Seòmar agus comataidhean

I do not believe so. As I said, how we treat children in the criminal justice system is a very specific issue. Children who are 16 or 17 will still be able to make decisions for themselves, but treating them like this in the criminal justice setting will give them the best chance of rehabilitation.

We know that children at 16 or 17 do not necessarily make decisions based on long-term thinking, and, depending on how they have grown up, they may not necessarily fully understand the law or have a clear depiction of what is right and wrong.

Yes, but, as I have just said, complexity does not necessarily mean incoherence.

Yes, absolutely. Further to my previous response, an MRC is always associated with the child receiving intensive support. The details of the intensive support that the child will receive will be contained in the MRC child’s plan. The plan must be practicable to address the immediate and longer-term needs of said child, with a view to safeguarding and promoting that child’s welfare. MRCs can be highly individualised and flexible on a case-by-case basis, depending on the child.

There are updated regulations in the bill that allow the hearings system to update the witness on when the outcome of the process will be available. We recognise that restorative justice seeks to ensure that the needs and voices of those who have been harmed are central. Obviously, that can support accountability and responsibility in relation to those children who cause harm.

The Scottish ministers are funding posts in the Children and Young People’s Centre for Justice to support the development of those restorative justice services, because we recognise that the requirements of those young people might differ in that regard. That work is under way and is a priority.

I think that we would absolutely like to work towards that but, at the moment, I am not entirely sure that it is logistically possible. The law requires that the police must take every precaution to ensure that a person is not unreasonably or unnecessarily held in police custody. At present, a number of incidents are dealt with in the community and there has been no need to arrest the children or bring them into police custody at all.

The Lord Advocate has issued guidelines on that issue separately. In deciding to bring a child into police custody, various factors are considered, including the rights of that specific child, the possibility of interference with victims or witnesses, the severity of the offence and the need to fully investigate the offence. There are factors that could impact on whether a child needs to be brought into police custody.

Currently, when an arrest is absolutely necessary, the police must, by law, take any arrested person, including a child, to a police station. That could be necessary to prevent further offending or to facilitate investigations, such as by capturing fingerprints, photographs or DNA. The decision to keep a person in custody must comply with the Lord Advocate’s guidelines.

What I am saying is that we would definitely like to work towards the position that you suggest, but that was not consulted on as part of the bill consultation, because there are logistical issues around how that would take place. It is something that we can certainly look at in the future.

The UNCRC defines a child as under 18. As I said in my opening remarks, that has cross-party support. Sixteen and 17-year-olds are still children and have the best chance of being rehabilitated.

There are inconsistencies.

I do not believe that a blanket definition of 16 for all the different things that you discuss is appropriate.

I do not like to speak in hypothetical terms. We have said that it will be possible.

The proposal has been worked through and discussed. The process is on-going, so, if we see that there will be issues with capacity, the Scottish Government will absolutely—