Seòmar agus comataidhean

My final question will perhaps engage the other two witnesses in the discussion. Recently, the SCRA and the Procurator Fiscal Service did research into children aged 12 to 15 who were involved in offending and were referred to the children’s reporter and the procurator fiscal. To what extent did that indicate a strong link between children who come into conflict with the law and the degrees of adversity, trauma, poverty and loss that they have experienced? We can also take account of your personal experience of dealing with such situations beyond the research.

Thank you. I just wanted to get that on the record.

Will the witnesses outline for us how a reporter currently decides whether a child or young person should be referred to the children’s hearings system? Can you give us a feel for the thought process around that? Will that change in any way as a result of the bill? If so, how?

Thank you.

I fully recognise that a balance has to be struck in these circumstances. Megan Farr is right when she talks about the risk of imparting information that is then shared on social media. However, do you not recognise that, in some of these cases, there is a sense that a package of measures is being put around the alleged perpetrator, but the victim is left wondering how they can be confident that their needs are being met? When MSPs who pick up those cases for their constituents try to get information, they are told, “We can’t give you that, because it is about measures that we have taken in relation to the alleged perpetrator.” Do you not accept that it sometimes appears that the victims and their families are forgotten in all of this?

That is what we are here for—exactly.

I want to explore another aspect. If our witnesses watched our earlier evidence session, they will have heard that we considered inconsistencies in the experiences of 16 and 17-year-olds under the current arrangements, depending on whether they go through the children’s hearings system or the criminal justice system.

We explored an example in which two individuals of a similar age commit the same offences but one is dealt with through one process and the other person goes through the other. The first one, who goes through the children’s hearings system, could have been dealt with and have moved on to a much more positive outlook before the one who is going through the criminal justice system has even attended court, because of the delays. That is an obvious example, but are there other inconsistencies in the current situation that you want to make us aware of?

Do you accept that there is a balance to be struck between the need to provide environments that will help to rehabilitate and assist those young people and giving the public the confidence that, depending on the offences that they have committed, they are in genuinely secure accommodation?

Are there any other comments, or does that cover it? If not, that is excellent—we will move on.

The bill provides that, where a child should be deprived of their liberty, no one under the age of 18 can be committed to a prison or a young offenders institution. They would instead enter secure accommodation or similar residential establishments. I think that we would all welcome that move, but do you have any concerns about moving to that set-up—perhaps around capacity? Are all of the existing facilities that would accommodate those young people of a suitable standard? I am not trying to put words into your mouth; I am just planting those ideas. Is there anything there that makes you think, “This is great, but—”?

I do not disagree with that. Perhaps I did not make myself clear. We often find that victims and their families are looking for reassurance and want to know what measures have been taken to protect them, but it is impossible to get information on that. The ground for that is that that information cannot be shared, because those matters pertain to the alleged perpetrator. That exacerbates the sense of concern of victims and their families. That is what I am getting at.

I do not have the answer; I simply wanted to get a sense that you recognise that that is an issue.

I was struck by the idea that witnesses do not tell Parliament and committees what should be added to a bill by way of amendment.

Even with that framework, I guess that there is always a degree of subjectivity in the decision making that takes place. It must leave you open to accusations of a lack of consistency on occasions—perhaps unfairly, given everything that you have to take account of.