 ar gyfer y br理oddd Mary Todd ar y dyma cysylltiad cyfreydu ymgafelio. Felly, rydyn ni i dweud o'r membysau i chi arnynniad i Aberchor Cymru, i hyn yn gweithio i ddaint i'r rôl yn ei gweithiau i'u diwylliannol i gyd, a'r rydyn ni i ddechrau i'r membysau i chi yn gwyfwng â'r cyfrannu, ac mae'n cyfrannu i gweithio i chi, cael Llywyddyn. Rydyn ni i gweithio i chi ar hyn i gweithio i gweithio i chi arnaeth, I invite Marie Todd to open for the Government. When I was elected as an MSP in 2016, the elation that I felt was matched by my excitement for the opportunity that I had to take forward key causes close to my heart and dear to my own and my party's values. At that point, I did not dare to dream that I might actually be in the position of being able to bring any of those to fruition as a minister. I am absolutely delighted that the first ever stage one debate that I am leading as minister for children and young people is for the bill that seeks to raise the age of criminal responsibility. I want to start by acknowledging that it has been a long journey to get here and to pay tribute to the cabinet secretaries and ministers who helped to guide that journey. I think that it is important to reflect on how far we have come, not least in understanding how best to prevent and address harm in children's lives. We should be very honest with ourselves as parliamentarians. Only a few years ago, we would not be here, with a consensus right across this chamber that the age of criminal responsibility should be raised. Now, our discussions are about what age to raise responsibility to and on what safeguards and other issues need to be addressed. Presiding Officer, that is a significant and welcome shift. Collectively, we can agree that reforming the age of criminal responsibility will contribute to a youth justice system that recognises that heavy-handed criminal justice and early adversarial contact with enforcement agencies are counterproductive for children. We can reiterate our support for the integrated care and justice ethos that has been in place in Scotland for many years to respond to young children when things go wrong. That ethos resonates through the children's hearing system, through getting it right for every child and in the focus on early and effective intervention as part of the whole systems approach to youth justice. We can acknowledge that we and agencies, services and professionals all now have a better recognition and understanding of the long-term effects of adverse childhood experiences and of the need for trauma-informed practice. When we consider all of that knowledge and understanding together, it becomes almost self-evident that how we address children's harmful behaviour also needs to change. That bill forms a key part of such a response. The bill not only reflects the aspirations of this Government but also the recommendations of the advisory group that was set up in 2015, comprising organisations working with and for children, victims, families and justice. I want to thank everyone who contributed to the group's deliberations and recommendations. Their work is reflected in the principles underpinning the bill and its measures. I also want to thank the members of the Equalities and Human Rights Committee for their considered approach to stage 1. In particular, I welcome the committee's support for the general principles of the bill in its report. I will take the time needed to consider the report's conclusions and recommendations and to respond to the challenges in just as constructive a manner as they have been framed. I will ensure that the committee has my response with sufficient time to consider it ahead of stage 2 commencing. However, I want to respond to some of the key findings today. I welcome the committee's support for raising the age of criminal responsibility to 12. There is a strong rationale for this position. Of the 700,000 children under 12 in Scotland, less than 300 are referred to the children's reporter to look at formal measures due to harmful behaviour. That number is declining and most cases that involve harmful behaviour are currently labelled as criminal and are minor to moderate in nature. Our proposal to raise the age to 12 was also supported by the public consultation and by the majority of respondents to the committee's call for written evidence. I know that some are taking an intervention on that point. I am very grateful to the minister for taking an intervention on that point. Whilst that is absolutely true that the majority of respondents did support the uplift to 12, does the minister not also recognise that the majority of written respondents and overwhelming majority of oral evidence contributors wanted it raised still further beyond 12? I know that some want to see the age raised higher, but I also note that there isn't a clear consensus on what the age should be among those proponents. I want to reassure this chamber that I have listened carefully to the arguments put by those proposing a higher age, including the position in other countries. I accept that the European average age for criminal responsibility is 14, but our comparative evidence clearly shows that the age of criminal responsibility does not mean the same in different jurisdictions. I am making reference to ages higher in other jurisdictions without accounting for their own contexts such as exceptions for serious harm or civil detention on mental health or care grounds just is not nuanced enough. To arrive at useful comparisons, we need to capture the full complexity of how a system responds to children involved in harmful behaviour, their families and those affected. We should also recognise that the law has already been changed in Scotland so that no child under 12 can be prosecuted for a criminal offence in an adult court. That is different from many other countries, as is our approach to youth justice. I am confident therefore that the position adopted in this bill to raise the age of criminal responsibility to 12 is the right one, but we must also provide for a proportionate and effective response by relevant agencies to the very small number of children aged 9 to 12 who may engage in seriously harmful behaviour. That is what measures are set out in parts 2 to 4. The bill seeks to provide legal certainty and clarity for the small number of the most troubling of cases to ensure that children are treated equally, fairly and consistently in such circumstances. It provides bespoke police powers to ensure that appropriate investigation and proportionate involvement of the child in the most harmful cases. Those powers are an additional tool to meet the specific needs of investigations into the most harmful acts and the needs and rights of children involved. They will be engaged only when a sheriff has persuaded that they are necessary. They will only be necessary when agencies can apply good practice via early and effective intervention or getting it right for every child conversations with children and their families and carers. The bill is reformed to particular elements of disclosure as part of a wider effort through PVG review and the management of offenders bill. Taken together, it will deliver a clearer, more responsive and more progressive system of disclosure. I am pleased that the committee took time to explore that in its evidence gathering and to recognise that wider work. We rightly need to ensure that those affected by harmful behaviour have confidence in the proven effectiveness of our interventions. I welcome the approach that the committee took to this issue in its evidence gathering. We need to make sure that victims see here and are reassured that serious harm will be responded to effectively. Part 3 seeks to achieve this, but I note the committee's view that the bill represents an opportunity to consider the matter more carefully, and I undertake to do so. However, I want to be absolutely clear that many children who engage in harmful behaviour at a young age are themselves victims. The data from the Scottish Children's Reporters' Administration bears that out. Often children who are harmed against and have experienced significant adversity in their childhoods. To insist that some children might be victims and others are perpetrators is too simplistic. All our work in prevention and early intervention bears that out, and we need to take a whole-child approach. There are many organisations and agencies that have contributed to the development of the bill's measures and to stage one of the bill's parliamentary progress. Crucially, children and young people have contributed their views. I want to thank the Scottish Youth Parliament, Who Cares, Scottish Children's Parliament, Action for Children, Up to Us and many others for discussing the bill with so many children and young people and for including me in the discussion with primary school children on the bill. I also welcome the committee's recognition of the particular needs of care experience to children and young people in its evidence gathering and that love and safety must be at the heart of our wider approach to supporting vulnerable children and young people. 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. We need to look at what is missing in their life in the first place and replicate that missing element as responsible, connected adults, because it is not good enough to say any more to young people that you are making bad choices. Raising the age of criminal responsibility forms part of work to address that broader fundamental question, which the independent care review has been set up to consider and address, of how to create a care system that truly cares. The most powerful testimony that we heard at stage 1 came from a young woman, Lindsay Hambridge. I acknowledge that Lindsay's experience as a young person within the criminal justice system would not be helped by this bill. The bill's emergency power does not relate to the processes that she was subjected to, but it is clear from her evidence that she was not treated as a child in distress and difficulty. It is clear that the adult professionals around her did not respond to her distress in a trauma-informed way and that the situation escalated rather than de-escalated. What happened to Lindsay Hambridge was unacceptable then and it would be unacceptable now. I believe that the best way to respond is to have robust policy, procedures and training in place to prevent the entire unacceptable situation from arising. Focusing on the age of criminal responsibility as a response is, frankly, shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted. As her case and much more recent one suggest, we are not getting it right for every young person who comes into contact with the criminal justice system. Those are matters that have come into sharp and discomforting relief in recent days. I am working with the Cabinet Secretary for Justice to address them. We can be clearer about what we mean by a place of safety in this bill, which provides for a very specific emergency power to take a child under 12 to a place of safety where there is a risk of harm and the need arises to investigate an incident of serious harmful behaviour in which a child under 12 might be involved. I note the committee's concern and the provisions currently, and I confirm that I have asked for an amendment to be prepared, which will include the full definition from the Children and Young People's Scotland Act 2020 to make it clear that the same range of safe places can be used. I will also undertake to reflect on and respond to their specific concern about whether police cells can ever be considered an appropriate place of safety for children under 12. If there is one message that I would ask members to take into this afternoon's debate, it is that I am listening and I will consider carefully what more might need to be done to ensure that this bill gets it right. After all, our law benefits when it is the result of careful, considered and collaborative work. Our society benefits when we work together to consider how best to provide for our communities, our children, for victims and for our responsible professionals. Crucially, our children and young people will benefit. I am confident that the central approach in this bill to raise the great age of criminal responsibility to 12 is the right one. I am confident that, at 12, we can build that shared understanding and, with that reform, we can build consensus and build for the future. I look forward to the debate this afternoon and hearing more of the views of members across the chamber. I have great pleasure in moving that the Parliament agrees to the general principles of the Age of Criminal Responsibility Bill. I am pleased to speak in this debate on behalf of the committee and my new capacity as the convener of the Equalities and Human Rights Committee. I would like to begin by giving sincere thanks to our supportive, diligent and efficient clerking team for all their hard work. I also thank my fellow members for their care and compassion in exploring what were challenging issues, and I of course wish to thank those who gave evidence and shared their stories with us. At eight years old, Scotland currently has the youngest age of criminal responsibility in Europe. The minimum age of criminal prosecution in Scotland was raised to 12 in 2010, meaning that children under the age of 12 can no longer be prosecuted through the adult courts. However, children aged between eight and 11 years old could still obtain a conviction via children's hearing, either by admitting an offence or by having an offence ground established via a proof hearing at the sheriff court. The bill seeks to address this disparity by raising the age of criminal responsibility in line with the age of criminal prosecution to 12. The bill also includes provisions on police powers to investigate an incident of harmful behaviour by a child under 12. It ends the automatic disclosure of convictions of under 12s and makes changes to disclosure processes and the release of non-conviction information and information to victims of harmful behaviour. As a result, no behaviour by a child under the age of 12 can be regarded as criminal. According to the Scottish Children's Reporter Administration, around 200 children will be decriminalised a year as a result of the bill. That is 1,000 children over a five-year period. We heard about the harm caused by treating children as offenders from such a young age. Involvement in formal processes did not stop harmful behaviour. Once exposed to the criminal justice system, children continued in the system and moved on to become part of the adult offending system. Professor Susan McVey from the University of Edinburgh told us that those who end up in our criminal justice system disproportionately come from poorer backgrounds and a huge proportion of them come from either looked-after backgrounds or youth justice backgrounds. The committee heard about what can only be described as harrowing encounters with the justice system. Lindsay Hambridge, a care-experienced policy ambassador with Who Cares Scotland, told us that her first experience of being treated as a criminal was the day that she was taken into care at age 13. I am sure that other members will expand on her story, and I would like to thank her especially and all those who shared their personal stories with us that will help us to better understand the system and drive us to do better. Alice Cole-Hamilton, I am grateful for the intervention that the convener of the committee shared with me that, at age 13, nothing about the bill would have made Lindsay Hambridge's story any different. Ruth Maguire I thank Alice Cole-Hamilton for that intervention. I absolutely share that concern. I also hear what the minister said, and I am very conscious that I am standing up on behalf of the committee today and not giving a personal speech. Professionals also told us that the most traumatised were most likely to become involved in serious harmful behaviour. They were clear that having a trauma-informed approach resulted in better outcomes for children and young people, significantly reducing repeated harmful behaviour. That is why we have recommended that any decisions made about very serious harmful behaviours by all children, whether they are criminally responsible for their actions or not, must start from a trauma-informed perspective. I hope that the minister will give a commitment today that all operational staff will have access to guidance and training materials to make this clear. We issued our call for evidence on 27 April and received 41 submissions from a wide range of organisations and individuals, including among others, children's and social work services, looked after children and other children-centred groups, advocacy services and victims. To supplement our evidence, we visited three secure accommodation units, Edinburgh Secure Services Howden Hall, Kittball Group Secure Unit in Paisley and St Mary's Kenmure Secure Unit in Bishop Riggs, where we had an opportunity to speak directly with young people who had experience of the youth justice system. We would like to express our sincere thanks to the young people who shared their experiences and their thoughts on how the system could be improved. In addition, we observed children's hearings that support child protection and youth justice. We are grateful to the young people who consented to this, and I would also like to thank everyone who facilitated our visits and gave evidence. It was important to us to involve children more broadly in the decision making process of this bill. As such, we took an innovative step by developing a downloadable toolkit, which, from June to October, schools and youth groups could use to discuss the principle of raising the age of criminal responsibility. Over 1,000 secondary students and over 200 primary age pupils engaged with the committee through these sessions. I would like to acknowledge their efforts in joining the debate and hope that that will have sparked their interest in continuing to participate in matters that clearly affect their lives. Many issues raised by the bill were discussed in detail by the committee, for example, around police powers, the interviewing of children and the use of a police station as a place of safety. With the rest of the time that I have available, I would like to focus on two key areas—the age of criminal responsibility and the disclosure of conviction and non-conviction information. From the outset, we recognised that the most difficult issue before us would be weighing up the various arguments to determine the most appropriate age of criminal responsibility. Many stakeholders queried whether a move to 12 was progressive or likely to meet Scotland's international human rights commitments. It was pointed out to us that increasing the age to 12 would only achieve the minimum internationally acceptable age, as defined by the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child. Such a move would also only just lift Scotland off the bottom of an EU league table and would not achieve the progressive increase envisaged by the UN Committee. Others considered an incremental approach would give time to measure and review the outcomes of the legislation before raising the age higher. We struggled to reach a shared view on whether 12 was a sufficiently high age to achieve the outcomes sought. There was, though, a recognition that the age of criminal responsibility in Scotland was last increased 86 years ago. The committee felt that it did not want to jeopardise this long-awaited opportunity to address some of the most pressing issues around the criminalisation of children and young people. We accepted that the approach taken by the Scottish Government in this bill was grounded in the desire to make improvements and to reach consensus in the interests of a shared commitment to improving outcomes for children and young people now to raise the age of criminal responsibility to 12. Members of the chamber will, I am sure, have their own views on whether 12 is the right age, and that is a matter that will no doubt be further explored as we consider the bill at stage 2. Turning to the disclosure provisions, under the current system, any convictions gained between 8 and 11 have the potential to affect a child later in life, as convictions would appear on a higher-level disclosure check or protection of vulnerable groups scheme record. In adult life, that could restrict the choice of career or training, compounding the disadvantage that you have already experienced. The bill would end automatic disclosure of information relating to behaviour under the age of 12. Also, information about the behaviour of a child under 12 would only be disclosed as part of a disclosure application, as other relevant information, following independent review of the decision. We worked with the Scottish Youth Parliament at their Comarnic sitting in October to co-produce a successful workshop on disclosure and non-conviction information. That helped to explore the impact disclosure could have and underlined the need to involve young people in how the independent reviewer role is carried out. It would be helpful if the minister could provide assurances today that the Government will consult with young people with youth justice experience, looked after experience, those with speech, language and communication difficulties and children with disabilities and hidden disabilities in preparing the guidance. In conclusion, the Equalities and Human Rights Committee supports the general principles of the Age of Criminal Responsibility Scotland bill. I am pleased to open in today's debate for the Scottish Conservative Party, and I would like to begin, like other members, by putting on record my thanks to the committee clerks and witnesses, and indeed my fellow members of the committee who have put in a tremendous effort to ensure that the bill was well scrutinised at committee ahead of today's stage 1 debate. We, on these benches, are content to support the approach that the Scottish Government has brought forward as part of the bill, and I would like to say thank you to the minister at this stage for her candour in her opening speech. I think that it takes real courage to come to this chamber and to be as honest with the chamber in recognising some of the failings that exist within our criminal justice system at the moment, and the fact that not every child who comes into contact with our law enforcement and criminal justice agencies gets the support that they deserve. I think that that is not always through want of trying on behalf of those agencies, and it is a very difficult balance always to meet the needs of the child and for those agencies to do their job, so I thank her genuinely and warmly for that. We recognise the fact that the criminal age of prosecution in Scotland was raised to 12 in 2010, which already means that younger children are sent to children's hearings instead of court and that children between 8 and 11 therefore cannot be prosecuted in criminal courts. That, in many senses, means that this bill is simply an attempt to tidy up our legal system and reflects the fact that a significant change was made in policy some time ago. That has a benefit of simplifying Scots law, as the law society point out. Raising the age of criminal responsibility to 12 will bring it in line with the age of criminal prosecution, providing clarity and will ensure that children are not treated and labelled as offenders because of things that they did before they were 12 years old. Obviously, for the reasons that are already outlined, the bill goes slightly beyond that, but, in general, we think that it strikes the right balance. The decisions such as that are so central to the character of our legal system and the values of our society that they should be taken by consensus wherever possible. The age of 12 is not random or arbitrary, but it has legal significance in Scots law already. It has emerged through the Government's consultation, wider discussions and conversations. I am from evidence that shows that there is significant support and consensus for raising the minimum age of responsibility to 12. That said, even at 12, there will still be some degree of discretion for prosecutors when they are thinking about public interest. We recognise that a number of witnesses before the committee and some members of the committee have questioned and queried whether 12 was a progressive move or likely to meet Scotland's international human rights commitments. However, we believe very strongly that the public must be on board and brought along with such changes, and for many, including myself, raising the age of 12 is a big and significant step. I believe that the Government is right to be cautious and see how the changes bed in and work in practice before considering further changes. That is a view that was echoed by Police Scotland, which suggested that 12 was the most appropriate starting age. Although it understood the debate regarding setting the age of criminal responsibility at a higher age, it was mindful that the nature of children's actions and the prevalence of behaviour changes as the age profile of offenders increases to 12 and above was a significant factor. I think that we have to respect the expert views of those working in the front line, and that is a balance between listening to the voices of children's organisations who do an excellent job but also of listening to those of the law and justice agencies such as the police. I think that the minister was correct when she appeared before the committee and when she spoke today, when she stressed that she cannot make a direct comparison in this area given differences in our legal system. I think that a very clear example of that was the fact that the policy decision here in Scotland has already been taken by the Crown Office not to proceed on a policy basis with the prosecution of those under the age of 12, something that is not always reflected in the international debate and dialogue around this issue. That somewhat changed the practical, if not the technical, legal position. It is, of course, tempting always to look at other European nations and to try and consider ourselves behind when it comes to that legislation, but that is a false conclusion to draw. It is about looking at children's rights and the way that our legal system operates in the round. That is how we best identify the positive steps that can be taken. I was very pleased that the ministers paid such attention to the evidence from Lindsay Hanvidge, who was one of the young witnesses to the committee, because myself having reflected very carefully on her views, it became clear to me that many of the issues that she faced were not around the age of criminal responsibility, whereas the ministers already stated broader questions about how our criminal justice shows compassion and interacts with the most vulnerable individuals and understands the true nature and causes of their seemingly offending behaviour. I know that the minister considers that issue around looking after young people very close to her heart, and I urge her to use the opportunity to look again at some of the wider issues that were raised in that particular session. I also think that it is important to consider the fact that the actual text of the UN convention does not specify a minimum age of criminal responsibility and that that is a suggestion that has come forward from a committee based on broader international interpretation. As with many of the most difficult issues relating to human rights development, again, I would stress to some of my committee colleagues that we are on a journey, and part of that journey is about making progress and moving at a pace that allows everyone to sign up and support initiatives. I will always go back to the example from one of my law lectures of the sort of ship at sea, and sometimes there is a danger that in an attempt to modernise and rebuild that you can move and remove too many of the planks at once and end up without a ship. I think that when it comes to our Scottish legal system, which has and continues to see significant change, again it is important to move at pace that allows for some continuity, and again I would stress my view that this bill has got the balance right. Finally, and in many respects, most importantly, I would also want to highlight the importance of victims and to reflect on the fact that all crime has a serious impact on those directly affected, but also on the wider community, regardless of age. All such behaviour, particularly when it is violent, must be treated seriously and acted upon. It is in everyone's interests to ensure that our young people grow up in the kind of society in which they feel fully supported and feel that opportunities exist for them. Prevention is always better than trying to deal with the consequences, but we must be mindful too that when dealing with the consequences, it is possible to cause more harm than good. That is why we believe that the victim support elements of the bill are essential. A victim centre justice system must, at the very least, be able to give victims and families information on how the wrongdoer has been dealt with, regardless of their age, and we believe that those proposals should not be watered down. That is why we also believe that police powers should not be unduly restricted. While it is right that the powers of the police are altered to reflect the fact that we will no longer treat under-12s as criminally responsible, we believe that the police should still have the powers that they need to keep children in the public safe when wrongdoing takes place. I ask the Government to provide reassurance that the bill will not make it harder for police officers to do their job. In conclusion, I urge the minister not to allow the bill to become a vehicle for that discussion around a higher age. From the consultation that has taken place and the discussions at the committee, we have reached a point of consensus. It is now, as many of my colleagues will do, about focusing on how to strengthen other aspects of the bill. As I have already pointed out, Police Scotland has given evidence that significant behavioural changes take place at 12. As the minister has pointed out, the international comparisons can be misleading. We need to recognise and thank our children's hearing system for the incredible work that they do to ensure that many children already don't have to go to court. However, we have to be able to justify the decision directly to victims and communities who are most affected by crime. As I close today, I offer our general support for the principles behind the bill, and we stand ready to work with the Government and other parties to strengthen the bill, where consensus emerges. Thank you very much. I call Daniel Johnson to open for the Labour Party. Thank you, Presiding Officer, and let me begin especially as somebody who does not sit on the Equalities and Human Rights Committee by thanking the clerks and the members of that committee for the excellent work that they have done on their stage 1 report. I would also like to acknowledge the work of the independent advisory group on the minimum age of criminal responsibility, the children's reporter and the many organisations and individuals who submitted their response and who, frankly, make the debate possible. Most important, I would like to thank, as others have, the children, young people and people who have had experience of the criminal justice system itself as children, because that experience is absolutely invaluable in informing how we progress. The outset, I would like to state that Scottish Labour welcomes the bill and believes that it is an important step forward. We agree with its broad principles, as outlined here in stage 1. Most particularly, we agree with the raising of the age of criminal responsibility to 12. The minister was absolutely right in her opening remarks that we have to engage in this debate in a reflective way. In particular, in the historical context, it was back in 2007 that the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child stated that 12 should be the minimum internationally acceptable age of criminal responsibility. I think that all of us should reflect on the time that has taken us to reach this point in making the change in our own law. Particularly, I think that we need to reflect on this at a time when people elsewhere in this country and in other countries are seeking to undermine our international institutions. I believe that this is an important debate in and of itself, but it also has an affirmation of our commitment to the international rule of law and rules-based order, because now, more than ever, we need to stand up for those international institutions, because they are the beacons by which we guide progressive policy and we see a way forward, both for our country and in others. However, let me also be clear that the bill undoubtedly deals with tragic and exceptional circumstances. I think that it is important to recognise that the bill deals with a very small number of cases and that there is a degree of responsibility in this debate to present a picture that is accurate. Not all teenagers by any stretch will end up in the criminal justice system. Those that do, it is the most tragic of circumstances which leads them there. According to research published by the Scottish Children's Reporter, which looked at a sample of 100 children between eight and 11 years old, those referred to the children's reporter, were described as with 53 per cent as having recorded concerns about educational achievement, 25 per cent had been the victims of physical or sexual abuse and 75 per cent had had previous referrals to the reporter. While it is absolutely right that when a child or young person has responsibility to do some degree or other for an act that we may regard as criminal or harmful behaviour and that we respond appropriately, we cannot do that at the expense of ignoring the wider context that they offend themselves. Children behaving in such a way is surely a sign of wider social failure and that is the wider responsibility that I think we must all take. Before dealing with some of the specific points in the bill, I think that there are some broader principles and context beyond the scope of this bill that we must also be mindful of. The children's hearing system is something that I think that we should be proud of in Scotland. It has not been the case for many years that simply once you tripped over the age of criminal responsibility, a child would automatically find themselves in a high court with horsehair wigs, with the full force of the adversarial system. In 1971, the children's hearing system was set up to provide an integrated welfare-based approach to children who have committed offences. I think that it is worth considering, through the passage of the bill, how we can strengthen that system. As the education committee heard only last year, it is a system that is becoming increasingly adversarial and what we cannot allow it to happen is for the children's hearing system to simply become yet another court of law. On the specifics of the bill, it makes important changes to the disclosure process, which, as the minister pointed out, is also something that has been looked at in the management of the offender's bill. The broader criminal justice system is an issue that has a broad degree of concern. Indeed, other members in the chamber have put it very well when they have asked what is the purpose of the disclosure system. That is the challenge here. It is right to curtail the disclosures that are required for those who have committed crimes under the age of 12. However, we must also challenge ourselves here. While the bill represents positive reforms, it is important that, through stage 2 and 3, we thoroughly investigate whether or not how the bill will meaningfully affect change. Are we really protecting children from the harmful effects that early criminalisation is making, or are we simply changing terminology? I think that we must seek to do the former rather than the latter. As the police put it themselves, when looking at places of safety, that a police station is not the best place for a child. I put it simply like this. If you are a young person taken by the police when you do not want to go with them and put in a cold room within a police station, in what way does that feel different to being arrested and put in prison? It is vital that we look at the police powers and the wider point. For the reasons that I think are well set out in terms of the evidence that Lindsay Havings gave and other members have provided about how the reality of what is set out in there will be experienced by young people and whether or not it truly makes a difference to young people coming into contact with the criminal justice system. For the reasons that I think are well set out, Labour supports the Government in raising the age of criminal responsibility 12. It is important that Scotland is compliant with the United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child and we seek to prevent our most vulnerable children and young people from being exposed to the harmful effects of the criminal justice system. While that is the right thing to do, we recognise that we must seek broad support, that the consensus that the minister outlined is not just important in terms of consensus in this place but consensus outwith this place as well. Finally, this is an area of law that needs to remain under constant review to make sure that the children's justice system is doing what it was set up to do. I look forward to the progress of this bill as it proceeds through sages 2 and 3. I would like to remind the chamber of my register of interests that I was formally the convener of Together, the Scottish Alliance for Children's Rights. I will use my time this afternoon to offer the guarded support of my party to the general principles of this bill. I say guarded because rarely in the consideration of primary legislation does a bill attract such comprehensive pressure from stakeholders who want us to go further. There has been a lot of talk about pace in this debate. That is the rate at which we believe that the public and the people of Scotland will accept further change in this area. We have been moving at a snail's pace just to get to this point. It has been a long and frustrating road. Our commitment to raise the age of criminal responsibility was first laid out in a report to the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child in 2012. At that time, Eileen Campbell assured the UN that Scotland would bring the ACR to the age of 12 in the life of the last Parliament. With legislative opportunities in that session running out, my friend and colleague Alison McInnes used the valiant stage 3 amendment to the criminal justice bill of 2015 to deliver on that commitment to the UN, only to see it rejected by the justice secretary and voted down by the Government benches. That vote ensured that Scotland retained one of the lowest ACRs in the world. I do not think that it is unreasonable, Presiding Officer, to suggest that this Government had arguably lied to the United Nations. Put simply, the UN set a floor of 12 as the minimum age of criminal responsibility to be adopted no later than 2007 and for countries to work upwards from that point. All told, three parliaments have sat and risen from this chamber since that international starting gun was fired, only now has this Government finally brought our country to the races. The minister suggests that they have elected to stick at 12 because the majority of the respondents to their cold and saltation agreed that that is where it should be set, but 12 is all they asked about. It is particularly striking therefore that a powerful majority of written respondents to the Government consultation and our stage 1 call for evidence still volunteered that we should go further. The overwhelming majority of witnesses in our stage 1 consideration in committee felt the same. That was summed up, I think, most powerfully in the words of our commissioner for children and young people, Bruce Adamson, when he said that we need to be looking at 14 or 16 as a norm internationally. If Scotland wants to be a human rights leader, I am very confused as to why we are talking about 12 rather than 16 or higher. Stage 1 was hugely important to our understanding of the issue, and I want to thank everyone who contributed to that. Witnesses, respondents and, indeed, our clerks, the experience of countries to go before us in that was vital. We learned that Denmark, which had lowered their age of criminal responsibility from 15 to 14 on the election of a more right-wing Government, had then reversed that decision shortly after, due to an increase in offending behaviour and a decline in positive outcomes, but it is in the lived experience of young people, which we found most compelling. We have already heard of Lindsay Hambridge's story in this debate. It was possibly the most compelling witness statement that I have heard in my parliamentary career. A young girl arrested on the night that she was to be taken into care. She was being removed from her mother and, in her own words, she kicked off. That led to her being charged in spending a night in the cells. You could have heard a pin drop when she said, I spent my first night in care in a prison cell locked up. I had done nothing wrong, but I felt like I had. She went on to describe the enduring harm that this has caused her. Lindsay Hambridge was just 13 years old, and yet nothing about the bill, not one clause or section, would have changed her story or outcomes that she may now face for the rest of her life. I will work to amend the bill at subsequent stages to see as I answer the challenge, not just of the United Nations, but of our sister nations across this continent who put our efforts in this area to shame. Lindsay's story does not just shine a light on the lack of Government ambition in the age that they choose, but her testimony reminds us that we regularly lock our children up in police station cells in contravention of their article 37 rights that are defined under the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. I was concerned from the outset that, in the place of safety provisions of the bill, the only place that is mentioned on the face of the bill, albeit in the context of last resort, was the police station. When only one place of safety is so defined, it runs the risk of becoming the default. I do not think that any of us would recognise a police station on a Friday night as a place of safety for vulnerable young children. I will seek amendments that promote the use of best practice alternatives. I will also seek amendments to expressly prohibit the use of cells for the containment of children. I have fought for children's rights all of my adult life, and I do not intend to stop now. As such, we will support this bill tonight, but we do so with a sense of disappointment, which is shared by so many witnesses and stakeholders who want us to go further. That is not a radical bill. That is not even a progressive bill. Instead, it is a bill that finally achieves the de minimis standard of international expectation. On this issue, we will find ourselves on a par with the four most socially conservative countries in Europe. As such, it leaves us wildly adrift of our shared ambition to make Scotland the best place in the world to go up. I call Fulton MacGregor to be followed by Gordon Lindhurst. As a member of the Equalities and Human Rights Committee, I want to associate myself with the convener's opening remarks and pay tribute to the clerks for all their work and pulling together the very comprehensive stage 1 report. With a current age of criminal responsibility at just eight years, the lowest in Europe, that bill is absolutely necessary and the right thing to do. Almost all of the evidence that we received, as you have heard, in committee agreed with that approach as an absolute minimum. As others have already alluded to, the most contentious issue was not whether the age should be raised, but what age it should be raised to. Some witnesses such as Police Scotland, as Oliver Mundell mentioned, seemed content with the proposal for 12, while others such as the Children and Young People's Commissioner, who cares in Juliet Harris, from together, among others, want to go much further, suggesting 14, 16, 18 and even higher. There was good evidence used for those arguments comparing youth justice stats from other countries, leading to a reduction in offending and from neuroscience in terms of brain development. I must admit that my own personal inclination is also that it should be higher. However, I also note the strong evidence given by the minister and some of the downfalls of direct comparisons and discrepancies in some of those systems, such as in Luxembourg, where there is scope to keep a child in solitary for up to 10 days, despite having 18 years as the headline age. I do not think that any of us here would be advocating that. It is also fair to say that we are quite a difficult country to draw comparisons with as we have the unique children's hearing system, which places the needs and views of the young person right at the centre. I accept that there are issues with the system, as Daniel Johnson has mentioned, but in some reform is required to make it work even better. However, it is probably a good system that allows us to treat our children who are displaying harmful behaviour in a mainly welfare-orientated and supportive way. I think that the minister demonstrated at the committee that, despite the name of the bill, the age in and of itself is not the only factor here. It is about taking further steps to make sure that Scotland is the best place for our children to grow up and, crucially, to reduce the negative effects of criminal convictions later on in adult life. Raising the age from 8 to 12 is absolutely the right thing to do. In my experience working in social work and attending children's panels, I witness children accepting grounds to get it over with or because someone else appeared, a caregiver or a professional, wanted them to accept it. We heard some evidence about that on the committee also. I lo admittedly that the numbers are very small. The bill ensures that no child under 12 would be dealt with at a children's hearing on offence grounds. Perhaps, just as important, a wider assistance is already in place to reduce the number of offence grounds for older children. The introduction of an independent reviewer for disclosures was very welcomed by the committee and could be applied to under-18s. I believe that that is the potential to move us to a situation where only in rare and exceptional circumstances, as outlined by the minister, would any child's involvement in offending be disclosed and potentially impact on their lives as an adult? That is where we need to be, Presiding Officer. Also, it is important that the public are fully behind us, as Oliver Mundell mentioned. The parties in here all agreed that it should be at least 12, so that is something to work from. The responses were generally the same. I will take on Alex Cole-Hamilton's point in his intervention earlier. The Scottish Youth Parliament, when I visited there in Kilmarnock, were broadly the same. There was a broad agreement at the end of the discussion that the people there felt that 12 was about right. Again, some people believe that 12 was just right, and some people are a bit more, but they are probably very similar to the committee's evidence. The UN suggests that progressively increasing the age is why I am very open-minded to many fee suggestions at committee sessions regarding some sort of review. I would be interested to know if there is an amendment at stage 2 and what forum that might take. That might serve as some sort of compromise on this issue. Presiding Officer, I also want to talk a wee bit about section 4 of the bill on police powers. There was a lot of discussion around a police cell being used as a place of safety, and that has been on the face of the bill. Alex Cole-Hamilton has just mentioned the air and outline to his concerns, but I want to welcome the minister's remarks in her earlier statement, where she has asked for an amendment to be brought forward at stage 2 to address some of those concerns. I very much welcome that. I ask the minister and government generally to consider using the child protection guidelines that are in place for places of safety, which would be consistent with the overall approach of the bill. We have got that down as a recommendation in the committee report. I think that the bill also offers us an opportunity to consider how the police engage our young people involved in suspected harmful behaviours in a general sense and heard evidence at both the Scottish Youth Parliament and the Visit to Kibble about concerns that young people have with those interactions. I know that the police in my area do a lot of community work with the youngsters, and it is very successful. For me, it is about changing cultures in our police and all services and sharing best practice. Society is starting to recognise that the behaviours that we might think of as criminal are the result of traumatic experiences, and in many cases, highly traumatic experiences. Perhaps bullying is an example of that. It is anti-bullying weak, as you will know, and I will be asking a question at FMQs on Thursday on this matter. How often as MSPs do we come across a bullying situation in a school, only to find out that when we engage with professionals that the alleged bullies themselves are also victims of often horrendous circumstances too? It becomes a very difficult circle to square, in some respects, but how we deal with it and support both the victim and the perpetrators and our schools and others working with children is an indication of where we are as a country, what priorities are for individual local authorities and communities. The number one message that we heard from victims is that they do not want what happened to them and what happened to someone else, and we all have a duty to work together to make sure that that happens through a therapeutic and joint-up approach. It has been a great pleasure to scrutinise the bill at stage 1. I believe that it sends out a strong message about the caring and progress of Scotland. I look forward to stage 2 and considering any amendments that come forward as appropriate. I commend the general principles of the bill to the chamber and hope that it will be supported as a decision to take. I say to members that we have put quite a lot of time in hand, so I can allow extra time for interventions and a bit of debate and even a bit of droning on if anyone is so inclined. I now call Gordon Lindhurst to be—oh, sorry, there was nothing personal—to be followed by Gail Ross. Deputy Presiding Officer, I feel that that is a slightly unfair introduction to my speech, an invitation to debate perhaps, but an invitation to drone on, hopefully not. I will simply start by briefly mentioning my legislative interests and my status as a now non-practising advocate. The bill before us today will, as the Last Society of Scotland has pointed out, raise the age of criminal responsibility by bringing it into line with the existing age for prosecution. I note the Equalities and Human Rights Committee's stage 1 report, which highlights Police Scotland's support for raising of the age of criminal responsibility on the basis that the prevalence of behaviour tends to change beyond that point. Police Scotland is, of course, under a duty to remain neutral on political issues and will, I am sure, and trust continue to focus on the detection and prevention of criminal activity by whom, so ever, it may be committed. The age of 12, after all, is already recognised in our law as a time of important change in a young person's life. Moving from primary to secondary school, being able to make a will, being able to consent to or veto their own adoption—these are just a few examples, the report itself also provides others. A number of witnesses, including Orkney Islands Council and Police Scotland, recognise that a raising of the age also needs the buy-in of society. Because, while a welfare basis behind doing so in terms of the offender is relied upon by the committee, we need also to recognise that there are victims of crimes for whom the age of the offender may be of little or no consequence. The age of the offender who stabs someone does not alter the trauma experienced by the victim. That is why it is disappointing to hear in this context that information for victims and how their experience was dealt with, for example, from the Scottish Children's Reporter Administration's Victim Information Service, was limited, or that it took time to get to the victim. The Scottish Alliance for Children's Rights summarised the point in explaining the important role that information can play in having experiences validated and knowing that harmful behaviour has been taken seriously. We must be careful not to water down information provided to victims to the point that it can become meaningless. That remains true even if, as Bruce Adamson, Children and Young People's Commissioner for Scotland, said, and I quote, for victims it was not necessarily about punishing the person but about ensuring that what happened did not happen again. I am sure that quite a number of us will view it in the same way, as it stated in that quote. Victims want to know that the wrong done to them is being righted as far as possible, and the person who carried out the offending behaviour dealt with and helped as appropriate. Likewise, and this point was touched on by Daniel Johnson, I agree with him on this, removing the name of criminality from the behaviour must not be allowed to send a message to young people that they have no responsibilities for their actions towards others. In other words, we cannot just look at this in terms of terminology, and that would be a wrong thing to do. It is important when a wrong doing has been committed that the facts can still be established by the police, because, as children first pointed to in evidence, and again I quote, these powers are crucial to establishing the truth of the matter, informing decisions about a child's welfare and the risk that they pose to themselves and others, and to ensuring the rights of victims. So, while putting in place trauma-sensitive police procedures makes some sense within the wider objectives of the bill, we need reassurance from the Government that the bill will not make it harder for the police to do their job. In evidence, the police raised those concerns—I will, in fact, I think that the member is on the commission. Alex Cole-Hamilton I am very grateful to Gordon Lindhurst for taking my intervention. In regard to the conduct of the police in their duties, does the member share my concern that the provisions in the bill for the right for children not to answer questions are not as strong as the right of adults to silence and should the bill be amended to reflect that? Gordon Lindhurst I think that the member raises something that is a very important point, and I do share some concern about that, because, of course, if one changes the behaviour from being technically criminal, that then has certain consequences, as he points out in ECHR, and also in terms of law. So that may be a matter that needs to be looked at. I think that I would agree that it is something that needs to be looked at further in course of the consideration of the bill as it progresses. Mary Todd I want to be very clear that the right not to answer questions in the bill is intended to make sure that children do not have to say anything. Any interview under the bill will be in the contacts where they are not a criminal suspect, as you say, and where their experience needs to be completely removed from criminalisation. The bill deliberately does not echo the language of the police caution. If that is not clear, I am more than happy to consider whether an amendment is needed going forward. Gordon Lindhurst I am thankful to the minister for that intervention, and I will proceed with my speech unless anyone wishes to do another intervention and continue the debate. That was not a general invitation to all members, if I might say so, Mr Stevenson. To continue on that point for a short while, it is important that facts are established for the good of all parties to an incident. One does have to consider the rights of a child who may be thought to have committed offending behaviour, whether that is technically considered crime in our law after the bill has passed or not. However, it is important that the police should be in a position to establish the facts, and indeed those who have to look to the welfare of the child, whether the victim or the offender, if a child is involved as victim, that it is clear what has taken place to enable services to actually meaningfully engage with the situation that has arisen. If I might move on to another point that has been touched on by others already, working with young people outside the criminal justice system to make sure that wrongdoing is not repeated is also important. That can, of course, be potentially undone later in life if a child is unnecessarily burdened with a criminal record. Indeed, there are provisions for certain crimes to come off adult records. Indeed, that is a concept that is already well recognised in our law. In closing, it needs to be emphasised that whatever procedures are set in place to deal with the matters that we are looking at, the victims of what would be crime by any other name and the protection of the public must remain central to all considerations in that. We need, as a Parliament, to understand that changing the headline age of criminality cannot allow us to lose sight of the need for addressing offending behaviour and the needs of the victim, as well as the adjustments that our law and procedures will need to accommodate it. I welcome the minister's comments that, indeed, those are issues that the Government will look at going forward. Finally, in terms of practicalities, I myself have been locked in a cell with someone that I was entrusted with defending who had been accused of an assault crime with an offensive weapon simply because there was nowhere else for me as that individual's counsel advising them, and that was a person who was relatively young going into the actual courtroom situation. We need to address those practicalities, because if we simply make empty statements about ensuring that matters are dealt with properly going forward, we will not be able to actually see that through. It can just become empty words, and I am sure that none of us would want that. Gail Ross, to be followed by Rona Mackay. I also begin by thanking the clerks of the Equality and Human Rights Committee, Spice, the official report of my fellow committee members and everyone who took the time to respond with written and oral evidence. We covered so much, and other colleagues have covered other points that it would be impossible for me to fit it all in here today. I am going to concentrate on the age itself and give some context as to why it needs to be raised. I am glad to say that so far it is something that we all seem to agree with. As we know today in Scotland, a child can get a criminal record from the age of eight years old. The age of criminal responsibility is the minimum age at which a child who commits an offence is considered to have the maturity to understand their actions and can be charged and held responsible in a criminal procedure. We know that children develop at different stages and that holding children criminally responsible for their actions can be extremely damaging. It is becoming more and more accepted amongst people and organisations who work with children and young people that a person who commits an offence when they are very young needs help and support, not criminalisation. They need to understand what they did was wrong, but as a society, we need to understand what drove the behaviour in the first place. The evidence is already there. Developmental psychology and neuroscience focuses on the developmental differences of children and adults, children's diminished capacity and subsequent culpability. A low age of criminal responsibility means that we are responding to welfare issues with criminal justice responses and potentially damaging the prospects of those young people. Raising the minimum age of criminal responsibility would minimise social harm across society and not just for the young people involved. I was speaking to someone recently that it was under the impression that we had already raised the age to 12, but just for clarification, in 2010, the Criminal Justice and Licence in Scotland Act raised the age of criminal prosecution to 12. That meant that children under the age of 12 could no longer be pursued through the adult courts, but now we find ourselves in the position where children aged 8 to 11 could still receive a conviction from the children's hearing system, either by admitting an offence or having an offence established via a proof hearing at the sheriff court. The bill that we have in front of us now asks that we raise the minimum age of criminal responsibility to 12, in line with the minimum age that is internationally acceptable according to the United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child. The Scottish Government's own advisory group, as the minister has already outlined, recommended an increase to the minimum age of criminal responsibility. 95 per cent of the respondents to the Scottish Government's consultation agreed that it should be raised to 12 or older. The oral evidence that we received in committee gave differing views as to what the age should be. The Children's Commissioner stated that, quote, 12 was never intended as a target but as an absolute minimum. Professor Susan McVie questioned whether the age of 12 represented a progressive commitment to international human rights standards. Duncan Dunlop, chief executive of Who Care Scotland, also suggested that a move to 12 was not enough. On the other hand, evidence from Police Scotland and Victim Support Scotland suggested that 12 is an appropriate age and that more emphasis should be on the victims of crime. Therefore, our committee has requested information on the current support for victims and how that is being applied in practice throughout the country. We also asked that appropriate materials are developed to help victims, including child victims, understand how the harmful behaviours of children under 12 is dealt with. Presiding Officer, from the evidence that we received, it is obvious that we are all agreed that the minimum age of criminal responsibility should be raised. Raising it to 12 puts us above the rest of the UK at 10 years old and in line with Belgium, Ireland and the Netherlands. Out of the other 24 EU countries, only France has an age of 13, all the rest have 14, 15 and 16, although it has been said already in the debate and the minister said in her evidence to the committee, we need to take those ages in accordance with the policy that lies alongside them and understand that it is not as black and white as age only. One suggestion put forward was that 12 could be a starting point and that a review mechanism could be built into the bill and that the age would rise in increments once it has been proven that the outcomes for children and young people have improved. We noted that a review could take several forms but we believe that it is up to the Government, not the committee, to put forward proposals of how that could work in practice. Maggie Mellon from Howard League Scotland stated in her evidence. Scotland set the age of criminal responsibility at eight in 1937. Lord Kilbrandon said that there was no clinical evidence to suggest that that had made any sense at all. We were calling for the age to be higher in 1964. In considering review, the committee should bear in mind that it might take 100 years for evidence to come back despite there being lots of international evidence showing different thinking about the age of childhood and youth. Presiding Officer, we have waited a long time for this legislation to come before us and I thank the Scottish Government for now doing so and I also thank the minister for her clarifications that she made in her opening speech. However, let us not wait 100 years for further progress. I will end with paragraph 119 of our report. Although public opinion may be a factor in considering the age at which the age of criminal responsibility should be set, it should not, we believe, be the driver, the only driver for change. Welfare and the protection of the child should be paramount. Rona Mackay, followed by Margaret Mitchell. I will start my contribution to this important debate today, the way that I would normally end it by saying that I support the general principles of the Age of Criminal Responsibility Bill at stage 1. I support it because it is long overdue and it is a step in the right direction. However, I also have to say at the outset that I am disappointed that it does not set the limit higher. In my view, the age of 14 should be a minimum. We have heard already that Scotland presently lags behind the rest of Europe with 8 being the age of criminal responsibility. In England it is 10 and most countries are 14 and above. UN believes that the absolute minimum age is 12 and that is accepted internationally, but should we be moving to the absolute minimum? Although the 2010 Criminal Justice and Licensing Act raised the minimum age of criminal responsibility to 12, children aged 8 to 11 can still be convicted through a children's hearing, either by admitting an offence or by establishing grounds via a sheriff court. That conviction will blight those children for the rest of their lives. When the children's hearing system was introduced in 1971 after the Kilbrandon review, it put Scotland among the most progressive countries in the world when it comes to children's justice system, and it still held up as a model of good practice throughout the world. That is why the current age of criminalisation at 8 is such an anomaly. It is simply out of sync with the way in which we treat children in Scotland. It makes no sense, so very few people could or are disputing that an increase is long overdue. I am not a member of the lead committee of the bill, but I understand that they struggle to reach a view in what the age should be. I would like to commend the committee and the clerks for the amount of work and detailed analysis contained in the bill, which encompasses a variety of complex areas such as disclosure in place of safety and other vital aspects of child safety, but I do not have time to address those, so I will stick my contribution to those that are related to the age of criminal responsibility. The advisory group report published in 2016 recommended that the age of 12 and 88 per cent of those responding to the consultation favoured raising to the age of 12 or older. Thinking about the subject in preparation for the debate, I kept coming back to one question. What rationale is there to call children criminals at any age? The bill makes it clear that no child can be called a criminal under the age of 12, but does a child stop being a child when they reach their 13th or 14th birthday? The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child defines a child as anyone below the age of 18. 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, failed by our system, which should have applied early intervention to stop the child getting into trouble in the first place. We know that children are not born inherently bad. We know that two of the empirical evidence of the damage adverse childhood experiences has on children and young people, and that has been mentioned several times already in the debate and in this chamber throughout many debates. In my view, the importance of ACEs cannot be overstated. The children who appeared at hearings for whatever reason during my time in the children's panel all had one thing in common. They were unhappy, insecure and confused. They had lost their way. They were there because they had done something wrong, but instead of asking them what they had done, we should have maybe been saying what happened to you. Why are you lashing out not attending school or being anti-social? Most were victims of a chaotic lifestyle. Some had no positive role models and far too many were children of addicted parents. Children who had experienced ACEs are 20 times more likely to end up offending or incarcerated at some point during their lifetime. Of course, children should be taught wrong from right and they should not be allowed to run wild and cause hurt or injury to persons or property. We would be failing in our duty of care as adults if we allowed that to happen. Equally, victims have a right to know that they will be respected and that those who have offended against them will be dealt with. Some offences carried out by children can of course be extremely serious, but the majority are not, but it is how we deal with children who are committing them that is the key. I believe that providing positive guidance and intensive therapy is one way, but there are people far more qualified than me working tirelessly in the field of children's welfare who could advise the best way forward. As the minister said, we need to take a whole child approach. In conclusion, I reiterate that I support the general principles of the bill at stage 1 and I look forward to the amendments at stage 2. This is our chance to redress the balance for children in the justice system. Scotland has a reputation of being progressive and fair in all aspects of our society and I believe that we should not shy away from making a radical shift in the age of criminal responsibility. Margaret Mitchell followed by Richard Lyle and there is still some time in hand. The minimum age of criminal responsibility is a substantial and complex issue. Those were the words of the former Cabinet Secretary for Justice in 2015 when at stage 2 of the Criminal Justice Scotland Bill he responded to and rejected an amendment already referred to by Alex Cole-Hamilton today, lodged by Alison McInnes to increase the age of criminal responsibility. The committee then was evenly split for, for and against and on the casting vote of the then Justice Committee convener, the amendment failed. I abstained in the vote because the committee hadn't taken any evidence on the issue. Instead, I very much welcomed the cabinet secretary's announcement during that stage 2 debate that an independent advisory group was to be established to look at the implications of a potential increase in the age of criminal responsibility. Scotland has a distinct legal system that is recognised and admired across the world. It also has a strong record of protecting children's rights. In 2010, the law was changed, so no one under the age of 12 could be prosecuted in the criminal courts. Children aged between 18 and 11 years, facing allegations of having committed an offence, are dealt with through the children's hearing system. Alex Cole-Hamilton recognised that, even though that is true in that children who exhibit offending behaviour are dealt with through the children's hearing system, they can, through that process, still obtain a criminal record that can follow them right through their life, to their detriment and, sometimes, the barrier to opportunities such as potential jobs in delicate positions. Margaret Mitchell As I suspected, I am coming to that very point now, Mr Cole-Hamilton. Having said that, Scotland also has the youngest age of criminal responsibility in Europe and a lower age of criminal responsibility than nations such as China, Venezuela or Russia. Furthermore, as Mr Cole-Hamilton says, no one wants to see young children potentially having a criminal record that can impact through the implications of disclosure on their chances of employment as a result of childhood behaviour. The bill before us today ensures that this complex issue receives the necessary scrutiny that it merits in an effort to give certainty around the disclosure of criminal records, the use of forensic samples, police investigatory powers and the rights of victims, and to ensure that the bill has the confidence of communities and the public. Its provisions, having been influenced by both the 2015 advisory group finding published in 2016 and the Scottish Government's public consultation which followed. More specifically, the Age of Criminal Responsibility Scotland Bill seeks to raise the age of criminal responsibility to 12 and makes provisions regarding the release of non-conviction information for under-12, information for victims of harmful behaviour, police powers to investigate an incident of harmful behaviour by a child under 12 and changes to disclosure processes. In the time remaining to me, Deputy Presiding Officer, I want to concentrate on two areas. The first is the provision to set the age of criminal responsibility at 12, which in effect means that a child under this age cannot commit an offence. This age, as the Law Society of Scotland states, is already significant in Scots law. Children of 12 are, as Gail Ross pointed out during her contribution, are already presumed at this age to have sufficient understanding and can make a will, consent to or veto their own adoption, express a view on arrangements for their future care in private law proceedings and children's hearings and are deemed to have sufficient understanding to instruct a solicitor. 12 also brings the age of criminal responsibility in line with the age of criminal prosecution and crucially removes the stigma associated with labelling of bad adverse behaviour of young people in the age of 8 to 11 age group, which is in the minor to moderate offence category. As a criminal with all those potential unintended consequences that that can have for those young people in later life, 12 gives legal clarity and I believe strikes the correct balance in establishing the age of criminal responsibility. The other area that I want to look at is the relatively few cases of serious incidents of harmful behaviour by under-12-year-olds. Scotland's youngest child killer was 11 years old when he was convicted of culpable homicide of a three-year-old toddler. That is an extreme example. It helps to concentrate minds on how absolutely critical it is that the measures in the bill are sufficiently robust to the issue of victims' families and to protect the public. The issue of the sufficiency of a place of safety, I believe, requires to be addressed. The policy memorandum states that the bill provides a number of measures referred to as safeguards by the advisory group to ensure action can still be taken by the police or other authorities where a child under 12 is involved in serious incidents of harmful behaviour. Those include the specific police investigatory powers to establish the facts and, while automatic disclosure is removed for a child under the age of criminal responsibility, putting in place independent consideration of information to be included in response to a disclosure check when the check may disclose non-conviction but potentially adverse information dating back to when the applicant was under the age of criminal responsibility. I support the age of criminal responsibility, now becoming 12, but I consider that it is essential that the above safeguards are monitored closely to ensure that they are fit for purpose and to give victims and their families and the public confidence in the bill's provisions. I welcome the opportunity to contribute to this important debate on the lowering of the age of criminal responsibility. I want to begin my contribution this afternoon by stating clearly that I view the bill and this issue absolutely through the prism of international human rights and the progressive ideology that we here in Scotland wish to set as an example often to the world. Of course, the bill is on the announcements made by our First Minister in so far as her programme for government is concerned about the embedding of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child into Scots law. It is abundantly clear that the action alongside the action that we are debating today makes clear our fundamental rights-based approach to policy formulation. Indeed, it is a fact that Scotland's current age of criminal responsibility at the age of eight is the lowest in Europe. I believe that it tarnished Scotland's international reputation as a leader on rights. We can see that from the criticisms that are often levelled at Scotland from rights organisations such as the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child and why because of our incredible low age of criminal responsibility. I am proud therefore that the Scottish Government has taken those criticisms on board and is responding to them, demonstrating, as I have said, our shared commitment to human rights. In 2010, the Criminal Justice and Licence in Scotland act raised the minimum age of criminal prosecution in Scotland to 12, meaning that children under the age of 12 could no longer be prosecuted through the adult courts. Creating this disparity between the age of criminal responsibility and the age of criminal prosecution, meaning that children aged 8 to 11 years could still obtain a conviction via children's hearing, either by admitting or having an offence ground established via a proofed hearing at the Sheriff Court. Any convictions gained at that age have the potential, as has already been said, to appear on a higher-level disclosure check or PVG scheme record later in the child's life, potentially preventing them from moving on from an incident in their childhood or restricting their ability to undertake a training course or a career of their choice. How bad is that? How bad is that? That is part of what I call the why for the bill, but the what is obviously important to, Presiding Officer. What does the bill do and its core aims and values? Naturally, as well as increasing the age of criminal responsibility to 12, the bill also makes a number of provisions relating to police powers to investigate an incident of a harmful behaviour by a child under 12. Changes to disclose disclosure processes and the release of non-conviction information known as other relevant information for under 12s and information for victims of harmful behaviour. I think for me, Presiding Officer, the ambition of this bill is well summarised by this quote from the policy memorandum for the bill. It shares perfectly the ambition of this Government in a nutshell. The Age of Criminal Responsibility Scotland Bill was introduced in March 2018. It is focused on protecting children, reducing stigma and ensuring better life chances, rather than reflecting a particular understanding of when an individual child is in fact has the capacity to understand their actions or the consequences that could result from those actions, even for them or the people they may harm. As I have outlined already, the Scottish Government is committed to bringing a rights-focused approach in all areas of Government policy relating to children, especially when it comes to children who are most affected by early trauma and adversity. Therefore, it is clear that this reform will contribute to a youth justice system that recognises that heavy-handed criminal justice is counterproductive for children and young people, and it is an important statement for us all. Indeed, children under 12 are already protected from prosecution due to the legislation that was introduced by the Scottish Government in 2011. It is a fact that the vast majority of children aged 12 to 15 who are fined are dealt with by their children's reporter rather than prosecuted. At present, we have a robust framework in place to minimise early contact with the formal justice systems through the principle of early and effective intervention and diversion from prosecution. That requires appropriate support and monitoring to ensure effective delivery. The final core element that I want to reflect on today is that the ACR will benefit Scotland as a whole. I know that the evidence of harm caused by treating children as offenders from such a young age is clear with studies showing young people and children who have been involved with police and the justice system at young age were more likely to offend as adults. I came across this when I was also a justice at peace many, many years ago. The quote earlier from the policy memorandum, however, a quote that I also wish to share, is from Duncan Dunlop, chief executive of Who Cares Scotland. I wish to commend in passing the work of Who Cares Scotland who do such a truly incredible work and offer fantastic support to care-experienced people, and in particular young people across Scotland. The quote from Duncan to the Qualities and Human Rights Committee was, The involvement of the police and, in fact, bizarrely, the justice system means that people who are more likely to continue offending are more likely to continue offending. We have to look at a different approach and we should seize this opportunity. I am proud that this Government is living up to those words and is seizing the opportunity to take action on this issue. The bill is focused on protecting children, reducing stigma and ensuring better life chances. Alex Cole-Hamilton I am grateful to the member for giving way. Is he aware that the words that he has just quoted from Duncan Dunlop in stage 2 evidence were part and parcel of a very impassioned soliloquy calling on the Scottish Government to go much further than it has done in the bill and increase the age of criminal responsibility beyond 12? I welcome your intervention, and I know how passionate Alex Cole-Hamilton is. I have got your name right for a change. We joke that Alex Cole-Hamilton and I have. I know how much you are pushing on this, but let's be realistic. I live in the real world. In the real world, we are raising it from 8 to 12. There are 14 other countries and other ages in other countries, but it is a step in the right direction. With the greatest respect to you, Mr Alex Cole-Hamilton, it is a step that we have to take. You may want to grandstand and say that I am going to put it up to this and that I am going to put it up to that. That is your prerogative, but as far as I am concerned, I intend to support my Government who I believe is taking the right step. In the consensus of togetherness, as I consider myself a friend of yours, as we have been together for a few times on different committees, as far as I am concerned, I would want you to listen, to learn and to follow. Better future chances, a noble ambition and one that I am sure across this chamber would wish to deliver. I am terribly glad that you two are still pals. Mary Fee to be followed by Sandra White. Thank you, Presiding Officer. In welcoming the principles of the Age of Criminal Responsibility Scotland Bill, I say at the outset of my contribution that I believe that it is frankly ludicrous that children as young as eight in Scotland have been criminalised for over 80 years. No other country in Europe has such a low age of criminal responsibility, and it is long overdue that we rectify what I consider to be wrong and make this change. Can I at this opportunity thank my fellow committee members for all of their hard work during this inquiry and in the preparation of this report? Can I also thank the clerks of the Equalities and Human Rights Committee for their diligent work in supporting every single one of us, reaching out to all stakeholders and gathering the compelling evidence that is in our stage 1 report. Equally, my thanks go to every individual and organisation who provided evidence, and most importantly to the young people that we met in committee and on visits for being open and honest about the impact that the criminal justice system has had on their lives. The vast majority of respondents to the call for evidence backed raising the minimum age of criminal responsibility, with some advocating a higher age than is proposed in the bill. It is our duty now, as politicians, to listen to those with greater experience and greater understanding of this issue and to right the wrong that has criminalised children in Scotland. The United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child suggests that 12 should be the minimum across the world. It is, I am sad to say, a reflection of our society that Scotland is at the bottom of the table of EU member states. The majority of EU states have 14, and even with this bill, we remain behind the rest of Europe, even by raising the age to 12. The inconsistencies around children and Scots law, as pointed out by many stakeholders, remains a problem and is a problem that must be addressed. The lifelong damage that can be done to a child, becoming involved in the criminal justice system, is evident. It can influence education, health, wellbeing and could lead to children becoming normalised to the system and becoming an offender at a later age. A range of professionals told the committee that children's brains often did not fully mature until much later in life, with full emotional maturity not being achieved until the late teens or even up to the age of 25. Children first said that not all children mature at the same rate, and some understand and interpret consequences and process differently to others. The Centre for Youth and Criminal Justice told the committee that for children growing up in families and communities where others around them are engaged in criminal and harmful behaviours, it can be extremely difficult, if not impossible, for them to understand what criminal behaviour is and also to be able to exercise choice over what they do. That leads me to the impact of trauma and adverse childhood experiences. The committee heard that children and young people involved in the criminal justice system had experienced trauma in their life, some more severe than others. Research published in 2016 by the Scottish Children's Reporter found that of 100 children aged 8 to 11 who were referred to the reporter, many had a range of pre-existing problems, which included 39 per cent of children with disabilities and physical or mental health problems, and some had both. 25 per cent of children had been victims of sexual and or other physical abuse. The researchers also showed serious concerns about the education of children, with attendance and behaviour affecting more than half of them. That is why it is crucially important that the approach to dealing with harmful behaviour is focused on trauma-informed perspective. I do back the Government's recommendation that the Government and other public authorities amend supporting guidance and training materials to be framed around trauma. We must recognise the serious consequences that austerity can have on the lives of young children, as many suffered the brunt of cuts to welfare and public services, particularly in education. When removed from a harmful situation, a child must be taken to an appropriate place of safety, and a police station must always be the last resort. I am grateful that the minister has taken cognisance of the requests from the committee to take into account the full definition of place of safety, as set out in section 2021 of the Children's Hearing Scotland Act 2011. Reinforcing that position is the testimony of Lindsay Hanvidge, a care-experienced policy ambassador for who cares. Ms Hanvidge's courage to talk about her experiences is greatly appreciated by everyone on the committee. When she hears phrases such as, they tried to force me, they put me in handcuffs in my mum's house in front of her and my brother and sister, and most chillingly of all, I spent my first night in care in a prison cell. From a young woman retelling trauma that she experienced at only 13, it shows that changes are required to keep children and young people away from such stressful and frightening situations, regardless of the reasons that led to that situation. James Docherty from the Violent Reduction Unit related to his experiences as a young child spending time in a police station. He told the committee, I spent time in prison cells as a wee boy and I was terrified. That is the overarching feeling that I can remember of being in a police station as a wee boy. It was too clinical and too full of noise. What was never taken into account was the psychological and emotional impact that that had on me. In closing, I welcome the principles of the bill to raise the age of criminal responsibility and better protect children from harmful effects of early criminalisation. I just say that we have had some excellent speeches. I think that everyone together wants to see this to be a success. I believe that probably the only thing that is sticking point is the differences in age. I am sure that that will come through as we go to stage 2 and stage 3. I am not a member of the Justice Committee or the Equal Opportunities Committee. However, I am thankful to be able to speak in this debate. Like others, I want to thank the many groups and individuals who took part in the consultation and evidence sessions on the bill. As a previous member of the Justice Committee, others who are previous members will recollect, the amount of times the age of criminal responsibility came up in various guises in the Justice Committee when we were looking at various bills. It was certainly raised many times. I am pleased that we are discussing stage 1 of the bill just now, which, if passed, would ensure that no child under 12 has been treated as a criminal or accruing a criminal record. I think that that is an important point. Others have raised it, but for me it is a very important point. It is welcome in particular because of the convictions and having that conviction. It is not just at the age of 12 or even under 12. Members are speaking to people in remand centres and Berlin as well, particularly young men, unfortunately, who had done something criminal, but sometimes it was stupid. They had that on their record forever. At that age, I did not realise that that was going to be there. It is a barrier for them as they get older, as others have said. They are not even going to training or to branch out in a career. I think that that is one of the most important things to get this off of the high-level disclosure checks or PVG records, because, as I said, it can really have an impact later on in a child's life. Oliver Mundell raised the issue of parity with the justice system. When you look through both reports, you will see that there is parity—at the moment, not parity—but that goes through at the age of 12. There will be parity with the justice system with the bill. He is correct in saying that the age of raising the age of criminal responsibility from 8 to 12 will align it with the current minimum age of prosecution. I think that it is important to look at that, but it does throw up, for me anyway, maybe the minister can enlighten me or perhaps as it goes on the stages can enlighten me. I am not a lawyer, but having read through it, it throws up some serious questions in relation to what age even. If it is raised to say 14 years of age or it could even be older, then the age of prosecution would have to be looked at as well. I also look at the children's hearing system, which is excellent and has been raised with people too. When this needs to be changed, if the age of criminal responsibility is raised above 12, I would just like to get a bit of clarification from lawyers on that. I am sure that I will. As Margaret Mitchell has already said, at the age of 12, you can make a will, you can consent to a veto, your own adoption, express views and private law proceedings. However, it is Gail Ross who said that it was pretty poignant. It is not all about black and white on age. That is a point that we need to remember also. I want to turn to the Equalities and Human Rights Committee report. I want to once again thank everyone who took part in that, as Mary Fee said. The excellent evidence that was given there and also contributed to it is an excellent report. Mary Fee mentioned one of the most poignant parts of the report. That was page 28 and that was on the children's hearing. When you read that, it is just unbelievable. The elected members, we come across constituents and others nearly every day. If it is not in a constituency, it is visiting a police station or even going out with the street passers at night or visiting schools as well. It is not just about the age. I do not know whether it should be 12, 14, 16 or even 18. I will leave my mind open to that. However, when you look at what has come from the children's hearings, 75 per cent had previous referrals to the reporter, 70 children would be referred on non-offence grounds and five on offence grounds. 26 children were on compulsory supervision and orders at the time of offence referral incidents. The conclusion of the report is established. That is what I have to remember. It established a clear link between children's welfare needs and harmful behaviour. I know that this is a bill about criminal responsibility and the age, but you cannot get away just by putting an age up or whatever without looking at the background of those children. You go out with the street passers or you go visiting children's homes, whatever it might be—I hate the word homes, residential units, whatever it might be—and you see and hear of the traumatic experience that a number of those kids—most of them—have had throughout their life. It is care that they need, care and love that they need. Basically, lots of those children have not had a start in life. They do not know anything else. While we do, through law, want to increase the age of responsibility, we really need to look at what has happened in their lives in the past. Let us perhaps intervene a wee bit sooner, when these kids, as the children's hearing has said, have been reported five times. We talk about revolving doors for criminals. Sometimes they are revolving doors for these kids. They go forth to care, they go back to perhaps appearance. We have got a chaotic lifestyle and then they are back in again. How do you think that that must affect their minds? It certainly would affect my mind. I am sure that it would affect everybody's mind as well. While, yes, this is the bill and we are looking at the age, let us concentrate on it in between as well. Let us get it right, for every child of the perfect, whatever you want to call it. Let us get it right for these kids, because these kids are the future. As Mary Fee has said, I know that Mary has a lot of work in the prisons and the children as well. We are not just looking at some kids, we are looking at three and four generations. If we want to stop that, we have to do something about that. I am grateful to be speaking in this stage 1 debate on the age of criminal responsibility. As members have already said, the proposed legislation aims to raise the minimum age at which a criminal offence can be made from 8 to 12. Although it seems that we are all agreed that that should happen, there are perhaps some different reasons across the chamber as to why that should happen. I believe that I am a practical person, and so to me it seems logical that we should raise the age of criminal responsibility to 12, because that is already the minimum age at which you can be prosecuted. Members have mentioned that raising the age to 12 would bring Scotland in line with the United Nations minimum level. However, I do not want to spend too much time comparing minimum ages within different countries' legal systems, because I am not entirely convinced that it is a wholly useful comparison, given the variation in cultures internationally. Some members have said that the age being 12 would still be on the low end in comparison with other countries, but I feel that that does not take into account what other roles apply in those countries, such as exemptions based on the severity of the crime. Here in Scotland, we have a strong support first approach for children and have had that since the 1960s. I think that it is more important than continually focusing on age alone. However, the bill has been brought forward because there are some problems that have been identified due to the age of responsibility currently being 8. An advisory group was set up in 2015 to have a closer look at the proposal, and it came back with some key recommendations. Those have formed the basic structure of the bill. Of those recommendations, the topic of disclosure appears to be an important and troublesome one. Although children under 12 cannot be convicted of a crime, they can be summoned to hearings or have their involvement in harmful behaviour disclosed by the police, resulting in knock-on effects that can run deep into their lives. Having a black mark against their name can have the effect of limiting choice for children further on in life at school, further and on higher education and even further into employment. As well as that, there can be a stigma attached to the term offender, which can lead to isolation and the potential of further offences, and that is an outcome that we all want to avoid. That is why disclosure and its consequences are such a high priority in the bill. With the policy memorandum stating that the bill was designed to reduce stigma, protect children and ensure better life chances for them. Upping the age to 12 would aid in correcting this problem, at least for those children between 8 and 11 at the time of their actions. Beyond the age of 12, I think that children should be treated with more responsibility. From my own experience, I have to say that for the most part, by the time someone reaches the age of 12, they are perfectly well aware of knowing what they are doing, and they should realise that there are consequences to their actions. Alison Harris for taking the intervention. I wonder if she would acknowledge that, when children experience trauma in younger years, that can have an impact on their development, so not all 12-year-olds are the same. I think that it is certainly fair to say that I do not think that two individuals are actually the same, but we have to actually come to an agreement of a certain age, where we have to actually agree that something has to come in. For me, I think that 12 is that age. In an ideal world, no child would commit a crime, but unfortunately, there are various factors that cause this to be impossible, and I believe that there has to be a cut-off where responsibility is introduced. I think that 12 is the fairest age to deliver this cut-off, because I believe that the majority of teenagers should by that point know what is right and what is wrong. Some people are advocating raising the age of criminal responsibility further to 14 or 16, but I think that such a move could have unintended consequences. Throughout the UK, we have seen some disturbing stories. When you look at the number of stabbings taking place in London, the rise in gang culture and instances where youths have been throwing fireworks at people in the streets, and the rate in Scotland at which teenagers are taking knives into school, it seems apparent that more work needs to be done beyond any further ideas of raising the age of responsibility. The nature of crime is changing too. We have organised crime groups targeting children and teenagers and enticing them into crime, and we do not want to give those groups more of an opportunity to do this just because they know that children in this age group have immunity from prosecution. I think that people are a little more sympathetic when the perpetrator in question is a young child. If we start to include teenagers here, I think that sympathy will wane very quickly. On an emotional level, imagine telling the family of a victim of a serious crime that the perpetrator cannot be identified and has not received legal punishment for their actions because they are 14 going on 15 years of age. I think that it is balance that is therefore needed. At stage 1, I wanted to take a little time to outline how I feel on this subject. I know that during this stage there are a lot of ideas being proposed before stage 2, and I think that we should all fully consider the possible side effects of our actions when legislating on such an important matter. There are other matters that I have not had time to explore today. Those include the associated powers of the police if the age of responsibility is raised, as well as the considerations that will need to be made for victims in ensuring fairness is observed all round. I am confident that both those topics will be explored fully throughout each stage of the bill, and I look forward to following its progress. I will be supporting the age of criminal responsibility bill today because, as I laid out earlier, the act of raising the age of responsibility to 12 appears to be sensible, practical and fair. I hope that those factors continue to prevail in the bill's progression in the coming months. Thank you. Probably a hostage to fortune before I call Stuart Stevenson. Can I say that there is time in hand to be more expansive in your contribution? Dear, I may regret that. I call Stuart Stevenson to follow by Angus MacDonald. Mr Stevenson, please. My arithmetic says that I have about 17 minutes, but I am sure that you will haul me up at the appropriate point. I think that it is as well to think about how children develop. I am not a dad, so I have not personally been through this, but psychologists give us a sort of guideline. Before talking about what they say, I spoke to a girffet conference on behalf of the minister, Adam Ingram, because I was able to do it as a minister. He was not at the right location. Immediately before I spoke, there was a wonderful film of a one-hour-old child. Music was being played to the child, and the child was waving its arms in time to the beat. When the music stopped, they stopped waving their arms, and when it started again, they waved their arms. In other words, children started to interact with their environment from the very point of birth, and perhaps even before that. Psychologists would say that, in the first year, we recognised human faces. In year three, we started to acknowledge the past to interpret present events. In year seven, we started to tell jokes, and some people have not moved on from that stage. At year eleven, we started to be more conscious of our moral codes, but our personal development is quite varied and unique to us. Children, in particular, who are raised in less than ideal conditions as a result of poverty, missing parents or other circumstances, may well have developed at a much slower rate. The one thing that we have heard from many parts of the chamber today, which I agree, is that whatever the maturity of a child prison is, no place for a child. That is why our children's hearing system is an absolute beacon to the world as to how we should treat those in difficulties. I, as an MSP, had the great privilege of being able to sit in on a children's hearing. I cannot, of course, tell you anything about the detail of what went on there, but the key point about it was that it was child-centred. That is absolutely correct, and you would need to work very hard to persuade me otherwise. We have talked about numbers in this debate quite considerably. I will say that, as a mathematician, you might think that one on one equals two. I can tell you that there are five alternative answers to the philosophy of one plus one. If time permits, at the very end, I will come back and explain what they are. Just as in mathematics, in this debate, Margaret Mitchell gave us a long and interesting list of rights that he acquired at the age of 12. I certainly heard things that I had not been aware of before. It is worth saying that you can get a firearms certificate at the age of 14. You can get a shot gun certificate at any age. There is no age qualification, but you are required to be supervised when you are exercising your rights with a shotgun certificate up to the age of 15. There are a whole series of different ages. You can start to fly an aircraft at the age of 14. You can drive on the public highway in a car at the age of 17. I am very grateful to the member for giving way. The member is describing a range of ages and majority around physical limitations or physical capacities. Does he recognise that this chamber only recently extended the franchise to 16-year-olds, which credits 16-year-olds were sufficient judgment to decide on the right government for them? Should we not be pushing the age of criminal responsibility further? If we can recognise that people only have the capacity at 16 to judge politically, what about their actions of right and wrong in the ages preceding that? Stuart Stevenson The member makes a good point, which I am going to pass on. The bill itself makes interesting comments at section 39 and section 43, where it talks about taking account of the child's age and maturity. That makes a very important point. I stopped growing when I was 12-year-old, because I was given a hormone treatment for a particular condition that I have, and I just stopped growing. It did not help the condition, I must say, but children mature physically and mentally at varying rates. I think that whatever we do, we have to take account of that. I am pleased to see that, in the bill, there are different points of the bill account taken of that. I am also very pleased, to something rather obvious, that this is not a justice bill, which it could have been, if you think about it. There are references to justice committee activities. It is an equalities and human rights bill, and I think that that is entirely appropriate. On age, we are adults at 18, probably for most purposes, but not all, some at 21. There is no age restriction on opening a bank account. You can open it as soon as you can sign anything, although you cannot have bank credit until you are 18. There is a wee issue in the bill in that the assumption is that there is certainty about when people are 12. Bashir Ahmed MSP, or a late member and friend in this chamber, actually did not know what his birthday was. Many people who come to Scotland from other jurisdictions are in that circumstance. He was given a birthday, but there was no certainty about it by the legal system. If you go and look up the record, you will see something there. However, apparently, his mother, when asked, said when was he born, she said spring, and that was all there was to know. In some parts of the bill here, possibly at section 23, for example, we might say that a constable reasonably believes somebody to be under 12 because there cannot always be certainty. That applies at a number of places throughout the bill that we have before us. I turn to the detail of the bill, Presiding Officer, and I am alert to your guidance that I should head towards a conclusion. There are a couple of wee things. My usual one, at section 28.7, the definition of vehicle says that it includes a vessel, which should include an aircraft as well, although it might be able to do that. I am not absolutely certain about that. We heard about children's right to refuse to answer questions. I see that that is covered at 46.2 and equally at section 42, so I am not quite clear what more we might have to do. Concluding with the report from the committee on which I congratulate them, we come back to what is a place of safety. It might be helpful if we were able to document or see a document in coming to a conclusion on that of where there are places of safety across Scotland, so we can assess if there are enough of them. Presiding Officer, I am obliged for your indulgence. Not at all. We are very grateful to Mr Savinson. I now call Angus Donald, who is the last speaker in the open debate. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I am pleased to be taking part in this debate today, not just given the fact that we, as a Parliament, continually strive to take forward legislation that will benefit our citizens, but that we look to create a society that is progressive in nature with welfare and equality at its heart. Having looked over the salient points of the evidence taken by the Equalities and Human Rights Committee, it is clear to see that there is widespread support for the aims of the bill, and that is to be welcomed. It is also clear that there is a feeling that this bill is long overdue and that it is required to bring Scotland as a forward-looking nation into line with our international partners. The bill itself speaks to what we have long strived for to be progressive in our policy to uphold and protect our commitment to international human rights standards. The fact that, in Scotland, a child aged eight is criminally responsible for their actions, which has been the case for the past 86 years, given that in 1932 it was raised from the age of seven. I think that Gail Ross mentioned that it was 1937, but the information that I have is that it was 1932, but it could be wrong. It would not be the first time. It is also the case, as we have heard on a number of occasions this afternoon, that this is the youngest age of criminal responsibility in Europe and has been a source of criticism for some time. If we put this into context, our nearest neighbours in the UK have criminal responsibility aged at 10 years, first the average across the 28 member states of the EU is almost 14. When we further compare that with other nations across the globe, Russia's age of criminal responsibility is 14, which is the same in North and South Korea. China has an age of responsibility is 16, although in cases of serious issues such as intentional homicide and intentional hurt to cause serious injury or death, people are considered criminally responsible from the age of 14. We have heard comparisons in the debate this afternoon about the differences in those ages between countries. However, as the minister stated in our opening speech, those comparisons do not take into account the differences in which Scotland deals with those issues. Although some countries employ tailored penal sentences for the age and maturity of a child between the ages of 14 and 17, or there are no examples of a juvenile justice system, Scotland has its children's hearing system dedicated to providing welfare solutions for children when those issues arise. There is a clear requirement to raise the age of criminal responsibility from its current age of 8. Not only is it recognised that the heavy-handed nature of the criminal justice system is counterproductive for children and young people, but there is also significant evidence to suggest that it leads to further issues in a child's future. The evidence of harm caused by treating children as offenders from such a young age is clear, with studies showing that young people and children who have been involved with police and the justice system at a young age were more likely to offend as adults. In raising the age of criminal responsibility, we are further contributing to a youth justice system that is appropriate and considers the benefit to both the children and young people subject to the system, but aims to provide a benefit to the country as a whole. We must take cognisance, however, of the evidence presented from organisations and individuals with experience of the youth and criminal justice systems. The general principles of the bill will contribute to our commitments to international human rights standards. There are those, however, who would, and as we have heard, like to see the Scottish Government take steps in increasing the age of criminal responsibility further to the age of 14 and possibly beyond, in line with the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. The majority of members across the chamber will have encountered school groups in the time that they have been elected. Some may well have visited several schools within their regions or constituencies, so we will all therefore be aware of the work that has been undertaken by classes, the length and breadth of the country to understand the UNCRC from a young age. As long as we, as a Parliament and along with Government, are committed to furthering the aims of the UNCRC and can continue to take progressive steps in that area, particularly where our children and young people are given the opportunities that they need to realise their aspirations, we will, as a nation, be all the better for it. Presiding Officer, we have already heard this afternoon about the provision of a place of safety, such as a police station, being undesirable. However, it is clear that this is in very specific circumstances, and I am glad to hear the minister's opening statement that the Scottish Government will further clarify this situation through a prepared amendment. However, it remains that several key factors have to be taken into account in what can be incredibly constrained and pressurised situations. In the majority of cases, a place of safety will be familiar to the child or the young person and will have their own safety at any risk of further harm taken into account. We must recognise that such situations can be incredibly traumatic for them and that further trauma can detrimental affect the future, which we already know can lead to further issues. Increasing the age of criminal responsibility fits within Scotland's wider context, which has been a trauma-informed nation, and recognises that dealing with the root causes of harmful behaviour supports the child to move on from harmful behaviour but also lessens the odds of that behaviour being repeated, which is beneficial for the country as a whole. In closing, Presiding Officer, it is fair to say that this is a long-awaited positive step in the right direction for children and young people and for Scotland as a nation. However, it is incumbent upon us all to continue to strive for and do more to ensure that we are keeping in line with our ambition to be a globally progressive nation that is the best country in the world for a child to grow up in. We must account the wider evidence of increasing the age of criminal responsibility further when it is right, necessary and appropriate to do so, and I would encourage the Scottish Government to see what other steps are available to it now and in the future in order to strengthen this legislation through the further stages to realise those aims. I turn to closing speeches. I thank all members who have contributed to the debate. I think that it has been one that has been thought-provoking and constructive, and that is not to say that there has not been disagreement, but I think that it was set in context very well both by the minister and indeed by Oliver Mundell's opening contributions. I think that what was important was in the minister in her opening remarks, acknowledging that this is a move that is perhaps overdue, but it is also one that is being made in a reflective manner and one where she is committed to listening. I think that that is absolutely right. That is not an easy thing to get right, and I think that it is important that we all listen. Likewise, I would like to thank Oliver Mundell for his contributions, because while his side of the house is undoubtedly coming to this issue with the degree of caution, his acknowledgement of the vulnerabilities of children and the fact that children who find themselves in the criminal justice system do not always receive the support that they need is absolutely right. I think that there has been some discussion as to where this debate properly sits, whether this is a criminal justice issue or an issue around children. I think that absolutely let's be clear that it is both, because it is where those two issues come into contact. I think that whenever you consider the issues around the criminal justice system, incarceration, punishment, courts, how we arrive at those decisions, we need to seek balance. I think that any result from the criminal justice system balances a number of things. Restitution is important. The individual makes up for what they have done, that there is reform and rehabilitation. You cannot take any of those elements apart, and I think that all of those elements become absolutely critically sensitive in the area of children and when they have come into contact with the law. Those ideas about improving behaviour and rehabilitating have become so much more delicate when it comes to children. In the context of the debate, perhaps those are the issues that we have been dealing with, but I would also like to thank Alex Cole-Hamilton, because I think that he provided the challenge that this debate absolutely requires. That is a serious decision, one that is definitely overdue, and it is one that requires challenge, especially to those of us who are perhaps taking a more cautious line than he and others might like. Let me address some of those things. First of all, on time, I think that some comment has been made about there being 80 years since the age of criminal responsibility was set to date. I would gently point out that we now have the Scottish Parliament, and I think that those of us who are frustrated about that length of time must take that seriously to keep the law under review, to reflect when the law passes as to how it has operated and what its impact has been, and to review it. We cannot allow another 20 years of this Parliament coming into being before we look at those ideas and challenge them. Secondly, I think that the issue here is the fact that we are setting an age at all. The most important thing is that we do not treat whatever age we arrive at as a cliff edge. In that regard, perhaps Stuart Stevenson's contribution was perhaps the most instructive. It is absolutely right to point out that some people do not know their birthday, and I think that that evidence is just how arbitrary that is. A number of speakers have pointed out that the ability of an individual to understand in a mature fashion both their actions, their consequences and how they can reform is absolutely vital. That does not happen at a single age. The thought that somehow there is a magic age at which one accrues all rights, all responsibilities, all understandings and has mistaken, is that what we need is a system that is reflective and that treats every individual appropriately, especially when they are under the age of 18. That is what we must strive for, and that is what we must ensure happens in the system, both in terms of the explicit context of the bill and beyond. A number of speakers pointed to, as I did, about the importance of the children's panel. Gail Ross set out the context of how it came into being and just a number of other speakers how important they are. I would gently point out that we must protect that. The evidence that was taken by the education committee last year did point to a picture of an increasing adversarial nature, the increasing use of legal representation within that context, and children themselves often feeling alienated by that. I think that we must take a very close watch in this. In some ways, I am concerned that the bill did not speak more about improvements that could be made to the children's hearing system. A number of speakers also referred to the importance of understanding the vulnerabilities of children. I think that Rona Mackay did an excellent job of outlining that, as did my colleague Mary Fee. I think that that is absolutely vital. There are a number of statistics that one can use, and I would like to highlight one that I like to reflect on. It is one that is very personal to me, as I have spoken about ADHD on a number of occasions in this chamber. A general instance of ADHD in the population is 5 per cent. In Pullment, a recent study has found that 40 per cent of young people in Pullment have ADHD, and that is not the only indicator of that. It has acquired head trauma, fetal alcohol syndrome, and a number of other things are disproportionately overrepresented in the young offenders population. We need to understand why people come into contact with criminal justice and the underlying issues and deal with those appropriately. Rona Mackay was absolutely right on that. Fundamentally, Mary Fee is absolutely right to point out that we need to understand the neuroscience. We are at the absolute beginning of a huge increase in our understanding of how the brain works and why people behave if they do. We must take a nice sense of that in the education system and the criminal justice system. That is hugely important. I would like to go back to the police powers. A number of people highlighted the need to look at what the experience under the new regime would look like. When we look at the police powers in the round in this bill, we need to scrutinise it carefully at stage 2, where one is looking at the place of safety, the powers of the police with regard to search and interview. Clan child law was absolutely right to say in their evidence that children whose behaviour is not deemed criminal must not face criminal consequences. We must challenge those provisions to make sure that the bill is not doing exactly that. In short, the terminology that is being used is that children below the age of criminal responsibility would be deemed to have harmful behaviour. What is absolutely vital is that what we do not do is simply change the terminology from criminal behaviour to harmful behaviour. There must be a complete change in terms of the approach and how services, and especially the police, respond. Absolutely, as Gordon Lindhurst pointed out— I am sorry. Do you want me to close? Well, it may be the decision times advanced. I do not know about that yet, but therefore I am taking speeches to the limit now, so if you could please— I will close. Police must investigate, but it cannot be to the cost of the child. Ultimately, Labour is pleased to support this bill at stage 1. We agree with the steps that it takes. They are overdue, and we look forward to scrutinising the issues that I have raised through stages 2 and 3. I am sorry about that. I call Liam Kerr, and I can give you up to eight minutes again. Thank you very much. I am pleased to close for the Scottish Conservatives and speak in favour of the principles of the Age of Criminal Responsibility Scotland bill. The fundamental principle of the bill is around the age of criminal responsibility, but I think that Daniel Johnson made a really good point right at the end there, because it actually opens up much wider questions about the nature and definition of crime, who is and who should be deemed a criminal, and relations of power and vulnerability, which will no doubt stimulate a very interesting debate as the bill progresses. The key principle that the bill seeks to address is the minimum age at which a child can be held criminally responsible, being eight. It was pointed out by several contributors to the report and by Fulton MacGregor that this age, which, as Ruth Maguire said, was set in 1932, is the lowest in Europe. That is certainly challenging. It is not a good look. As Rona Mackay said, it is completely out of sync with how we treat children in Scotland. I thought that Gail Ross spoke very powerfully and persuasively that at such a low age we would be responding to welfare issues, and she told of the consequences of the current position on those aged 8 to 11. She said clearly that we are all agreed that the minimum age should be raised, and she is right. If not eight, then what should that age be? The bill's second principle is that it should be 12. The debate this afternoon has made clear that this makes sense. One of the reasons that we have a current age of criminal responsibility at eight is because those below this age are deemed to lack the mental capacity to commit a crime. That mental capacity point is the appropriate and correct standard against which to consider this. To ask ourselves at what age do we think that children have the maturity to be responsible in law for their actions? Do we think that even where they know the difference between right and wrong, children can understand the difference between various levels of wrongdoing and should be held criminally responsible for those actions? Persuasive guidance that that age is 12 is provided by the policy memorandum and Gordon Lindhurst and Margaret Mitchell, who cited the law society, saying that children aged 12 and over can make a will. They can consent to or veto adoption. They have sufficient capacity to express views on future arrangements for care in private law proceedings. They can form a view to express that at a children's hearing and instruct a solicitor. Of course, it's the basic age of change to secondary school. I'm grateful for the member for taking the intervention. If the member is persuaded that 12 is the age at which children reach mental capacity in this country, does he and his party therefore support the extension of the voting age to 12-year-olds? The extension of the voting age to 12-year-olds in a general election, for example, I would take an awful lot of persuasion. Can I come back to the point? I want to address Alex Cole-Hamilton directly when we come to raising the age beyond 12. Something that no one has mentioned today was that Lord Doolachia tried to introduce a similar move to this in England. He argued that children of 10 and 11 have less ability to think through the consequences of their actions, less ability to empathise with other people's feelings and less ability to control impulsive behaviour. Therefore, it cannot be right to deal with such young children in a criminal process based on ideas of culpability, which assume a capacity for adult-like decision making. I also find it persuasive that, as Margaret Mitchell flagged, the number of incidents involving under-12s currently reported as offending is small and reducing. The minister reported that most of that behaviour is minor to moderate. I was pleased to hear Gordon Lindhurst's site Police Scotland's evidence that the nature of children's actions and the prevalence of that behaviour changes as the age group increases to 12. Finally, it is important that the committee concluded, and Oliver Mundell raised it, that 12 appears to be a publicly acceptable age and has professional and public confidence. Some members, most particularly Alex Cole-Hamilton and Drona Mackay, feel that the age should be higher. We would find any such move difficult to support, not because Richard Lyle believes that Alex Cole-Hamilton is grandstanding. Alex Cole-Hamilton is not. I believe that he is totally sincere, and I think that he is an important voice in this, although I do not agree with him on this particular point. However, I do think that Richard Lyle's point about living in the real world holds water. I find Alison Harris's thoughts persuasive when she said that it is not helpful to say that country X has it an age of 14 or 16, so why not us? Will I get time at the end of the question? Alex Cole-Hamilton. I have heard twice now that members are challenging my position on increasing it beyond 12 as not living in the real world. Can I point to the rest of the real world, which largely has ages of criminal responsibility higher than 12? Liam Kerr. On that point, I will simply pick up the words that Richard Lyle said, but Marie Todd, the minister, made this point in the committee, and she made the point in response to Alex Cole-Hamilton's intervention earlier. She said in committee that it is clear that you cannot make direct comparisons between countries because the headline age does not capture the nuance and cited, for example, Luxembourg, which nominally has a criminal age of responsibility of 18 yet does permit its youth court to impose penal measures. We have to think before we would make such a monumental change going above 12. We would have to be very careful to examine any unintended consequences such as, as Alison Harris warned, organise crime outfits targeting teenagers for recruitment based on a new-found lack of capacity to commit a crime, or perhaps, very much thinking allowed, where teenagers commit sexual violence crimes against other teenagers or children, is a challenging enough system for victims already without being told that the person lacked the capacity to commit a crime. I found the discussion on police powers and particularly the place of safety interesting. Again, I thought that Alex Cole-Hamilton spoke powerfully on this on the place of safety and the definitions behind that. Police Scotland recognised the concerns around place of safety, but pointed to a lack of locations and said that there have to be resources and suitable premises to which a child can be taken and in which they feel safe. Like Fulton MacGregor and Angus McDonnells, I was pleased to hear the minister undertake to consider carefully the committee's request that the Scottish Government provide further information on the suitability of police stations and for data to be gathered. The chamber is called today to indicate its support or otherwise for the principles of the Age of Criminal Responsibility Bill. The Equalities Committee's report and today's debate provide compelling evidence that the current age of 8 for criminal responsibility is no longer sustainable. Similarly, we have heard good evidence that 12 is an appropriate age at which to set criminal responsibility, including agency, legal president and public acceptance. Accordingly, the Scottish Conservatives will support the principles of the Age of Criminal Responsibility Bill at decision time tonight. This debate has been constructive and open, and I want to make absolutely clear my commitment to keep working together on this complex and crucial matter. I am really encouraged to see the messages of support for raising the Age of Criminal Responsibility. For too long, the Age of Criminal Responsibility in Scotland was labelled as too difficult. The scale of the challenge has been responsibly faced up to by this bill. We know that harmful behaviour involving primary school age children is rare and seriously harmful behaviour is even rarer. The overall number of children referred to the children's reporter for offending has declined significantly, and that is due to the impact of the whole system approach that incorporates early and effective intervention policies and processes, which is part of getting it right for every child. Here is the voice of that child in moving forward from crisis. That work will continue. A response to harm needs to have the confidence of those who are harmed and those who are responding to harm. We need to build understanding of how that will work with children and those who are working with and for children. That work is beyond legislation. It is about guidance, training, experience and culture. I want to assure you all that I have listened carefully to today's debate, and I will respond fully to the issues raised today in the response that I am going to send and the issues raised in the report by the committee in the response that I sent to the committee. I am going to focus on some of the broad themes that have been raised in today's debate. First of all, the theme of the age of 12. What we are proposing to do is to move children of primary school age completely out of the criminal justice system, and that is a significant reform for Scotland. We know that a disproportionate number of children involved in offending have faced severe disadvantage and adversity in their early childhood, and the bill recognises that. By removing the criminal labour from those children, we are choosing to no longer differentiate between those in harmful behaviour and those who are subject to harm. I acknowledge that it has taken us a very long time to get to this point, but I simply suggest that that fact alone reflects the challenge and complexity involved. Readiness to move beyond 12 is not simply about public opinion. It is about making sure that our professionals understand how to respond to harmful behaviour without a criminalising label or response. Systems are ready to respond when things go wrong without relying on the lens of criminality and that the integrity of investigations is protected, and that victims understand that such a response is the best chance to reduce the likelihood of further harm, and that sufficient interventions are available for as long as they need to be, and that children and families know that there is legal certainty and protection of their rights throughout. Raising the age of criminal responsibility has to be looked at in the wider context of reform in Scotland. For example, the complexity around 16 to 18-year-olds who are still children in UNCRC terms and need to be responded to accordingly is absolutely recognised. Specific work to better support them is being advanced under the child protection improvement programme. Those young people who are in trouble are being supported by good practice around multi-agency early and effective intervention and diversion from prosecution in order to keep young people out of formal systems as far as possible, in line with our successful whole-system approach to youth justice. While I am confident that the provisions in the bill offer Scotland the right reform at this time, I am keen to listen and work with colleagues across the chamber to consider future reform. If it was decided that increasing the age beyond 12 should be the direction of travel, it is absolutely clear that there are challenging questions around that that we would need to address and answer. On the specific allegation of why we are not being more bold, I would argue that we are. Age of criminal responsibility is just one part of the picture. We have many members in the debate today who mentioned the unique children's hearing system, which already gives us a flexible, graded, child-centred approach that looks at the child's needs and not their deeds. We have the policy of getting it right for every child or gerfect. We have the whole system approach. We have early and effective intervention. We have, right across Government and right across our NHS and education systems, better recognition and understanding of ACEs. We are developing training on trauma-informed responses across the whole workforce so that services and professionals can apply that knowledge when they work with children and families every day. We have also made a commitment to UNCRC incorporation and a commitment to a PVG review and a management of a member's offenders bill. I am grateful to the minister for giving way. I have made a lot of trouble in this debate intervening on my view that we should go further than 12, but one thing that the minister and I are completely united on is the need to incorporate the UNCRC into Scots law. Can she give us a guarantee that that will happen within this parliamentary session? As the member knows from the written response to the committee today, I can give you a guarantee that we are committed to doing it. The legislative reform is unnecessary, but it is a part of our approach to children in Scotland, but it is not sufficient alone. The real change comes from a multifaceted approach, which leads to culture change. In response to some of the issues that were raised in particular during the debate, I have to be absolutely clear that the place of safety is an emergency power that is restricted to clearly articulated lawful purpose to protect people from immediate risk of significant harm or further such harm. I repeat that it is not a power of detention. The place of safety could be the child's home, it could be a friend's home, it could be a granny's home, it could be a local authority residential facility, a hospital or a surgery. Essentially, it could be any place where the person who occupies it is willing to receive temporarily that child. I have to emphasise again that a police station should only ever be used as a last resort and for the shortest necessary period of time before somewhere else can be found. That is made very clear in the wording of section 23 of the bill. I have mentioned already that I am willing to take forward an amendment to ensure that there is a presumption against the use of police cells as a place of safety. I am also willing to look at monitoring the use of them. Oliver Mundell, I thank the minister for taking an intervention. I would just ask that she is cautious as that amendment is drawn up because I think of my own rural constituency where I imagine that at 3 o'clock in the morning, for example, it might not be possible to find somewhere nearby and the idea of taking people to somewhere that they know within their own community could still be preferable to driving them from matter of hours to another facility. I would just ask that she does listen to what children and young people have to say on that. Absolutely. As a member who represents a rural area myself, I agree completely. However, I think that there can be a distinction between using a police station and using police cells. In response to Gordon Lindhurst's point about victim information, it is right to share limited information, but we need to be very mindful of the importance of a child's personal and family circumstances being held confidential. It matters that that perpetrator is a child, especially a young child. If we want to work with child perpetrators to succeed in building their empathy, their responsibility and their resilience, then it has to take place in confidence. In response to Daniel Johnson's point about the children's hearing system becoming more adversarial and not wanting it to become a court of law, I absolutely acknowledge last year's education and skills committee inquiry into the children's hearing reforms. Action is being taken by the multi-agency children's hearing improvement partnership to implement the 32-better hearing standards and will write to the committee with an update. I agree absolutely on the fundamental importance of hearings remaining conversations, not confrontations. With regard to Stuart Stevenson in determining the age of 12, he is a child actually under 12. There is an established process for assessing a child's age if it is not certain. It is set out in detail in the 2012 age assessment practice guidance, and section 124 of the Children's Hearing Act 2011 recognises the requirement to establish a child's age before a hearing. In conclusion, the bill aims to address the complexity and to take a serious-minded look at our context and to address the needs of all of Scotland's children, removing primary school age children from criminalisation and addressing the needs of those affected in harmful behaviour, whether as victims, as perpetrators or both. Detailed work with care and justice organisations, stakeholders and with children and young people has been on-going throughout the development of the bill, and we will continue that as we move forward. I again offer to meet with members from across the chamber to discuss the detail of the bill and to take the time required to work through the complexities that the bill addresses. In this year of young people, I am very grateful for the careful consideration of so many and look forward to our next steps together. Thank you very much, and that concludes our stage 1 debate on the age of criminal responsibility Scotland bill. The next item of business is consideration of motion 14567 on a financial resolution for the age of criminal responsibility Scotland bill. I call on Derek Mackay to move the motion. I am minded to accept a motion without notice to bring forward decision time till now. Can I invite the Minister for Parliamentary Business and Federal Affairs to do so? The question is that decision time is moved forward to now. Does everybody agree? Yes. We come to decision time. The first question is that motion 14704 in the name of Marie Todd on the age of criminal responsibility Scotland bill at stage 1 be agreed. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are agreed. The second question is that motion 14567 in the name of Derek Mackay on a financial resolution to the age of criminal responsibility Scotland bill be agreed. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are agreed. That concludes decision time. We will move to members' business in the name of Stuart McMillan on Texas Instruments, and we will just take a few moments for members and the minister to change seats.