Seòmar agus comataidhean

The work has been really good and I welcome your opening statement, Baroness Kennedy. You challenge men to support the legislation that you are proposing; I support it and I am sure that others do, too. I am sure that I speak for colleagues—members, clerks and other workers—when I say that we should feel uncomfortable as men. That is important. Bill Brash is sitting there smiling.

With regard to remand, which is the first issue that is highlighted, I wonder whether it would be worth mentioning in the “Notes and additional information” column the extra £3.2 million that has recently been announced for diversion from prosecution. I know that it is mentioned somewhere else; in fact, I have just scrolled down and seen the reference to

“a further £3.2m for bail supervision schemes”.

I am content that it is mentioned in the document, but I wonder whether the first box in that section might be the best place to put it. I think that that would make the point more clearly—although, if anyone disagrees with me, I say again that I know that reference is made to it elsewhere. However, the first box is about remand, and the key issue in that respect is getting

“details from the Cabinet Secretary on how he plans to tackle remand numbers”.

As he has made an announcement on that very matter, it should be mentioned there.

Thank you. Does Sarah Axford have any views on that final question?

Thank you.

It is fair to say that we have covered a lot of ground. I apologise in advance about the two questions that I will ask, because some of the issues have already been covered.

However, I will ask again about child welfare reporters. I was on the committee that considered the previous legislation, and we had a lot of discussion about that subject, as the witnesses will probably remember. We have talked a bit about who child welfare reporters are—whether they are legal professionals, social workers or psychologists—which was discussed when the bill was being considered.

In broader terms, do you feel that we now have the correct approach? What are the main features that the child welfare reporter system needs to have in order for it to be a success? Sarah Axford, I will come to you first.

Thank you.

Your answer leads me on nicely to my final question, which is about bringing the provisions in section 21 into force, which we have touched on already. The Scottish Government has expressed a policy concern about bringing those provisions into force because of the fear that children could end up with multiple support workers. In my experience, it is not uncommon for children to have multiple professionals or agencies working with them. Is that a valid concern in this context, or is it more about having an integrated approach to addressing the issue? That question is for Dr Barnes Macfarlane.

Good afternoon. I thank the witnesses for all their evidence and answers so far. It has been a really worthwhile session, as was the previous one.

The difficulty with asking questions last and being the only member taking part remotely is that a lot of areas have been covered in great depth. I appreciate that. I had questions about how young people can be helped to give their views, but we have covered a lot of that. Some really good examples have been given in relation to pets and the use of tables. When I was a social worker, the big table in the room was always an issue in children’s hearings, so it is great to hear that we are moving on from that.

I will focus my substantive questions on legal representation. I am happy for the witnesses to answer in any order. In your experience, how common is it, in practice, for children and young people to be legally represented at children’s hearings and tribunals? When they are, what are the advantages and drawbacks of that?

That note of caution is fair enough, but given the evidence that we received last week, I thought that the question was worth asking.

Last week, we also heard about the industry’s 10-point plan, which I know that the minister will be aware of. To what extent has that been taken into account? Did it inform the development of the bill?

In the interests of time, I will join up my questions. I do not have a pet at the moment, but I have three young kids, and I was struck by the evidence that we heard last week that a lot of firework-related injuries are associated with sparklers. Did the minister, the Government and the review group take that into account when formulating the legislation?

It is good to have that clarified. I would also highlight the sensible suggestion that the industry made last week about promoting the use of gloves by young children when fireworks are used at organised events and suchlike.

I will now move on to the questions that the convener thought that I was going to ask, which are about the restrictions on the use and supply of fireworks. This is a line of questioning that I have pursued with various panels. The bill seeks to introduce certain days and times for the sale and use of fireworks, but are you able to say a little bit about the rationale behind that measure? It has received quite widespread support from the majority of stakeholders, which is really reassuring, but we have also heard concerns that, if you pick one date, that means that you cannot pick another—if that makes sense. Have you given any consideration to that?

Again, I will join my questions together. Do you think that it would be worth giving local authorities some flexibility to take into account other occasions—sporting or other cultural events, for example—that people could perhaps apply to use fireworks at?