Seòmar agus comataidhean

I am opposing it—for clarity.

Before I come to a close, I will address the issue that Mr Kerr raised in relation to Victim Support Scotland’s position. I have already spoken about the changes that the Government has proposed in that regard, and I have offered to work with members on further changes. I do not think that compelling the Lord Advocate in the way that the Conservatives propose, or preventing 16 and 17-year-olds from being able to have their liberty deprived in a secure care setting rather than in a young offenders institution is the best way to proceed. As I have said, that goes against the general principles of the bill.

The Government cannot support amendments 3, 18, 19, 189 or 190. I urge Ms McCall not to press amendment 3, and I urge her and Mr Kerr not to move the other amendments in the group. If amendment 3 is pressed and the other amendments are moved, I urge the committee to reject them.

A key function of the children’s hearings system is ensuring effective participation from those in the room. That means that the hearing has to be very carefully managed, as reflected in the current rules under sections 76 to 78 of the Children’s Hearings (Scotland) Act 2011.

The chairing member has a duty to minimise the number of people in the room at any one time to create a more child-friendly setting that is conducive to the business of the hearing. Amendment 179 would severely obstruct the chairing member’s ability to manage a hearing. Indeed, it has the potential to create extraordinarily challenging situations in the management and operation of hearings, and it would be extremely detrimental to the rights and wellbeing of children and their families.

To correct the member, I did not say that I did not agree with the premise. I said that I did not agree with the premise in relation to the children’s hearings system, which is not a mini-court.

Sections 12 and 13 already make a range of provisions in respect of reporting restrictions in cases involving children, whether as victims, witnesses or suspects. Such cases often attract high levels of media and public interest, and the implications of breaching reporting restrictions for the children involved can be significant.

This group of Government amendments makes further provision for offences and penalties in response to breaches of reporting restrictions in relation to both the children’s hearings system and the criminal justice system.

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 or a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum or both. On conviction on indictment, the maximum penalty is increased to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years or a fine or both.

Amendment 16 is for consistency with the changes made by amendments 43 and 84, which cover breaches of reporting restrictions before court or during or after court proceedings respectively. Those amendments make the same increase to maximum penalties for breaches of reporting restrictions in the criminal justice system as amendment 16 does for the hearings system.

Breaching reporting restrictions is an offence. Therefore, increasing the maximum penalties for breaching such restrictions recognises the severity of that. It also reflects stakeholders’ stage 1 evidence that the current level of penalty does not serve as a sufficient deterrent, given the potential gains from doing so, which can be significant.

I am just closing. I will be happy to take one after that.

The “Hearings for Children” redesign report recommended further exploration of the mechanisms for children to access legal aid. That work will be undertaken by the responsible statutory bodies and overseen by the children’s hearings redesign board during the course of 2024. It is anticipated that that will entail significant further work with social work, local authorities, SLAB and the wider legal profession’s representatives, including the Law Society of Scotland.

I urge the member not to press amendments 185 and 186 and, if they are pressed, I urge the committee to reject them, given the reasons that I have outlined.

I do not agree with Mr Kerr, because, as I outlined, children already have the ability to access legal aid. The amendment would create unnecessary duplication of work for those organisations, so I do not think that it is required.

I have been very clear that I would be happy to look into that further and work with members on it. Ms Duncan-Glancy raised a number of points. For the reasons that I have previously given, I do not think that her amendments would provide what the member is looking for. They would create a large duplication of work.

With regard to what you said about minor offences, if the offence is quite minor and there are a lot of grounds relating to welfare, for example, a solicitor could be seen as adversarial at that point.

We want to create a system in which the child is at the centre, and the child currently has the ability to access legal aid. As I said, however, I would be more than happy, although not at this point, to work with members on some of the gaps and the children who may be falling through the gaps in that regard.

I am certainly happy to discuss the matter further with the member.

It is certainly fitting that we begin stage 2 consideration with an amendment that brings us back to the fundamentals of why the bill is important.

Recognising, respecting and promoting children’s rights across Scotland has been and remains at the heart of the Government’s vision. Just last week, the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (Incorporation) (Scotland) Bill received royal assent and became an act. We also have a shared commitment in the Parliament to keep the Promise to people who have experience of Scotland’s care system. There could scarcely be a more pertinent backdrop to highlight the imperative on us in the 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 of the bill over the coming weeks. Regrettably, some proposed amendments that have been lodged by Opposition parties not only undermine what we had until now understood to be cross-party commitments and points of consensus on the agenda, but are regressive in the current situation.

Although I understand the sentiment behind amendment 164 and agree with the reason that Mr Whitfield outlined for lodging it, a purpose clause such as the one that he proposes is not necessary. The long title of the bill already lists the bill’s purposes in more detail, and the Scottish Government has been clear on them in the accompanying documents and in evidence to, and statements in, Parliament. Those are the right places to record the bill’s purposes.

The purpose clause that is proposed in the amendment would not work in relation to a bill of this nature. The bill contains almost no freestanding, self-contained provisions. Instead, it achieves what it sets out to do by amending 20 other pieces of legislation. Inserting at the outset a purpose statement such as the one that is proposed would blur the required nuances and leave too many unanswered questions as to how it applied to those enactments. Simply put, it would not add anything to what is set out in the substantive amendments to the other enactments throughout the bill.

Some of those other enactments already contain their own overarching statements of purpose or general principles. For example, section 23A of the Children (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 which is designed to safeguard, support and promote their wellbeing.”

Section 21 of the bill seeks to amend the 1995 act to ensure that children who are 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 proposed general purpose section would sit within the general principle in section 23A of the 1995 act.

As I said, the aims are clear as a matter of established Government policy and action. I am afraid that I cannot support amendment 164 and I urge Mr Whitfield not to press it. If it is pressed, I urge the committee to reject it.