 F stafff creating, and welcome today to the 23rd meeting session 6 of the Equality, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee with no apologies for this afternoon's meeting. Our first agenda item is consideration of an affirmative instrument, the draft age of criminal responsibility reports on use of places of safety Scotland regulations 2022 and I welcome to the meeting Claire Haw als melting minister for children and young people who is accompanied by a Lindsay Unig o gyllid eich clywed ddechrau gyda'r Dehecarthus i G wreidasill. Mae rydw i, gweld gennym ni i gyd,no'i maes i'r cyfu ddweud. Rydw i. Mae'n gweithio i fod i'w ddechrau i eich tyfnodau cymdeigau i wybodaeth clywed i'r ddweud. Felly勿ch. Söabed hynny'n gwneud i gyffredig y ddweud i gweithwyr i'ch gweithwyr cynnigol i'r SSI? Fe yna, mae'r SSI yn ym teachingsau cymdeigigau argellwch eich sylfaen ôl cyfferyddol yn yw affected� songwr 28 ynstr feel wedi fod sefydliad i'r flasg softwr a ninng nifer y gyrtaeth a'i gyda'r llaf yng nghyrch, broedd beth rydym o twng neu beth sy'n aro ti'r Anything i ddisgrufu wildeigio addiant chi yn astaghwedd sylfaen. Mae 가�ddasihewn aparpohesfaen â'r crilion و anghi 동안 a backgroundgaf oniamaith i chi wneud o'r dweud o'r sgwpeddon nhw. Mae cyd-dwyf yn dweud eich ei tynnu yn four acasgwmpas oedd yn deill. Mae GRLS yn dweud y Chyflodol, ac mae gynnyddio'r ei ystyth yn gymuned gan hyn o'r byw Flein Fyllgor, ac mae'n gweithi'r darl Fueling ond ond mae'n gwybod'r prif. A atiwn i'r gwybod, mae'n gweith i'r prif. Oni, mae'n dyfeddio'r ddondog, a i adnoddill, a gan gweithio'r dddog, oedda pa'i cyfnod. fel cymdeithasol arbennig, ond mae'n dwylo'r edrych i'r ddweud o'r ddweud o brifau mewn gweld. Mae'n ddwylo'r ddweud o brifau mewn gweld, ac yn rhywbeth i ddweud o'r ddweud o'r ddweud. The essential difference is that it does not focus on specific dates, times and location of a child being taken to a place of safety. Instead, the report will contain detail on the length of time a child was at a place of safety, how many times in a month a pethau ymddangos a'r number of times that each place of safety included in the act was used within the reporting period. The SSI has been designed to ensure that the reports lead in Parliament safeguard the identity of children while furnishing Parliament with information on the safe and proper use of the power. I believe that the SSI does that without materially altering the intent and information that is received by ministers. We have collaborated with Police Scotland on the development of this instrument to ensure that its terms are appropriate, deliverable, proportionate and underpinned by the principles of the act. We have also informally consulted with stakeholders, including organisations with a strong focus on children's rights. The act requires ministers to carry out a review of the operation of the act and to consider the future age of criminal responsibility. Should the age of criminal responsibility be raised or the frequency of the use of the power increase, the SSI can be modified to require reports to include further information. Scottish ministers will look to provide Parliament with the first report in early 2023 following the passing of the first year of the implementation of the act. I hope that that provides the committee with a helpful overview of the statutory instrument. Thank you, minister, for setting out the detail of the affirmative document that we have. I am pleased to hear the point about raising the age of criminal responsibility, because, as you will be aware, the current age in Scotland is lower than the UNCRC would consider. Can the minister set out whether or not the Government is currently considering raising the age? Can you comment on the fact that the children's rights and wellbeing impact assessment states within it that the SSI is, in fact, UNCRC compliant, but the legislation that it relates to is not UNCRC compliant, given that the ages are incompatible? I will take the first part of that question and then I will hand over to Lindsay in terms of the compliance. The act placed a duty on Scottish ministers to review the operation of the act, both in general and with a view to considering the future age of criminal responsibility. The three-year review period started on 17 December last year, and that was the day that section 1 of the act came into force. In carrying out that review, Scottish ministers must consult such persons as they consider appropriate and must lay a report to Parliament within 12 months of the completion of the review period. An advisory group has been established to support that work over that time, and that advisory group has been meeting since the summer of 2019. The review will ensure that the operational learning and experience from the implementation of the legislation will inform the discussions that we have about future age of criminal responsibility in Scotland. I hope that that gives the member an overview of some of the work that is on-going, and I am sure that that is something that we will come back to in the future as that review reports. I can provide a slight overview on the CREA. The impact assessments were specifically for this SSI, so it is on the use of the place of safety power rather than the act in general. The age of criminal responsibility is currently under UNCRC. As the minister has explained, there will be a review period, and we will look to see whether the age of criminal responsibility can and should be increased with regard to the CREA is simply about the use of the place of safety power. That is why we have said that in terms of how we have analysed that and analysed the SSI, that is why we have said that that is CREA-compliant, if that is helpful. I welcome the talk around the possibility of looking at the age being increased, because that was something when we scrutinised the bill that was a major talking point for the committee members who were involved in that. As was the place of safety, which is what the instruments are about, I welcome the explanation given that it has only been used four times. I wonder whether the minister would be able to answer just one question. It has come up through my constituency works, so I will take the opportunity to ask. If there is no constituency, I will ask him because of the legislation that is now in place. They were under the impression that the police could no longer talk to children under that age—not about children, but no longer talk to children under that age. I wonder whether the minister is able to confirm for me that that is not the case and that the police can still engage with children as they can with any other member of the community advice that I gave to my constituent, but he asked that to raise it in a parliamentary manner. Yes, I can confirm that that is correct, that the police can engage with children under the age of 12. That is really helpful to have in the record, thank you. Maggie Chapman, please. Thank you Minister for providing that information so far. Just a quick point of clarity around the types of information that will be reported, will we be able to connect those different types of information? For instance, there is provision to report when a child is likely to cause violence to somebody else, they can only be kept in a police cell. If that violence is directed at themselves only and they are not in a police cell, will we be able to connect one of the pieces of behaviour, the nature of the behaviour, with where they are kept if it is not the police cell? I think that it would be really helpful to establish for the committee and for the record that a police cell will only be used in one very rare circumstance and that would be where a child is behaving in an exceptionally violent manner or their behaviour poses extreme risk to someone else. For a police to take a child to a police station—never mind the next step—a police cell would be very unusual. If police had concerns about a child and they were using those powers, they would contact social work in the local authority to help to identify a relevant place that would be in the best needs of the child in terms of a place of safety. Those could be various places that local authorities have identified, so it could be care home, it could be hospital if that child had identified medical needs. A police station would be the last resort, and the use of a police cell would be an absolute extremist. Given what you have said, which is welcome clarification, it would be possible to identify the types of behaviour that are connected with the cell as a place of safety. Will it be possible to connect the types of behaviour that are associated with other places of safety? I am trying to think. There would only be one reason for a child to be kept in a police safety cell and that would be that, as it was outlined earlier, in an exceptionally violent manner or posing an acute threat to someone else. In terms of why someone would go to another place of safety, the police would be using the social work that would be taking a very holistic view using GERFIC to look at what was in the best interest of that child, where there would be a place that would best suit their needs. They would be looking at it from a child protection point of view to where that child should go to a place of safety until they were able to be returned home or to another appropriate adult. I was just about connecting the numbers with the different locations, but I will give you what you chose. No, that is fine. Within the SSI, we have a clause that says the nature of the behaviour or likelihood behaviour that we are considered to be causing or risk-causing significant harm to another person. That is essentially saying why have you taken a child to a place of safety, what was the nature of their behaviour, and within Police Scotland records, they will have drop-down menus. It will be quite high-level. It will not be in too much detail. The reason for that being is that we are not risking identifying a child. That is where I was going with that. There will be a connection as to why a child is in a place of safety. That is really helpful. Thank you both for that. Thank you. No further indications. We will now move on to agenda item 2, which is consideration of the motion for approval of the affirmative instrument. I invite the minister to move that motion S6M-04890 be approved. Thank you. Do any members have any other final comments? No members have any final comments, so are we all agreed? Thank you. That is agreed, so I invite the committee to agree to delegate to me the publication of a short factual report on our deliberations on the affirmative SSI that we have considered today. Is that agreed? Great. Thank you. That concludes consideration of the affirmative instrument. I thank the minister and officials for attending. The next item on our agenda is consideration of a negative instrument, and I refer members to paper 2. Do members have any comments on SSI 2022-214, the sheriff court fees amendment order 2022? Thank you, convener. I was just keen to know how the errors happened and how and when they were identified. Obviously, we do not have a minister here. Do we have any? I think that the annex of the note probably has that information. There is no time for us to come back to ask questions. Obviously, there are a lot of opportunities for members to seek that information. It is probably best, I guess, to say to members that if they have a question, they will like that for a negative instrument. If we get that to the clerks beforehand, then we can make an effort to get those answers. Obviously, the Parliament has decided that those instruments are taken by negative instruments. The letter fails to mention why the issue was not identified by the Scottish Tribunals in the court services. Why was that the case? It is not in there. As I said, there is no time for us to bring that back to a future meeting in terms of the process. If there are a number of folks who think that this is something that we are keen to get an answer to, then we can write. However, if a member has an issue with that, then it would be for the member to lodge a motion to annull in the chamber, and that would be the process. There is not a process back to this committee, but if there is a folk across the chamber feeling that that is something that we want to do then. Without being as dramatic as putting forward a motion to annull, is there an opportunity at that point to ask at the point of voting for clarification in terms of a statement? Is that something that can be done? This is a negative instrument, so the opportunity really is for us to make comments here, to put them on the record, and it would then be for, if there had been more time, you could ask the minister to come back, but there is not time for this particular instrument. We will ask the clerks to write, and we will get that back. I would encourage us all to try and, if we can do that in advance, then it is possible that the clerks can try and get the information if it is not in the annexes that we receive from the Government. It may be there someplace and we are just not seeing it. That being the case, we have agreed to write to the minister and to the Government, and we will make no further comments. That concludes consideration of the SSI. We will now move into private session for the final items on our agenda.