an amendment. If no one moves the amendment, I will immediately call the next amendment on the marshaled list. As a reminder, only committee members are allowed to vote. Voting in any division—not substitute members today, Mr Whitfield—voting in any division is by a show of hands. It is important that members keep their hands clearly raised until the clerk has recorded their vote. The committee is required to indicate formally that it is considered and agreed each section of the bill, so I will put a question on each section at the appropriate point. Now that we have covered the housekeeping matters, we can start the substantive business. The first amendment is to call amendment 164 in the name of Martin Whitfield in a group on its own. Martin Whitfield, please move and speak to amendment 164. I'm very grateful, convener, and it is a pleasure to take part in this stage too. It may be beneficial for the purposes of just practice, if nothing else. There is only one amendment in this first group. 164 aims to highlight the importance of what I believe underpins the whole of the Bill. That is that the purpose is to promote the well-being and the rights of children in the children's hearing system and the criminal justice system. That was very much reflected in the policy memorandum that was published when the Bill first came into the public domain, but within the preamble that was introduced, I think that more clearer evidence should be made as the purpose that sits behind this Bill. Thank you very much. Is there no other member looking to contribute? Can I then seek the minister to feedback, please? Thank you, convener, and thank you to Mr Whitfield. It's certainly fitting that we begin stage two consideration on an amendment that brings us back to the fundamentals of why this legislation is so important. Recognising, respecting and promoting children's rights across Scotland has been and remains absolutely at the heart of this Government's vision. Just last week, the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child Bill received royal assent and became an act. We also have a shared commitment in this Parliament to keep the promise to people who have experience of Scotland's care system. Committee, there could scarcely be a more pertinent backdrop highlighting the imperative honours in this Parliament to uphold the welfare and advance the rights of Scotland's children. I hope that we can all keep those objectives at the front of our minds as we consider amendments on the specifics over the coming weeks. Regrettably, some proposed amendments lodged by Opposition parties not only undermine what, until now we understood to be cross-party commitments and points of consensus on this forward agenda, but are also regressive in terms of the current situation. However, whilst I completely understand the sentiment behind amendment 164 and I do agree with the premise outlined by Mr Whitfield on his reason for lodging it, a purpose clause such as this is not necessary. The long title of the bill already lists the bill's purposes in more detail. The Scottish Government has been clear in the accompanying documents and in evidence to and statements in Parliament what this bill is all about. Those are the right places to record the bill's purpose. The purpose clause proposed here does not work in relation to a bill of this nature. The bill itself contains almost no freestanding self-contained provisions. Instead, it achieves what it is set out to do by amending 20 other pieces of legislation. Inserting a purpose statement like this at the outset blurs the required nuances and leaves too many unanswered questions as to how it applies to those enactments. Simply put, it does not necessarily add anything to what is set out in the substantive amendments to those other enactments throughout the bill. Some of those other enactments already contain their own overarching statements of purpose or of general principles. For example, section 23A of the Children's Scotland Act 1995 requires local authorities when exercising functions in relation to looked after children to have regard to the general principle that functions should be exercised in relation to children and young people in a way that is designed to safeguard, support and promote their wellbeing. Section 21 of the bill amends that act to ensure that children detained in secure accommodation by virtue of being remanded in custody or convicted of an offence are treated as looked after children. I am not sure how Mr Whitfield's general purpose section sits within the general principle of section 23A. However, as I have said, those aims are clear as a matter of established government policy and action. I am afraid that I cannot support amendment 10164 and I would urge Mr Whitfield not to press it. If it is pressed, I would urge the committee to reject it. I am very grateful, convener. I am slightly disappointed in the minister's response to this, because almost the contradiction between seeking the nuance that the bill contains and its amendments, but then saying that the proposed amendment would blur the overall view. What sits at the heart of anyone in Scotland should be the promotion and wellbeing of the rights of the children. That is particularly so when the children come into conflict or come into contact with both the children's hearing system and the criminal justice system. Under the circumstances, I would press this motion, convener. Thank you, Mr Whitfield. The question is that amendment 10164 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? No. We are not agreed, so there will be a division. I will just wait until the clerks are ready.  I have to do the first one. I will keep your hands raised. Those against. The minister does not vote. We will get faster at this as we go on. We have four for the amendment and six against the amendment, so the amendment is not agreed. The children's hearing system, we move to the next section. Apologies, this is what I have forgotten to do. The question is that section 1 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. The next section is the children's hearing system, rights and welfare issues for the child. I call amendment 165, again in the name of Martin Whitfield, grouped with amendments as shown in the grouping. Martin Whitfield, to move amendment 165 and speak to all amendments in the group, please. I am very grateful, convener. This section deals with the rights and welfare issues and the children's hearing system part of it. There is a number of amendments that I have lodged in respect of this. The first one simply seeks to insert rights after welfare because following the UNCRC passage of the Bill and the progress that Scotland is making with regard to children's rights, it is opportun to take the opportunity to put into legislation the fact that rights are important to us. The other amendments in my name contain a number of different amendments and I would like to spend a short time dealing with some of them in particular if I turn to 170, which deals with young people with additional support needs. We have seen an increase in those young people identified with additional support needs across Scotland. It is correct that young people who either have a diagnosis or identify as having additional support needs without necessarily a medical diagnosis are vulnerable. The way they interact with adult institutions, the children's hearing system in particular, means that an approach has to be taken that is very sensitive to their particular and individual needs. I have had an opportunity to meet with the Government with regard to this and I understand that there are proposals coming forward. I do not know whether the minister wants to deal with those in her own contribution and so there may be a different position that I will take with regard to that amendment. I know that there are others who are going to consider amendments in here. I would like to take a moment to look at transition to adulthood, which is the amendment number 171 that you have before you. Again, this is to deal with that period of time when our young people are transitioning into adulthood and the levels of support that they rightly have expected during their young period start to move away, the structures that are there to advise and support and, on occasions, pick up tend to distance and the purpose behind this amendment is to support that transition going forward. There are a number of other amendments that are moved by others that I may wish to seek to comment on at the appropriate period but, given the cursity of time, I will leave it at that stage, convener. Thank you, Martin Whitfield. I now ask Miles Briggs to speak to amendment 119 and other amendments in the group. Thank you, convener. Good morning to members. I would like to move amendments 119, 112 and 121. Those are probing amendments that I have brought forward through work that I have been doing in Parliament around neurodevelopmental pathways. It is quite clear for children in Scotland and parents and guardians that seeking an assessment, for example, for autism does not then result in a pathway towards other potential assessments, for example, for ADHD. The amendment that I am bringing forward today would create that situation where we would be able to see a referral for an additional assessment. I hope that that will be looked on not only within this bill but future bills that the Government is bringing forward to help to improve that situation. I have raised with the minister previously constituent cases where, and I have permission to share this case, a mother of two boys here in Lothian received a diagnosis of autism through NHS Lothian some years back. However, she watched her boys struggle to function at school and in society for up to six years before taking her boys to a private assessment for ADHD. Both were diagnosed with both autism and ADHD and given the necessary support and medication, which has transformed their lives and their family life as well. For children in the care system, I believe that we should also see that pathway developed. I hope that ministers will look towards supporting that. I am happy to move those amendments in my name. I now ask Pam Duncan-Glancy to speak to amendment 172 and other amendments in the group. Thank you, convener, and good morning, colleagues. Amendment 172 in my name puts a duty on the principal reporter in such a case that he or she identifies that a child subject to proceedings has or is likely to have had a connection with a person who has carried out domestic abuse subject to section 66, subsection 2 of the 2011 act, and to refer that young person to a provider that specialises in domestic abuse support. The amendment, I believe, acknowledges the unique vulnerabilities that children in situations of domestic abuse have and that those who witness domestic abuse can suffer emotional, psychological and developmental challenges. It emphasises the need for targeted intervention, delivered by appropriate professionals who are equipped to address those needs that can be borne out of the complex trauma that they face. Also, I believe, provides an opportunity for early intervention by making a touch point early in the state impact to a referral and to an approach that I believe should be replicated across legislation where appropriate. I urge colleagues to support the amendment in my name. I also encourage colleagues to support the amendments in Martin Whitfield's name and in Miles Briggs's name in this group, too. Thank you, Ms Duncan-Clancy. Are we ready to speak to amendment 182 and other amendments in the group? Victim support organisations have concerns relating to the ability of the children's hearing system, as currently funded, to manage an increased volume in serious offences. It is therefore important that the outcome of those cases and the impact on the person's harm is monitored so that we can have access to the necessary information to shape the system in future. I want to monitor the outcome of referrals for the children's hearing system, which involve an offence. That includes referrals on welfare grounds, which involve offending behaviour. That includes numbers of referrals on offence grounds, offence type, outcomes, age, gender, council area. There should be engagement with the people who are harmed by children and victim support organisations to provide feedback on experiences. I want to briefly comment on Pam Duncan-Clancy's amendment 172, which we will support alongside the other amendments in the group. We need to make sure that the local authorities are already providing the domestic abuse support, and it should not be a requirement to go to court or a children's hearing before you can access such provision. We just want to make sure that local authorities do not set a higher bar for the access to that kind of support, but otherwise we would support the amendments. I missed the amendment by my colleague Willie Rennie, in which we will support it. I just want to let you know that this is going to be quite a lengthy response, given the number of amendments in the group, but I will try to be as concise as possible and take each amendment in turn. The Government has a number of concerns regarding this group of amendments. Amendment 165 would change the focus of the test, which is to be applied across the scope of the Children's Hearing Scotland Act 2011. Would, by definition, imply that child's rights are to be given the same weight as their welfare? We know in some cases that that simply cannot happen, as there might be an unavoidable conflict between welfare and rights. We must remember that welfare is the primary indicator for safeguarding children fair to the hearing system, and it has been for many years. More broadly, on the issue of rights and existing requirements, the children's hearing or court will also consider the potential impact of any decision, as they already have extensive obligations under ECHR and UNCRC, and, as public authorities, they must act compatibly with them. The necessary balance of rights is already achieved under the existing provisions, and, on that basis, I could not support amendment 165. I am very grateful to the minister to take that intervention. I think that it is right to say that, where others' rights and an individual young person's welfare can clearly come into conflict, I struggled to see where a young person's own rights and their own welfare could come into a conflict where the decision would be that the welfare should take priority over the rights. I wonder whether the minister can expand on where she sees the potential danger of a conflict between a young person's own rights and the young person's own welfare? I think that it would be on a case-by-case basis and that every child situation is different now. I probably could not sit here and give an example of that today, but welfare, as we have established welfare and rights, are a different thing, and welfare is the basis of the children's hearing. I would be worried about putting anything else above that idea of welfare, just in case that did impact on the children's hearings. For example, the right to family relationships, but welfare suggests that it is not due to behaviour by the family member, so there could be issues in family conflict. As I say, I would be willing to discuss that further with Martin Whitfield, but at the moment that is not something that I think the way that it is worded and the way that it could be. We can certainly work on that. Back to the amendments. We understand that amendment 167 seeks to ensure that where decisions are being made about a child under the 2011 act, decision makers do not discriminate against a child on any of the grounds mentioned. While we agree with the principle here, we do not think that the amendment is necessarily workable or necessary. To explain what is meant by discrimination and the reference characteristics is not set out in the member's amendment, which would make it impossible in practice to effectively enforce the obligations that it seeks to impose. Also, there are a range of statutory duties that already apply to public authorities, including the courts, the Scottish Children's Reporters Administration and the Children's Hearing Scotland, which oblige them to protect children's rights and not unlawfully discriminate. Those include non-discrimination duties and the public sector equality duty in the Quality Act 2010, the requirement under the Human Rights Act 1998 to act compatibly with ECHR rights, including article 14 on non-discrimination, duties to act compatibly with requirements under the UNCRC incorporation act 2024, which would include duties in relation to non-discrimination and will come into force this summer. All those duties have been carefully framed and do not cut across the established law and principles of the children's hearing system. They preserve the ability of decision makers to recognise that it might be necessary to treat children differently on the basis of characteristics such as age. For example, it would only be appropriate to share information with a child who is old enough to understand it. Recognising that all children—yes. Thank you, minister, for taking the intervention. I understand that some decisions will need to be taken on the basis of how the minister has just described it, but that is how equality legislation in general works, where it is not about treating everybody entirely the same. It is about making sure that people get equal access to various things at opportunity and are treated similarly in systems. That, to me, represents a bit of a misunderstanding of how equality legislation would operate. No, I thank the member for the intervention. What I would say is that I am highlighting some relevant examples, but I have already been clear that the way the amendment is worded is not workable. There is too much ambiguity. Recognising that all children must be treated differently while still ensuring fair treatment and the upholding of their rights is essential to a child-centred tailored experience that supports children of different ages in the right ways. I believe that that is what the member intended. I hope that I have served some reassurance that current law and practice is sufficient to achieve that already. Decision makers are trained on equalities, discrimination and rights as part of their extensive practice requirements. In any event, the amendment potentially raises legislative competence issues, given that it relates to the reserved matter of equal opportunities and may impermissibly modify the Equality Act 2010. For all those reasons, I could not support amendment 167. On amendment 166, members will be aware that the recent hearings for children report included a recommendation to commend section 3 of the 2020 act, and the Government accepted that recommendation without qualification. Although there have been obstacles to its implementation, I am advised that a request to consider what is required in court rules is now with the rules council in relation to UNCRC incorporation. That will remove a key barrier to the implementation of that provision in the 2020 act. In essence, the requirements envisioned by section 3 will become an obligation under UNCRC. In practical terms, that provision covers the good practice already well established in the children's hearings system, and discussions have taken place with them about formalising their training and resourcing requirements. It is essential that the Government is able to do this preparatory work to ensure that the responsible agencies are ready. Again, I would hope that that assures the member and the committee that that work is being expedited, and our intention is to commend the section within the timescales set out in the amendment. I am happy to provide Parliament and committee with an update on progress ahead of stage 3 if that would be desirable. However, I would therefore be opposed to amendment 166. I do not think that it is helpful or necessary for us to tie the commencement of an entirely separate piece of legislation here in this manner. By tying the duty to commend section 3 of the 2020 act to the royal assent of this bill, it would probably be unworkable in practice. Moving to amendment 170, although I also appreciate the intention here, we must be clear that all children that are referred to the children's reporter are in some way or another vulnerable, and it is unhelpful to attempt to definition in this way. Taken into account the whole circumstances of a child's life is at the heart of the welfare-based approach adopted by the system. By labelling some children as inherently vulnerable by virtue of certain characteristics, we risk creating a two-tier approach. This amendment risks minimising consideration of other factors that might make a child vulnerable while legislating for certain characteristics that might not. Furthermore, the amendment does not take account of the fact that children's hearings in the courts are decision-making forums. It is not their role to provide support service. That is the responsibility of public authorities. Where particular on-going support services are required, panel members may make compulsory supervision order, which requires that others provide those services to the child, but that is a decision for the panel as an independent tribunal. This amendment would cut across that independence by enforcing provision of enhanced support to certain children whether it was deemed necessary or not. Where additional support is required for a child to attend and effectively participate in their hearing, the Scottish Children's Reporter Administration enables that to be in place. For example, Scottish Scraw has a network of neurodiversity champions working across all front-line localities. Members of the network are available to assist staff in ensuring that arrangements for hearings in court are tailored to suit individual needs. They can arrange for translation and interpretation services where they are required. All children's reporters receive training on domestic abuse, delivered in conjunction with Scottish Women's Aid, and SCRA are in the process of training all staff in trauma-informed practice. In 2020, the Scottish Government introduced independent advocacy services available to any child who needs to attend a hearing. Advocacy workers can enable a child's effective participation in a hearing and ensure that their views are communicated to decision makers. Although that is not in the role of the hearing to provide support services, I understand the sentiment behind that. Again, if Mr Woutfield does not press amendment 170, I am more than happy to engage with him ahead of stage 3 on this. Sorry, I've still got a lot to go. You're clearly not allowed to take much of a breath, minister. Just needed some water. I appreciate that amendment 171 intends to mitigate against concerns about 16 and 17-year-olds as they transition to adulthood. However, the Government has issues with that. As noted in the policy memorandum for the bill, it is desirable to smooth the transition for supports available to children as they move into adulthood, and that is particularly relevant where a child has required statutory intervention on a compulsory basis. That is why, at introduction, the bill made provision to ensure that local authority has a duty to provide support should the hearing decide that on-going supervision and guidance is likely to be helpful to the young person whose order will be terminated. If the young person is in agreement, the local authority will continue the relationship without compulsion on the young person up to age 19. That makes appropriate provision to ensure that the young person does not fall through the cracks as they will already be known to the local authority. I think that strikes the right balance by allowing a children's hearing to place duties on local authorities to provide support for children who have required compulsory supervision measures when their order is no longer needed or has to be terminated due to the age of the child. I recognise that the member may think that amendment 171 could fill a gap for older children referred to a hearing when an order is not made. However, the principal reporter must consider a child's case in these instances, and in doing so may make his determination for voluntary support and guidance as needed. It should also be noted that amendment 171 does not define the term transition to adulthood. In practice, that will mean different things to different young people. It will be achieved in various different ways and through varying timescales from child to child. As such, I would not be able to support amendment 171. Although I am also sympathetic to the sentiment behind amendments 119, 120 and 121, which is well placed, there are a number of issues with the proposals to legislate for particular medical assessments. I thank Miles Briggs for his contribution and the account that he provided this morning. First, we must be again mindful that children's hearings are decision-making forums rather than having responsibility for ensuring the assessment of children with identified medical and neurological needs. Secondly, the responsibility to provide relevant, timely and inappropriate information to informed decision-making by a children's hearing lies with authorities who work within the hearing system, such as social work health or education authorities. Thirdly, there are existing well-established mechanisms under part six of the Children's Hearing Scotland Act to request further relevant information where necessary and appropriate to informed decision-making. Moreover, those mechanisms are not prescriptive and, in contrast to the scope of those amendments, allow for a range of circumstances that are relevant to the case at hand. The additional duties may also inadvertently cut across medical expertise, which is to determine that existing diagnoses are not relevant or that further assessments are not necessary. That, in turn, may delay decision-making or subject a child to medical examination or assessment, which is neither relevant nor appropriate to informed decision-making by a children's hearing. It is, of course, correct to say that we are now more aware than ever of issues of neurodivergency, and I want to be clear that the Government is fully committed to children with additional needs being appropriately supported in the hearing system. However, that does not necessarily require additional specific legislative duties on a children's hearings to ensure they are considered, nor should be placed an additional statutory duty on the children's hearings or the courts, where it may not be relevant to circumstances of a case or the circumstances of a decision by a hearing or court. On that basis, I ask the member to withdraw the amendments and, if not, I would ask the committee to vote against. Turning now to amendment 172, I am in full agreement with the member about the fundamental principle of ensuring appropriate and timely access to support services in cases of domestic abuse. However, I do not necessarily agree that placing a duty on the principle reporter to ensure appropriate referral and access to providers in domestic abuse support is the right way forward. Ensuring that those involved at any stage of the children's hearing process have access to specialist services at the earliest possible stage of proceedings is, of course, the right way forward, but I am not convinced that we should legislate, as suggested, and I am in common with my comments about amendment 170, where I said that it is not the role of the hearing to provide support services. I similarly do not see it as the role of the reporter to make a determination about a referral to support services. Who's role would it be then to make sure that the person did get referred to those services? It would be—I mean, the children's hearing wouldn't be the first contact that somebody in trouble or somebody experienced that experience, and that would have, as I say, it wouldn't be their first point of contact for services, so that would come from others, whether that was social work, whether that was the local authority, whether there are other—again, similar to the comments that I made on amendment 170—it's just not the role of the principle reporter to assign those services. The key requirement instead is to ensure that appropriate support services are available and accessible, and, as I said, that's not within the gift, necessarily, of the principle reporter. It's also unclear how we would define specialist services and the consistency of provision required, so, again, I would ask the committee not to support that amendment. Would the minister be willing, at stage 3, to discuss the final point that she made there around which services and how to define them? If that were the case, I would consider not pressing. If the minister is not intending on working with me between now and stage 3, then I may press. I would certainly be happy to discuss the matter further with you, with the member. Amendment 177 includes a very broad range of conditions for considering, monitoring and review if a child is not in need of compulsory measures. Now, I am very conscious that this amendment would likely apply to virtually any child referred. However, that doesn't mean that we need to legislate for further intervention or monitoring where a hearing reached this conclusion. Local authorities already provide support and guidance to children and their families on a voluntary basis. Amendment 177 won't change or enhance that. To act as prescribed in the amendment could potentially result in disproportionate and unnecessary interference with the child's rights. The principle of minimum intervention, only making children subject to compulsory measures where this is absolutely necessary, is a key aspect of the children's hearing system. Ensuring that services and supports are available to children, young people and adults who require those has similarly been a long-standing requirement of Scottish statute. Our recent commitments in responding to the promise and the hearings for children report will go further in this area if necessary following engagement and consultation with key stakeholders. On this basis, I would not therefore again be able to support amendment 177. Finally regarding amendment 182, the committee and members should be aware that there is already significant amounts of data broken into numerous categories available through the online dashboard provided by the Scottish children's voter administration. They also publish an annual in-depth detailed analysis of their statistics, which includes data on many of the categories in amendment 182. We don't necessarily believe that additional legislation is required. However, I do think that there is merit in further exploration of what additional material could be published as part of that annual reporting. Therefore, I am happy to discuss with Billy Benny and with any other members who might have an interest in this area ahead of stage 3 and lays with the authorities to understand the opportunities and the challenges that this may present. Therefore, I ask the member not to press amendment 182 to allow those discussions to happen. In summary, I would ask members not to press amendments 165, 167, 166, 170, 171, 119, 120, 121, 172, 177, 182. If they are pressed, I ask the committee to reject them. Martin Whitfield, to wind up, press or withdraw your amendment 165, please. I am very grateful, convener, and can I thank the minister for what I think was a very constructive contribution about a number of the matters which have highlighted areas where both those who take an interest in this bill within this place but also those outside of this place have raised issues. I am content on the undertaking from the minister not to move the majority of the amendments in my name which I will identify for the purposes in a moment. I am concerned about 167, which is the discrimination amendment. I'm not sure it can be the case that this amendment could run the risk of infringing on reserved matters with regard to discrimination. I do think that the argument that the minister has put forward about, in part, that this is covered elsewhere and there is an obligation on various people that come into contact with young people to apply the rules, not apply the rules, but to be very sensitive with regard to a non-discrimination process, but then not to herald or actually say that that should underpin the process that we're creating here because this is the beginning of a move with regard in particular to children's hearings. I heard the minister with regard to the view not to support this amendment, but in an attempt to perhaps reach out would the minister be content to also discuss this and whether it returns in a different form at stage 3 because I am conscious of the importance of non-discrimination and the fact that it's not about treating everyone the same, it is about allowing people to have a process where they are supported, where their individuality is measured and accredited by those that, as the minister has said, effectively make judgment on people. If that's the case, then I will not be moving the amendments in my name, but I'll address them at each point. I was about to say yes, if we can take them in turn, Mr Whittle, don't want me to get a little loose track of where we are. Can I confirm that the member wishes to withdraw their amendment? 1-6-5. 1-6-5. Sorry. 1-6-7. Just 1-6-5 will take them in turn as they come through on the list. Does any member object to the withdrawal? If there is no object, the amendment is therefore withdrawn. We'll move now to the children's hearing system and victims. Can I call amendment 2, in the name of Ros McAul, group with amendments as shown in the grouping? Thank you, convener. Ros McAul, to move amendment 2 and speak to all amendments in the group. Thank you. Apologies. No, my apologies, convener. I'm way too eager. Thank you very much indeed. And thank you very much to be here today. Those amendments seek to strengthen the rights of victims, not to take away from the process within the bill for change towards young offenders. If we accept the premise that young people who cause harm are in themselves victims of harm and therefore traumatised, we must also accept that victims, especially young victims, will most likely be from a similar background and equally traumatised. It's essential that changes to the children hearing system are set up to accommodate a balance. 2, 4, 5, 6, 12 and 14 are amendments to put forward a consideration for young victims that is equally important and should also be at the centre of a child-based process. The purpose of the amendments is to ensure that victims are afforded protections that are given through a court process to ensure their safety and to ensure the rights of all children involved are articulated to them within the process. I haven't got a long speech to make because I know that we've got a lot of amendments and I know that time is short, but that is my comments to the amendments. Thank you, convener. Can I just remind? Time isn't short, so if members do want to get into depth, it's fine. We have plenty of time to scrutinise these amendments, but thank you very much for that, Ms McCall. Can I now call Pam Duncan-Glancy to speak to amendment 168 and other amendments in that grouping, please? Thank you, convener. There are a number of amendments in my name in this group, and they focus on the importance of actively engaging with and considering the views of victims, recognising the impact on them of behaviour that has led to proceedings and taking their safety into consideration when discharging the duties of the panel and the disposals. Those amendments seek to ensure a fair and responsible legal framework that aligns with the principles of justice, which respects the rights of victims, acknowledges their potential vulnerability and the need to safeguard their wellbeing. In short, I believe that it balances the article 39, rights on rehab, and article 12, rights on the right of the child to be heard. A balance must be struck to ensure that the bill and processes within it will create and remain within children's rights, and in particular the UNCRC. With that in mind, the amendments in my name seek to strike that balance by recognising that they will satisfy the victims' right to information and safeguarding the best interests of the child. Amendment 168 makes provision for the panel or the sheriff to, insofar as is practical, allow the victim the opportunity to express their views and have regard to those views when making a decision on whether to impose either a movement restriction condition or a compulsory supervision order. Amendment 173 looks to incorporate the impact on victims into the process by saying that when imposing a compulsory supervision order, the concerns and the safety of the person affected must be taken into consideration. Amendment 178 speaks to the safety of victims by making provision to expand the information that a victim is entitled to request to include whether a compulsory supervision order has been issued and, if so, the conditions of that order and how they are to be enforced. Amendment 180 allows for the victim to be notified if such an order is not complied with or any review that is carried out on it as a result and also the outcomes of that review. Amendment 175 ensures that the victims can be informed when such an order includes a movement restriction condition and the arrangements specified by that condition. My amendment, unlike some of the other amendments that have been put forward by colleagues, I believe, allows for the information to be withheld on the basis that sharing it could be detrimental to the best interests of the child who is subject to the condition. Amendment 181 requires Scottish ministers to establish a single point of contact for the sharing of information with victims and, crucially, that that be done in the affirmative procedure. I also would like to note that I agree with a lot of the amendment 122, my colleague Willie Rennie's name, because it suggests a similar system. I am reticent about it slightly, because I am concerned that section 2A1 disregards any major consideration on the rights of the welfare of the child, so I will be listening carefully to the discussion on that. I have also put my name in support of Ross McCall's amendment number four, which adds a clear provision for a compulsory supervision order to specifically prohibit the child subject to the order from entering the home, workplace or place of education of the victim of their offences. Thank you, Ms Duncan-Clancy. Can I ask Martin Whitfield now to speak to amendment 174 on other amendments in the group, please? I'm very grateful, convener. There are three amendments in this group that my name attaches to, and two cover a very similar situation, which is 174 and 176, and it's seeking to add the victim into the consideration when an MRC or a CSO is made. The final amendment in my name, 184, relates to the procedural rules, which again talks to the role that the victim should play, but the responsibility to take into account the victim's needs when decision making is taken place. We've heard a lot about transparency, we've heard a lot about the role of the children's hearings making decisions. It is important that those that are closest to it, but not immediately involved in the decision making, are aware and that their needs are taken into account when those decisions are made. Thank you, Mr Whitfield. Can I now ask the minister to speak to amendment 13 and other amendments in the group, please? Yes, thank you, convener, and again I'll just say that this is quite a lengthy grouping, so my speaking notes are quite lengthy. Since its inception, the children's hearing system has been a welfare-based system focused on the needs of the referred child and not a criminal justice system. Any children referred to it are referred to for the sole purpose of considering the necessity of compulsory state intervention in their lives to safeguard and promote their welfare throughout their childhood. Section 1 of the bill will enable the children's hearing system to consider the needs of any child under 18 who is referred to it. The changes under section 1 to ensure consistency of approach for all children up to age of 18 do not require any additional direction to the hearing members on how to make decisions. The specifics of what measures are put on a child's compulsory order can continue to be tailored to the particular circumstances of the child. In relation to Ross McCall's amendment 2, the hearing system is generally focused on the welfare of the referred child. The majority of cases of their welfare is the paramount consideration. However, section 26 of the children's hearings Scotland Act already recognises that, in some cases, the child's welfare has to be considered alongside other factors, specifically when the decision is necessary to protect members of the public from serious harm. I consider that existing law already strikes the right balance to enable a hearing to make appropriate decisions to support both the referred child and the wider public. I do not support Ms McCall's amendment 2, which would have the effect of lowering the threshold in some cases, tipping the balance too far from the referred child and indeed being conflict with the existing tests carefully designed to protect members of the public. Although disposals in such a welfare-based system are interventions with consequences on a child's life, they are not punitive in the manner of the criminal justice system, and I think that it would be of great concern if the hearing system evolved into a criminal justice system for children. I therefore believe that I must resist amendments that diminish the decision-making focus on the need of the child who has been referred. Turning now to amendments 168 and 184 regarding the views of victims in relation to children's hearings decisions, those amendments appear to place victim impact-type measures into the children's hearings system and fundamentally misconstrue again its welfare-based approach. We must remember that the Lord Advocate retains responsibility for prosecutorial decisions, and any child referred to a hearing on offence grounds will have undergone process in line with the Lord Advocate's guidelines and prosecution policy. There will therefore already have been consideration on whether the child's offending merits a prosecutorial or a welfare-based approach. It would not be appropriate for a hearing to be required to gather the views of victims in this way and to take that into account in making their decision. The hearings focus must be through the lens of considering what compulsory measures are necessary to safeguard and promote the referred child's welfare, and so doing it can include any measure necessary to prevent the child from causing any harm to others. To change the ethos of the... Yes, Mr Witfield. My apologies, I did not mean to cut the minister off mid-sentence. On that point, is the challenge not the case then where you have a victim who is within the children's hearings system through one part of the referral, where that victim's welfare will be taken into account, but a victim who does not happen to be part of the children's hearings system because of the circumstances of the individual referral to it will go unheard? I'm sorry, Mr Witfield, I don't follow. Let me try and paint a scenario not based on reality or anything, but if you have two young people who have been involved in a criminal offence or a series of criminal offences, minor criminal offences, it is likely that both those young people who would come before the children's hearing, if one of those events had been a fight between the two of falling out where one is injured, then you will have both a victim and an old-fashioned language, and I don't mean to use this about children's hearing but an accused. So those two children play both a dual role of someone that the welfare is being looked at, but also a victim. Inherently, the children's hearing system must hear from the young person who is both a victim and potentially involved in an outcome, but that's only because of the circumstances of the event, not because they were a victim to an offence, which means that a children's panel will take it into account simply because of the circumstances that they are in front of them. How is that equitable for someone who has not been involved, is not drawn into the children's hearing system as a victim but goes unheard? I will get on to it later. Obviously, there have been a lot of discussions around the rights of victims and that's something that, as I say, I will certainly get on to it later. I think that there will be a range of support for victims, not necessarily the victims or children who are at the heart of the welfare of the children's hearing system, but there will be a range of support available for those children who have experienced something like that. In terms of their views being saw or impacting on the decision of the children's hearing system, I just feel like that takes us too far in turning the children's hearing system into essentially a mini court setting. I don't believe that, as long as we ensure that the child at the heart of the hearing is being appropriately supported and those measures are in place for them and equally any victim. Obviously, you gave me two examples there, one where one is involved in the hearing system and one outwith, but even for that young person outwith, the victim outwith, they would have, as I say, I will get on to it later, a range of support measures available to them, but not necessarily to have their views taken into account in the children's hearing, because I don't necessarily see how that is conduent with a welfare-based system that is trying to ensure the welfare of the child at the heart of the system, so I hope that that helps. I appreciate that this is lengthy, but particularly amendment 168, I don't see how taking into consideration a victim's views on that point. It's only taken into consideration in terms of the discharge available to the panel. I don't see how that really does detach from a welfare-based approach. Well, I would say that we've already discussed how the panel are trained in trauma, trained in humanist different things to understand what could potentially be best for a child at the heart of the welfare system, and I'm sorry, but I just don't see how the views of the victim could be relevant to the child at the heart of the system's welfare. Obviously, the views of the victim are extremely relevant in terms of their own situation, but not in terms of the decisions that are made for the child at the heart of the hearing system. I really don't think that I can be any clearer than that. Now, as I've said, to change the ethos of the hearing system in the manner outlined in amendments 168 and 184 would really undermine its principles and move towards a court-type system. In addition, it would be difficult in practice in the context of a children's hearing to be able to seek views of a victim without causing delay to the progress of the child's case, taking the focus away from decisions being made as quickly as possible to safeguard and promote welfare. I'll now move on to address amendments 4, 5, 6, 173, 174 and 176 on measures and CSOs to protect victims. The bill itself already includes two new prohibitions in section 3, amending section 83 of the 2011 act, giving children's hearings greater choice when deciding on which measure or combination of measures is necessary to assist the child in refraining from negative behaviours. In relation to amendment 6, amendment 6 is not necessary. Hearings are already required to consider whether or not a direction regulating contact is necessary, and amendment 6 seeks to prevent on a blanket basis any contact between a child and a person affected by their offence or behaviour is not consistent with the child-centred approach of the hearing system and might not be compliant with a UNCRC or ECHR in a particular case. Likewise, amendment 173 again is not necessary for the purpose of making the order specific to the circumstances of the offence or to the safety of the person affected. The hearing already requires to consider the consequences of a child's offence or behaviour. The children's hearing in every case must already consider the established facts of grounds of referral, which for an offence ground would include the details of an offence. The disposals open to a hearing range from discharging a referral to home supervision to deprivation of liberty. It is evident that hearing's decision making already takes into account that a measure may be needed to address safety of others in response to the circumstances of an offence. Amendments 4 and 5 are also not required because the section to which those amendments relate has been worded in a general way deliberately to align with the existing section 83 and would cover victims in places that they attend. I would ask that amendments 4 and 5 by Ms McCall, which seem to be designed to clarify what is meant by person, are not moved as they do not seem to add anything that is missing. However, again, if Ms McCall is minded to withdraw them, I would be happy to discuss an alternative wording or form for stage 3. Similarly, I do not consider that the similar adjustments to the provisions in relation to sections 4 and 5 of the bill by amendments 174 and 176, as proposed by Martin Whitfield, to be necessary. The tests for an MRC and secure accommodation authorisation are clear insofar as they apply where a referred child is likely to cause physical or psychological harm to another person, and an ordinary reading of the word person undoubtedly includes any person harmed by the referred child. I wonder again if Mr Whitfield would be minded to withdraw those amendments, but I am more than happy to explore those matters further in advance of stage 3. I next address amendments 12, 13, 14, 15, 175 and 180 concerning the provision of information to victims, which I appreciate has been highlighted throughout the stage 1 process. In relation to the Government amendments 13 and 15, those extend the existing powers of the principal reporter to share information under section 179C of the 2011 act. Those amendments will mean that a victim can, except in limited circumstances, receive details about relevant measures that a hearing has made in a compulsory order, which has the effect of prohibiting contact between them and the referred child, including further details from review hearings when a measure is continued, varied or terminated, and that will include movement restriction conditions. In addition, if a hearing considering a child's case concerning an offence or harmful behaviour makes a decision to make a secure care authorisation, that can similarly be shared. To support victims and their understanding of a hearing decision, I consider it necessary to develop regulations to improve support for victims to understand those decisions, and I will mention them shortly when I am discussing amendments 17. On amendments 12 and 14, those amendments would risk information being shared with a victim that could be detrimental to the referred child or a child other than the child victim in the case. It also would remove the discretion of the reporter not to share in other circumstances where doing so could be inappropriate, for example where to do so would adversely affect an adult victim. The bill in the amendments 13 and 15 that I have tabled extend the provision of information to victims, and there is no intention to restrict the sharing of information except in the limited circumstances that are already set out and well understood in section 179C of the 2011 act. Now, whilst used rarely, I understand from SCRE that it is sometimes necessary to withhold information in cases where there is a concern about the safety or welfare of any child, including the referred child if the information was provided, and also if they have concerns about how the information will be used by the victim or the victim's family. There are examples where information has been circulated through social media or through local campaigns against some children who have been subject to hearings, so those exceptions are necessary, albeit I expect them to be used in extremely isolated cases. The Government's amendments 13 and 15, if agreed to, and which I have had very positive engagement about with victims organisations, will adequately address the matters raised through Ms Duncan Glancy's amendments 175, 178 and 180. In effect, amendments 13 and 15 will ensure that, if a victim is named in a child's order, they will be told about it. If the child is on a movement restriction condition and is not to approach them, they will be told. If the measure is terminated at review or varied or continued, they will be told. Once the child attains the age of 18 and the order naming them is terminated, they will be informed. That, together with the support services, which I will outline shortly, will give them the information that they need to understand what measures are in place and when they end. I therefore ask Ms Duncan Glancy not to press her amendments at this time, however, if there are other areas that she still remains concerned about, I am more than happy again to discuss those ahead of stage 3. I will turn now to Government amendment 17. I am aware that the balance of rights surrounding the children's hearing system has been a key theme of debate through scrutiny of this bill to date. The committee has heard some very powerful testimony on the effects of a child's offending behaviour can have on those who are harmed, and the Scottish Government is committed to ensuring that victims are treated with compassion, that their trauma is recognised and that they are supported. The consultation on the proposals in this bill before the legislation was introduced to Parliament asked if a single point of contact should offer support for a person who has been harmed. That was supported by 97 per cent of respondents. I am also aware that recommendation 287 of the committee's stage 1 report endorsed provision of such a service. The Scottish Government always intended to support provision of this kind for commencement of the legislation, and it does not strictly require a statutory duty to ensure that it is provided. That can be done administratively. However, convener, I have listened carefully to the very strong views and the strength of feeling on this matter. As such, Government amendment 17 places a direct duty on Scottish ministers to provide a support service that is not restricted to a single point of contact. That would be done via secondary legislation. It has been drafted deliberately to avoid being overly prescriptive at this point, so as to build in maximum flexibility for the development of the service in the future. I appreciate the explanation that she has given around amendment 17. Would there be any scope at stage 3 to consider using the affirmative procedure within amendment 17 instead of the negative procedure to give more scrutiny for parliamentarians for that piece of regulation? If the member does not mind, that is in what I am about to say, so I will get on to that as I speak. The single point of contact also contains detail on the persons that such a service would apply to, what may be provided in terms of such support and a non-exhaustive list of statutory consultees. The Government has had in-depth discussions with victim support organisations that have helped to inform this amendment, and I also thank the committee for the alteration to the stage 2 deadline, which has allowed much more room for discussion on this topic. I think that we can all agree that qualitative research would be welcome in this area to ensure that we are maximising within the confines of the law what is helpful for persons reporting offences by children whose situations are dealt with by the hearing system. Work has already begun between SCRA and Victim Support Scotland on a research proposal with interim reports planned for autumn. That will look at gaining an increased understanding of how the victim information system within SCRA is used and by whom, understanding the experiences and the needs of victims, understanding the experiences and the needs of the children who have harmed others, understanding models of victim information and support provision, and identifying whether SCRA's victim information service should move from an opt-in to an opt-out service. Research has been scoped and will start in February 2024, and interim report to report in July to October this year. A full report is expected in February 2025. That work merits meaningful research, as the committee can appreciate, and to be done properly will take time. I am conscious that there are similarities with my amendment 17 and amendments 122 and 181, as lodged by Willie Rennie and Pam Duncan Glancy respectively, and I would first like to highlight some particular aspects in relation to 122 and why my preference is to pursue the SG amendment 17. First, amendment 122 is restricted to information sharing and does not extend to other support services for victims and is less flexible than the Scottish Government amendment 17. Secondly, some of the specifics of amendment 122 go beyond what would be appropriate to share with victims in some elements, so, for example, I am concerned that those could potentially enable sharing of information to the detriment of a child's welfare and privacy. Thirdly, amendment 122 could also result in sharing of information in a situation where a child moves from secure care to prison, which is not a disposal that can happen in the healing system. Finally, amendment 122 would also have the effect of imposing an opt-out service on victims, meaning that they will receive information about decisions made about a referred child unless they take action to stop it. SCRA and Victim Sports Scotland are, as I have highlighted, working together on that research project, which will consider the current opt-in service and whether there is any need for change, engaging with those with lived experience of the service provided. I think that it would be prudent to await the results of that study before affecting any change. I am happy to engage with the member on the detail of my amendment further, if that would be helpful at all, particularly to reassure him that what amendment 17 will achieve will be more beneficial to victims. I should highlight that the regulation making duty through amendment 17 will also require prior consultation and engagement, including with victim support organisations. Amendment 181 from Ms Duncan-Glancy has similar aims to amendment 17, but it is restricted to a simple single point of contact provision. Amendment 181 does, however, prescribe regulations subject to affirmative procedure rather than the negative procedure outlined in amendment 17. If Pam Duncan-Glancy is amenable, should Government amendments be supported, I am open to discussion on that point that the member raised ahead of stage 3. As such, I would ask members with amendments in this area to consider whether they still wish to push their amendments. Finally, I wish to address amendments 1, 2, 3 and 1, 8, 3 concerning reporting duties in relation to victims and movement restricting conditions. Amendment 1, 2, 3 potentially creates significant demands relating to victims' experiences of the hearing system on a range of agencies. Some of that information is already published, SCRA publishes offence referral data annually and that is broken down by offence type. However, the additional information stipulated in this amendment could lead to an incomplete and misleading representation of victims in the hearing system and it is not clear to what end. How agencies collect and retain information in relation to victims varies according to their role and functions. The SCRA victim information service does a huge amount of work to identify victims through the referrals received from police. For a wide range of reasons, a victim is not always identified and the information provided. The age profile of the victim is also not always identifiable from the information that they have available. Any work in this area must be attentive to the considerations around sensitive data, how that is shared, what is published and for what purpose. That would perhaps be more appropriately dealt with through qualitative research in conjunction with appropriate victim support organisations. Any information in support a victim receives must be given sensitively and in confidence, so detailed reporting on the information and support given to victims is likely to be incomplete and it is not clear what value it adds. General information on the kind of things that agencies can do for victims is otherwise available. Likewise, in relation to amendment 183, as I mentioned earlier, there are already significant amounts of data broken into numerous categories that are available through the online dashboard provided by the Scottish Children's Reporters' Administration. They also publish an annual in-depth detailed analysis of their statistics and details of MRCs, which will be available from next year onwards in their annual report. The amendment as framed extends further than the information that can be provided by the SCRA and it is difficult to note at this stage the extent to which usage of MRCs will change. If the numbers stay low, then the victim experience, for example, will not be capable of meaningful analysis. Again, I think that there is merit in further discussions about how to enhance the transparency of MRCs and other relevant measures for victims of cases referred to the children's hearing system in the future without the need for legislation. If Willie Rennie is agreeable to this, I would ask him to withdraw his amendment on that basis for further discussion. In summary, I move amendments 13, 15 and 17. I cannot support the other amendments in this group and ask members not to press them. If they are pressed, I would ask that the committee reject them. Thank you, minister. Willie Rennie, can I ask you to speak to amendment 122 and other amendments in the group, please? I have three amendments in this section, so apologies. I am going to go into a little bit of detail. The purpose of amendment 122 is to establish an information sharing system between the children's hearing system and the single point of contact service or elected victim support organisation. It will be based on a robust risk assessment, the assessment of risk, posed to the victim, person harmed by the subject child. The degree of information provided to the victim will depend on the level of risk established by that risk assessment. The aim of the amendment is to successfully balance the subject child's right to privacy with the rights of the victim to information and support to recover, especially where they are a child. That will help to ensure that UNCRC rights are being fulfilled where possible for all children, not just the subject child. The right to privacy is important. However, it is not an absolute right and should not infringe other persons' right to safety or recovery. An objective and robust risk assessment is the best way to achieve a balance of those rights. I am proposing a three-tier system. The first tier is the information that all victims will be entitled to whether their case is reported to the SCRA system and when it is processed through the children's hearing system, SCRA should operate the opt-out information system. All victims should be entitled to both information about how the system works and victim support resources, but also basic information on dates of hearings, the final decision of the hearing and if the case has not been referred to a hearing. The second tier is the basic level. The second tier would provide further case-specific information, particularly in relation to the compulsory supervision orders, where it is deemed that the child poses a significant risk of harm to themselves or others. It will include information on how a CSO works, dates, conditions and what happens if the rules are not stuck to. All that should enable a victim to plan for their own safety. That will not allow conditions under the CSO, which relate to engagement with social work or personal details about the subject child to be shared. That would not be appropriate. The third tier is information sharing that will be reserved for cases where the panel has deemed that the subject child must have their liberty restricted in secure accommodation due to the risk to the person who has been harmed or the wider public. That will be in cases where an offence has taken place. However, it is not restricted to referrals on offence grounds. Under the third tier, they will be notified when the child is released from secure accommodation or transferred to an adult prison. The information provided should replicate that, which is provided through the victim notification system in the criminal justice system, where possible. Of course, victims can opt out. They can also choose to communicate through a trusted adult. I am pleased that the Government has brought forward amendments 13, 15 and 17 to share information with regards to CSOs, in particular with 13, but I cannot understand why it has not brought forward an amendment like mine, which empowers the reporter to carry out a risk assessment for all child subjects and their victims. By restricting the scope, it potentially restricts the powers and discretion of the reporter to inform and share. I think that it would be beneficial for all victims to have a basic understanding about how the system works and what they might expect. The dates of hearings that are included in tier 1 do not include private or personal information, so I urge members to support amendment 122, as it is a comprehensive covering, not just of CSOs, empowering the reporter. It is tiered depending on the severity, so it is sensitive and more sophisticated. I thank Mr Rennie for taking the intervention. I just wanted to be clear. I set out how far the Government amendments go, and I have agreed that there is still scope that we could go further. I think that it would be prudent, as I say, if the member still has areas of concern, like you have noted there, that we discuss them ahead of stage 3. That can, as I say, certainly be something that could be looked at ahead of stage 3, instead of pressing on with the amendments in their current form. I would prefer more of a reassurance than a discussion, because I think that we have got to, yes, certainly. I am very grateful for Willie Rennie to give way on this. This is, of course, a public hearing, where the evidence is that the contributions are noted and, in due course, could be reflected in decisions that are taken. It is useful that people are able to articulate the position exactly as the Minister has done, but to also show where there is disagreement and whether or not that ground can be bridged before stage 3, which is, of course, the last step in a bill before it potentially becomes legislation. So, I would really agree that it is right that we are able to articulate the reasoning behind our amendments, which may actually reduce some of the discussion that needs to take place. Hopefully not that it does not need to take place, but that there is a positive reason for doing so. A few more points. However, I am not going to support amendment 12 and 14 from Ross McCall, which removes the reporter's discretion around information sharing in a way that could harm children who had been referred to hearing. I support amendments 178, 175 and 180 from Pamddon-Glancy in relation to providing information to support safety planning and other information that may be relevant and proportionate to share with those who have been impacted by harmful behaviour. It is a broader set of amendments that we would assist with information sharing. Turning to amendment 123, which creates a reporting requirement to support an informed and constructive debate about how the wider redesign of the children's hearing system can ensure that all children have their rights fully respected and that no children are left behind. With the UNCRC act soon to be enforced, there is more reason than ever to take steps to make sure that children's human rights are reflected in legislation that it passes, as well as ensuring the availability of the child's suitable justice up to the age of 18. There is a clear need for a better support and connections to recovery and protection for children who have been harmed. To meet article 19 on protection from abuse and article 39 on access to recovery, support and safety planning should be available regardless of whether decisions have been taken to process further action through the children's hearing system or the criminal justice system or through no system at all. Those two ambitions are not at odds with each other. It is possible to do better by both children whose actions may harm others and children who are harmed themselves. Making sure that that happens is critical to maintaining public support for the children's hearing system as a whole, which is a point clearly made in the hearings for children report. I am concerned that there is too little understanding about how the experiences of children who are harmed, where that is then referred to the children's hearing system. With a more extensive redesign of the children's hearing system on the horizon, that needs to be addressed. I am also concerned that once the bill is passed, the debate may be over, but we will have only begun on the process of reform, which is why we need my amendment to create a reporting requirement to support that wider, constructive and comprehensive debate to consider all those involved with the system. Thank you for taking intervention. I agree with him on the point of principle that those are not mutually exclusive outcomes that we are looking for here. I am conscious that committee members have received lobbying and briefing from a range of organisations in the field of children's rights, victims' rights and so on. Some of which are asking us to support well-arranged amendments, but in the Children's Commissioner's case they are asking us to oppose amendments 1, 2, 2 and 1, 2, 3. I wonder if he agrees with me that we are not a million miles off a position acceptable to the Government, other members on the committee and all key stakeholders here and that there is scope to reach agreement on reporting arrangements ahead of stage 3. I think that the Government certainly has moved, including the CSOs on sharing information in a much more specific fashion, is helpful. Amendment 17 is also helpful, although it is a bit vague and we can do with a bit more precision on exactly what the service is going to look like, but that might not be appropriate for legislation, but there is a bit of scepticism as to whether that will be forthcoming. I accept that. What I do not understand is why an empowering, more comprehensive system where you empower the reporter to make that risk assessment across all children, making sure that there are no children who fall between the different stools, why that is not appropriate. It seems broader and empowering rather than more specific and narrow that the minister has put in place, certainly. One of the challenges in the legislation is within the legislation itself to make sure that the delicate balancing between the rights of the victim and the rights of the accused are balanced. By requiring that as a necessity from a risk-based approach would go some way to doing that, although, as you can see, it might not be perfect. I think that is the point that you are making that becomes intrinsic to the bill. Am I correct on that? That is right. We do not want to alter the fundamental approach of the children's hearing system. We accept that it has been built up over many years, but there is a feeling that, especially when you are moving a group that was previously in the criminal justice system into the under-18 children's hearing system, the rights that were there before will not be continued. Having it intrinsically built into the children's hearing system that a broad-based risk assessment is made, empowering the professionals who are making that judgment is the best way to proceed. It is not unreasonable, it is not restrictive and, therefore, I think that it would meet Michelle Thomson's point. I support 2-1-8 and 2-1-9 with Martin Whitefield. Amendment 17 would also be appropriate. I support amendment 173 from Pam Duncan Glancy in relation to CSOs, considering the impact on a person who is affected by offending behaviour, as that should allow a proportionate consideration of the full facts behind a referral, while still maintaining the needs, not deeds ethos. Ross McCall's 4 and 5 support as to include more places in the restriction conditions is sensible, but 6 is a promise that could not realistically be met in all circumstances. We need to be straight with people about the limitations of what is possible to absolutely prevent. Amendment 183 does something similar to 182 in the previous debate. I am conscious of what the minister said about having further discussions in this area. I would like to make sure that a system somehow, whether it is through this bill or otherwise, includes more details so that we can analyse the effectiveness or otherwise of movement restriction orders. However, I am not going to press that amendment when it comes to the vote, considering the minister's reassurance on that front. Ross McCall, to wind up, press or withdraw amendment 2, please. Well, thank you very much, convener. I am not going to speak long on this. I accept the Government's offer to speak especially on amendments 4 and 5, so I am not going to move forward with the amendments in this group, and hopefully we can move forward with some changing and wording and press the point for stage 3. Can I ask the member what her intention is with amendment 2? Sorry, I am not pressing to withdraw it for 2. Ross McCall seeks to withdraw amendment 2. Does any member object? Can I then call amendment 167 in the name of Martin Whitfield, already debated with amendment 165? Martin Whitfield, to move or not move? Does any member object? I call amendment 166 in the name of Martin Whitfield, already debated with amendment 165. Martin Whitfield, to move or not move? Not move. So the member seeks to withdraw amendment 165, so does any member object? I am told that I do not have to check his objections later in the group. Okay, so not move. Thank you, Mr Whitfield. And so now the next question is amendment 166, be ag... no, apologies. The amendment 168, in the name of Pam Duncan-Clancy, already debated with amendment 2. Pam Duncan-Clancy, to move or not move? Move. Okay. Let's move. There will be a division. Oh, we don't know. Ask first. Ask first. The question is that amendment 168 be agreed. Are we all agreed? Okay, so we are not agreed, so there will be a division, if we hold on. You're ready? Okay, so those in favour of 168, please. Those against 168. You had your hand up previously, didn't you? We're just checking. So the result on amendment 168 is four for, I know, and against six with no abstention, so the amendment is not agreed. We're now moving to ways of working and training, and I call amendment 169, in the name of Pam Duncan-Clancy, group with amendments 187, 188, 210 and 211. Pam Duncan-Clancy, to move amendment 169 and speak to all amendments in the group, please. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Oh, thank you, convener. Thank you, convener, for giving me colleagues. My amendments in this group seek to ensure that we foster a system that is able to understand and support the unique needs and vulnerabilities of young people. My amendments 210 and 187 require training for criminal justice agencies and the children's panel itself, respectively on child development, children's rights and domestic abuse. Training to promote a better understanding of child development will equip professionals to interact with children in a manner that recognises their age and circumstances and specific needs. A cornerstone, I believe, of providing appropriate and sensitive care. Training on the UNCRC ensures that professionals in the system are better positioned to uphold the principles of fairness, equality and respect throughout legal proceedings, which will equip and empower them to create an environment where children's voices are heard and rights are prioritised. In the context of domestic abuse, specialised training ensures that professionals can identify the signs of trauma, address the immediate safety concerns and adopt a child-centric approach that prioritises the wellbeing of the young person involved and seeks to avoid or minimise the risk of exposing them to the recurrence of past trauma or further trauma. Amendment 169 dictates that children's hearings must carry out their functions in a way that accords with trauma-informed practice. The Scottish Government has recognised the importance of trauma-informed practice to improving the experiences of victims and witnesses. The standards of service to which criminal justice agencies are held to include, of course, a commitment to trauma-informed practice. Many of the children who come into contact with the children's hearing system, regardless of the grounds upon which they are referred, will have adverse childhood experiences, as such, ensuring that the system carries out its functions in a way that accords with trauma-informed practice, I believe, will be beneficial to all those who are engaging with the system, including those who have affected a child's offending behaviour, who have been affected by a child's behaviour. Beyond training, I think, a multi-agency approach to supporting children involved in criminal proceedings is also vital to comprehensively addressing the diverse needs of children within the system. A multi-agency approach allows for a holistic understanding in the child's circumstance, recognising that their wellbeing is linked to various areas of their life and enables tailored interventions that go beyond legal proceedings by facilitating co-ordination and communication among different agencies, which I believe will ultimately contribute to the development and rehabilitation of the child. My amendment 2.11 recommends that the Government promotes such approach. I also support Martin Whitfield's amendment 1.88, which calls for reporting each year on the steps that it is taking to do so. I urge colleagues to support my amendments on the basis that I have set out, and in doing so recognise the value of a multi-agency approach and the importance of training for criminal justice agencies and panels, which cannot be overstated, particularly when it comes to child development. A well-trained workforce is fundamental to creating a justice system that is responsive, empathetic and capable of safeguarding both the rights of the child and wellbeing and the rights of victims and legal protections in all processes. I now ask Martin Whitfield to speak to amendment 1.88 and other amendments in the group, please. I am very grateful, convener. I am, as always, conscious of time and the contribution necessary to get these over the line. This is really the reporting duty to hold to account the use of multi-agency approaches, because there is no one solution that is going to help any individual young person. It is the coming together of the different areas of support and there is an obligation on Scottish ministers to make sure that those different areas of support can come together, are recognised and have a say in supporting our young people. The purpose of 1.88 is to provide a requirement to set out the steps that have been taken, the steps and approaches that have been pursued, so that we can hold to account the Scottish ministers as those responsible or the Scottish Government to hold responsible for this approach. I would like to set the outset that I appreciate the intentions behind Mr Whitfield and Ms Duncan-Glancy's amendments here. On the training of panel members in amendment 1.87, that is clearly a very important area. Measures are currently in place by the national convener to ensure necessary and proportionate training. However, it is not clear why the particular subjects in this amendment would need to be legislated for above others in this way. Children's hearings Scotland are listed public authority under section 15 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child Act. That means that they are not only required to comply with the UNCRC but will also be required to report on action that they have taken or intend to take to ensure compliance and secure better or further effect of the rights of children. Children's rights training for panel members is already offered and will form an integral part of this reporting requirement, so that aspect appears to already be appropriately covered by other legislation. Establishing a good understanding of child development forms part of existing training for panel members and can be a key consideration in how a child effectively participates in their hearing. However, as children's hearings Scotland guidance is currently issued to panel member states, panel members are not and should not attempt to be seen as child development specialists. Similarly, all panel members receive training on domestic abuse as part of their wider training on trauma. Panel members must know how to approach cases where domestic abuse is one of the grounds of referral but also where domestic abuse is intertwined with other issues that need to be addressed by a hearing. However, domestic abuse is one of many child welfare concerns that may come before a panel and will not be a relevant consideration in all cases. I am therefore not clear on the reasons why domestic abuse and child development would need to be specifically elevated in status under schedule 2 to the 2011 act. I am comfortable that they already form a proportionate part of the comprehensive training that has already been offered to panel members and that children's rights training is appropriately covered in other legislative requirements. On that basis, I would not support amendment 187. To clarify, the purposes of setting them out in this case of legislation is because of the nature of what the purpose of the general bill is. Domestic abuse, for example, is in there because it recognises the evidence that the committee heard from various organisations, including Police Scotland, around the likelihood of more domestic abuse cases potentially coming to the panel and in the children's hearing system. On that basis, I do not see any negative reason not to include it as a compulsory and legislative measure. We know that training that is currently given to panel members is of a high standard, but not all of it is mandatory. There is nothing that specifically sets in legislation what that training should be. Given the changes that the bill proposes, it is particularly important to set that in legislation at this time. I thank the member for that intervention. However, as I have already said, I feel like those are already covered in other areas. I am conscious about duplication. I absolutely agree that those areas are very important, but, as I have said, panel members are already trained in those areas. I am about to come on to trauma training and that is something that we could maybe look at as a whole to that. However, in terms of that specific amendment, I do not agree that it is necessary. Similarly, on amendment 210, although I agree with the thrust of the member's intention that appropriate training should be in place in the context of children's criminal justice, the amendment is not necessarily clear in terms of who the proposed training is to apply to and what the training should entail. We do not have any evidence to suggest that the kind of training detailed in this amendment is not currently available and the Scottish Government funds a range of agencies that provide training that can be accessed by staff working with children involved in the youth and criminal justice systems. Further, we do not consider it constitutionally appropriate that the Scottish ministers should arrange training for those who must act independently from Government, such as the police, prosecutors and judges. It is important that we do not stray into inappropriate interference in investigatory, prosecutorial and judicial functions and respect the ability of criminal justice authorities to determine the most appropriate training for their staff in function of their role. Therefore, again, I could not support amendment 210. On amendment 169, although I appreciate the intention here, I do not again believe that it is necessary. Children's hearings are in many ways ahead of the curve in terms of trauma-informed practice, and all panel members receive mandatory trauma-informed training through a standalone training module by CHS. Trauma-informed practice also forms part of the pre-service training for panel members, so no panel member sits on a children's hearing without being trained in trauma-informed practice. Beyond panel members, children's reporters also receive training in trauma-informed practice to ensure that all the preparatory work is undertaken in a trauma-informed way. As part of our response to the hearings for children's report, we have committed to national oversight of the resourcing and provision of trauma training for all working within the hearings system. That will be wider in scope than the conduct of children's hearings and will include the judiciary and local authorities. We will work with key stakeholders to ensure that those aspirations are met and that existing resources are fully utilised. If that work establishes the need for legislative provisions to embed trauma-informed practice across the hearings system, that would be most appropriately taken forward as part of any legislation flowing from the redesign work. While 169 appears not to be needed because, as I have just iterated it, it already happens in practice, we are working to go wider and further as part of our work to redesign the hearings system, if Ms Duncan-Glancy is willing to not press it I am more than happy to work with her ahead of stage 3 to see if something such as a handout amendment would be desirable. On amendments 188 and 211, I recognise, understand and value the importance of providing all children and young people, including those who are referred to a children's hearing or are involved in criminal proceedings, with the right support at the right time and from the right people. The Scottish Government has concerns that creating a legal duty on promoting a multi-agency approach to planning support and the reporting requirements that would accompany that duty would undermine the existing and embedded shared responsibility for implementing the Getting It Right for Every Child or GERFEC approach. It would also create duplication within existing statutory reporting requirements for local authorities and Scottish ministers related to children's services planning. GERFEC promotes an integrated and coordinated approach to multi-agency assessment and planning support for children and young people. It is locally embedded and positively embraced by organisations, services and practitioners across children's services planning partnerships, with a focus on changing culture, systems and practice to improve outcomes for babies, infants, children, young people and their families. There are existing statutory measures in place to ensure that local authorities produce annual children's services under criteria that was outlined in part 3 of the Children, Young People Scotland Act 2014, which includes provisions around incorporating a multi-agency practice approach. Scottish ministers also have a statutory requirement to publish a review of such plans every three years. The minister will be aware that those plans are of an aggregate nature, so they cover all young people in a particular local authority on a more general basis. The amendments in Mark Whitefield Nye's name specifically locate the multi-agency approach within the very specific child that is there at the time. The plans that the minister has mentioned are not plans that are available for individual children but are plans that organisations put in place to say that they will have referral agencies available to them. That makes it much more specific to the child and makes sure that those agencies and the duties that they should dispose are done so in a way that is very relevant to the individual child and not on a wider basis. I have numerous other points in relation to those amendments. In Scotland, we have promoted a multi-agency partnership whole-system approach to preventing and offending by children since 2011, responding to the needs of children involved in or on the cusp of being in conflict with the law, and creating an additional legal duty within the bill for Scottish ministers to promote a multi-agency approach and, crucially, to produce a report to outline what support has been provided would risk undermining that shared responsibility of implementing the GERFEC multi-agency approach at all levels of the system. We have committed, as part of our response to the hearings to system redesign report, to undertake a national review of potentially multiple child protection, care and support processes and meetings, including review meetings. That will help to identify where unnecessary duplication takes place and to minimise that for the benefit of children and families. Preparatory work is already under way for that review, and I am looking forward to progressing that with input from the children's hearings redesign board and other key partners in early 2024. In summary, the Government does not support amendments 169, 187, 188, 210, 211. I urge members not to press them. If they are pressed, I would urge the committee to reject them. Before I do that, could I ask a question of the minister about the commitment that was made to discuss amendment 169? Is that permitted? Yes, it is. Thank you. Much appreciated, convener. Minister, you indicated that you would be willing to discuss amendment 169 and look at what we can put in place. Could you give me a bit more information about the sorts of parameters in which that discussion would take place so that I have an understanding of how much the Government is prepared to move on it? Well, I am probably not going to be able to go into specifics about every single amendment that I am saying this on today, but what I would say is that I had extensive engagement with the committee members between stage 1 and stage 2, and a lot of what committee members raised with me has been formulated in terms of Government amendments that we are lodging. I hope that that emphasises both my willingness to work with members and my willingness to listen to them as well, because, as I have said before, my priority is that we get that right for Scotland's children and young people. Although I cannot tell the member exactly what will be detailed in those discussions, I am willing to have those discussions and I am willing to have as many of them until we get to a point where I think that it is workable. Okay. I thank the minister for that response. I am not sure that it gives me much reassurance about amendment 169. I take the point that the minister said that she is willing to discuss on the basis that I am an optimist and that I am willing to consider what the minister has said on the record, but I also hope that that means that we will get an amendment at stage 3 that looks at including trauma-informed practice, as amendment 169 suggests. I am prepared to hold my position on that. I am happy to give way to the minister. I mentioned that a handout amendment or something similar would be possible. Again, I cannot go into specific details on that today, because I need to see where we get to at the end of stage 2. However, as I said, my commitment to work with the member is on record. Thank you minister. I appreciate that. I appreciate the context of a handout amendment. It was more the content of that handout that I was seeking to get further assurance on, but on that basis I am prepared not to press amendment 169 when asked. I am considering still pressing the other amendments in my name in this group. Is this appropriate time not to press, but to talk to that? I specifically asked for you to wind up press or withdraw amendment 169. You are quite right, convener. That is exactly what you did. Forgive me. I will not press amendment 169 at this time in the hope of making changes at stage 3 instead. Pam Duncan Glancy seeks to withdraw amendment 169. Does any member object? I call amendment 170 in the name of Martin Whipfield, which already debated with amendment 165. Mark Whipfield Marwyr lost smoothly or not the mic. Martin Whipfield Maeомyn I call amendment 171 in Mark Whipfield already debated with amendment 165. Mark Whipfield Marwyr lost technicians not moves. in the name of Miles Briggs, already debated with amendment 165. Miles Briggs, to move or not move? Thank you, convener. I listened to what the minister said and given the government's current consultation with regard to learning disability, autism and neurodiversity bill, I hope across government that I know recently there's been a letter from many organisations to all ministers with regards to improvements. Although the minister didn't mention this, this is something potentially for future bills that we need to see taken forward, so I won't be moving 119. Now I call amendment 120, the name of Miles Briggs, already debated with amendment 165. Miles Briggs, to move or not move? I call amendment 121, in the name of Miles Briggs, already debated with amendment 165. Miles Briggs, to move or not move? Not moved. Thank you. With that, I'm going to suspend the meeting for 15 minutes for a short break. Welcome back. We now move to the emergency placement in secure accommodation. I call amendment 1, in the name of the minister, in a group on its own. Minister, to move and speak to amendment 1, please. Thank you, convener. The Children's Aid in Scotland Act contains a range of existing child assessment and child protection measures to enable the placement and keeping of a child in place of safety where necessary to protect a child from serious harm risks. It's always been possible for a child to be taken or removed to and kept in secure accommodation by virtue of these emergency measures. However, in practice, the use of secure accommodation for this purpose has been rare and at times the ability to do so contested between agencies. A small number of local authorities have raised that with the Scottish Government. On further consideration, the Government considers that there should be more explicit reference to the secure accommodation criteria and appropriate procedural safeguards should such measures be used to take and remove or keep a child in secure accommodation. Therefore, the amendments firstly promote legal certainty about when such measures can be used for the purposes of taking, placing and keeping a child in secure. Secondly, they promote consistency with the considerations needed for other routes to secure accommodation. For example, a compulsory supervision order by a children's heating containing a secure accommodation authorization. Thirdly, ensure that any placement is subject to appropriate legal safeguards to uphold the rights of the child where a child is being deprived of their liberty by virtue of any placement in secure accommodation. The new section 57a of the 2011 act makes clear that in those situations, as well as a child requiring to meet the criteria for a particular child assessment or protection measure, the child can only be taken to, placed and kept in secure accommodation subject to two important safeguards. Firstly, there should only be where the child meets the secure accommodation criteria set out in subsection 4 of that provision, which reflects the criteria for secure accommodation authorisations as amended by section 5 of the bill. Secondly, the relevant decision maker must, having considered the other options available, be satisfied that it is necessary for the child to be taken or removed to or kept in secure accommodation. The new section 57b of the 2011 act will enable further provision to be made in regulations subject to affirmative procedure in respect of children placed in secure accommodation by virtue of those provisions. That could, for example, enable provision to be made to ensure that any placement in such accommodation would require the consent or agreement of the head of the unit of accommodation, or, as the case may be, a chief social worker of the relevant local authority, as well as provision to protect the welfare of a child who is placed and kept in such accommodation. That will ensure consistency with the regulation of other placements in secure accommodation. I therefore move the amendment and I would ask other members to support it. I am very grateful for the three just points of clarification. Has the minister considered a situation where there might be a disagreement between, in essence, the provider and the senior social worker and whether it would be the senior social worker's decision that would prevail in that case? Yes, absolutely, and obviously that was something that was picked up on as I referenced, and that is something that we absolutely need to monitor going forward. I am grateful for the convener. The question is that amendment 1 be agreed. Are we all agreed? Are we all agreed? Prosecution of Children and Appropriate System. I call amendment 3, in the name of Ross McCall, group with amendments 18, 19, 189 and 190. Ross McCall, to move amendment 3 and speak to all amendments in the group, please. Prosecution of Children and Appropriate System. That only applies to cases that would be considered as the most serious of offences. I know that you have gone over this, but I am going to repeat them.  The intent of those is to ensure that such cases are prosecuted via criminal courts and cannot be dealt with by the children's reporter. It is so important that the MACI review is enacted in tandem with this bill, and I note that the Government's response to the MACI review is posted just before Christmas recess. The changes to the children's hearing panel funding for paid positions and training are all crucial parts for ensuring that the bill works for all young people. As the Government is not going to support the recommendation for paid positions and will continue to follow the existing volunteer model, which is unfortunately hemorrhaging volunteers, it is essential that most serious offences for 16 and 17 years proceed through criminal courts. Amendment 3 seeks to prevent the principal reporter for being able to investigate and refer cases to a children's hearing where the child is accused of serious offences, as I have already stated. That will include children aged 16 or over, and 18 and 19 would require the Lord Advocate in cases to require to consider the risk to the victim and the child is dealt with via the children's hearing system instead of being prosecuted. Yes, I will. Thank you for taking an intervention. It could be said that the amendments are at complete odds with the principle of the bill and in keeping the promise. How would the member respond to that? Sorry, I have to take my glasses off and on for this. The promise—I know that I am trying to articulate—is that there are certain criminal offences that will have to be treated as severe. They are solemn court cases. They should be going through a process that is a recognisance of that solemn process. It is therefore important that we have an option to be able to do that, especially when it comes to serious crime. The situation is that we have not only children who are cause harm that we have to be mindful of, but there are people who we have to be mindful of who have had harm inflicted upon them. Those amendments are there to ensure that, in the one or two cases where it is required, there is that option to go through the criminal process, especially when it comes to the severe criminal processes. I have spoken to the three amendments. I am not sure whether you want to respond further. That is fine. Can I now call on Liam Kerr to speak to amendment 189 and other amendments in the group, please? Yes. Thank you, convener, and good morning to all. With the committee's indulgence, I will speak today on behalf of my colleague Russell Finlay, who lodged several amendments. He has asked me to apologise for his non-attendance, which is because he sits on the Criminal Justice Committee, which is currently taking evidence from witnesses about other legislation. Transparency is critical to the functioning of Scotland's justice system. In recent years, more cases of a criminal nature have been directed to the children's panel system, rather than being prosecuted in the criminal courts. This is likely to become more common. Some of those cases already, as we have heard, involve serious crimes of violence and sexual violence. In addition, this Bill is proposing that the age limit for children's panel referrals will increase from 16 to 18, which will also generate more panel cases, some of which will be criminal in nature. On 29 March, the Criminal Justice Committee took evidence on this legislation. Russell Finlay asked Kate Wallace, the victim support Scotland, about a lack of transparency for victims in relation to the panel system. She said, and I'm quoting, one of the biggest issues that comes to us for people in that situation is that they're really surprised by the lack of information. A lot of effort is put into explaining the process to them, but they do not get any information about their own circumstances. Therefore, it is difficult for people not only to understand what is happening to the perpetrator, but to safely plan for their own recovery. That becomes really challenging when you operate in a total information vacuum. Now, she went on to say, information sharing provisions are needed so that people are clear about what information can and will be shared with people who have been harmed by a child or young person. The types of information that will be shared need to be spelled out if you go through an adult system. You have rights to information about updates to do with your case. For example, she says, if someone escapes or abscones from a prison setting, you are entitled to that information. If you sign up to the victim notification scheme, you are also entitled to know when that person has been released.  That aspect of the bill needs to be considered, and provisions need to be put in place on it. Russell Finlay agrees with Victim Support Scotland, as do I. This amendment, which I hear by Move, helps to fill that information vacuum experienced by crime victims. Amendment 190, in the name of Russell Finlay, is also one relating to transparency. For victims or bereaved relatives, the justice system can often be unfamiliar and traumatic. The Crown says, quote, providing reasons for decisions is essential to retain confidence and to deliver accountability and transparency to those whose lives have been affected. In 2015, the Victim's Right to Review Scheme was introduced by the Crown Office. That gives victims the right to request a review of the decision by the Crown Office not to prosecute a criminal case or to discontinue criminal proceedings that have commenced. That is why the amendment is necessary. It seeks to extend those same important rights to those victims where the alleged perpetrator is not prosecuted but instead sent to the children's panel. Members might find some context useful here. A 2018 thematic review of the scheme that I have spoken of was published by the Inspectorate of Prosecution in Scotland. It found that, over a particular one-year period, the Crown received one review request for every 306 cases where a decision was taken not to prosecute or to discontinue proceedings. Interestingly, around 10 per cent of those applicants were successful. It seems likely that we might see similar rates of appeals taking place for the smaller number of cases involving young people. That is why that needs to be in the bill. Victims cannot rely on ministerial assurances that it will happen. That is why I therefore move amendments 189 and 190 in Russell Finlay's name. I am looking for any other members. I wish to go to Ross Greer. I apologise, but I should have intervened and posed this as a question to Ross McCall. If you could maybe address this in summing up, I would be grateful. To some extent it applies to 189 and 190 as well, but I am more interested in 18 and 19. The Scotland Act in Shrines and its quite important principle, the prosecutorial independence of the Lord Advocate, but 18 and 19 here seem to undermine or erode that, or at least to narrow it. I would be keen if Ross McCall was able to expand a little bit on that point, because to me it raises issues of competence in relation to the Scotland Act, but also the principle of the Lord Advocate's independence, which has been a growing debate in Parliament over the last couple of years. As we understand it, amendment 3 seeks to prohibit the principle reporter from referring a child aged 16 or over to the children's hearing, where it is alleged that a child is committed and offends that can only be tried on indictment. Moreover, amendment 19 seeks to compel the Lord Advocate to instruct the prosecution of such a child in relation to such an offence, rather than referring the child to a children's hearing. Amendment 18 also seeks to compel the Lord Advocate to prosecute any child in respect of an alleged offence, where there is a high risk of physical or psychological harm to the alleged victim of that offence if prosecution is not pursued, rather than referring the child to a children's hearing. It is not clear what level of risk is high in this context, or how prosecuting the child, rather than dealing with the child through the children's hearing system, would have an impact on that. In any case, the risk of harm if the Lord Advocate chooses prosecution at this stage can be dealt with through consideration of whether the accused is granted bail or remanded in custody, as was made clear recently in the bail and release from custody Scotland Act, which put public safety, including in particular the safety of victims, at the heart of decisions on bail and remand. Taken together, those amendments aim to restrict the ability of all children under 18 to have their cases dealt with by the children's hearing system where this is appropriate. This is a fundamental principle of this bill, as endorsed by Parliament at stage 1, and it is interesting that this is proposed by the Conservatives only a week after the UNCRC incorporation bill received royal assent following cross-party support. I am actually surprised at this turnaround on children's rights, and as such this amendment goes against the general direction and the principles of this bill. Amendment 189 compels the Lord Advocate to inform any person who appears to be a victim where a child is referred to the principal reporter under the decision-making process, governing joint referral for offences instead of being prosecuted. However, it is not clear how such a victim is to be determined, given that there has not been any determination of the case whether by the children's hearings or a court, so there is significant ambiguity there in the drafting. Amendment 190 allows any person who is or appears... Yes, I will take an intervention from Mr Kerr. Do I take it from that then that the minister is opposing amendment 189 on the grounds that she feels it is ambiguous, or that she is minded to support it but simply seeks more clarity? I am opposing it for clarity. On the ground of it being ambiguous? Yes, and other grounds, as I have just laid out for the member. Amendment 190 allows any person who is or appears... Can I take that one more? It is also just a point of clarity for me. I accept what the minister is saying about the ambiguity in the context of the amendment itself, but the principle of victims' rights to be kept informed, particularly because it is a very traumatic thing, which happens in other areas, has the minister had further thinking and therefore is she alluding that further consideration will be given to this principle for stage 3 or the discounting the principle altogether? I am discounting this amendment the way it is worded altogether. I have already been very clear in terms of victims' rights and information to victims. I have already went through the Government's amendments in relation to more information to victims, and I intend to cover that at the end of my speaking note as well, so if the convener would be happy for me to continue, then I am happy to come in on any other questions at the end. Amendment 190 allows any person who is or appears to be a victim to seek a review where a child is referred to the principal reporter under the decision-making process governing joint referral. As well as going against the grain of the bill, that also flies in the face of existing law and practice. For example, while amendment 3 provides that the principal reporter should refer the matter of alleged serious offending by a child to the Lord Advocate, that is unnecessary. Current law and guidance mean that both will receive a report of the alleged offending behaviour from the police. The Lord Advocate will carefully consider the case for prosecuting the child in light of this, taking into account all factors relevant to the public interest, including the rights of any potential victim. On that point, the minister believes that it is not open to people to request a review as it would be in the other courts. Is that the principal that she is founding upon? I do not think that that is a decision for me as a minister to take, and that is what I am trying to lay out here. With respect, you are opposing the amendment minister, and therefore I am asking you to articulate your precise reasons for doing so. That is exactly what I have just done. I have articulated my reasons for opposing the amendment. I really do not see how I could be any clearer than that. The minister will proceed, and if there is any further questions, we can take them at the end. He has points of clarity on this matter. Essentially, at the root of this, the amendments in this group from the Conservatives interfere with the constitutional independence of the Lord Advocate in relation to prosecutorial decision making, and as a Parliament, as a minister, I cannot undermine that. Members will be aware that, following the committee's stage 1 report, where a recommendation was made concerning the Lord Advocate's prosecution guidelines, she wrote to the committee stating, It is a fundamental principle of Scots constitutional law that, as the independent head of the systems of criminal prosecution and investigation of death in Scotland, the Lord Advocate takes decisions independently of any other person. The same principle is being breached by these amendments, and should the committee be minded to agree them, it would seem very likely that similar representation will be made and action needed by Parliament at stage 3. The principle is not offended by amendments 189 and 190. That is factually incorrect. Is it not? I do not believe that it is, no. We are at logheads in terms of an agreement here. It does not appear that there is going to be agreement with the two positions. Can I ask the minister to carry on? Of course. Before I come to a close, Mr Kerr raised issues around victim support earlier on in his contribution. As I said earlier, I have already spoken to the changes that we are making that the Government is proposing in relation to that, and I have also offered to work with members on further changes to that. I do not think that trying to compel the Lord Advocate or limit 16 and 17-year-olds from being able to have their liberty deprived in a secure care rather than a young offenders institution is the best way to proceed with that. As I have already said, that goes against the general principles of the bill. The Government cannot support amendments 3 18, 19, 18, 9 and 190. I would urge Ms McAll and Mr Findlay not to press them if they are pressed. I urge the committee to reject them. Ross McAll now to wind up, press or withdraw amendment 3, please. Thank you, convener. If I could just try and respond to Mr Greer's comments, I would say that the amendment was only trying to refer references cases to Lord Advocate rather than impacting on her decision. However, with regard to amendment 3, we are going to withdraw. Ross McAll seeks to withdraw amendment 3. Does any member object? I call amendment 172 in the name of Pam Duncan Glancy, already debated with amendment 165. Pam Duncan Glancy, to move or not move. Okay. The question is that amendment 172 be agreed. Are we all agreed? No. We are not agreed. There will be a division. Those in favour of amendment 172. All right? You got them? Those against, please. Okay. The result of the vote on amendment 172 is 4, 4 against 6, with no abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed to. The next question is that section 2 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? I call amendment 4 in the name of Ross McAll, already debated with amendment 2. Ross McAll, to move or not move. I call amendment 5 in the name of Ross McAll, already debated with amendment 2. Ross McAll, to move or not move. Not moved. The question is that section 3 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? I call amendment 173 in the name of Pam Duncan Glancy, already debated with amendment 2. Pam Duncan Glancy, to move or not move. The question is that amendment 173 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. There will be a division. Okay. Those in favour of amendment 173. Those against. So the result in respect of amendment 173 is 4, 4 against 6. The amendment is therefore not agreed. I call amendment 6 in the name of Ross McAll, already debated with amendment 2. Ross McAll, to move or not move. Not moved. Hold on two seconds. This is just me pausing. So we're moving on to terminology and I'm going to call amendment 7 in the name of the minister, grouped with amendments 8, 9, 10 and 114. Minister, to move amendment 7 and speak to all amendments in the group, please. Thank you, convener. The use of language and proceedings concerning children has been highlighted as an area that is due for modernisation and that is why the Government has proposed the amendments within this group. They don't necessarily seek to change the fundamental nature of the tests that they apply to but to more accurately reflect what consideration should be taken into account in respect of a child's welfare. The new terminology of health, safety and development will be more readily understood by children and young people within the hearing system and, rather than the previous language, for example, around the risk to moral welfare, which is outdated and hurts back to a different time. Amendment 7 seeks to update the language of risks to welfare, including moral welfare, to that of risks to a child's health, safety and development when referring to the test concerning whether a compulsory supervision order should include a movement restriction condition. Amendment 8 proposes to make a similar change but in respect of a compulsory supervision order containing a secure accommodation authorisation. Amendment 9 does likewise in relation to medical examination orders by children's hearing in respect of a child. Amendment 10 will achieve a similar outcome in reference to the test for a warrant to secure attendance in respect of a child. Finally, for consistency, amendment 114 amends other provisions of the Children's Heating Scotland Act 2011 concerning whether or not a child should be excused from attending a children's hearing or a court hearing to consider grounds of referral. I move amendment 7, and I ask the committee to support the other amendments in this group. I have nothing further to say, convener, and I move the amendments. The question is that amendment 7 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? I call amendment 174, in the name of Martin Whitfield, all ready debated with amendment 2. Martin Whitfield, to move or not move? The question is that section 4 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Forgive me, convener. Do you not need to ask the committee if it accepts the withdrawal? Not on this one. No, only if it is the first amendment in the grouping. Is that correct? Yes. Fy hoeddech chi'n ddigonwydau i'n ddigonwydau, ond weithio yn ddigonwydau? Fy hoeddech chi'n ddigonwydau i'n ddigonwydau i'n ddigonwydau i'n ddigonwydau? Amendment 8 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Amendment 176, in the name of Martin Whitfield, already debated with amendment 2. Martin Whitfield, to move or not move? Not move. Amendment 9, in the name of the minister, already debated with amendment 7. Minister, to move for me. Formally moved. Thank you. The question is that amendment 9 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Amendment 10, in the name of the minister, already debated with amendment 7. Minister? Formally moved. Thank you. The question is that amendment 10 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Thank you. No, my next question is that section 5 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? I now call amendment 177, in the name of Martin Whitfield, already debated with amendment 165. Martin Whitfield, to move or not move? Not move. I now move on to the young offenders institutions for over 16s. I call amendment 11, in the name of Ross McCall, a group with amendments as shown in the grouping. Ross McCall, to move amendment 11 and speak to all the amendments in the group, please. Thank you, convener. Young offenders institutions for over 16s. I understand the trepidation of these amendments, but I felt it was important to pinpoint the position, and I wanted to state that these are probing amendments, and I will not be moving them, but I reserve the right to bring back, because I think there are some important points that the bill might not necessarily take into consideration, and I hope that this narrative will help explain the reason behind them. For 16 and 17-year-olds, they are considered the most serious offences, and I have already stated what they are. They will be placed into a position where they are resigned with a CSO, with a residential placement or movement restriction conditions. A CSO in a residential care facility means that the potential for care experienced young people who have caused harm will be located beside care experienced young people who are protected from harm. Understanding the effects of trauma in this case means instant anxiety, fear and perceived danger for the care experienced young person we are there to protect from harm, and no amount of separation within one facility will mitigate and re-traumatisation is inevitable. It is essential that there is adequate Government funding to ensure that there are sufficient residential facilities to ensure that the scenario laid out is not an option. I am bringing those forward because the balance that I am concerned is not there. I will not be, as I have already stated, moving those amendments, but I need reassurances from the Government—I am interested in what the Government's response will be to ensure that we do not have a situation where young people that we are charged to take care of because they are unsafe in their home environment are placed with people that we are charged to take care of because they have caused harm. I will not be moving those amendments, but I raise the point, and I am very interested in the Scottish Government's response. I am looking for other members before I ask Minister Franticle Skirbelin. Prisons are not places for children, and we are committed to keeping them out of prison through provisions in the bill that end the placement of under-18s in young offenders institutions. Those amendments run contrary to that by retaining the use of the young offenders institutions for children aged 16 and 17, and they extend that position to all those aged 16 and 18. They would also go against our commitment to keep the promise, which stated, Scotland must recognise that 16 and 17-year-olds are children in line with the UNCRC and must be accommodated within secure care rather than within young offenders institutions in the prison estate.  Y OIs are not appropriate places for children and only serve to perpetuate the pain that many of them have experienced, and the incorporation of the UNCRC reinforces that position. I appreciate that Ms McAul is not going to move those amendments, however I really do think that it would have been more productive to come to me with the concerns that you have around provision of secure care in those other areas so that we could have discussed those ahead of stage 2, but as I say, I am willing to have those discussions going forward as well. There have been cross-party support in this Parliament for both keeping the promise and incorporation of the UNCRC. Support for a progressive approach to children's rights was evidenced by many of the consultation responses on this bill and during stage 1 evidence. That was echoed in the committee's stage 1 report, which supported the ending of Y OIs for under-18s. Now there is a view shared by stakeholders including HM chief inspector of prisons for Scotland, Children and Young People's Centre for Justice and the Office of Children and Young People's Commissioner for Scotland regarding the need for urgency in bringing about the legislative changes necessary to end imprisonment of children in Scotland. Now in terms of the detail of the amendments, amendment 11 would add to the powers of a children's hearing on reviewing an order under section 138 of the Children's Hearing Scotland act to enable certain children to be moved from secure to a Y OIs. This amendment conflates aspects of the children's hearing system and the criminal justice system by providing that some children could be referred by a children's hearing for a detention in a Y OIs. As we have already discussed this morning, the children's hearing system is a welfare-based tribunal rather than a court and a children's hearing cannot determine that a child should be placed in a Y OIs. That could only be a decision for a court. In addition, a child referred to a hearing on offence grounds and placed in secure may do so without offence grounds having been established at core. Amendment 11 also includes that where a children's hearing considers it would be appropriate for the child to be transferred from secure accommodation to a Y OIs, that it must refer the matter to the Scottish ministers. Now Scottish ministers only have powers to direct the place and conditions for children who have been convicted on indictment in a court of law and where they have been sentenced to detention by the court. The Scottish ministers do not have authority to direct the placement of any other child. Amendment 93 means that, where a child aged over 16 years has been charged with or convicted of an offence on indictment, the courts are compelled to commit them to a Y OIs. That removes the option of a 16 to 18-year-old who has been charged with or convicted of an offence on indictment and remanded being detained in secure accommodation should the court require a suitable place of safety chosen by the local authority and provides that they can only be detained in Y OIs. Amendments 94, 96 and 102 extend existing regulation-making powers to provide the circumstances in which children can be transferred to Y OIs at the age of 16. That would include children who are convicted and sentenced to detention under summoning procedure, which is not possible for a child to be sentenced to detention to a Y OIs in summoning proceedings. Amendments 98 and 100 make provision compelling Scottish ministers to direct that a sentenced child is detained in Y OIs. The Scottish ministers currently have the power to direct the place and conditions of detention of children under the age of 16. Those between 16 and 18 who are subject to a compulsory supervision order were convicted on indictment and sentenced to detention and, under 18, convict