the development of regional collaboratives that can plan and provide homes for children. Some of it is about our work in Scotland and our practice to ensuring that secure care is the right place for children to be living, and in a lot of cases, helping children and their families a lot earlier so that we don't need to resort to the use of secure care. Also, it's about when children are in secure care, regardless of where they are from, their rights are being upheld, so to help and support beyond the placement itself, making sure that there is co-ordination between the Scottish local authorities and the English local authorities to uphold the rights of children to mental health support, to trauma recovery support. The committee's heard a think about transitions, what happens when a child reaches the age of 18, information about a child's support needs, how is that shared between the two local authorities, robust provisions to ensure that there's regulation in place, that there's support in place. I absolutely agree with Laura's comments about contextual safeguarding as well. I mean, there's absolutely a reason, I think, to discuss what it might mean for a child to be removed from a particular situation, but that's not a long-term option. It means that there needs to be much more robust understanding of child protection processes, of how we're responding to these changes around child sexual exploitation, child criminal exploitation, trafficking, grooming, making sure our decision makers through the work of the hearing system working group, but all of our decision makers are really alert and alive to those risks of other things happening in a child's life. It's a really complex and complicated issue that's not kind of got a quick fix, but certainly there is a lot more work to do, I think, in terms of that, the co-ordination between the Governments, but also around how we can uphold children's rights when they're insecure care, and not putting the onus on the child to protect themselves, but looking at what else is happening in their lives. We've received evidence from both St Mary's, Ken Muir and the Good Shepherd facility that indicate that they are reliant on cross-border fees at a higher level to pay for Scottish children. Is that a concern that runs across the panel in terms of the sustainability of those organisations? Certainly nods from Chloe, but, Sheriff Packer? That does concern me that I share the point that Chloe has just made about keeping the monetisation of care out of the system because it can get a distorting influence. The underlying principle here really is that children who are brought into Scotland on these cross-border transfers don't arrive with a sort of diplomatic immunity that keeps them within the English system. They become our responsibility. If we accept that principle, then everything that Chloe said makes sense about, first of all, developing partnership working with agencies in England who are wanting to make these transfers and serious partnerships of ensuring the care of the children that, once they're here, addressing their needs. That might well be to do with family contacts, their circumstances, their personal mental health needs. We can't just act here as a sort of store for these children. They become our responsibility and they're part of our system, and our system will respond to them. If we recognise that principle, then the services and the agencies that are involved in the system should respond to it. We've done it with unaccompanied miners coming into this country and arriving in Scotland. We're doing quite a good job on that front, and I think that we should have the same approach in principle to cross-border transfers like these. I think that we've covered quite a lot of ground, but I'm going to pitch these out there just in case there's gaps that you would like to fill in. We've mentioned a few current inconsistencies that already exist for 16 and 17-year-olds, depending on whether they go through the children's healing system or the criminal justice system. If there are any further inconsistencies that you can tell us about today, that would be really helpful. Chloe nodded her head first, but I think that Laura was maybe wanting to come in on that and Meg as well. Oh, brilliant. Thank you. It's a great question. The important thing to remember is that what we're talking about here is a legal tribunal for children. It's a system that has evolved over the last 50 years and is based on evidence which is evolving all the time. We already have 16 and 17-year-olds within the children's healing system, and I think it's really important that points have been made before that we want to avoid inconsistencies in how we're treating older children, and so this bill will address that. What we're really doing is bringing more children into an agreed approach in Scotland, a welfare-based approach, where we know that it's not perfect, that's why the healing system working group exists, why we need much more robust continuity of decision-making. There's lots of work around competencies and training and so on that the healing system working group is considering, but essentially it's a system that we have collectively agreed in Scotland is the most appropriate decision-making model for children, so that means all children, not just up children up to the age of 15. The only thing I would add to that, I completely agree, as I kind of alluded to earlier around the need to ensure provision of relationship-based independent advocacy for all children going through the children's healing system. We have the national children's healing advocacy scheme as it stands, and I think from the financial memorandum it appears that the plan is not for that to expand, which I'm confused about because it expanded when the Children's Scotland Act came into force to support civil and participation rights, and it's expanded for young people on deprivation of liberty orders and cross-border placements. I think that that's potentially an oversight. Clearly there's going to be a greater need for advocacy because there's going to be more children going through the children's healing system. Thank you. Mike, was there anything to add to that? Yeah, I think it's important to recognise. We've been talking about 16 and 17-year-olds entering the system on the presumption that they're entering the system because they have caused harm. This actually opens the opportunity up for a number of 16 and 17-year-olds who are potentially being criminally or sexually exploited or harmed in their home situations to also have the support of the children's hearing, which is the moment they are often precluded from. It makes it very difficult to apply a contextualised safeguarding approach because that requires all systems to work together. I think that we need to recognise that this is a protective mechanism for a lot of 16 and 17-year-olds that, at the moment, fall outside the gap of adult support and protection because they don't hit the three-tier question. They often fall outside the gap of child protection because of the systems and the gaps in that. This is a really protective mechanism for young people. I would see, apart from just those who have caused harm, equally protective for them, and we've talked about that. We do have concerns, however, though, if you link that, bringing young people who are potentially victims of exploitation into that system and linking that to the movement restriction conditions, that there is a potential that we find young people being tagged or subject to a movement restriction condition because they are victims and we're trying to take them away from those who are causing the harm and there is less in the system being done to actually do the disruption that is needed from those who are doing the exploiting and that point that Laura's already made around the contextualised safeguarding approach to that. How are we going to use our child protection mechanisms to ensure that those children are also safe? I think it's just important to recognise this is not just about young people, 16 and 17-year-olds taking them out of the adult justice system. It's also protecting a cohort of young people that currently fall through the gap in relation to child protection and adult support and protection. That's really interesting. I think that my colleague is going to pick up on the movement restrictions in a bit more detail, but I'll just finish off with, just in case, we've talked a lot about the bill providing where a child is to be deprived of their liberty and no child under the 18 can be committed to prison or young offenders but go to secure and residential care. Is there anything like any further views that we've already heard but it was just to give you the opportunity in case anybody had anything further to say on that before I hand back to the convener? I think that some of the feedback that we've had is around concerns, around the lack of distinction between seriousness of offence and, as I say, potentially what the risk might be to children young people who are already in secure risk assessment, that type of thing. That's been the feedback that we've had. I just want you to go back to the 16 and 17-year-old point as well if I can around some of the concerns that have been raised with us. One of them is around what we are seeing and what we are reporting on domestic abuse among that age group. It's just to flag that, given the increase in terms of the numbers that we would be going to the hearing system, we just need to make sure that the right training, the right support, the right information is going to panel members and panel chairs and others so that they're equipped to deal with those types of situations. Also, the more serious offences that are potentially going to come to them as well, but the overarching point that has been fed back to us in terms of having no up to 19-year-olds in young offenders institutions at all is just that lack of distinction between what is appropriate for those who've committed the most serious offences and what risk they may pose to other children, like we've just discussed, who may be in secure accommodation for other needs. Research has shown that care-experienced children are overrepresented in the criminal justice system in Scotland, so I was wondering if you could briefly, briefly—I don't think that that's going to be possible—but if you could concisely try and explain why that is and what could be done to perhaps address that, Laura. Yeah, I'll go and then you might want to come in. I think that while we know that, that's a really massive sign of inequality in Scotland for care-experienced people, that that is a fact, that there's an overrepresentation of care-experienced people in the criminal justice system. The independent care review found that there was a lack of evidence to an increased amount of harmful behaviour by care-experienced people, and I think that that's something that needs to be looked into. Why is there an overrepresentation? What potential discrimination and prejudice are we experiencing in our systems that are supposed to be there to help children grow up, love safe and protected when they're coming into contact with care-experienced children and young people? A lot of the systems that I'm talking about are actually corporate parents and have duties to care-experienced people. We have previous evidence on police stopping search in terms of comments that are made around coming from a children's home, or the groups that children are hanging around with. I think that we really need to be conscious of those prejudices and combat them wherever we see them. One part of the bill that concerned me was around the movement restriction conditions and the stigma that set the root of those. That is rooted in media and literary stereotypes of care-experienced people and the influencer way of thinking. How do we know that a tag isn't just going to cause further harm, and how do we know that the places that a child can be in with that tag on are safe for that child? Maybe they don't feel safe if they've been told to stay at home, for example. I think that we really need to be looking at the stigma behind those practices that result in inequality that can affect care-experienced people throughout their lives. We often talk about care-experienced children and young people, but that identity doesn't leave you when you leave care and it can follow you when you're applying for jobs later on in life. It can affect your access to loads of different services, so it's something we're really conscious of. I can't quite remember if the comment was made in the first panel or the second panel, but it's that silo activity. I think that, from what we gather, there's a lot of research out there, but it's about having that meta-analysis to bring it all together to drive some real actions that can be delivered to help those care-experienced young people. I think that I can move to questions from Ruth Maguire now, please. Thank you, convener. Good morning, panel. Thanks for your evidence so far. It's been really helpful. I want to ask about movement restriction conditions, and we have written evidence from include them and from who cares, and we've picked up on some of the issue around that. I suppose that Meg mentioned previously the lack of legal representation or automatic legal representation for a young person who might be subject to an MRC. Can you speak a little bit more to that and why that is an issue, please? I think that we need to recognise that the movement restriction condition, while it's not a complete deprivation of liberty, absolutely restricts children's liberty. It's around where they can go, who they can have contact with, it can breach their privacy with that level of data that's available in relation to a tag. There's the implications around the unintended consequences of stigma that Laura's talked about. I think that children, whether it's going to a children's hearing in relation to an offence, whether it's in relation to a movement restriction condition, need to have the right legal advice in order to support that, and that's not currently in the bill, and I think that's remiss. I know in the briefing notes there was a suggestion that we have to consider movement restriction conditions are deprivation of liberty, and of course we're not depriving children completely of their liberty, but it is definitely a restriction in liberty and we need to consider that piece. I think the concern and the reason why I think legal advice is also needed is by strengthening or widening the criteria in which you would apply a movement restriction condition and also insecure to that psychological harm. I don't think the bill is strong enough in defining on what that looks like. I think I have some concerns about some of the language mirroring the language that would be applied for what would have commonly been called a breach of the piece. I think there needs to be a real strengthening and criteria of what that looks like, because there's also a danger that without good legal representation that fear and alarm will be applied in a way that will have an unintended consequences of far more young people being subject to a movement restriction condition or secure because of the way that very subjective analysis has been applied to how that's been interpreted. Thank you, that was great. You just answered my two follow-up questions and one question, which was great. I did have a question around the subjectiveness of psychological harm. I'm interested to hear from Kate in a minute about that as a perspective from a victim, because I think there's sort of two sides to that subjectivity. I wonder though if I could come to Laura, you spoke about the stigma and potential issue around the place that you're allowed to be at is not actually safe for you. Do you want to talk a little bit more about that and anything else that you want to scoop up around that? I think that that's obviously an issue, the implication that a tag could set you up to fail because maybe your home's unsafe, so obviously you're going to abscond. I'm concerned about the stigma around wearing a tag will affect potentially your will to go to school, to take part in play in recreational activities because you seem to be the one that's wearing the tag. It can also affect your ability to recover from trauma and rebuild relationships. We need to be careful, and I think that that's exactly what Meg was saying around what Clann was saying last week. The bill implies that a movement restriction condition or a prohibitive order isn't a deprivation of liberty. When they can amount to a deprivation of liberty, I think that the term used in the bill is restriction of liberty, but depending on the conditions of the restriction and under human rights law it can amount to a deprivation of liberty, article 5 will be triggered, and then you need to look at the proportionality of the restriction of article 5. I think that uncoupling those orders from secure care, where it's clearly defined now in the bill, as a deprivation of liberty, removes the special legal safeguards that apply to children under article 37 of the NCRC and under article 5 of the ECHR to make sure that the order wouldn't be in place for longer than necessary, that other restrictive orders would be considered first, that it would be under review, that there would be access to legal representation and to advocacy, and that it should have compatibility with rights. I just want to reiterate as well that the plan 2124 of the promise talks about there being sufficient community-based alternatives, so detention is used as a lash resort. Again, I'm not seeing any of that on the face of this bill, and that's to happen by next year. I think that we could be a bit more creative about what other alternatives to secure care that are for children. Thank you, that's helpful. Kate, we've spoken and I think that all the committee are quite aware of that balance of rights, that often in these instances it's two children or two young people that have been affected by whatever's gone on to cause involvement with the justice system. Do you have any comments on the widening out of that to be including harm and physical or psychological harm to others from the perspective of a victim? We found that helpful in terms of thinking about, in tandem with widening up of the types of situations that would now be referred in the types of children. We do agree that there, in terms of having more specific wording around it, are slightly different. We can see a place for it where there's a threat of physical or psychological harm to an individual and where it's intended to keep someone safe. Our issues are around how that's going to be monitored, because in the adult system it's not monitored brilliantly well, how children who have been or other people who have been harmed are going to be informed of that condition and what that could be, and how also more crucially, I suppose, we want to make sure that victims are not being seen to or feeling themselves that they are responsible for monitoring movement restriction conditions which are designed to keep them safe and for reporting any breaches and the breach process is not clear within the bill either. Those are issues that have come up for us within the adult system where we really would want to make sure that they're not replicated here. We've got a different position, clearly, given the type of people that we support. The overarching thing that the victims tell us is about wanting to make sure that what happens to them doesn't happen to anybody else and for them to be able to feel safe and plan for their own safety. We do feel that, in some cases, that could achieve that if it was properly put in place and monitored and victims were supported so that they don't feel as though they've got to do the kind of monitoring and policing of it. That's all very helpful. Can we move to questions on this theme as well from Bob Doris, please? Just briefly, I think that Ruth McGuire has asked most of the questioners what it takes floor. I understand absolutely why most of the witnesses have got quite sceptical with some of the aspects in relation to movement restriction conditions but it had jumped out to myself, perhaps naively, as a potential opportunity for a young person. Ideally, a borderline case would be made for them to secure accommodation but a less severe restriction was placed on them and the MRCs could provide that. I turn the whole thing on its head if that's okay. Can I ask what you might see that's yes with the regular review? Having rejected less restrictive orders is not when appropriate with appropriate legal advice and advocacy. Can you tell me what you might see as positive about these movement restriction conditions being used instead of secure, because so far I think what I've heard is the negatives. What are the positives? I'm glad that you asked that question because I hadn't said this before and I wanted to. What does come with a compulsory supervision order is an intensive support package. I'm going to be a wee bit negative then I'll be positive. What we hear from our advocates is that the provision of intensive support packages is patchy across local authorities so it depends where you are and how good that support package will be. The positive is that with a really intensive support package you can find alternative pathways for children and young people on that compulsory supervision order to end up in a really positive outcome. What we don't want to see is an order that only has monitoring and doesn't have support and you might end up going into secure care for lack of an alternative measure. I really think that there should be a mention of the Cair and Support Plan in the bill somewhere or in the statutory guidance that would address the root of the problem. Can I go back to the contextual safeguarding approach that I mentioned earlier? I think that it's really important to be clear that we're talking about an additional number of looks after children through the 2009 regulations. They should all have a child's plan as Laura's is talking about but that's not included in the financial memorandum and we're talking about a really significant number of looks after children who will have really complex needs. We've all talked about often these are children who've experienced harm themselves. There'll be some children who are not involved in the criminal justice system at all who are being referred on care and protection grounds. Some of them will be parents themselves. Some of them will have particular concerns about being exploited themselves, about trafficking and grooming and so on. There are housing needs for some of these children and the biggest thing, particularly around offence grounds, is that, as Kate mentioned, victims often want to know that it's not going to happen again what happened to them to somebody else. If we're just imposing deprivation of liberty restrictions on children or just placing them for temporary periods of time in places, that is unlikely to happen. In order to break those cycles of reoffending, the welfare-based approach of the children's hearing system must kick in, which is to understand the children's needs not deeds, which is what Kilbrandon was talking about, but also for the wraparound support to exist to be there, for there to be provision of restorative justice, for there to be provision of community-based supports for the recruitment and retention of social workers to be urgently and immediately addressed. There are really, really significant rights-based issues about placing a child on a movement restriction condition without also providing the help and support that they need to address the challenges in their lives. There are absolutely positives in terms of including changes to compulsory supervision orders, allowing the skilled and competent panel to determine what measures of support would be most required in line with the child, including the voice of the child, but there's a lot of work to do to make sure that the provisions in a child's plan are in place, but also that there is a child's plan. Many of those children won't have a child's plan. I think that's helpful. I think that we heard Megal take you on the way second. We heard on the first panel, which is to put this on record, hopefully because I'm nodding heads, rather than go to three different answers to the same question. On the first panel, we heard that these restriction conditions can be used from stepping down from secure back into the community and we heard the concern that if there's not that wider support package, then what we may do is set the young person up to fail or not meet those conditions and it may escalate their interaction with not just the children's system but the adult judicial court system. We don't get that wider package correct. Is that something that you would concur with? I'm breaking on rules now. Megal take you on the second. That's okay, but Sheriff Mackie, did you want to add something? I'm probably going to simply reinforce what's already been said. The technology exists to act as a force for good, but you can't just part the kid in front of the video. The key to success will be the services that surround the child and that work with that technology and make good use of it. Rather than place the focus on the movement restriction condition by itself, the emphasis should be on the surrounding services and supporting services that support the child in the community and use that tool as an aid rather than as a solution. In terms of the victims, to bring to life what a movement restriction condition could mean to provide some kind of comfort from usually other young people who are victims would be talking about restrictions from the local high street if that's where a lot of offending and risky behaviours taken place or parks or train stations. Can you bring to life for us a little bit what that would be used for because at the moment it's an abstract concept I think to the committee. What kind of restrictions are we talking about and what benefit might there be if community keeps it properly and effectively with the victims? Could that have for reassurance of victims? Would be my final question and may give me very patience. Any movement restriction condition needs to be accompanied by a really robust care and risk management process that looks at the unique risks for that child and what needs to be done to prevent those risks. So for some children it may be restricting them from one very small place but actually there's a danger that you make a blanket statement like rather than restricting them from that particular park that's causing an issue. You say young people can't go into parks at all and yet what we know for assistance point of view is young people need to have hobbies, they need to be connected into their communities, they need to have those opportunities to engage socially in positive ways. So I think there are real dangers if we talk about the ways in which could be used in a generalised term because it has to be indicated by that care and risk management approach. The other point I was going to make though is we are talking very much about the support to the child and the holistic support to the child but actually I think we need to broaden that out around whole family support. You asked a question earlier around care experience, young people being overrepresented in the justice system. We need to take a step back from that. Actually children in poverty are overrepresented in the care system. We need to make sure that any of these measures are robustly supported by whole family support that looks at the things that Chloe's already talked about in relation to housing, poverty, benefits maximisation, access to education, access to ongoing training and all of those things and all of that needs to be considered and that's where the care and risk management assessment under the framework is really important because that means that each child has a plan that is unique to them that manages the risks as it needs to be rather than being let's just restrict them from this particular area or the high street or this particular time and that's what we've seen in the past movement restriction conditions doing is actually just applying a blanket curfew. You have to be in between seven at night and seven in the evening and actually what we've found is young people have found employment for example that doesn't end till six o'clock and with public transport arrangements they're not home until seven o'clock and then suddenly they can't take that employment which we know will help them move away from from that that offending behaviour. So I think we need to be really careful and ensure that it is linked really carefully and and considerably in the guidance and in any of the implementations around that child's plan and the assessment of risk. Kate, do you want to respond to any of those points? To make about that, if I may, which is that we absolutely agree about individualised risk assessment and care packages alongside this. Part of the reason that needs to be done in an individual basis and there's no any straightforward answer to your question, Bob, is that if they're not what we've learned from the adult system is that if these types of restriction conditions are not managed properly they can inadvertently put young people at more risk. So for example we've seen where there is a particular victim who's a target where movement restrictions have been put in place in an adult setting to make sure that person, the person who's harmed, that person doesn't contact them but actually what they've done is in a domestic abuse context for example they've disclosed actually where that person lives and put them at first. So it's quite complex I would say and it needs to be done on an individualised basis and I would really hope that we could learn the lessons for some of the poor practice that's going on in other places and hope to avoid that here. Thank you. Kate, I've got one final point to you and it's something a follow-up from what we heard last week in particular. Do you have any views on the idea of having a single point of contact for victims? Yes, I mean we feel that that should happen. It should be in place that victims should be supported right the way through in the same way that we've heard some of the conversation going on around continuity and what's going to be put in place in terms of continuity for children and young people that have harmed. That continuity needs to be put in place for victims to be here often, that the process and involvement in a process is more traumatic than the actual harmful behaviour itself and part of that is to do with people not having a single point of contact and without and about people having to repeat their story time and time again and having no real understanding in a very cluttered landscape. I mean one of the points that I would make about that is, forgive me, it's not mentioned in the Bill per se and I was quite surprised about that but obviously as the Bairmshouse approach which could provide that continuity and is designed to provide that continuity about services going to the child as opposed to the child going down loads of different adult services so yes we would absolutely agree that a single point of contact right the way through so that victims are supported right the very beginning from police you know or even help to report if that's what they need all the way through and then out as I say the other side too. Okay thank you very much and we've had a really really robust discussion this morning so thank you for your time today we are now going to have a short suspension to allow our witnesses to leave thank you for your time today. Welcome back.  The Children's Hearing Scotland Act 2011 safeguarders panel amendments regulations 2023. Do any members have any comments on this instrument? No. Is the committee agreed that it does not wish to make any recommendations in relation to this instrument? Agreed. Thank you. The public part of today's meeting is now at an end and we will consider our final item agenda item in private. Thank you.


Hi guys, my name is Jen. I am the creator of I Create Crafts. Thank you for joining me today. In today's video, I'm gonna show you how to create this. This was super simple. Everything that I got came from the Dollar Tree and it cost but a couple of dollars. Took about five minutes to put together. Super simple, super cheap. But I think it looks great. I would love to receive anything like this. You can add to it, you could subtract whatever you wanted to, but it was super easy to do. Everything from the Dollar Store, very simple. So let's get started. This is gonna be very simple to put together. Everything I got here was from the Dollar Store, so it's gonna be very inexpensive but it's gonna look pretty neat. So I have this Valentine's Day tissue paper. I just wanted to have something in here that you're not gonna see the floral foam with. So basically all I'm gonna do is layer these up and put these in here so that it will hold the other items. So I'm just actually because I have, I'm using two pieces of the tissue paper because I do not wanna see the green behind it. I'm gonna open this up a little bit and put this in the center and then wrap this around. Then I'm just gonna take this and put this in here. I'm gonna leave a little bit at the top so it kind of looks like a blooming flower, so to speak. So then I have my balloon. I'm gonna take the balloon and I'm gonna shove that right down in the middle here just like that. Then I'm gonna use the flowers next but I wanna show you what I'm gonna do with the candy. So these candies are like this and it just has the two and the foam on the back. So I'm just gonna stick those in here in the front just to kind of give it a little bit more of a look to it. It looks pretty good with the tissue paper but I just wanna stuff it a little bit more with something else. I'll show you what this looks like in just a second. I'm just shoving them all down to the bottom like that. I'm gonna go all around this whole thing and that floral foam is doing a really good job so I don't have to stuff so many in here. It's actually giving me a little bit of a edge to it. So depending on what you wanna put in here, you can put any kind of candy in here that you would like. I just love Skittles so I'm putting those in here plus they're red so it goes great with this theme. I'm just gonna take a couple more of these so that's what it looks like. You just put as much or as little as you want in here. Pretty cool. Again, like I said, you can put any kind of candy in here that you want. So just like that. So it looks like that, pretty neat. And then I already stuffed that in there so then I can take this and kind of fold it down a little bit and make it look kind of like a flower. Then you can take your flowers that you get from Dollar Tree and you can, I like them because it has the metal piece in it so you can kind of bend them how you want but you wanna make sure you get the tags off all the way which I didn't on this one. And then you can just stuff them in there any way that you would like and that's where that floral foam is coming in handy.  You can put them as deep as you want. You can put them in different layers, however you wanna do it. But I thought they were pretty cute so just gotta rip the edge off of here.  I got some that are just roses. I got some with the hearts in it and I love it because the balloon goes both ways. So no matter what way you're gonna look at this, you'll see Happy Valentine's Day this way, you will see Happy Valentine's Day that way. So any way you wanna look at it. But I definitely love these with the little hearts on it and the little baby's breath. I think that's super, super cool. So you can leave it this way if you wanted or you can also put, just trying to move it around a little bit. Let this guy up a little higher. You could also put some more of the candies in the middle here on the edges and kinda just cover that spot up to make it look cute. No, you play around with this. You can do it however way you want. But I just saw this at Dollar Tree and I'm like, what can I do with this? I thought that was super, super cute. So it looks like this. You can add, you can subtract, you could do whatever you want. But I thought that was really cute, very inexpensive, easy way to do something for a loved one or your significant other or you can give it to your kids, whatever you want. But I thought this was pretty cool. This is what it looks like. You know, I was just thinking too, you could put some ribbon around it if you wanted to. You can go kinda crazy with this if you wanted. But this is just a quick and easy tutorial for you guys. If you like this video, please give me a thumbs up, hit that subscribe button. If you're not subscribers, you ready? As I'm doing a bunch more Valentine's Day gifts that you do not want to miss out on. Happy crafting, happy Valentine's Day everyone.


And public interest in the national vaccination program is heightening with thousands of St. Lucien's registering. Homo De Mark reports. The Ministry of Health and Wellness is progressing with the National Immunization Drive for the coronavirus. In the second part of the first phase, the drive's current focus is the vaccination of persons 65 years and older and those living with chronic diseases. Residents of Richfaw and Bexaw within this demographic have now received their first dose of the Oxford AstraZeneca vaccine. Teclaja Baptist is the National Immunization Manager. It is very important that these persons are vaccinated against COVID-19 infection against the virus because when these persons get infected or if they become infected with the virus, just by nature of their age and their health condition, they are at risk at very high risk of developing the severe disease, the complications and even death. Jabaptist says with the global impact of COVID-19 and the rise of cases in country, the elderly population and persons living with chronic diseases in St. Lucia should take the opportunity to protect themselves from COVID-19. While phase one focuses on people most at risk, accommodation is made for other citizens. Of course we note that thousands of persons who have registered for the COVID-19 vaccine who have indicated their desire to have the vaccine to get immunized against COVID-19 and as such, we have also opened up to those persons who have registered. The second and third phase of the immunization drive focuses on persons at medium risk and the rest of the population. From the Government Information Service, Hermione Mark reporting.