Seòmar agus comataidhean

I am urging the committee to get it right. The bill, as it stands, makes provisions for victims and witnesses, but, as I said, deceased victims are not covered. We need to have further discussion on that, and there are vehicles in which we could make progress on it. I have been quite clear.

As far as I know, the round table is happening in late February, and I cannot confirm that stage 3 will be completed by then. There are other avenues for looking at reporting restrictions; that sort of thing would not necessarily be restricted to this bill, although it could be done in it.

I am not sure what the member is getting at. What I am laying out is that I want to have as much discussion and consultation as possible on this important issue, and the round table is a key part of that. If it seems right that that would be in time for stage 3, then it could be.

The Victims, Witnesses, and Justice Reform (Scotland) Bill is one, and, as I said, there could be other vehicles for it.

Before I take any further interventions, I will highlight one account that perhaps emphasises the importance of getting this right. During the passage of a bill on the issue in Ireland, senators highlighted the negative impact that a related Court of Appeal judgment had had on bereaved families and why a bill was required to rectify the situation. Senator Fiona O’Loughlin explained:

“The mother of an 11-year-old boy who had been murdered was compelled recently to disguise her identity on television as though she was some type of criminal who could not be identified on the news. By revealing her identity, the identity of her dead child would also have been revealed. It is manifestly unfair to the families of deceased children that the law operates as it does.”

That account demonstrates the complexities involved in legislating on anonymity and the need to understand how it will impact those who are affected. Although something might seem like the right thing to do, it is absolutely essential that it is done in the right way. It is not about kicking it into the long grass, but about ensuring that we get it right for the families concerned.

Of course. The round table has been organised and it is going ahead. I am not talking about it this morning simply in order to delay things. As I said, organisations and stakeholders have been contacted. The round table is the result of a series of engagements between the cabinet secretary, ministers and the associated organisations and stakeholders.

The round table is on 20 February. I have been clear, both today and last week, that there are a number of different issues outside this one alone that I need to discuss with members with regard to further amendments or positions for stage 3. I want to ensure that we can consider issues in good time ahead of stage 3. I am not able to confirm the timings for that just now, but I will make efforts to ensure that we are able to discuss these matters prior to stage 3.

I am happy to write to the committee with any further information on the timeline for how things are going to go ahead.

I have already outlined the fact that I am not the person who is arranging the round table. It is the result of a series of discussions between the cabinet secretary, stakeholders and other organisations. I believe that they are positive about the fact that the round table is to take place. There might be a number of reasons for its not taking place until 20 February, but I am not able to go into those at the moment.

Provisions in sections 12 and 13 set out the “relevant information” that would be within the scope of reporting restrictions, whether prior to or during any criminal proceedings, respectively. That includes information about a person’s name and address, the identity of any school or other educational establishment that they attend, and any still or moving picture of the person.

The amendments in this group would ensure that information identifying the place at which the person works would be within the types of information included in reporting restrictions. Amendment 23 amends section 12 in that regard, and amendment 47 does likewise in relation to section 13. The two amendments ensure that a fuller range of identifying information is included in the “relevant information”, which is important in ensuring maximum benefit from the reporting restriction safeguards for children.

That change is also important given that the bill contains provisions enabling reporting restrictions to apply or be extended beyond the age of 18 for a child suspect or accused and, by virtue of amendments that have already been debated in group 13 and that will be debated in group 17, for child victims and witnesses. It is likely that individuals of that age will be in employment. That is consistent with the reporting restrictions that have been included in the Victims, Witnesses, and Justice Reform (Scotland) Bill in relation to victims of certain offences listed within that bill.

I move amendment 23, and I ask members to support the other amendment in this group, amendment 47.

Amendment 23 agreed to.

Amendment 24 moved—[Natalie Don]—and agreed to.

Amendments 126 and 125 not moved.

Amendment 25 moved—[Natalie Don]—and agreed to.

I am sorry, convener, but I was responding to comments from another intervention, so it was just a bit difficult there.

On Ms Duncan-Glancy’s comments, I have been clear that I believe that the amendments would result in duplication and complexity. I have laid out the reasoning for not supporting Ms Duncan-Glancy’s amendment 205. I believe that that support should be in place prior to the point at which it meets the court process, and I have laid out the avenues for that to be possible. If Ms Duncan-Glancy is saying that that is not always happening or that it needs to be improved, then we need to look into that. However, I think that the support for domestic abuse is required at a much earlier stage than the point at which it meets the court process.

That would be very concerning, and the implications would stretch much further than the bill. However, we would still be compliant with the UNCRC in that regard.

Yes, I would say so. As I will come on to, there are already vehicles in the children’s hearings system to allow the impact on a victim to be taken into consideration.

Can you repeat your second question?