 Ydw ydwi gwasanaeth amhaevyd ar y 4th ddweud o casod, gyda ddechu cyfnod y Cymru ar y Bydd knod ddweud y Ddiweddol. The first and only item on our agenda this morning is consideration of the Children's Care and Justice Scotland Bill at Stage 2, day 2. Last week, the committee considered amendments and agreed up to and including section 11 of the bill. We will therefore begin our consideration today from section 12 of the bill. I would like to welcome the Minister for Children, Young People and Keeping the Promise to the meeting a her supporting officials. I note again that the officials seated at the table are not here to support them, are here to support the minister, sorry I get it right, but not able to speak in the debates on amendments. The members should therefore direct their comments or questions for the Scottish Government to the minister. Before we begin I will explain again the procedure we will be following this morning for anyone who is watching. The amendments have been lodged on the bill have all been grouped together. There will be one debate on each group of amendments and I will call the member who lodged the first amendment in that group to speak to and move that amendment and to speak to all other amendments in that group. I will then call any other members who have lodged amendments in that group. Members who have not lodged amendments in the group but who wish to speak should catch my attention and if she has not already spoken on the group I will then invite the minister to contribute to the debate. The debate on the group will be concluded by me inviting the member who moved the first amendment in the group to wind up and following the debate on each group I will check whether the member who moved the first amendment in the group wishes to press it to a vote or to withdraw it. If they wish to press ahead I will put the question on that amendment. If a member wishes to withdraw their amendment after it has been moved they must seek the agreement of other members to do so. If any member present objects the committee immediately moves to the vote on the amendment. If any member does not want to move their amendment when called they should say not moved. Please note that any other member present may move such an amendment. If no one moves the amendment I will immediately call the next amendment on the marshaled list. As a reminder only committee members are allowed to vote and voting in any division is by a show of hands. It's important that members keep their hands raised clearly until the clerks have recorded the vote. The committee is required to indicate formally that it has considered and agreed each section of the bill and so I will also put a question on each section at the appropriate point. Now that we have covered the housekeeping matters we can restart the substantive business. We are going to start on section 12 reporting restrictions self-identification. I am going to call amendment 20 in the name of the minister group with amendments 24, 48, 49 and 50. Minister to move amendment 20 and speak to all amendments in the group. Thank you very much convener and good morning everyone. As introduced sections 12 and 13 of the bill place restrictions on the reporting of certain information which could identify a person in relation to an offence or suspected offence which occurred whilst they were children whether they were a suspect victim or witness in relation to that offence. The restrictions apply respectively before, during or after any court proceedings in respect of the offence. Before introduction the bill did not make provision to allow those persons to self-identify by publishing information covered by the reporting restrictions without committing offence unless a court had dispensed with those restrictions or they had otherwise come to an end so this could potentially criminalise a person for publishing their own information. This approach was criticised by stakeholders at stage 1 including the campaign for complainer anonymity and the Children and Young People's Commissioner Scotland. We accept that that did not necessarily strike the correct balance of children's rights to freedom of expression, autonomy and control over their own information and experiences with their rights to privacy and protection of other rights in the context of a child's evolving capabilities and development. Those amendments therefore make provision to enable a person to self-identify through publishing information which is otherwise subject to a reporting restriction without committing a criminal offence. Amendment 24 enables a child victim or witness to self-identify prior to any court proceedings for the alleged offence where a court has not already dispensed with reporting restrictions. Once court proceedings have been raised, amendment 48, which inserts a new section 47.1 bb into the Criminal Procedure at Scotland Act 1995, also enables a child victim or witness to self-publish information that can identify them at any stage of proceedings without seeking the prior authority of the court to do so. Now this echoes the provisions made in the Victims, Witnesses and Justice Reform Bill in relation to victims of certain offences listed in that bill. For those suspected, accused or convicted of committing offence in childhood, the considerations are particularly nuanced, resulting in provisions that are slightly different in scope. Before any court proceedings, those persons will therefore only be able to self-identify with the consent of the court, as already provided for in section 12 of the bill. That is in recognition of the different risks involved for child suspects, including of self-incrimination during an on-going police investigation. Moreover, once court proceedings have been raised, as provided for in amendment 48, which inserts a new section 47.1 bb into the 1995 act, those persons will only be able to self-identify on the disposal of proceedings. That is to align with other provisions in the bill and seeks to prevent other risks arising, including the right to a fair trial, whether that is of the accused or of other persons. Amendments 49 and 50 are consequential to amendment 48. We consider that those provisions strike a more appropriate balance. I would move amendment 20 and ask the committee to support the other amendments in this group. I am looking for any contributions. Ben Macpherson. I just want to emphasise the welcoming of those amendments, particularly amendment 24 and 48. Those matters that you have just set out were discussed during the stage 1 process, and in the stage 1 report of the committee, having been raised by stakeholders, including Glasgow, Caledonian University. I will certainly be supporting those amendments. However, I will draw attention to Glasgow University's submission to the committee of 19 January, which, if the Government has not received a copy, the committee can share that and ask the Government to reflect on that submission prior to stage 3 to consider if further refinement of those amendments may be of benefit to the issues at hand. Thank you, Mr Macpherson, for that contribution. I do not believe that I have been cited on that as yet, but that is certainly something that I will consider ahead of stage 3, but I appreciate the comments around the support for the amendments in front of you. Thank you. The question is that amendment 20 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes, we are agreed. That means that amendment 20 is agreed to. Thank you. Reporting restrictions, we are moving to now powers and public interest test. I call amendment 21, again in the name of the minister, group with amendments as shown in the grouping. I remind members of the preemptions in the group. Minister, to move amendment 21 and speak to all amendments in the group. This group contains a very large number of amendments covering a wide range of important areas, some of which are quite technical amendments, so I require to speak to each of them in turn. First, there are a number of Government amendments that are concerned dispensing with reporting restrictions, and those follow on from the amendments that we have just debated concerning a person's right to self-identify through publishing information, which is otherwise subject to a reporting restriction without committing a criminal offence. Amendment 42 is my main amendment on this topic, and it would insert a new section 106 BA into the Criminal Justice Scotland Act 2016 to enable an application dispensing with reporting restrictions to be made in relation to the publication of information relating to a child victim or witness to a suspected offence, where no court proceedings are already under way in respect of the offence. That reflects provisions again in the Victims, Witnesses and Justice Reform Scotland bill in relation to victims of the offences to which that bill applies. It would essentially enable a person other than a child victim or witness to whom information subject to a reporting restriction relates to apply to the court for an order to dispense with the restriction in order to be able to publish that information. The granting of any dispensation order would however be subject to important safeguards. It would require the court to have regard to the best interests of the child as a primary consideration and to consider any relevant representations made by or on behalf of the child, or by anyone considered to have an interest in the application. Moreover, the court would also require to be satisfied that the child has understood and appreciates the effect of any dispensation and is given consent to the publication of the information and that there is no good reason why such an order should not be made. So subject to those safeguards, it would enable a child victim or witness to consent to a third party publishing the information rather than the child self-identifying through publishing their own information. Are there amendments? An intervention just in relation to this section. So convener, today this is quite a lengthy sort of group of amendments. I will take the intervention however I may respond to all the amendments. Can I respond to that, Mr Whitfield? You are speaking in the next grouping in this debate so perhaps you can reference your comments. Just to try and keep the time out a bit of pace going. So subject to other amendments, amendments 32 and 41 make changes to section 106b of the 2016 act in consequence of new section 106b a so that section 106b will now apply only to dispensing with reporting restrictions in relation to child suspects. The section 106b power remains different in scope from the new section 106b a power. Just as with the provisions on self-identification there are different considerations in play in relation to child suspects given the potential adverse impact on future police investigations and beyond that, fair trial rights. But it would remain possible for a suspect, constable, prosecutor or a media representative to apply for a dispensation from reporting restrictions and for the court to grant that if satisfied that it was in the interests of justice. However, Mr Whitfield's amendment 191 would propose the wholesale removal of section 106b and that would mean that there would be no scope at all for reporting restrictions to be dispensed with prior to any court proceedings whether in relation to a child victim, witness or suspect. Now, while I can appreciate Mr Whitfield, might not believe a media representative should be able to apply to the court to have such reporting restrictions lifted, by removing this section entirely, a constable or prosecutor would be breaking the law by publishing any identifiable information in relation to a child suspect. Police Scotland and COPFS have been clear that they require the ability to do so in some form. Publication of such information could be crucial for the protection of that child or other people and could seriously interfere with the ability of those organisations to investigate crimes and prosecute. That would be to the detriment of everyone involved and could interfere with the ability to protect the public and children. Moreover, even in the case of a media representative it can also be legitimate for the court to consider whether reporting restrictions can be lifted where satisfied that that is in the interests of justice. I would therefore urge Mr Whitfield not to press this amendment and, if he does, that committee members do not support that. Turning back to my own amendments, amendment 60 would insert new sections 47za and 47zb into the criminal procedure Scotland act 1995 to make provision enabling applications to the court to dispense with reporting restrictions in relation to the publication of information respectively in relation to a child accused after the disposal of any court proceedings and in relation to a child victim or witness during or after the completion of court proceedings. Amendments 44 and 45 are consequential on that. That broadly ensures parity in terms of the provisions in relation to dispensing with reporting restrictions whether prior to or during or after any subsequent court proceedings. I will now turn to Ruth Maguire's amendments 137 and 138 concerning respectively the court's powers to remove or reinstate reporting restrictions. Before I come on to those amendments specifically, I would like to begin by stating that I absolutely do recognise the intention behind those amendments and her other amendments to be debated in a later group in terms of seeking to reduce the trauma experienced by those who lose a child as a result of crime. I understand Ms Maguire's motivation for lodging them and I would also like to acknowledge the letter sent to me and a number of other ministers from families bereaved by a crime calling for change in that area. That was followed by a similar letter from a number of organisations. The Government is absolutely committed to considering that issue in more detail and in discussion with those with lived experience, victim support organisations, academics, legal professionals and media representatives. Towards this end, the Justice Secretary provided further international evidence to the committee and the Criminal Justice Committee in a paper of 23 January, which I think is important that we reflect on. The Scottish Government is also hosting a round-table event with victims organisations and a range of partners in February to discuss experiences and options. The Cabinet Secretary and I are committed to working with Ms Maguire and other members on the matter, but we need to take the necessary time to do so. In respect of both amendments 137 and 138 at this stage and as drafted, I do have significant concerns about how those could work in practice. I would note that officials in the Criminal Justice Agencies have raised concerns with my officials as to whether the amendments would be enforceable in their current form. In the case of amendment 137 and an order under new section 106C, vast resources would be required to identify all publications breaching the order and ensure that they were removed or withdrawn from public availability. Such is the media landscape that publications, publishers and broadcasters may well be located outwith the UK and so publications might have reached an international audience. There are also questions around the value of such provisions, given that once there is widespread knowledge of an individual's identity, it is impossible to completely retract that information. Today's media landscape is almost unrecognisable from when legislation on reporting restrictions was first introduced. It is no longer limited to the traditional print and broadcast channels but ranges from international news agencies down to individuals posting on public forums, with an exceptional growth in the number of self-published authors, bloggers and influencers. That has been reflected in the updated definition of publication in the bill. Many of those outwith the larger media organisations do not have ready access to legal teams to advise them on what can and cannot be published. It is essential, therefore, that, as far as possible, provisions on anonymity are unambiguous and offer legal certainty, a sentiment that has been echoed by academics from the campaign for complainer anonymity at Glasgow Caledonian University. The ability for the restrictions to be applied retrospectively to be varied or revoked in relation to particular information, people or publications, and to be reinstated at any time following expiry, could lead to considerable confusion and risk criminalising those who are unaware of or unable to follow repeated court orders, varying, revoking or reinstating restrictions. We need to ensure that we balance our desire for appropriate safeguards and protection with the principles of open justice and freedom of expression. Although the powers of removal rest with the courts, who would need to take decisions in an ACHR-compliant way, it might be difficult, if not impossible, for a court to be able to exercise those powers in a rights-compatible way in order to identify relevant published information that should be removed or reinstated or to identify who would be responsible for that. Of course, once information has been published in the breach of any restrictions, the person originally responsible would have no control of how that information might then have been used or disseminated by others. In summary, there are a host of legal complexities here that require further consideration and consultation as to how measures would realistically work in practice. Ruth Maguire's amendment 13A provides a further power to reinstate reporting restrictions following their removal and raises similar concerns to amendment 137 in terms of its workability and enforceability and with the potential to undermine legal certainty. For the reasons outlined, I am unable to support amendments 137 and 138 and would urge Ruth Maguire not to press them. I am, however, fully committed to further discussion and engagement on how we better protect the privacy of those who are bereaved by crime, which the committee will come on to discuss shortly. The next group of amendments concerns the removal of the power of Scottish ministers to dispense with reporting restrictions. The Government's amendment 51 would mean that the Scottish ministers would no longer have the power to dispense with reporting restrictions after the completion of court proceedings. Consequently, only a court would have such a power under section 473 of the Criminal Procedure Scotland Act 1995 to dispense with reporting restrictions on disposal of the proceedings. That change will locate such decision-making solely with the courts. That amendment follows the compelling stakeholder evidence, including from the campaign for complainer anonymity, who has stated, that the courts are the only appropriate forum for making decisions on whether reporting restrictions, in cases involving children, continue to apply or are set aside. In practice, as it stands, the ministerial power is partial in that ministers can only dispense reporting restrictions after the completion of court proceedings, and that would only be before the child turn 18 when restrictions at present automatically lapse. Going forward, it is likely that decisions about dispensing with reporting restrictions and or extending restrictions beyond the child turning 18 will be made at the completion or disposal of proceedings. If the restrictions are extended beyond a child turning 18, there are provisions to enable the order to be reviewed or revoked. Leaving decision-making with the court brings a number of advantages. Judicial decision-making can benefit from hearing the full evidence in a case with in-bill appeal provisions in a way that ministerial power could not. That is particularly important given the huge implications and potential risk for the child involved if reporting restrictions are dispensed with, including in respect of children's rights. That change would also afford consistency with the Victims, Witnesses and Justice Reform Scotland Bill, introduced in April 23, where ministers have no power to dispense with reporting restrictions for cases covered by that bill. Amendment 61, 68, 69, 72, 76 and 81 are all consequential to amendment 51. Government amendment 62 concerns the right of appeal under section 47A of the 95 act. On introduction of the bill, that made provision for a child accused, victim, witness or a prosecutor to appeal the court's decision to dispense with reporting restrictions. Amendment 62 brings greater clarity of the ability for victims and witnesses to appeal that decision. That is an important change to ensure the ability of victims and witnesses to exercise that right as well understood as possible. Moving now to the amendments concerning the extension of reporting restrictions, the bill on introduction did not allow reporting restrictions for victims and witnesses to extend beyond 18 or the conclusion of proceedings if that came later. That was to enable victims and witnesses in adulthood to be able to self-identify should they wish to do so. However, as we have already debated in the previous group, the proposed amendments would enable child victims and witnesses to self-identify at any point in time without breaching reporting restrictions. However, various stakeholders, including the campaign for complainer anonymity, Together Scotland and the Children and Young People's Commissioner criticised the fact that, although the bill at introduction enabled a child accused to seek an extension of reporting restrictions, no similar provision was made in respect of child victims and witnesses. That is therefore addressed by Government amendment 65, which amends the power in section 47B of the 95 act to extend reporting restrictions in relation to child victims and witnesses. Amendments 66 and 67 are consequential to that. Moreover, Government amendments 54 and 55 would also enable child victims or witnesses to appeal any decision to extend or not extend reporting restrictions in the same way as a child accused. Those amendments now ensure parity between a child accused and between a child victim or witness in relation to decision making around extension of reporting restrictions. On Ruth Maguire's amendments 147, 148, 149, 150 and 192, I again understand the intention behind those unassociated amendments and the motivation for lodging them. Those two make provision for the extension of reporting restrictions with associated rights of appeal. Those amendments appear to have a similar intent to the Government amendments that I have just described. However, the Government's amendments go further in some respects, as they also extend to child witnesses as well as victims. I am concerned that Ms Maguire's amendments would not extend to child witnesses. I strongly believe that child victims and witnesses should have the option to apply to have reporting restrictions extended in keeping with our person-centred trauma-informed approach. To limit that to victims would mean that child witnesses could miss out on the important protections and benefits into adulthood. Although I acknowledge that Ms Maguire's amendment 148 would also enable extensions of reporting restrictions in relation to deceased victims, I have concerns about the extension through the bill of provisions in relation to deceased victims and the potential adverse consequences of that. I will address my concerns when we come to debate that shortly. If an extension is granted at the request of one family member, should another family member want to identify the deceased child publicly, they would have to apply to the court to have this order varied or revoked with the emotional and the financial costs involved. Fuller to do so could result in that individual and anyone else who subsequently published that information being criminalised, adding to the trauma of that individual and their loved ones. There could be different views between family members and it is unclear what would happen in those situations. Another concern is that extending the protection to deceased victims could inevitably extend the protection to those who commit offences, and we must keep in mind that tragically the majority of child homicide victims are killed by a parent. It is hard to understand how you could identify one without leading to the identification of the other. I am therefore unable to support Ruth Maguire's amendments for the reasons outlined, and again I urge her not to press them in return for a commitment from the Government for further discussion and engagement on this deeply important issue, allowing time for the level of detailed consultation and consideration that we have committed to, which I know Ruth Maguire is keen to participate in. As I said previously, the Government is keen to seek a solution to the issues raised by bereaved families and victim support organisations and to engage on those issues in an open-minded way, but it is essential that we fully explore the complexities involved to avoid any unintended consequences for making such a significant and expedited change to the law. I note that the issue has potential implications too for the Victims, Witnesses and Justice Reform Scotland Bill, which also includes provisions about reporting restrictions for the protection of other victims of offences under that bill. Instead, I would ask members to support the Government amendments concerning the extension of reporting restrictions. I firmly believe that the Government amendments are more consistent with her trauma-informed approach and provide equality for both child victims and witnesses and accused, and also bring greater consistency with provisions under the Victims, Witnesses and Justice Reform Bill. Finally, I would like to address the Government's amendments concerning the application of the public interest test, which should inform decision making by the courts in relation to dispensing with reporting restrictions or not. In further support of Scotland's incorporation of UNCRC, those amendments vary the tests to be considered in making decisions regarding reporting restrictions. Amendments 70, 71, 73, 74, 75, 77, 78, 79 and 82 make further amendments to section 47d of the 95 act, which make provisions for the court's application of the public interest test in relation to decision making around dispensing with or extending reporting restrictions. In relation to decisions concerning a child accused, amendment 73 ensures that their best interests must be regarded as a primary consideration. Amendment 75 and 79 concern decisions in relation to a child victim or witness. Amendment 79 in particular would likewise mean that where a child victim or witnesses is under 18, the court should regard the best interests of the child as a primary consideration and should have no regard to the length of time until the person will reach the age of 18. That is because reporting restrictions might not cease when a child turns 18, as we have debated it already. That brings consistency with provisions for child accused and should address the concerns raised by stakeholders about having differential provisions in relation to consideration of those matters, depending on whether they relate to a child accused or a child victim or witness. Moreover, those amendments reflect the call from stakeholders during stage 1 that the best interest test was more consistent with the language in UNCRC. You will be pleased to know that that concludes my discussion of the amendments in this group. I move amendment 21 and urge Martin Whitfield not to press his amendment. I likewise urge Ruth Maguire not to press the amendments pending further exploration of the important matters that she and her other amendments raised. Can I now call Martin Whitfield to speak to his amendment 191 and the other amendments in the group? I speak to the simple one-line amendment 191, which effectively removes a section for which the Government in its own amendments proposes a different section. I will come to that in a moment. However, the reason behind the amendment that is in my name follows on from the UN committee on the rights of their child in the general comment 24 that they made. I would like to put that on to the record to quote, "...there should be lifelong protection from publication regarding crimes committed by children, the rationale for the non-publication rule and for its continuation after the child reaches the age of 18 is that publication causes on-going stigmatisation which is likely to have a negative impact on access to education, work, housing or safety. This impedes the child's reintegration and assumption of a constructive role in society. States parties should thus ensure that the general rule is lifelong privacy protection pertaining to all types of media, including social media. I can go no further than that in respect of the amendment that I have brought, but I would like to take the opportunity to explore the invite from the Government to withdraw my amendment because of their proposed section 106 B A. I have a number of questions for the minister which I hope she can satisfy me with which will lead me not to press my amendment. The first is in relation to subsection 2 regarding the sheriff making the order on an application of a person other than the child who wishes to publish information relating to the child and whether or not the Government envisages any boundaries with regard to whom that person may be and also with regard, I don't know whether would it be easier for the minister if I go through my questions and then subsection 3 which is possibly the start of the most crucial section in regards of my questions. This power rests with the sheriff and it gives persons an opportunity to make representation so that's more than a simple application but to make applications. The person who made the application, the child to whom the information relates and any other person the sheriff considers to have an interest in the application. Given that the public interest test and the best interest test overlies the decision that the sheriff or overlies the environment in which the sheriff has to make this decision, are you looking at an objective or a subjective assessment by the sheriff which would need to be justified? Also in subsection 4 it makes reference to conditions particularly 4a2 uses the phrase appreciate what the effect of making such an order would be. Again I would inquire as to the extent that the sheriff has the power to investigate and what resources will be made available to the sheriff to investigate the appreciation level of the young person. Is the Government expecting the current tests on the ability of a child to make a decision to be those that will be used in the phrase appreciate or under the best interest test does it extend beyond that to look for objective evidence that the young person appreciates? I also have a certain questions about the minister rightly pointed out to the growing media landscape and the fact that once things are out they are out and getting them back in is impossible in reality and the minister also spoke about the international effect of the current media base load that we have and I would ask the minister to confirm that full consideration has been made of the amendments that the Government are proposing in relation to the fact that at the end of the day so many of these cases will revolve around families, very small communities, extended families and she's spoken at length about the the protections but I would ask her to put on record that this has been that has been fully considered subject to the amendments that I understand may come at stage three with regard to some of the other amendments that we have and also I would just like to put on record it's it's very difficult to rest on a basis where you're relying on the court to make a decision convener and that you are allowing the opportunity for people to go to court in some of the amendments that the government have proposed in particular to remove any ministerial or governmental role in decision making but then also to say with other amendments that there is a financial cost of going to court because some of the people that I think will be envisaging trying to overturn at order seek an order or seek an amendment to order are people who will find themselves in very financial precarious positions and they may not therefore have the avenue that the government has proposed as a way out of these problems so I'll leave it at that point convener. Thank you. Thank you minister. Minister you're perhaps going to address those when you're winding up is that okay? Perfect thank you. Can I now call Ruth Maguire to speak to amendment 137 and other amendments in the group? Thank you. Thank you convener. I will make more substantive remarks in the next section with your permission. I think at the moment what I would just want to say is that the focus of this bill is children and the rights of children. Children can of course cause harm, be victims of criminal harm directly or as a result of a sibling or family member being harmed. All of these children matter what they're experiencing that's led them to come into contact with the carer justice system. They should be equally entitled to their rights. I would acknowledge that balancing rights is not straightforward and I hear all the reasons to not take action but it can't be beyond us to uphold and promote the rights of all children and this mustn't be put in the too difficult box because of the challenges around bringing a solution to what is most definitely a problem that causes trauma and stress to families and siblings. Thank you convener. I will try to get through all Mr Whitfield's points. In relation to your first point around allowing people to apply for that, that section is very important to enable the police. As I outlined in my opening comments, it's extremely important to allow the police and the prosecutor to publish when that would be required. Subsection 2 is left open so that others can apply and that is not restricted and I would say that the sheriff would look at the matters objectively weighing up all the different factors. Obviously, that would be on a case by case basis and it would be for the sheriff to make the decisions based on each case individually. It would be for the sheriff to consider how best to consider the views of the child depending on the circumstances of the specific case and the age of the child. The opportunity to make representation is again wide and will be for the court to decide who has an interest based on the specifics of the case and I would say that the court involvement should minimise any risks of the child being or being perceived to be coerced into consenting to a third party publishing identifiable information about a child. It really is about safeguarding the child in that respect. As I say, I am more than happy to have further discussion with Mr Whitfield around some of the more specifics he was looking for but I believe that the Government amendments provide what is required as well as the appropriate protections for children and young people and I would urge Mr Whitfield to support the Government amendments. The question is that amendment 21 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. No, we are not agreed. Apologies, Pam Duncan-Clancy. There will be a division. Those in favour, those against and those abstaining. The result of the vote on amendment 21 is 4-9 against none and abstaining 1. Amendment 21 is therefore agreed. We are now moving on to the grouping reporting restrictions and time restrictions taking effect. Amendment 22, in the name of the minister, group with amendment 46, minister to move amendment 22 and speak to both amendments in the group please. Thank you, convener. Those amendments would mean that reporting restrictions will now apply from the point of a child aged under 18 becomes a victim of or a witness to a suspected offence and continue to apply even where the victim or witness has subsequently turned 18 until the disposal of any criminal proceedings. That will provide parity with provisions for child suspects and accused and avoid a situation where a child suspect or accused and a child victim or witness both turn 18 prior to the commencement of proceedings but do not both have the protection of reporting restrictions remaining in place including in the event of subsequent court proceedings. That change brings greater parity of protection and addresses the concerns raised by stakeholders, particularly victim support organisations. The bill had been framed this way at introduction to enable childhood victims and witnesses to be able to self-identify in adulthood. However, following amendments 20, 24, 48, 49 and 50, debated in the previous group, this bill would now allow victims and witnesses of childhood offences to self-identify at any point in proceedings without reaching reporting restrictions. Those provisions are more consistent with our trauma-informed person-centred approach, ensuring that those victims or witnesses when aged under 18 have their privacy protected regardless of the date of publication or if and when criminal proceedings are commenced. I move amendment 22. Excellent. The question is that amendment 22 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are agreed, therefore amendment 22 is agreed. Now we move on to reporting restrictions for deceased victims. I call amendment 124 in the name of Ruth Maguire, grouped with amendments as shown in the grouping, and I would like to draw remind members of the pre-emptions in this group. Ruth Maguire, to move amendment 124 and speak to all amendments in the group, please. Thank you, convener. Initially, I can just lay out what my amendments intend to do. They can be grouped into four main categories. They intend to extend reporting restrictions that the bill would apply in respect of victims aged under 18 so that they also apply to deceased underage victims. To give the court the same power to extend reporting restrictions in respect of an underage victim, alive or dead, as the bill confers in respect of an underage offender. To provide a mechanism by which offenders, whether suspected, alleged or convicted, live victims or the close family of deceased victims can request an order requiring the takedown of information that would have been covered by a reporting restriction while an offence was suspected or during proceedings. To provide a mechanism by which offenders, whether suspected, alleged or convicted, victims or the close family of deceased victims can request an order reinstating in whole or part reporting restrictions. I move the amendments in my name. Folk will have seen the open letter sent from 65 families urging change, but committee member colleagues will remember that it was a letter from an individual family member that first took our attention to this area. It laid out the significant impact continued and traumatising press and social media coverage had on them and asked MSPs to be mindful of the impact of our words and to not name victims when discussing the topic. Since then, victim support has led the way in campaigning for change and I commend them for their work in ensuring that the voice of victims has been heard. I fully understand that this is not a straightforward matter to solve. I understand that in legislation we have to be alert to unintended consequences and I would also acknowledge that the committee has not taken extensive evidence on this matter, but what I can be absolutely certain of is that there is a need to address this, not just to discuss it further but to address it. The evidence that we have for change is compelling. A parent of a child who lost their child to murder said, and if I may quote them directly, when my child died as a result of murder, every detail of their life, their siblings and school was in the public domain. That was put under further microscopic detail during the trial, while the perpetrator was afforded significant privacy and protection. The media intrusion, which followed my child's death, further compounded the trauma that I was already experiencing. My children cannot be children because of the constant fear of what the media will print next. It still goes on to this day, and I am constantly worried when and how my other children will find out more distressing details about their sibling's death. I have had several articles and pieces of inaccurate information removed from the mainstream press and social media, but the coverage feels never-ending. Every day, I am constantly reminded about the traumatic nature of my child's death. That could have been prevented had my child's name not automatically been released to the public when they died. I would acknowledge and thank the minister for her words in terms of further discussion and engagement. You mentioned the round table, which I think would be hugely important. What will be crucial in that is that the voice of victims is at that table. I would seek reassurance that those with direct experience of the trauma that this causes to surviving siblings will be part of the discussion. In terms of the round table, because we appreciate that this is an important part of the discussion, would you look for equitability in terms of representation of victims as well as the accused, rather than simply representation? I think that that is a hugely important point. I was going to come on to say that the committee has heard from an academic who gave very helpful specific reasons around the challenges. There was one sentence about the human cost of this. I think that we want the expertise at that table, but we must never forget the people who are affected. Everybody dealing with this topic needs to be looking in the eye of the families who are affected. I would seek assurance from the minister on that matter. I would like to begin again by reiterating, as I did in group 13, that I absolutely recognise the intention behind the amendments in this group in terms of seeking to reduce the trauma experienced by those who lose a child as a result of crime and understand Ms Maguire's motivation for lodging them. I reiterate again that the Government is committed to considering this issue in more detail and in discussion with those with lived experience. Is the minister able to confirm my earlier point in terms of equitability between representation from victims groups and those of the accused at said round table? In other words, I agree that the Government will clearly give consideration to it, but I just want to flesh out the nature of that consideration that it will be equitable because of the challenge of balancing rights, which my colleague Ruth Maguire alluded to in the earlier group. I am going to address that in just a wee second, thank you. So again, sorry, just reiterating the commitment to considering this issue in more detail and I appreciate Ms Maguire's comments around wanting to see action on this and not just discussion, and I really do believe the steps that the Government are taking are leading towards that. In terms of the round table, it is focused on deceased victims. As far as I am aware, I believe that victim support organisations will be at that round table, however it is not myself that is organising that. I am more than happy to seek that information and to provide that to the committee in terms of who will be in attendance and who will be contributing. I want to reiterate my comments on the potential for unintended and adverse consequences that could impact negatively on the very people that the amendments seek to support, as currently drafted, which is why, as I have said, the Government will work very closely with Ruth Maguire and other members as we consider these matters fully. I will turn first to amendments 1, 2, 4 to 1, 3, 6, which, taken together, seek to extend reporting restrictions in relation to publication of information that could identify deceased child victims of a crime and their families prior to any court proceedings, so providing a right of anonymity. As I said, I have concerns regarding how certain aspects of these amendments could work in practice. For example, they would require bereaved relatives to go through the emotional and financial cost of applying to a court to be able to publicly identify their deceased child as a victim of crime. It could also risk criminalising, for example, the child's peers who wish to publicly express their grief at the loss of their friend in such terrible circumstances and who may not understand that there are any restrictions. I have gone against my taking interventions at the end, which I will return to, but I am happy to take. I understand the argument that is being put, but, surely, if we think about rights and children's rights, we are not suggesting that a cousin or a friend's right to broadcast their feelings about the deceased is more important than the right to privacy in a family life. Is that a challenge? It is not really a challenge. That is why I have committed to further discussion on that, because we have to overcome those challenges. It is not about putting importance over one member of a family or another, it is just about considering how we get this right. It is essential that we learn from the experience of other comparable jurisdictions who have had to actively amend or repeal legislation on anonymity for deceased victims following changes made at haste and without proper consultation with all those affected. Breved families in those jurisdictions, for example Ireland and Victoria Australia, have likened such laws to gag clauses and expressed anger at not being able to speak freely about their loved ones. Another concern is the potential for anonymity for deceased child victims to operate as a shield protecting the identity of those who are committing or commit offences. It is hard to understand, as I said in the previous group, how you could identify one at times without leading to the identification of the other, again something that needs considered further. It is also unclear what would happen where there was not a consensus amongst family members as to whether an application should be made to the court seeking to dispense with reporting restrictions in respect of a deceased child victim. Amendment 131 enables a broad range of family members to apply for such a dispensation, including a parent, sibling, child or spouse, or civil partner of the deceased child victim. Not all bereaved families will have a unified view on whether they wish the identity of their bereaved child to be made public. One family member may wish the child's identity to remain anonymous, whilst another might wish to speak publicly about the child, whether it to be to remember and celebrate their life or to raise awareness and campaign. It is hard to envisage a non-traumatising process by which family members would have to apply to court and argue either for or against the waiving of anonymity. Amendments 139 to 146 are along a similar vein by seeking to extend reporting restrictions in relation to publication of information that could identify deceased child victims of a crime and their families once court proceedings are under way. The issues that I have already outlined apply equally to those amendments. In relation to amendments 152 to 154 concerning the court's powers in respect of the retrospective removal or reinstatement of published information, which was not subject to reporting restrictions at the time that it was published, I have concerns about how those could work in practice. I will not reiterate what I have already gone into for amendments 137 and 138 in group 13, but I have the same concerns about how those amendments would work in practice and the enforceability that would impact on the benefits that they can bring for those whom they seek to aid. I will, however, reiterate what I said in group 13. The Government is keen to seek a solution to the issues raised by bereaved families and victim support organisations and to engage on those in an open-minded way, but it is essential that we fully explore those complexities that are involved to avoid those unintended consequences that I have alluded to this morning. I note that the issue has potential implications, too, for the Vulnerable Witnesses and Justice Reform Scotland Bill, which also includes provisions about reporting restrictions for the protection of other victims of offences under that bill, and that is currently at stage 1. As I mentioned before, the round table event with a range of partners in February will provide that crucial forum to discuss experiences and options, and the Cabinet Secretary and I are absolutely committed to working with Ms Meyer and any other members on the matter. For the reasons that I outlined, I am therefore unable to support the amendments and, again, would urge the member not to press in return for a commitment from the Government for discussion and engagement on this extremely important issue, allowing time for the level of detailed consultation and consideration that this important and complex matter warrants beyond the bill. Just so that I am clear of what is being proposed here, the minister is suggesting that there will be a round table to go away and consider all of those issues. Meanwhile, we will pass the bill as proposed at stage 3, because presumably that will happen before the conclusions of the round table have come back. The conclusions will be amended into the past act later on. Is that correct, minister? As far as I know, the round table is in late February, so I cannot confirm that stage 3 would be completed by then. There are other avenues that the report instructions could be looked at. It would not necessarily be restricted to the bill, however it could be. I am not really sure what the member is getting at. I am laying out that I want to have as much discussion and consultation on this very important issue. The round table is a key part of that. If it seems right that that would be in time for stage 3, then it could be. I think that I am getting some notifications. If we do conclude today, there is a possibility that stage 3 could conclude by the end of February, so that is in terms of timeline. I think that the members are just seeking some clarification around that. It is following on from Liam Kerr's point. We understand that there needs to be more discussion. We understand the complexity of that, but often what happens in those cases is that we agree to further discussion and consultation beyond the bill, and then there is no vehicle for delivering it. If it is not going to be this bill, I hope that the minister has thought what bill it would be, perhaps the Victims and Witnesses Bill, and if so, has she had a discussion with the Cabinet Secretary about that as a possibility to attach that on. We want a degree of urgency about that, because we know that it is complex, but it should not, as Ruth Maguire said, be beyond the wit of us to come up with a solution. My fear is that the way that you have outlined it is that we may be making perfect the enemy of the good. The minister has highlighted some conflict that might be within families. Of course there will be. You get that in all legal cases in many circumstances. That does not mean that we should not go there. We need to make sure that the courts are empowered, that the system is empowered, to make the right decision in the best interest of what they believe is the balance of rights in those circumstances. I just want confidence from the minister that she has thought through where that is going to happen, so that we are not here in five years' time saying that we missed the chance. That is what I like confidence on. I am certain that this is not a case of this being kicked into the long grass. I hope that I have made it clear how important it is that I really take it. I appreciate the difficulties that this causes for many families. I have highlighted to numerous times how, because of the importance and the unintended consequences that it needs further consideration, my discussions with the cabinet secretary are on-going in that. There absolutely are other vehicles where that is. Could you list what those vehicles are? The Victim's Witnesses and Justice Bill, for one, could be, as I say, other vehicles as well for it. I want to highlight, just before I take any further interventions, one sort of account that perhaps emphasises the importance, as I say, of getting this right. During the bill's passage internationally, Senators highlighted the negative impact that judgment had on bereaved families and why the bill was required to rectify the situation. Sen. Fiona O'Loughlin explained that the mother of an 11-year-old boy who had been murdered was compelled recently to disguise her identity on television as though she was some type of criminal who could not be identified on the news. By revealing her identity, the identity of her dead child was also to have been revealed, and it is manifestly unfair to the families of deceased children that the law operates as it does. That account demonstrates the complexities involved in legislating on anonymity and the need to understand how it will impact on those affected. Although something might seem like the right thing to do, it is absolutely essential—as I have said—that it is done in the right way. It is not about kicking this into the long grass, it is about ensuring that we get it right for the families concerned. I am happy to take intervention. I am very grateful. Has the minister considered the possibility, following on from Willie Rennie's well-made point, that the solution to this might be to remove the sections? Do the round table and bring them back in a final format in whatever the next vehicle is, the next bill that comes forward in order to get it right rather than to pass something that may later need to be reviewed? I am merging the committee to get it right. The bill, as it stands, makes provisions for victims and witnesses, but, as I said, deceased victims are not covered. That is something that I think we need to have further discussion on. There are vehicles that we could make progress on that. I have been quite clear. As far as I can hear, a number of things are being suggested by the minister. One is that there is another bill that could be used for that, and the second is that there will be a round table to discuss it. I am getting a bit concerned, not least because it is not this particular minister who has arranged the round table, given some of the concerns that we have had earlier on. Can the minister say who is arranging that round table? What conversation is she having with the person who is arranging it? Is it not possible to bring that forward so that the bill can be the best that it possibly can be? With respect, the committee is trying to do the best that it possibly can by ensuring that we do not have to revisit a bill and miss an opportunity, as my colleague Willie Rennie has highlighted. The cabinet secretary for justice, Angela Constance, who is arranging the round table, has had a series of engagement with numerous stakeholders around that. I cannot comment for the cabinet secretary on the date of the round table. I know that there are a lot of different organisations and stakeholders who have been involved in that. As I said, I cannot comment on why the date is when it is, but I assume that every effort has been made to get it in a timely manner so that those discussions can take place as quickly as possible. There could be a number of reasons for it taking place when it is. That is another point. I think that you probably gather some of the concerns from the committee. I appreciate and empathise with the position that you find yourself in in terms of what you are able to control. However, would you be able to commit off the back of this discussion today to set out specifically, based on your discussions with the cabinet secretary for justice, what this committee can go into stage 3 for as individual members, what the basis will be? I am sensing, and I cannot speak for everybody, that to go into stage 3 with the potential that it might be looked at in a further bill or that there will be a round table at some point feels like it is not enough, given the scale of the concern, over the challenge of conflicting rights. Will the minister be able to write back to the committee once she has had a chance to affirm what the specifics are around the next steps, dates and so on? Of course. I would say that the round table has been organised. It is going ahead. It is not just something that I am saying this morning to delay things. As I say, there have been organisations and stakeholders contacted. This is a result of a series of engagements between the cabinet secretary ministers and the associated organisations and stakeholders. The round table is on 20 February. I have been very clear over the course of today and last week that there are a number of different issues outside of this one alone that I need to discuss with members around further amendments or positions for stage 3. I want to ensure that we have time to consider issues in good time ahead of stage 3. Obviously, I would not be able to confirm the timings on that just now, but I will make efforts to ensure that we are able to discuss those matters prior to stage 3. I am happy to write back with any further information in relation to the timeline of how things are going to go ahead. To assist yourself and colleagues with the important deliberations, I think that what colleagues have emphasised around the need for primary legislation opportunities to be available to act on the round table and any conclusions that come from it is an important point. Lawmaking, to state the obvious, is the most important bits of work that we do in this Parliament. Therefore, if the timetable for stage 3 does not permit the input from the round table to be acted upon and the actions that are agreed through that process, I do think that it would be appropriate and beneficial for the Parliament to receive reassurance from you ahead of stage 3 that those considerations and any conclusions would input into another piece of primary legislation in this parliamentary term. What I would say is that the round table is a very important step in this, but it might not be the be all and end all. There may be other things that come out of the round table or things that require further discussion. I do not want to rush this to get it in a timeline for stage 3. The most important thing is to get it right. I think that what I have been very clear on is that I am more than happy to be open and to work with the committee and members on this and provide opportunities for further legislative opportunities to include that in. However, that is not saying that stage 3 of this bill is not the case for that. There are options to consider there. I appreciate that, and I appreciate the timetable as the timetable. Can the minister explain why the round table is not happening until the 20th of February, given how important it is to the particular bill that we have in front of us? Mr Duncan Glancy, I have already outlined the fact that it is not myself that is arranging the round table. The round table is the result of a series of discussions between the cabinet secretary and stakeholders and organisations, which I believe are positive about the fact that the round table is happening. There could be a number of reasons why it is not happening until the 20th of February. I am not able to go into those moments. You can see that the committee is very involved and interested in this particular grouping, but can I now call Ruth Maguire to wind up, press or withdraw amendment 124, please? I suppose that the first thing that I want to say to colleagues is that it is not just the Government that gets to decide how legislation is formed. Any round table must involve the families. Victims organisations will be more than happy to share contributions, but this will be too easily dismissed if the victims families are not there. I urge that the families be there. We could probably talk about the media stuff in circles. One point that I would make is that it is not all media outlets who report in detail the harms that have happened to children. Many behave responsibly. Legislation would create an even playing field for them to continue to behave in a responsible manner. I do not accept that because there are international examples of where things have not worked out and that that is a reason to not legislate. I think that that is actually a gift because it shows us what not to do. It shows us that we can learn from that, so I do not accept that argument. That is quite challenging because, to be frank, I have not heard the urgency from the minister and I feel colleagues around the table getting restless on that. What I would say to them and to the families who might be watching and the victims organisations who have worked with them is that I am going to take what the Government has said in good faith and not press these amendments today and urge colleagues not to press them as well. However, we will not stop the campaign for those changes, the awareness raising and I will bring them back at stage 3 if there has not been progress because minds need to be sharpened and focused on the action that needs to be taken. I appreciate the complexities. It is not easy. Nothing that is worth doing is easy, but there are children currently being harmed by our legislation. The Children's Care and Justice Bill is absolutely the right place to ensure that the rights of children who are involved in our care and justice system are upheld and are championed. I am very grateful because Ruth Maguire is making some very powerful points. Does she share with me the concern that stage 3 and the actual processes that exist in this Parliament for that element of legislation is perhaps not the best vehicle in which, as she said, the lived experience of the young people themselves can express an input into evidence? With the greatest respect to the minister and the Scottish Government, perhaps the round table in itself is not exactly the most fortuitous way for a young person to be able to express their concerns. I suppose that addressing that is the vehicle that we have to legislate. I draw members' attention to the letter from victim support signed by 65 families. We are talking about, thankfully, a small number of families who are affected by this, but there you have access to the direct lived experience. We can see the impact. I do not think that there needs to be a whole fresh consultation on that. We know what the problem is that there is access to people with lived experience. We just need a bit of urgency to get folk round the table that can work our way through this. It cannot be beyond us. Are you seeking to withdraw amendment 124? Ruth Maguire seeks to withdraw amendment 124. Does any member object? The amendment is therefore withdrawn. Now we move to reporting restrictions and identity of workplace. I call amendment 23, in the name of the minister, group with amendment 47. Minister, to move amendment 23 and speak to both amendments in this group, please. Thank you, convener. Provisions in section 12 and section 13 of the bill set out the relevant information, which would be within scope of reporting restrictions, whether prior to or during any criminal proceedings respectively. This included information about a person's name, address, the identity of any school or other educational establishment they attend, and any still or moving picture of the person. The amendments in this group would also ensure that the reporting restrictions would also include information identifying the place at which the person works within the types of information that is included as part of reporting restrictions. Amendment 23 amends section 12 of the bill in that regard, and amendment 47 does likewise in relation to section 13 of the bill. Those amendments ensure a fuller range of identifiable information that is included as part of relevant information, which is important in ensuring maximum benefit of the reporting restrictions safeguards for children. This change is also important given that the bill contains provisions enabling reporting restrictions to apply or be extended beyond 18 for a child's suspect or accused, and by virtue of amendments that have already been debated in group 13 and will be debated in group 17 for child victims and witnesses, it is more likely at this older age that those individuals will be in employment. Again, that is consistent with the reporting restrictions that have been included in the Victims, Witnesses and Justice Reform Bill, in relation to victims of certain offences that are listed in that bill. I therefore move amendment 23 and ask members to support the other amendments in this group. The question is that amendment 23 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are agreed to. Amendment 23 is agreed. I apologise for that. I now call amendment 24 in the name of the minister, already debated with amendment 20. The question is that amendment 24 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. Amendment 24 is therefore agreed. I call amendment 126 in the name of Ruth Maguire, already debated with amendment 124. Ruth Maguire, to move or not move? Not move. I call amendment... Excuse me, I'll just catch my breath. I call amendment 123 in the name of Ruth Maguire. It says 125. Yes, that's my number dyslexia. I'll start again. I call amendment 125 in the name of Ruth Maguire, already debated with amendment 124. Ruth Maguire, to move or not move? Not move. I call amendment 25 in the name of the minister, already debated with amendment 16. Minister to move formally. The question is that amendment 25 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. Okay, reporting restrictions minor and technical. We'll move to that grouping now. I call amendment 26 in the name of the minister, group with amendments as shown in the grouping. I point out that if amendment 191 is agreed to, which was debated in the group, reporting restrictions, powers and public interest test, I cannot call amendment 41 through the preemption. Minister to move amendment 26 and speak to all amendments in the group. Thank you, convener. I know that you are looking to get through a lot of business today. The majority of all the amendments in this group are minor and technical amendments. I'm more than happy to go through them in detail and explain any of them if committee members desire. However, I am equally happy to move amendment 26 if committee is agreeable. Thank you. The question is that amendment 26 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are all agreed. Amendment 26 is agreed. I call amendment 127 in the name of Ruth Maguire, already debated with amendment 124. Ruth Maguire to move or not move. The call amendment 27, in the name of the minister, already debated with amendment 26. Minister to move formally. The question is that amendment 27 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. The amendment 27 is agreed to. I call amendment 128 in the name of Ruth Maguire, already debated with 124. Ruth Maguire to move or not move. I call amendment 28, in the name of the minister, already debated with amendment 26. The question is that amendment 28 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. Thank you. We are all agreed. Amendment 29 is agreed. I'll keep jumping ahead. I call amendment 29, in the name of the minister, already debated with amendment 26. Minister to move formally. The question is that amendment 29 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are all agreed. I call amendment 129, in the name of Ruth Maguire, already debated with amendment 124. Ruth Maguire to move or not move. I call amendment 191, in the name of Martin Whitfield, already debated with amendment 21. I remind members that if amendment 191 is agreed to, I cannot call amendments 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135 and 41, as shown in the grouping for pre-emptions. Martin Whitfield to move or not move. Given the undertaking from the Government for Discussions, I'll not move it at this stage. I call amendment 30, in the name of the minister, already debated with amendment 21. Minister to move formally. The question is that amendment 30 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? No. We are not agreed. There will be a division. Those in favour, those against and those abstaining. The result of the vote on amendment 30 is 4, 9 against 0 with one abstention. Amendment 30 is therefore agreed. I call amendment 31, in the name of the minister. I already debated with amendment 21. Minister to move formally. The question is that amendment 31 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. There will be a division. Those in favour of 31. Those against and those abstaining. The result on amendment 31 is 4, 9 against none with one abstention. Amendment 31 is therefore agreed to. I call amendment 32, in the name of the minister, already debated with amendment 21. Minister to move formally. The question is that amendment 32 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. There will be a division. Those in favour, those against and those abstaining. The result of the vote on amendment 32 is 4, 9 against 0 with one abstention. Amendment 32 is therefore agreed to. I call amendment 33, in the name of the minister. I already debated with amendment 21. Minister to move formally. The question is that amendment 33 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. There will be a division. Those in favour, those against and those abstaining. The result of the vote on amendment 33 is yes, 9 against 0 with one abstention. Amendment 33 is therefore agreed to. I call amendment 130, in the name of Ruth Maguire, already debated with amendment 124. Ruth Maguire to move or not move. I call amendment 131, in the name of Ruth Maguire already debated with amendment 124. Ruth Maguire to move or not move. I call amendment 34, in the name of the minister, already debated with amendment 21. Minister to move formally. The question is that amendment 34 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. There will be a division. Those in favour of amendment 34. Those against and those abstaining. The result of the vote on amendment 34 is 4, 9 against 0 with one abstention. Amendment 34 is therefore agreed. I call amendment 35, in the name of the minister, already debated with amendment 21. Minister to move formally. The question is that amendment 35 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. There will be a division. Those in favour. Those against, those abstaining. The result of the vote on amendment 35 is 4, 9 against 0 with one abstention. Amendment 35 is therefore agreed. I call amendment 36, in the name of the minister, already debated with amendment 21. Minister to move formally. The question is that amendment 36 be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. There will be a division. Those in favour of amendment 36. Those against, those abstaining. The result of the vote on amendment 36 is 4, 9 against 0 with one abstention. Amendment 36 is therefore agreed. I call amendment 132, in the name of Ruth Maguire, already debated with amendment 124. Ruth Maguire to move or not move. Not move. I call amendment 37, in the name of the minister, already debated with amendment 21. Minister to move formally. The question is that amendment 37 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. There will be a division. Those in favour. Those against and those abstaining. The result of the vote on amendment 37 is 4, 9 against 0 with one abstention. Therefore, amendment 37 is agreed. The question, no? I call amendment 38, in the name of the minister, already debated with amendment 21. Minister to move formally. The question is that amendment 38 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. There will be a division. Those in favour of amendment 38. Those against and those abstaining. The result of the vote on amendment 38 is 4, 7 against 2 with one abstention. Amendment 38 is therefore agreed. I call amendment 133, in the name of Ruth Maguire, already debated with amendment 124. Ruth Maguire to move or not move. I call amendment 134, in the name of Ruth Maguire, already debated with amendment 124. Ruth Maguire to move or not move. I call amendment 39, in the name of the minister, already debated with amendment 21. Minister to move formally. The question is that amendment 39 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? No. We are not agreed. There will be a division. Those in favour. Those against. Those abstaining. The result of the vote on the amendment 39 is 4, 7 against 2 with one abstention. Amendment 39 is therefore agreed. I call amendment 40, in the name of the minister, already debated with amendment 21. Minister to move formally. The question is that amendment 40 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. There will be a division. Those in favour. Those against. And those abstaining. The result of the vote on amendment 40 is 4, 9 against 0 with one abstention. Amendment 40 is therefore agreed to. I call amendment 135, in the name of Ruth Maguire, already debated with amendment 124. Ruth Maguire to move or not move. I call amendment 41, in the name of, excuse me, the minister, already debated with amendment 26. Minister to move formally or not move. Moved. The question is that amendment 41 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. Can I just check with, we are all agreed. I call amendment 136, in the name of Ruth Maguire, already debated with amendment 124. Ruth Maguire to move or not move. Not move. I call amendment 42, in the name of the minister, already debated with amendment 21. Minister to move formally. Moved. Sorry, I'm just, I'm just missing. The question is that amendment 42 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. There will be a division. Those in favour, those against and those abstaining. The result of the vote on amendment 42 is 49 against 0 with one abstention. Amendment 42 is therefore agreed. We'll be taking a short suspension till I find my place in this here. Okay, thank you. Thank you for that brief suspension. We're back online, back on track. I call amendment 43, in the name of the minister, already debated with amendment 16. Minister to move formally. The question is that amendment 43 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are all agreed. I call amendment 137, in the name of Ruth Maguire, already debated with amendment 21. Ruth Maguire to move or not move. Not move. I call amendment 138, in the name of Ruth Maguire, already debated with amendment 21. Ruth Maguire to move or not move. Not move. The next question is that section 12 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Section 12 is agreed. Section 13, I call amendment 44, in the name of the minister, already debated with amendment 21. Minister to move formally. The question is that amendment 44 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. There will be a division. Those in favour? Those against? Those abstaining? The results of the vote on amendment 44 is 49 against 0 with one abstention. Amendment 44 is therefore agreed. I call amendment 45, in the name of the minister, already debated with amendment 21. Minister to move formally. Move. The question is that amendment 45 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? No. We are not agreed. There will be a division. Those in favour? Those against? And those abstaining? The result of the vote on amendment 45 is 49 against 0. And one abstention. Amendment 45 is therefore agreed. I call amendment 46, in the name of the minister, already debated with amendment 22. Minister to move formally. Move. The question is that amendment 46 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are all agreed. I call amendment 139, in the name of Ruth Maguire, already debated with amendment 124. Ruth Maguire to move or not move? Not move. I call amendment 47, in the name of the minister, already debated with amendment 23. Minister to move formally. The question is that amendment 47 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are all agreed. I call amendment 48, in the name of the minister, already debated with amendment 20. Minister to move formally. Move. The question is that amendment 48 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. Yes, we are all agreed. I call amendment 140, in the name of Ruth Maguire, already debated with 124. Ruth Maguire to move or not move? Not move. I call amendment 49, in the name of the minister, already debated with amendment 20. Minister to move formally. Move. Thank you. The question is that amendment 49 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are all agreed. I call amendment 50, in the name of the minister, already debated with amendment 20. Minister to move formally. Move. The question is that amendment 50 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. Yes, we are all agreed. I call amendment 141, in the name of Ruth Maguire, already debated with 124. Ruth Maguire to move or not move? Not move. I call amendment 142, in the name of Ruth Maguire, already debated with 124. Ruth Maguire to move or not move? Not move. I call amendment 51, in the name of the minister, already debated with amendment 121. Minister to move formally. Move. The question is that amendment 51 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are not agreed. There will be a division. Those in favour. Those against. And those abstaining. The result of the vote on amendment 51 is 49 against 0, with one abstention. Amendment 51 is therefore agreed to. I call amendment 52, in the name of the minister, already debated with amendment 16. Minister to move formally. The question is that amendment 52 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. I call amendment 53, in the name of the minister, already debated with amendment 26. Ministers to move formally. The question is that amendment 53 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are all agreed. I call amendment 143, in the name of Ruth Maguire, already debated with amendment 124. I remind members that, if amendment 143 is agreed to, I cannot call amendment 54 in the preemption. Ruth Maguire to move or not move. Not move. Okay. I call amendment 54. Is that right? In the name of the minister, already debated with amendment 21. Minister to move formally. The question is that amendment 54 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. There will be a division. Those in favour, those against and those abstaining. The result of amendment 54 is 49 against 0 and one abstention. Amendment 54 is, therefore, agreed to. I call amendment 55, in the name of the minister, already debated with amendment 21. Minister to move formally. The question is that amendment 55 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. There will be a division. Those in favour and those against and those abstaining. The result of amendment 55 is 49 against 0 and with one abstention. Amendment 55 is, therefore, agreed to. I call amendment 144, in the name of Ruth Maguire, already debated with amendment 124. Ruth Maguire to move or not move. Not move. I call amendment 56, in the name of the minister, already debated with amendment 26. Minister to move formally. The question is that amendment 56 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. I call amendment 57, in the name of the minister, already debated with amendment 26. Minister to move formally. The question is that amendment 57 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are all agreed. I call amendment 145, in the name of Ruth Maguire, already debated with 124. Ruth Maguire to move or not move. Not move. I call amendment 58, in the name of the minister, already debated with amendment 26. Minister to move formally. The question is that amendment 58 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes, we are all agreed. I'm looking at the clock and I think I know we're on a bit of a run here, but I think we need to take our break as scheduled if that's okay. So I suspend for 15 minute break. Thank you very much for that, being back in after our short break, so right back in where we left off. I call amendment 59, in the name of the minister, already debated with amendment 26. Minister to move formally. The question is that amendment 59 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes, we are all agreed. I call amendment 146, in the name of Ruth Maguire, already debated with amendment 124. Ruth Maguire to move or not move. Not move. I call amendments 60, 61, 62, 63 and 64, in the name of the minister, already debated. I will invite the minister to move amendments 60 to 64 on block. Does any member object to a single question being put on amendments 60 to 64? Is there a specific amendment that you are objecting to? Is my intention to abstain on 60, 61 and 62? And to vote for 63 and 64, if that is helpful, convener. Can I ask that we take a single question on amendments 60 to 62 on block? Are we all agreed? Are amendments 60 to 62 agreed to? No, you just... Yeah, yeah, no, on the block. Yeah, so we're taking them on block but you need to vote until she's... Okay. We are not agreed, there will be a division. Those in favour of 60 to 62, those against and those abstaining. The result of votes on amendments 60 to 62 are 4, 9 against 1 with one abstention. Therefore, amendments 60 to 62 are agreed. I cut the question. Did you say against 1 or against none? Against none. Okay, thank you. 4, 9 against none? Yeah. Abstained 1. The question is, is that amendment 63 be agreed to? Are we all agreed? Yes, we are agreed. The question is that amendment 64 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes, 64 is agreed. I call amendment 147 in the name of Ruth Maguire. Already debated with amendment 21. Ruth Maguire to move or not move? Not move. I call amendment 65 in the name of the minister. Already debated with amendment 21. Minister to move formally? Moved. The question is that amendment 65 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed, there will be a division. Those in favour of amendment 65. Those against and those abstaining. The result of the vote on amendment 65 is 4, 9 against 0 with 1 abstention. Amendment 65 is therefore agreed. I call amendment 66 in the name of the minister. Already debated with amendment 21. Minister to move formally? Moved. The question is that amendment 66 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed, there will be a division. The result of the vote on amendment 66 is 4, 9 against 0 with 1 abstention. Amendment 66 is therefore agreed. I call amendment 67 in the name of the minister. Already debated with amendment 21. Minister to move formally? Moved. The question is that amendment 67 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. There will be a division. Those in favour. Those against and those abstaining. Is that your hand? Yep. The result of the vote on amendment 67 is 4-9 against zero with one abstention. Amendment 67 is therefore agreed. I call amendment 148 in the name of Ruth Maguire. Already debated with amendment 21, Ruth Maguire to move or not move. I call amendment 192 in the name of Ruth Maguire. Already debated with amendment 21, Ruth Maguire to move or not move. I call amendment 149, in the name of Ruth Maguire, already debated with amendment 21. I call amendment 150, in the name of Ruth Maguire, already debated with amendment 21. Ruth Maguire to move or not move. I call amendments 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, in the name of the minister, already debated. I invite the minister to move amendments 68 to 84 on block. Does any member object to a single question that we put on these amendments 68 to 84? Can I ask the member, Mr Kerr, to put which amendments it is that he is objecting to on block? You could do, convener, but with respect I think you just need to call, right? You've proposed putting it on block and I object to that. That's what I just did. Right. The question is, we'll just do them all individually, right? The question is that amendments 68 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? No. We are not agreed. There will be a division. Those in favour of amendments 68—oh, sorry, those against? I've got to do the next bit. And those abstaining. The result on amendments 68 is 4, 9 against 0 with one abstention. Amendment 68 is therefore agreed. The question is that amendment 69 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. There will be a division. Those in favour of—please raise your hands. Amendment 69. Those against? And those abstaining? So the result of the vote on amendments 69 is 4, 7, 2 against with one abstention. Amendment 69 is therefore agreed. The question is that amendment 70 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. There will be a division. Those in favour of amendments 70—those against? And those abstaining. The result of the vote on amendments 70 is agreed 9, 4, 9 against 0 with one abstention. Amendment 70 is therefore agreed. The question is that amendment 71 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. There will be a division. Those in favour. Those against? And those abstaining. The result of the vote on amendments 71 is 4, 9 against 0 with one abstention. Amendment 71 is therefore agreed. The question is that amendment 72 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. There will be a division. Those in favour of amendments 72. Those against? And those abstaining. The result of the vote on amendments 72 is 4, 7 against 2 and one abstention. Amendment 72 is therefore agreed. The question is that amendment 73 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are all agreed. We are not agreed. There will be a division. Those in favour of amendments 73. Those against? And those abstaining. The result of the vote on amendments 73 is 4, 9 against 0 with one abstention. Amendment 73 is therefore agreed to. The question is that amendment 74 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. There will be a division. Those in favour of amendments 74. Those against? And those abstaining. The result of amendments 74 is 4, 9 against 0 with one abstention. Amendment 74 is therefore agreed. The question is that amendment 75 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. There will be a division. Those in favour of amendments 75. Those against? And those abstaining. I have to slow down. No, you can't. The result of the vote on amendments 75 is 4, 9 against 0 with one abstention. Amendment 75 is therefore agreed. The next question is that amendment 76 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. There will be a division. Those in favour of amendments 76. Those against? And those abstaining. The result on amendments 76 is 4, 7 against 2 with one abstention. Amendment 76 is therefore agreed. The question that amendment 77 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. There will be a division. Those in favour of amendments 77. Those against? And those abstaining. The result of the vote on amendments 77 is 4, 9 against 0 and with one abstention. The amendment 77 is therefore agreed. The next question is that amendment 78 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. There will be a division. Those in favour of amendments 78. Those against? And those abstaining. The result of the vote on amendments 78 is 4, 9 against 0 with one abstention. Amendment 78 is therefore agreed. The question is that amendment 79 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. There will be a division. Those in favour of amendments 79. Those against? And those abstaining. The result of the vote on amendments 79 is 4, 9 against 0 with one abstention. Amendment 79 is therefore agreed. The next question is that amendment 80 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. The next question is that amendment 81 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. There will be a division. Those in favour of amendment 81. Those against? And those abstaining. The result of the vote on amendment 81 is 4, 7 against 2 with one abstention. The amendment 81 is therefore agreed. The question is that amendment 82 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. There will be a division. Those in favour of amendment 82. Those against? And those abstaining. The result of the vote on amendment 82 is 4, 9 against 0 with one abstention. Amendment 82 is therefore agreed. I can ask the next question. Amendment 83 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. The question is that amendment 84 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? I'll just get our page. Here we are. I call amendment 81, not 81, 151. Sorry. I know. Already debated with amendment 21, Ruth Maguire to move or not move? Not to move. I call amendment 152, in the name of Ruth Maguire already debated with amendment 124. Ruth Maguire to move or not move? Not to move. I call amendment 153, in the name of Ruth Maguire already debated with amendment 124. Ruth Maguire to move or not move? Not to move. I call amendment 154, in the name of Ruth Maguire already debated with amendment 124. Ruth Maguire to move or not move? Not to move. So, the next question is that section 13 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. Thank you. Now we're moving on to section 14. The rights and welfare of children involved in criminal proceedings. I call amendment 193, in the name of Martin Whitfield, group with amendments as shown in the grouping. Martin Whitfield to move amendment 193 and speak to all other amendments in this group. Thank you. I'm very grateful, convener. Obviously, this section deals with, from the Bill, the steps to safeguard the welfare and safety of children in criminal proceedings. And the proposals of the amendments that I bring in my name are to include better provision to take account for the young people themselves and also to instill into various sections the obligations to consider not just the welfare and the safety, but also the rights of young people. A number of the amendments are short and allow, in particular, for provision of amendment 196, to add a section to section 14 of the Bill to itself, add a section to the 1995 Act. And this is to allow a child to have the opportunity to express their views in a way that the young person themselves prefers. We've already heard in a number of amendments moved this morning, and indeed the position of the Scottish Government, that the young person themselves, their role, their maturity, their ability, needs to be taken into account. And as a consequence of that, we also need to take into account the manner in which the young person can express their preferences, express their understanding. And this would extend to the regards that the child has taken into account, particularly their age and maturity. And I've already pressed the Government in respect of the test that would be applied to this, and the Government have offered discussions on it. All of these amendments that sit here refer to really that decision on the importance of a young person being able to firstly understand what's happening to them, secondly, be in a position where they can, as far as is practicable, be comfortable with those that are around them so that they can express their views. And more importantly, that what is happening to the young person is understandable to the young person, and in particular the consequences of decisions they may be asked to make in circumstances where it would be understandable, and I think that it is higher than that, but I will just leave it at, it would be understandable that the young person is concerned, stressed and emotive. And I think, given the purpose that sits behind this bill, the requirement to try and make that journey, if not as comfortable but as understandable to the young person appropriate to their age and understanding is important. I could go into some detail with regard to specific amendments, but I will again, having detailed 196, look to 198 and a subsequent number of the amendments, which removes the May to insert the must so that the requirements sit as a must on not just those adults immediately around them, but those adults that are contained in the administrative processes must take account of the young person. I have nothing really further to add on that, but I will respond if any of the committee members have questions or indeed to any comments that the minister may make at a subsequent date. But I speak to and will move 193 all the way through to 204 as appropriate when required. I am grateful, convener. Thank you, Mr Whitfield. I ask Pam Duncan-Glancy now to speak to amendment 205 and other amendments in the group. Thank you, convener. I just like to start by saying that I support the amendments in this grouping in my colleague Martin Whitfield's name. I think that it is incredibly important that any young person is supported to fully understand the process in which they are going through and would echo all that he has said so far. My amendment 205 in this grouping would require that where a child with subject precedence is residing with an individual who is committed to a domestic abuse offence or has been witnessed to domestic abuse. A referral is to be made to a specialist domestic abuse provider. That, I think, is a recognition of the fact that many young people, for example, who are being remitted at ages 16 and 17 to young offenders institutes, 60 per cent of them had witnessed domestic violence. I think that provision acknowledges the unique vulnerabilities of children who have been in an abusive environment. In speaking to those similar amendments in earlier groupings, I highlighted that children who witness abuse may also suffer emotional, psychological and developmental challenges. I emphasised then and would re-emphasise now the need for targeted specialist support and intervention delivered in a safe and secure environment so that the child is able to express their feelings and experiences, process emotions, build resilience and develop coping mechanisms. As I said earlier, I think that it is really important that as many touch points with the state as possible such as this are used as an opportunity to identify where support could be needed in a domestic abuse situation and to provide it at the earliest opportunity, which I think is going to be critical in mitigating the potential long-term effects on mental and emotional wellbeing and contributing to the child's overall health and recovery from trauma. On that basis, I urge committee members to support amendment number 205 in my name and the others in this group, in the name of Martin Whitfield. I appreciate the intent behind those amendments, but I have some concerns and issues with each of them, which I will lay out just now. Amendments 193 and 194 are similar to amendment 165 that the member withdrew last week in respect of the children's hearing system. The amendments would seem unnecessary as the courts already have extensive obligations under the ECHR and the UNCRC. Additionally, the task of balancing a child's rights, as well as their welfare, can be even more challenging in the criminal justice system. For example, a child's right to liberty is not a definitive one and can be interfered with if justified under the ECHR and UNCRC. So, while the child's rights and welfare are, of course, a primary consideration, they are not always the paramount consideration, therefore this amendment would seem unworkable. Amendments 195 to 197 seem to be based on provisions from the Children's Scotland Act 2020, which those amendments would insert into the Criminal Procedure Scotland Act 1995. However, the provisions in the 2020 act were drafted to account for the views of younger children, particularly those under 12, in the unique context of children's hearings proceedings. Inserting those into the criminal justice environment fails to account for the inherent differences between the two forums. Amendments 195 to 197 would also seem an outfit for the criminal setting because the courts would rather take them at the end. Amendments 195 to 197 are also an outfit for the criminal setting because the courts, unlike the children's hearing, will not be dealing with the prosecution of children under the age of criminal responsibility and so it is not necessary for there to be presumptions regarding their capacity to give a view in such situations. Furthermore, under article 12 of the UNCRC, a child has the right to express their view freely and must be provided the opportunity to provide their view in any judicial proceedings. The court is required to act compatibly with ECHR and UNCRC. The intention behind all of amendments 19-3 through to 197 is already realised via existing legislation or the application of internal obligations, so on this basis I would be opposed to those amendments. On amendments 198 through to 202, those roll back the flexibility afforded to the court in section 14 of the bill to decide on a case-by-case basis whether it is appropriate to sit in a different building, a different day or put in place closed court measures. Those amendments would require the court to do those things on a blanket basis. We have discussed those proposals with criminal justice agencies and there would appear to be various issues. Firstly, those amendments place duties on courts with limited or no flexibility or discretion, so they are unduly prescriptive. There is a risk that those amendments interfere with the court's powers to consider each case in an appropriate rights compliant way, given potential rights considerations of all parties, including that of the adult co-accused, thereby potentially interfering with judicial independence. Secondly, those changes have not been fully consulted on with Scottish courts and tribunal services or the judiciary, the very agencies that those changes would affect. However, based on contact with SCTS, including their response to the consultation on the bill and that of the Summary Sheriffs Association, they are unlikely to be supportive. We must be very careful to ensure that we do not encroach on the independence of the judiciary and that we do not constrain its discretion. The courts are best placed to make case-by-case decisions and those amendments would appear to overstep their responsibility and expertise in that domain. Essentially, the amendments would have corresponding resource implications. They could result in delays in a child's case being progressed if, for example, the case could only be held on different days from other courts in that building, and that would have implications not just for the accused but for the victims and witnesses. They would have serious implications for a court's programming and capacity more broadly, thereby impacting more widely just on cases involving a child accused. The changes would be challenging if not almost impossible to implement in each court, particularly in smaller courts that only have one courtroom available or where there is only one sheriff who already has criminal business set down for the day. SCTS clearly expressed those concerns in the consultation response and they have reiterated those to my officials in respect of those amendments. Although some of those amendments are already requirements in certain cases, they would have particular challenges in solemn proceedings. Additional considerations in those cases such as the need for juries and noting the number of buildings in Scotland that are set up to accommodate jury trials is limited, as well as the requirement for police presence, access to sales and holding areas before or after court appearances inherently limit where those cases could take place. There would also be challenges where, for example, there is a child in custody and timescales prescribed in legislation require the case to call on a particular date or before the expiry of a particular period. If other court business was already scheduled and required to happen on that particular date and the child's case could not take place in that same building or in the same day as the court business and no other appropriate facilities are available, the courts would need to decide which case should take place and knowing that to do so would mean legislative requirements would not be met. That could be a particular issue in smaller or more remote courts. Those amendments would also seem to apply to every court hearing from the first calling until the case concludes, which could only compound those challenges further. Amendments 200 and 203 are problematic for a number of reasons, including that the co-accus rights here would appear to be given less weight than the child's. In human rights law, a right does not require serious interference to be infringed, so this amendment arguably would distort existing legal protections. In contrast to what is in section 14 of the bill, the amendment unduly constrains the discretion of the court to make decisions on a case-by-case basis, in line with our duties under the Human Rights Act 1998 to do all that in a rights-compliant way. Given those risks, I could not support those amendments. Amendment 204 inserts a new subsection into section 305 of the 95 criminal procedure act to expressly provide that the High Court may, by act of a journal, also make provision for the purpose of ensuring that criminal proceedings involving a child are concluded in a way that accords with the needs of the child. Again, while I understand the intent here, the amendment raises a number of issues. The judiciary has not been consulted on the matter and the High Court is responsible for making acts of a journal. Amendments to court conduct, practices and processes in respect of children can already be made, informed by a combination of existing legislation. Practice notes, court rules and procedure and guidance. Those considerations and amendments for children at court by virtue of their age are in addition to other supports that may be provided owing to a child's vulnerabilities. On amendment 205, committee last week discussed a similar amendment concerning referrals in the children's healing system. In those circumstances, I agreed to discuss further with the member regarding the definitions contained within that amendment. I should reiterate that I am absolutely in full agreement with the member about the fundamental principle of ensuring appropriate and timely access to support services in cases of domestic abuse. However, I would not be supportive of amendment 205. Firstly, I do not think that this is appropriate responsibility for the court. It does not seem to be a role of a judge or sheriff or the Scottish Courts and Tribunals service whose function is to provide administrative support to our courts and tribunals into the judiciary. The number of children that the amendment could cover could also be significant. However, I did talk earlier in terms of appropriate and timely access to support services in those cases of domestic abuse. With that in mind, I would refer to the victim information and advice service, which is already provided by the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service in criminal court cases. When a case is received, courts will consider and can refer any victims who should receive extra support to victim information and advice services. That includes any child victim or victim of domestic abuse. It can, in such cases, already put the child in touch with other services that offer practical and emotional support. In such a case, it would be for the individual to decide whether they wish to access that support. If I could continue on my points, I am happy to at the end. The member asked last week where responsibility for referring a child should sit, and where an offence is reported to the police. The police will usually provide information about victim support organisations. Although I note Police Scotland's previous evidence to the committee that that is not always the most appropriate time to provide such information. The key, surely, must be to ensure access to appropriate support throughout the child's journey through the justice system and not just at the point when it meets the court process. On all occasions requiring police attendance, when children are present during a domestic incident or where they reside in a household where such an incident takes place, regardless of their presence, officers in attendance will consider all information, including previous incidents, to assess whether there is a child wellbeing or child protection concern. That response is outlined in our child protection guidance. Domestic abuse is always a wellbeing concern, and although I cannot get into a full discussion about information sharing, as set out in, for example, getting it right for every child guidance, information can be shared in a lawful, appropriate and proportionate way if there are concerns about protecting a child or a young person's wellbeing. Reasonable efforts must be made to inform the child or young person and appropriate family members that that information has been shared. Almost all local authorities operate multi-agency risk assessment conferences as one of part of a multi-agency risk management work for domestic abuse cases. Meracks also allow for the sharing of relevant risk-focused information in a safe environment to support the development of a co-ordinated multi-agency safety plan to increase victim safety. Any specialist's support that a victim might require can be part of such considerations. Such cases might involve child protection concerns if there is evidence that significant harm has occurred or may occur, with clear multi-agency procedures based on national guidance requiring to be followed in such cases. The response in such cases could include referral to specialist support services. I cannot therefore support those amendments and urge members not to press amendments 193 through 205. I would encourage the committee to reject those if pressed. The minister said that she would take questions from members now. Martin Whitfield, you were first, I believe. Do you want me to sum up for 193 as well? No, it was questions. Oh, just questions. Oh, well. Well, you had some points you wanted to raise, but the minister said you were taking them. In relation to the statement that the minister has made, is she prepared to share the response that her officials have received from, in essence, the judiciary about the response to this? There are a number of matters that the minister has raised that fundamentally boiled down to, apparently, the Scottish Government's disagreement to add rights after welfare throughout this Bill, and yet what we're talking about when we're talking about legislation are the rights that are given or indeed are taken away in response to that coming together of a young person and the criminal justice system and indeed the welfare system and indeed most aspects of a young person's life. The rights of a child sit above that. We debated long and hard the UNCRC within this parliament over a long period of time, and there was across the chamber very strong agreement about the hierarchy of protections that young people have, and sitting at the top of those are rights. But there has always been the question of a challenge between one individual's rights and another individual's rights, and the entire process of the court system, the environment of that decision making is about balancing those rights, but we have heard in the chamber and indeed in the enactment that across the chamber and in Scotland we put children's rights at the top of that, and that doesn't mean that they're applied every time, it means that where children's rights have to give way to some other individual's rights it is done so only in exceptional circumstances and for exceptional reasons, and of course, even with the amendments that I've proposed here, there are facilities for that to happen in any event. With regard to the statements relating to the court and resource, again with respect it seems to be we can't do this because of resource. Of course there are challenges, there are always challenges, there were challenges when the number of courts across Scotland were closed and people made representations about it, but I think we're in a very dangerous position if we're saying to our young people that actually the resources aren't there to make it particular for your case and therefore that's not important, and that particularly arises in relation to the amendment regarding co-accused 204 and the act of a journal from the courts. Even with this amendment there would still be the exceptional circumstances where the court could act in what's right. However, the presumption would be that the procedure a court would adopt would be one that accords with the needs of the child, which I would suggest in a co-accused case must always take the priority over an adult co-accus. I have thought long and hard and struggled long and hard to find a situation where an individual child's rights, who was a co-accused with an adult, it is their rights that would give way to the adult, simply from the point of views of competency, understanding and age. In this sort of question section, I'm sorry, I'm adjourning. I was hoping for a question rather than new. Well it's difficult because of the, I understand that convener and I'll leave it at that point and I will sum up, my sum up will be much shorter. I would want to respond to some of those points. Yes, I'd be grateful, thank you, convener. So in terms of the judiciary response to the consultation, this is already publicly available but I'm more than happy to share that after this session. In terms of the comments around the balancing of rights and welfare, not including rights, the rights of a child are currently enshrined in ECHR and UNCRT and I know that the member is aware of that but the courts do have a duty to act on these and I'm confident that that is what they will do. It would be for the courts to look at these cases on a case-by-case basis, acting on the responsibilities under UNCRC and under ECHR. I'm sorry, convener, I'm responding to another comments from another intervention. So in terms of the challenges with resource that Mr Witfield raised and I understand that, I don't want to say no, it's a case of no that we can't do it but at the moment for the reasons I have outlined, if the amendments were to pass in their current form, this could possibly impact on children's rights today, tomorrow and that's not something that I would be comfortable with. So whether that's something that we need to look at going forward, absolutely, but in terms of these amendments, as I say, they could impact on children's rights immediately. In terms of the co-accused, again, this is down to the court to look at on a case-by-case basis. I think that the amendments in this are problematic for a number of reasons, including, as I said, that the co-accused rights here would appear to be given less weight than the child's and I appreciate the member's comments around this but again I think that this is down to the courts to make the decision on that on a case-by-case basis rather than sort of putting that in statute because we have, as I said in my opening comments, in human rights law a right does not require serious interference to be infringed and I think that this argument, the sorry amendment, distorts the existing legal protections and confuses matters. So essentially to sum up, I believe that a lot of what is covered in these amendments is already covered under ECHR and UNCRC and I believe that we have to give the judiciary and the courts their discretion to look at these matters on a case-by-case basis. So I'm sorry, I would not support those amendments. Thank you and I'll just, you know, this is a stage two proceeding and I really do want to encourage debate as much as possible on this and so I will be bringing in members, Pam Duncan-Clancy and then Liam Kerr, who have got questions on this and I hope the minister will address those. Pam Duncan-Clancy. Thank you, convener, and I appreciate that it does feel a bit peculiar that it's almost like more of a statement as opposed to a bit of a debate where interventions are taken, which makes it quite difficult to have a detailed discussion on very detailed parts of legislation, which of course this is about, to the substance of my intervention. The minister, on the other amendments actually in Martin Whitfield's name, the minister seems to be saying that part of the concern is around not about the particular overreach into the judiciary, I'll leave that for a moment, but the other concern is that it could delay processes because the buildings aren't, there might not be enough buildings or it might have to be moved or, and I'll look forward to debating my amendment on the numbers of panel members later, because that too I think could frustrate and delay some aspects of justice, so I hope the minister will take a similar view. I'm a bit concerned though that at this point the ministers relying on the fact that the ECHR and the UNCRC are enough, given that first of all the ECHR is legislation that we would hope, international legislation we would hope of course that the courts adhere to, but there's reasons why we brought domestic legislation in this area, for example the UNCRC, and this is an opportunity to enact part of the UNCRC, which may not be all covered, all aspects of this bill be covered because of the changes that had to be made to that legislation recently through amendments, so that concerns me slightly. On the points that the ministers made around my amendment number 205 on domestic abuse and violence, I can't see why, in everything that the minister has said, why my amendment would be a problem to that. In fact, it appears to me that all it would do would be to strengthen the ability of the state to provide support, because it's well known the failures that, particularly for women who have experienced domestic violence, it's well known the failures that can happen in the justice system, and so every point at which we've got an opportunity to address that we should be, and I believe that my amendment 205 does that, and I see no reason on the basis of what the minister said, why she wouldn't support that. Thank you. Just to be clear, my statements are quite long. I'm more than happy to take interventions, I'm more than happy to have to be. The minister. But I was sorry, I was responding to comments from another intervention, so it's just a little bit difficult there. In terms of Ms Duncan Glancy's comments, I've been clear that I believe that the amendments would result in duplication and complexity. In terms of Ms Duncan Glancy's own amendment, I have laid out the reasoning for not supporting that. I do believe that that support should be in place prior to the point that it meets the court process, and I've laid out the avenues for that to be possible. If we need to look at Ms Duncan Glancy saying that that is not always happening or that needs to be improved, that is certainly something that we perhaps need to look into. However, as I said, I think that that support for domestic abuse is required at a much earlier stage than at the point where it meets the court process, so that would be—yes. Thank you, I appreciate that. My amendment doesn't undo any of that. It literally adds another point at which someone could be caught from the system, another safety net, as it were, to ensure that that support would be in place. Mr Kerr? Just something, Minister, if I could just clarify with you. Earlier during your statement, particularly during a response to Martin Whitfield, you said you were, and I'm quoting, confident the courts will do something. You said one of the amendments will possibly impact on rights, and then you said, I think this amendment distorts existing legal protections. Can you help the committee to understand that? Have you received any formal legal advice that gets you to that position to reject those amendments, or is that just what you think? No, I believe that I said in my comments that we had that officials had been discussing this matter with key stakeholders, and I've said I'm more than happy to share details on that. That's not quite what I asked, Minister. I asked if you'd received formal legal advice when arriving at your position of confidence and thinking that amendment distorts things. Just picking up on a tiny thing from that point about the issue of rights, as part of that consideration, have you considered if, in the event of the UK Government wishing to remove us from, for example, CCHR rights, to what extent that would implicate the rights provisioning within the bill? That has been presented as a very real possibility, if not a threat. I'd be very concerned, and it stretches much further than just the implications of the bill. However, we'd still be compliant with your NCRC in relation to that. Have you had advice on that? I'm probing a bit more about the rights-based element and the extent to which you can be confident in all potential legal scenarios. Are you confident that the advice that you've received thus far takes cognisance of that as a possibility from the point of view of children's rights? I now invite Martin Whitfield to wind up, press or withdraw amendment 193, please. I'm very grateful, convener. I'm concerned because, of course, the amendments are to the 1995 act, which unless expressly brought in within the UNCRC won't be covered by it and young people will have to rely on the already existing or pre-existing vehicles to do so, which the committee member, Michelle Thompson, has highlighted, may indeed be a vehicle that's not available in the future. I would say I'm quite disappointed at the approach that's been taken with regard to these amendments because they were tabled in good faith. As the Government have sought to seek reliance for the authority of passing their amendments, they are also supported by the Children's Commissioner. With that in mind, I will press 193, convener. The question is that amendment 193 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. There will be a division. Those in favour of amendment 193. Those against? No abstentions? Has everyone voted? The result of the vote on amendment 193 is 4 against 6. Amendment 193 is therefore not agreed. I call amendment 194 in the name of Martin Whitfield, already debated with amendment 193. Martin Whitfield to move or not move? Move. The question is that amendment 194 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. There will be a division. Those in favour of amendment 194. Those against? No abstentions. The result of the vote on amendment 194 is 4 against 6. With no abstentions, the amendment 194 is therefore not agreed. I call amendment 195 in the name of Martin Whitfield, already debated with 193. Martin Whitfield to move or not move? The question is that amendment 195 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. There will be a division. Those in favour of amendment 195. Those against? The result of the vote on amendment 195 is 4 against 6. With no abstentions, amendment 195 is therefore not agreed. I call amendment 196 in the name of Martin Whitfield, already debated with amendment 193. Martin Whitfield to move or not move? Move. The question is that amendment 197 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? No. We are not agreed. There will be a division. Those in favour of amendment 197. Those against? No abstentions. The result of the vote on amendment 197 is 4 against 6. With no abstentions, amendment 197 is therefore not agreed. I call amendment 198 in the name of Martin Whitfield, already debated with amendment 193. Martin Whitfield to move or not move? The question is that amendment 198 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. There will be a division. Those in favour of amendment 198, raise your hands. Those against? The result of the vote on amendment 198 is 4 against 6. With no abstentions, amendment 198 is therefore not agreed. I call amendment 199 in the name of Martin Whitfield, already debated with amendment 193. Martin Whitfield to move or not move? Given the result of 198, I will not move. I call amendment 200 in the name of Martin Whitfield, already debated with amendment 193. Martin Whitfield to move or not move? Move. The question is that amendment 200 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? No. We are not agreed. There will be a division. Those in favour of amendment 200, raise your hands. Those against? No abstentions. The result of the vote on amendment 200 is 4 against 6. With no abstentions, amendment 200 is therefore not agreed. I call amendment 201 in the name of Martin Whitfield, already debated with amendment 193. Martin Whitfield to move or not move? Not move. I call amendment 202 in the name of Martin Whitfield, already debated with amendment 193. Martin Whitfield to move or not move? Not move. I call amendment 203 in the name of Martin Whitfield, already debated with amendment 193. Martin Whitfield to move or not move? Move. The question is that amendment 203 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. There will be a division. Those in favour of amendment 203, raise your hands. And those against? No abstentions. Okay. The result of the vote on amendment 203 is 4 against 6. With no abstentions, amendment 203 is therefore not agreed. The next question is that section 14 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? I call amendment 204 in the name of Martin Whitfield, already debated with 193. Martin Whitfield to move or not move? Move. The question is that amendment 204 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? No, there's some shaking of heads here. We are not agreed. There will be a division. Those in favour of amendment 204, those against 204, the result of the vote on amendment 204 is 4 against 6. With no abstentions, amendment 204 is therefore not agreed. I call amendment 205 in the name of Pam Duncan Glancy, already debated with amendment 193. Pam Duncan Glancy to move or not move? Moved. The question is therefore that amendment 205 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. There will be a division. Those in favour of amendment 205, those against? No abstentions. The result of the vote on amendment 205 is 4 against 6. With no abstentions, amendment 205 is therefore not agreed. We now move on to section 15, the remit to children's hearings from criminal courts. I call amendment 85 in the name of Ross McCall, group with amendments as shown in the grouping, with Ross McCall to now move amendment 85 and speak to all amendments in the group. Thank you, convener. First time to speak today. Those amendments were actually a balancing set of amendments that were based on previous amendments that were put forward from last week that didn't end up being moved in the end. They were designed to allow the courts to refer to the children's hearing process if deemed appropriate as to the treatment of the child where the child pleads guilty or is found guilty of an offence and saw them proceedings. They are designed to ensure that the child's welfare is at the centre of that decision making and allows the support network provided by the children's hearing to be provided in these cases. However, given that they were not moved last week, they will not also be withdrawn. That would be 85, 86, 87 and 88, convener. I will ask you that through the formal proceedings of Ms McCall, but thank you for giving us notice of that. Can I now ask Liam Kerr to speak to amendment 206 and other amendments in the group? I am very grateful, convener. Again, with the committee's indulgence, I shall speak to amendment 206 in Russell Finlay's name as he apologises he can't be with us today due to other committee business. Convener, victims must be heard. Too often, they say they are treated as bystanders in the criminal justice system. Recently, the criminal justice committee heard powerful and moving accounts from six rape survivors. These women described, and I quote, being treated as a bit of evidence, not respected, treated with contempt, that I didn't matter, of feeling like collateral damage, the court environment being threatening and that the justice system failed me more than the perpetrator. It was astonishing testimony and these were all recent cases. The Criminal Justice Scotland Act of 2003 gives victims of certain crimes the right to make a statement about the crimes impact to be submitted to court after a conviction and prior to sentencing to inform the judge or sheriff as they make their sentencing decision. That has since been extended with victim impact statements now commonplace. As I set out last week, the more serious cases will be dealt with by the panel. As I said, this will inevitably increase with the raised age limit. One would think it obvious that a victim should be heard, regardless of whether they've been assaulted by an 18-year-old sent to a panel or someone who's older who is in court. Therefore, looking back, the arguments for victim impact statements as a principle have been accepted, have been made and have been accepted. Victims must have their say regardless of the forum. This amendment ensures that their voices will be heard and important rights do not seem to be eroded. My question is whether the amendment creates duplications. My understanding of the system as it currently stands is that victims will already have the opportunity to make an impact assessment before the case is referred to the children's hearing system. The hearing panel would already be in possession of that statement. If I understand this amendment correctly, it would then essentially repeat that. My concern would be about the impact on victims having to recount their trauma repeatedly when they have already been given the opportunity to do so and the panel should have possession of that. I'm very grateful for the intervention. I don't think that it creates that duplication first of all because it allows where the court has remitted the case following the conviction, but it also allows an element of the passage of time. Remember, what this amendment is doing is giving the opportunity to the victim to make a victim statement rather than imposing any obligation on the victim. That choice will still be there, but it's a very important right to be given to the victim should they need to update any victim impact statement that's previously been given. Perhaps some post-traumatic incident has come out. The opportunity is being given by the amendment. I'm grateful for the intervention and I think that that is answered by my response. Therefore, convener, I move amendment 206 in Russell Finlay's name. I invite the minister now to speak to amendment 89 and other amendments in that group, please. Thanks, convener. I thank Ms McCall for her explanation on those amendments. The remittal of a child's case to the healing system provides the opportunity for them to be afforded more age and stage appropriate, welfare-based and holistic support to meet their needs. In the consultation on the bill, the majority of respondents supported further exploration of the proposal to enable all children under the age of 18 to be remitted from a court to the principal reporter. The rationale behind that was that it would lead to improved outcomes for children in recognition of the trauma, abuse and other adversities experienced by so many children that are in conflict with the law. Respondents also recognised that reform in this area would allow the rehabilitative potential of the children's healing system to be maximised. Fundamentally, amendments 85 to 88 would remove the ability of 16 and 17-year-olds in solemn proceedings to have their case remitted to the PR to arrange for the disposal of the case by a children's healing. However, I understand that Ms McCall is not moving those amendments. Turning to Russell Finlay's amendment 206, I note that there are parallels with amendments that were debated last week that sought to take and have regard to views of the person affected by the child's offence or behaviour in the children's healing system. I note in particular amendment 168 that was not supported in the vote of the committee. Amendment 206, I do not believe, is appropriate. The legislative framework for victim impact statements that concerns the criminal justice system provides that they can be made in certain courts and in relation to certain prescribed offences only, in cases where it would be possible for such a statement to be provided, as we have already heard. That might have already been received and considered by the court ahead of the case being remitted. The amendment does not specify which offences it tends to apply to. If it is all offences, it would go even wider than the existing measures in the criminal justice system. In addition, the purpose of victim impact statements is to inform sentencing and, as the committee is aware, remittal to the children's healing system does not constitute a sentence nor does the healing impose a sentence. I absolutely understand what she is saying. I wonder the children's healing system being a welfare system. Would restorative justice play a part in that to understand the impact that actions had had on the other child who had been harmed? Yes, I would say so. As I am going to come on, there are already vehicles in the children's healing system for victims, for the impact on a victim to be taken into consideration. I appreciate that. Following up on that point, I accept again what she is saying about the amendment itself. It may well be that it was a pro-bring amendment and there is still further work to go. However, the principle that has been established in terms of the current provisioning under the criminal justice system, as compared to the new provisioning, in very serious cases where we recognise there could be an uptick particularly around rape and serious sexual assault, is the minister willing to give further thought to how the voice of victims can be heard within the process even whilst not accepting this amendment because there clearly now is a marked difference from the opportunity for people, which is so important to make their voices heard. Even more important, I would argue, than providing a written statement for a victim, it is taking their place and literally having their voice heard. Will the minister give further consideration to that even though I fully accept that the amendment itself may not be perfect in terms of the legislation? I can certainly explore that. The impact of the child's behaviour on a victim is currently a consideration within the hearing system. However, a victim impact statement, as the member noted, is at the moment the way that the amendment is at the moment. The victim impact statement I think risks disproportionately influencing panel members' decision making. As we have already said, the central plank of the hearing system is that decisions are taken in the best interests of the referred child. However, it would certainly be a look at exploring that more. I spoke last week about not turning hearings into a mini court setting. I think that we have to be very careful about transforming the ethos of the hearing system. The consideration of the panel must be through the lens of considering what compulsory measures are necessary to safeguard and promote the referred child's welfare. In doing so, it can include any measure necessary to prevent the child from causing further harm to others. As I say, the impact of that behaviour can be on all a victim can already be taken into consideration. In relation to amendments 89 and 91, the Scottish Government— I have been on that because I will not get a chance to sum up, will I? I offer an intervention. The Minister suggested that the amendment does not specify which cases it relates to. However, how does that position hold up when, in fact, if we look at section 15, it does specify it arguably because it is cases that are remitted pursuant to section 15? I wonder if she can address that point. Also, can she address the time point that my colleague Ross Greer intervened on and I responded, saying that there are matters that could arise between the initial statement that she has talked about and any further statement? Can she address that point? Sorry, Mr Kerr, could you repeat your second point for me? Yes, I can. Ross Greer intervened on me and, in my response to him, because I think that it was a fair intervention, he said that, if there has already been a statement made at an earlier stage in the process, arguably he is asking people to relive the trauma. However, I responded to him and said that all that the amendment does is give the option to the victim. It allows the victim the option to make a further statement. That point was not addressed in your remarks and I wonder if you could say your thoughts on that. My thoughts around that are really come back to the whole idea of the victim impact statement and challenging the ethos of the healing system. I really do not think that I can be any clearer on that. I do not believe— I do not expect that, because what I was saying was that it gives the victim a further opportunity. It is not about the ethos, it is about offering a further opportunity. Why do you reject, minister, the opportunity being afforded? As I said, the impact on a victim is already taken into consideration. I believe that the option of a victim impact statement in the setting of a children's healing system is not necessarily in keeping with the ethos of the healing system. That has been quite clear. In relation to what Mr Kerr was asking about the types of cases, it does not specify exactly what types of cases it is referring to. You mentioned earlier on about disproportionately impacting panel members if there was a victim statement using their own voice there. Surely, from the point of view, it would also be about the panel having the fullest information possible and the fullest understanding of all the facts and the whole matter in its entirety? Absolutely. As I have said multiple times, each referred child's case is different. It would be for the panel to decide what information they required in order to inform their decision, and they would have appropriate avenues to gather that information from the various different services that are involved. In relation to further information in the children's healing system, last week, the committee agreed that it was not appropriate to give further voice or to give that opportunity. I am a little unclear as to why we are debating that again when it has already been agreed that that should not be the case. With all due respect, Minister, I have already made reference the fact that this is a committee debate, and I am going to facilitate as much discussion and debate around it as possible. Can I move swiftly on to Rosmine Call to wind up? Turning to amendments 89 and 91, the Scottish Government is absolutely committed to tackling domestic abuse. In approaching the bill, we have promoted ensuring that children in conflict with the law can access the age-appropriate healing system where possible in line with children's rights. The remittal framework in the bill covers specific instances where courts have levers not replicated in the healing system, and we have listened to testimony during stage one from victims organisations. The point has been made that enabling more 16 and 17-year-olds to access the healing system might mean that the age group is more likely to be in relationship, and that brings consideration into possible offending around domestic abuse. The Lord Advocate's guidelines will, however, determine those cases, which can be referred, and the procurator Fiscal will retain the discretion to prosecute. The joint referral framework and guidelines will be updated and published after the bill is passed, as it would be following any active Parliament. Amendments 89 and 91 will enable courts to be able to make a non-harassment order, or NHO, where the court is satisfied on a balance of probabilities that it is appropriate to do so to prevent a victim from harassment, or where the child has been convicted of an offence under domestic abuse legislation to protect the victim of that offence, and to, thereafter, be able to remit the case for disposal at a children's healings if that is considered appropriate. Remittal in this case would not affect the non-harassment order, which will remain in place, and, for example, breach of a non-harassment order would still be a criminal offence, which would be dealt with by the court. As the briefing to the committee from the Children and Young People Commissioner Scotland stated, our view is that that will ensure that the child receives the support that they need to comply with the non-harassment order and will therefore strengthen protections for victims. On amendment 90, the committee will be familiar with the bill's remittal framework concerning road traffic offences. Just help me to understand, Minister, because just on amendment 91, the court that initially puts a non-harassment in place has a victim impact statement to assist it, but because the Government intends to vote down amendment 206, the panel may not be able to avail itself of the same level of information. Am I reading that right, Minister? As I've previously said, it will be up to the panel to determine what information they require to deal with an individual child's case, and that will be on a case by case. In terms of children who have been available in one forum and not the other? Well, yes, but that is because of the differences in the settings. The remittal in this case would not affect the... Yes. Minister did not support six of the amendments that I brought last week in this space, giving opportunity to ask victims for an opportunity to intervene in various different points, which were slightly narrowly focused on this amendment. Where does the minister intend victims to have their say, and at what point? As I've said very clearly, the impact of any act on the victim will be already taken into consideration by the panel, and the decisions will be made by that panel on how they feel is best to approach. I can't be any clearer around the ethos of the children's hearing system and how it is not a mini-court setting and that a victim impact statement going back to my previous response could impact on the judgment based on what is right for the child who is at the centre of the children's hearing system. I'm sorry, convener, but I really don't understand how I can be any clearer than this. The victim will receive, and as we debated last week, there is increased support through this bill for the victim and for information to the victim, but we have to remember that, in terms of the children's hearing system, it is the referred child that has to be at the centre of that and decisions that are made to best impact on the child at the heart of the hearing. Minister, I think that the number of questions that are coming in this regard gives an indication that the responses perhaps haven't been as clear as some of the committee members are seeking. Are you still carrying on to speak to your amendments? Yes, I have a little left, thank you. Sorry, remittal in this case would not affect the non-harassment order and it will remain in place, and for example, a breach of a non-harassment order would still be a criminal offence which would be dealt with by the court. On amendment 90, the committee will be familiar with the bills—sorry, I repeated myself there—the committee will be familiar with the bills' remittal framework concerning road traffic offences. Driving disqualifications can occur when a person accumulates 12 or more penalty points on their licence within three years. The so-called totting up provision in section 35 of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 and this amendment extends the ability of the court so that it is able to impose a totting up disqualification and still remit the case to the children's hearing for disposal, if felt to be appropriate. So I would urge members not to press amendments 85, 86, 87, 88 and 206 and I would, if they are pressed, urge the committee not to support. I move amendment 89 and ask members to support the Government amendments within this grouping. Thank you now, I invite Ross McCall to wind up, press or withdraw amendment 85, please. Thank you. It's an interesting feeling to be winding up where the debate moved on in such a way. As I've already stated, I won't be moving mind, but I'm very concerned about the way that debate followed that process. It's interesting to be summing up really on something that is an additional amendment, but I would urge—if I was in that position, I would be supporting 206—I'm concerned about that process that victims—that disparity that's there and that the ethos holds true to possibly a detrimental respect. I'm very grateful, convener, and I will be brief. Does she share with me the concern that we seem to have a tautology argument over the word victim statement as compared to what it should be, which is an understanding of the victims' experiences at the time that either panels or, indeed, courts are reaching a decision? A quick answer is yes, I agree with that, but I will state that I'm not moving my first amendment, which is 85. Ross McCall seeks to withdraw amendment 85. Does any member object? The amendment is therefore withdrawn. Our next question is that amendment 86, in the name of Ross McCall, already debated with amendment 85. Ross McCall, to move or not move? Not moved. I call amendment 87 in the name of Ross McCall, already debated with amendment 85. Ross McCall, to move or not move? Not moved. I call amendment 88 in the name of Ross McCall, already debated with amendment 85. Ross McCall, to move or not move? Not moved. I call amendment amendment 206, in the name of Russell Finlay, already debated with amendment 85. Liam Kerr to move or not move. I press that amendment. The question is that amendment 206 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. There will be a division. Those in favour of amendment 206, those against and those abstaining. The result of the vote on amendment 206 is 4 against 5 with one abstention. Amendment 206 is therefore not agreed. I call amendment 89 in the name of the minister. Already debated with amendment 85, minister to move formally. The question is that amendment 89 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. The question is that amendment 90, in the name of the minister, already debated with amendment 85. Are the minister to move formally, please? Moved. The question is that amendment 90 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. Yes. Thank you. I call amendment 91 in the name of the minister. Already debated with amendment 85, minister to move formally. Moved. The question is that amendment 91 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are. Thank you. The next question is that section 15 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. I call amendment 92 in the name of Ross McCall. Already debated with amendment 11. Ross McCall to move or not move. I call amendment 93 in the name of Ross McCall. Already debated with amendment 11. Ross McCall to move or not move. Not moved. I call amendment 94 in the name of Ross McCall. Already debated with amendment 11. Ross McCall to move or not move. Not moved. I call amendment 95 in the name of Ross McCall. Oh, sorry, let me just say this is about detention in secure accommodation post 18. I call amendment 95 in the name of Ross McCall. Group with amendments 97, 103 and 104. Ross McCall to move amendment 95 and speak to all amendments in the group please. Ross McCall. Thank you, convener. Again, a section of probing amendments, hopefully, to move forward for debate. I am aware that there has been council decisions over the past recent years to reduce their residential estate. It begs the question of safeguarding. I think that safeguarding is very important and ensuring that there is a prudent level of safeguarding within our residential placements. We could so easily have a situation where an over 18-year-old by legal definition and adult is within a secure accommodation as it has been deemed important that liberty is withdrawn. Living in the same secure accommodation with a child, i.e. somebody under the age of 18, whereas placed there for them to stay out of harm's way. That is an unacceptable position. Giving the state of residential placements and residential estate across the country, I would be really interested if the minister could outline the safeguarding measures within the bill and how she would ensure that this scenario just will not happen in reality. That is a general feeling of this section. It is to start debate and, hopefully, to increase the debate on that. I am not 100 per cent sure that the safeguarding measures in place are sufficient. I would be very interested to hear what the minister has to say on that. That is proposed to the bill in 1995. The provisions in sections 16 and 17 of the bill, as introduced on enabling children to be detained in secure accommodation after turning 18 to stay in that accommodation, are necessary to keep the promise. The independent care review concluded that if a young person turns 18 during their time in secure care, there must not be an automatic transfer to a young offender's institute. There must be scope to remain in secure care for those who have turned 18. That change was recommended by a previous Justice Committee of this Parliament. The amendments in this group are contrary to that. I appreciate those approbent amendments. I find it disappointing, given the shared commitment that this Parliament has in keeping the promise to people who have experience of Scotland's care system. The approach in the bill has introduced support stability, continuity of care and support, and enduring relationships for children in secure care, as well as providing for gradual and improved transitions for children turning 18, which is crucial to support their reintegration and rehabilitation. I think that those benefits would be lost if those amendments were pushed and agreed. The bill, as introduced, is consistent with the UNCRC and international human rights standard by allowing case-by-case decision making. Where consideration is being given to a child remaining in secure accommodation beyond the age of 18, that decision would be made on a case-by-case basis to ensure that the decision is in the best interests, and not contrary to not just that child but the other children in that facility. I apologise if that has already been covered. What consideration has been given thus far should a young man in secure accommodation elect to self-identify to a different gender? I mean that specifically from a safeguarding perspective. Has the detail of that been worked up? Obviously, that has been much discussed at the justice committee. I will touch on that a lot throughout my comments, but what I would say is that that is for secure care centres to deal with on a case-by-case basis, so I really could not sit here today and see how that specific instance would be dealt with. Discussions around that, so I will continue. If Ms Thomson would like to come back in, I am more than happy for her to do so. The specific considerations will be detailed in the regulations, and that will undergo parliamentary scrutiny and are subject to the affirmative procedure. If it is concluded that remaining in the secure accommodation will not be in the best interests of the young person themselves or in the best interests of any other child, the young person would not remain in that secure accommodation. I hope that that alleviates any concerns that the committee and others outside Parliament might have regarding any potentially negative implications for the other children that are cared for within that secure accommodation setting. Although secure care centres do not currently support children over the age of 18, they are supportive of that change. As I say, discussions are on-going as to how that will be implemented. Secure centres are already working to prepare for implementation of this element of the bill if it is passed and to ensure that the needs of all children and young people in their care can be met. Those provisions also received positive support in the public consultation on the bill proposals in 2023. There is no distinction on secure care that is based on gender, as I will discuss later. Each centre has its own considerations on each case and how that would be managed. As I say, those discussions are on-going just now, and I am sure that, if the member wishes further information on that, that could come at a later date. What is the consideration and the balance of young people who are not in secure accommodation but are identified as needing secure accommodation, as compared to those who have reached 18 and may need to stay in secure accommodation? What is the balance between the push to get in and the need to stay in as they travel past their 18th birthday? Do you mean that there is an over-capacity problem? Or an under-capacity problem? Sorry. That is not something that we have been met with in recent years. There has been capacity in the secure care centres. Again, that would be an issue that we would have to deal with at the time, on a case-by-case basis, in discussion with the secure care centres around that. It would really be what is best for the children involved. While I can imagine that, I am sure that Mr Whitfield can as well, I probably could not lay that out in black and white here, because, as I say, it would not be a decision for me as a minister to take. Amendments 95, 97, 103 and 104, on the other hand, would remove the ability to allow children to be detained in secure accommodation before the age of 18 to remain there. Obviously, that would mean that those young people would require to move to a YYY on their 18th birthday, regardless of their needs. We have seen that where children have been moved on their birthday. Regardless of their needs, vulnerabilities or best interests, and regardless of how much or how little of their sentence remains to be served, which could just be a few days. I am sure that the committee would agree that that would be a lot of upheaval for a young person to be transferred to a younger offenders institution for simply a matter of days. For children detained under sections 44 and 216 of the Criminal Procedure Act 1995, there is actually no provision in law for those children to be detained in YYYs. Therefore, on turning 18, those children would either need to be released or would need to be moved to another place. That would be chosen by the local authority, but not secure. As I said, Ms McAll's amendments will mean that young people detained in secure would be subject to a cliff edge. However, I appreciate that Ms McAll has said that I believe that she said that she does not intend to press them. If pressed, I would not be able to support them. Thank you, minister. Now, can I bring back Ros McAll to wind up press or withdraw amendment 95, please? I was talking about a very specific scenario, which I am really not 100 per cent sure that I actually got a sort of response for. It is safeguarding. Whilst I understand that it will be on a case by case basis, and whilst I understand that that would be for local authorities to decide, there has also got to be an absolute certainty that there is the financial and support provision there to be able to make sure that that happens. I am not 100 per cent convinced by the answer that we have got that feel safe in place. As much as I understand the Young Offenders Institute position, and I have put forward some amendments that I think people will be concerned or even worry why I am doing it in that direction, but there needs to be an option and it needs to be in place. I am really not sure that that is there, but I will not press those particular amendments, but I am still concerned and will look to discuss this with the minister as to how this moves forward for stage 3. Ros McAll seeks to withdraw amendment 95. Does any member object? No. The amendment is therefore withdrawn. My next question is that section 16 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? I call amendment 96 in the name of Ros McAll already debated with amendment 11. Ros McAll to move or not move. I call amendment 97 in the name of Ros McAll already debated with amendment 95 to move Ros McAll to move or not move. I call amendment 98 in the name of Ros McAll already debated with amendment 11. Ros McAll to move or not move. We are now moving on to the minor and technical grouping. I call amendment 99 in the name of the minister, group with amendments 101, 115, 116, 117 and 118. Minister, to move amendment 99 and speak to all amendments in the group, please. Thank you, convener. Once again, as you have noted, the amendments in this group are all minor and technical amendments. While I am happy to explain any of them in detail of committee members' wish, I am equally happy to move amendment 99 and invite members to support it. There may be technical amendments, but surely the minister ought to put it on the record as to why those amendments are necessary and therefore being put forward so that at least the committee can understand, but certainly anyone looking at the official record is able to understand in the future. Of course, I am happy to. For those children who are detained under section 205, which is punishment for murder in section 208 on conviction on indictment of the Criminal Procedure Scotland Act 1995, the Scottish ministers already have powers to direct the place and conditions of detention, although those powers will be subject to new section 208A as inserted by section 17 of the bill, which provides that children may not be detained in a prison or a young offenders institution. In respect of amendments 99 and 101, where a child is convicted and sentenced under solemn proceedings, under sections 205 and 208A of the Criminal Procedure Act, the Scottish ministers direct where the child is to be detained. Under the provisions of the bill, children under the age of 18 will no longer be placed in a young offenders institution in any circumstances. As I have already noted, that change is essential for Scotland to keep the promise. Amendments 99 and 101 clarify that, although the Scottish ministers cannot direct the person while a child is detained in a prison or a young offenders institution, on turning 18, a person can be transferred from secure accommodation to a YOY, should they not remain insecure until a maximum age of 19 and in due course to a prison. Amendment 116 clarifies the early release provisions that apply to certain children convicted on indictment and sentenced to detention under section 208 of the Criminal Procedure Act 1995. Amendments 7 of the Prisoners and Criminal Proceedings Act 93, the amendment was of a technical nature rather than substantive. It ensures that children who are detained under section 208 of the 95 act will be subject to the same early release provisions if they are then sentenced, while also detained to a determinate term of detention or imprisonment of four or more years and by virtue of section 275 of the 93 act, such terms of detention or imprisonment are treated as a single term. Amendment 115 is consequential on paragraph 73 of the schedule of the bill, which amends section 245A of the Criminal Procedure Act 1995 to enable a restriction of liberty order or RLO to be made in respect of any child under 18 rather than 16, as is currently the case. A local authority must provide supervision of and advice, guidance and assistance for a child during the period when a child is subject to an RLO. This amendment means that the relevant local authority must provide such support to any child under 18 who is subject to an RLO, as currently this duty only applies to children under 16. Amendment 117 is a consequential amendment and removes paragraph 12 from the schedule of the bill. This is no longer required because the change made by amendment 116 removes the reference to remand centres which paragraph 12 seeks to repeal. There are no such facilities in Scotland and no plans to reintroduce those. To do so would be inconsistent with the promise. Amendment 118 makes minor consequential amendments around local authorities duties in relation to children detained under the Criminal Procedure Act 1995. The amendments are in consequence of part 2 of the bill and are important to ensure that there is effective oversight of the discharge of local authority duties to children who are detained via the different criminal justice routes. Such oversight is important, given the particular needs, risks and vulnerabilities that those children are likely to have experienced and the significant impact that is being detained has on those children and their rights. Local authorities have key duties towards those children and the amendment to section 5 of the Social Work Scotland Act 1968 ensures that Scottish ministers have powers to issue directions to local authorities, not just for those children and young people detained under section 51 of the 95 act while awaiting trial or sentence, but also for those children and young people detained in summary proceedings under section 44 or detained for fine default under section 216 of the 95 act. That is an important change to ensure that such directions can be provided consistently to cover all the criminal justice routes in terms of which a child may be detained. The amendment to the Public Services Reform Act 2010 removes an existing unnecessary definition of social work services due to other changes in the bill. The number of children subject to an RLO is relatively low at any one time, but from April 2022 to March 2023 there were 43 new RLOs for under 18s. None of those were for children under the age of 16 and 83 per cent of the orders made were for those aged 17 years old at the order start date, with only 17 per cent aged 16 on the order start date. Although that might have some financial implications for local authorities, given the small numbers of children being made subject to those orders, it is likely to be minimal. It is noted that, owing to other changes in the bill, the demand placed by children on justice social work is likely to reduce, but owing to the funding structures of justice social work, no transfer of these savings is possible at this time. I move amendment 99 and invite members to support this amendment and all other amendments within the grouping. The question is that amendment 99 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes, we are agreed. I call amendment 101—no, it's not. I call amendment 100, in the name of Ros McAll, already debated with amendment 11. Ros McAll to move or not move. I call amendment 101 in the name of the minister, already debated with amendment 99. The minister to move formally. The question is that amendment 101 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes, we are all agreed. I call amendment 102, in the name of Ros McAll, already debated with amendment 11. Ros McAll to move or not move. I call amendment 103, in the name of Ros McAll, already debated with amendment 95. Ros McAll to move or not move. I call amendment 104, in the name of Ros McAll, already debated with amendment 95. The next question is that section 17 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are now going to move on to the next section, measures for children who have committed an offence. I call amendment 105, in the name of the minister, grouped with amendments 207, 208 and 209. Minister, to move amendment 105 and speak to all amendments in the group. Thank you, convener. Government amendment 105 aims to ensure that children and young people with a mental disorder who are convicted of an indictment and sentenced to detention are provided with the most appropriate level of care and treatment at the right time. Currently, while a court can make a hospital direction in respect of some 16 and 17-year-olds, those who are not subject to a compulsory supervision order, a court cannot make a hospital direction in respect of a child under the age of 16 or those aged between 16 and 18 years old who are subject to a CSO. The Scottish Government considers that that should be addressed, given the clear benefits for the child of being able to go straight to hospital for mental health care and treatment, as opposed to the child transferring to a hospital from another setting of detention. Hospital directions are very rarely used for 16 and 17-year-olds, however, ensuring that they may be applied for in exceptional defined circumstances for children is both desirable and necessary. The inception of specialised facilities at Fox Grove, the first medium secure national secure adolescent inpatient service in Scotland, changes the backdrop of how the complex mental health needs of children and young people are met in Scotland. The opening of Fox Grove this year will mean that there will be age-appropriate forensic mental health provision for adolescents in Scotland, including those who are subject to hospital directions. Amendment 105 makes no change to the nature of hospital directions or the conditions that must be satisfied for them to be applied, other than making them available to all children aged 12 to 17, with a mental disorder who are convicted of indictment and sentenced to detention. Turning to Martin Whitfield's amendments, and whilst I understand the intention behind the amendments, I would not support them in this instance. Amendment 207 would place a duty on Scottish ministers to promote the use of alternatives to the detention of children, convicted of an offence, and to report annually on the steps taken to achieve that. It is not entirely clear whether that is a general duty to promote alternatives to detention, or whether Mr Whitfield wants ministers to promote alternatives in specific cases of individual children who have been convicted of an offence. If the amendment is intended to be general, which we would assume it is, there is already provision in that regard, if the amendment is intended to be specific to an individual case, that would undermine the independence of the judiciary, and I am sure that Mr Whitfield does not intend that. Except in respect of punishment for murder, the decision to deprive a child of their liberty on conviction is an independent decision of the courts, and in doing so, the court is required to comply with ECHR. For those children convicted of an indictment under section 208 of the 95 act, there is a presumption against detention, ensuring that the court can only impose a period of detention if it considers that no other method of dealing with that individual is appropriate. For those children convicted summarily under section 44 of the 95 act, the court may order that the child be detained in residential accommodation for a period of not exceeding one year. A presumption against detention is set out in guidance, including that published by Scottish ministers, and that is in line with the UNCRC, which says that deprivation of a child's liberty should be the option of last resort and for the shortest appropriate period of time. Indeed, the use of alternatives to deprivation of liberty for children is a cornerstone of the Scottish Government's whole system approach, in which the use of alternatives to detention are already promoted. In practice, local authorities have a range of alternatives available to depriving a child of their liberty, which they can put to the court as options instead of detention. The Scottish Government's vision for youth justice and standards for those working with children in conflict with the law, both published in 2011, represents a shared foundation between the Scottish Government and partners to continue to support an approach that keeps children out of the criminal justice system and promotes the use of alternatives to detention. Data on the use of alternatives to detention for under-21s is currently published annually in the criminal proceedings in Scotland, which is published on the Scottish Government's website. In relation to amendment 208, restorative justice is a voluntary, supported process of contact between someone who has been harmed and the person who has caused that harm, and both parties can withdraw consent at any time. Section 5 of the Victims and Witnesses Scotland Act 2014 already gives the Scottish Minister's powers to issue guidance about the provision of restorative justice services. Such guidance, aimed at service providers and facilitators, was published in 2017 and outlines the key principles of restorative justice. To ensure that restorative justice processes are available, they are delivered in a coherent and consistent and victim-focused manner across Scotland. That includes where children are the victims or the alleged perpetrator. In addition, the restorative justice prescribed person's Scotland Order 21 was made under the 2014 act and provides a list of prescribed persons who must have regard to that guidance. The list of persons includes the Scottish ministers, a local authority and persons who provide restorative justice services. The Scottish Government is committed to ensuring that restorative justice services are available across Scotland where the needs of persons harmed and their voices are central to that process. The services must be available at a time that is appropriate to the people in case involved. It must be consistent, evidence-led, trauma-informed and of a high standard. The Scottish Government has been working in partnership with Community Justice Scotland and the Children and Young People's Centre for Justice in order to deliver on that commitment. Information about restorative justice and the work being undertaken to achieve that vision is published on the Community Justice Scotland website, which provides a means of reporting. The Scottish Government is also committed to exploring or consulting on the recommendations in respect of restorative justice and the children's hearings report. Turning to amendment 209, measures within the bill already do aim to enhance the rehabilitation and reintegration of children by ensuring that they can access age and stage-appropriate welfare-based systems, supports and services when required, namely the children's hearings system and secure accommodation, as well as enhancing the safeguards available to children who need to go through the criminal justice system, including in respect of reporting restrictions. Section 21 of the bill includes provisions to ensure that those detained in secure accommodation are treated as looked after for the purposes of sections 29, 30 and 31 of the Children's Act 1995. That includes aftercare up to the age of 19 and 26, in certain circumstances, to aid a child's transition to adulthood. As detailed in the policy memorandum for the bill, the Sentencing Young People's Guidelines stated that rehabilitation is a primary consideration when sentencing a young person. That is in line with article 40 of the UNCRC, which provides that all children under 18 who have been accused of committing a crime have the right to be treated in a manner consistent with the promotion of the child's sense of dignity and worth, which reinforces the child's respect for the human rights and fundamental freedoms of others and which takes into account the child's age and the desirability of promoting the child's reintegration and assuming a constructive role back into society. The rehabilitation and reintegration of children who have committed an offence is already a key tenet of the Scottish Government's whole system approach to preventing, offending by children and young people. A package of support should be detailed in a child's plan to help them to successfully integrate back into their community. That is incorporated in the standards for those working with children in conflict with the law. Adding a duty for the Scottish ministers to report on something that is led by local authorities does not appear to fit with the role of the Scottish ministers. In summary, I move amendment 105, but I cannot support the other amendments in this group and ask members not to press them. Can I now ask Martin Woodfield to speak to amendment 207 and the other amendments in the group, please? I am very grateful, convener, and I am conscious of time on the committee, so I will try to make this as short as possible. The purposes behind these amendments in some cases have been addressed by the Minister, so it may simply be a case if the Minister is open to responding to questions rather than submission last time. It may facilitate my ability or decision on whether I push or not. Firstly, can I welcome the Government's amendment in respect of this? If I look at my amendment 207, which is the alternative to detention of children, the Minister was right that this was a generic requirement, rather than a requirement specific to any individual act, which would be completely inappropriate given the nature of assessing from the individual's point of view. First, is the Minister confident or is the Minister certain that the reporting provisions that she has already outlined, plus the requirements within the UNCRC, mean that this information will be available on an annual basis to the public, albeit that, rather than coming specifically from a Scottish Minister, it may lay in a variety of places? I'm very grateful for that. That's very helpful. Again, if we move to restorative justice for children, of course, restorative justice can only work when all parties are open to it and maintain openness towards that approach as they go through the system. One of the challenges that we've seen in restorative justice in other environments is where there's a misunderstanding as to what the restorative justice is, but more appropriately, perhaps, a misunderstanding amongst those that surround the individuals who take part in restorative justice, rather than, again, the Minister was right to make mention of the 2017 publication. Is there an intention to revisit, to review, and indeed republish that guideline, guidance under the provisions that we've already amended by the committee into the next bit of the act, but also to take it forward? Subsequent to the publication of the guidance 2017, the provision of restorative justice services across Scotland was inconsistent and, in some places, potentially non-existent. Therefore, the Scottish Government subsequently published the restorative justice action plan, which sets out a further vision that restorative justice would be available across Scotland. Now, that has been slightly delayed, as I understand it. I believe that the services were hoped to be available by 2023. However, work-to-date has been some great complexities revealed in implementing and coupled with the impact of the pandemic that has held up delivery. However, the commitment to establishing restorative justice services across Scotland remains. As I said, there have been some complexities thrown up, and we need to consider how we get that right. However, the commitment remains, and I am more than happy to discuss that further or update the member on where we are with that. I am very grateful. Let me rephrase the question, then. Would it be the best intentions of the Scottish Government to review and republish what starts as the 2017 guidance, as soon as possible, given the important nature of restorative justice, not just within this bill but in a wider context across Scotland? Is the Scottish Government happy to give best endeavours to achieve that? Yes, absolutely. We have been committed to exploring and consulting on that further. As I said, this is something that we looked at in relation to the children's heathens redesign report. I am very grateful. That brings me to the last amendment that is in my name, 209, which is the rehabilitation and reintegration of children who have been guilty of offences. That is very important. I am grateful to the contributions that the minister has made, because it is right that the rehabilitation and reintegration is a paramount part of how young people can reintegrate into the communities. We have heard in a number of amendments that have been put forward today. Indeed, last week, that sits at the heart of what we are trying to achieve here. Again, with regard in this case to the reporting principles of it, is the minister absolutely confident that there will be sources of reporting, not necessarily through the Government but available to the public that can measure the success of rehabilitation but also reintegration of young people at the end of their period of involvement? I am confident. Given the extra attention to this in terms of whole system approach, I am confident. However, going forward, if that became something that I was not confident about, I would certainly be looking to take action in that front, or look to what could be done. I am very grateful for those assertions. Martin Whipfield, you have had quite a good discussion between yourselves there, but I will call you to wind up with this group now, please. Nothing further to say, formally moved. That is helpful, minister. The question is that amendment 105 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes, we are agreed. I call amendment 108, in the name of Ros McAll, already— Or did I say? Oh, that is my—literally, I need to get my wind. My eyes are tired. I call amendment 106. Apologies to the people who are taking notes of this. 106, in the name of Ros McAll, already debated with amendment 11. Ros McAll, to move or not move. Not moved. Thank you, Ms McAll. The question is that amendment—no, it is not. Call amendment 107, in the name of Ros McAll, already debated with amendment 11. Ros McAll, to move or not move. Not moved. Thank you. So look at that, 12, 59 and 41 seconds. The question is that sections 18 to 21 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? William. All right, thank goodness. So did I. Okay, so that concludes our consideration of the bill at stage 2 today and the committee will continue its consideration at its meeting on the 7 February. Thank you all for your time. I now close the meeting. And can I just—you've closed the meeting.