 Ydw i'n ddweud, everyone, and welcome to the third meeting of the committee for 2019. Can I ask that everyone ensures that all mobile devices are switched to silent, please? Agenda item one is a decision to take agenda item three in private. Is everyone agreed? Agenda item one is the first day of our stage 2 consideration of the Age of Criminal responsibility Scotland bill. Felly bydd hynno dweud dros part three of the bill today. I welcome Mary Todd Minister for Children and Young People, and her officials this morning. You are very welcome. For section 1, on amendment 2, in the name of Alec Cole-Hammellton, grouped with amendments that has shown in the groupings. At this point, I would advise members that amendments 2 and 1 are direct alternatives. I would also draw mewn i gun crosswords o foulodfa hwn YouTube adod amazing mountains on the other direct alternatives in this group. Direct alternatives are two or more amendments seeking to replace the same text in a bill with alternative approaches. In this case, amendment 2 proposes to replace 12 with 14 and amendment 1 proposes replacing 12 with 16. A vote will be taken on both amendments in the order in which they appear in the martial list. If both the first and second amendments were to be agreed, then the second amendment succeeds the former and the first amendment would cease to have effect. I'll call Cole-Hamilton to move amendment 2 and speak to all amendments in the group. Thank you very much. Good morning, minister. I have rather a lot to say, but members will realise that the amendments in this group represent the fault line in this legislation, so they will, I hope, forgive me for taking time to unpack and deploy my arguments here. I address the more technical amendments. I want to speak to the overall proposition of seeking to lift the minimum age of criminal responsibility to 14 and 16, respectively, as set out in amendments 2 and 1 in my name, and all interconnected amendments in this group. The evidence that we have taken throughout stage 1 and, indeed, in the foothills of stage 2 has been characterised by some very public and unprecedented interventions by the international community, expressing an imperative for us to go further than 12, at least to 14 and arguably further still to 16. That was a view shared by the clear majority of witnesses who gave evidence to this committee. The very day after our stage 1 debate, the Children's Commissioner Bruce Adamson shared with our committee the intent of the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child to revise general comment 10 issued in 2012 benchmarking the absolute minimum ACR at 12. It was confirmed to member states yesterday that the UN will uplift that baseline to 14 in the coming days. That was reinforced by Professor Ann Skelton, who gave us evidence to the committee from the United Nations of Fortnight, when she said that the committee proposes a new revision that 14 should be considered the minimum age. She went on to say, to complete its well-respected system, Scotland should ensure that it conforms with international standards. That was not the only intervention in our deliberations. The Human Rights Commissioner of the European Council, Dunia Maio-Tovic, wrote to the minister, expressing in their strongest terms that the view of the European Council that Scotland should seize this legislative opportunity to meet the minimum standards of international expectation and set at the very least a minimum of 14. Minister, your response to the commissioner was nothing short of a national embarrassment. You sought to lean on what I believe to lean on a sense of perceived exceptionalism. You inferred to the commissioner that the unique and welfareist approach to youth justice, offered by our children's hearing system, should absolve us of the need to meet the de minimis standards of international expectation. I make no denigration of the hearing system of which we have much to be justifiably proud. It is held up as an exemplar in the world, but, convener, when it comes to international minimums, we don't get a pass. I, too, am proud of the fact that, since Kilbrandon was first published in 1971, we've adopted a welfareist approach to harmful behaviour in our children, but when it comes to international minimums, we don't get a pass. Whilst this Government is at last using the word love in the narrative arc around the policy it creates for children and young people, when it comes to international minimums, we don't get a pass. That was signed up quite starkly in the commissioner's reply, in which she said, I appreciate the minister's comprehensive explanation of those differences and the positive elements of the Scottish approach. Many of those are considered good examples in Europe. However, I also note that many different approaches are applied across the 47 member states of the Council of Europe, making each national system unique with specific advantages and challenges. It is important to underscore that international human rights standards, such as those referred to in my letter to the minister, are developed precisely to provide minimum safeguards, regardless of the diversity of states' laws, policies and practices. I ask the minister that any further attempt that the Government may make to attempt to justify sticking at 12 in this bill, that it dispends with that line of argument. It only serves to compound that embarrassment still further. Last week, my party leader Willie Rennie asked the First Minister at First Minister's question time for movement on this issue and to meet the new international minimum, to which the First Minister argued. I am sure that the minister may also have the need to carry the population with us. She rightly pointed out that the original consultation prior to stage 1, 88 per cent of respondents supported an uplift to 12. If you ask a binary question, you will get a binary answer. An uplift to 12 is all that respondents and, for that matter, the working group that preceded it were asked to offer a view on. As such, I am grateful for the forbearance of clerks and my fellow committee members in agreeing, in the light of those international interventions, to reopen our consideration of evidence, to consider an uplift to 14 and 16 respectively, as contained in my amendments in this group. As you know, the written responses to that call of evidence showed a desire of 86 per cent of written respondents to go to at least 14, with most wanting to go to 16. Of particular interest was the response of children's hearing Scotland, who said that they stood ready to implement any age that this Parliament arrived at, but we should endeavour to go further. I would say to you that, if your Government wishes to carry those interested in this issue with us on a journey to further increase, then they are already here. The point that the First Minister used to justify sicking at 12 was on a point of capacity. She said that there are not just issues of principle but practical issues in terms of the sheer volume of cases that would be affected by that decision. That was in direct questioning by Willie Rennie on an uplift to 14. Every member of this committee received the very helpful correspondence of the Lord Advocate last week, breaking down the statistics that make up that sheer volume of cases to which the First Minister refers. Of offences reported among those aged 12 and 13 last year, 27 cases were referred to the Procurator Fiscal for criminal proceedings. Of those, only 11 went to court. Understanding those numbers is very important for gauging the magnitude of the task before us and seeking further uplift. I would put it to the committee that 11 is not a sheer volume, it is barely a handful. Nevertheless, moving to 14 would require careful consideration about how those cases could be dealt with within the children's hearing system. I accept that, and work does need to be done. The Scottish Children's Reporter, who incidentally also supports an uplift to 16, has explained in granular detail the kind of consideration we would need to take around those cases. There might need to be a consideration of extending post-18 powers to the panel or introducing a higher burden of proof going beyond the balance of probabilities in the most egregious cases. This was a view reflected by the Lord Advocate himself. He would not set his face against further uplift but further careful consideration about the handful of cases that went to court would be needed. The Scottish Government has suggested that the work that is described by the Lord Advocate is too vast to contemplate in the context of any further progress in this bill. I am sorry, but I just cannot accept that. This is a Parliament that passed the European Continuity Act in three days, readying every aspect of the powers of this Parliament against the impact of Brexit. Does the Government really expect this committee, relevant stakeholders and the general public to believe that we cannot work out to do what to do with 11 kids in two years? After ascertaining from stakeholders just how long might be needed, I brought forward amendments 65 to 69 and 77 to 81 in my name to offer Parliament a sunrise clause to attain a new age of criminal responsibility of 12 on royal assent but with a further uplift of 14 or 16 or 18 months later, either automatically or following a vote in Parliament. 1772 also in my name would allow provision for the re-establishment of a working group to undertake this task, with ministers duty bound to bring any recommendation for further uplift to a vote in Parliament no later than 31 January 2021, where there is a will, there is a way. Aside from the international embarrassment of trying to argue for exemption from the new international minimum, there is scope here for domestic embarrassment as well. Before I came to this place, I was proud to serve on the leadership panel of Scotland's national action plan for human rights under Sir Alan Miller. I was heartened, therefore, when he was appointed to head up the First Minister's advisory group on human rights leadership. He and his colleagues put in a great deal of effort to equip Scotland to act as a human rights leader on the global stage. At a stroke, by refusing to move with the international community to embrace the new international minimum, in this vital area of human rights, we have hold below the waterline any credibility we may have had as a human rights champion internationally. But simply, we have wasted the time of a good man and those around him. By way of example, we often sit in judgment over human rights issues in China and Russia, but both of these countries already have higher ages of criminal responsibility than we do or look set to. As Willie Rennie said last week on human rights, you can't lead the world from the back of the pack. If we don't achieve movement in this bill, then I will no longer be able to stomach self-congratulatory posturing of this Government in the subject of human rights. It just won't wash any more. I don't have a great deal more to say, but I will say a word on my amendments to lift the age of prosecution and my amendment to lift it to 16. The age of criminal prosecution was a bellwether for the moves to lift the age of criminal responsibility in this act. When we answered the call in 2012 for the United Nations to lift our criminal responsibility age to 12, we eventually got our criminal prosecution as that leader clause to bring us there eventually. If, at the very least, none of my other amendments passed, let us look to increase the age of criminal prosecution, again as a signal to the international community of intent, so that nobody under the age of 16 should be criminalised. In terms of my amendment to lift the age to 16, I have made great sore in why we need to get to 14, but it is important to state why I have placed this amendment to get to 16. I want to move the overton window of debate around this subject. During our stage 1 debate, I intervened on Liam Kerr. He had been stating that at 12, children have full capacity to make value judgments and understand the consequences of their action. I asked him, therefore, if he agreed that, as such, we should reduce the voting age to 12. He looked horrified. That is just it. 16 is the age that this country has accepted as an age of majority at which adult responsibilities are conferred. We credit young people at that age with the maturity to decide whether to leave home if they want to marry, whether to have sex and now who they want to run the country. There is widespread opposition to lowering this age for any of these things because many feel that children before that age lack maturity, but they still believe that criminal capacity develops far earlier. That is incongruous. I cannot reconcile that disparity. Either you have maturity and judgment or you do not in the eyes of the law. I will finish with this. All of my amendments were drafted with Lindsay Hanvidge in mind. Every member in this room was moved and has cited Lindsay's testimony. At the age of 13, Lindsay was arrested for kicking off on the night that she was to be taken into care. She spent a night in the cells with all the trauma that that brings. In the middle of one adverse childhood experience, this state handed her another. Nothing about the Government's bill as it currently stands would have changed anything whatsoever about Lindsay's story. If we do not change the bill, we shall have failed her and those like her. I move the amendments in my name. I invite other members who wish to speak to indicate Mary Fee. Thank you, convener. At the outset, I support all of Alex Cole-Hamilton's amendments. Much of what I would want to say has already been said by my colleague. However, some of it is worth repeating. Alex Cole-Hamilton is right when he says that the amendments that he has lodged today are the fault line in this legislation. They are. All of the evidence that we have had has supported raising the age of criminal responsibility higher than 12. The revision to general comment 10 to raise the minimum to 14 should be a recommendation that we embrace, not a recommendation that we choose to avoid by saying that we almost deserve a pass because we have the children's hearing system. The children's hearing system is something that we should be proud of. We are proud of it, but it is not something that gives us a pass to incorporate guidance and legislation that comes from the UN. We speak a lot in this place about the incorporation of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. This legislation is an opportunity for us to take a further step along that path of incorporation. The fact that we choose to pull back from that is, as Alex Cole-Hamilton has said, a national embarrassment. It is something that should shame us all. I urge my fellow committee members to support the amendments in the name of Alex Cole-Hamilton. We remain of the view that 12 strikes the right balance, and while we are sympathetic to some of the evidence and arguments that have been made, that remains our position. We are, however, concerned or sympathetic to the argument that is made around exceptionalism. I think that it is better to be straightforward as we have tried to be and recognised that neither the system nor the people living in our country are ready to see the age move beyond 12. I would highlight that not all evidence that we have heard supports going beyond 12 and would point in particular to the further submission from Victim Support Scotland that said that they did not support that changing at this time. I also agree that I do not think that 12 should be the age that we stick at. I agree that we need to go further and we did have a lot of evidence to say that we need to go further. I do not believe that we should be criminalising children and I seek assurances from the minister that work will be done, is being done, to move us beyond 12. I find it unfortunate that that work has not been done at this point, but I would like to hear what we are doing to get beyond 12. I believe that if we vote for those amendments today to go straight to 14, 16 or 16, that the work that needs to be done to get us there would mean that we stick at 8 for longer than we need to. I do not think that that is a responsible position for us to take. I am grateful to the member for taking intervention. That is absolutely why my Sunrise Clause amendments cover that. I think that the children's report had made a very strong point about that and said that we cannot delay any further. That is why my amendments around the Sunrise Clause would see on royal ascent automatic uplift to 12, as agreed by the committee. Further uplift, 18 months later, giving a working group or whoever is charged with the task of doing the work to make that happen, is the time to get everything in place for an automatic uplift of 14 or 16, depending on what the committee agrees, 18 months later. I thank Alex Cole-Hamilton for that intervention and that clarification of the amendment. I also find it difficult to put in legislation an automatic uplift when we do not know what the group is going to come back with. Therefore, it is with a heavy heart that I will not be supporting those amendments today. I am very similar to Gail Ross's approach. I have a lot of sympathy with Alex Cole-Hamilton's amendments here. We need to be moving in a direction towards at least 14. I do not agree necessarily with all the tone of Alex's speech. I think that some of the language is about embarrassment. I do not think at all that somebody has worked in the children's hearing system for a very long time. I think that it is far from embarrassing. I am grateful to the member for offering me the opportunity to clarify it. At no point did I suggest that our children's hearing system was a source of embarrassment. The minister's reply to the Council of Europe on human rights commissioner was a national embarrassment. I know that you did not express that about the children's hearing system, but you did use the language of embarrassment several times, so I was just stressing that the hearing system is a credit to Scotland. The amendments themselves have, as Gail Ross highlighted, the potential to be irresponsible. Although I might not recognize the bill, they are certainly, in my mind, reckless, because they keep the age at 8. I know that you talked about the sunrise cause, but we do not know what any future group would come up with. We do not know what the Government would be in place. We do not know what referendums might happen and what will happen with Brexit over the next few weeks, so it is too big a risk for me to take to not move this to 12, which is where the work has been at. The committee would excuse my voice if I got by a cold as one, so I will leave it at that. I thank the committee for taking additional evidence at stage 2 to inform the consideration of the group of amendments. That evidence highlighted that this is a very complex issue that needs to be considered fully within the context of our wider approach to supporting young people's harmful behaviour. We can rightly be proud that this Parliament universally supported the principle of raising the age of criminal responsibility, but we should not forget the work that has been undertaken to arrive here, nor that this work involved a long and considered collaborative approach with agencies, professionals and, crucially, also engaged children and young people. That has enabled us to reach a consensus that the age of criminal responsibility in Scotland should be raised. If we were to take forward any further proposals, we would require a similar considered approach of all of the implications and potential impacts of doing so. While raising the age is clearly important, as the First Minister pointed out last week, how we deal with young people in the system overall, I believe, is what is really important. One of the things that I took from the full range of remarks and recommendations in the draft UN general comment number 24 on children's rights in the justice system is that we already are doing or going further than some of what the UNCRC is calling on states to do. It is important that we do not lose sight of our track record on this whole area. Only yesterday's statistics were published which show that the number of young people convicted of a crime or an offence has fallen by two thirds to the lowest level in 10 years. In Scotland, we already recognise and share a belief across all parties that heavy-handed or retributive criminal justice is counterproductive for children and for young people. The vast majority of children aged 12 to 15 who offend are already dealt with by our welfare-based children's hearing system rather than being prosecuted in court. Clearly, the UN call for states to consider a higher minimum age of criminal responsibility is an important development. The Scottish Government will carefully consider this general comment in its entirety and will assess what future reforms might be needed as a result. However, I have two significant concerns in relation to increasing the age of criminal responsibility through this bill. The first relates to our readiness to raise the age of responsibility or prosecution beyond 12 with key issues highlighted by the law officers in their evidence. As the Lord Advocate made clear, raising the age further requires us to be satisfied that the bill has the right systems and safeguards to respond to the full range of possible cases, which statistics show are greater in volume, challenge and complexity. It is my firm belief that we should be sure on those issues, not least in terms of the duty of care that we owe to young people who engage in harmful behaviour and victims of harmful behaviour. That is one of our key responsibilities as legislators. The Lord Advocate highlighted the state's positive obligations under international law to maintain an effective system for the investigation of crime and securing the rights of victims. With the bill, we can be reassured that any incident involving a child under 12 can be investigated properly, any victim respected and responded to, and that children can be properly supported without being criminalised. The Lord Advocate and the Solicitor General demonstrated how we would not have that reassurance should we move to raise the age further now. There are significant numbers of serious offences that are currently not responded to in the children's hearing system and could not be without further primary legislation. There are additional concerns regarding complex issues such as delayed reporting of grave historic offences by children against other younger children. In raising the age of criminal responsibility, we must have confidence that we have appropriate measures and mechanisms in place to address children's behaviour and to support them with appropriate interventions for children under 12. Since 2011-12, 1,285, 12 and 13-year-olds were involved in incidents that were reported to the Procurator Fiscal, including charges of murder and rape. Some of those cases, retained in the criminal justice system, resulted in disposals that go beyond a child's 18th birthday. That would not be possible currently in the children's hearing system, and primary legislation is required to extend the jurisdiction of the hearing system to include all young people aged 16 and 17 and to provide for interventions beyond a young person's 18th birthday if the age of prosecution or criminal responsibility is raised further. To the minister for a giving way, I recognise the statistics that she has just given the committee. She also recognises that, if you take that on a yearly basis, the number of cases that refer to the Procurator Fiscal would go to trial, a number less than a dozen. That is not a capacity issue that is insurmountable. Yes, although there is primary legislation that is required, we could pass amendments in the bill that could empower the Government by regulation to extend those powers to the panel that she describes. I believe that primary legislation changes are so substantial that they should be primary legislation, that they should be subject to the normal procedures and consultation that is required. I do not believe it. I think that this issue is so substantial that I do not think that it should be amended by regulation. Legislative change would have to be supported by practice change for decision makers and professionals in implementing new measures. That was made very clear, as a number of you have mentioned by Malcolm Shaffer, the Scottish Children's Reporter Administration, and representatives of the national youth justice advisory group also highlighted their concern about the service's capacity to address the full range of harmful behaviour of 12 and 13-year-olds if the age were to raise to 14 immediately. Of course, there are likely to be operational and implementational issues to be addressed that are not yet clear to us. We simply must be able to answer the hardest questions and to provide for all eventualities to do so takes time. Just as we gave the original advisory group time, it needed to arrive at the recommendations that informed the measures of that bill. I am acutely aware that the young people who have feigned have often been the victims of harmful behaviour, abuse, neglect, violence, often from a young age, and therefore are also in need of care and protection themselves. For this reason, I understand the calls to increase the age further. I have also said throughout this bill process that I will listen and consider the evidence, but that evidence suggests that we should not increase the age of criminal responsibility or prosecution beyond 12 without being confident that our laws, systems, services and professionals are prepared and supported. They need to be ready and feel ready before we consider further change. I cannot therefore support the amendments to raise the age of criminal responsibility for the reasons that I set out. I ask the member not to press them. If he does so, I ask for those amendments to be resisted. I will call Hamilton to wind up and press or withdraw your amendment. Thank you, convener. I sought membership of this committee because I have had a long career in human rights. I believe that this committee would be a force for good in the human rights landscape, but sometimes I just do not know what we are doing here. I really do not. The minister in her remarks once again sought to lean on that sense of exceptionalism in terms of our children's hearing system and the strata that we employ to deal with young people who commit harmful behaviour, but that just does not cut it with the international community. She referenced the general comments of the United Nations Committee of the Rights of the Child. We had a member of the committee of the rights of the child give evidence to us two weeks ago, and Professor Ann Skelton said that although Scotland is to be commended for holding on to its well-fairest approach, that does not mean that you are not obliged to take note of and comply with international regulations and standards. If an uplift of 14 is not a standard, I do not know what is. We have talked to a lot in the other remarks that were made by fellow members and the minister herself about the work that needs to be done. That is entirely why I put in a Sunrise Clause amendment. We have interrogated witnesses, including the Lord Advocate and the children's reporter, what amount of work would be required so that we could get to 12 immediately. Fulton MacGregor suggested that this would delay it. My amendment would ensure that the minimum wage was immediately uplifted to 12 on royal assent. Within 18 months of that, we would get the work done and rules in place to ensure that our systems were ready, as the minister describes. Through the affirmative procedure, we can give Parliament the scrutiny that it requires of the primary legislation that is necessitated on things such as an uplift to increase of powers over 18. It is back to the Sunrise Clause. I said in my remarks as well that I am sympathetic to world moving to 14. Obviously, that is where you want to go, but do you not think that that is irresponsible of this committee to put into legislation a predetermined outcome? There are several iterations of the Sunrise Clause amendment. You are welcome to back whichever you please the most, Fulton. In respect of that, there is an option within a number of my amendments to give Parliament a vote on whether we go ahead with that uplift. In 72, most importantly, it demands that ministers bring back the recommendations of a reconvene working group to that end. There is an appropriate amendment that would assuage any anxiety that you have on that score, and that is exactly why I laid them. Can I address the Sunrise mechanisms in particular? The issue of requiring more time to consider all of the implications and bring forward the appropriate primary legislation is my second concern about this. Your amendments 80 to 81, until we have provided the answers fully and considered the matters fully, the age of criminal responsibility stays as it is. This idea of taking a stepped approach is attractive, but 18 months is just not sufficient time to consider the approach that we need, nor to bring forward any additional primary legislative changes highlighted in particular by the Lord Advocate and Mark Malcolm Shaffer. By setting arbitrary time limits, there is a risk that we rush this and fail to address all the matters that need to be considered. We need to take our time to get it right. We may not be in a position to commence those provisions, which again could keep us at a lower age for a longer time. None of us want that to happen. I come back to the proposition that this is a Parliament that dealt with the EU continuity bill, covering every aspect of devolved competency in three days. I cannot believe that it is beyond the capability of those involved in the working group, in the children's reporter, in the Procurator Fiscal to get round a table. Over the course of two years, which it would be, considering how far we are away from royal assent for this bill, to ascertain exactly what we would need to do with the 11 children that go to trial each year. As far as I am concerned, that is two areas of change that we would need, maybe post-18 powers for disposals by the children's panel, and indeed a change in the burden of proof beyond the balance of probabilities to beyond reasonable doubt in the most egregious cases. We have already had that thrashed out as the only two real changes that might be required. I cannot believe that that takes two years to do if there is a political will behind it so to do. I do not believe that political will exist, sadly. An amended convener is an embarrassment. The Government has no cause to speak of it with pride. I will only vote for this bill because the current age of criminal responsibility in Scotland is, frankly, medieval, and this Government has presided over that for the last decade. When I think of my amendments, I think of Lindsay Hanbridge alone and in the dark. If we do not pass those amendments, then nothing about her story would have been different, and we would have let her down. An amended convener says to 12 to 15-year-olds, this country will govern you with love until you break the law, and at that point the love ends. Minister, the international community has already judged your Government on this. If we do not amend this bill, so too will history, but more importantly than that, so will children and young people in this country, and I do not blame them. I wish to press my amendments. The question is that amendment 2 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Then there will be a division. Can I ask those in favour of the amendments to raise their hands now? Those against, and there are no abstentions. The result of the division is for the amendments 2, against the amendment 5, the amendments 4. I call amendment 1 in the name of Alex Cole-Hamilton, who is already debated with amendment 2. Alex Cole-Hamilton, to move or not move. The question is that amendment 1 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Parliament is not agreed, so there will be a division. Can I ask those in favour of the amendment to raise their hands? Those against. The result of the division is 2 for the amendment 5, against the amendment, the amendment falls. I now call amendment 65 in the name of Alex Cole-Hamilton, who is already debated with amendment 2. Alex Cole-Hamilton, to move or not move. The question is that amendment 65 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? No. Can I ask those in favour of the amendment to raise their hands? Those against the amendment. The result of the division is for the amendment 2, against the amendment 5, the amendment falls. The question is that section 1 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? I call amendment 68 in the name of Alex Cole-Hamilton, who is already debated with amendment 2. Alex Cole-Hamilton, to move or not move. The question is that amendment 68 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? No. Can I ask those in favour of the amendment to raise their hands now? Those against the amendment. The result of the division is for the amendment 2, against the amendment 5, the amendment falls. I call amendment 66 in the name of Alex Cole-Hamilton, who is already debated with amendment 2. Alex Cole-Hamilton, to move or not move. The question is that amendment 66 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Can I ask those in favour of the amendment to raise their hands? Those against the amendment. The result of the division is for the amendment 2, against the amendment 5, the amendment falls. I call amendment 71 in the name of Alex Cole-Hamilton, who is already debated with amendment 2. Alex Cole-Hamilton, to move or not move. The question is that amendment 71 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Can I ask those in favour of the amendment to raise their hand? The result of the division is for the amendment 2, against the amendment 5, the amendment falls. I call amendment 70 in the name of Alex Cole-Hamilton, who is already debated with amendment 2. Alex Cole-Hamilton, to move or not move. The question is that amendment 70 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? There will be a division. Can I ask those in favour of the amendment to raise their hands now? Those against the division is for the amendment 2, against the amendment 5, the amendment falls. I call amendment 72 in the name of Alex Cole-Hamilton, who is already debated with amendment 2. Alex Cole-Hamilton, to move or not move. The question is that amendment 72 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? There will be a division. Can I ask those in favour of the amendment to raise their hands now? Those against. The result of the division is for the amendment 2, against the amendment 5, the amendment falls. I call amendment 74 in the name of Alex Cole-Hamilton, who is already debated with amendment 72. Alex Cole-Hamilton, to move or not move. The question is that amendment 74 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? There will be a division. Can I ask those in favour of the amendment to raise their hands now? Those against. The result of the division is for the amendment 2, against the amendment 5, the amendment falls. I call amendment 73 in the name of Alex Cole-Hamilton, who is already debated with amendment 2. Alex Cole-Hamilton, to move or not move. The question is that amendment 73 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? There will be a division. Can I ask those in favour of the amendment to raise their hands now, please? Those against the amendment. The result of the division is for the amendment 2, against the amendment 5, the amendment falls. I call amendment 69 in the name of Alex Cole-Hamilton, who is already debated with amendment 2. Alex Cole-Hamilton, to move or not move. As it relates to amendment, it's already fallen, and I won't move. I call amendment 67 in the name of Alex Cole-Hamilton, who is already debated with amendment 2. Alex Cole-Hamilton, to move or not move. The same reason, convener, not moved. In the name of Alex Cole-Hamilton, who is already debated with amendment 2. Alex Cole-Hamilton, to move or not move. Not moved. The question is that section 2 is agreed to. Are we agreed? Agreed. In the name of Alex Cole-Hamilton, I call amendment 7 already debated with amendment 2. At that point, I would like to remind members that amendments 7 and 6 are direct alternatives. Not moved. I call amendment 6. In the name of Alex Cole-Hamilton, already debated with amendment 2, Alec Cole-Hamilton to move or not move? The question is that section 3 be agreed to, are we all agreed? I call amendment 101 in the name of Oliver Mundell and a group on its own. Oliver Mundell to move and speak to amendment 101. I move the amendment and speak to it now. This amendment is designed to give added protection to society as a whole and recognises the important role that the Lord Advocate currently plays in providing a check and balance within the system. I believe that that is a role that he can continue to play and he should continue to take an interest in harmful behaviour for those between the age of eight and twelve, where that behaviour does give rise to wider public safety concerns or undermines the confidence of the justice system. We think that it would be wrong to lose his input and expertise, particularly in difficult areas around sexual offences and the loss of life. I'm interested to hear what other members have to say. Any other members wish to come in? Thank you and briefly, convener. I'm grateful to Oliver Mundell for starting this debate. I cannot support this amendment. I think that there is enough about this bill that flies in the face of international expectation and this would just go further into that. We don't require the intervention of Lord Advocate or equivalent in other nation states of the UN, which have already adopted a higher age of criminal responsibility. I don't see why we should be exceptional in this case. For that reason, I will oppose this amendment. I agree with Alex Cole-Hamilton. The last group of amendments brought forward by Alex Cole-Hamilton was a timing issue on how we get to a certain point. I think that this particular amendment would be retrograde to that, and I will also not be supporting it. I will be very brief. I cannot support this amendment and I agree with the comments that have been made by both of my colleagues. I think that this amendment would be a retrograde step. We must all have confidence in the changes being made through this bill. We need to be very careful not to reverse reforms that have already been made in order to introduce unintended consequences in trying to create safeguards to address the most serious, harmful behaviour that some children might engage in. The amendment would give powers to the Lord Advocate that currently does not exist on decision making in relation to children under 12. It has the potential to be a broad, as-yet and specified range of under 12s into the ambit of the criminal justice system. It would undermine the role that the children's hearing system has had over this age group since the age of prosecution was increased in 2011. The amendment would therefore return this age group of children to the criminal justice system for the first time in seven years. We know that harmful behaviour involving primary school age children is rare and seriously harmful behaviour is even rarer. We also know that at this age a disproportionate number of children involved in offending have faced severe disadvantage and adversity in early childhood. It is important that we make the welfare of those children the primary consideration and continue to deal with them exclusively under the children's hearing system. The bill seeks to fully decriminalise all primary school age children. The amendment would undermine that approach and principle by creating a two-tier system in relation to some children in some circumstances by giving a new power to the head of the system of the criminal prosecution to consider their actions or behaviour. That would seem to me, as Mary Fee has also said, a retrograde step, not least because of the implications for children's rights. I acknowledge that there may still be some instances of seriously harmful behaviour in the future by a very small number of primary school age children that will require an appropriate and serious response. The bill seeks to create measures that will allow such a behaviour to be investigated and addressed. That amendment would cut across those provisions and create an unhelpful innovation to our long-standing approach, epitomised by the children's hearing system. I therefore would hope that Mr Mundell will not press his amendment. If he does, I would strongly urge the committee to resist it. Thank you, convener. I believe that this amendment is drafted in such a way as only to capture a very small number of individuals in extremely exceptional circumstances. It respects the fact that those children would no longer be treated as having committed criminal acts under section 1. However, it provides some reassurance for those people who are victims. I think that it is a fair balance. I have a great deal of faith in the independent and important role that the Lord Advocate has played in the Scottish legal system. I think that we could respect the individual office holder to take the right decisions in the public interest and I therefore press out the amendment. The question is that amendment 101 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The committee is not agreed, so there will be a division. Can I ask those in favour of the amendment to raise their hands? Those against the amendment. The result of the division is for the amendment 2, against the amendment 5, the amendment falls. We will now suspend briefly to allow officials to change places. I welcome back. I now call amendment 9 in the name of Alec Cole-Hamilton, who is already debated with amendment 2. Is Alec Cole-Hamilton to move or not move? Michael Russell is not moved is already debated with amendment 8 in the name of Alec Cole-Hamilton or not move? Call amendment 11 in the name of Alec Cole-Hamilton is already debated with amendment 2. I would like to remind members of amendments 11 and 10 to give them a direct alternative. Matt Guy O'u polisiaf ar gyfer ilio o'r bynnag y dysgu fel y y cyfadcribedad iddiant yn y ddo! O bobl thereff cockédurol o heddiw gwain o, dw i'r bwysig diwetidau efo defnydd y driver ar hyn oedd y和fodol yn trafoddiadau i sicrhau ddigliandiannau. Rhai ynghylchau i'u unibawr ddaeth yn yn bwysig wrth fy nid i gael'r file arall, ac mae rhaglawniach o'r cyd-digliandau ddiglianddiaethau i'r cyd-digliannau. Ymgrifith covid o £82,000-£89 i'r cyd-digliannau a ddigliannau i'r cyflawniach i'r cyd-digliannau Scotland and how that interacts with the duty to self-disclose or acknowledge pre-12 behaviour where a disclosure check is used, for example, in connection with the recruitment to a job. The substantive amendments 84 to 87 put in place the important protection against the need to self-disclose relevant behaviour in any ancillary circumstances. They replace the protection being removed by amendment 83. This is a positive step, which brings the protection into the same piece of legislation at this bill as the provisions establishing the position of the independent reviewer. The technical amendments 88, 89 and 96 to 98 are consequential on the substantive. Taken together, they'll deliver benefits to the individuals and allow them to move on from their childhood behaviour. I would urge the committee members to support them. If the members wish me to discuss the detail of the amendments, I'm happy to do so. I'm not clear how that increases the protection of those subject to disclosure. In fact, discussions with stakeholders in the voluntary sector and the human rights landscape are mildly concerned by those amendments. That is actually backsliding and will create situations where more information is revealed than perhaps the original bill would have allowed. For that reason, I can't support those amendments. Essentially, because pre-12 harmful behaviour is no longer considered in a sense, it's no longer protected by the 1974 Rehabilitation of Offenders Act, so those amendments rebuild those protections and in fact go further than those protections. They also align the duty to self-disclose or not self-disclose, for example, during an application for a job. I think that they are very important protections against the need to self-disclose relevant behaviour and any ancillary circumstances. It's a positive step that brings the protection of all that into the same piece of legislation as the position of the independent reviewer, and I urge the committee members to support them. The question is that amendment 82 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The committee is not agreed, so there will be a division. Can I ask those in favour of the amendment to raise their hands now, please? Those against the amendment, the result of the division is for the amendment 5 against the amendment 2, the amendment passes. I call amendments 83, 84, 85, 86 and 87, all in the name of the minister and all previously debated, and invite the minister to move amendments 83 to 87 on block. Can I ask if any member objects to a single question being put on amendments 83 to 87? The question is that amendments 83 to 87 are agreed to. Are we all agreed? Are we all agreed? No. There will be a division. Can I ask those in favour of amendments 83 to 87 to raise their hands now, please? Those against. The result of the division is for the amendment 5 against the amendments to the amendment's pass. I call amendment 13, in the name of Alec Cole-Hamilton, already debated with amendment 2. I remind members that amendments 13 and 12 are direct alternatives to Alec Cole-Hamilton to move or not move. I call amendment 12, in the name of Alec Cole-Hamilton, already debated with amendment 2, Alec Cole-Hamilton to move or not move. I call amendment 88, in the name of the minister, already debated with amendment 82, minister to formally move. The question is that amendment 88 to be agreed to. Are we all agreed? No. The committee is not agreed, so there will be a division. Can I ask those in favour of amendment 88 to raise their hands, please? Those against the amendment. The results of the division are for the amendment 5, against the amendment 2, the amendment passes. I call amendment 89, in the name of the minister, already debated with amendment 82, minister to move formally. The question is that amendment 89 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? No. The committee is not agreed, so there will be a division. Can I ask those in favour of the amendment to raise their hands, please? Those against the amendment. The result of the division is for the amendment 5, against the amendment 2, the amendment carries. I call amendment 15, in the name of Alec Cole-Hamilton, already debated with amendment 2. I call amendment 14, in the name of Alec Cole-Hamilton, already debated with amendment 2. I call amendment 18, in the name of Alec Cole-Hamilton, already debated with amendment 19, in the name of Alec Cole-Hamilton, already debated with amendment 19. The question is that that section 6 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Amendment 90, in the name of the minister, grouped with amendments 91, 92, 93 and 94. Minister, to move amendment 90 and speak to all amendments in the group. Thank you. Those amendments have been lodged in response to feedback received from stakeholders and to ensure that the terms and conditions of the independent reviewer are sufficiently clear in the bill. I hope that those amendments also assure the committee and wider stakeholders that there is nothing in the bill that gives Scottish ministers the chief constable or anyone else any power to direct the independent reviewer in the exercising of their functions. Amendment 90 and 91 amend the period of appointment provided for in section 7, subsection 1, so that it is fixed at three years. This makes clear the definitive nature of the appointment and removes any uncertainty that the existing wording might have caused. Amendment 92 adds the word conditions to section 7, 2 to reflect that a person is to be appointed as independent reviewer on such terms and conditions as the Scottish ministers determined. In line with similar provisions in other acts, I can confirm that the usual public appointment rules and therefore terms and conditions which apply to other such appointments will apply. Amendment 93 outlines specific circumstances under which a person is disqualified from appointment or holding office as independent reviewer. It provides that elected politicians cannot be appointed as independent reviewer. If the independent reviewer becomes an elected politician, they are automatically disqualified. Section 7, subsection 6 of the bill, as introduced, provides that Scottish ministers may terminate appointment of the independent reviewer. Amendment 94 removes subsection 6 and replaces it with details of the specific circumstances under which ministers may remove a person from office and how that can be done. The aim is to make clear the limits of ministerial powers in this regard, and I hope that the committee agrees that those amendments provide welcome clarification and certainly in relation to the measures that are setting out how the independent reviewer is intended to operate and will support them. I certainly would encourage the committee members to support amendments 1994. The question is that amendment 90 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. I call amendments 91, 92, 93 and 94, all in the name of the minister, all previously debated. Invite the minister to move amendments 91 to 94 on block. Moved. Do any members object to a single question being put on these amendments? No. The question is that amendments 91 to 94 are agreed to. Are we all agreed? Agreed. The question is that section 7 be agreed to. Are we agreed? Yes. The question is that section 8 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. Agreed. At this point, we will suspend until half past 10 and have a brief comfort break for everyone. Welcome back, everybody. I call amendment 19 in the name of Alec Cole-Hamilton, already debated with amendment 2. Alec Cole-Hamilton to move or not move? Not moved. I call amendment 18 in the name of Alec Cole-Hamilton, already debated with amendment 2. Alec Cole-Hamilton to move or not move? Not moved. I call amendment 21 in the name of Alec Cole-Hamilton, already debated with amendment 2. Alec Cole-Hamilton to move or not move? Not moved. I call amendment 20 in the name of Alec Cole-Hamilton, already debated with amendment 2. Alec Cole-Hamilton to move or not move? Not moved. The question is that section 9 be agreed to, are we all agreed? The question is that sections 10 to 14 be agreed to, are we all agreed? I call amendment 102 in the name of Mary Fee in a group of its own. Mary Fee to move and speak to amendment 102. Thank you, convener. My amendment concerns the independent reviewer and the disclosure of information. Amendment 102 in section 15 makes it clear that if an appeal to have information removed from a record is unsuccessful one time, then it does not rule out a further appeal if that same information is to be released at a later date. And this may seem like a small and insignificant amendment, however I think it's vitally important that there is no doubt that someone has the opportunity to appeal again where there is a potential for information to be released. And I do think we need to be absolutely and completely clear on the face of the bill that, if circumstances change, then this recourse is available to individuals. And I would urge the committee to support the amendment when I move it. Okay. Other members wish to come in? Thank you, convener. Just on my record, my support for Mary Fee's amendment here I think it offers further protection to people in regard to the disclosure of information and I support the amendment. Okay. Minister. Thank you. I appreciate and understand the intention behind Mary Fee's amendment, however, as outlined in the Government's response to the committee's stage 1 report, the independent reviewer makes a one-off decision for the purposes of that particular application. The reviewer's determination includes consideration of the reason the disclosure is being applied for and all of the other information the independent reviewer is able to take into account at the time. But the independent reviewer decides that the information should be disclosed. This isn't a continuing decision that it should be disclosed in relation to all subsequent applications. Any new application would be considered afresh and if information about pre-12 behaviour was considered by the police to be relevant to the new application and that information ought to be disclosed for the purpose of that new application, the independent reviewer would make a fresh decision. It follows from that that the right to make an appeal to a sheriff would be available in relation to subsequent determinations, even if it concerns the same information. I share Mary Fee's aim to protect the rights of individuals in this process, particularly in relation to appeals, as I've outlined, but those are already protected in the measures already in the bill. While an amendment is not needed to protect appeal rights, it has the potential to obscure the clarity of provision in section 154 of the bill that the sheriff's decision on an appeal against the independent reviewer's determination is final. If it's helpful, I'm happy to provide further assistance that any guidance or guidelines provided for the operation of the independent reviewer's functions will address this matter and set out clearly how the law is intended to work in practice. I would hope that, after hearing this explanation, Mary Fee will be satisfied and will not press her amendment if she does so, I would ask members not to support it. Mary Fee to wind up and press her withdraw amendment 12. Thank you, convener, and I thank the minister for her comments. However, I do believe that we must be absolutely clear and explicit on the right of appeal. I have a slight concern about some of the language that the minister used, and the things that ought to be addressed and should be considered, which is why I think that my amendment is so important, because it leaves absolutely no doubt that the rights that individuals have, and it will give complete and utter clarity, and it won't, as the minister alluded to in her comments, obscure clarity of rights for individuals, and I will be pressing the amendment. Sorry, Mary, can I ask you to be pressing the amendment? I'm pressing the amendment, Mary. The question is that amendment 102 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. No. The committee is not agreed, so there will be a division. Can I ask those in favour of the amendment to raise their hands please? Those against the amendment? The result of the division is four for the amendment, three against the amendment, the amendment carries. The question is that section 15 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. The question is that section 16 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? I call amendment 95 in the name of the minister in a group on its own. Minister, to move and speak to amendment. This amendment has been lodged in response to feedback from stakeholders to clarify the independence of the independent reviewer in the bill and to limit the extent of Scottish ministers' powers, which I'm sure is something the committee will welcome. This amendment makes clear that ministers may not use statutory guidance to be issued to the independent reviewer to direct him about him or her, about how to handle or deal with any specific review or reviews. I would urge committee members to support this amendment. Do any members wish to speak to this? Minister to wind up. As I said, I hope everyone would see this as a positive step. It responds to concerns from stakeholders and clarifies the role of Scottish ministers to guidance. As such, I hope that the committee can support this amendment. The question is that amendment 95 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. The question is that section 17 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. The question is that sections 18 to 20 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. Amendment 96, in the name of the minister, already debated with amendment 82. Minister to move formally. Formally moved. The question is that amendment 96 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Agreed. Amendment 97, in the name of the minister, already debated with amendment 82. Minister to move formally. Moved. The question is that amendment 97 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. The question is that section 21 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Gall Willoughbyn o cont Modu'r gweithio – that would give us more confidence in part 3. We are keen to talk about actions as well as behaviour because Remember that. Behaviour can often be seen as being deliberate whereas actions tend to take a more factual approach. From the point of view of victims It's important to look at what's happened without always attributing that, and people want to know what's happened, that's why they're often looking for information. In terms of the other amendments in the group that introduced the concept of distress, again I think it makes it an easier legal threshold to reach. Sometimes if you're trying to establish remain calm that it can be quite difficult. Whereas I think distress presents itself more obviously particularly in the case of vulnerable individuals and I don't think there's much further to add at this stage. OK, do any other members wish to come in on these amendments? Minister. Thank You Oliver Mundell for that helpful explanation of the intent behind those amendments. Ond bugs, fy oedd siw��好啦eth 19 a 20, nid wyняяu chioeddiant a chioeddiant dros'u gael i fyynful disaster cyng או, cofiwch golyginnol o'r greu gyda eglwyd amdeldol sydd. Mae'n rhaid i andeithio sydd ystyried, nosеch problemu dealli y cynteill%. S hides� Y anxiousmer. ond divinelliad yn gallu'r bwysigig ymoli, ond y gallwn amlyglu'n ddych chi'n hirio... ...wy oeddynt chyflodau ar hyn yn gweleddiant. Dyna, yma, rwy'n gwybod i ddweud i'r mwyaf. Felly, rwy'n gwybod i fod, sy'n gyfer hynny, gweld y parbysfyniad... ...y dyma, a nid i dewis ym mwyaf i Mforiaid 103. 3. Aelio'r amendment 104, 105, 107, 109, 112, 113, 114, 116, which are linked and are consequential. Those amendments change the description of the behaviour of children under 12 by adding reference to how a child acted or make reference to actions in addition to how a child has behaved. Again, I am satisfied that behaviour and the law's understanding of the interpretation of behaviour already captures actions and how someone has acted, so I don't really see the need for these amendments, but, however, as at the same time, they do not materially alter the intent or the effect of the sections, I'm happy again to accept them should Mr Mindell insist on pressing them. Unfortunately, that is where I hope Mr Mindell's winning streak comes to a halt because I can't accept amendments 106 and 108. I hope that the committee will reject them once I have set out my reasoning. The amendments add distress as a wider description of the impact of the child's behaviour. That means that a person who is distressed or harmed by a child's behaviour may request information from the principal reporter. The policy intention is currently to ensure that information that is shared about a child under the age of criminal responsibility is proportionate and justified. Therefore, the bill makes those powers available to the principal reporter only in serious cases, as described by section 179A. It is also the intention that harm already includes psychological harm caused by the behaviour of a child under 12. Amendment 106 expands the category of behaviour that is caught by section 179A to include certain behaviours that cause distress or harm to another person. That would mean that there is no harm caused to a person by the behaviour. Any distress caused to any other unspecified person by the behaviour would suffice to ensure that section 179A applies. Amendment 108 amend section 1794B, which provides that a person harmed by the behaviour described in section 179A2 by a child under 12 could request information from the reporter. Amendment 108 would extend the provision to allow any person who is distressed or harmed by the behaviour of a child under 12 to request information from the principal reporter. It is not hard to see where we might all have concerns about the disproportionate sharing of information with persons far removed from the harm of the behaviour and the lessening of children's rights in favour of those unspecified persons who feel distressed by what a child may or may not have done. Currently, I believe that we have the balance right between the rights of victims and their families and those of children who have engaged in seriously harmful behaviour and indeed their families. Indeed, that was also the view of the committee at stage 1. Amendment 106 and 108 could result in an unjustified interference with a child's ECHR article 8 rights. The disclosure of potentially sensitive information about a child is likely to be considered an interference with the child's article 8 convention rights. The provisions in the bill ensure that that interference is proportionate by, among other things, restricting the list of individuals who can request the information. The significant expansion of this list that would be caused by amendments 106 and 108 could result in a disproportionate interference with the convention of the rights of child in question. There are also practical implications for the Victim Information Service. It is not clear how those amendments would impact unavailable resources and it is easy to see how the services resources could be diverted away from ensuring that those who most need information receive it timmiously and effectively because of this much wider obligation to provide information that would not be helpful in my view. I would therefore ask Mr Mundell not to press amendment 106 and also not to move amendment 108, which is consequential to amendment 106 being agreed to. If he insists, I would hope that the committee will reject the amendments. Oliver Mundell, to wind up and press or withdraw amendment 103. Thank you, convener. I am pleased that the minister at least feels able to support some of those amendments. I am disappointed, however, that she does not think that those who are distressed by the harmful actions of others deserve any right to request information because that is all those amendments at 106 and 108 do is allow someone to make a request. It does not speak to the nature of the information that should be provided. It does not speak to whether or not that request should be accepted. It does not set any new rules in terms of the proportionality, which, if the minister is very worried about that, it would suggest that the other protections that are written into this same section are insufficient because they simply allow people to make a request and that then has to be decided and deliberated on. I would therefore press the amendments because I think that people have a right to request information. They do not necessarily have the right to have that information provided, but I think that they have the right to make a request. I press the amendments in my name. The question is that amendment 103 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. I call amendment 23 in the name of Alec Cole-Hamilton, already debated with amendment 2. Alec Cole-Hamilton to move or not move? Not move. I call amendment 22 in the name of Alec Cole-Hamilton, already debated with amendment 2. Alec Cole-Hamilton to move or not move? Not move. I call amendment 104 in the name of Oliver Mundell, already debated with amendment 103. Oliver Mundell to move or not move? Move. The question is that amendment 104 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. I call amendment 105 in the name of Oliver Mundell, already debated with amendment 103. Oliver Mundell to move or not move? Move. The question is that amendment 105 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. I call amendment 106 in the name of Oliver Mundell, already debated with amendment 103. Oliver Mundell to move or not move? Move. The question is that amendment 106 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? No. I will not agree, but there will be division. Is it fair to those in favour of amendment 106 to raise their hands? The result of division is for the amendment 2, against the amendment 5 the amendment falls. I call amendment 107 in the name of Oliver Mundell, already debated with amendment 103. Oliver Mundell, to move or not move. I call amendment 108 in the name of Oliver Mundell, already debated with amendment 103. Oliver Mundell, to move or not move. I hit not moved as 106 has fallen. I call amendment 109 in the name of Oliver Mundell, already debated with amendment 103. Oliver Mundell, to move or not move. The question is that amendment 109 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. I call amendment 110 in the name of Oliver Mundell, grouped with amendments 111 and 115. Oliver Mundell, to move amendment 110 and speak to all amendments in the group. Mae rhaid i'r ddweudio eich cyfnod o'r rhaid i ddwylliannol, a ddweudio'r ddweudio'r ddweudio'r ddweudio, ac mae'n arweithio'r rhywbeth o'r rhwng. Mae'n meddwl i'r ddweudio'r ddweudio'r ddweudio'r rhwng, ac mae'n meddwl i'r rhwng phaith hynn nodw i gyn elderly and childee. Ffciwc yn susiol aethau fabrygiadriaeth gyd. R aquelaff y d forwardscaf ond rydym ni'n filiaen atrás iawn. Naewn i gynnig i gyn kuidoch yn llaim i'r fywydodd. y ddiwylliant ddylch i gydag y ddylch i ni ddefnyddio'n cilyddio'n cyfnodol eu hwnnw i wneud i gydag y dyfodig y rhagorau a'r borbyn ar y certyn o sylwg ddyn tribal oedd, yn mynedigau i trefio rhai a'i gwirio gydag ei chyfnodol cyfnodol o'u ddeilig, byddai'n cysylltiadau sydd oherwydd ei cyfnodol ar y cyfnodol rhain o'r cyfnodol y byddai'r cyfnodol. amendment 11 remove the principal reporter's ability to withhold information if it's not in the best interest of the child responsible for the harm or any other child involved in the case. It's not clear from the amendment why it would be appropriate to disclose information which would be detrimental to a child. I'm further concerned that the amendment displaces the balance of rights of the child responsible for the harm and the rights of the victim of the behaviour. Amendment 115 removes the ability of the principal reporter to consider other factors which may be appropriate when considering a request for information. That would mean that the reporter could only consider the factors listed in section 179C2A to D and could not consider any additional factors even if they are directly relevant to the issue of disclosure. Scra have advised that in any particular case there may be an additional factor that will mean that it's not appropriate to provide information to the victim. I'm therefore concerned that this amendment would further limit the discretion of the reporter. The committee agreed that the bill currently strikes the correct balance between the best interests of both the child and victim. We absolutely recognise the need to support victims, to recognise the harm done to them and to respond to their needs. We've heard that victims want to ensure that no-one else goes through what they have gone through. I'm very sympathetic to the members' concerns that victims should be absolutely at the heart of our consideration of this reform. However, I suggest that there are other ways of providing that focus rather than through opening up a disclosure regime that would have a very negative impact on the child who has abandoned. I therefore ask the member to withdraw amendments 110, 111 and 115. Oliver Mundell, to wind up on press or withdraw the amendments. I don't find the arguments that the minister makes convincing. I think that it is right to limit the discretion of the reviewer or reporter because I think that those are rights that victims have. I think that we can't just be seen to put the best interests of the child before a victim's right to information whilst the general tone of the bill is introduced to seek to strike that balance. I think that those particular amendments, which are in relation to victims' information only, should put the interests of victims first. There does have to be some balance and protection, but we think that the criteria set out on the face of the bill provide sufficient opportunity and that there shouldn't be any need to look at factors beyond that. The question is that amendment 110 will be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The committee is not agreed, so there will be a division. Can I ask those in favour of the amendment to raise their hands, please? Those against the amendment. The result of the division is for the amendment 2, against the amendment 5, the amendment falls. I call amendment 111 in the name of Oliver Mundell. Already debated with amendment 110, Oliver Mundell, to move or not move. Move. The question is that amendment 111 will be agreed to. Are we all agreed? No. The committee is not agreed, so there will be a division. Can I ask those in favour of the amendment to raise their hands, please? Those against the amendment. The result of the division is for the amendment 2, against the amendment 5, the amendment therefore falls. I call amendment 112 in the name of Oliver Mundell. Already debated with amendment 103, Oliver Mundell, to move or not move. Move. The question is that amendment 112 will be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. I call amendment 113 in the name of Oliver Mundell. Already debated with amendment 103, Oliver Mundell, to move or not move. Move. The question is that amendment 113 will be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. I call amendment 111 in the name of Oliver Mundell. Already debated with amendment 103, Oliver Mundell, to move or not move. Move. The question is that amendment 114 will be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. I call amendment 115 in the name of Oliver Mundell. Already debated with amendment 110, Oliver Mundell, to move or not move. Move. The question is that amendment 115 will be agreed to. Are we all agreed? No. The committee is not agreed, so there will be a division. Can I ask those in favour of the amendment to raise their hands, please? Those against the amendment. The result of the division is for the amendment 2, against the amendment 5, the amendment falls. I call amendment 116 in the name of Oliver Mundell. Already debated with amendment 103, Oliver Mundell, to move or not move. Move. The question is that amendment 116 will be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. I call amendment 117 in the name of Oliver Mundell and a group on its own. Oliver Mundell, to move and speak to amendment 117. The amendment relates to the duty on the principal reporter to make a report in cases of loss of life. I believe that these are the most serious cases, which are likely to be subject to victim information requests. More than that, there are cases involving a loss of life. There is a wider public interest, and it is important that we investigate what has happened and the particular circumstances. I think that there should be an automatic report made available to inform both Scottish Government ministers and the Lord Advocate as well as families what has happened in those instances. The actual content of such a report would be subject to further regulation, but it is an important principle that we would have an explanation of what had happened where someone had died. I want to ask Oliver Mundell. Maybe I have missed it, but I do not remember taking any evidence on that particular issue. I do not believe that it was included in our stage 1 report, and I just wanted some clarification on where that has come from. It is a very valid point from Gail Ross, but there are a number of amendments that have been brought forward that there has not been specific evidence taken on. In my view, looking at part 3 of the bill as a whole, I think that this is an important protection for victims. I think that sometimes it is important to put those things on the face of the bill, and I would not want those serious cases, which we did in part hear about from the law officers when they were here. I do not think that we would want those sort of offences to result in a situation where victims but also those who have overall responsibility for the safety of people in this country not to know what had happened. I support absolutely the provisions in the bill that make or give victims or those affected by harmful behaviour information as to get into the bottom of what happened. I think that there is provision enough within the bill for that to make it the norm that a report has produced de facto after the loss of life. I think that it runs the risk of, I will? I think to say that it is the norm or de facto for a loss of life to occur in that age group. Looking at the relative occurrence of these, I would suggest that this is something that would be used in a small number of cases. Again, I think that we would add additional reassurance for victims, for members of the public and for those, as I say, responsible for public safety. I understand and, obviously, I have learnt on the very small number of cases in this bracket myself in my earlier remarks. However, I think that if there is a duty on a principal reporter to make a report in any situation where there is a loss of life, it will be the norm. It runs the risk of exposing that child to further attention or stigma attached, which might follow them through the rest of their life. So, for that reason, I cannot support this amendment. I am interested in what this amendment will do. I wonder whether the minister is happy to give consideration to this in advance of stage 3 of her feelings. If any other member's wish is kind of open, I will bring the minister in. Thank you, Oliver Mundell, for explaining the purpose and intent of his amendment 117. Throughout the bill process we have all been aware of the need to provide for the potential of very serious, harmful behaviour by a tiny number of children below the age of criminal responsibility. Currently, as we have said, we know that these offences are extremely rare and thankfully so. We do need mechanisms in place to allow for such behaviour in the event that it happens in future to be appropriately investigated and addressed. I understand therefore the aim of what Oliver Mundell is trying to achieve within this amendment, but it does not do that. It is not clear what purpose such a statutory requirement for such a report would serve. My officials have had preliminary discussions with Scra and respect of this issue. I understand that in cases where there is a loss of life, where the child was below the age of criminal responsibility, the principal reporter would brief ministers in those circumstances. That would seem appropriate to me. In addition to that, the Lord Advocate has responsibility in Scotland to investigate any death that requires further explanation, which includes all sudden, suspicious, accidental and unexplained deaths. Again, that seems appropriate to me. I am struggling to see why we would need another statutory reporting mechanism and how that could be achieved without cutting across those existing responsibilities and practices. Clearly, if a child has been involved in behaviour that has resulted in the most serious harm to another person, that requires a wide range of agencies, including Scottish ministers, to consider what happened, how it happened, what is being done to address that. What the role of public and statutory agencies was in the lives of those involved in such an incident. Crucially, and vitally important for victims, we would want to work out how we might prevent something similar happening again in future and take steps to intervene to address the harm that has occurred, as well as to prevent future harm. I think that it is minister for children and young people with wider responsibilities around protecting children from harm. I will take this matter away and consider it more fully, and I undertake to do so. I am just wondering, minister, just based on what you said there, if you can confirm as it currently stands, if there was to be a tragic and unfortunate situation where there was a loss of life as a result of behaviour of somebody under the age of criminal responsibility, the Lord Advocate could still review that death as it stands just now? Certainly, as I said, the Lord Advocate has responsibility in Scotland to investigate any death that requires further explanation, which includes all sudden suspicious, accidental and unexplained deaths, and that to me seems appropriate. I am, as I said, far from convinced that a statutory reporting duty has set out in this amendment is the right way to address this issue. I would therefore ask Mr Mundell not to press his amendment, and if he does, I would ask the committee to resist it. Oliver Mundell, to wind up and press her amendment. I thank the minister for the explanation of her provision, but sadly I do not think that a briefing to ministers is adequate for families of those who have lost a loved one. Furthermore, the points that she makes in relation to the Lord Advocate's duties, a death that has taken place as a result of the action of another that has been subject to— That has been subject to the children's hearing procedure. I do not think that it would count as being unexplained and requiring further information. If you wish to intervene, you need to do it through the chair. Sorry, Oliver Mundell. I am happy to take an intervention. Sorry, it is an intervention right next to you. I am just wondering, based on what you are saying there, Oliver Mundell, if you suggest that the current arrangements that is explained by the minister for what the Lord Advocate can do, you are not satisfied with those, and you do not think that they are adequate in the Lord Advocate, as we have heard. Can you investigate any death sudden or suspicious? I am very satisfied with the current arrangements for the purposes that they are intended. That is to investigate deaths that require further explanation. What those powers do currently is allow the Lord Advocate to examine what had happened in a case that had been determined by the children's hearing system. The bill, particularly in light of the rejection of my previous amendment, removes the Lord Advocate from making consideration of the actions of children younger than 12. I think that maintaining broader confidence in the prosecution system and otherwise, the Lord Advocate should still know what is going on where one citizen in this country takes the life of another. Further more, there is a third part to section 1BII, where a prescribed relative would have access to that information. Both the points that the minister makes relate to purely the Scottish Government or the prosecution's services interests. I think that a relative would expect a written confirmation of what had happened where they have lost a loved one. Having a statutory provision strengthens the bill. I am happy if it is rejected to look at anything that the minister wants to bring forward at stage 3, but for now I would like to press. The question is that amendment 117 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? No. The committee is not agreed, so there will be a division. Can I ask those in favour of the amendments to raise their hands please? Those against the amendment. The result of the division is for the amendment 2, against the amendment 5, and the amendment falls. Amendment 118, in the name of Oliver Mundell, in a group on its own. Oliver Mundell, to move and speak to amendment 118. That is a section that would create a duty on the principal reporter to produce an annual report, outlining an overall picture of the offences covered in section 17981AII. I think that this will be useful information for parliamentarians and for the Government when monitoring this area in the future. Thank you, convener. I was torn on this amendment, I have to say. I thought initially it would help my and other causes in terms of advancing the argument to increase the age of criminal responsibilities still further by showing through Parliament that that means that it is in a public domain, that offending of this nature is microscopic amongst the age groups that we are talking about. However, it also occurred to me that if you put something in the public domain, you lose control of it. As such, elements of the press that might have a dimmer view of further increase in age of criminal responsibility would focus on the egregious nature of the very limited but very severe nature of offences that are a very small handful of children were committing. That would concentrate the public minds around that rather than the small extent of those crimes. To that end, I will not support this amendment. Do any other members wish to speak? Mary Fee. Thank you, convener. I have a great deal of sympathy with the amendment that Oliver Mundell lodged, but I share the same concerns that Alex Cole-Hamilton has just expressed. I am not sure if there is a way to do a report that would minimise the impact that Alex Cole-Hamilton is talking about. If there was a way to script an amendment that would give us more information without causing the damage, I would be happy to support it. However, the way the amendment is drafted at the moment, I cannot support it. Thank you very much. I understand the rationale behind what Oliver Mundell is asking for here. Just as I appreciate the thinking behind the other amendments that seek reporting mechanisms to enable monitoring of changes being introduced in the bill and of its measures, but I have two concerns. One general on the amendments around reporting to date and one specific in relation to amendment 118. In relation to amendment 118, I share the committee members' concerns to ensure that we get the balance right for victims and their families. Clearly, the bill is introducing important new responsibilities and opportunities for information to be shared by SCRA with victims in the most serious cases. Of course, it would be really important to monitor this change. I believe that such information would assist SCRA's work with Victim Support Scotland and its other key partners on the guidance that it is developing on the types of information to be shared under section 22 of the bill and on the broader work that is required to support and respond to victims. Amendment 118 is effectively asking the Scottish Children's Reporter Administration to duplicate the statutory duty that the radio exists to publish an annual report of its performance. I think that what we want to ensure is that the information that we need to monitor the changes is being collated. Members will be aware that a group made up of key organisations and partners has already been set up to consider matters relating to victims. I will ensure that the group considers the issue and how best to achieve the intention behind this amendment in advance of stage 3 of the bill. I will also give further consideration to what more we might do to support victims, including through the appropriate provision of information to them. I will be happy to update the committee before stage 3 on that. On the general point about reporting requirements, my concern is that we have an inconsistent approach with some of the key aspects being monitored and others not being monitored. I think that we need to take a very strategic approach to collating and monitoring and reporting on changes and measures in this bill. I would be happy to look at what amendments are needed in that regard and what could be introduced at stage 3. I hope that that is acceptable to Mr Mundell and I would ask him not to press his amendment. If he insists, I would ask the committee to resist it on the basis that I intend to consider more generally what reporting measures might be useful to include the bill in the bill through amendments potentially at stage 3. Oliver Mundell to wind up and press or withdraw amendment 1. I am happy to accept the minister's reassurances that she will look again at this aspect of the bill at stage 3. However, I object to the specific criticism that is raised by other members and the minister because I think that the idea that we would not provide clarity on what is going on here to the public on the basis that it might be distorted by some aspects of the media is pretty astonishing. I think that the public, parliamentarians, would otherwise have a right to know what is happening in all aspects of our system. I think that those amendments are in the interests of transparency and I hope that, at least when it comes to outlining the number of cases where behaviour is taking place and where information is being provided does get picked up in any reviewing mechanism, but I am happy to not press the amendment for now. That concludes stage 2 consideration of the bill for today. The deadline for amendments to all remaining sections of the bill is 12 noon tomorrow. The committee will meet on Thursday, 7 February, when we will continue stage 2 consideration of the Age of Criminal Responsibility, Scotland Bill. We will now move into private session.