 The next item of business is consideration of business motion 1, 7, 1, 7, 7, 0, in the name of Graeme Dey on behalf of the Parliamentary Bureau, on the timetabling of the Age of Criminal Responsibility Scotland Bill. I call on Graeme Doo here to move this motion. Moved, Presiding Officer. The question therefore is that motion 1, 7, 1, 7, 0, be agreed. Are we all agreed? Yes—are agreed. Amendment 1. three proceedings on the Age of Criminal Responsibility Scotland Bill. In dealing with the amendments, members should have the bill as amended at stage two, that is, SP bill 29A, the martial list and the grouping of amendments. The division bell will sound and proceedings will be suspended for five minutes for the first division of the afternoon. The period of voting for the first division will be 30 seconds. Thereafter, I will allow a voting period of one minute for the first division after a debate. Members who wish to speak in the debate on any group of amendments should press their request-to-speak button as soon as possible after I call the group. Members shall now refer to the martial list. We start with group 1, which is the further increase in the age of criminal responsibility and of prosecution, age and timetable for increase. I call amendment 1, in the name of Alex Cole-Hamilton, grouped with amendments as shown in the groupings. At this point, I advise members that amendments 1 and 2 are direct alternatives. I also draw members' attention to the information in the groupings on the other direct alternatives in the group. I ask Cole-Hamilton to move amendment 1 and to speak all amendments in the group. I rise to speak to the amendments in the group, which I move in my name. Can I start by paying tribute to Alison McInnes, my friend and colleague, who pushed for progress on this issue in the last Parliament? She met SNP obstruction in her efforts, similar to that that which I fear I will meet again today. During stage 1 evidence of a different bill, the Equal Protection Bill, which is currently before this Parliament, Gillian Van Turnhout, a former Irish senator, said something that I think has resonance with our proceedings today. Speaking of her successful efforts to end physical punishment in Ireland, she told us that she went into the chamber, not knowing that, even if she was the only person to say that it is okay not okay to hit a child, children in Ireland would know that somebody in a position of authority was on her side. I recognise those words today. If my party and the ministers' predecessor Mark McDonald and a handful of others from other parties are the only ones to vote for a further increase in the age of criminal responsibility this afternoon to at least the international minimum, then children in Scotland will know that there are people in authority on their side. The progress of this bill has been characterised by some very public and unprecedented interventions from the international community, expressing an imperative for us to get to at least 14 and further still. This was a view shared by the clear majority of witnesses who gave evidence to our committee. Indeed, the day after our stage 1 debate, the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child revised general comment 10 to lift the global minimum to 14 years old. That was spelled out to our committee in no uncertain terms by a member of the UN committee in oral evidence. Separately, the human rights commissioner of the European Council, Dunia Mayotovic, wrote to the minister expressing in the strongest terms possible that Scotland should use this legislative opportunity to get to 14 immediately. The minister's response to the commissioner was nothing short of an international embarrassment. By pointing to Scotland's unique children's hearing system, she sought to lean on a sense of perceived exceptionalism. The commissioner's reply offered her very short shrift. Each national system is unique, she said, but nobody gets a pass. In resisting stage 1 calls for further uplift, the minister also cited a need to carry the people of Scotland with us. However, our further call for views at stage 2 revealed 86 per cent of respondents supported further uplift to 14 and even 16. Simply put, if you are waiting for the people to come with us on this minister, then they are already here. On my amendments to increase the ACR to 16, I want to say this. We simply cannot be the best place in the world to grow up if we aim for and subsequently miss the bare minimum international standard of expectation in this area. We have spent decades coalescing around the view that 16 is the point at which you should be credited with the wisdom to choose who you marry or share a bed with, whether you leave home and who represents you in this Parliament. Either you have mental capacity to understand the consequences of your actions or you do not. The Government's position on the age of majority is wholly incongruous. The Government has also argued that there is a capacity problem here for going further than 12. Indeed, the First Minister referred to the sheer volume of cases that would move from the courts to the children's panels. We know, thanks to the clarification from the Lord Advocate, that the sheer volume of 12 to 14-year-olds being tried in adult courts amounts to a grand total of 11 individuals a year. I accept that additional change may be required in the children's hearing system to accommodate those cases. That was identified by the children's reporter, who also supported an uplift to 16 and the Lord Advocate. Several evidence sessions have suggested that those amounts to post-18 powers for children's panels and a shift in the burden of proof between the balance of probabilities and beyond reasonable doubt for the most egregious cases. That is why amendments 3, 6, 7 and 8, in my name, offer Parliament a sunrise clause that would re-establish the working group and seek commencement of a further uplift to 14 or 16 via a vote in this Parliament if needs be in early 2021. I refuse to accept that that is not enough time. That is a Parliament that passed the EU continuity act in three days. I refuse also to accept that the changes such an uplift will require are beyond the capabilities of ministers and stakeholders. In the 22 months, my amendments are forward. If there is a political will, so to do. I do not, however, believe that such a will exist sadly. Without those amendments, the international community will judge this Government as a failure on children's rights. History will also judge it likewise, but more importantly so too will the children and young people of this country, and I do not blame them. I move the amendments in my name. Thank you very much. I could have called the minister, Marie Todd, to speak to amendment 145 and the other amendments in this group. Presiding Officer, most of Mr Cole Hamilton's amendments in this group were previously lodged and debated at stage 2. In response to that, the Equalities and Human Rights Committee scheduled two additional evidence sessions to hear the implications of raising the age above 12 through this bill from the Lord Advocate's Lister General Crown Office in the Scottish Children's Reporter Administration. Those experts were clear on the importance of carefully scoping and analysing the implications of moving to a higher age. It is worth noting that following that additional evidence-taking session, the committee's position on the age did not change. In response to those broadly similar amendments today, I want to make three clear points. First, the measures in part 4 of this bill have been developed to take account of the very small number of recorded incidents of significant harm that involve children under 12. The scale and impact of harmful behaviour involving children aged 12 to 15 is significantly greater. The part 4 measures would require further scrutiny and consideration before we would be in a position to implement such a higher age. There is also the likelihood, as was set out at stage 2, of the need for additional primary legislation. The effect, Presiding Officer, would be that raising the age from 8 could be delayed for a number of years. Even with the so-called sunrise clauses envisaged by Mr Cole Hamilton, significant work would require to be undertaken even before those could safely be commenced. I do not think that anyone in this chamber would welcome that. Alex Cole-Hamilton, I am grateful to the minister for taking an intervention on that point. We took no stage 1 evidence to suggest that there should be any delay for commencement of the age of criminal responsibility of 12 from the date of royal ascent. At no point did anybody say that that would set us back, yet I know, because I have had to lodge commencement amendments, that this is something that the Government is going to spring on us. We may delay this implementation by a year. Will she speak to that now? No, I will not respond to that now, because, as you well know, you have lodged amendments that relate to that particular issue, and we will discuss that later on in the bill. At the moment, I will focus on the amendments in this grouping. Mr Cole-Hamilton's amendments 6 and 7 propose that the ministers increase the age of criminal responsibility by way of regulation, without any additional primary legislation coming before this Parliament that might be needed in this regard. That does not feel like an appropriate procedure for such a significant reform. Secondly, Mr Cole-Hamilton's amendments 9, 10, 11 and 12 seek to raise the age of criminal prosecution. There has been no real debate at any stage of the bill process on that proposal, not least from Mr Cole-Hamilton himself. Again, making such a change requires careful and considered deliberation. That is not to say that we might not in the future agree as a Parliament to raise the age of criminal prosecution further, but the safe way to do so is after proper review, scrutiny and development of detailed proposals and their implications in that regard. Finally, I acknowledge that the UN Committee will issue its general comment number 24 imminently, and it is likely to recommend that states set a minimum age of criminal responsibility of at least 14. However, as Perot's draft comment, it may also encourage states to ensure that there are no exceptions to its minimum age and to provide legal safeguards for equitable treatment of children above and below the minimum age. With that bill, unlike in other countries, we are absolutely fulfilling those latter points. It is also worth noting that many of the other actions that the UN Committee calls for on youth justice Scotland is already doing and indeed going beyond. I am very grateful to the minister for giving way again. Does she recognise that in 2012, in doing the right thing, her predecessor, Aileen Campbell, committed to the increase in the lifetime of the last Parliament, yet failed to do that? How confident can we be in any claims that this Government makes about taking this agenda further? I have brought forward a review, and I have advised an advisory group that a review will report within three years to this Parliament. I am very confident that we are doing the right thing for Scotland today, and, in future, we will continue to do the right thing for Scotland. We are a leading nation on youth justice. We should be proud of that and what it is achieving for our young people. We have confirmed that we will incorporate the UN Convention of the Rights of the Child into law in the lifetime of this Parliament. At the same time, my amendment 145 allows for consideration of the future age of criminal responsibility, as well as review of the operation of the act generally. I propose a review period of three years from the commencement of section 1 of the bill. That will provide a sufficient period of time to allow proper consideration of the impacts of the current change and the new measures that we hope to introduce through this bill, which will be debated later today. I have also announced the new advisory group, which will be established, and it will play a key role in taking forward this review, should members agree to that today. My amendment also requires that a report of the review findings be laid before the Scottish Parliament so that it can play its rightful role in determining the way ahead alongside government. Amendment 155 links with this overall review and more widely to the provisions in this bill. It invests Scottish ministers with the statutory authority to require certain public bodies that hold information about the exercise of functions under part 4 of the bill to provide information, which is considered to be appropriate to the review and the monitoring of how the functions in part 4 of the bill are being used. I can assure the chamber that Scottish ministers only intend to use this power to gather anonymised statistical data showing, for example, the number of applications for a child interview order, the number granted and the types of behaviour that they relate to. There will be no requirement to disclose the sensitive personal data of any children in any specific cases. Presiding officer, this bill is fundamentally about enhancing children's rights, but the Scottish Government also has positive obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights to maintain an effective system for the investigation of crime and the rights of victims. We cannot put children, communities and victims at risk by rushing into changes without being certain that the responsible agencies are ready to do so effectively and safely. So we need to get the balance right. Raising the age beyond 12 in this bill would not achieve that. The responsible approach is to raise the age to 12 now and allow a statutory review to be undertaken to consider the future age of criminal responsibility. I have made clear my commitment to making progressive changes that benefit Scotland's children and to continue the evidence and expert-led approach that has been so successful at generating consensus to date. The bill represents a radical, bold and ambitious reform that will create a significant cultural shift. The pace at which we are moving needs to command public confidence. I believe that by removing all primary school aged children in Scotland from criminal responsibility, we have got the balance right. I therefore urge members to resist all of Mr Cole Hamilton's amendments to support raising the age to 12 and to vote for my amendments 145 and 155. Thank you. I have a number of members who wish to contribute in this group. I call Rona Mackay to be followed by Mark McDonald. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I rise to speak against amendment 1, proposed by Alec Cole-Hamilton. In the stage 1 debate, I stated strongly that I favored the age of criminal responsibility to be raised to 14 as a minimum. My view on that has not changed. I still do. However, I will be voting against amendment 1 because, as we have heard, amendment 145 inserts that today's legislation will be reviewed with a view to raising it in future through the introduction of an expert advisory group review group, which has given me reassurance. I hope that future is not far away, but it is important to have the confidence of the public and professionals and agencies who will be required to manage this change, such as the children's hearing system and the police. I certainly have a greater understanding of what is involved in that now. Alec Cole-Hamilton's amendment would inevitably have the effect of criminalising children for longer, and I am certain that that is not what he wants. As I said, amendment 145 inserts the statutory requirement for ministers to carry out a review of the act itself and of the age. I think that that is a good amendment. I believe that a child or young person who ends up in the criminal justice system is a child who has been failed by adults who should have applied early intervention to stop the child from getting into trouble. In my view, the importance of ACEs cannot be overstated. Children should not be labelled as offenders, as the harm caused by doing this is everlasting and will impact greatly on their future. I think that the bill is a step in the right direction, but in my view it is only the start of the journey, and I hope that it is a quick one. I call Mark McDonald to be followed by Daniel Johnson. I begin by saying that I am grateful to Alec Cole-Hamilton for the conversations that he has had with me in advance of tabling those amendments. I also joined him in paying tribute to Alison McInnes, who was somebody that I enjoyed working with when she represented the northeast of Scotland. I believe that the debate on the issue has evolved during the process of the legislation, and I believe that at the same time as that debate has evolved, our thinking should do so as well. That is why I have come to the position that I have come to of supporting the position that Alec Cole-Hamilton has advanced. I believe that there is a question around the balance of approach. We have spoken at length in the debates around the legislation about the question of needs versus deeds, the idea that it is important that we understand what lies behind the harmful actions that some children may commit and how best to address those. I believe that taking the approach of raising the age to 14 would help us to ensure that children do not fall into the criminal justice system at an early age and often the cycle of offending behaviour that can result as a consequence of that. When one looks at the picture across Europe, one takes England, Wales and Northern Ireland and Scotland as separate jurisdictions, as one must given the different ages that each operates in terms of criminal responsibility. We find that 10 jurisdictions in Europe have a criminal age of responsibility, which is below 14. 12 have an age, which is over 14, and 25 have an age, which is at 14, in terms of the minimum age of criminal responsibility. I believe that setting the age at 14 would therefore place Scotland in the correct position in relation to our European counterparts. I also listened carefully to the arguments being made both by the minister and by Rona Mackay. It becomes very clear when listening to them that this is not a question about the principle of raising the age to 14. I think that the principle is broadly accepted. It is a question about the technical ability to be able to do so. I take the view that we could overcome those technical difficulties. The minister takes a different view in terms of the time that would be required to do that. I recognise the mathematics of the situation or that we are not going to go there yet, but I think that it is important that we have this debate and this discussion. I also think that it is important that we have a very clear understanding and adherence to timescales. I say at the outset that if Alec Cole-Hamilton's amendments are defeated, as I expect, in doing the maths of the chamber, they will be. I will be voting in favour of the minister's amendments 145 and 155, because I do believe that the principle exists and is supported. Therefore, I believe that the pressure can be exerted to ensure that the timescale is stuck to and perhaps slightly more optimistic than Mr Cole-Hamilton in that regard. Nonetheless, I will be supporting Mr Cole-Hamilton's amendments in relation to 14. He has not quite convinced me about 16 yet, but I will also support the minister's amendments should those amendments fall. As I stand, I would like to pay tribute in many ways to the arguments that Alec Cole-Hamilton makes. They are principled arguments and one in many ways that I agree with. However, there is an issue in terms of the timing that we are facing and the proposition that has been brought to Parliament for this point. It is unfortunate that the recommendations from the United Nations has changed through the passage of this bill, because I do believe in the importance of international institutions and the international rule of law. However, the proposition that has gone through Parliament is 12 and not 14, and I think that there are serious practical considerations. Indeed, I think that even the proposition as it stands, as we will look at later on through the amendments and the debate, I think that there are causes for concern, issues that we need to get right in both in terms of the practicalities of providing places of safety and also the exercise of these powers, both by the police and in other elements of the public services and indeed the criminal justice system. For those reasons, I do not believe that we can support the amendments in Alex Cole-Hamilton's name. I think that we should support raising the age to 12 rather than 14, but we must also support the amendments in the minister's name putting in place a review that will examine exactly the issues and indeed the reasons and principles that Alex Cole-Hamilton so eloquently laid out, because it is important that we review that. It is important that we do everything that we can to do our part to uphold international standards, but I do not believe now is the time when we must support the raising to 12, but not to 14 this afternoon. Oliver Mundell is to be followed by John Finnie. We on these benches believe that 12 strikes the right balance. There is nothing that has been said in today's debate or, indeed, in the further evidence that was taken at committee that has convinced us that that changes. However, we are content to support the Government's amendments for review, because it is important that we are making this type of change that affects a number of other aspects of our legal system, that we are sure that it is working and that we are open to hear the evidence that I have brought forward at that point from those who know our criminal justice system best. The Scottish Government's direction of travel is very welcome, but they quite simply have not gone far enough and we will be supporting Mr Cole-Hamilton's amendments. I know that many people view that as a huge step, and I accept that that is the case in a significant culture change. Of course, people will rightly identify practical situations that need to be dealt with. However, with the direction of travel that is given by the Government and the necessary wallet, I believe that we could go further now. I am a pragmatist and I think that we know the arithmetic of that. However, the minister also talked about taking his lead from experts. I would simply point to what the UN has said. I accept the children's hearing and nothing should infer criticism of the children's hearing system, which we should rightly be proud of. However, the children's commissioners are somewhat charged with the obligation of informing the Scottish Government about our position in relation to those matters. The incorporation is very positive. I have to say that the minister's amendment 145 is a poor second review in three years. It should mean that there should be no further delay beyond that. The understanding that it is very unlikely that we are going to be defeated on the more progressive approach than, certainly, Greens will be supporting the minister's 145 and 155. I would like to thank Alex Cole-Hamilton for bringing this amendment to the chamber, but I want to comment on the tone of his opening speech. Have any referred to SNP obstruction? I would say that, as a member of the committee who looked at it, there was quite a lot of constructive debate on that issue. I want to make some progress and then I'll perhaps let you back in. However, 14 is for myself, as my colleague Rona Mackay and many others have said, as it is the minimum place to get to. I have been convinced by the argument that the minister made at committee to move more gradually to that place and allow our services and our justice system to adopt. I would ask Alex Cole-Hamilton not to mix up the debate that we have had with people coming to their views on that as being instructive. Indeed, I would go as far to say that he has refused at every point to accept that his own amendments may just cause a delay to the roll-out to protect 12-year-olds. On two occasions, I have been accused of delaying the implementation of an ACR of 12, but my sunrise amendment sees 12 achieved at royal assent and then moving forward to 14 or 16 on the advice of a committee. As for obstruction, the previous children's minister committed to the United Nations in 2012 to achieve an ACR of 12 in the last Parliament. Alison McInnes, the Liberal Democrat MSP, offered this Government two separate occasions on which to make that happen, and they were both rebuffed. That is obstruction. Fulton MacGregor I thank Alex Cole-Hamilton for making that an adventure. I disagree with what he is saying, because he has been making a point consistently through committee that this will not obstruct a roll-out, and the minister and the Government have come back saying that it will. The point that I was trying to make in the earlier remarks was that he was not even willing to accept that, so that is the point that I am trying to make. The minister has brought forward an amendment that I would encourage everybody to support. It is a good amendment, and it is a sensible amendment. It brings it back in three years, and perhaps we can have that debate again at that point. I have said what where my stance is in this year, and I think that this is a sensible amendment at this time. Thank you. I call on Alex Cole-Hamilton to conclude it or to wind up in this group and also to press or withdraw the amendment. I may very well wind up. Without increasing the age of criminal responsibility to 14 or still higher now, the bill does not just set the face of this Government and this Parliament against the rights of children. It fatally undermines any claim that we have as a human rights leader on the world stage. To aim at the international minimum and miss in this way will set us on a par with the four most socially conservative countries in all of Europe. It makes a mockery of our aspirations towards human rights leadership internationally. I welcome, along with everyone else, the report of Sir Alan Miller and the First Minister's advisory group on human rights leadership, but we have wasted the time of a good man and those around him. We simply decry human rights abuses in countries such as China and Russia, but both of those have ages of criminal responsibility higher still than we will achieve in the passage of this bill today. Again, you cannot lead the world on human rights from the back of the pack. Last week, I should have attended a cross-party group to celebrate the achievements of the year of young people, but I could not stomach it. I could not bear to listen to the minister speaking of her love and the love of her Government for the children and young people of this country and their achievements. With this bill, we are saying to the young people in Scotland, this country will govern you with love until you break the law, at which point that love ends. I will remind the minister and her Government of this day and this craven piece of legislation every time it claims to stand up for children or for human rights. Every sugar-coated motion it seeks to bring to this chamber and every saccharine policy announcement it uses to promote the image of its commitment to the rights and interests of Scotland's children. I will remind it and anyone who will listen of this day. If my amendment is full, I will only vote for this bill, because the current ACR over which the SNP has presided this past decade is, frankly, medieval. Unamended, Presiding Officer, this bill is an embarrassment that the Government has no cause to speak of it with pride, and I cannot celebrate its passing tonight. I wish to press my amendments. Thank you very much. Just before we come to the vote on amendment 1, just to explain that amendment 1 is a direct alternative to amendment 2. I will take a decision on both amendments in the order in which they appear in the marshaled list. If both the first and the second amendments were to be agreed to, then the second amendment succeeds the former and the first amendment would cease to have effect. The question is that amendment 1 would be agreed to, or we are all agreed. We are not agreed, and this is the first division of the day, so there will be a five-minute suspension. I will call members to the chamber a five-minute suspension. Thank you, colleagues. We are back in session, and we move to a vote. The question is that amendment 1 would be agreed to. Are we all agreed? If we are not agreed, we will move to a vote. Members may cast their votes now, and this will be a 32nd division. The result of the vote on amendment 1, in the name of Alex Cole-Hamilton, is yes, 11, no, 108, there were no abstentions, the amendment is therefore not agreed. I call amendment 2, in the name of Alex Cole-Hamilton, already debated. Alex Cole-Hamilton, to move or not move? Move. That is moved. The question is that amendment 2 would be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed, we will move to a vote. Members may cast their votes now. The result of the vote on amendment 2, in the name of Alex Cole-Hamilton, is yes, 10, no, 110, there were no abstentions, the amendment is therefore not agreed. I call amendment 3, in the name of Alex Cole-Hamilton, already debated. Alex Cole-Hamilton, to move or not move? Move. That is moved. The question is that amendment 3 would be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed, we will move to a vote. Members may cast their votes now. The result of the vote on amendment 3, in the name of Alex Cole-Hamilton, is yes, 11, no, 109, there were no abstentions, the amendment is therefore not agreed. I call amendment 4, in the name of Alex Cole-Hamilton. Alex Cole-Hamilton, to move or not move? Not moved. That is not moved. I call amendment 5, in the name of Alex Cole-Hamilton, moved or not moved? Not moved. That is not moved. I call amendment 6, in the name of Alex Cole-Hamilton, moved or not moved? Not moved. That is not moved. I was going to call the amendments up to amendment 15, and I would like to press amendments 9, 10, 11 and 12. In that case, it will be easy. I will go through them one way on the stage, if that is fine. I call amendment 7, in the name of Alex Cole-Hamilton. Already debated, Alex Cole-Hamilton to move or not move. That is not moved. I call amendment 8, Alex Cole-Hamilton to move or not move. That is not moved. That is not moved. I call amendment 9, in the name of Alex Cole-Hamilton. Already debated, Alex Cole-Hamilton to move or not move. That is moved. The question is that amendment 9 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. We will move to have division. Members may cast their votes now. The result of the vote on amendment 9 in the name of Alex Cole-Hamilton is yes, 11, no, 109. There were no abstentions, so the amendment is therefore not agreed. I call amendment 10, in the name of Alex Cole-Hamilton. Alex Cole-Hamilton to move or not move. That is moved. The question is that amendment 10 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? No. We are not agreed. We will move to a vote. Members may cast their votes now. The result of the vote on amendment 10 in the name of Alex Cole-Hamilton is yes, 10, no, 111. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed. I call amendment 11, in the name of Alex Cole-Hamilton. Already debated, Alex Cole-Hamilton to move or not move. Not moved. That is not moved. I call amendment 12, Alex Cole-Hamilton to move or not move. Not moved. That is not moved. I call amendment 13, in the name of Alex Cole-Hamilton. Alex Cole-Hamilton to move or not move. Not moved. That is not moved. I call amendment 14, in the name of Alex Cole-Hamilton. Alex Cole-Hamilton to move or not move. Not moved. I am not planning to move any of those now. Mae',еit howell. Y kn divisionadd ten, gyda'r hun arddangos cy Animnae, a'r sgol, a ddadgion yn welcominginee, hefyd, the Baroness 토c, hwn i'n maithgau'r dromiadau a'r cyparwyr, 시간au, y maithgau'r deg ddim tieneneth a'r hynny i fy mod eich eggod, gyda'r rhai pwn i lle i anghyst colours ac i gycon. amendment 99, 100, 102, 103 and 147, and the minister to move amendment 98 and to speak to all amendments in this group. Presiding Officer, a number of the amendments in this group clarify existing provisions or make minor or consequential changes. Amendment 98 is needed to reflect a change being made to the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 by the Management of Offenders Scotland Bill, which is currently before Parliament. Amendment 101 seeks to leave no doubt in relation to what the word purpose refers to in subsection 4e4a. Amendment 103 seeks to make clear that the meaning of other relevant information in the Police Act 1997 and the PVG Act can include information about relevant behaviour, as defined in this bill. It is designed to aid understanding and implementation of the bill's provisions. Amendment 99 seeks to bring an investigative interview by agreement under section 31a2 of the bill, within the scope of the relevant behaviour and the conversation 4b. If members would just please keep the conversation down to a minimum, the minister is quite softly spoken and I would like to hear what she has to say. I want to focus on amendment 102, which follows on from amendments to part 2 of the bill at stage 2. Those amendments inserted measures to provide certain protections to prevent a person from having to disclose information relating to pre-12 behaviour in situations such as job applications or judicial proceedings. They also provided for those protections not to apply in cases where disclosure of information about pre-12 behaviour in an enhanced disclosure certificate or PVG record scheme has been approved by the independent reviewer. Information about relevant behaviour is not, however, only used or disclosed by Disclosure Scotland or by the individuals to whom it relates. There are a variety of proceedings in which such information may need to be considered and used, such as proceedings under the Children's Hearing Scotland Act 2011 or proceedings relating to the adoption of children. Subsections 1 and 2 of the amendment therefore make provision to allow the use of information about pre-12 behaviour in certain proceedings like this. A regulation making power here allows Scottish ministers to amend the list to set out further modifications and exceptions in relation to disclosure of information about relevant behaviour in certain proceedings. Amendment 147 provides for such regulations to be subject to the affirmative procedure so that members will be given the appropriate opportunity to scrutinise any changes made under those powers. Amendment 100 is consequentialed on amendment 102 and is technical in nature. Part 2 highlights fully the need to get the balance right with this legislation to raise the age of criminal responsibility and allow children and adults to move on from behaviour and circumstances from before they were 12 but also to ensure that relevant information can be shared proportionately to help to keep people, children and vulnerable adults and community safe. I move amendment 98. Thank you very much. Members may have noted that we have passed the agreed time limit for the debate on this group to finish. I exercise my power under rule 9.8.4a to allow the debate on this group to continue beyond the limit. No other member wishes to speak in this group. I take it that the minister has no other comments to make to wind up. The question therefore is that amendment 98 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are all agreed. I call amendments 16 to 25, all the name of Alex Cole-Hamilton, all previously debated. Could I invite Mr Cole-Hamilton to indicate whether he wishes to move or not move? Not move. They are not moved. I call amendments 99 to 102, all the name of the minister and all previously debated. Could I invite the minister to move the amendments on block? Thank you. Does any member object to a single question that we put on the amendments on block? Oh yes, we have to move the amendments individually in that case. In that case, I call amendment 99 in the name of the minister. Are we all agreed? Are we all agreed? We are agreed. I call amendment 100 in the name of the minister. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. I call amendment 101 in the name of the minister. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. I call amendment 102 in the name of the minister. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. We will move to our vote and members may cast their votes now. Because this is a new group, this is a one-minute division. The result of the vote on amendment 102 in the name of Marie Todd is yes, 90, no, 32. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore agreed. I call amendments 26 and 27 in the name of Alex Cole-Hamilton, the member to move or not move, not moved, they are not moved. I call amendment 103 in the name of the minister. Already debated. The minister to move formally. Thank you. The question is that amendment 103 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. I call amendments 28 to 39 in the name of Alex Cole-Hamilton, the member to indicate whether he wishes to move or not move, not moved, they are not moved. We turn now to group 3, places of safety, use of police stations and police cells within police stations. I call amendment 148 in the name of Daniel Johnson, grouped with the amendments that are shown in the groupings. Daniel Johnson to move amendment 148 and to speak to all the amendments in this group. Thank you, Presiding Officer. This bill is important in lifting children out of the scope of the criminal law, and that is right and proper. However, as we do so, we must consider carefully the way in which the powers and indeed the responsibilities that this bill sets out will be exercised in particular by the police, who in many cases will be at the very forefront of ensuring that this bill is carried out in the way in which this Parliament intends. In particular, we need to give great consideration to that role that we ask our police to carry out as guardians in our community protecting ordinary citizens going about their daily lives, which is why the provisions around places of safety are so important, but they are also very sensitive indeed, which is what the amendments in this section seek to clarify and provide greater detail on. As we do so, it is important to note that the powers that are set out in the bill do not stand alone. There are existing welfare powers, as indeed there are also existing stipulations regarding places of safety in the 2016 Criminal Justice Act. However, we must get the balance right, and there is a balance to be struck, in particular about what constitutes a place of safety. What practical difference is there if a place of safety, in terms of the experience of the child, looks and feels no different to if that individual had been arrested within the scope of the criminal law? Therefore, making sure that we have clarity about what constitutes a place of safety, making sure that a police station is only used in the very last resort, and also ensuring that that place of safety power is used correctly and in the right circumstances is particularly important. However, the second part that requires clarification is ensuring that police have clarity around the implementation of the bill, because the criterion that is set out in section 23 of the bill rightly sets a very high bar to the use of this power in terms of taking a child to a place of safety. However, there is a concern that there is potentially a gap between that threshold of significant harm being caused to another individual and the welfare powers that already exist. In particular, if we consider the circumstances of an 11-year-old graffitiing a wall or keying a car committing criminal damage, in those circumstances it is hard to construe that that child is causing significant harm to another individual. However, if they are not familiar to the police, could you consider that there would be justifiable welfare concerns on what grounds would the police therefore be acting if that child has been lifted out of the scope of the criminal law? That gap requires clarification. I thank the Scottish Police Federation and the Association of Scottish Police Superintendents, but also the Government for the very extensive discussions that have been happening in the past week. Those discussions have been important, they have been quite pressurised, if I might add, but they have been hugely important, so I would thank all three of those groups for that. To go through my amendments in some detail, regarding the place of safety, amendment 149 states that a child can only be kept in a police station if the child is behaving in a violent manner and that that can only be used when a constable at the rank of inspector above considers it to be so. That provides an important threshold and criteria for the police, but also in safeguarding the individual police constable, ensuring that the decision that is making is made at the correct level. Amendment 150 ensures that further detail is provided in terms of the definition of a place of safety. Perhaps, most importantly, amendment 151, I think that there was a significant concern voiced about ensuring that there was availability of alternative places of safety for the police, that, while the bill as sets out makes a number of provisions in terms of presumption against use of police station, that they may find themselves unavoidably using police station, but that the lack of clarity may provide them with significant challenges in terms of that decision making. What amendment 151 does is require the Government to compile and maintain a list of acceptable places of safety. I think that it is important that there is no assumption that this list is exhaustive, but simply that this would require a maintenance of a list that could be used and referred to by the police, so that they can, with confidence, refer to that list and use those places of safety as compiled by the Government. However, I also need to turn to that second point about the practical issues in terms of the exercise of the place of safety. As I have said, it sets rightly a high bar, but we do require further clarification about how that high bar is applied and how it is to be used by individual police officers. Therefore, amendments 109A and 109B are amendments to a Government amendment, requiring specifically for the Government to set out what constitutes significant harm and how that should be applied. Requiring the Government to set that in statutory guidance, so that police officers can have the clarity that they require in terms of exercising those rights and indeed responsibilities. Lastly, amendment 148 was an attempt to set out an alternative approach to provide greater clarity and further detail through statutory guidance, which was called for by the police. However, I also recognise the issues that the amendment would have created in terms of setting a criteria, a legal criteria, but one that would have been codified in statutory guidance. That, I accept, is a flaw, which is why I will not be pressing that particular amendment. Those amendments go in some ways, I feel, to providing clarity and certainty in terms of the use of the place of safety. However, I do not believe that they address fully the potential gap between the welfare powers and the new power in terms of place of safety. I would call on the Government to clarify what powers the police officers will have to simply take a child home to their parents when that child is to use vernacular language up to no good and to be able to do so without fear of further repercussion, because that is the common sense approach to policing. The common sense thought that, if a police officer sees a child doing something that they should not, that they can simply put their hand on their shoulder and take them back to their parents or guardians. I would ask the Government to point where in statutes, where in common law and where in case law, they believe that the police will have powers to do the common sense thing of returning a child to its home where there are no welfare considerations and where they are not likely to cause significant harm to an individual. I would call on the Government to also explain why it has not considered remitting it to stage 2, because I believe that that is an important point that requires further scrutiny. I think that it is with regret that we have had so little time to consider that very important point in the bill. I will close that point. I call Alex Cole-Hamilton to speak to amendment 90 and the other amendments. I am going to call the minister before, in the order here. I will call the minister to speak to amendment 149A and the other amendments in the group. Part 4 of the bill seeks to provide powers to allow investigation of an incident of significant harm involving a primary school-aged child. They are intended for use only in the most serious circumstances and reflect the recommendations of the advisory group, whose members included Police Scotland, social work and children's charities. Those recommendations were consulted on extensively with conclusions published in 2016. Those made clear that national guidance on child protection should be revised to include guidance for managing the welfare of and risks posed by children's harmful behaviour. That review is now under way, so it reflects the terms of the bill. No examples were forthcoming in the consultation or indeed since then, highlighting concerns that children's behaviour would not be covered under existing criteria, such as causing harm to others or being outwith parental control. Powers already exist in statute and common law to allow police officers, beyond the scope of what is in this bill, to address the need to take a child to a place of safety, where an officer considers that there are wider child welfare protection considerations. The range of police powers relating to the most harmful incidents also does not impact on their general duties—for example, to prevent crime and to maintain order. Police officers can still intervene in incidents involving lower-level harmful behaviour, engaging with the child in an age-appropriate way. They just cannot do so with reference to criminal justice powers such as of arrest or holding in custody. At present, powers under common law allow officers to take a child home with their consent. That will continue. Child protection powers also enable the police to take a child to a place of safety, even where that consent is not forthcoming. Presiding Officer, my amendment 157 seeks to make absolutely clear that all of those powers will continue. The bill, however, marks a fundamental change in entirely removing under-twels from traditional criminal justice processes, and successful implementation of its measures will require the confidence of professionals and delivery partners, including Police Scotland. My amendment 109, therefore, provides for statutory guidance on section 23. Its broad scope at subsection 1A allows a wide range of matters to be covered. However, I agree that it would be useful to specify in this guidance what is meant by significant harm and the circumstances in which a child may be taken to a place of safety. Accordingly, I support Daniel Johnson's amendments 109A and 109B. I am absolutely committed to involving the expertise of Police Scotland and their staff associations and other partner agencies in developing that guidance. I would expect that process to consider whether the existing powers that I have outlined are sufficient. If any gaps are identified, we will consider how best to address those, including through additional appropriate primary legislation. That will allow for careful planning ahead of implementation, with all the delivery issues that were worked through and the appropriate guidance, training and systems that were put in place before commencement. I hope that that assures Daniel Johnson and others that he would agree that now there is no need to press amendment 148. Nor would it be desirable to effectively remove the scope of the place of safety power from the face of the bill into guidance. Amendment 148 could inadvertently result in future expansion or limitation of the scope of the power without reference to Parliament. I hope that we might all agree that that would be undesirable. There are also legitimate rights concerns, keeping a child in a place of safety is a deprivation of their liberty, which needs a clear legal basis to comply with our human rights obligations under ECHR. The UN Committee on the Rights of the Child is also clear that there must be legal safeguards in place to ensure that the treatment of children below the age of responsibility is as fair and just as that of children at or above it. I committed at stage 2 to consider what more could be done to restrict the use of police cells as places of safety. My amendment 104 effectively creates a presumption against the use of police cells. Where their use cannot be avoided, it must be authorised by an inspector or above. I hear what the minister says about using cells as a tool of last resort, but what does she say to the briefing provided to members by Police Scotland, in which Police Scotland states that they have maintained that, in their words, our estate is never a suitable location for a child who is subject to place of safety provisions? I think that everybody who has been a vote in this passage of this bill is agreed that that would not be the ideal location, but there are circumstances where they could imagine it being the only suitable location. Amendment 105 clarifies that the requirement to transfer a child to a place of safety other than a police station as soon as reasonably practical applies regardless of whether a cell has been used. I welcome paragraph B of amendment 149, which applies a similar safeguard to 104, requiring such authorisation for the use of a police station. However, I have lodged an amendment to remove paragraph A of 149. I appreciate what Daniel Johnson is trying to achieve here, but it turns the focus back on to a child's behaviour rather than their needs. Nor would it allow for a police station to be used where it is the only practical option in a remote rural area. I would hope that Mr Johnson would recognise that and accept my amendment 149A. For similar reasons, I hope that Alex Cole-Hamilton will not now press amendments 90 to 96. We are all broadly trying to achieve the same effect, to strictly limit the use of police stations and cells, but the effects of 93 to 95 would be highly impractical, requiring application to a sheriff will lengthen the process, potentially leaving a distressed child at greater risk of trauma. I recognise that this is the very opposite of what Mr Cole-Hamilton intends, so I hope that he will not press his amendments. I already accepted Alex Cole-Hamilton's amendment at stage 2 to restate in-law what facilities can be used as places of safeties. Amendment 106 to 108 simply tidied up that section and in particular removed the language of availability of a place of safety so that the focus can rightly be on suitability. As my amendments also achieve broadly a similar effect of Daniel Johnson's amendment 150, I do not think that it is needed. While a national list of places of safety is not strictly necessary, it will allow us to ensure that there is consistent practice across the country, so I will support Daniel Johnson's amendment 151. Finally, at stage 2, I was keen to acknowledge that the use of the place of safety powers needs to be monitored and evaluated, so I welcome Ruth Maguire's amendments 152, 153 and 156. Presiding Officer, we need to get the balance right when the age of criminal responsibility is raised. Police Scotland are committed to keeping children and young people safe. They and other partners appreciate that engagement with children in their early years will influence their perspective on policing for the rest of their lives. Research supports that. Part 4 of the bill does not interfere with or impede the thoughtful and child-centred policing that goes on currently every day in communities across Scotland. Implementation will be carefully planned to provide the right guidance to help the police to keep children safe. I am committed to meaningfully raising the age of criminal responsibility, but we must also continue to respond to the needs of victims and the wider community. With a clear test at section 232 and provision for statutory guidance to support operational practice, as well as a strong set of rules around the use of police stations and police cells as places of safety and reporting and monitoring mechanisms on their use, I believe that we now have the right balance on those sections. I move my amendments, and I urge members to support them. I encourage members to support Ruth Maguire's amendments 152, 153 and 156. I support Daniel Johnson's amendments 109A, 109B and 149A, if amendment 1049A is also agreed, and 151. I hope that Daniel Johnson will now withdraw amendment 148. If it is pressed, I cannot support it, nor will I support amendment 150 or 90 to 96. I move amendment 90 and the other amendments in the group in my name. Those amendments stem as a reaction to powerful testimony from an extraordinary individual that committee members heard at stage 1 evidence. Lindsay Hambridge was 13 years old in 2007, on the night that she was taken into care, she arrived home to find a lot of police officers congregating outside her house, and she was instructed of the reality that she was about to be taken into care. She was desperately concerned, she didn't know what was wrong with her mum, she wanted to find out, and she kicked off as it was a normal reaction to an abnormal set of events. In the altercation that happened, she assaulted a police officer, was cuffed outside her house, taken to the police station about 10 or 11 o'clock at night, separated from all her family, and spent the night in the cells without communication until 7 o'clock the next morning. The point is that she was put there under place of safety provisions. The untold harm that she was given and occurred to her as a result of that experience is demonstrable of the fact that police cells are never places of safety as far as children are concerned. In the middle of one adverse childhood experience, this state stopped and handed her another. That is an unconscionable reaction. Everybody on the committee recognised the humanity of Lindsay's story and had a desire to do something about it. It is from where my amendments around the prohibition of cell use stem. I remind members of the intervention that I have just made on the minister that Police Scotland does not want to ever have to use cells in terms of police of safety provision. Oliver Mundale I understand that Police Scotland does not want to use cells. I do not want to see police cells used for children either, but does the member recognise that in some circumstances, for example in my constituency, which is largely rural, it might be preferable on occasion for young people to spend a short period of time in a police cell rather than to be transported a long distance in the back of a police van? I think that we all have to throw our cap over the wall on this. That hypothetical has been used several times. I recognise that remote and island communities may only have a police station or a police cell as the de minimus position for the place of safety provision. However, if that police cell already had a sex offender in it, you would not expect to use that cell as a place of safety. We need to box clever on this, we need to widen our ambition and, if it costs money, then let's spend that money. Article 37 in the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child states that every child deprived of liberty shall be treated in a manner that takes account of the needs of the persons of his or her age. Nothing about spending a night in a cell without contact with family, without basic comforts that children require for sustained thriving is met by holding them in a cell. As such, we are in contravention of article 37 on the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. It also states that we should never hold children where adults are held. You cannot guarantee that police stations on a Friday or Saturday night, when those provisions are most likely to be used, are anywhere like a safe place to take a child based on what else might be happening in that police station. I recognise that, once again, the mathematics of the parliamentary arithmetic are not in my favour. That is why amendments like article 95 in my name make it harder for those cells to become a tool of last resort or the default setting. As such, it must mean that duty constables must seek approval from somebody beyond the station to authorise the cell use as a very, very last resort. The problem is that Lindsay Hambridge's story suggests that there is no real guidance to Police Scotland at the moment about cell use in place of safety terms. I welcome and will vote for the minister's amendments to that end, but right now it is happening on a scale that we just do not comprehend or understand. My amendments will either prohibit it entirely or make it very difficult for them to become the default, because without it, we cannot ensure that the safety of our children is guaranteed. Police cells are simply not safe places. As such, I move my amendment. Ruth Maguire to speak to amendment 152, another amendment in this group. Presiding Officer, the Equalities and Human Rights Committee has had extensive debate throughout stages 1 and 2 on place of safety. We have listened to all the concerns throughout, and I welcome the changes that were made by the minister and also accepted by her into the bill to strengthen those provisions. I am also very clear about the purpose of part 4 in its entirety. When we raise the age of criminal responsibility, there will still need to be powers for police and other public agencies to address the very small number of instances of significant harm that may involve a child under 12. I believe that the powers that we have in part 4 are necessary and proportionate, but I also welcome Daniel Johnson's amendments and the ministers to provide further assurance in relation to the police's power to take a child to a place of safety. As convener of the committee, I want to assure everyone in this chamber that every opportunity was given to the police to raise these concerns at stages 1 and 2. I have revisited the evidence provided by Police Scotland, and I note that the Scottish Police Federation did not actually provide written evidence at stage 1. I welcome Police Scotland's focus in its written evidence on the need for child-centred policing and that the need for powers in part 4 would primarily be focused on meeting a child's needs. On section 23 specifically, their evidence raised a concern about the very narrow drafting only to allow for response to immediate risk, and saying that the section does not appear to confer any power to respond to the immediate aftermath of an incident. That is quite different from the issues that Police Scotland has raised publicly immediately before stage 3, but I have also considered what it is that it now appears to be asking for, which is to have a much broader, almost unfettered power to remove any child below the age of 12 to a place of safety for any reason through this bill. I simply cannot accept that. It would have the effect of raising the age of criminal responsibility, but leaving the police with quite far-reaching powers. I thank the member for giving way. I do not believe that that is what the police are asking for. I think that what they are simply asking for is a clarification that they can continue to do, the common-sense policing, the simple hand on the shoulder that they continue to do, and having that certainty and their concern about that lack of clarity. I would wonder if the member might reflect that as she concludes her remarks. I thank Daniel Johnson for that intervention. I will come on to that. It would have the effect of raising the age of criminal responsibility, but leaving the police with quite far-reaching powers to remove any child to a place of safety. That recent stushy, if you want to call it that, would perhaps also show that we have some way still to travel to change practice and culture. Police and communities in my Cunningham South constituency do an absolutely fantastic job of keeping children safe. They respond in early and effectively to children's needs and issues, while also giving confidence to the wider community. We have to be sure that work can continue in the future, so the arguments in favour of the minister's amendment 109 to create statutory guidance become more compelling. As indeed do the arguments in favour of my amendments 152, 153 and 156, they strengthen the bill's provisions and I hope address the points raised by Daniel Johnson at stage 2. Not only should the use of section 23 powers be monitored, but they should also be reported on. My amendment 152 therefore specifically extends the regulation-making power under section 24 to include the power to impose requirements that information be recorded on why, where and for how long a child under 12 is taken to and kept in a place of safety. The reason why a child under 12 is kept in a police station as the place of safety and the reason why a child under 12 is at any time kept in a cell within a police station. I would suggest that this monitoring is absolutely essential, particularly in the early years of implementation, to ensure that the provisions are not more widely applied than the law allows for, but also to highlight whether or not recently articulated concerns are justified. Amendment 153 requires Scottish ministers to prepare a report in relation to the information recorded in amendment 152. So that all this happens, timuously, the first report should be laid before the Scottish Parliament as soon as practical after the first year of section 23 being enforced. Amendment 153 then requires subsequent reports to be laid. Because regulations will specify exactly what information is to be included in the reports, they should be the subject of appropriate parliamentary scrutiny. My amendment 156 therefore applies the affirmative procedure. I urge all members to support my amendment. Liam Kerr is called by Mark McDonald. I rise to speak in support of amendment 148, in the name of Daniel Johnson, and I will press it if he is not minded to. It appears possible at least that, far from being a stushi, there could be a gap in this bill that would prevent the police from carrying out the duties that we expect of them. More accurately, the police felt that, far from giving them an unfettered ability, the current testers drafted would limit their powers and put them at risk of breaking the law. I understand from the SPF that they are satisfied that Daniel Johnson's amendment covered their worst fears, although only partially closed the gap that they had identified. For that reason, I feel that we must back it and Parliament must be given the opportunity to back it. Now, Presiding Officer, since I have the floor, yes. In their general duties, under section 20 of the Police and Fire Reform Scotland Act 2012, to prevent crime, maintain order, protect life and property and, as such, they can intervene in incidents of low-level harmful behaviour, engaging with the child in an age-appropriate way to prevent or to mitigate harm. Firstly, they can talk to them. Where there would be grounds to search them, if they were over the age of criminal responsibility, they could search them. That is section 25 of the ACR Bill. If appropriate, confiscate what they find. Where the police consider there is a risk to the child, they can take the child to the place of safety under section 56 of the Children's Hearing Scotland Act 2011. With the child's consent, they can use their powers and their common law to return them home. They can also share information about the incident with parents and social workers. I hope that you will consider that information before pressing 148. I appreciate that the minister says that, but the SPF says not. The SPF contacted us all rather late on the afternoon of a Sunday, right before the amendments were due in, because it was that urgent and they considered that there was that level of gap there. Perhaps the minister might want to, just to allay concerns later in the process, detail what conversations she has had with the SPF and when, because it does seem that this was not picked up at stage 2. I will come back to that point in just two seconds, if I may. If that was missed at stage 2, which it may well have been, it would appear, then has anything else been missed? I would be pleased to hear from the minister when she became aware that that had been missed and how confident she can be, therefore, that there is nothing else lurking. Whether, as Daniel Johnson quite rightly suggests, she considers that it would be prudent to remit the bill to the committee to take further evidence to ensure that absolutely everything has been covered off and we do not inadvertently go forward into a situation where there is a gap. I will support amendment 148 in Daniel Johnson's name and intend to give Parliament the opportunity to agree. For completeness, we will not support amendment 151 or any other amendments that restrict the police and fett of their discretion, but we do accept that guidance is necessary. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. I thought there was a point that Ruth Maguire made, which I think is worth bearing in mind when she spoke about small numbers. What we are talking about here in terms of the children who will be captured by the legislation that will require to be removed to a place of safety are small numbers. When you look within those small numbers, the number of children who might find themselves in a position where the only place of safety that is available is a police cell is going to be an even smaller number of children. Therefore, we are talking about exceptionalism within exceptionalism. I agree that it is important that we set out very clear and robust guidance and guidelines. I am not minded to back the amendments from Alucl Hamilton on that, because I think that the issue around applying to a sheriff does potentially create difficulties, particularly in situations where a place of safety is required over the course of a weekend and a sheriff may not be readily available in order to respond to any request. However, I think that there needs to be very robust guidance in place. I note that the minister does not have the summing up in relation to this group of amendments, but perhaps when it comes to the debate, she might be able to offer some clarifications and comfort around how that guidance will be taken forward, how it will be shaped and what opportunities will be available to scrutinise and analyse that guidance to ensure that it gives the comfort to those of us who have a deep discomfort about the concept of children being placed in police cells for any period of time as part of that. I will not back Alucl Hamilton's amendments on that. I think that he made a very fair point about the issue of adverse childhood experiences and the potential, even though the police cell is being used as a place of safety. The issue that a child who finds himself in that position is coming from a position where their behaviour is informed by a trauma in their life to then add another potential trauma on top of that, because they will not necessarily be able to draw the distinction between being in that police cell as a place of safety or as a place of punishment, the difficulties that that may arise. I also think that as we roll out the Barnahouse model in Scotland, although I appreciate that there will not necessarily be availability of Barnahouse in remote and rural areas, I think that Barnahouse could potentially have a role to play in relation to how we deal with those children who find themselves in need of a place of safety for the wider interventions that may be required. Although I will not back, those amendments will support the amendments that are outlined by the minister. I want to put on record the need for us to have some clarification and comfort around how that guidance will be taken forward, given the importance of the issue. As we are nearing the agreed time limit, I am prepared to exercise my power again under rule 9.8.4a to allow the debate in this group to continue on the limit in order to avoid the debate being unreasonably curtailed. I call John Finnie, to be followed by Fulton MacGregor. Thank you very much. Did references being made to the late intervention of my former colleagues at the Scottish Police Federation and the concerns that they brought in at the 11th hour? I noted that the minister correctly talked about this in part being a debate out behaviour versus needs. The needs of the child should be at the forefront of all our considerations in relation to that. I do not believe that there is an issue in the most serious instances. The minister has outlined a range of measures that are in place. The common law duty put into the Police and Fire Reform Act about preventing crime disorder, child protection at the core of that. I am surprised at some of the representations that have been made to be colleagues about that. The idea that some child in possession of an aerosol is not in need of some form of intervention is, I find, quite peculiar, to be perfectly honest. I think, too, that we need to be wary of some unintended consequences and never say never. A reference is being made to the use of police stations. It is widely accepted that that would be absolutely minimal. It might be absolutely vital in the region that I represent, so I think that we need some caution around that. There is a range of amendments here. I am not going to go through them all. I would align myself with a lot of Daniel Johnson's remarks about where we are here, and I think that he is entirely right not to press this. We will be supporting 1498, the minister and Mr Johnson's, also 151 and 152, but not Mr Cole Hamilton's. Well-meaning, though, I am absolutely sure that there is. I have to tell you from years of experience, it is much easier dealing with a very aggressive, large male than it is to deal with young children for police officers. They always find it a challenge. Some of the examples given that I find again very peculiar, because what we are doing is we are moving the threshold up. I think that we need to be wary of the powers that are being used there. I am not aware that prior to this piece of legislation that anyone said that there was a deficiency of power for police officers to deal with children underage, so I think that we are just moving the threshold up a bit, not far enough for us, but it is on its way. I just want to speak very briefly on Daniel Johnson's amendment 14a, and to speak against it. I heard the various debates in the chamber in a very good intervention from John Finnie's support on it, but I feel that it will lower the threshold under what, as others have commented, there was a lot of discussion during the committee sessions. I think that everybody was agreed that nobody wanted to see a child in a police cell if at all possible, and we know that the police and social work very hard against that. I will be voting against this amendment if it is pressed, because I think that it will lower the threshold. In Mark McDonald, in his intervention, he spoke about the Barnhouse model as a member of the Justice Committee. I know that the Scottish Government is looking at it after the Justice Committee's trip to Barnhouse, and there will be more information brought forward to that. I think that it will be discussed in Thursday stage 3, so I will speak against 148 and also Alex Cole-Hamilton's amendments at 90. Daniel Johnson to wind up in this group and then to press or withdraw. I will be brief, because I think that the arguments have been well set out. In essence, I welcome the fact that the Government is going to support the bulk of my amendments as I already said that I will not be pressing 148, but the crux of the key argument here is whether or not a gap exists. I heard the minister set out what powers exist under the police and fire reform act, but the problem is around the gap between where there are no welfare considerations and the actions that are carried out by the child are not sufficiently serious, so that they are causing another person harm. What she is relying on, if I understand correctly, is that the child consents at that point. The question is what if the child does not consent, and indeed what if the parents do not consent when that child is returned home? That is the question that is at the forefront of the Police Federation and the Association of Police Superintendents, and indeed at the forefront of Police Scotland's mind. That is the question that we are yet to hear a definitive answer, referring to either statute, common law or case law. The point that I was making is that the police at least seem to think that there is an ambiguity there, and that could be ironed out, or at least in part, by amendment 148. Is not that reason enough to at least press it? Daniel Johnson? I thank the member for rising in support. The reality is that there are two significant problems. One is that it does not fully iron out the ambiguity as highlighted by all three of those organisations. It does not completely do that, but I think that critically what it does is set a legal criterion on the exercise of those powers and sets it in statute. That is flawed. It is a result of amendment 148 being drafted in severe haste, given the point in the timeline, which is with regret. With hindsight, if I had more time, I would have taken greater care to draft that in a better way. Unfortunately, I do believe that that is faith flawed. I do not think that that is a good way of making law. I do not believe that legal tests and legal criteria should be at the discretion of ministers rather than having the due parliamentary oversight that they would require. The crux of it is this. John Finnie set out and summarised it in some ways very well, but, unfortunately, in the end I disagree with him. He believes that the most serious instances would be covered, and welfare concerns would be covered, but it is the ones in between—the things that are at a relatively low level of mispavial—where there are no further concerns, but there is wrongdoing. He points at the point of the graffiti cam. There may be no other objects from the plants, and what happens in those situations are just in a moment. Most importantly, he suggests that all that we are doing is raising the threshold. I would contend that, at an 11-year-old, there is much more likely to be a cohort of individuals where there may be concerns where we need police to be able to exercise his powers. I will give way at that point. John Finnie, thank you. I am grateful for the member taking the intervention. I fear that he might be misheard me. What I said was that, in the most serious instances, he invariably takes care of himself. The challenge is about dealing with the other matters. I hope that that clarifies. Daniel Johnson I thank the member for that clarification. I will take myself to my GP for a syringing of my ears. Finally, I think that the other point is the interactions between other statute, whether it is the Police and Fire Reform Act or the Criminal Justice Act 2016, or indeed other acts, which have increasingly codified the common law powers that the police have. I do not believe that it has been fully examined whether or not there are unintended consequences or inadvertent negative interactions between the legislation that we have in this bill and those bits of legislation that have codified increasingly powers that were historically common law powers that the police have to enjoy. Indeed, we expect them to exercise in terms of their duty in protecting our communities. I am right in thinking that the member wishes to withdraw his amendment. Daniel Johnson wishes to withdraw amendment 148. Does any member object? The Parliament does not consent to amendment 148 being withdrawn. I will therefore put the question that amendment 148 be agreed to. Are we all agreed or not agreed? We will move to a division. This is the first division in this group, so there will be a one-minute division. Members may cast their votes now. The result of the vote on amendment 148 in the name of Daniel Johnson is yes, 34, no, 87. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed. I call amendment 149 in the name of Daniel Johnson, already debated. Daniel Johnson to move or not move. I call amendment 149A in the name of the minister to move formally. That is moved. The question is that amendment 149A be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. We will move to division. Members may cast their votes now. The result of the vote on amendment 149A in the name of the minister is yes, 100, no, 22. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore agreed. The question is, Daniel Johnson to press or withdraw, amendment 149A as amended. The question is that amendment 149A as amended be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are agreed. I call amendment 104A in the name of the minister to move formally. That is moved. The question is that amendment 104A be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are not agreed. We will move to division. Members may cast their votes now. Amendment 104A. The result of the vote on amendment 104A in the name of the minister is yes, 87, no, 35. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore agreed. I call amendment 105A in the name of the minister to move or not. Moved. That is moved. The question is that amendment 105A be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are agreed. We are not agreed. The amendment is not agreed to. We will move to a vote. The question is that amendment 105A be agreed to. Members may cast their votes now. The result of the vote on amendment 105A in the name of the minister is yes, 117, no, 35. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore agreed. I call amendment 90 in the name of Alex Cole-Hamilton, already debated. Alex Cole-Hamilton to move or not move. That is moved. The question is that amendment 90 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? No. We are not agreed. We will move to a vote. Members may cast their votes now. The result of the vote on amendment 90 in the name of Alex Cole-Hamilton is yes, 27, no, 95. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed. I call amendment 91 in the name of Alex Cole-Hamilton. The amendment to move or not move. Moved. That is moved. The question is that amendment 91 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? No. We are not agreed. We will move to a vote. Members may cast their votes now. The result of the vote on amendment 91 in the name of Alex Cole-Hamilton is yes, 27, no, 94. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed. I call amendment 92 in the name of Alex Cole-Hamilton. The amendment to move or not move. Moved. That is moved. The question is that amendment 92 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? No. We are not agreed. We will move to a vote. Members may cast their votes now. The result of the vote on amendment 92 in the name of Alex Cole-Hamilton is yes, 27, no, 93. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed. I call amendment 93 in the name of Alex Cole-Hamilton. Already debated. The amendment to move or not move. Moved. That is moved. The question is that amendment 93 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? No. We are not agreed. We will move to a division. Members may cast their votes now. The result of the vote on amendment 93 in the name of Alex Cole-Hamilton is yes, 27, no, 94. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed. I call amendment 94 in the name of Alex Cole-Hamilton. The amendment to move or not move. Moved. That is moved. The question is that amendment 94 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? No. We are not agreed. We will move to a division. Members may cast their votes now. The result of the vote on amendment 94 in the name of Alex Cole-Hamilton is yes, 27, no, 94. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed. I call amendment 157 in the name of the Minister for the Minister for the Minister for the Minister夫 foreseefil, er mwy e女, effeithio bod yn peribwyd, fel preval ynutosiaethydd. Er economonid edryd wedi'i lleidio ar eich Said QLD mewn llawer, ac wrth gaelosholadau ymамiau telynidolionsiau sydd hyned sol Rosemont, ein boblion curiwr a bwyraik wedi'i lleidio ar eich Foarosoladau. Er conserv увидio yn ei Sawg t washer o bob totsoreum, er dyfiwn eich fo Requ amglinellus Ie. That is agreed. A call amendment 108. Minister to move. Moved. That is moved. The question is that amendment 108 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. A call amendment 150, in the name of Daniel Johnston, already debated. Daniel Johnston to move or not move. Moved. That is moved. The question is that amendment 150 be agreed to. Are we agreed? No. Or not agreed. The result of the vote on amendment number 150 in the name of Daniel Johnson is yes, 27, no, 94. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed. In the name of Alex Cole-Hamilton, that is not moved. That has not moved. The question is… sorry. I call amendment 151 in the name of Dianne Johnson. Danny Johnson to move or not? At move. That has moved. The question is that amendment 151 be agreed to. Are we agreed? Yes. We are not agreed. We'll move to division, member must be cast the votes now. This is amendment 151. The result of the vote on amendment 151 in the name of Dianne Johnson is yes. 92, no. 30. There were no abstentions, the amendment is therefore agreed. amendment 152, in the name of Ruth Maguire. Ruth Maguire, to move or not move? Moved. That is moved. The question is that amendment 152 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are not agreed. We will move to division. Members may cast their votes now. The result of the vote on amendment 152, in the name of Ruth Maguire, is yes, 92, no, 30. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore agreed. I call amendment 109, in the name of the minister. Minister, to move. Move. Thank you. The question is that amendment 109A, in the name of Daniel Johnson, already debated with amendment 148, to move or not move? Moved. That is moved. The question first is that amendment 149A be agreed to. 109A be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are agreed. I call amendment 109B, in the name of Daniel Johnson. Daniel Johnson, to move or not move? Moved. That is moved. The question is that amendment 109B be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. That is agreed. Minister, to press or withdraw amendment 109 as amended. Press. Press. The question is that amendment 109 as amended be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are agreed. I call amendment 153, in the name of Ruth Maguire. Ruth Maguire, to move or not move? Move. That is moved. The question is that amendment 153 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are agreed. I call amendment 40 to 47, in the name of Alex Cole-Hamilton. Does the member wish to move or not move, those amendments? Not moved. Those are not moved. Just to let members know, we are running quite a little behind our schedule, and I am minded to accept a motion without notice to propose that the next time limit be extended by 20 minutes. Minister, could I call on you to move such a motion? Move. Thank you. The question is that the next time limit be extended by 20 minutes. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are going to turn to group 4 now, appeal processes, and I call amendment 110, in the name of the minister, Marie Todd. Grouped with amendments as shown in the groupings, can I ask the minister to move amendment 110 and to speak to all amendments in the group? Presiding Officer, those amendments relate to the timescales for implementing orders under part 4 and the handling of appeals relating to them. I want to ensure that the system can work in practice and that children have the opportunity to properly utilise their rights of appeal. In reviewing those provisions, I decided that the timescales for making appeals was too constricted, and the periods for implementing orders did not take proper account of the possibility of an appeal. Amendments 110, 116 and 134 allow permission to appeal to be granted only where it has been applied for and not by a sheriff on their own initiative to avoid the possible situation of a person being unaware of permission being granted and then being unable to lodge such an appeal. Amendments 11, 117 and 135 replace the current appeal time limit. That provides only three days within which to both obtain permission from a sheriff and lodge an appeal. The three days are currently not required to be working days. The time limit also does not take account of the possibility that the child might not have been present or represented at the hearing, so it might not find out that an order had been made until the police have been able to provide them with a copy. The time limits are altered so that the child will have three working days to seek permission to appeal, beginning with the day after the day on which a copy of the order is provided. Where the police want to appeal a refused order, they will have three working days beginning with the day after the day of the decision. If permission to appeal is granted, the appeal will have to be lodged within three working days of the decision-giving permission. Amendment 142 defines working day for this purpose. Amendments 112, 118 and 136 will apply when there is an appeal and the decision of the sheriff appeal court is to uphold an order made by a sheriff or variant. Those amendments allow the appeal court to set out an implementation period. That will be necessary for the actions that are authorised by the order that have not been carried out. Those provisions are needed to make sure that the appeal procedure works properly. Finally, amendment 114 provides for a requirement on the police to explain an interview order to the child in an age-appropriate way, bringing the wording into line with related provisions. It is technical, but nonetheless will have an important practical effect for children. In summary, those amendments seek to provide further clarity on the operation of the new system and ensure that children can make appropriate use of safeguards afforded to them. I encourage members to support them. Amendment 110. The motion that we just passed is likely to have the effect of moving decision back by 20 minutes. However, I also have to move an internal group time under rule 9.8.4e to allow this particular group to continue beyond the limit. I speak briefly in support of those amendments. We support the approach that the minister has taken and welcome the clarity that they bring to the bill. Does the minister wish to add any comments on winding up? The question therefore is whether amendment 110 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. Amendment 111, to move. The question is whether amendment 111 be agreed to. Are we agreed? We are agreed. Amendment 112. The question is whether amendment 112 be agreed to. Are we agreed? We are agreed. Amendment 48 to 51, in the name of Alex Cole-Hamilton. Amendment 48 to 51, in the name of Alex Cole-Hamilton. Amendment 49, to confirm that he is not moving those amendments. That's not moved. Group number 5, the questioning of certain children, child interview rights... All right. We've still got business to get through here. Group 5, questioning of certain children, child interview rights practitioner. Could I call amendment 113, in the name of the minister, grouped with the amendments as Minister, mwy fwy gweithio am 131mau a chael gwahanol gennym nhw'n arweig y gallu gweithliadau mewn cyfathl�니다. Ichon rysgrifath o gyfrifiadau mewn cyfrifiadau o'r proposes i gael ei ff visaswyfa ar y prysgol sy'n ogyrch chi ynbokwch i ei ffaswn i gael i waith yn ymdorffu assassin Fy yn cyfrifiadau teulu, hoffaeth eich cysylltu. Byddwn i wneud i gael eich antryerach eich cyfrifiadau mewn ymddangodau Those responses and our analysis have been published and shared with the Equalities and Human Rights Committee. I also alerted the committee to my intention to bring forward amendments at stage 3 to address these concerns. My intention is to not just raise the age of criminal responsibility but to do so meaningfully. That means lifting children under 12 out of the criminal justice system altogether. However, police and other agencies will still have to investigate incidents of significant harm. If a child is to be interviewed, they must have their rights and interests protected. Investigative interviews are non-criminal, which is why amendment 120 removes a reference to the criminal justice Scotland Act 2016, brought in at stage 2. I see that there is a technical but also a meaningful amendment, which I hope members will support. However, such interviews could have serious consequences for the child. The law should therefore provide for legally qualified individuals to provide advice, support and assistance. Further, we must provide a name that makes clear the purpose of the role. Child interview rights practitioner, in my view, achieves that. We need such practitioners to have appropriate skills and knowledge of working sensitively with children and of the children's hearing system. Amendment 132 requires Scottish ministers to set up a register for child interview rights practitioners. Members of the register will be drawn from the children's legal assistance scheme, which means that they may continue to represent the child at any subsequent hearing. That recognises and respects the fundamental importance of relationships for young children navigating those processes. The child interview rights practitioners' authorisation to act will derive from their registration with the scheme. That will allow them to provide the necessary advice, support and assistance, even where the child is not in a position to instruct them. I am mindful that this process must be child-centred, so the authorities must consider the views of the child. Children should have a choice about who supports them, and practitioners must have regard to the views of the child in relation to the extent of the advice, support and assistance that they wish, and the ways in which the child wishes to receive that. Ministers will make regulations in connection with the register how child interview rights practitioners are appointed, supported, paid and monitored. Partners have expressed a clear desire that individual solicitors on this new register are trained in child-centred and trauma-informed approaches. I agree and intend to make provision for this once the register is up and running. We are also exploring what further accreditation in this area might be appropriate. The regulation making powers in relation to the register are therefore deliberately broad. Clearly, I would expect also the review of the operation of the act to consider how this new measure is operating in practice. It is worth noting that, as with some of the other provisions in this bill, this is an entirely novel and innovative measure designed to further children's rights when the age of criminal responsibility is raised. I would therefore hope and ask that members support those amendments. The fundamental purpose of the role remains the same, but those changes make clear that protecting rights, age-appropriate practice and building trusted relationships are at the core of our approach. I move amendment 113. Alex Cole-Hamilton to be followed by Gail Ross. I am here to speak against the amendments in the name of the minister around the creation of a child interview rights practitioner. That is because the principle of independent advocacy has been hard-won, not just in this legislation, but in legislation throughout the history of this Parliament. I was very involved outside of being elected in the development of section 122 of the Children's Hearings Act of 2011, which creates the right to independent advocacy for any child coming before the children's panel. It seemed to me a happy synergy that this was being replicated in this bill and did so without the need for third parties to lobby us to put it in. I am very dismayed to see it rode back. Why am I dismayed in this? Well, it's important because advocacy is defined in law. The Scottish Independent Advocates Alliance referenced the various places that it's defined, but they, up to them, describe it as being a way of helping people to have a stronger voice and as much control as possible over a situation. They won't make decisions for the person that they are supporting, but it helps them to obtain information and communicate their wishes and their views. Oliver Mundell. I recognise the points that he's making, but does he not also recognise the importance of children having access to legal advice, particularly when their rights and liberty might be affected? Auskell Halton. I absolutely do, but I don't believe that these two things are mutually exclusive. I think that the importance of the provision of advocacy as it is in protecting children in other parts of legislation needs to be continued into this one. It is really important that children's views are represented. Actually, in the tenants of this bill, in the amendments before us in the name of the minister, I actually talk about the fact that the independent children's rights interview practitioner has to have regard to the views of the child. If you're an advocate, you don't just have to have regard to the views of a child, you have to act for those views, you have to represent those views. We've got a really important distinction here between working towards a child's best interests and actually hearing their voice, because those two things might not always be the same, but the child still has a right under article 12 of the UNCRC to be heard in their own voice in an advocate and proposes to do that. That is why we can't support those amendments. I would like to thank the minister for her work on that. I welcome those amendments. They ensure that the term advocacy worker is replaced with child interview rights practitioner. If we look back to the Law Society's stage 3 briefing on child interview rights practitioners, they said that the introduction of such provisions should help to secure the consistency of practice regarding provision of advocacy services. We should make clear that the role's fundamental purpose is not changed by those amendments, but the changes to the operation of the role make it clear that protecting rights, building trusted relationships and wider professional confidence are at the core of that approach. Those amendments seek to make clear the qualifications expected by setting out that they will require to be registered solicitors. It also allows Scottish ministers to establish a register of those persons who are authorised to carry out that role. It will make sure that the solicitors on that new register are trained in child-centred and trauma-informed approaches. That emphasises the importance of protecting children's rights and interests when an interview takes place. As the convener of the cross-party group on ACEs, I have heard a lot, as we all have, about the evidence about the benefits for our services, especially the services that deal with children to be trauma-informed. I also welcome the decision-making powers given to the children themselves. Those amendments are welcome, in my view, essential, and I urge the chamber to support them. The minister to wind up in this group. I want to reassure the chamber that those provisions are only used in very exceptional circumstances where serious harm has occurred. In that situation, as Oliver Mundell said, it is entirely right that a child should have legally qualified support in the room at the time that they are being interviewed, but that person giving them legal advice should also be child-centred in their approach. The change of name is simply to reflect that dual role that the person will be both child-centred and legally qualified and, in fact, was requested by the children's hearings advocacy who asked for this change to preserve their own identity separate to this in children's hearing advocacy. The question is that amendment 113 be agreed to. Are we agreed? We are not agreed. We will move to division. This is the first division in a group, so it will be a one-minute vote. Members may cast their votes now. This is a one-minute division. It is amendment 113. The result of the vote on amendment 113 in the name of the minister is yes, 113, no, 4. There are no abstentions. The amendment is therefore agreed. I call amendments 52 and 53 in the name of Alex Cole-Hamilton. Amendment 52 and 53, the member to move or not move. Those are not moved. I call amendments 114 to 130 all in the name of the minister. Minister, to move amendments on block. Moved on block. Thank you. Does any member object if I put the question on amendment 114 to 130 on block? No one objects. Therefore, the question is that amendments 114 to 130 agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. I call amendments 54 to 57 all in the name of Alex Cole-Hamilton. Mr Cole-Hamilton, to move or not move. Those are not moved. I call amendments 131, 132 and 133 in the name of the minister. Minister, to move on block. Moved. Does any member object if I put those three questions on block? No, that is good. The question is that amendments 131 to 133 are agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. I call amendments 58 to 69 in the name of Alex Cole-Hamilton. Mr Cole-Hamilton, to move or not move. Not moved. Those are not moved. I call amendments 134, 135 and 136 in the name of the minister. Minister, to move on block. Moved on block. Thank you. Does any member object if I put those three questions together on block? No. No one objects. The question is that amendments 134 to 136 are agreed to. Are we agreed? We are agreed. I call amendments 70 to 77 all in the name of Alex Cole-Hamilton. The member, to move or not move. Not moved. Those are not moved. I call amendments 137 to 142. Minister, to move amendments on block. Moved on block. Thank you very much. Does any member object if I put the question on amendments 137 to 142 on block? No. The question is that amendments 137 to 142 are agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are agreed. We turn now to group 6. Children's hearings duty to consider need for further report. Can I call amendment 154 in the name of John Finnie, grouped with amendment 143? It would point out that if amendment 154 is agreed to, we cannot call amendment 143 as it will be preempted. John Finnie, to move amendment 154 and to speak to all amendments in this group. I move amendment 154 in my name. I am not on the committee that is being responsible for scrutinising the ball, but I have followed its progress with great interest. I have certainly done a lot of reading about it. People will know that, in the previous session, Mary Fee was the convener of the weekly opportunities committee. I hope that we work jointly to advance the cause of children's rights. Mary's concerns that we were not getting it right for every child prompted her to introduce section 63A of the bullet stage 2. It is a concern that I share. However, I have also reflected on the response that this section has prompted from agencies such as the Scottish Children's Reporter Administration and the Children's Hearing Scotland. I therefore cannot support section 63A staying in the bullet and will be supporting the minister's amendment 143 to remove it. Should that be required? I hope that that is not the case. The review on the issue brought out the need to assure and make clear the powers and opportunities that exist within the hearing system to seek information and any assessments or reports that will help better decisions to be made about children who require support. I welcome the minister's intention in her letter to do more in this area, but I think that we can go further and that it would be helpful for everyone working to support the needs and best sense of vulnerable children for this Parliament to go further. By bringing forward amendment 154, I seek to offer a positive solution around which I hope we can all agree. My amendment equips children's hearings with the tools to gather the best information possible. It means that child-centred individual assessment of needs at children's hearings can be carried out supported by whatever information they consider necessary and relevant. That could include the types of reports outlined in section 63A, but it is crucial that we do not limit what sort of assessment or information might be short-sought. Surely that should be decided based on what a child's individual needs are and what are relevant to the circumstances and challenges in a child's life. I have some concerns, too, about the focus and what appears to be a medical approach in this section. I have met a lot of reporters in my time, indeed many people who provide a great service serving as children's panel members. It is a fantastic job, and the vast majority of cases hearings will get it right. However, if we can help them to get it right for all children by putting something helpful into legislation, I think that we should do that. That is what this amendment seeks to do. Thank you. I call the minister to speak to amendment 143 and the other amendments in the group. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Section 63A was introduced to the bill at stage 2 by an amendment lodged by Mary Fee. It introduces a compulsory psychiatric assessment for any child whose conduct is a material consideration in a hearing. At the time, I made clear my concerns regarding the potentially damaging consequences of this section. A number of partner agencies have since come forward to voice their grave concerns at section 63A's negative effects questioning whether it is ever appropriate to mandate psychiatric assessments. They raise the likelihood of significant delays for children as well as for the hearing system to damage to child and adolescent mental health services through the additional demand on resources. I understand that a majority of the committee supported this section at stage 2 because of a genuine concern that hearings need access to the best information possible about children's needs. I agree. That is why I have committed to reviewing and strengthening the children's hearing rules of procedure as well as guidance and training available to panel members. I want to be absolutely certain that panel members have the best tools available to aid them in decision making and that they know when and how to use them. I also welcome John Finnie's amendment. It provides clarity that a hearing must consider whether they need more information and has a statutory right to require it. I believe that it is a balanced and proportionate approach and that the Government is happy to support it. The unintended consequence of section 63A is that it currently stands as broad and highly damaging. We have an extremely negative impact on Scotland's children and the systems that support them. I am certain that that is not what Mary Fee wants, not indeed any member. I hope that consensus can be achieved around my proposed approach in conjunction with John Finnie's amendment. I note that if my amendment falls, if Mr Finnie's amendment has agreed to. However, if John Finnie's amendment is not agreed to, it is absolutely essential that section 63A is removed from the bill. I hope that members will support my amendment to do so on the basis that further work will be undertaken in this area to strengthen the rules, guidance and training. I call Daniel Johnson to be followed by Oliver Mundell. I thank John Finnie for bringing forward this amendment. Mary Fee's intention when she brought forward the amendments at stage 2 was to ensure that when children are within the process that an assessment is made of their ability to understand both the consequences of their actions and the proceedings that they are involved with. That was what went to the heart of the amendment that she brought forward there, and it was her intention. However, I do understand the concerns there are about framing it in a medical context so exclusively. That is why I think that John Finnie's amendments are very useful. I think that they capture the purposes and the intent with which Mary Fee brought forward her amendments at stage 2. That is why I would be pleased to support them when we come to vote on them. My one note of caution, as I speak, is that I think that we need to be careful about descriptions of psychiatric assessment wholly in negative terms. There is a right and proper place for psychiatric assessment. Indeed, sometimes that will be the relevant information and assessment that children's hearing will require. Indeed, as someone who sees a psychiatrist once a year as part of my on-going management of my mental health, I would certainly want that message to be heard loud and clear. To be absolutely clear, somebody who worked in mental health for 20 years is the mandatory nature of those assessments and the broad-ranging universal nature of them, that objective. Of course, people in psychiatry do great work. I very much welcome the minister's clarification. That is extremely useful. I was essentially just putting my very predictable tough-and-worth on that particular issue because it is very important to me. With that, I will close. Thank you very much. Oliver Mundell is to be followed by Fulton MacGregor. Oliver Mundell. I certainly was convinced in any other members on the committee that we are convinced by Mary Fee's arguments at the time notwithstanding the concerns that the minister had raised because we hoped that it would mean that at this stage something workable would come forward. I think that the proposal from John Finnie in his amendment is workable and will address the concerns. We wanted to make absolutely sure that there was no circumstance in which children would go into the hearing system with any less rights than they would have if they were appearing in court and getting the right reports and evidence to make an informed decision. It certainly is something that we can support. That does not pass. We will support the minister in removing an unworkable provision from the bill. Thank you. Fulton MacGregor. I just want to speak very briefly as well in support of John Finnie's amendment and the minister's amendment if that is required. At stage 2, I had serious reservations about Mary Fee's amendment and I do not think that she would have wanted the unintended consequences. I articulated that really well, but to have a mandatory psychiatric assessment was just something that I was really opposed to. I went down the line of the re-traumatisation of children and perhaps it could be expected that children are perhaps getting involved in the justice system in offending behaviour, if I sought. It could be expected that they have maybe faced trauma in their own early years and I was really worried about the possible re-traumatisation. I know that that was not Mary Fee's intention and we seem to have moved on from then. I support both John Finnie's amendment and the minister's amendment if that is required. John Finnie, to wind up in this group. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I want to thank Mary Fee for raising this originally there and I certainly concur with it. There is no suggestion other than it was well intended and it has afforded us the opportunity to clarify that we can better meet the needs and interests of children and certainly there should be no stigma around any of the ports that are required, whether they are psychiatric or otherwise. That is as a bull should be and I would urge members to support it. If they do not support it, I hope they will join me in supporting the minister's amendment on the basis that she has promised to do more work on this through the roles and guidance for the hearing system. Thank you very much and the question is that amendment 154 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. That pre-empts amendment 143, therefore we move to amendment 145. I call amendment 145 in the name of the minister. To move amendment 145, minister. Moved. Thank you. The question is that amendment 145 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. I call amendment 155 in the name of the minister. Minister, to move formally. Moved. Thank you. The question is that amendment 155 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are agreed. I call amendment 96 in the name of Alex Cole-Hamilton. Alex Cole-Hamilton to move or not move. Not moved. That is not moved. I call amendment 146 in the name of the minister. Minister to move formally. Moved. Thank you. The question is that amendment 146 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. I call amendment 78, 79 and 80 in the name of Alex Cole-Hamilton. Remember to move or not move. Not moved. Not moved. I call amendment 147 in the name of the minister. Minister to move. Moved. That is moved. The question is that amendment 147 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. I call amendment 156 in the name of Ruth Maguire. Ruth Maguire to move. Moved. That is moved. The question is that amendment 156 be agreed to. Are we agreed? Yes. We are agreed. I call amendment 81 to 84 in the name of Alex Cole-Hamilton. Alex Cole-Hamilton to move or not move. Not moved. Those are not moved. We turn now to group 7. I call amendment 85 in the name of Alex Cole-Hamilton. Grouped with amendment 97. Could Alex Hamilton speak to or move amendment 85 and speak to all the amendments in this group? Thank you, Presiding Officer, and I move the amendments in this group in my name. I recognise that the hour is late in their submission, but so too was the conversation that precipitated them. I had a meeting with the minister and her team, which concerned me greatly in terms of discussion that we had around the implementation of this bill. They suggested that, due to training requirements by Police Scotland, there could be a significant delay in us even implementing a new ACR of 12. That was news to us. We had taken no evidence whatsoever from Police Scotland suggesting that there was a problem, or a delay would be necessary in terms of the point between Royal Ascent and the point at becoming live at 12. The minister said in her own remarks in group 1 that we want to raise the age to 12 now. We will let it do that now. It is important to recognise that we have failed the international community's expectations in what the amendments we have failed to pass today. We must not go further—compound that failure is still further—and allow people as young as eight to be held criminally responsible for the next potentially 18 months or more as we finalise the commencement of this procedure. We recognise that every institution, every organisation that we took evidence from at stage 1 said that they were ready to implement 12 now. I cannot see any other reason for delay other than pervarication other than the Government's lack of will so to do. We are already longrassing any future reform here. A review that reports in three years won't see meaningful change for another two thereafter, so we won't even achieve the de minimis position of international expectation for at least five years. Letters not compound that by remaining at eight for the next year and a half. I call the minister. Thank you, Presiding Officer. On Friday I set out my intention to move as soon as possible to start making a difference to children's lives. Should Parliament support the bill today, children under 12 will benefit quickly. We will ensure that no child under 12 is treated as an offender beyond autumn this year. We will make sure that we recognise and respond to victims' needs and our intention is to deliver part 2 of the act within 12 months of royal assent. As we have seen with the debate today around key measures in part 4, there are significant complexities around some key changes to this legislation. There is a need to ensure that there are adequate resources, guidance and training in place prior to commencement. We cannot put children, communities and victims at risk by rushing into changes without being certain that all responsible are ready to make the new law real in practice. Alex Cole-Hamilton. I am grateful for the minister giving away. Can she give Parliament an assessment of when she expects part 1 to finally be implemented and the new age of 12 established? An implementation group has been established to take the required work forward as well as delivery groups to advise and develop how we put the law into practice in key areas of this bill. Through those amendments, Mr Cole-Hamilton is seeking to commence parts 1 and 4 of the bill on the day after royal assent, knowing that that is impossible to deliver. That would simply put children at risk. None of the required preparatory work with key partner agencies could be completed within that timescale. It would be hugely irresponsible for this Parliament to put children and professionals in such a position. Within part 4 alone, there is secondary legislation to be drafted and laid. There is guidance to develop and consult on. There is training to be undertaken. There are sheriff court rules to be changed. Importantly, there is work to be undertaken to protect the interests of victims. Victims need to know that there are still processes in place that will investigate incidents of significant harm appropriately. We must provide them with reassurance that, when harm has happened to them, it is still going to be meaningfully investigated and addressed. We will not succeed in securing long-term confidence for this fundamental shift in our approach to children or, indeed, in any other shift, we seek to make in future if we do not take the time to get this right. We need to take people and communities with us. On that basis, I strongly encourage members to reject amendments 85 and 97. Before Daniel Johnson wishes to speak, and Alex Cole-Hamilton will have the chance to wind up, but we are just running out of time again. Minister Marie Todd, in this case, I might need to accept a motion without notice to extend the time limit by another five minutes. The question is that we extend the decision time limit by another five minutes. Are we agreed? We are agreed. I would like to just begin by reassuring Alex Cole-Hamilton that defending the Government is not my usual MO, but, in this case, everything that the minister said is absolutely correct. Notwithstanding the fact that there are significant amounts of guidance that needs to be drafted and changes that need to be made, preparations, there is also the fact that the police themselves are requiring legal clarification over key provisions in this bill. It would therefore be extremely reckless to commence this bill straight after Royad at the centre, just why we will be supporting the Government and rejecting those amendments. Thank you. Alex Cole-Hamilton will wind up. I am just very dismayed by what I have heard. Let us remember that our journey towards increasing the age of criminal responsibility was started by the United Nations in 2012 that, back then, Alain Campbell as minister committed within the life of that Parliament to get us to this stage. We failed to pass amendments in the name of my friend and colleague Alison McInnes at stage 3 of a bill in 2014. However, as a proviso against that, the Government established a review that took three years and did all the work that we have described ascertained all the changes that need to happen in our institutions and reported two years ago. It has taken two years to get to this point, yet we are long-grassing this potentially for another two years. I think that it is an absolute outrage, Presiding Officer, and we will certainly continue to press these amendments. The question is that amendment 85 be agreed to. Are we agreed? No. We are not agreed. We will move to a division. This is the first vote in the division, so it will be a one-minute vote. Members may press their votes, press the buttons now. This is amendment 85. The result of the vote on amendment 85 in the name of Alex Cole-Hamilton is yes, six, no, 114, there were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed. The question is, sorry, I call amendment 97 in the name of Alex Cole-Hamilton already debated. Alex Cole-Hamilton to move or not move? Not moved. That is not moved. I call amendment 86 to 89, all in the name of Alex Cole-Hamilton. Mr Cole-Hamilton to move or not move? Not moved. Those are not moved. That ends our consideration of amendments. At this stage, members will be aware that I am required to understand orders to decide whether or not, in my view, any provision of the bill relates to a protected subject matter, whether it modifies the electoral system and franchise for Scottish parliamentary elections. In my view, this bill does no such thing, therefore it does not require a supermajority at stage 3. We are going to move on to that stage 3 debate. For members' information, decision time will now be 5.45. Decision time will be 5.45 this evening. We will move on to the stage 3 debate on motion 17169 in the name of Marie Todd on the Age of Criminal Responsibility Scotland Bill. I invite all members who wish to speak in this debate to press their request-speed buttons, and I call on the minister, Marie Todd, to speak to and move the motion in her name. Presiding Officer, in the words of Dr Seuss, a person is a person no matter how small. This bill on the Age of Criminal Responsibility is unashamedly about and for Scotland's small people. It represents a bold and radical shift in our approach. This week in particular, we should recognise that devolution enables us to forge a different path. When we raise the age of criminal responsibility to 12, Scotland will be leading the way in the UK. Unlike some of our international neighbours, there will be no exceptions in Scotland. Presiding Officer, no child under the age of 12 in Scotland will ever again be arrested or charged, be treated as an offender or have any childhood conviction follow them through life. During the bill process, we heard moving personal accounts from adults of the consequences of convicting young children. They told us of the need to do things differently. As James Doherty of Scotland's Violence Reduction Unit put it, you will never punish a young person into a better way of being. You can only love and nurture them into a better way of being. That is what this bill seeks to do. It is a strong statement of intent that when young children cause harm, we still treat them as children. We will protect their interests and support their needs. We will no longer let their life chances be damaged as they grow into adulthood by disproportionately disclosing information. Along with the management of offenders' bill and the forthcoming disclosure bill, we are about to see a fundamental shift in the way that we view the actions of children and young people. As part of this work, we have introduced an entirely novel concept into our care and justice system through an independent reviewer. They will provide safeguards on the future disclosure of information about the behaviour of a person in their childhood. The bill makes a number of such innovative reforms. It embeds children's rights throughout its measures, particularly where a child is believed to have been involved in significant harm. We have provided powers for public agencies to investigate such incidents, but in doing so we will ensure that children's wellbeing is a primary consideration, that children have access to independent child-centred advice, support and assistance. Information in age-appropriate ways have a right to appeal and be protected against the unnecessary keeping of forensic samples and prints. I recognise that some wanted this bill to go further in raising the age and I hope that the establishment of a statutory review to consider the future age of responsibility shows Parliament and this Government's intent in this regard. We have already committed to the UN Convention of the Rights of the Child and will do so through a bill in this Parliament. Once finalised, general comment number 24 will be considered in its entirety as part of that work. But let me be clear. Our approach to this bill is not simply about building popular support. It is about building confidence. We are determined that children will no longer be treated as offenders. That requires a meaningful departure from adversarial criminal investigative techniques and experiences. The police powers in the bill are intended for use only in the most exceptional circumstances where the seriousness of conduct under investigation is very grave and the circumstances of the case mean that the powers are the only way of getting to the truth of the matter. Daniel Johnson I thank the minister for giving me in. I thank her for her previous clarification and does she accept that once the bill passes, should it do so, a further clarification on the powers that the police have when there is no welfare concerns and is short of that criterion of harm is required and will the Government commit to doing that prior to commencement? Mary Todd That is why there are detailed provisions to support public agencies to make this higher age of criminal responsibility work and practice. We have listened to and responded to partners during the bill process but it isn't enough to simply change the law. We do need to shift practice and culture too. It's essential for the success of this reform that it's carefully and responsibly implemented. Delivery groups have already been established on investigations, victims and disclosure, as well as broader work to provide general principles and guidance to support professionals. The Scottish Government has positive obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights to maintain an effective system for the investigation of crime and the rights of victims. We cannot put children, communities and victims at risk by rushing into changes without being certain that the responsible agencies are ready. Where there is an incident of significant harm in those... Liam Kerr Just very briefly, I think that it doesn't point about not rushing into anything but doesn't that lend credence to the idea that we should put the police powers piece back to stage 2 just to check it over? Marie Todd No, I think we have made very careful assessment of what is required so far and we will continue to make very careful assessment of what is required going forward and work closely with our partners in the police force to do that. Where there is an incident of significant harm in these exceptional and grave circumstances, we cannot... We, front-line social workers and police officers, must be confident in how they can respond. When something exceptional and grave has happened, the public must have confidence that we can keep them safe. But most of all, when something exceptional and grave has happened, the victim who is often a child themselves needs to know what happened to them will be taken seriously and the truth established no matter how old the person was who harmed them. Part 3 of the bill stands on its own with one single section setting out the circumstances in which victims may request information. That's quite deliberate to make clear that we have recognised that victims' interests matter and must be considered sensitively and appropriately. I believe that we've got the balance right. This is landmark and groundbreaking legislation and I look forward to listening to what members have to say in this stage 3 debate. But as we mark 20 years of our Parliament we should know that today we have a chance to do something truly historic. In 1932, the Children and Young Persons Scotland Act raised the age of criminal responsibility from 7 to 8. That age has stood for 87 years. Today, I hope that you will agree to change history and vote unanimously to change that. I move that the age of criminal responsibility, Scotland Bill, be passed. I call Oliver Mundell for up to 6 minutes, please. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I think that today's one of those odd debates were actually at stage 3. Most of the debate has already taken place. I think that we'll find at decision time that there is consensus across the chamber that we should move to 12. I understand that there are members and parties within the chamber who would like to see things go still further. But I do think that it is a bit of a stretch to talk about this being a bold moment or really to connect it to devolution given the sort of position that we've had in Scotland. That said, the Scottish Conservatives remain content as we were at stage 1 to support the approach that the Scottish Government has pursued in this bill, albeit for slightly different reasons. Although technically complicated in places, as we've seen, and I've certainly, as a member of the committee, will be interested in inviting the police federation in to hear from them after the legislation has been passed, if it is passed today, to really understand what the concern has been and when those concerns were brought forward and how they've been considered. I think that it is important in terms of post-legislative scrutiny and the reputation of the committee and the Parliament that we understand what the confusion in this case has been. Although it is complicated in places, in our view this bill is at its heart a simple attempt to tidy up the law in this area. We recognise the fact that the age of criminal prosecution in Scotland was raised to 12 some years ago which means in practice that cases involving younger children are already sent to the children's hearing system instead of to court. Far from being a new approach those changes arguably in our view instead reflect a significant change that was made in policy some time ago and most of the rest of the bill is about making those changes a reality and making them work on a day-to-day basis for the many stakeholders involved. From the evidence received through the consultation and committee stage of the bill we believe there is a good argument for those changes and that the stakeholders that I have just mentioned wider society and indeed victims are ready, capable and generally accepting and convinced of the need for modest change. As I said in the stage 1 debate those changes are also supported by the law society who recognise that 12 is an age that does already have significance in Scots law and I think from some of the remarks we've heard today it's possible to miss that point and to think it is an entirely arbitrary age that the ministers just magicked up but it is an age where children do gain new rights and are understood to have significantly more capacity already within our legal system and I think it does better reflect international standards like other members I think it is important to look at what's happening elsewhere around the world elsewhere in Europe in other comparative legal systems but I think that can never be the only consideration I think it is important that our legal system does reflect the views and values of people living in the country and that they have confidence in changes to the legal system and also I think we have to listen to those within our criminal justice and other agencies because if they're not confident that they can deliver changes then it's all very well and good people in this Parliament arguing for them but it is remembering that sometimes what looks good in legislation what looks good in black and white on a piece of paper can actually make things worse in practice but we do think that it is important that most people would recognise that those under the age of 12 should not be simply labelled and treated as offenders for the rest of their life but that has to be balanced against a robust system that does tackle serious harm and in this bill we think that the right balance has been struck and that is why there will be broad consensus and there will always be those who argue that we should go further and faster but we've got to look at the evidence and I would refer any members who are in any doubt or anyone further afield watching these proceedings and what the Lord Advocate had to say when the committee took additional evidence at stage 2 that was very powerful and compelling and I think the committee was right I certainly was keen that the committee did take that additional evidence but having taken that additional evidence having indulged members of the committee who really wanted to push on these issues it then seemed somewhat odd to ignore what has been said so as I close very mindful of what victims will think and I'm pleased that my colleague Annie Wells will set out some of our thinking in that area in more detail thank you I call Daniel Johnson for up to 5 minutes thank you in some ways what Oliver Mundell said at the beginning of his remarks is right this is a moment where having dispatched the amendments has happened however what I would acknowledge is that we only get to this place through a great deal of collective effort so I would like to acknowledge that collective effort made by amongst others the Qualities and Human Rights Committee the independent advisory group on minimum age of criminal responsibility the Scottish Children's Reporters Administration but most importantly all the children and young people who so bravely shared their experience of what it's like to be a person of justice system and I think that we must have them at the forefront of our minds as we debate this bill this afternoon so at that outset I would like to state that Scottish Labour welcomes this bill agrees with its objectives and the balance it strikes and will be supporting it this evening this bill aims to find an appropriate balance between protecting children from the harmful effects of criminalisation and also ensuring that instance of harmful behaviour on 12 12 can continue to be effectively investigated and responded to appropriately but let's be clear and I heard much of what Alex called Hamilton said in the debating of the stage 3 amendments and I understand his frustration the reality is that it's 12 years since the UN committee on the rights of the child recommended that 12 be the minimum internationally acceptable standard is an invidious position that Parliament finds itself having had that update of that recommendation while this process was under way and it's one in some ways that I wish we weren't in however change needs to be handled carefully which is why I think that we need to stick to the age of 12 but we must be mindful that it's taken Scotland over a decade to comply with that and that's something that I think we should have of our minds so while Scottish Labour welcomes this overdue change to raise the age of criminal responsibilities from 8 to 12 we believe that this legislation does require clarifications that's why we were pleased that the Government supported the majority of our stage 3 amendments and again I'd like to place on the record my thanks for their constructive engagement through that and I think in particular the bill has now been significantly clarified regarding the places of safety and police powers these changes will ensure that a police station is only ever used as a place of safety when absolutely necessary and when adequate checks have been carried out these changes will improve the clarity and reassurance to our hardworking police officers who quite easily could be put in a very difficult and invidious position through the passage of this bill it will enable them to discharge their duties not just to young people but the wider community more confidently but I must also deal with that wider point of confidence Minister pointed to the required confidence that this bill, this act must have but the reality is when it comes to the police the Scottish Police Federation and the association of police superintendents to Scotland there is still a gap in that confidence and that is one that needs to be filled and the Government must bring forward certain clarification after detailed consultation on those because the reality is, as I detailed in the stage 3 amendments there are situations where young people cause damage or other acts such as graffitiing, vandalism theft from shops and if they haven't had prior contact with the authorities there is no reason to believe that they will continue with that behaviour I still am not clear on what powers will have to take that common sense approach of putting the hand on their shoulder and returning them home at least there is a doubt in my mind that there may be the possibility for those parents to complain I will give way in a moment at your last minute Mr Johnson okay so I would urge the Government to come forward and extinguish this ambiguity because it is a dangerous uncertainty those complaints even if it is for a period of time that this great area pertains those complaints could take a great deal of time to wash through the system also the Government must consider the interactions with other elements of law I think failure to provide this clarification will place our police officers in a very difficult position indeed and I think it's in a sense a shame that the Government has not exercised its right under rule 9.8 section 6 of the standing orders to send this back for further stage 2 I will be following up writing to the Lord Advocate asking for his views on both the status of these powers in conjunction with other elements of the law and indeed whether or not there is any question mark whether or not police officers could be charged with abduction if they return a child to home against that child's will where there are no further concerns Scottish Labour is committed to preventing the most vulnerable children and young people from being exposed to the harmful effects of the criminal justice system so the Government must bring forward clarifications prior to commencement thank you Alex Cole-Hamilton for four minutes please thank you very much the minister has used throughout the course of this debate words like radical and historic and bold this bill is none of those things and it is in fact a dismal day for all of us it's a dismal day for the Scottish Parliament it's a dismal day for Scotland's children and young people and I find it hard to put into words the anger and disappointment I feel at the missed opportunity in this legislation and the realisation that we are actually living in a far more socially conservative country than I had hoped the scales have fallen from my eyes so if you'll permit me I'll use the first part to lean on the words of somebody else and that is Lindsay Hanvidge who I referenced in the group around place of safety Lindsay said to our committee the first night I went into care was in May 2007 and we lived and social work was there when I went upstairs they told me that I, my brother and my sister were getting taken away from my mum I kicked off a little bit and I told them I did not want to leave my mum my mum was going to be left by herself they took my behaviour as harmful behaviour as I was just kicking off that is how it felt to me as if I was just kicking off for the sake of it they put me in handcuffs in my mum's house in front of her and my brother and my sister I was 13, my sister was 6 they took me out of the house I was not even dressed properly I remember having jammies on that that had a hole in the back I did not realise that they were the ones I'd put on but they still had me cuffed at the front and they were forcibly removing me from my mum's house I got my first charge that night when I got to the bottom of the close they were pulling me about the place I was quite a weak girl when I was 13 and I hit him it was just that I wanted him away I wanted to get back up the stairs when I was 11 o'clock at night I was not picked up until about half 7 the next morning I was taken to a children's home where my brother and my sister were they had spent the first night in a children's home I spent my first night in care in a prison cell locked up I had done nothing wrong it felt like I had done something wrong that was my first experience of being charged of being involved with the police and that was them taking me to a place of safety it did not work out for me that way we have failed we have failed Lindsay Hambridge and there is nothing in this bill that would have changed her story either the age at which she was charged or the incarceration in a cell as use of place of safety and I think it is an outrage in a stain on this Parliament's reputation that we have against the better judgment of the international community who intervened twice in the conduct of this legislation who intervened twice and were rebuked by the minister who said that we have some sort of sense of moral exceptionalism which does not frankly exist and yet we are found wanting in terms of the de minimis expectations of international precision minister I believe your government will come to regret the timidity that you have shown today the goodwill that you have and your party have built in laudable policy change in areas like the age of leaving care in other aspects of child protection will have evaporated after today after you did not heed the call of witness after witness organisation after organisation that said we had an international imperative to get to 14 how can we, if it's going to be five years before we get at the very earliest the opportunity to change this again waiting three years for a review and then the resultant legislation to pass how can we stand in judgment over countries like Russia or like China over their human rights abuses when they have higher ages of criminal responsibility than we do I do not believe that we should celebrate the passing of this bill you're clapping a deficient piece of legislation and failed ambition more children will suffer because of this inaction I hope it isn't another 80 years before we get to remedy that I will be voting for the bill tonight frankly because as I said in my opening remarks this government has presided over an age of criminal responsibility in its decade in office which is frankly medieval but I do not do so with any joy tonight we now move to the open debate can I warn everybody we're really tight for time you must come in at under four minutes and I may have to shave some time off the closing speakers so I call first of all Ruth Maguire to be followed by Mark McDonald Presiding Officer I strongly believe that raising the age of criminal responsibility in Scotland from eight to twelve is the right choice for Scotland at this time raising the age of criminal responsibility in Scotland from eight to twelve is a milestone on the road to making Scotland the best place for children and young people to grow up Minister Mary Todd's recent announcement regarding setting up an expert advisory group to consider the further challenges to changing the future is to be welcomed I want to acknowledge the passion, drive and expertise of those voices in 2012 and say that I accept that the job of Parliament is one of leadership particularly when it comes to equalities in human rights however children, communities and crucially victims should not be put at risk by rushing into changes without being certain that the responsible agencies are ready and leadership is also sometimes about acknowledging challenge and practical considerations for people on the front line victims, communities and professionals share an understanding of what works when a child causes significant harm and whilst we know that many of the children involved in harmful behaviour have often been subjected to trauma we mustn't forget that the victims of this harmful behaviour will often be vulnerable children themselves when we call for trauma informed approaches to addressing those engaged in harmful acts we must ensure that the same is true for victims I have recently written to the Cabinet Secretary for Justice regarding a five-year-old child in my constituency who is a victim of a very serious sexual assault perpetrated by a 13-year-old the response to him and his family has not been trauma informed indeed the actions of the authorities have added stress and additional trauma to an already intolerable situation I understand why the family does not feel like justice has been done I understand why they feel that the system has failed them victims must receive appropriate support that does not re-traumatise them and equally as importantly they need to have confidence that what happened will not happen again to them or to anyone else criminalising children does not work and does not guarantee a stop to harmful or offending behaviours in fact it's much more likely to lead to further harm however we must do more to hear the voices of victims and their families and in doing that we'll contribute positively to the power of work that's necessary that's needed to take the communities we represent on this journey with us I would ask the minister in closing to say a little more about how we can do just that and ensure child victims receive their rights their right to an effective remedy to the harm that's been done to them including confidence that the systems we have in place will ensure what happened to them won't happen to others increasing the age of criminal responsibility will not only benefit children and young people but Scotland as a whole it's a strong milestone on the way to making Scotland the best place for children and young people to grow up I'll be proud to vote for it this evening Mark McDonald to be followed by Annie Wells thank you a number of speeches so far have spoken about the nature of this legislation being overdue and I think it's worth to reflect the comment that the minister made about the length of time since the age of criminal responsibility was increased from 7 until 8 and during the period of that 80 plus year span all of the parties in this chamber with the exception of the greens have at some stage held the wheels of government and been in a position to be able to affect the change that we are now seeing to date so while it may be overdue and it may be something that needed to happen before to date I do believe the minister has been the one to take this forward and see it through and for that she deserves credit and congratulation and we should reflect on the journey that has taken us to this point I had hoped in the amendments that we might go further but we did not but I do believe that the minister's amendment 145 does afford a chink of light in relation to the possibility of future change however I do believe that that will need to continue, the pressure to continue whether from within the chamber or outside at some point in the future to ensure that that is seen through and I would also say that I hope that the minister would accept that some of the work around overcoming or beginning to overcome some of the technicalities which stood in the way of raising the age to 14 could perhaps be ironed out addressed and looked at before it gets to the stage of reviewing the legislation so that you could decouple those processes while the review of the legislation I think does need to give the legislation some time to take effect for it to be a positive and useful review the work to establish how to overcome those technicalities doesn't necessarily need to wait for that review to take place in order for that to be taken forward I also think that it's very important that when we look at the guidance that will be produced around police cell use and places of safety there has to be a robust analysis of that guidance and work needs to be very carefully undertaken good intentions have been expressed in this chamber but it's very important that those intentions translate firmly into the text of the guidance because at the end of the day it will not be the intentions that have been expressed in this chamber which will be followed by those who are expected to administer the legislation it will be the guidance that is produced to back it up finally, Presiding Officer I think that the process through which we have considered this legislation and indeed the debate gives us an opportunity to reflect on the wider understanding of the nature of justice I think that all too often in the debates that we have whether in this chamber or in wider society justice is often seen by some as a means by which to slake the thirst of vengeance and all too often we lose sight of the fact that justice delivered for victims is important but justice delivered for those who find themselves affected by trauma who find themselves offending at a young age as a result of that trauma is also important as well as part of this process because justice that they require in order to enable them to still realise a positive future as a result of interventions is just as important as part of this, I feel and that's why I think the approach that the Government has taken is correct the approach that's being taken in terms of future reviews correct and that's why I'll be happy to support this legislation in this evening at stage 3 Annie Wells, followed by Ian Gray Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer As a member of the Equalities and Human Rights Committee I've been following this bill closely from its inception and the evidence is persuasive that offending behaviour in children can have its roots in emotional trauma and to criminalise children under 12 causes more problems than it solves we therefore will be supporting this bill which also makes it a lot easier to understand at the same time however we want to stress that we will always put victims of crime first the Scottish Conservatives recognise that adverse childhood experiences can lead to offending behaviour and with Scotland currently having the lowest age of criminal responsibility or ACR in Europe we agree it should be raised from 8 the committee heard evidence that highlighted a large number of those under 12 who had offended had already been facing prior disadvantages and adversity in their earlier childhood it is therefore only right that this is taken into consideration consideration for the rights of the child however should always be balanced with the rights of the victim this is why the Scottish Conservatives have been clear that the ACR should not be raised higher than 12 and the age 12 as we've heard isn't just a random figure bear in mind that the age of criminal prosecution was raised to 12 in 2010 the bill is in many ways an attempt with children aged between 8 and 12 already prevented from prosecution in criminal courts I have also been clear of the need to have the public's backing and I do believe that an increase of four years is already a significant step the public needs to retain confidence that serious incidents will be dealt with appropriately so that victims feel supported and this is particularly important as we see Scotland's caution against raising the age higher than 12 and this was on the basis that the nature of children's actions and the prevalence of that behaviour changes as the age groups increase to 12 and above and this is why at stage 2 the Scottish Conservatives put forward amendments that would try and make information more readily available to victims particularly in cases involving a death and allow the Lord Advocate to play a continued role in cases where behaviour gives rise to wider public safety concerns we continue to hold the belief that the government needs to address the gaps identified in victim support at the moment the information available to victims is limited with community justice Scotland also expressing concern over how quickly this information becomes available it is vital for victims to know that action has been taken so that they know that harmful behaviour by a child has been taken seriously and this is an emotive bill and throughout this process I have tried to put myself in the shoes of families affected by serious and harmful behaviour at every step Deputy Presiding Officer this has been an extremely interesting debate over the last few months and to be part of it has been compelling and to be part of it has been great and it's been compelling to hear from all sides their views on raising the ACR and I want to put on my record my personal thanks to the committee Clark's witnesses and members of the committee who have worked so hard and been so passionate about this issue whichever way we look at this bill they need to have a wider discussion on prevention so that children do not find themselves in these unfortunate positions in the first place Ultimately I believe that the Scottish Conservatives have taken a balanced approach one that recognises the roots of time and emotional trauma with the rights of victims Iain Gray, followed by Gail Ross Thank you very much Earlier on today UI and a couple of other colleagues spent some time reflecting on the 20 years of the Parliament for a BBC documentary and we spoke then about being a new and modern Parliament and in all ways it was different one way in which it is, I think new and modern which we didn't talk about is that we are a Parliament whose work incorporates the European Convention on Human Rights and has done from the very beginning and indeed over 20 years we've gone beyond that into the active promotion of rights in Scotland and most notably the development of a system of rights based education and I think most of us will have been to schools and our constituency is to see them presented with the words as rights respecting schools and my own constituency in East Lothian two of these human rights defenders Hannah Richardson and Cameron Butchart from Windigo Primary School through their work with the Children's Parliament and the Streets Ahead Trenant project actually found themselves in Geneva presenting to a United Nations workshop on the rights of the child day and I know that similarly two young human rights defenders from elsewhere in Scotland are I think this week or next week giving evidence to the UN Committee on torture as well another initiative of this Parliament in its past 20 years of which we can be proud I think is the creation of the post of a children's commissioner one which didn't exist back in 1999 and one of the campaigns the current commissioner has prioritised is indeed the incorporation of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Children and it is I think something of a failure a collective failure that we have not incorporated UNCRC given that the Parliament began with this idea of the incorporation of rights and in truth I guess the most egregious example of that in so many years the age of criminal responsibility has indeed been so low not just low but internationally low I know that the programme for government announced at the start of this session included a commitment from the First Minister to incorporate the principles of UNCRC and at her conference last week she committed to incorporate the United Nations Convention completely and that is all welcome but it's unfortunate then I think that we find ourselves in this position where the international minimum age of criminal responsibility shifted from 12 to 14 in the course of our legislating and really we should have been fleeter afoot I think our own lateness to this did mean I think in practical terms that a jump 14 was too much in one go although 12 alone would not have been enough so in the end I think 12 with a review towards raising that is probably the best in practical terms but truly this isn't our finest hour this really does need to be addressed seriously and not allowed to slip any further I don't think today as as dismal as Alex Cole-Hamilton said but I really think the minister over exit if she thinks this is a day of historic triumph we should be careful to be claiming to meet the gold standard in children's rights this bill takes us in the right direction but we should have moved further long ago The last of the open debate contributions is from Gail Ross thank you I would also like to add my thanks to those of other members to the many groups that have contributed to this process of developing the bill that we have before us today and the opportunity presented to us today will see vital work begin to raise the age of criminal responsibility in Scotland to 12 a step in the right direction that recognises the progressive direction of travel that we are on and whilst many have argued we should immediately be looking to increase the current age of 8 to 14 or even higher this bill does set in place that will enable future increases when the time is right I welcome the minister's announcement that a group will be set up to monitor how this can be done with everyone's safety, security and wellbeing to the fore and there will be plenty of people and organisations watching and I know the Scottish Government will bring proposals forward as soon as is practicable during the stage 1 debate I highlighted the different speeds that children develop and the need for us all to recognise how damaging it could be for a child to be held criminal responsible I believe that many of us have gone on a journey with consideration of this bill a journey which has made us reconsider the purpose of how we treat children within our judicial system and realising that young children who offend should be treated with a welfare based approach Do we simply wish to punish the youngest members of our society or do we want to adopt the approach required to protect our young people in some particularly challenging situations? We are not saying that every act committed by a child should be ignored but we can certainly do much better in both minimising societal harm and improving the life chances for all the young people involved including victims of crime This bill before us today has significant steps towards achieving those aims and by increasing the age of criminal responsibility to 12 we do need to look at raising it further to at least 14 to bring us into line with the minimum internationally recognised age as outlined by the United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child I made my opinion on this very clear during all stages of the process and that view has not changed I warmly welcome the commitment of the First Minister who last week announced her intention for Scotland to make sure that we are meeting the UN's gold standard on children's rights I look forward to the launch of the consultation which will outline how we will achieve this and ultimately look forward to the day that we incorporate the UNCRC into Scots law We all want Scotland to be the best place in the world for our young people to grow up This bill will help us to realise that goal Thank you Now move to the closing speeches and can I take this opportunity to remind members that if they are taking part in the debate they should be here for the entirety of the opening and the closing speeches and I call Daniel Johnson for up to four minutes please Thank you I always feel when you have to make that comment they are about to miss out so I'll give it a good go and indeed I'm going to begin with the words of Ruth Maguire because I think she's absolutely right in pointing out that we must be mindful of the benefits of this legislation not just the benefits to the young people themselves but to wider society because I think as Annie Wells I think very well illustrated the issue at the heart of this is that the young people's experiences of the criminal justice system can be the very traumatic events that lead to those adverse childhood experiences that puts them on that cycle that unavoidable consequences which fundamentally alters their life and the course of their life and sitting on the justice committee and having had a great deal of contact in the last year or so with the criminal justice system visiting prisons working with third sector organisations that work with people with experience of prison that reality is very clear and I think this is a positive step to preventing some of those people entering into that cycle so this is important, is welcome it is beneficial not just to those people but to wider society but I think Ian Gray is absolutely correct in his analysis in terms of we must be careful not to trumpet this as some great triumph yes this Parliament has done a great deal in terms of recognising rights putting rights at the heart of our policy making but as he pointed out that the UNCRC is very clear about the minimum age of criminal responsibility and this bill does fall short and I think we need to think with great care about how we move forward from here and we need to bring people with us we need to do it in a considered way in a one that makes things work I think that Alex Cole-Hamilton was absolutely right to read out the words of Lindsay Handridge because if in the end of the day that taking someone to a place of safety just feels like they have done something wrong if there is no difference in terms of experience regardless of what the law may or may not say then this will not have worked which I think does take us neatly on to I think the very well made point by Mark McDonald that this will really succeed or fail in terms of the translation of forward from the good intention that is very clear within this bill and how that is translated in terms of guidance in terms of the systems that are put in place the training making sure that what is practised in wider society the way that this bill is implemented is going to be absolutely key to preventing those adverse childhood experiences from reoccurring and simply not just being relabeled that is what we must take great care to and indeed I think this bill does strike that balance that the review looking at the age of criminal responses which is in better than this is correct having an independent reviewer I think is a strength of this bill and indeed some people have talked about the great store and weight that we've put in the children's reporter and children's panel system as potentially being exceptional and I don't think it is I think Scotland took a very brave and bold step forward in terms of implementing the co-branding principles many years ago but in so doing I think as we move forward we must protect I think the very sensible and robust structures that those people use and I do have an on-going concern about the children's reporter system and making sure that it does deliver on the intent with which it was created all those years ago but finally this does come down to confidence and indeed I think a great deal of what we do both within the criminal justice system and beyond it is about confidence confidence of people and our communities that the justice system will act in a proportionate way and keep them safe and confidence of the people who are within it that it will serve their interests and treat them fairly and give them opportunities to avoid the experiences that they might have encountered that brings in there and with that I will close the bill I am pleased to close for the Scottish Conservatives and confirm that we will be supporting the passing of the bill at decision time tonight The key issue that the bill seeks to address is that the minimum age at which a child can be held criminally responsible is currently eight and as many have pointed out it was set in 1932 and is the lowest in Europe but if it is not to be eight then what age should criminal responsibility be The bill's second principle is that the age of criminal responsibility should be 12 and the Scottish Conservatives are persuaded that that is the correct cut-off point As Annie Wells pointed out the age of criminal prosecution was raised to 12 in 2010 so children aged between 8 and 12 were already prevented from being prosecuted in the criminal courts and furthermore Police Scotland have cautioned against higher ages In the committee's report they said that the nature of children's actions and the prevalence of that behaviour changes as the age group increases to 12 and above I also find it persuasive that as Margaret Mitchell flagged up in stage 1 the number of incidents currently reported as involving under 12s offending is small and reducing and also as we heard earlier the law society point out that 12 and over already have a different status they can make will, consent to or veto adoption they have sufficient capacity to express views on future arrangements for their care instruct a solicitor and it's the basic age at which children start secondary school Finally it's important to note that as Oliver Mundell said 12 appears to be the publicly acceptable age that has both professional and public confidence and it's imperative that any change such as this can command the public's backing and Daniel Johnson and Ruth Maguire were clear we must take the public with us on this as Annie Wells said the public needs to retain confidence that serious incidents will still be dealt with appropriately so that victims feel supported and the minister said during the amendments earlier victims need reassurance and that harm is still meaningfully addressed and communities with us she's absolutely right and it is vital that when this change is made the Scottish Government reassures the public that harmful behaviour by under 12s will still be dealt with and it will be dealt with in a manner proportionately to the harm caused Presiding Officer I also want to pick up on something Oliver Mundell alluded to at the outset that we must monitor the act's implementation for unintended consequences and this is particularly important here because of the impact on police powers earlier today we debated amendments which have been raised as issues just last week by the Scottish Police Federation the implication is that officers dealing with children under 12 years old who are causing risk or significant harm to others but who aren't an immediate risk may be deterred from being able to look after them properly Daniel Johnson decided not to press his amendment earlier today and Parliament chose to reject it when I did but even had it passed I think it would have still left a potential gap so it remains a concern and possibly leaves open outstanding issues in relation to places of safety and a financial memorandum that may under state police implementation costs by over 6 million I heard the minister's reassurances but I also hear that the SPF and Police Scotland remain dissatisfied with the answers and I don't like having to make that call at stage 3 when trying to decide whether to pass what is in its core principle an important and necessary piece of legislation it looks to me at least possible that the Government may have missed something and the committee may have failed to have garnered all the information it needs to decide on the best drafting and if there is the remotest possibility that something has been missed it could restrict the police in the execution of their responsibilities my view remains that the precautionary principle mandates that it be put back for further examination and evidence taken by the committee so I was very pleased to hear all of Emdell's suggestion that the committee might be able to hear more and Daniel Johnson I thought gave a good legal route which could resolve this so I strongly hope the minister will take that council and I'd be grateful for her remarks on that later however it's vital that we implement these reforms because we've heard compelling evidence throughout that the current age of 8 for criminal responsibility is no longer sustainable and that 12 is an appropriate age at which to set criminal responsibility including on the basis of agency, legal precedent and public acceptance so for that reason I again confirm the Scottish Conservatives will support the age of criminal responsibility Scotland Bill at decision time tonight now call Marie Todd to wind up the debate for six minutes please minister thank you if we were debating a bill today to create a minimum age of criminal responsibility I doubt very much if we would choose for that age to be 8 but I don't think we would be agreeing unanimously to make it 14 or 16 either so that the bill to raise the age of criminal responsibility to 12 gets it right I have to say I agree with Oliver Mundell who quoted the Lord Advocate's evidence was absolutely compelling in the extra evidence sessions at stage 1 and I have to say I'm saddened to say it but I think Alec Cole-Hamilton weakens his own arguments by ignoring that evidence and by comparing us in Scotland to countries with a human rights record like China we've achieved I think I've heard enough this afternoon we've achieved a consensus in this Parliament on this issue that was unimaginable excuse me minister can we stop with the rudeness please thank you very much it's inappropriate to shout from behind from a sedentary position Mr Swinney I'm dealing with this Mr Cole-Hamilton I would appreciate it if you would not talk back to the Presiding Officer thank you minister Presiding Officer we have achieved a consensus in this Parliament on this issue which was unimaginable to most a few years ago we have clearly been on a long journey to do the right thing on this issue but along the way this government has reformed policy law and practice in 2011 we raised the age of criminal prosecution to 12 in 2015 we published our first youth strategy justice strategy and we continue to advance the whole system approach to preventing and addressing offending by young people we've seen a remarkable reduction in proceedings against young people including a reduction of 81% in the number of children being referred to the children's reporter on offence grounds we spent the last 10 years doing the right thing for Scotland's children and young people and I want to pay tribute to all of the ministers who have helped to do so including Adam Ingram Kenny MacAskill Angela Constance Michael Matheson Aileen Campbell and Mark McDonald I also want to thank the Equalities and Human Rights Committee members for their detailed scrutiny of the bill and to everyone who provided written and oral evidence excuse me minister I'm finding it quite difficult to hear the minister if you could be a bit quieter please minister I want to express my gratitude to the members of the 2015 advisory group which set out strong and clear recommendations on raising the age and the measures needed to sit alongside that reform these gave us a robust route map to follow as shown by how closely their recommendations are reflected in the bill that we seek to pass through law today and I particularly want to thank the bill team and other government officials for their dedication and diligence this has been a truly cross-government initiative and I thank everyone for their thoughtful input and expertise throughout but most of all I want to say thank you to all of you in this chamber the way in which we have conducted our discussions on the bill and reached consensus on crucial matters demonstrates to me and importantly to our constituents that we have all been determined to do the right thing that's a strong message to send to our children and young people and whilst we have made significant progress in recent years this bill represents a vital missing bit of the jigsaw I don't think that that jigsaw is yet complete or else Parliament would not have agreed to undertake a review the operation of the act generally nor to consider the future age of responsibility of criminal responsibility and I have already announced an advisory group that I will establish this summer beginning work on that and I would refer Mr Cole-Hamilton to the evidence given by Anne Skelton again in those extra evidence sessions where she said it would be an option to at least make clear in the pending legislation a future intention to raise the minimum age that is what we have done no thank you I know that some are concerned that because we have not locked down the minimum age of 12 we could go back to 8 so let me be absolutely clear as long as the SNP is in government there will be no going back the age of criminal responsibility in Scotland will never be below 12 again what I have sought to do is achieve the right balance this legislation the plan to implement it and the plan to review it all strike the right balance that is the right approach for Scotland at this time but there is momentum behind this reform and ambition for Scotland's children in preparing for today I revisited what children and young people told us at various stages of this bill process including in Inverness I took part in one of the consultation events held on our behalf by the children's parliament just be thoughtful said a nine-year-old imagine if you stole a suite and you couldn't get a job because of it a 14-year-old suggested that at the age of eight some kids don't understand right from wrong and the police should understand the background of the child and believe that every action is caused by a situation in their life on what happens in childhood another reminds us that people change over the years so it shouldn't follow them forever and finally from this 12-year-old we are all human treat us the same as you would treat others presiding officer it was Nelson Mandela that there can be no keener revelation of a society's soul than the way in which it treats its children today I hope that parliament will support this bill and show our children and young people that we are committed to treating them with dignity respect fairness, compassion and humanity I am very proud as the minister for children and young people to move that this bill be passed Thank you very much and that concludes our debate on the age of criminal responsibility Scotland Bill The next item of business is a committee announcement called Julian Martin convener of the environment, climate change and land reform committee to make an announcement on the report on its new inquiry into the report of the committee on climate change Julian Martin As convener of the environment, climate change and land reform committee on its future plans and what is the biggest environmental and societal challenge that we face which is climate change particularly in the light of developments last week The committee concluded its consideration of the climate change bill and reported it stage 1 in March however before the committee moves to the amending stage of the bill we agreed to consider and report on the advice on climate change targets from the UK Committee on Climate Change or the CCC on 2 May The advice, published in light of the Paris agreement and the IPCC special report released in the autumn of last year recommends that Scotland should now set a target for net zero emissions of all green house gases by 2045 provided that UK-wide ambition is raised to net zero by 2050 In our stage 1 report we recommended that the bill should reflect the most ambitious targets set out in the advice from the CCC and a revised climate change plan be delivered within six months of royal assent of the bill Therefore we welcome the Scottish Government's speedy response to the CCC advice On the same day as the CCC advice was published the Government lodged a package of amendments to the bill and the First Minister committed to update the climate change plan in line with our schedule recommendations Those amendments have agreed at stage 2 would implement the CCC's advice by setting a target date of 2045 for net zero emissions of all green house gases and increasing the levels of the 2030 and 2040 interim targets to 70 per cent and 90 per cent reductions respectively Increasing our climate change ambitions offers clear potential for innovation jobs, the economy the environment and for the wellbeing of the people of Scotland and beyond so we welcome this Government's quick and decisive action on this We also recommended in our stage 1 report that the bill's journey through Parliament will be able to accommodate thorough and detailed scrutiny of the CCC's advice Therefore we plan to hear evidence from the Committee for Climate Change next week and then from the Scottish Government before hearing from two panels of stakeholders to explore their response to the CCC's advice the impacts of that advice and their views on the Scottish Government's response Our committee will then produce a report drawn from these sessions before moving into the amendment stage As all members of our committee have agreed, we need to raise our ambitions to tackle what is the single greatest threat to our existence on this planet and what is the most significant intergenerational justice issue of our day With the CCC's timely advice and the Government's swift response we welcome the opportunity to explore how we do that in the coming weeks Thank you very much We're going to turn now to decision time and there's only one question to be put as a result of today's business Motion 17169, in the name of Marie Todd on the Age of Criminal Responsibility Scotland Bill, be agreed and because this is an act we should cast our votes Members should cast their votes now The result of the vote on motion 17169 in the name of Marie Todd is yes, 123 there were no votes against there were no abstentions the motion is agreed and the Age of Criminal Responsibility Scotland Bill is passed on to members business shortly in the name of Bruce Crawford but we'll just take a few moments for some of the members and the minister to change things