Seòmar agus comataidhean

Before I move on to my questions, I want to go back to what Kenny Donnelly just said. What about a scenario in which two people of the same age commit the same offence but one is dealt with under the children’s hearings system while the other is referred to the criminal justice system? It can take up to two years for the latter to be dealt with, because of court delays, by which time the other person will have been dealt with, will perhaps have been rehabilitated and will have a more positive outlook. Is that not the greatest inconsistency here?

I do not need to be convinced—I have visited one—but, when there are changes to the law such as this, there will be an element of the public that will want that reassurance.

It does, and, unless Superintendent Dobson corrects me, it is unrealistic to guarantee that police officers—considering everything else they deal with—will provide that information at the outset.

Absolutely.

Mr Hogg, in response to Willie Rennie’s question on the subject of victims, you talked about early signposting to victim support. However, it not practical to assume that police officers, who are dealing with very troubled and traumatic situations in which people are very upset, as well as doing so much else, can be a conduit for information and, at the end of the interaction, say, “By the way, you can go to victim support. Here is a card.” How do you ensure that, at a very early stage, beyond the first police interaction, victims are signposted to their opportunity to contact victim support?

Is another strategy not the last thing that we need? Is it not action that we need? On that basis, this process of interrogating your bill has laid bare, for all the committee members, I think, the shocking situation that exists.

Would the purpose that we are all committed to not be better served by looking closely at what does not work—rather than focusing on one aspect of it, or a couple of aspects, as your bill does—and changing lots of little things that would make a huge difference? Is there not a bigger picture here beyond the bill that we ought to be focusing on more?

What was the outcome?

Good morning. At last week’s meeting, the Scottish Transitions Forum talked about there being a “legislation salad”. The view has been expressed that the legislative landscape is already very congested. I am interested in exploring with you how easily you think the proposals in the bill would dovetail with existing duties and current policy development, such as the principles into practice trials, to avoid a situation whereby—regrettably, perhaps—that congestion would provide cover for more inaction rather than enable what we all want to see, which is an improvement in the situation.

With respect, we should not be sitting here, disputing whether the figures are out by a factor of three or a factor of 11. I am pretty sure that, in evidence to us last week, the minister indicated that, after a meeting with Pam Duncan-Glancy late last year, an undertaking was given to talk to COSLA about the issue and get the answers. Has that meeting, for that purpose, taken place? It sounds like it has not taken place, because there is no agreement on the numbers.

Are the passports all living documents that the young person, parents and carers can input to as time goes on? To what extent would you be prepared to require bodies to take account of the content? It is all very well and good having the passport, but if the relevant body does not act on it, it does not really serve a purpose.

I am trying to get into the nitty-gritty of the issue, because there is a lot of potential. It is good to hear that there are multiple options, but the passport needs to be something that the relevant people are feeding into, and the requirements that it contains need to be implemented.