Seòmar agus comataidhean

I appreciate that. My amendment does not undo any of that. It literally adds another point at which someone could be caught from the system—another safety net, as it were—to ensure that that support would be in place.

I appreciate that, and I appreciate that the timetable is the timetable, but can the minister explain why the round table will not take place until 20 February, given how important it is to the bill that we have in front of us?

Yes.

It is my intention to abstain on amendments 60 to 62 and to vote for amendments 63 and 64, if that is helpful, convener.

Will the member take an intervention?

Given that the minister did not support six of the amendments that I lodged last week in this space, which would have given victims the opportunity to ask to intervene at various points and which were slightly more narrowly focused than amendment 206, where does the minister intend victims to have their say, and at what point?

There are several amendments in my name in this group. They focus on the importance of actively engaging with and considering the views of victims, recognising the impact on victims of behaviour that has led to proceedings and taking victims’ safety into consideration when discharging the duties of the panel in the disposals.

The amendments seek to ensure a fair and responsible legal framework that aligns with the principles of justice, respects the rights of victims and acknowledges their potential vulnerability and the need to safeguard their wellbeing. In short, I believe that they balance article 39 on rights to rehab and article 12 on the right of the child to be heard. A balance must be struck to ensure that the bill and the processes that it creates remain within the scope of children’s rights, particularly those in the UNCRC. The amendments in my name seek to strike that balance by satisfying the victim’s right to information while safeguarding the child’s best interests.

Amendment 168 makes provision for the panel or the sheriff to allow the victim, in so far as is practicable, the opportunity to express their views and to have regard to those views when making a decision whether to impose a movement restriction condition or a compulsory supervision order.

Amendment 173 looks to incorporate the impact on victims into the process by stipulating that, when a compulsory supervision order is imposed, the concerns and safety of the person affected must be taken into consideration.

Amendment 178 speaks to the safety of victims by making provision to expand the information that a victim is entitled to request to include whether a compulsory supervision order has been issued and, if so, the conditions of that order and how they are to be enforced, while amendment 180 allows the victim to be notified if such an order has not been complied with or if any review has been carried out as a result, as well as the outcomes of such a review.

Amendment 175 ensures that victims can be informed when such an order includes a movement restriction condition as well as what the arrangements specified by that condition are. Unlike some of the other amendments that colleagues have lodged, this amendment allows for the information to be withheld on the basis that sharing it could be detrimental to the best interests of the child subject to the condition.

Amendment 181 requires Scottish ministers to establish a single point of contact for the sharing of information with victims and—crucially—that that be introduced under the affirmative procedure.

I would just note that although I agree with much of my colleague Willie Rennie’s amendment 122, which suggests a similar system, I also feel slightly reticent about it because I am concerned that its section (2)(a)(i) disregards any major consideration with regard to the rights and welfare of the child. I will be listening carefully to the discussion in that respect.

I support Roz McCall’s amendment 4, which adds a clear provision for a compulsory supervision order to specifically prohibit the child subject to the order from entering the home, workplace or place of education of the victim of their offences.

I wish to clarify that the purpose of setting those matters out in this piece of legislation relates to the nature and purpose of the general bill. Domestic abuse is included in recognition of the evidence that the committee heard from various organisations, including Police Scotland, on the likelihood of more domestic abuse cases coming to the children’s hearings system. On that basis, I do not see any reason not to include that training as compulsory under legislation. The training that is given to panel members is of a high standard, but not all of it is mandatory and there is nothing in legislation to set what that training should include. Given the changes that the bill proposes, I think that it is particularly important to set that requirement in legislation at this time.

The minister will be aware that those plans are of an aggregate nature; they cover all young people in a particular local authority on a more general basis. The amendments from Martin Whitfield and me would apply the multi-agency approach to the specific child who is being considered at the time. The plans that the minister mentioned do not apply to individual children; they are plans that organisations put in place that say that referral agencies will be available to them. Our amendments will make the plans much more specific to an individual child and will ensure that agencies dispose of their duties in a way that is relevant to that child, not on a wider basis.

Thank you, minister, I appreciate that, and I appreciate the context of a handout amendment. It was more the content of the handout that I was seeking to get further assurance on.

However, on that basis, I am prepared not to press amendment 169 when asked. I am still considering moving the other amendments in my name that are in this group. Is this the appropriate time—not to move them but to talk to them?