Seòmar agus comataidhean

Just to be clear, my statements are quite long, but I am more than happy to take interventions and to have a debate.

I believe that I said in my comments that officials have been discussing the matter with key stakeholders and that I am more than happy to share details of that.

Yes.

As I have said, it will be up to the panel to determine what information it requires to deal with an individual child’s case, and that will be done on a case-by-case basis.

Do you mean if there was an overcapacity problem?

As noted, the amendments in this group are all minor and technical. Although I am happy to explain any of them in detail, if committee members wish, I am equally happy to move amendment 99 and to invite members to support it.

I am confident about that, although, given the extra attention to the matter, with the whole-system approach, if it became something that I was not confident about, I would certainly look to take action or look at what could be done.

Things would be dealt with on a case-by-case basis. Every child’s situation is different. I probably could not give an example in this meeting, but, as we have established, welfare and rights are different things, and welfare is the basis of the children’s hearing. I would be worried about putting anything else above the idea of welfare, just in case that had an impact on children’s hearings. An example could be the right to family relationships. Welfare concerns might suggest that family relationships are not a priority due to a family member’s behaviour. There could be issues with family conflict, for example. I would be willing to discuss that further with Martin Whitfield, but, at the moment, we cannot support the amendment as it is worded. However, we can certainly work on that.

We understand that amendment 167 seeks to ensure that, when decisions are being made about a child under the 2011 act, decision makers do not discriminate against the child on any of the grounds that are mentioned. Although we agree with the principle, we do not think that the amendment is necessarily workable or necessary.

What is meant by discrimination and the referenced characteristics is not set out in the member’s amendment. That would make it impossible in practice to effectively enforce the obligations that it seeks to impose. In addition, there is a range of statutory duties that already apply to public authorities, including the courts, the Scottish Children’s Reporter Administration and Children’s Hearings 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 Equality Act 2010, the requirement under the Human Rights Act 1998 to act compatibly with ECHR rights, including article 14, on non-discrimination, and duties to act compatibly with requirements under the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (Incorporation) (Scotland) Act 2024, which include duties in relation to non-discrimination and will come into force this summer.

All of those duties have been carefully framed and do not cut across the established law and principles of the children’s hearings 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 be appropriate to share information only with a child who is old enough to understand it.

I am discounting amendment 189 altogether, given the way it is worded. I have already been very clear about victims’ rights and information for victims. I have already gone through the Government’s amendments in relation to more information for victims, and I intend to cover that at the end of my remarks.

If the convener is happy for me to continue, I will be happy to respond to any other questions at the end.

Amendment 190 would allow

“any person who is or appears to be a victim”

to seek a review when 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, the amendments in this group fly in the face of existing law and practice. For example, amendment 3 provides that the principal reporter should refer the matter of alleged serious offending by a child to the Lord Advocate, but 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 the light of that, taking into account all factors relevant to the public interest, including the rights of any potential victim.

My response will be quite lengthy, given the number of amendments in the group, but I will try to be as concise as possible. I will take each amendment in turn.

The Government has a number of concerns about this group of amendments. Amendment 165 would change the focus of the test that is to be applied across the scope of the Children’s Hearings (Scotland) Act 2011 and would, by definition, imply that children’s rights are to be given the same weight as their welfare. We know that, in some cases, that simply cannot happen, as there may be an unavoidable conflict between welfare and rights. We must remember that welfare is the primary indicator for safeguarding children who are referred to the hearings 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 the European convention on human rights and the UNCRC, and, as public authorities, they must act in a way that is compatible with those conventions. Therefore, the necessary balance of rights is already achieved under the existing provisions in the bill. On that basis, I could not support amendment 165.