Seòmar agus comataidhean

I probably will not be able to go into specifics on every amendment on which I give such a commitment today.

I have had extensive engagement with committee members between stages 1 and 2, and a lot of what they have raised with me has been formulated into the Government amendments that we have lodged. I hope that that emphasises my willingness to work with members and my willingness to listen to them, because, as I have said before, my priority is to get this right for Scotland’s children and young people. Although I cannot tell Pam Duncan-Glancy exactly what will be detailed in the discussions, I am willing to have them, and I am willing to have as many of them as needed until we get to a point at which it is workable.

Fundamentally, at the root of our position is the fact that the Conservatives’ amendments in this group would interfere with the constitutional independence of the Lord Advocate in relation to prosecutorial decision making. Just as the Parliament cannot undermine that, I, as a minister, cannot undermine that.

Members will be aware that, following the committee’s stage 1 report, in which a recommendation was made concerning the Lord Advocate’s prosecution guidelines, the Lord Advocate 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 deaths in Scotland, the Lord Advocate takes decisions independently of any other person.”

That same principle is being breached by the amendments in this group. Should the committee be minded to agree to them, it would seem very likely that similar representation would be made, and action needed by the Parliament, at stage 3.

I will come on to some of the difficulties around this, but I agree with a lot of what the member says about social media. There are gaps across a range of issues to do with social media. The issue that the member raises might need to be monitored and looked at in the future, as would other difficulties with social media.

I will move on. Amendment 16 increases the maximum penalties for a breach of a reporting restriction in relation to a children’s hearings case. It increases the maximum penalty on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months—

Oh, I am sorry—I am repeating myself. I lost my place. Apologies for that.

Breaching reporting restrictions is an offence. Therefore, increasing the maximum penalties for breaching such restrictions recognises the severity of that and reflects stakeholders’ stage 1 evidence.

Amendments 43 and 84 also provide appropriate statutory defences for breaches of reporting restrictions. That is to avoid unfairly criminalising individuals or publishers for the sharing of already published information when they had no reason to know or suspect that the original publication was done unlawfully or did not know that it included relevant information.

Again, those concerns were raised by stakeholders at stage 1. The amendments reflect the realities of social media and bring greater consistency with existing children’s hearings legislation and provisions in other United Kingdom jurisdictions in respect of court proceedings. However, as I have already stated, Mr Whitfield, I think that we need to continue to monitor that.

Amendments 43 and 84 also clarify individual culpability where an organisation commits an offence for breaches of reporting restrictions pre-court and during and after court proceedings respectively. The provisions provide a further disincentive to committing the offence of breaching reporting restrictions.

Amendment 43 also has the effect that the Crown cannot be found criminally liable for the offence created by section 106BB(1). However, through the mechanism in subsection (2), any unlawful conduct on the part of Crown bodies can be declared unlawful by the Court of Session. That is consistent with existing legal provision and usual practice.

The changes also seek to bring greater consistency and reflect the proposals in the Victims, Witnesses, and Justice Reform (Scotland) Bill that is progressing through Parliament, noting the committee’s comments in the stage 1 report regarding alignment between provisions in the two bills as well as with penalties under contempt of court legislation. The changes are also important because the bill provisions will also apply to a broader range of potential publishers, including publishers that operate outside frameworks of professional regulation such as the editors’ code or Ofcom regulations.

Amendments 25 and 52 are consequential amendments.

I would be grateful if I could continue with my speaking note, because there is a lot of technical information in here. I am happy to answer any questions at the end.

Automatic provision of legal aid has been targeted to circumstances where hearings are convened in certain circumstances or proceed before a sheriff. Otherwise, a type of legal aid known as assistance by way of representation—ABWOR—is available for every child subject to a children’s hearing, subject to an application to SLAB that addresses a means and merits test.

As a child is unlikely to have any financial resources, the means test is nearly always met. Likewise, the merits test, which is one of “effective participation”, is also nearly always met. SLAB reports a high grant rate for ABWOR applications on behalf of children, at 99 per cent over the past 12 months. A child’s social worker or advocacy worker can assist the child with securing contact with a solicitor to make an application for ABWOR, and every child who is subject has a right to advocacy support.

It should be borne in mind that children’s hearings adopt a welfarist approach that aims to be non-adversarial in nature. Although a children’s panel takes legally binding decisions, it is not an appropriate forum for detailed legal argument and instead is centred around the needs of the child who has been referred to the hearing. It is therefore not expected or desirable that publicly funded legal representation be automatically available in every hearing, and nor would it necessarily be required.

Amendment 185 also seeks to extend the availability of automatic children’s legal aid to any occasion when a referral ground includes an offence allegedly being committed. Although I accept that it is narrower in scope than amendment 186, I am again concerned about the need for such a blanket provision when there is adequate scope under the current rules for children to have access to legal aid when required.

As I mentioned, ABWOR is already available for all hearings to the subject child, by way of application to SLAB, with a very high grant rate. Moreover, paragraph 28C(1)(d) of the Legal Aid (Scotland) Act 1986 already allows for automatic children’s legal aid to be provided for children’s hearings to which subsection 69(3) of the 2011 act applies. That is where a hearing is arranged by the children’s reporter in relation to a child who is being kept in a place of safety having allegedly committed a criminal offence.

The amendment would also result in automatic children’s legal aid for any hearing in which there was a minor offence as a ground of referral—there may be a number of grounds. It is understood that, last year, 2,637 children were referred to the reporter on offence grounds, although not all of those referrals will have resulted in hearings.

Operationally, the amendment would also result in a significant number of duty appointments being required to be put in place by SLAB, along with a knock-on effect for the solicitors currently on the duty list.

Absolutely. Obviously, I hope that it does not get to that stage. As I said, we have already had positive feedback from local authorities that have already implemented the new system, and I hope that, by the end of the financial year, we will have positive feedback that shows that it has been implemented across the board. However, I am happy to share information with the committee if required.

We are very switched on to cost of living pressures, and work is on-going to consider the funding implications for 2024-25 and future years in the context of inflation, our fixed budget and the significant financial challenges that the Scottish Government currently faces, as I am sure all members are aware.

I will probably be able to say more about that after the Scottish budget has been set out in December. Discussions with COSLA on uprating will be picked up in due course, but, as I said in my opening statement, the Scottish Government made a commitment to maintaining the 2023-24 levels of support and to reviewing the funding implications in the future.

As I said, I will probably be able to say more after the budget process.

Of course.

Absolutely. My officials are in regular contact with their counterparts in the UK Government. As I understand it, although paid leave has been introduced by some organisations, such as Tesco, the matter is still being considered by the UK Government. I am very happy to write to my counterpart, the Secretary of State for Education, to request an update on that.

Of course.

Based on what I have said, I do not believe so, because, if it was simply down to a housing situation, removing the child would not be in line with ensuring what was best for the child. Obviously, it is for local authorities to deal with their housing stock, but I imagine that best efforts would be made to ensure that that family could stay together. I do not think that that would be an acceptable reason for a child to be removed.