Seòmar agus comataidhean

It is interesting to be winding up a debate that has moved on in such a way. As I stated, I will seek to withdraw or not move my amendments, but I have to say that I am concerned about the process that has been followed in the debate. It is, as I have said, interesting to sum up on what might be called an additional amendment, and I should say that, if I were in a position to do so, I would support amendment 206. I am concerned about the disparity in this respect and about the ethos in question holding true, perhaps to detrimental effect.

I agree with that.

At this point, I will just say that I wish to withdraw amendment 85.

Amendment 85, by agreement, withdrawn.

Amendments 86 to 88 not moved.

Amendment 206 moved—[Liam Kerr].

Thank you, convener. This is the first time that I have spoken today.

The group of amendments that I have lodged balance previous amendments that came up last week but that, in the end, were not moved. My amendments in this group are designed to allow the courts to refer to the children’s hearings process, if deemed appropriate to the child’s treatment, when the child pleads guilty or is found guilty of an offence in solemn proceedings. They are designed to ensure that the child’s welfare is at the centre of decision making and to allow the support network provided by the children’s hearings system to be provided in such cases. However, given that the previous amendments were not moved last week, these amendments—that is, amendments 85 to 88—will have to be withdrawn or not moved.

I move amendment 85.

My amendments in this group are on the prosecution of children in the appropriate system and would apply only to cases involving what are considered to be the most serious offences. I know that we have gone over this, but I will repeat it.

The offences that are covered are those that are required by law to be prosecuted on indictment, which are common law offences of murder, treason, rape and certain statutory offences, including possession of a firearm with intent to injure, causing death by dangerous driving, sexual assault by penetration, rape of a young child and sexual assault on a young child by penetration. The intent of my amendments is to ensure that such cases are prosecuted via the criminal courts and cannot be dealt with by the children’s reporter.

It is important that the Mackie review is enacted in tandem with the bill. I note that the Government’s response to the Mackie review was published just before Christmas recess. The changes to the children’s hearings panel, funding for paid positions and training are all crucial to ensuring that the bill works for all young people. As the Government will not support the recommendation on paid positions and will continue to follow the existing volunteer model—unfortunately, the system is haemorrhaging volunteers—it is essential that cases involving 16 and 17-year-olds and the most serious offences proceed through the criminal courts.

Amendment 3 seeks to prevent the principal reporter from being able to investigate and refer cases to a children’s hearing where a child who is aged 16 or over is accused of serious offences, as I have stated. Amendments 18 and 19 would require the Lord Advocate to consider the risk to the victim if a child is dealt with via the children’s hearings system instead of being prosecuted.

No, thank you.

I understand the trepidation about the amendments, but it is important to pinpoint my position. They are probing amendments and I will not move them all, but I reserve the right to bring them back at stage 3, because there are some important points that the bill may not necessarily have taken into consideration. I hope that my narrative will help to explain the reason for the amendments.

Sixteen and 17-year-olds who are considered to have committed the most serious of offences—I have already stated what those are—will be placed in a position in which a CSO is applied, with a residential placement or movement restriction conditions. A CSO being applied in a residential care facility would mean that there is the potential for care-experienced young people who have caused harm to be located beside care-experienced young people who are being protected from harm. Understanding the effects of trauma in that case means that the care-experienced young person who is there to be protected from harm could experience instant anxiety, fear and perceived danger. No amount of separation in one facility will mitigate that; retraumatisation is inevitable. It is essential that there is adequate Government funding to ensure that there are sufficient residential facilities so that the scenario that I have laid out is not an option.

I have lodged my amendments because I am concerned that the balance is not there. As I have already stated, I will not press amendment 11 or move the others in the group, but I need reassurances from the Government that we will not have a situation in which young people, whom we have been charged to take care of because they are unsafe in their home environment, are placed with people whom we are charged to take care of because they have caused harm. I will not press or move my amendments, but I am interested in the Scottish Government’s response to my points.

I move amendment 11.

I accept the Government’s offer to speak to me, especially on amendments 4 and 5, so I will not press my amendments in the group. I hope that we can move forward with some change of wording and press the point at stage 3.

Amendment 2, by agreement, withdrawn.

Amendments 167 and 166 not moved.

Amendment 168 moved—[Pam Duncan-Glancy].

I am sorry—I will have to take my glasses off for this. The Promise—I am sorry, but I am trying to articulate my point.

Certain criminal offences have to be treated as severe. They are solemn court cases, and they should go through a process that recognises that solemn nature. It is therefore important that we have an option to do that, especially when it comes to serious crime.

We need to be mindful of not only the children who cause harm but the people who have had harm inflicted upon them. The amendments would ensure that, in the one or two cases in which it is required, there is the option to go through the criminal process, especially when it comes to severe criminal processes.

I have spoken to the three amendments and I will stop there.

I move amendment 3.

As I have stated, I will not press amendment 11 or move the other amendments. It will be unacceptable in solemn cases that we move towards a movement restriction condition. It is relevant that we ensure, through the process of the bill, that we have adequate residential care. However, I will not press amendment 11.

Amendment 11, by agreement, withdrawn.

Section 6—Provision of information to person affected by child’s offence or behaviour

Amendment 12 not moved.

Amendment 13 moved—[Natalie Don].

My amendments seek to strengthen the rights of victims while not taking away from the process in the bill for change for young offenders. If we accept the premise that young people who cause harm are themselves victims of harm and therefore traumatised, we must also accept that victims, especially young victims, will most likely be from a similar background and be equally traumatised. It is essential that changes to the children’s hearing system are set up to accommodate a balance.

Amendments 2, 4, 5, 6, 12 and 14 set out the considerations for young victims that are equally important and should also be at the centre of a child-based process. The purpose of my amendments is to ensure that victims are afforded protections through any court process to ensure their safety and that the rights of all children involved in the process are articulated to them.

I do not have a long speech to make, because I know that we have a lot of amendments and that time is short, so those are my comments on the amendments.

I move amendment 2.