Seòmar agus comataidhean

Yes, that is right. We do not want to alter the fundamental approach of the children’s hearings system. We accept that it has been built up over many years. However, there is a feeling that, especially when we are moving a group that was previously in the criminal justice system into the under-18s children’s hearings system, the existing rights will not be continued. Having it intrinsically built into the children’s hearings system that a broad-based risk assessment is made, empowering the professionals who are making that judgment, is the best way to proceed. That approach is not unreasonable or restrictive and I think that it would address Michelle Thomson’s point.

I support amendments 218 and 219, in the name of Martin Whitfield. Amendment 17 would also be appropriate.

I support amendment 173, in the name of Pam Duncan-Glancy, in relation to CSOs, which would consider the impact on a person who is affected by offending behaviour. That should allow a proportionate consideration of the full facts behind a referral, while still maintaining the needs, not deeds ethos.

I support amendments 4 and 5, in the name of Roz McCall, as including more places in the restriction conditions is sensible. However, amendment 6 is a promise to absolutely prevent contact, which could not realistically be met in all circumstances. We need to be straight with people about the limitations of what is possible.

Amendment 183 does something similar to amendment 182 in the previous group. I am conscious of what the minister said about having further discussions on the issue. I would like to make sure, whether through the bill or otherwise, that we have a system that includes more details so that we can analyse the effectiveness of movement restriction orders. However, I will not press amendment 183, considering the minister’s reassurance on that front.

Yes, certainly.

Certainly.

I think that the Government has certainly moved, including on the CSOs and on sharing information in a much more specific fashion, which is helpful. Amendment 17 is also helpful, although it is a bit vague and we could do with a bit more precision on exactly what the service will look like. That might not be appropriate for legislation, but there is a bit of scepticism as to whether that will be forthcoming.

I accept what Ross Greer says, but I do not understand why an empowering, more comprehensive system, in which you empower the reporter to make that risk assessment for all children, making sure that no children fall between the different stools, is not appropriate. It seems broader and more empowering than the specific and narrow provision that the minister wishes to put in place.

Okay. I would prefer more of a reassurance than a discussion, because I think that we have got to—

I have three amendments in the group, so I will go into a little bit of detail. I apologise.

The purpose of my amendment 122 is to establish an information-sharing system between the children’s hearings system and the single point of contact service or elected victim support organisation. It will be based on a robust assessment of the risk posed to the victim or person harmed by the subject child. The degree of information that is provided to the victim will depend on the level of risk that is established by the assessment.

The aim of the amendment is to successfully balance the subject child’s right to privacy with the rights of the victim to information and support to recover, especially if they are a child. That will help to ensure that UNCRC rights are being fulfilled, where possible, for all children and not just the subject child. The right to privacy is important. However, it is not an absolute right and should not infringe other people’s rights to safety or recovery. An objective and robust risk assessment is the best way to achieve a balance of those rights.

I am proposing a three-tier system. The first tier is the information that all victims will be entitled to, whether or not their case is reported to the SCRA system, and when it is processed through the children’s hearings system. The SCRA should operate that opt-out information system. All victims should be entitled to information about both how the system works and victim support resources. They should get basic information on the dates of hearings and the final decision of the hearing. They should also be told if the case has not been referred to a hearing. That is the basic level.

The second tier would provide further case-specific information, particularly in relation to compulsory supervision orders, when it is deemed that the child poses a significant risk of harm to themselves or others. It will include information on how a CSO works, dates, conditions and what happens if the rules are not stuck to. All of that should enable a victim to plan for their own safety. Conditions under the CSO that relate to engagement with social work or personal details about the subject child will not be allowed to be shared. That would not be appropriate.

The third tier of information sharing will be reserved for cases in which the panel has deemed that the subject child must have their liberty restricted in secure accommodation due to the risk to the person who has been harmed or to the wider public. That will be in cases in which an offence has taken place. However, that will not be restricted to referrals on offence grounds.

Under the third tier, victims will be notified when the child is released from secure accommodation or transferred to an adult prison. The information that is provided should, where possible, replicate that which is provided through the victim notification system in the criminal justice system. Of course, victims can opt out of that. They can also choose to communicate through a trusted adult.

I am pleased that the Government has introduced amendments 13, 15 and 17 to share information with regard to CSOs—amendment 13 is particularly relevant in that regard. However, I cannot understand why the Government has not introduced an amendment like mine, which empowers the reporter to carry out a risk assessment for all child subjects and their victims. By restricting the scope, the Government potentially restricts the powers and discretion of the reporter to inform and share. It would be beneficial for all victims to have a basic understanding of how the system works and what they might expect. The dates of hearings that are included in tier 1 do not include private or personal information.

I urge members to support amendment 122. It is comprehensive—it does not cover only CSOs. It empowers the reporter and it is tiered depending on severity, so it is sensitive and more sophisticated.

You have dug into quite a bit of important detail, but I have never had from any of your predecessors a simple explanation for why we have slipped down the international rankings and why there is a yawning poverty-related attainment gap. I have never had that explained properly and succinctly to me. There is clearly recognition that there is a problem, because we have had an eight-year programme of education reform, whatever you might think of that. There is clearly a recognition that there is an issue, a problem or, as you describe it, a challenge. However, can you succinctly explain to me how we have got into this position?

We are quite far into this reform programme; we could say that it started in 2016. I would like to understand from the cabinet secretary what she thinks is wrong with Scottish education and what we are trying to fix.

So, what do you accept? Why did we do all this?

I have lots of ideas.