 I apologise to the member. I wasn't able to call. We need to move on to the next item of business. The next item of business is a debate on motion 9610 in the name of Natalie Dawn on children care and justice Scotland Bill at stage 1. I invite members who wish to participate in the debate to press the request to speak buttons now or as soon as possible. I call on Natalie Dawn to speak to and move the motion minister for around nine minutes please. Thank you, Presiding Officer, and I move the motion in my name. I'd like to firstly thank the committee for their scrutiny of the bill, their detailed stage 1 report and their support for the general principles. Scotland and all the parties in this Parliament committed to keeping the promise by 2030. This bill takes forward various key aspects of the promise and will mark a significant step in that journey. Just last week I spoke to over 200 experts at the national youth justice conference on this bill in Stirling, and there was warm support for the objectives and the direction of travel. Fundamentally, the bill provides that where children come into contact with care and justice services or come into conflict with the law, this should happen in age-appropriate systems and settings. The bill also advances rights under the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child and it brings consistency across various parts of care and justice legislation to the definition of a child as a person under 18. This approach builds on our getting it right for every child principles and our youth justice vision to 2024. You'll be aware from the responses given to calls for views and from expert evidence given to committees that there are currently inconsistencies in how Scotland treats particular 16 and 17-year-olds. Provided that does not prevent children's realisation of their rights or leave them vulnerable to harm, policy and legislation related to children and young people may legitimately operate with different age thresholds. That is encouraged under UNCRC where that furthers children's rights in line with evolving capacity. An example of that in Scotland is that children over 16 have the right to vote. Where, however, inconsistencies have or risk a harmful effect on children's rights, we need to address that. In particular, we need to bring coherence. I agree that consistency is infinitely preferable to confusion. If there is confusion about what the age of a child is in one aspect of law as opposed to another, that is not a good thing. I would not agree that inconsistency always leads to confusion. As I have been quite clear, when children's rights can be furthered at that age, that is an appropriate thing to do, but where they can have a harmful effect on children's rights, we absolutely need to address that. In particular, we need to bring coherence to how children experience the children's hearings in criminal justice systems and how those two systems interplay. That bill makes provisions to improve the safeguards available to all children in the criminal justice system. I am very grateful to Natalie Alon to give way on that point. One of the challenges with this, in particular with guards of the UNCRC, is the cross-border placements. Will she be able to address that in this opening? If the member would not mind, I will move on to that later on in my opening remarks. By raising the maximum age of referral to the reporter, the bill takes positive action under the UNCRC. All children should be able to access the hearing system in cases where they may need the care and protection of that system, including where they are in conflict with the law. Importantly, the bill does not disturb the constitutional independence of the Lord Advocate. Procurators Fiscal will retain the discretion to prosecute children and young people in court where this is necessary in the public interest. Where justice and safety demand it, Scotland's courts will still be able to deprive a child of their liberty. Yet, in line with the promise, the bill makes it clear that detention should normally be in a secure accommodation rather than a young offender's institution, at least until that deprivation needs to end or they turn 18. I know that members of the committee have visited secure centres across Scotland and Pullman YOI, and despite the strengths in that facility, we can all hopefully agree that YOIs are not primarily designed as environments for children. Secure care centres, however, are designed, established and staffed to levels that will allow them to be trauma informed and age-appropriate settings. They offer a high staff to child ratio of skilled professionals with the specific qualifications required to meet the complex care and support needs of those young people. Secure care can and already does care for those children aged 16 to 17 who pose the greatest risk of serious harm. The supervision and support arrangements in secure centres are intensive and you will have seen from your visits that when a child is placed there, public protection and safety are critical elements and facilities are locked. I know that stakeholders unanimously express support for ending placement of children in YOIs, but also that some concerns have been raised about capacity and resourcing for secure care, and the Scottish Government is already active in that area. That is why the reimagining secure care project, which the Children and Young People Centre for Justice is undertaking on our behalf, is running in tandem with the bill. A national implementation group for the bill, looking at costs, workforce issues and system readiness, began its work in early June. I know that stakeholders have expressed support for the bill, but I also raised issues about resourcing more broadly. We are acutely aware of the need… Yes, I will. I thank the minister for giving way. Does the minister share my concern? It is the concerns also shared by the Finance and Public Audit Committee over the bill's financial implications and ability to resource what is being outlined in the bill. I understand that there have been many concerns raised. Those concerns were raised in the committee, and again, that is something that I intend to update members on over the course of this debate. In terms of public expenditure, it is important to recognise the wider backdrop of the benefits that those change programmes are advancing. I cannot take another intervention at this moment, I have a lot to get through. In terms of public expenditure, it is important to recognise the wider backdrop of the benefits that those change programmes are advancing. The negative costs to society, both economic and social, of offending and crime, both at the time and into the future, are very well documented. The Promise Follow the Money report estimated the cumulative private costs of physical and emotional harm to care experience children, lost output and public service costs to be £3.9 billion. By investing in services that take an early intervention approach, we can lead to more positive pathways for individuals and for our communities. We are coming from a strong baseline. Between 2008 and 2009 and 2019-20, there was an 85 per cent reduction in the number of children and young people prosecuted in Scotland's courts, and a 93 per cent reduction in 16 and 17-year-olds being sentenced to custody. Although the Government is not complacent and recognises that there will always be a level of offending and a requirement for care and protection in any society, the bill represents a solid step forward. In terms of costs, the Government has engaged widely to prepare forecasts. In addition to our full public consultation, extensive engagement has also taken place with a host of partners and stakeholders. The cost forecasts and the financial memorandum are based on the feedback and figures provided from that engagement. However, as has been raised today, I am aware that the stage 1 process has brought some helpful additional detail and updated information to light. That is part and parcel of the legislative process, and we welcome it. The Government is alert to the need to ensure that forecasts can be refreshed and as up-to-date as possible. That is why the multi-agency implementation group, which started meeting earlier this month, will be absolutely crucial to our preparations and to the later parliamentary stages of the bill. We will work with partners to explore individual and combined resource requirements in more depth and report any necessary updates or clarifications to this Parliament. This work will feed into budget profiles for next year and the years beyond, as is the established process for financial planning for proposed legislation. We are of course mindful that parliamentary agreement is required and therefore we will keep progressions refreshed as the bill moves forward and is amended through scrutiny. The issue of secure care funding has been a key topic during stage 1. Earlier this year, we have had a last vacant bed funding pilot running in each of the four independent secure care centres. I am happy to confirm today that £4.6 million will be invested to extend that exercise to fund up to 16 secure beds so that sufficient capacity will stand ready should the bill be passed. We are also looking closely at the appropriate mechanisms for funding remand costs and will update Parliament when we have concluded that work. Turning briefly to the matter of cross-border placements, none of us want children and young people to be removed from their communities and placed far away from home, family and friends. However, those arrangements need to be able to happen in some very exceptional circumstances. However, there must be rigor in how they are planned for and implemented, and it is vital that those placements are not detrimental to children's rights. The bill will provide further powers to ensure that, for temporary placements, responsibility rightly remains with the placing authority who knows the child and plans their care. By helping to address the causes of a child's offending behaviour, we can assist them to desist and to rehabilitate. In turn, we can prevent further harm and minimise the number of victims. I hope that those opening remarks are helpful and I move the motion in my name. Thank you minister. With apologies, I need to advise the chamber that there is no time in hand therefore interventions will have to be subsumed within your speaking time allocation, and that means no in conclusion as you reach your four or your six minutes. I now call Sue Webber on behalf of the Education, Children and Young People up to seven minutes. I am delighted to be speaking today on behalf of the Education, Children and Young People Committee. I would like to thank my colleagues for their diligent work on the bill so far, and to all the people and organisations who provided evidence, either in person or by responding to our calls for views. The committee would also like to thank Jerry Mishie, Mary Guiney, Jim Shields and the respective teams who will generously give up their time and share their insights with the committee's visits when we visited the YOI polemant, Rossie Young People's Trust and St Mary's Kenmure. In particular, we are grateful to the young people that we met when we were on our visits to Rossie and St Mary's Kenmure. Lastly, the committee is grateful to the Criminal Justice Committee, Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee and the Finance and Public Administration Committee for their work scrutinising the bill and for sharing their conclusions and recommendations timuously so that we could reflect on them when considering our report. As our report makes clear, there is broad support for raising the maximum age at which a young person can be referred to the children's hearing system to 18. That will end the current inequity, which means that only some 16 and 17-year-olds can be referred to a children's hearing, whether they are being referred on offence grounds or, as is the case for the vast majority, solely on welfare grounds. However, as our report makes clear, the success of this legislation will depend on the ability of young people to be given the support and interventions that they require to address their underlying needs. The bill will pose significant resourcing and training challenges to a number of key agencies, including children's hearing Scotland, the Scotland Children's Reporters Administration and local authorities, including social work teams. The committee heard that social work teams and others are already stretched and that they do not currently have the capacity to deliver the increase in support that the measures in this bill will require. The committee was concerned about the lack of financial information for some parts of the bill and the lower estimates used in others. The committee would welcome the minister's commitment to provide an update on that and some of the expanded costings. On that point, I might pick up your point and catch my eye later on. Given how vital support packages are for children and young people to successfully reduce re-offending and provide them care for children with complex needs, the committee was firmly of the view that the updated and expanding costings must be provided ahead of this debate to ensure that the Parliament has the full information before being asked to vote on the bill. While we appreciate that the Scottish Government's response to our report identified areas for possible inclusion in its supplementary financial memorandum, the committee is gravely concerned that the actual costs have not been placed before Parliament before it is being asked to vote on this bill. The timing of this debate was of the Scottish Government's choosing. If the Scottish Government could not have the full financial information available ahead of the debate today, it could have postponed it for a time when it did. The committee's visits to YOI Pullment and the Secure Accommodation Services, run by Rossies Young People Trust and St Mary's Kenmore, helped us to understand the different environments and the tools that staff have to support young people in their care. There was broad support, including from the Governor, Mr Michi, on YOI Pullment, for the measure that will ensure that 16 and 17-year-olds who are to be deprived of their liberty are no longer sent to prison or a young offender's institution but rather to secure accommodation. Many stakeholders highlighted that secure accommodation provides a more therapeutic environment than at YOIs, with staff who have more specialised training and higher staff to child ratios. The committee heard that this environment offers a far better opportunity for a child to receive care, be rehabilitated and following their time in secure care to reintegrate, importantly, into their community. However, the committee heard that of 78 out of the 84 places in the secure accommodation estate are provided by charities, which are dependent on occupancy rates of 90 per cent to remain viable. The Scottish Government ran a pilot earlier this year to hold a bed in each of the independently run secure accommodation services and should a Scottish child need it. The committee noted that the Scottish Government was seeking to extend and increase the pilot to secure four places at each of the services to provide capacity and, again, importantly, make the centres more financially viable. I am pleased that the minister today has confirmed that the pilot has been extended, and I am sure that that will give a lot of support and reassurance to the secure care providers. However, given the vital nature of its work, it is essential that secure accommodation services are financially sustainable. Although we recognise that there is currently a review of secure care under way and that it is considering funding of the sector, the review is not due to report until spring 2024. The committee asked the Scottish Government to urgently produce interim findings to set out how the measures in this bill are likely to affect the financial sustainability of the secure care sector, and we welcome the minister's commitment to do so in August. In conclusion, the Education, Children and Young People Committee supports the general principles of the bill. However, successful implementation will depend on services that have not been adequately costed. There must be full costings and a commitment to provide the resources that are required to ensure that the bill can achieve its aims. There is a lot to digest in the Children, Care and Justice Scotland bill, and I am sure that many would have preferred a standalone debate this afternoon. I can fully understand the challenges for members who have been allocated only four minutes, as they will be stuck for time to develop their arguments today. I do not think that that allows for good debate. However, I understand that that is process related and one for bureau. However, when it comes to important bills such as this, members need the time to debate and challenge the thoughts of others in this chamber. Turning to the bill itself, I would like to start on a positive note. The Minister for Children and Young People and I had a productive meeting recently where we discussed issues relating to her brief, and that is one that I shadow. I do hope that we can work together on this bill and across other issues. We both care about the wellbeing and safeguarding of children and young people. I also agree with the principle of the Children, Care and Justice bill, supporting young people, whether they are victims or perpetrators for minor crimes, to try and reduce re-offending and to ensure that wraparound care is available. Should the bill be approved by Parliament, it would increase the age of a child from 16 to 18 in the criminal justice system and will see most offences committed by under-18s being dealt with by the children's hearing system rather than the court system. However, the bill does not come without its problems. Some are historical, but it is imperative that we as MSPs do not allow bad law to pass through this Parliament. I welcome the opportunity to debate what age a child becomes an adult. This is something that I have struggled with when looking at devolved law. As the SNP has moved the gold post, depending on portfolio area, you can get married at 16 by alcohol or get to a tattoo at 18, but you are not viewed as an adult until 21 or 25 when you are looking at justice-related issues. Then there is the gender recognition reform bill. The SNP are suggesting that young people should be able to change their gender at 16, but the bill changes the age of a child from 16 to 18. I think that we need to have a serious conversation about age in Scotland. However, I understand that this discussion will need to be for another day. My colleague Sue Webber, in her capacity as education and young people committee convener, has highlighted valid concerns by MSPs who sit on this committee. She raised the important issue over finance and resource. The bill, as it stands just now, lacks detail on costings and outlines issues regarding key agencies. The Finance and Public Administration Committee also highlighted the lack of financial information contained in the financial memorandum. In my view, that already puts the bill at a disadvantage. It brings doubt over its deliverability and provides no reassurance that bodies such as local authorities, children's hearing and others will be able to implement the changes that the legislation brings. I could not agree more with Sue Webber over the timings of the bill. With no full costings, it is like putting the cart before the horse when looking at the legislation. I would like to ask the member whether she recognises that the full costings were worked out with key stakeholders. We have committed to bringing back a supplementary financial memorandum, which is the usual process in terms of legislation. I take the point raised by the minister. I think that Sue Webber's point of having the bill linked to that would have been more appropriate, so we would be debating legislation with better costings than what we have at present. My concern is that we have agencies and key bodies that will be imperative with the legislation, not knowing whether they will be able to implement what the bill is asking them to do. I will now look at issues relating to the children's hearing system. At present, the children's hearing system is stretched to breaking point. It is a volunteer system at present, but there are issues such as areas such as Aberdeen that find it difficult to recruit volunteers and have to rely on volunteers from other areas to fill the backlog of cases. If that changes in the bill in stage 1 and it is approved, the hearing system would therefore need to recruit an additional 270 panel members. That would be a challenge given the current recruitment issues. However, there is also the serious concerns raised by former panel members over the culture and behaviour within the children's hearing system. It has been reported that panel members have had their reputations ruined because of the internal complaints system within CHS, and they have called for an investigation on the behaviours within the organisation. I would be grateful if the minister could meet with the group before stage 2 if she has not already to hear their concerns, because the bill proposes extending the measures that may include in a compulsory supervision order, which will give the children's hearing system greater choice when deciding on which measures are suitable to a child's individual needs. The Education and Skills Committee also raised concerns surrounding section 3 of the bill when looking at victims in trauma. Stage 3 could put onus to avoid people in locations that are harmful to them. I agree with the committee that the Scottish Government must consider wider needs of victims and how they can be met, especially when navigating the criminal justice system in CHS. I have not even touched on the bill's intention to clarify the test to be applied when a children's hearing or sheriff is considering secure accommodation in CSOs, the introduction of an interim compulsory supervision order, cross-border placements or care experience young people. I understand only to close my remarks that the severity of crime and information that can or cannot be shared. There will be nervousness within the chamber about what is classed as a severe crime. Of course, there is the obvious, which is murdered in rape. However, I think that we do need to tread carefully about where a young person is detained, especially when crimes are so severe. I will conclude my remarks now. There is merit in the children's hearing justice bill, but I feel as though there have been many missed opportunities. We will no doubt get to these at stage 2, Presiding Officer. Thank you very much, Ms Gallagher. I now call Pam Duncan-Glancy up to five minutes, Ms Duncan-Glancy. Thank you, Presiding Officer, and I will do my best. Before I begin, I would like to thank all those who gave evidence to the committee on this bill and to the secure accommodation providers and people who live there who allowed the committee members to visit and see firsthand the work that they do. Presiding Officer, Scottish Labour welcomes and supports the general principles of this bill and will be voting in favour at decision time today. It is purpose to improve the experiences and outcomes and strengthen the rights of children and young people who come into contact with the criminal justice system is something that we stand firmly in support of. However, as was made clear throughout the committee scrutiny and we have heard already today, there are a number of issues with the bill as it is currently set out, and a number of areas that need greater clarity, not least in terms of the associated costs and the financial memorandum. Members will be aware that both the Education, Children and Young People's Committee and the Finance and Public Audit Committee have raised concerns about that. Although I accept that legislation of this nature will, of course, be subject to some level of approximation when it comes to figures, it is clear that, in this case, even the rough estimates appear to be far off the mark in many areas of the bill, in the cost of training panel members and the implications for social work services and the impact on legal services and legal aid, to name a few. Local authorities, COSLA, Social Work Scotland all have raised concerns that the Government has not given an accurate representation of resources needed to implement properly and get the full benefit from the changes that the legislation proposes. It has also become apparent, and I know that the Minister has accepted this, that the projected number of additional hearings used by the Government on the project done are projected lower than the number suggested by the Scottish Children's Reporter, and those numbers must be revised. The same is true of the estimated costs arising from the extension of the use of movement restriction orders. The Government have only accounted for costs of monitoring itself and not the additional support that must go along with it. Widening availability of these orders as an alternative to secure care must come hand in hand with proper support measures so that people can be restricted, understand why they are restricted and are supported to adhere to it. It appears that, across many areas of the legislation, the Government have also lost sight of the co-branding principles that the best interests of the child, wellbeing and support, must be central to the system. That all needs proper resource, training and support, and I worry, like others, that the finance associated with the bill is instead based on a minimum standard of delivery. I welcome the Minister's acknowledgement that the financial memorandum needs updated, and I appreciate our commitment to do it, but I want to be clear and put in the record today my firm disappointment that, despite the committee's clear recommendation for this to happen prior to today's debate, updated figures have not been provided. It is important that members have a clear picture of resources needed to do legislation and that young people justice. Almost every contributor to the committee evidence call called for more resources to be provided to what is an already overstretched and strained system. In many areas, those changes will increase demand in areas where capacity is creaking. The changes that the bill sets out could have the potential to improve lives, but if the support around it and the services needed to give that support do not have the resources to do it, it will not live up to its potential and, in some cases, could even end up worse than it is now. None of us want that. I am conscious that other members as well have already expanded on the financial challenges, so I will move on to cover some of the other areas. The changes that are set out in section 1 that redefine a child within the system, as anyone under 18, are welcome and align with the definition that is set out in article 1 of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. I have made clear my frustration with the delays to incorporation of that convention on many occasions and remain disappointed that the Government has still not moved to bring it back to Parliament. However, in its absence, I welcome wider legislative changes that seek to better align devolved policy and practice with its principles. However, I am concerned that how that change is set to operate in practice will continue to fall short of what is required. The Government has indicated that the effective cut-off age for referral will be set at 17.5 to take account of the processing time in the system. It suggests that the immense, the imminence of an 18th birthday would make it impractical or impossible for the child to be dealt with appropriately by the children's reporter. However, that fails to take account of the UNCRC stipulation, that the date of incident should be the one that is important, not the date at which the processing has been completed. I am afraid that I do not have time to do that. I understand the logic behind the decision, but I cannot support it. Should the Government be particularly concerned about complications that may come about from someone exceeding 18 by the point that they are dealt with in the system, it should focus on reducing delays, not abandoning the principle of equal access. It is important to make clear also that, should a children's panel find a person guilty of an offence, it can remain on their record, and so it is vital to ensure that any admission or finding of guilt has to come in a fair and just manner. We, on those benches, feel strongly that provision should be made to ensure that legal representation is available in any conversation that could lead to conviction. To conclude, to ensure that the bill is equipped to deliver on its aims and meet its potential, clarity on the finance must be addressed, there must be suspicion, funding to resource it, there should be enhanced victim support and that must be forthcoming. The best interests of the child must be at the heart of that. I believe a principle all of us in this chamber today support. I will re-emphasise the tightness of time and I am going to have to now keep everybody to exactly their time, if not less first. Will there be any up to four minutes, please? The committee visited Parliament. It was a prison and I don't think that children should be in prisons. I've been in court before and I don't think that children should be in court. That's fundamentally what we need to do with this bill and that's why we'll support the bill. Today, with the oversight board report, I think that it just emphasises how we need to act with speed in order to deliver the promise because young people have got great expectations about what this Parliament will do for them and we need to match that. We've heard much about the concerns about the costings and I think that this really speaks to a deeper anxiety in local authorities but also the delivery partners that they might be left to pick up the tab on this. That's why we're asking all these questions about whether the costings are real or not. I hope that the minister takes that and I understand the points about getting the most up-to-date figures. I get that. I understand the desire to move at pace but we must, at the end of this process, end up with a system that is deliverable and can be funded because if we don't, those very children that we've just talked about will be let down. I hope that the minister does take that on board and make sure that at the next stage we have the full list of costings and that they are realistic and that local authorities and others will have the money that they need in order to deliver that. This bill is full of principle but, on some occasions, I think that the balance between principle and compromise is, I think, a tenth into compromise. I take the 17.5-year-old issue. I understand the practicalities of the processing time but young people shouldn't suffer because of the inadequacy of the system. They need to be given their rights no matter what. Perhaps the response to that has to be the youth justice reforms, which I hope come more in line with what we are intending for young people. I know that Glasgow youth court proposals or pilots will maybe speak to a bit of that. We need to reflect on the 17.5-year-old issue because I don't think that it is necessarily fair or sticks to the principle. I have very little time, I am afraid. The other issue on police custody is that police cells are not a place for children but it goes on to say that, if it is necessary to have them in police cells, that is how we should ensure that the practice is applied. If they are not suitable for children, we need to move at a lightning speed to create facilities that are suitable for children rather than putting them up in the cells. The final one is secure transport. I read the response from the minister to the committee on that. It is almost as if she is shugging her shoulders because she does not know what the solution is to that. She is saying that legislation is not the answer. The care inspector is saying that they are not responsible for that. We need an issue that is resolved at speed. We should not have vehicles travelling from Portsmouth to take children from one part of Scotland to the other. Sometimes the shorter distance is 50 miles. That is just insane. We need to have a system of secure transport based in Scotland that is affordable because money is going to be tight. I hope that the Government takes the lead on that rather than shugging its shoulders. There are a number of difficult issues in terms of victim notification, but there is also secure unit viability and the capacity of the children's hearing system. We need answers to all of that. That debate is far too short. We need much longer, and I hope that we will get more time in future debates. Under the standing orders rule 9.32, a bill that is introduced must be accompanied by a financial memorandum that sets out best estimates. We have heard from the convener of the Education Committee that it was not in fact that. It was in fact lowest estimates, and we have also heard evidence that it is a ranging estimate. Are you aware of any confirmation from the Government that the figures that have been published in the financial memorandum are the best estimates? I thank Martin Whitefield for his point of order. My understanding is that, in a sense, that would be a matter for the lead committee, when primarily the finance committee in the first instance, and then a matter for the lead committee, the education committee to take account of. However, that would be the responsibility of the Government to speak to the financial memorandum that attaches to any bill. We now move to the point of order, Stephen Cair. For clarity, the responsibility to ensure that the financial memorandum is the best estimate of the cost of the legislation. Are you saying that that is with the committee, or with the Government, or with the officer's office, given the evidence that has come from both of the committees that have raised concerns about how wildly out the financial memorandum is for this legislation? I thank Mr Cair for his further point of order. I would say that, in the first instance, the preparation of a financial memorandum is a matter for the Government, is then a matter for the finance committee to satisfy themselves as to the veracity or otherwise of the financial memorandum, and that would be taken into account by the lead committee in this instance, the education committee. Further point of order, Stephen Cair. Because this is so important, we are making law in such a compressed time. Frankly, it is almost verding on farcical. The lead committee for this bill reported that the financial memorandum is utterly unsuitable and unacceptable. In fact, it specifically said that it should be updated in advance of this debate. Whose judgment are we operating on here? If it is the committee's judgment, I suggest that perhaps we should adjourn this debate because, frankly, we are in a situation in which we are addressing ourselves to subject matter that is, frankly, unknown. I thank Mr Cair for his further point of order. As I said, the education committee has made clear its view on this. It is up to Parliament later on this afternoon to take a view as to whether or not it is satisfied with the responses that it has heard. However, the issue has been aired as part of this debate. I do not think that there is anything more that I can add in relation to those points of order. We now move to the open debate. I call Ruth Maguire to be followed by Ross McCall, a very strict four-minute Ruth Maguire. It is not possible in the time available to cover all the aspects of this really important report. In the short time that I have, I will speak to two areas of concern that I would welcome further discussion with the minister in order to explore possible resolution or amendment at stage 2. Those are legal representation and the treatment of child victims of crime. In terms of legal representation, it is of grave concern to me that a young person could accept offence grounds without understanding the full implications of that decision. As Katie Nisbit of child clan law explained in her evidence, offence grounds are libled in the same way as a criminal charge would be, including reference to the crime and the behaviour that supports that the crime has been committed. Where those grounds are agreed by the child without a hearing on evidence and with no automatic right to legal advice, they can be disclosed in PVG checks years later. I acknowledge the points made in the Government's response to the committee report that an offence dealt with through the hearing system is spent immediately. However, it is the case that, for offences such as serious sexual violence, theft and fraud, those remain visible on PVG checks. It is not difficult to see the impact that those would have on future employment opportunities in later life. The child will only be referred to a solicitor if they refuse to agree the grounds or do not appear to understand the grounds, in which case the matter is referred to the sheriff court for what is known as a proof hearing. Although advice by way of representation can be applied for, it is considered on the basis of a means and merit assessment. In other words, it is not granted as a matter of right, nor is there any duty on part of the children's reporter to ensure a child knows about this option to obtain legal advice. The seriousness of the consequences of agreeing offence grounds that it will be treated as a criminal conviction in certain disclosure contexts is not always adequately explained, neither is the potential impact of the disclosure of the criminal offence. As such, a support child clan laws calls for automatic legal representation for children when being presented with offence grounds and feel that this should be addressed on the face of the bill. Our committee report recognised the challenge of balancing rights of those offending against those of the victims harmed by that offending behaviour. This is never starker than when both parties are children. MSPs will recognise from their own case work situations where that balance has been off, has not felt just and the child harmed has been further traumatised by the actions of our care and justice system, a system that was intending to do their best for the child who had caused a harm. Giving evidence for victim support Scotland, Kate Wallace stated that the balance of rights in the bill is currently drafted isn't correct with the focus on the child who is harmed and not as much on the child who has been harmed. She went on to explain that, with regard to information sharing, if you are offended against by an adult, you can opt into a victim notification scheme in order to get information if someone has escaped or absconded from prison. You are also entitled to know when they are released. However, if, for example, you have been subjected to a serious sexual assault by a child or a young person who ends up in secure care and goes through that route, at the moment you will not be informed about when they leave that secure establishment. I fully understand the challenges around information sharing but feel that it is simply not good enough that, in such circumstances, victims cannot plan effectively for their own safety. To build on Scotland's progressive approach to children's rights in line with the UNCRC, we must not shy away from acknowledging and addressing the potential conflict of rights, then carefully, openly working our way through the issues to balance them. It can and must be done. I believe that this is essential, fundamentally, for obvious reasons of fairness, but also, as important, because by getting that balance right, we will ensure that the public have confidence in these really important reforms to improve our justice system for children and young people. I want to start by agreeing with the principles behind the legislation and considering my very vocal stance on anything promise related. I accept that we must move forward with some speed if we are to uphold the good intentions of the promise report. That said, there are parts of this bill that I think need to be carefully thought through and properly analysed as it progresses through stages 2 and 3. I note the changing of the age of referral to our children's hearing from 16 to 18 years old. That is us moving towards upholding the promise by extending the provisions of the children's hearing system to incorporate older children and incorporating the UNCRC into Scots law by upholding children's rights. However, it raises a very valid point that we should bring forward for debate, obviously not today. I refer to the suggestion from the faculty of advocates that there should be a review of the definition of the child across Scots law, and it begs the question, in a legal sense, when does a child become an adult? In the short term, I have been a member of this Parliament, we have debated and discussed contradictory arguments on this point, contradictions not based on political lines or overarching ideologies but on bills that we have before us. Currently, a 16-year-old can legally leave school, move out of their parents' home, apply for a passport, get married, have children, have a job, pay taxes, vote, even change their name, but they can't drive, get a tattoo, watch an 18-rated film by cigarettes or a pint in a pub. That's before we take into consideration the Scottish Government's policies on changing gender or standing for Parliament. If a young person is a child at the age of 18 in care and judicial setting, then why is a young person not a child to the age of 18 in all other aspects of law? I really am short of time, my apologies. I also note the changes proposed to the children's hearing system by Sheriff Davie Mackie, hearings for children's support recently published, and it's a move towards a single point of authority, paid position to support care-experienced young people through the hearing system, and that will have an effect on the ongoing process of this bill. Whilst that looks to radically change the volunteer process of the hearing process and panels, it is important to highlight that if we are going to increase the number of young people utilising the hearing process, we must ensure that adequate training, support, funding and expertise are provided to. Currently, we know that there is a shortage of children panel volunteers. It is estimated that the bill will result in a need to increase panel members by between 10 to 20 per cent. We don't have that. We will be asking panel members in some cases to review some of the most concerning cases in a judicial capacity, and it is imperative that all relevant training and support is given to ensure that this not only works for young people that we would consider from a care-experienced environment but for all young people in Scotland. If we don't ensure that the capacity is there, then we will fall and fail at the first hurdle. I'm a little faster than I thought, but in conclusion, Presiding Officer, whilst I support the intentions of the bill, I am encouraged by the process towards implementing the promise, the Government must recognise the effort required to ensure that this will work out with the care-experienced silo but for all of society. I begin reiterating my comments made during last week's debate on education, children and young people committees' report on its college regionalisation inquiry, that although I recently joined the committee, I'd like to thank everyone who was involved, all other members, plus the clerking team, who have done a fantastic job. Introduced last December, the bill aims to make changes to the law in relation to the care of children and the involvement of children in the criminal justice system by legislating on a number of areas, including changing the age of referral to a children's hearing from 16-year-old to 18-year-old, both for welfare and on criminal grounds, ending under 18s being detained in young offenders institutions with secure accommodation services being the alternative, legislating on the support, care and education that must be provided to children accommodated there and extending the meaning of child to under-18s in other areas of previous legislation covering children and young people. I welcome the broad support for the bill's aims and the measures to achieve them from the committee and from organisations that gave evidence at stage 1. In its briefing to members, the Children and Young People's Commissioner notes that this bill will help Scotland to meet its international human rights obligations to ensure that children's rights are protected when they are in need of care and protection, whether they are in conflict with the law. The commissioner goes on to welcome proposed changes to ensure that child is understood as meaning any person under the age of 18 in line with article 1 of the UNCRC. Children First, who, with more than 130 years of experience working with children, have also welcomed the proposed changes. They believe that any changes need to be considered holistically with other services such as in the Scandinavian Barnahouse model, which is currently being introduced to Scotland with Children First and partners' leading practice developments, stressing that, in their view, it is essential that Bairnshouse developments are aligned with the Children's Care and Justice Bill. That view is backed by Bernardus Scotland, who echoed that point by saying that many of the children, young people and families that they work with have experienced trauma, loss and abuse, which can have significant lasting impacts on their lives and what they particularly need is support with their mental health and wellbeing, as well as other holistic intensive support. On that point, particularly I hope, as a committee, we revisit the issue at stage 2 considerations and look forward to hearing more from the organisations and how we can facilitate that within the bill. Barnahouse and others also strongly support the bill's intention to remove all children under the age of 18 from young offenders institutions. They also note that, while the numbers of children being detained within prisons has drastically reduced in recent years, as of June 2023, there are still a small number of people, children under the age of 18, who remain in residence at young offenders in Poland. Although they strongly welcome the proposals to ensure that even a small number of children are not detained in YOIs, they share the committee's view that there should be no loopholes in the system, allowing for children aged 17 and a half years old to be included within the remit of the adult criminal justice system. On that point, as before, I hope and assure those listening that the committee will work together at stage 2 to address those concerns. The Scottish Government's response to the committee's report, which was received yesterday and which picks up on the committee's point, that it is essential that the public understands the rationale for the changes brought about by this bill, is welcome, as is the information that the Government is actively considering a communication strategy for the bill. I think that such a strategy is essential and urged the Government to update the committee as soon as possible on progress, because, if we want those changes and the bill to be effective, then clear, concise information is essential to ensure smooth implementation and harmonise holistic aims. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. Thank you, Mr Kidd. I now call Richard Leonard to be followed by Audrey Nicol up to four minutes, Mr Leonard. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. Children are not the property of their parents, they are the responsibility of society. If they are healthy, educated, loved, rather than born in overcrowded housing, into semi-starvation, in multiple deprivation, then they will grow up to be useful citizens, giving something back not just to their families, not just to their communities but to society as a whole. But we live in the most unequal, class-ridden economy with widespread and institutionalised poverty. According to the Scotland Children's Reporter Administration, two out of every three children who are referred to a children's hearing are growing up in neighbourhoods that are deprived, two out of three. They didn't choose to be born there, it is not within their control. Almost half who are referred to a hearing are the victims of parental neglect, a half. From the earliest age they have been failed. That is not their choice either. Many of these young people have been through enough trauma maimed in body and spirit, so it should come as no surprise that there is a strong correlation between those young people offending and those young people who have their own welfare needs. They are all too often the very same young people. Of course we are all responsible for their care and protection, but it is not only our task, it is our duty as elected members of this parliament to make it possible for them to live useful, fulfilling, loving lives and to do so in peace. In recent weeks there have been calls for a takeover of the children's hearing system to change the decision making model to one with, I quote, highly skilled, salaried professionals by which it is meant lawyers. We are told of complexities of the ECHR, of the legal arms race in the system, but that is to miss the point. The children and young people in whose best interests this is meant to work and who we are here to serve must be at the centre of it. That means that they must be able to comprehend it, so if it has been suggested that we scrap and sweep aside experienced already intensively trained adult lay panel members because it is all too complicated for them, what chance have our children and our young people got? And then this economically and socially segregated society of ours, how many of these professionals live in the same local communities, let alone in these most deprived neighbourhoods where the vast majority of these children live? Putting the professional managerial class in charge in control of the system, breaching the very ethos, the very principles, the very philosophy of Kilbrandon, taking away the voice of community, of lived experience from the panel, abandoning the use in the words of Kilbrandon of a lay panel to reach decisions on treatment in a preventative and educational approach where the paramount question in every case, I quote, must be the child's interests, would not be a step forward, it would be a step backward. It would undermine the democratic nature of the panel itself, but worse it opens the door to the unwanted, the tawdry influence of money into Scotland's children's hearing system. That is not to say that there aren't reforms which could usefully be made, better alignment with mental health legislation and then to the national scandal of camps, alternative to the hospitalisation of our youngsters in acute psychiatric wards would be a start. But the analysis about the financial memorandum not being adequate needs to be paid attention to because we need to get this right. Too many young people, too many children, some as yet unborn depend on it. I'm very pleased to speak in this afternoon's debate as convener of the criminal justice committee. The committee took evidence as a secondary committee on the justice provisions and I thank all the witnesses who gave evidence to members and in the short time available I want to highlight two key issues. Firstly, the use of secure care. The bill proposes any child aged 18 or under should be held in a secure care setting rather than a young offender's institution. The bill also allows for a young person up to the age of 19 not to then automatically transfer to a IOI if this is in the young person's best interests and not contrary to the best interests of other children within the secure care facility. During our scrutiny, the governor of HMP YOI, Paul Mont, told us that at that point he had seven young people in custody but that no 16 or 17-year-old child should be in his care and that holding them in secure care rather than a YOI was morally the right thing to do. His view was supported by other witnesses, including Linda Allen, whose daughter Katie took her own life in pole month and who now campaigns on behalf of young offenders. I pay tribute to Linda's courage when speaking to the committee. Secure care is not a soft option. A young person is still removed from the community but will receive far more appropriate care than in a prison setting. Staff to offender ratios are better with staff more appropriately trained and skilled to deliver a trauma informed setting within which young people are better supported and their needs met. It is for those reasons that there was strong support for the proposal that young people aged 18 or under should no longer be held in a YOI and are better held in a secure care setting. However, we need assurances that the necessary resources will be put in place to deliver the changes necessary, given that secure care places can cost up to four times more than a YOI. For the very small minority of young people aged 18 or under and who may present a risk to others, the secure care estate may need to be reconfigured so that they are held securely while minimising risk of harm to themselves or others. Thirdly, the committee heard that future reconsideration should be given to a more flexible, individualised system and not one based on age criteria alone. The second issue that we considered was the rights of children held in police custody. Whilst we broadly welcomed the bill's provisions, we again sought assurances about resources. That recognised the funding implications for local authorities in their proposed new role of providing an alternative place of safety for a child rather than holding them in a police cell. In conclusion, this is an important bill, and whilst it was not for our committee to conclude on the general principles of the bill, we did hear support for the two main provisions that I have covered in the short time available to me today. I thank my fellow committee members for their constructive and collegiate approach to scrutiny of those provisions and to all the witnesses who engaged with us. The intentions of the bill are welcomed across Parliament and across the country, I believe. Although our committee processes raised serious concerns that should be addressed, it is clear that substantive consideration has been given to some of the tricky issues here, such as the balance of rights between children who have committed offence and those who are the victims of that offending, which is particularly difficult given the high proportion of children who offend, being themselves victims. I focus my time on the situation in secure transport. Transport provision for young people in secure care has been a bit of a missing link when it comes to the gradual raising of standards, quality and accountability in recent years. I thank the Hope Instead of Handcuffs campaign for raising the profile of the issue. It highlighted to Parliament that children in Scotland are being inappropriately restrained when in the care of secure transport providers, including by the use of handcuffs in situations where they are simply not necessary. The use of restraint against children has rightly been the subject of significant scrutiny and debate both in this Parliament and in council chambers across the country in recent years. Progress has been made in relation to schools, specifically with much improved guidance having been produced, but restraint in secure transport settings has been underscrutinised up until now. The evidence received by the committee made it clear that key stakeholders, including local authorities and secure accommodation providers, want to see that gap closed. With that broad agreement clear, much of our discussion in the committee at stage 1 focused on the method by which we could apply clear rules and standards. It could be via guidance, something that COSLA and key partners are already working on, or via regulation amending the bill to give ministers that power at a later date, or we could put it directly on the face of the bill. There were mixed views on the route to take. It would be fair to say that the balance of views is leaned towards the regulations approach, giving us the flexibility that we provide as well as the opportunity to take a bit more time to develop specifics than would be the case if we placed those standards directly on the face of the bill. I would highlight that other contributors, such as the children and young people's commissioners office, did state a preference for putting it in primary legislation. I am personally firmly the view that it needs to go into legislation, but I do not have a particularly strong feeling for whether that should be primary or regulation by a secondary legislation, so I am looking forward to engaging with the minister and officials before stage 2 to consider that. There is a clear need to restrict the use of restraint against children in secure transportation, but it is based on anecdotal evidence that demonstrates the second issue, that of reporting or the lack of reporting. At present, there are no consistent reporting requirements for secure transport providers. After incidents of restraint, some inform the accommodation provider, some inform the local authority, but in many cases it seems that no report is being made at all. Even when reports are made, there is no mechanism for them to be collated. COSLA and its sector partners are doing good work here, but they agree that the bill is an appropriate way to set clear reporting requirements. Not only should the bill set those requirements in each individual instance, but clear responsibility needs to be assigned whether it is to the care inspector or another appropriate national body for the collation of those reports, giving us an accurate picture of what is going on. One issue raised during evidence gathering in the bill, which needs to be addressed, but largely outside of legislation, is the availability of secure transport. We were stunned on the committee to hear that secure transport providers are so close to non-existent in Scotland that providers are being forced to procure transport from those based as far south as Portsmouth for journeys as short as going from Montrose to Ninewell's hospital or from one side of Glasgow to the other. We did not have time to fully understand the lack of Scotland-based transport providers, but it is clear that the system is currently incredibly inefficient and failing the young people involved. I welcome the minister's commitment to take action both through and out with the bill to improve the situation in secure transport for children and young people, but I do share, while there are any concerns about the level of ambition that we need to place on that, because the current situation is currently unacceptable to all those involved. I look forward to working with the minister on amendments and wider policy changes that are required to make the improvements that we all agree are necessary. I thank members for their contributions so far. It has been an interesting but far too short a debate and something will become accustomed to it. This is a really important and complex subject. It merits far more chamber time. I cannot believe that we are squashing stage 1 and stage 3 debate into two and a half hours of chamber time on Thursday afternoon. It does not do any justice to the great work that is done by all the committees. I think that the Government and its business managers really need to reflect on the issue. It is becoming a problem in its stifling debate. No one can take inventions, for example. I have a few points to make in the bill, because I was in part of the justice committee, which was one of the feeder committees, and we did a good report into it. We did not spend a huge amount of time on it, but we certainly looked at the justice elements of it and children's experiences in secure accommodation, young offenders institutions and, of course, sadly, as we know in prison some of them as well, although those numbers are reducing. I think that there is a general feeling, certainly what I am picking up this afternoon, is that there is a consensus in some areas that this is a well-intended bill. The concept of promoting consistency within our criminal justice system and, of course, doing more to uphold the human rights of children within that system are welcome objectives, as I see and hear no political adversarial arguments about that. However, I think that there are clearly some concerns, at least those around, for example, the financial memorandum around the deliverability of it and, really, about some of the inconsistencies around the bill and how the bill interacts with other legislation. I think that there are serious issues that the lead committee will have to grapple with in the coming months. All I would say is that please do not rush this. Let's not have another farcego situation, where we have last minute amendments to legislation that simply end up with a bill that does not make sense and is unworkable and is financially unaffordable. We have seen that far too often in the past couple of years. I have a couple of points on the issue of detention. The proposal that someone could stay in secure care beyond their 18th birthday, I think, up until their 19th, is, perhaps, controversial by understanding the flexibility that may afford individuals in certain circumstances. It may be the right thing to do, and that is why the Justice Committee said that we were okay with that. I think that many people really have a problem with that being extended towards the 18th to 21th group or even beyond that in the 21th to 25th group. We took evidence to that accord. In fact, I was quite worried that what the minister said that is something that they may look at in the future. I do not think that that should be a scenario. A secure care environment designed for and housed by children should not have any adults in it, depending on what your definition of an adult is these days, because we know the tragic consequences of getting that wrong. As Victim Support Scotland said, Ruth Maguire and her contribution made a very valid point that older children do bad things to younger children, and that the safety is an absolute paramount of those people. I echo recommendations that any changes to the age at which a young person can be sent, for example, to a YYY, should only be made through primary legislation and primary legislation alone. There is another problem here that we often feel too often to listen to the victims, often women or young girls, who are suffering at the hands of young men of various ages. All they ask for when they speak to committees is just some fairness and balance in the system. You understand this need to get rights, appropriating that the law is one way of dealing with that, but all they ever ask for is fairness. I have absolutely no time whatsoever to talk about the issue of care, our custody and children being kept in police cells, availability of appropriate legal representation when being interviewed by police, and there are a whole bunch of other issues that I do hope that we get the opportunity to do, which we would have if we had a full and proper debate on that. Although we are moving forward, I think that we should proceed with caution. This is a well-intended bill and there are some positive elements to it, but there are currently some real concerns. I think that we are going to hear more of those not just today, but through stages 2 and 3. The Government absolutely must listen to them. Thank you very much, Mr Grahame. We now come to the final speaker in the open debate, Cole Capsule, at again up to four minutes, please. Thank you, Presiding Officer. There is an old adage that resonates very deeply, which says that you can judge a country by the treatment of its prisoners, coping with difficulty while retaining compassion and humility. That is where the challenge really lies. Young people are our present and our future, and, obviously, we have to nurture them. There is no denying that the criminal justice system in Scotland has evolved greatly in recent years, not least in its treatment of our young people, who find themselves in conflict with the law. As someone who was previously vice convener of the Education, Children and Young People's Committee, I state my support in principle for the bill, and I acknowledge the committee's scrutiny, as outlined by Sue Webber. Since the hugely influential Kilbrandon report of 1964, one of the most important documents in youth justice history, we have proudly strived to be a progressive, welfare-based approach with varying degrees of success. What Kilbrandon was able to do was to recognise that the children labelled as offenders were hostages to fortune. They were not inherently bad or troublemakers, they were people who had failed and were equally in need of care as those who had suffered abuse or neglect. He recognised that, for many, the behaviour seemed inevitable like there was no other path. Community Justice Scotland illustrated that through a story of a now successful mentor working with vulnerable young people, and one example was James, who had a chaotic start in life, spent a lot of time with his mum in women's refuges. By age of seven, he was already part of the criminal justice system, having more and more run-ins with the authorities, and by his mid-teens he had a custodial sentence spending a night in Barlinny, followed by a young offenders institute. I was terrified and cried myself to sleep, he recalled. Reading about James's experience, I am further reminded of my time on the Education, Children and Young People's Committee, taking evidence and listening to people like Sue Brooks from the Scottish Prison Service, who said that, even if the rest of the establishment was empty, those children should be elsewhere. Her dismay and discomfort at having to expose young people to such a harsh environment was palpable and understandable. It will come as no surprise that I wholeheartedly welcome the proposal to increase the age of referral to children's hearings from 16 to 18 years old and support the eradication of placing under 18s in young offenders institutions. I welcome the considerations of the Criminal Justice Committee, as mentioned earlier in this debate by Audrey Nicholl. The independent care review made it very clear that criminalising and putting children in prison-like settings is deeply inappropriate, and if we are to align more closely with the UNCRC, it must surely extend to 16 and 17-year-olds. Depriving children of their liberty deprives them of their childhood, and that must be a last resort. By predicting that childhood, we move towards keeping that promise to our young people. I welcome the minister's commitment to providing an updated financial memorandum that provides sufficient funding and resourcing for care-based alternatives to custodial sentences. I would also include in my request that she addresses the issues of transportation, which have already been mentioned very clearly by my colleague Ross Greer. In the words of the late American humanist, Irma Brombeck, a child needs your love most when they actually deserve it the least. Thank you, and we move to winding up speeches, and I call on Martyn Whitfield. I'm very grateful, Presiding Officer, and I think it's a very pertinent point that Cacab Street finished her speech on about the importance of children who, quite frankly, are bashing up against walls all over the place to find people for whom love can be a way to communicate. Can I say at the outset that this has been a challenging debate, both in time on subject matter and indeed on some of the content? But Scottish Labour will support the stage 1 principle that do we support this under rule 9.5. However, we have heard contradictory evidence regarding the financial memorandum, and I find that disappointing because the standing order is very explicit that it is supposed to be the best estimate that the Government can give, and I would invite the Minister whether or not she can confirm that these are the best estimates, or is it, as we've heard evidence, that they're the lowest estimate or they are the estimates of other bodies outside of Parliament. If the Minister feels unable to deal with this at that moment, again I refer to the fact that we will support this at this stage, but it is a huge disappointment that this chamber cannot see the proper financial consequences of a very important bill that speaks to a very important group of people here in Scotland. There are a number of matters that have been raised, which I think are worth revisiting in the time I will curtail because of my earlier point of order, Presiding Officer. That speaks to, particularly, I thought, Rosgrill's comments about the transport and the committee having the opportunity to really look into it and get to the bottom of the problem, which we will then subsequently see, I hope, either in amendments contained that are brought forward at stage 2 or alternatively very explicit requests of the Government as to how that will be achieved because it does seem ridiculous that, in 2023, we are having vans driven all the way from Portsmouth to transport children here in Scotland. I also wanted to make mention of Ros McCall's fascinating speech, but particularly her emphasis on the call for the review of children under Scots law, and there were a number of contributions that have spoken to the challenge that exists in Scottish law. From my own personal point of view, I think it is more important that we are looking at the circumstances that a young person is being considered as much as something that is very specific on the date that they were born, but it does raise the interesting question of 17.5, which, to refer back to the financial memorandum Presiding Officer, specifies that the reason for this is that a young person at 17.5 is unlikely to be dealt with because of delays in the system. That seems to me a very dangerous way to start legislating, building in either delay, building in a problem with the system, and actually then inflicting a level of punishment on a person entirely dependent, again, on when they were born, rather than as the UNCRC, and indeed I would suggest, good practice suggest, it should be the date of the incident that has taken into account. Of course, it would be remiss of me not to say that we have spoken so much of the UNCRC and I am pitching a huge amount on the Government's statement if the chamber will allow it next week on this matter, because again, we speak so strong of our desire. We point our children and young people to the rights that they have, the rights that they should expect, indeed the rights they should expect others to have, and yet we seem unable to bring the bill back to this place. I am conscious of time today, so I will leave it there. I am disappointed that we are unable to get answers to whether or not the financial memorandum meets the requirements of standing order, but I know those in committee who have more time and indeed later in this chamber when I hope we have a lot more time and we don't end up with a crushed stage three of many amendments, but I am grateful, Presiding Officer. Thank you, and I call on Stephen Kerr. I want to congratulate my colleagues who have tried their very best to use very little time to deal with a very complex and very important bill. Frankly, it saddens me greatly to have to reflect on that, but our Parliament, Scotland's Parliament, the Parliament that we belong to, the Parliament that we take a great deal of pride of being a member of, is developing a reputation for creating bad law, and the reason that we are developing that reputation, unwanted, as it is by all of us, is because of what we have witnessed this afternoon. Colleagues trying to address this complex matter and giving excellent speeches in the process, given the little time they have, but not really getting to the issues at the heart of the bill that concern so many of us, both in terms of the support that we might feel for them but also the concerns that we might have for them. I am going to be quite clear from the outset because there is so little time. The Scottish Conservatives will support this bill at stage one because we believe that its principles are essentially correct, but let me say something now that I will probably repeat more than once before I sit down. Good intentions do not make good law, and at the point that we in this Parliament accept that, we will see an improvement in the efficacy of the measures that are brought before this Parliament. We will see a better implementation of the measures that we pass in this Parliament, and we will see better outcomes, as intended, with the good intentions that come with any bill, and this is a bill full of good intentions. That is why we will support the bill, but we will be abstaining on the financial memorandum because, as was well pointed out by Martin Whitford—Martin Whitfield, I am giving him a new name—we have the authority to give each other new names, although nicknames were referred to earlier by the Presiding Officer in FMQs. As was referred to by Martin Whitfield, the nature of the requirement for a financial memorandum to reflect the best estimate has been failed in this instance, and it is not acceptable. It is not acceptable that we have arrived at a point where we are having a compressed Stage 1 with a financial memorandum that is frankly not fit for purpose, because its figures bear only a passing resemblance to the true costs of implementing this bill, and that has been the overwhelming evidence that was received by the lead committee, convened by my friend Sue Webber. I think that the committee is entitled to make its position clear in this debate, and it has, through the voice of the convener. Collectively, as a Parliament, we should be saying that we expect the Scottish Government to provide updated costings to reflect stage 2 amendments, but that we should be considering this bill at stage 1 with a financial memorandum that represents the best estimates of the bill as it stands, and that is not the case. I think that there is a call here for the common sense of members of this Parliament not to vote for this financial memorandum. It is simply because I think that it is an abrogation of our responsibility as members of this Parliament to vote for it. I ask members to consider their responsibilities in relation to this matter very seriously when we get to decision time. In the time that I have now got left, which is less than two minutes, references have been made to the UNCRC. I want to confirm and support what has been said by a number of colleagues that the UNCRC certainly does not allow the Government to say in one breath that we are redefining the legal age of a child to 18, and then in the next breath say, ah, but we don't really mean 18, we mean 17 and a half. That is clearly not acceptable. But the whole issue of age is at the heart of this bill, and I do think that it's important that we have a serious review of the confusion that exists in our law relating to the age of a child, because we are going by voting for this bill today to define it in legal terms at 18, and I think that there are so many anomalies that was touched on by Megan Gallacher. Now, I'd say one thing about the bill. I'm going to, but be very brief. Do you recognise that in terms of children's rights, there's protective rights and participative rights, and those happen at different ages and stages? We need to look at the whole issue of how we're treating children in the eyes of the law, because the point that the member makes has a deal of validity to it, but it should be reviewed, because we have now got to the point where there are so many competing and confusing issues around it. I think that with the 15 seconds that I've got left, I would like to have mentioned the importance of this bill not being seen as soft-touch justice. That's very important, that we look at the stresses that we're going to cause to the children's hearing system, which we've touched on, but not properly dwelt on, particularly in response to Sheriff Mackie's recent report from The Promise. There are many issues in relation to the children's hearing system that must be addressed and have been touched on by colleagues. Basically, if I might indulge the Presiding Officer, we need a new financial memorandum, we need to deal with age and consistency in law, we need to deal with the 17.5 as opposed to the 18, and for those children that go to secure accommodation, there has to be absolutely guaranteed access to mental health services, which currently might get impalment that they might not get in secure accommodation, and that I have tried to patience the Presiding Officer to the point that I should sit down. Before I begin, I'd really love to know how many seconds of time within this debate have been wasted discussing the actual amount of time in the debate at hand rather than the subject itself, so I'd encourage members to focus on the debate at hand. I want to repeat my thanks for the lead committee's report on the general principles of this important bill and for the diligence scrutiny by other committees that led to it. My hope really is that the Scottish Government response that was published earlier this week reflects the spirit in which we will continue to develop and debate these important reforms. I also want to thank members for the questions and points raised in this debate today. I will take away those thoughts and give them serious and sincere consideration. However, I am disappointed by the term that this is bad law because, as far as I'm concerned, that's not what the young people and the key stakeholders that I have been talking to are saying. The Scottish Government will work right across the relevant sectors throughout the period before stage 2 to determine if and where the bill can be further improved. Despite concerns and questions here today, I am heartened by members' approach to those issues. I am further encouraged by the broad consensus in terms of the underlying reach of this bill. The bill's policy objectives and the direction of travel it sets are the right ones at this time. However, there have rightly been some concerns raised today, and I do hope to address those. We've heard some concerns around resourcing and readiness, and I do recognise the significant challenges that are currently faced by the sector, including recruitment and retention issues that are faced by social work and children's here in Scotland. We absolutely have to ensure that capacity building and system readiness are key to this, and that is exactly why we have convened a national multi-agency implementation group that had its inception meeting on 5 June, with further meetings scheduled right into the autumn. Concerns equally have been raised around the financial memorandum, and I have been clear that there will be a need to provide further information to Parliament at later stages of the bill. We are therefore working with key partners to revisit and will take the intervention. I thank the minister for taking that intervention, but surely she must agree with me that members are being asked to support the general principles of a bill without fully understanding its cost implications and without the certainty that the Scottish Government understands them either. We have not published and could not publish a supplemented financial memorandum ahead of today, not least because the data for 2020-23 is not yet available. That will become—I have already said that my priority is keeping the promise by 2030, and that this bill is a key part of that. The financial side of it can be progressed in further stages, and my priority is ensuring that the legislation is progressed for the benefits of children and young people. Last month, I was really privileged to meet with care experienced young people at the launch of the hearing system working group. From that conversation, I understood the need to act with urgency in this area, but also to take every opportunity to learn and listen, and that is exactly what I am doing. Scotland's young people, especially those who have faced adversity and disadvantage, need us to get this right. I will take that same time listening and learning approach to the bill as it progresses. Members have commented on the hearing system. We know that the hearing system is already dealing with 16 and 17-year-olds, and they are well equipped to think and act in a trauma-informed way for this age group. We know that there is an appetite in all the relevant workforces to keep improving the hearing system. We are considering Shared of Mackies' hearing system working groups who use their report in that respect, and we will respond to that in full later this year. However, in terms of where we are now with Children's Hearing Scotland, I met the chair and the national convener last week, where those matters, as well as their upcoming recruitment campaign, were discussed. As I mentioned in my opening remarks, additional Scottish Government funding for 16 secure beds will be made available to ensure that providers of secure accommodation will have the required resources. They need support to ensure that capacity is there to cope with young people who would otherwise be placed in YOIs. The important work under way on reimagining secure care will help to identify any areas that can be improved for children needing the services of secure. The profiling of the needs of young people currently in YOIs will continue alongside the bill so that secure centres can be supported to address the full spectrum of those young people's needs. Some things that we have not touched on or have not had full time to explore make it easier for a child, including as a victim, to remain anonymous during the investigation of a crime in court proceedings, and that is so crucial to their safety, rights and recovery. It gives discretion for courts to extend anonymity for children found guilty of an offence to allow them to be rehabilitated without damaging intrusion and speculation. Importantly, it will put tighter inspection regimes in place for providers who are set up in Scotland to take children from elsewhere in the UK. In terms of cross-border placements, it is vital that those are only used in exceptional circumstances and where it is in the best interests of the child. I was due to meet the UK Government Minister for Children, Families and Well-being, Claire Coutinho, around this very time today to discuss the matter, but that will now be rescheduled and I am happy to update on that. Questions have also been raised around the 17.5H, which was used in the financial memo. The bill provisions enable all children under age 18 to access the children's healing system, and that will be treated on a case-by-case basis. It will be a matter for the Lord Advocate if and when reviewing the current guidelines to consider if a cut-off age is needed. Moving to some specific contributions, I thank Ruth Maguire for her contribution and I appreciate where the concerns come from. I would be happy to meet the member to discuss that further at a later date. Ogynikol rightly highlighted in her contribution that secure care is not a soft option, and this is not about soft justice but about ensuring a trauma-informed and age-appropriate setting, giving children the maximum opportunity for rehabilitation. I also appreciate concerns raised by Ross Greer and Willie Rennie, although I do not like the suggestion that I am shrugging anything off. A national service specification for secure transport, which is looking specifically at data-gathering, information sharing and the question around who is best placed to provide that, is on-going. I urge members to support this bill today and to allow it to move to the next stage in the parliamentary process. Scotland's children need those changes to be brought in and for improvements to be made to the outcomes that we seek for them and the support that we provide. I am absolutely committed to keeping the promise and ensuring that we are needy children who will have their needs met in a trauma-informed age-appropriate way that cannot happen when they are in systems designed for adults. The bill will have life-changing impacts for our children and young people, especially those from disadvantaged and care-experienced backgrounds who are disproportionately represented in the youth justice system. There is no doubt that this is preventative, and this will offer our young people the best chance for rehabilitation and the best chance to alter their life path. We all have a responsibility to get it right for every child and we can only do so if we all work together. That concludes the debate on children. At the risk of exhausting your patients, Standing Orders 9.2, which was referred to earlier by Martin Whipfield, I feel that there is some confusion here. It says clearly in the Standing Orders of this Parliament that a bill must, on introduction, be accompanied by a financial memorandum that sets out best estimates of the cost savings and changes to revenues to which the provisions of the bill would give rise and the indication of the margins of uncertainty in such estimates. Financial memorandums also include best estimates of the timescales, etc. The point is that we have now heard from the minister herself that this financial memorandum does not represent the best estimates of the costs associated with the bill and its implementation because it has not been properly sculpted. I am appealing to you for some guidance here as to who's responsibility is to enforce Standing Order 9.2. In the scenario that we are now in, where the minister herself has said that the bill does not represent the best estimates of the implementation costs of the bill, where do we go from here? It seems like a very odd predicament that we find ourselves in to be passing a stage 1 bill on its way to becoming law when we have no idea and the Government have no idea about how much it's going to cost to implement these measures, however well-intentioned they are. Thank Mr Kerr for his point of order. This is a matter of scrutiny for the lead committee and for the finance committee. Of course, members will have an opportunity—members are considering and debating these matters this afternoon and members will later vote on both the financial resolution and the general principles of the bill this afternoon. At that point, they will be taking the matters that they have heard into account. That concludes our debate on the Children's Care and Justice Scotland Bill at stage 1. The next item of business is consideration of motion 9158, in the name of Shona Robison, on a financial resolution for the Children's Care and Justice Scotland Bill. I invite Natalie Don to move the motion. Thank you minister. The question on this motion will be proved at decision time.