 Be gwybod ni'n gwybod ynghyd? Mae cygarfeyddau tyfu arfermarmar, Mark McDonald, ond bydd yn cael y cyfrifidiad o cyfrifidiadau cyfrifidiadau. Rydw i'r o gyfrifidiad ydi i gwaith o gyfrifidiadau dedifuedd y gallai bod gydag ddigonwy o'i gyrwbeth o'r cyfrifidiadau. Ieithyllwch, Mark McDonald. Mae Gweinidog wedyn yw cyfrifidiad o'r cyfrifidiadau. Mae'n gyfrifidiadau yn cael gweld ar complement y rhai oherwydd jyrwydlu'r cyfrifidiadau ac pam y cyfrifidiadau nawr i chi'n llwyddo'i amherwydd iawn llawer o'ch fodewch i whaloeddiaeth y swyddfaeth deinkling ym hal stress acんでiludd o'r troi rhyw bwrdd cael ei leiaf o hybr honno. Ieithi g scenarios pen yr ysgolwmp mai maewch chi wedi'u bithasig a nhw'nll interim iawn i rhwng ei aaig i gael ym gumitä yn swyddfaeth syniadol i'r chwangpelu i garchedau ni, I announced measures to help to achieve secure, safe and loving homes for more children and young people more quickly. We are leading work to improve Scotland's child protection system, including reviewing the law to ensure that it provides adequate protection against all forms of abuse, neglect, violence and harm. For more than half a century, the legacy and influence of the coal brandon report has resonated through our children's hearing system and now underpins the getting it right for every child approach. We are rightly proud that in Scotland we continue to respond to children's deeds in the context of their needs. As our understanding of the impact of poverty, deprivation, abuse and neglect grows, we know that children and young people whose childhoods are compromised by their circumstances are also more likely to engage in risky behaviours, including those who might risk their own safety as well as others, and bring them to the attention of police and other agencies. That is backed up by recent research conducted by the Scottish Children's Reporter Administration into the backgrounds of 100 offending children under 12, which showed that three quarters had previous referrals to the children's reporter, one in four had been victims of physical or sexual abuse, more than half had educational issues and more than half had previous long-standing involvement with children's services. The evidence tells us that children under 12 who engage in harmful behaviour are primary school-aged children who tend to be disadvantaged, victimised and vulnerable through no fault of their own. We have already acted to address this by raising the minimum age of prosecution. In 2010 we changed the law with support across this chamber so no one under 12 could ever be prosecuted or sentenced in the criminal courts. That was a significant reform that has helped to ensure that children are kept out of the criminal justice system. However, those children have continued to face consequences as a result of their previous harmful behaviour, including through the disclosure of such behaviour via criminal record disclosures. Moreover, the low age of criminal responsibility in Scotland and indeed the UK has continued to attract the attention of the United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child, including in its most recent concluding observations from August this year. I again called on UK Administrations to raise the minimum age of criminal responsibility in accordance with acceptable international standards. I can announce today that we will raise the minimum age of criminal responsibility in Scotland from 8 to 12 years and we will introduce a bill in this session to do so. The establishment of the advisory group last year by the Cabinet Secretary for Justice was a necessary and sensible step to examine in detail the implications of raising the age to 12. I thank all the members of the group for sharing their knowledge and insight. The group looked at four key areas—the management of risk in relation to children's behaviour, changes that may be required to the children's hearing system, police powers and issues in relation to disclosure certificates and the weeding and retention of non-conviction information. The advisory group represented a wide range of disciplines, including those working with children and with victims, as well as the police and the Crown Office. It reported in March 2016 with a number of recommendations that we have consulted on. That consultation ran from March to June, with 95 per cent of all respondents supporting an increase in the minimum age of responsibility to 12 or above. The overwhelming support was across the board, including statutory agencies such as the police, organisations that support victims of crime and charities that support vulnerable children. We also undertook engagement over the summer, with key groups likely to be affected by any change in the law, including young people themselves. Throughout June and July, we listened to more than 200 children and young people, including those whose childhood experience has resulted in early contact with the criminal justice system, as well as those who have been victims of child offending. I thank them all for taking part in sharing their experiences and providing valuable insight into the issue. We have taken time to consider the content and implications of the advisory group's report, the springtime consultation and the summer engagement results, along with the lessons of data and independent research. The case for change is now clear and compelling, but it is important that we address remaining concerns that some might have from changing the law. There must be appropriate safeguards to deal with not only exceptional cases, but to all types of cases for under-12s, especially where police and agencies do not get co-operation from parents and carers. We therefore intend to bring forward a bespoke package of police powers to ensure that the police can investigate harmful behaviour involving children under 12 so that all necessary steps can be taken to keep them and others safe. We also intend to ensure that there are powers to allow police to seek a warrant to take forensic samples to investigate an incident where a young person, their parent or carer has not provided consent. To ensure the protection of other children and vulnerable adults, it will remain possible to disclose relevant information relating to serious incidents involving a child under 12. That disclosure process will provide the right balance between the best interests of the individual and the need to protect the public from harm. Where young people have demonstrated harmful behaviour in early childhood and continue to do so as they move to adulthood, specific arrangements to manage and monitor risk will be put in place. I want to assure members that raising them in major criminal responsibility will not remove the need to maintain the current range of interventions used to address harmful and risk-related behaviour by children. Those include our successful whole system approach to youth justice and compulsory supervision through the children's hearing system. That includes the power to place a child in secure accommodation if considered necessary to protect the child or the public. The advisory group rightly required to consider how the exceptional cases might be dealt with if the age of criminal responsibility was increased. While the James Bulger tragedy 23 years ago continues to cast a long shadow, it is important to note that there has been no similar Scottish case in that time. The possibility of serious cases has to be contemplated but should not distort our overall approach. Sensible and proportionate safeguards will be put in place to address those cases. As the law currently stands, if a child under 12 killed someone, he or she would not be prosecuted in court but instead referred to the children's hearing system on offence grounds with lifelong disclosure of the offence applying. However, in future such a case would still be referred to the hearing system without reliance on finding offence grounds proved but with all the current powers and interventions remaining available. Civil disclosure into adulthood would continue to be possible and will occur when there is a compelling justification to protect the public. Action taken to manage risks posed by young people who have shown a capacity for harmful behaviours will integrate seamlessly with the steps that are already available to manage risks posed by those over 18. It is important to place the proposed change in context. Over the past 10 years, there has been a large and sustained reduction in youth crime referrals. The number of children under 12 involved in harmful behaviours is small and reducing. Only a handful require compulsory measures of supervision. Across Scotland in 2015-16, approximately four under 12s each week were referred to the reporter for offending, a tenth of what it was 10 years ago and a quarter of what it was five years ago. As we take forward this reform, it is vital that we address the impact of changing the law on the victims of children's harmful behaviour. To be clear, the harm caused to victims who may themselves be children will not be changed or undone by raising the minimum age of criminal responsibility. The needs of victims must continue to be met. Indeed, changing the law could offer a positive benefit to vulnerable victims. Victim support Scotland's view is that dealing with harmful behaviour using the civil standard of proof through non-offence grounds would enable facts to be established without the need for victims and witnesses to give evidence directly. That would minimise the impact on victims and witnesses. I know that many members will welcome this change in the law and I look forward to working with them to deliver that. I acknowledge that some will be concerned at the change in its impact. What should reassure them is that children and young people want this. Victims groups want it, police and prosecutors want it and the United Nations has called on us to do it. We can sustain and build public confidence by anticipating and addressing the questions posed by the sort of exceptional cases that I have referred to, but we should not lose sight of the fact that those are very rare. This reform signals our commitment to a smart, evidence-led and rights-proof approach. It marks a major step forward in fulfilling a promise to our own young people to be genuine corporate parents by treating them as children first and acknowledging that in most cases it is unmet needs which give rise to harmful deeds. We have listened to children's experiences, we have considered the evidence, we have taken on board the views of victims and the expertise of justice agencies and we have a vision of the kind of Scotland we aspire to be. This is emphatically the right time and the right approach to raise the minimum age of criminal responsibility. I look forward to working with members across the chamber to deliver the reform in time for our year of young people in 2018. The minister will now take questions on the issues raised in his statement. I intend to allow around 20 minutes for questions after which we will move on to the next item of business. Members who wish to ask a question should press the request to speak buttons now. I call first on Douglas Ross. I thank the minister for early sight of his statement as well as the advisory group and stakeholders who contributed to the consultation earlier this year. Their feedback has been invaluable. The law society has emphasised that raising the age of criminal responsibility would bring it into line with the age of criminal prosecution and this seems a sensible approach to create coherence and consistency in the law. We, on those benches, will wait to see the full details of the Government's proposed legislation. Can the minister confirm whether the Scottish Government will introduce a standalone bill on the issue that the law society has recommended is the best approach? I also welcome the minister's sensitivity over the concerns that some will have regarding the proposal to change the law. Can he advise how the Scottish Government will, as he said, sustain and build public confidence to ensure that this approach will not be perceived as diminishing the seriousness of child and youth offending? Finally, the minister highlighted the horrendous death of Jamie Bulger. While I appreciate what he said that those cases are extremely rare, safeguards must be in place. The minister has mentioned those with regard to police powers, but can he confirm what other safeguards will be put in place for crimes such as this to ensure that the law continues to act as a deterrent and one that guarantees that the victims' families receive the justice that they deserve? I thank Douglas Ross for his constructive approach to the issue. In relation to whether we will have a standalone bill, the answer is yes. We will bring forward standalone legislation in relation to the minimum age of criminal responsibility. In terms of how we sustain and build public confidence, there is obviously an engagement that needs to be undertaken as we progress with the legislation. That will involve our understanding of how the legislation is to be drafted and then during the course of the legislation's passage as it is consulted upon. Those will provide opportunities. I have been very clear in my statement and would reiterate today that I want to work with members across the chamber to ensure that we deliver a package of legislation that meets not just the requirements that I have set out in the statement but also can meet the confidence of members across the chamber and also the wider public. I can give that commitment that we will work on a basis that looks to sustain and build public confidence. In relation to the safeguards, there were a range of safeguards set out by the advisory group. It would perhaps be probably stretching the Presiding Officer's patience for me to list them all in turn. However, what I can commit to do is to place a copy of that in SPICE for all members. That does not necessarily mean that that is what we will take forward, but it provides us with a useful starting point for consideration as we look to draft the legislation. For example, where in exceptional circumstances there is no co-operation from parents, it would enable authorities to take a child to a place of safety, interview, obtain and potentially retain forensic samples and crave a warrant to obtain further forensic samples. Those measures would be rooted in child protection procedures and powers that police already have available to them. That perhaps gives a flavour of the kind of approach that we would seek to take. However, as I have said, that is something that will be very much an iterative process based on consultation across the chamber as we look to draft the legislation from here. I thank the minister for an advance copy of the statement and welcome the announcement today that the minimum age of criminal responsibility will be raised to 12. From the advisory group to the consultation submissions to the minister today, the argument has been persuasively made for such a raise and it has the support of Scottish Labour in taking this forward. The minister will know that there is a debate around the extent of police powers. In relation to forensic samples, can he say today how long forensic information will be retained and on the issue of disclosures can he inform Parliament if there will be independent ratification, as called for by the advisory group. Finally, while a strong case has been made for raising the age, the Government will be aware that securing public confidence can at times be difficult. The minister must not underestimate the challenges that may be here. While, in his response to Mr Ross, he talked about the legislative consultation that there will be, it is important to recognise that that might not be enough. What else is the Government prepared to do to win over people's hearts and minds when it comes to this significant change? I thank Clare Baker for first of all outlining Scottish Labour's position of being supportive in relation to this and I look forward to working with Ms Baker and her colleagues taking this forward. In relation to the extent of police powers and the length of time in which samples could be retained and also in relation to independent ratification around disclosures, those are both questions to which I approach with an open mind and would be interested to hear views not just of other members but also other experts as well. As I have said, what we have at the moment is a suggested package of powers and safeguards which the advisory group have outlined, which I will place in Spice and provide us with a useful starting point. From that starting point, I take the view that we then need to consider what the best approaches would be in order to satisfy, as Clare Baker says, public concerns but also to ensure that children's rights are paramount in our considerations. In terms of the point around public confidence, one of the things that will help in public confidence are two things. Firstly, the broad range of stakeholders, including Victim Support Scotland, who have come forward and said that they are supportive of this measure. I think that if we have groups representing victims who say that this will bring benefit not just in terms of the approach to those children who are coming into the hearing system but also to those victims who will not find themselves being put through potentially having to give evidence directly, that will help to give confidence. I think that we will also give confidence that if we as a chamber are speaking in a supportive manner on this and taking that message out to communities and demonstrating that there is broad political support which can help to derive broad public support as well. I do not underestimate that there will be those who have concerns and I am keen to ensure that we address those in as many ways as we possibly can. Ten members are wishing to ask questions, so, as usual, if I could have short questions and, if possible, short answers were appropriate. Fulton McGregor to be followed by Margaret Mitchell and Mr McGregor. I welcome the increase in the age of criminal responsibility, which I believe is a progressive step, bringing Scotland into line with other European nations. Can the minister give further detail on why the decision has been made to set the age of criminal responsibility at 12? What evidence there is that this is the most appropriate age and how changing the law will contribute to the Scottish Government's desired outcomes for children? There are a number of factors that are taken into account when making the decision. First, the age of 12 aligns with the current minimum age of prosecution. It also meets international expectations from the UN. It reflects the age at which children are presumed to have capacity to instruct a solicitor, as well as existing presumptions around maturity, rights and participation in the children's hearing system. The proposed approach is founded on clear evidence, including the research that I highlighted from the Scottish Children's Reporter Administration about the vulnerable backgrounds of many under-12s who engage in harmful behaviour. The issues become more complex when children over 12 are involved with the risk of harm to themselves and others, greater and often higher number of offences involved. Changing the law allows us to continue to embed the GERFEC approach into how we support the needs of our most vulnerable children, considering the whole needs of children and making that our focus. I recognise that there are some who have called for the age to be raised higher than 12, but I consider that we have the balance right and should be guided by the evidence that we have gathered from the substantial engagement on this issue. The children's hearing system already deals with cases as appropriate, and lone numbers of referrals demonstrate that 8 to 11-year-olds are only held criminally responsible in exceptional cases. If the age of criminal responsibility is to be raised to 12, can the minister confirm that children's hearing system and any secure accommodation required is to be appropriately and properly resourced to deal with any exceptional cases that have involved recognised crime such as murder, serious and violent offences committed by the under-12s? I thank Margaret Mitchell for her question. She will be aware of the on-going work around the Children's Hearing Improvement programme. I have a meeting later this afternoon with Children's Hearing Scotland where I will be discussing with them that programme, but also the implications of the statement will be discussed in that meeting. We are currently undertaking an approach that is looking at the skills of panel members and the approaches that are taken within children's hearings. To put some of that into context, if we take the 2015-16 data that we have available to us, the total number of referrals to the panel were 210. The number of hearings that took place on offence grounds were six. The number of referrals does not necessarily relate to the number of hearings that take place in relation to offence grounds. We are talking about exceptionally small numbers here. While I recognise the resource question that Margaret Mitchell has highlighted, it is worth reflecting on the numbers that we are talking about when we look at referrals versus those where hearings take place. Beyond that, compulsory measures take place is often much lower than those that are referred in the first place. I welcome the minister's announcement today. It is a move that, in my view, is long overdue. The minister will be aware that, if we want to achieve that fairer Scotland that he highlighted in which children are treated equally, embedding the UN convention of the rights of the children in all relevant policy areas is key. Can the minister advise whether our child rights focus approach was taken when exploring the issue, the implications of changing the law for children and how that will and was achieved? I thank Christina McKelvie for that question. I can confirm that, yes, this approach was taken very much from a children's rights-proof perspective. A child rights and wellbeing impact assessment was commissioned as part of the review. I am happy to arrange alongside the advisory group recommendations that I committed to Douglas Ross, which would be placed in Spice, to have that document also placed in Spice so that members can be reassured that a child rights agenda was absolutely at the heart of this before we took it forward. As the minister is aware, I have a keen interest in children and families affected by imprisonment. The advisory group points out that children who get involved in serious, harmful behaviour do so because of a range of difficulties in their home lives, including parental imprisonment. What actions will the Government take in line with her statement today to support children with such difficulties to prevent them from negative outcomes, including imprisonment in later childhood and adult life? I thank Mary Fee for that question, and I recognise her long-standing interest in the area that she highlights. I think that Mary Fee touches perhaps on areas that sit outside what I have referred to in my statement, but nonetheless are just as important and just as crucial. In relation to the approaches that we want to take, I am very heartened by a lot of the good work that is being done through our prison system currently. In relation to the approach that is being taken to, first of all, empower those parents who are imprisoned to ensure that they continue to play a positive role in their children's lives, both from the position of being imprisoned when their children come to visit, but also upon release as well. The approach that is being taken to support children to better understand the nature of the justice system, particularly where it relates to parental incarceration. There is a lot of good work that is being done out there. Part of that is about joining that work up and making it more widespread. I am absolutely happy to work with Mary Fee in relation to that, given her depth of knowledge and interest in the subject. I thank the minister for a very early sight of the report and the evidence-based content that the Green Party will support the direction of travel on, particularly in relation to the UN rights of the child, which is very welcome. The report talks about bespoke police powers and the experience of police officers that it is very challenging to deal with young people, particularly young people in offending situations. An experience elsewhere with domestic violence and child protection has shown the benefit of collaborative working across agencies and the third sector. Will there be a training package put in place in support of any legislation that is forthcoming that will ensure that the best practice of cross-party interagency and third sector working continues? John Finnie highlights an important point in that we have to ensure that the appropriate approaches are taken in relation to the children who are going to be involved. As I have said, we start from the basis of taking an open mind. We have a list of recommendations from the advisory group, which give us a starting point, but that is not the end point and there will be discussion to be had. I am interested in the points that Mr Finnie raises and where there are good examples of that interagency working. We should definitely try to ensure that that is something that happens across all areas rather than perhaps happening in pockets. I am happy to work with Mr Finnie and look at those examples as part of the process. I thank the minister for early sight of his statement and warmly welcome the decision to move ahead with raising the age of criminal responsibility and looking forward to working with him on the detail of that. He perhaps could have taken time to acknowledge the pivotal contribution of my former colleague, Alison McInnes, whose amendments to the criminal justice bill led very directly to the establishment of the advisory group, whom I thank and whose recommendations the Government is now rightly taking forward. In relation to those proposals, can the minister advise how the powers in relation to disclosure will avoid undermining efforts to address concerns of many campaigners that the actions of a child aged 8 to 11 will result in that child having a record that follows them into adulthood perhaps for the rest of their life? Can the minister also advise the chamber on whether his proposals will have any retrospective effect for those who have a record based on actions or behaviour that took place when they themselves were between the ages of 8 and 11? First of all, I agree with Liam McArthur and put on record my gratitude to Alison McInnes for the work that she undertook in the last Parliament in relation to that. I know that Liam McArthur will understand that the reason why the Government chose not to accept Alison McInnes' amendment was on the basis that the advisory group's work was on-going. I think that we all received letters from the Children's Commissioner to that effect, asking us to allow the advisory group to conclude its work. However, I put on record my thanks to Alison McInnes. She is somebody who I think that this Parliament misses greatly, while she and I were often in disagreement. I never had occasion to find her disagreeable. In relation to how we take matters forward in relation to both the powers around disclosure and retrospective effect, in exceptional circumstances the disclosure via what would be class' other relevant information would be possible. That would be essentially taken forward probably in exceptional circumstances depending upon seriousness of offence. Again, that is work that has to be undertaken to ensure that we get that balance absolutely right. In terms of the retrospective effect, we need to give that some careful consideration in relation to whether it is possible and also what the outcome of that might potentially be in relation to some of those, as I have identified, potentially serious cases that exist out there. I am happy to look into those matters. As part of the work that I want to do across the chamber, I am happy to discuss further with Mr McArthur as we take forward the legislation. Will the minister give any further detail on what arrangements will be put in place to ensure monitoring and risk management for young people who have demonstrated harmful behaviour in early childhood offending and who continue to cause concern as they become adults? Children can and do change. That is fundamental to the Scottish concept of social education and our reintegrative model. As I outlined in my statement, we need a system that reflects that and furthers our approach to addressing needs as well as deeds. For young people, nearing their 18th birthday, appropriate plans should be in place to manage risks, ensure that they are shared with all relevant agencies, with responsibility for supporting that young person and managing any potential risks as they are currently. Additional safeguards will be put in place for the young person moving into young adulthood whose behaviour has been assessed to continue to be a source of serious concern and where compulsory measures of risk management are considered necessary and proportionate. That is the principle on which we begin in relation to that. Again, it is work that will be taken forward as part of the legislation being drafted. A very small number of children can be guilty of conduct of the most serious kind. The question in the public mind will be if they are capable of serious criminal conduct, why should they not be dealt with on the basis of that conduct? My question, and I wonder if the minister could give any commitment on this today and something that may allay the fear in people's minds, is if someone, when an adult commits a crime that they have conducted themselves in a certain way that would have been criminal but for this change in the law, will the previous conduct be taken account of for the purposes of sentencing the sex offenders register, lifelong restriction orders, all of those issues that maybe the general principle is all the minister could commit to today and the detail will have to follow? As I have said, in relation to exceptional circumstances, disclosure into adult food will be a possibility. In relation to the point that Mr Lindhurst makes, I would essentially respond by saying that I do not think that it is acceptable to essentially say that we should categorise all eight-year-olds as being potential serious criminals and that is the approach that I take. I recognise that we need to do some work to ensure that where exceptional circumstances arise and the figures that I have given this afternoon would give indication that those are exceptional circumstances. I do not think that we should start from the premise that we categorise all those children aged between eight to 12 in that manner. In a statement, the minister explained how a child who is killed would be dealt with now and how they would be dealt with under the proposed legislation, but he also pointed out how rare that is. With the evidence of increased early sexualisation of children, a more likely case might be one of a child under 12 but over eight who committed a sexual offence. Can the minister elaborate how that will be dealt with and how further offending might be protected against appropriately, if necessary? I think that that comes back to the point about the identification of the vulnerability of children and the fact that the deeds are dictated by those needs and by that situation. In those circumstances, I accept that there will need to be interventions. As I outlined in my statement, the full range of interventions would remain available to the children's hearing system. I also think that there is work that needs to be done around the areas that Iain Gray identifies, and there is obviously work going on in other Government streams to look at things such as child sexual exploitation, sexualisation of children and the behaviours that arise as a consequence of that. It is about joining up those approaches to ensure that those children are prevented from those kinds of behaviours. Were those behaviours arise, firstly, they are dealt with appropriately to keep both that child and other members of the public safe, but also that we take the time to address the needs that underlie the deeds. In his statement, the minister referred to a bespoke package of police powers, and I wondered if the minister could elaborate on whether that package will give the police new powers to address harmful behaviour by children. As I outlined in my answer to Mr Ross, many of those powers are powers that the police currently have. Further detailed work on that is obviously required before draft legislation is introduced. As I have said, I am keen to involve stakeholders and indeed members in that work. As a starting point, I have said that I will place the advisory group's recommendations in SPICE in order to allow members to examine them in more thorough detail. I can confirm, as I confirmed to Ms McElvie, that a child rights and wellbeing impact assessment was commissioned as part of this process, which demonstrates that the proposals on safeguards and police powers have been rights-proofed at the design stage and that screening would continue as proposals are developed. That concludes the questions of the statement. We move on to the next item of business, but allow for a few moments to the front benches to change places.