Seòmar agus comataidhean

Is proposed new section 90B expected to extend to transportation of young people by justice services? I am not talking about transportation between secure accommodation or to or from secure accommodation, but about transportation by law enforcement officers during the course of their duties.

I am grateful, convener. Is the minister prepared to share the response that her officials have received from, in essence, the judiciary? The minister raised a number of matters that fundamentally boil down to the Scottish Government’s apparent disagreement to adding “and rights” after the word “welfare” throughout the bill. When we are talking about legislation, we are talking about the rights that are given or, indeed, taken away in response to the coming together of a young person and the criminal justice system, the welfare system and most aspects of a young person’s life.

The rights of a child sit above that. We debated the UNCRC long and hard in this Parliament over a long period of time, and, across the chamber, there was very strong agreement about the hierarchy of protections that young people have. Sitting at the top are rights, but there has always been the question of a challenge between one individual’s rights and another individual’s rights. The entire process of the court system and the environment of that decision making is about balancing those rights, but we heard across the chamber during the enactment that, across Scotland, we put children’s rights at the top of that. That does not mean that those rights will be applied every time, but it means that those rights will have to give way to other individuals’ rights only in exceptional circumstances and for exceptional reasons. Even with the amendments that I have proposed, there are facilities whereby that can happen.

With regard to comments about the court and resources, I say with respect that, again, the minister appears to be saying, “We can’t do this because of resource.” Of course there are challenges, but there are always challenges. There were challenges when a number of courts across Scotland were closed, with people making representations in that respect, but it is a very dangerous position to take if we are saying to our young people, “The resources aren’t there for the particulars of your case, so it’s not important.”

That issue arises particularly with regard to amendment 204, which relates to the co-accused and the acts of adjournal in the courts. Even with my amendment, there would still be exceptional circumstances in which the court could act according to what is right, but the presumption would be that the procedure adopted by a court should accord with the child’s needs, which I would suggest in a co-accused case must always take priority over the needs of an adult co-accused. I have thought and struggled long and hard to find a situation in which the rights of an individual child who has been co-accused with an adult would give way to the rights of an adult, simply from the point of view of competency, understanding and age.

In this space for questions—I am sorry, convener; I am adjourning—

Amendment 191 is a simple one-line amendment that effectively removes a section for which the Government, in its own amendments, is proposing a different section. I will come to that in a moment. The reason behind amendment 191 follows on from general comment 24 made by the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child:

“there should be lifelong protection from publication regarding crimes committed by children. The rationale for the non-publication rule, and for its continuation after the child reaches the age of 18, is that publication causes ongoing stigmatization, which is likely to have a negative impact on access to education, work, housing or safety. This impedes the child’s reintegration and assumption of a constructive role in society. States parties should thus ensure that the general rule is lifelong privacy protection pertaining to all types of media, including social media.”

I can really go no further than that in respect of amendment 191, but I would like to take the opportunity to explore the Government’s invitation not to move amendment 191 because of amendment 42 and its proposed new section 106BA of the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 2016. I have a number of questions for the minister and, if her answers satisfy me, they will lead me to not move amendment 191.

The first question is in relation to proposed new section 106BA(2), regarding the sheriff making an order

“on the application of a person other than the child who wishes to publish information relating to the child”.

Does the Government envisage any boundaries with regard to who that person might be?

Proposed new section 106BA(3) is possibly the start of the most crucial section in my questions. The power rests with the sheriff, and it gives persons an opportunity to make representation—a representation is more than a simple application—and those persons are:

“(i) the person who made the application,

(ii) the child to whom the information relates,

(iii) any other person the sheriff considers to have an interest in the application.”

Given that the public interest test and the best interest test overlie the environment in which the sheriff has to make the decision, are you looking at an objective or a subjective assessment by the sheriff that would need to be justified?

Also, proposed new section 106BA(4) makes reference to “conditions” and 106BA(4)(a)(ii) uses the phrase

“appreciates what the effect of making such an order would be”.

Again, I inquire as to the extent to which the sheriff has the power to investigate and what resources will be made available to the sheriff to investigate the young person’s level of appreciation. Is the Government expecting the current tests of the ability of a child to make a decision to be used in relation to the phrase “appreciates”, or, under the best interest test, does it extend to looking for objective evidence that the young person appreciates the effect of the order?

The minister rightly pointed out the growing media landscape and the fact that once things are out, they are out, and getting them back in is impossible in reality. The minister also spoke about the international effect of the current media baseload that we have. Will the minister confirm that, in relation to the Government’s amendments, full consideration has been given to the fact that so many of those cases will revolve around families, very small communities and extended families? She has spoken at length about the protections, but I ask her to put on record that that has been fully considered, subject to the further amendments that I understand may come at stage 3 with regard to some of the other amendments that we have.

I also put on record that it is very difficult to rest on the basis that we are relying on the court to make a decision and that some of the Government’s amendments would allow people the opportunity to go to court—in particular, the amendments to remove any ministerial or governmental role in decision making—but that other amendments say that there will be a financial cost for doing so. Some of the people whom I envisage seeking an order or to have an order overturned or amended will be those who find themselves in very precarious financial positions; therefore, they might not have open to them the avenue that the Government proposes as a way out of those problems.

I will leave it at that, convener.

Do you want me to sum up on amendment 193 as well?

It is difficult, convener, but I understand. I will leave my comments there. My summing up will be much shorter.

Given the result of the division on amendment 195, I will not move it.

Amendment 196 not moved.

Amendment 197 moved—[Martin Whitfield].

What is the balance between young people who are not in secure accommodation but are identified as needing secure accommodation and those who have reached 18 but might need to stay in secure accommodation? What is the balance between the push to get in and the need to stay in as young people travel past their 18th birthday?

I am conscious of the committee’s time, so I will try to make my comments as short as possible.

Given that the purpose behind the amendments that I have lodged has, in some cases, been addressed already by the minister, I would suggest that, if the minister is open to this, I will just ask questions for her to respond to instead of making a submission. That approach might facilitate my decision on whether to move the amendments.

First of all, I welcome the Government’s amendment 105. On amendment 207, in my name, which relates to alternatives to detention of children, the minister is right to suggest that it sets out a general requirement instead of specifically addressing any individual act, which would be completely inappropriate given the nature of assessment from the individual’s point of view. That said, is the minister confident or certain that the reporting provisions that she has already outlined and the requirements under UNCRC mean that this particular information will be made available annually to the public? I realise that it might not come specifically from the Scottish ministers but will instead be found in a variety of places.

I am very grateful. Let me rephrase the question. Is it the Government’s intention to review and republish what started as the 2017 guidance as soon as possible, given how important restorative justice is not just in relation to the bill but in the wider context across Scotland? Will the Government use its best endeavours to achieve that? Is it happy to do that?

I am very grateful for those assertions.