Seòmar agus comataidhean

It is right to say that others’ rights and an individual young person’s welfare can clearly come into conflict. However, when a young person’s own rights and own welfare could come into conflict, I struggle to see when the decision would be that their welfare should take priority over their rights. Will the minister expand on when she sees the potential danger of a conflict between a young person’s rights and their welfare?

On that point, is there not a challenge, given that, when you have a victim who is within the children’s hearings system through one part of the referral, their welfare is taken into account, but a victim who does not happen to be part of the children’s hearings system, because of the circumstances of the individual referral to it, will go unheard?

This is, of course, a public hearing in which the contributions are noted and, in due course, could be reflected in decisions that are taken. It is useful for people to be able to articulate their position—exactly as the minister has done—and for it be shown where there is disagreement and whether that ground can be bridged before stage 3, which is the last step in a bill before it potentially becomes legislation. Does Willie Rennie agree that it is right that we are able to articulate the reasoning behind our amendments? That may reduce some of the discussion that needs to take place—hopefully, it will not show that discussion does not need to take place, but that there is a positive reason for it.

This group of amendments deals with rights and welfare issues in the children’s hearings system. I have lodged a number of the amendments in the group.

Amendment 165 simply seeks to insert “and rights” after “welfare”. Following the passing of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (Incorporation) (Scotland) Bill and given the progress that Scotland is making with regard to children’s rights, it is opportune to put into legislation the fact that rights are important to us.

I will spend a short time dealing with my other amendments in the group.

Amendment 170 deals with young people with additional support needs. There has been an increase in the number of young people identified with additional support needs across Scotland. Young people who have an additional support needs diagnosis or who identify as having additional support needs without necessarily having a medical diagnosis are vulnerable, and the way in which they interact with adult institutions and the children’s hearings system in particular requires an approach that is very sensitive to their particular and individual needs.

I have had an opportunity to meet the Government with regard to that matter, and I understand that proposals are coming forward. I do not know whether the minister wants to deal with those proposals in her contribution, but I might take a different position with regard to amendment 170.

I know that other members are going to speak to amendments in the group, but I would like to take a moment to consider amendment 171, which is on transition to adulthood. That amendment deals with the period of time when our young people are transitioning into adulthood and the levels of support that they rightly expected while they were young start to move away. The structures that are there to advise, support and, on occasions, pick up tend to distance. The purpose behind amendment 171 is to support that transition.

I may wish to comment on a number of amendments that have been lodged by other members at the appropriate period but, given the shortness of time, I will leave things there, convener.

I move amendment 165.

Will the member give way?

I thank the minister for a very constructive contribution on several issues in areas that have been highlighted by those in the Parliament and those outside of it who take an interest in the bill. Given the undertaking from the minister, I am content not to move the majority of the amendments in my name, which I will identify for that purpose in a moment.

I am concerned about amendment 167, on non-discrimination. I am not sure that it is right to say that the amendment would run the risk of infringing on reserved matters with regard to discrimination. The minister made the argument that the issue is, in part, covered elsewhere and that there is an obligation on the various people who come into contact with young people to be very sensitive with regard to non-discrimination in the process. However, not to herald that approach or say that it should underpin the process that we are creating is a concern, given that this is the beginning of moves in relation to children’s hearings.

I hear the minister’s view that the committee should not support the amendment, but I will attempt to reach out. Would she be willing to discuss whether amendment 167 could return in a different form at stage 3? I am conscious of the importance of non-discrimination and the fact that it is not about treating everyone the same but is about supporting people in a process whereby their individuality is measured and accredited by those who, in effect, as the minister said, make judgment on them.

If the minister is content to do that, I will not move the amendments in my name. However, I will address that at the relevant point.

Let me try to paint a scenario, which is not based on real events. If two young people have been involved in a criminal offence or a series of minor criminal offences, it is likely that both of those young people would come before the children’s hearing. If one of those events had been a fight or a falling out between the two, where one was injured, there will be both a victim and, in old-fashioned language—which I do not mean to use about a children’s hearing—an accused. One of those two children will play a dual role: as someone whose welfare is being looked at and also as a victim. In that case, the children’s hearings system must hear from the young person who is both a victim and potentially involved in an outcome, but that is only because of the circumstances of the event and is not because they were a victim of an offence. That means that a children’s panel will take the victim into account simply because of the circumstances that are in front of it. How is that equitable for someone who has not been involved in an offence and is not drawn into the children’s hearings system as a victim and so goes unheard?

It is a pleasure to take part in this stage 2 debate. For the purpose of practice, if nothing else, it may be beneficial that there is only one amendment in this first group.

Amendment 164 aims to highlight the importance of the purpose that underpins the bill, which is to promote the wellbeing and rights of children in the children’s hearings system and the criminal justice system. That was reflected in the policy memorandum that was published when the bill was introduced, but clearer evidence as to the purpose behind the bill should be given in the preamble.

I move amendment 164.

I am slightly disappointed by the minister’s response. There is almost a contradiction between seeking the nuance that the bill and its amendments contain and saying that my amendment 164 would blur the overall view. The promotion of the rights of children and their wellbeing should sit at the heart of anyone in Scotland, particularly when children come into contact with the children’s hearings system and the criminal justice system. Under the circumstances, I will press the amendment.

Three amendments in this group bear my name. Two of them—amendments 174 and 176—cover a similar situation in that they seek to add the victim into the consideration when an MRC or CSO is made.

The other amendment in my name, amendment 184, relates to the procedural rules and speaks to the responsibility to take into account the victim’s needs in decision making. We have heard a lot about transparency and the role of the children’s hearings system in making decisions, and it is important that those who are closest to the situation but who are not immediately involved in the decision making are aware of what is going on and that their needs are taken into account when decisions are made.