The Official Report is a written record of public meetings of the Parliament and committees.
All Official Reports of meetings in the Debating Chamber of the Scottish Parliament.
All Official Reports of public meetings of committees.
Displaying 1212 contributions
Meeting of the Parliament
Meeting date: 24 April 2024
Natalie Don-Innes
I will just make some progress.
Instead, prospective projections, which have practical management information utility for the national convener and Children’s Hearings Scotland, are already in place.
Meeting of the Parliament
Meeting date: 24 April 2024
Natalie Don-Innes
I am glad to offer my support for Pam Duncan-Glancy’s amendment 42. The Scottish Government agrees that all children who are referred to a hearing should be treated in a way that is sensitive to the trauma that they may have experienced.
I understand that Martin Whitfield’s amendment 44 seeks to ensure that decision makers in a children’s hearing do not discriminate against the child on any of the grounds that are mentioned. As was discussed with the member at stage 2, we appreciate the intention behind the amendment but, because existing law and practice achieve what I understand the amendment seeks to do, the amendment is not necessary.
A range of statutory duties already apply to children’s hearings and oblige them to protect children’s rights and not unlawfully discriminate against a child. They include non-discrimination duties under the public sector equality duty in the Equality Act 2010 and the requirement under the Human Rights Act 1998 to act compatibly with ECHR rights, including article 14 on non-discrimination. That will be supplemented by the duty to act compatibly with the requirements in the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (Incorporation) (Scotland) Act 2024 when that act comes into force in July.
All those duties combine to protect children from discrimination more robustly than amendment 44 would, while still allowing the flexibility for decision makers to recognise that it may be necessary to treat children differently on the basis of, say, their age in certain circumstances. For example, it would be appropriate to share information with a child only if they were old enough to understand it.
I note that the member added a new provision to his amendment to state that it is
“without prejudice to any other enactment prohibiting discrimination”,
but I am afraid that that does not allay the legislative competence concerns that we raised at stage 2 and instead adds legal uncertainty. We remain concerned that the amendment may make provision in relation to the reserved matter of equal opportunities and may impermissibly modify the Equality Act 2010. I therefore cannot support amendment 44.
On amendment 46, the Scottish Government does not feel that it is necessary to create a legal duty on children’s hearings to promote a multi-agency approach to planning support for children. Under part 3 of the Children and Young People (Scotland) Act 2014, existing statutory measures ensure that local authorities and health boards produce children’s services plans with a view to safeguarding, supporting and promoting the wellbeing of children in their area, delivering timely support to meet their needs and delivering services in the most integrated way for children. Among others, the national convener of Children’s Hearings Scotland is to participate in or contribute to those plans, which will ensure that practitioners in the hearings system and beyond can effectively collaborate and take a multi-agency practice approach. We would not wish to undermine the shared responsibility of implementing the GIRFEC multi-agency approach at all levels of the system by imposing a new and narrow duty on children’s hearings. On that basis, I cannot support amendment 46.
Amendment 57, which is on training panel members, clearly concerns an important area. However, I set out Government concerns about such an approach at stage 2, and those concerns remain.
Meeting of the Parliament
Meeting date: 24 April 2024
Natalie Don-Innes
I have lodged amendments 26 and 27 to remove the changes that affect reporting restrictions that were originally in the bill. I am, however, aware that the committee agreed at stage 2 to amended sections 12 and 13 on reporting restrictions. In recent weeks, I have been approached by members of the Scottish Parliament and representatives of the media who have expressed concerns about those sections of the bill, and I know that some members have been keen to consider amendments to remove sections 12 and 13 at stage 3.
Despite the two public consultations on the bill’s proposals, it is clear from correspondence that I have received and from conversations that I have had that the full implications of those matters were not fully appreciated by stakeholders and members at stage 2.
I have always been clear that we want the legislation to be fully considered and informed by a broad range of views from people who would be affected by its provisions. In addition, the Scottish Government fully recognises the key role that having open media plays in a functioning democracy.
Given the short time that was available before stage 3 deadlines, it was impossible to allow the provisions the further in-depth engagement that they required. I have decided that the most prudent course of action is to lodge stage 3 amendments to remove the provisions from the bill in order to enable the matters to be considered further outwith consideration of the bill. That is what amendments 25, 26, 27 and 38 seek to do.
However, I have also been profoundly struck by the distress and adverse consequences that can be experienced by accused persons and their families, and by witnesses and victims of crime and their families, as a result of press and social media coverage. It is important that we get this right. I am committed to ensuring that we build a robust body of evidence in order to inform any future legislation on these matters.
I will work with those who would be impacted by developments to consider how best to ensure that all issues that arise in respect of press coverage are covered, and I will write to the committee with an update on that work in the coming months.
On Mr Whitfield’s amendment 49, I do not believe that it is necessary, in relation to the Scottish ministers’ existing power under section 182(4) of the Children’s Hearings (Scotland) Act 2011, to dispense with or relax children’s hearings publishing restrictions in the interests of justice.
Section 182(4) will be used only in emergency situations in which there is a need for a media alert to find a child because of concerns for their welfare. The children’s hearings system can already contact Scottish ministers to advise of situations in which that power might be required, without the need for a further power. I ask the member not to move amendment 49.
I move amendment 25
Meeting of the Parliament
Meeting date: 24 April 2024
Natalie Don-Innes
Amendment 40 is almost identical to an amendment that Mr Whitfield pressed at stage 2 and that the committee voted against. I reiterate what I said then about the Government’s commitment to promoting children’s rights, which is evidenced by the forthcoming commencement of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (Incorporation) (Scotland) Act 2024 and our commitment to keep the Promise.
Although I understand and share the sentiment behind amendment 40, the Government’s position has not changed. The bill’s long title already lists the bill’s purposes, as do the accompanying documents and as have ministers in their evidence to committees and statements in the Parliament. Such a purpose clause is simply not necessary or appropriate; it would not work in a bill of this nature.
The bill contains almost no freestanding self-contained provisions. Instead, it amends 20 other pieces of legislation. Inserting such a purpose statement at the outset would blur the required nuances and leave too many unanswered questions about how it would apply to those enactments. Some of the other enactments already contain their own overarching statements of purpose or general principles, and it is not clear how amendment 40 would sit with those. Furthermore, as I have said, the bill’s aims are clear as a matter of established Government policy and action. Therefore, I cannot support amendment 40.
Meeting of the Parliament
Meeting date: 24 April 2024
Natalie Don-Innes
The work is currently under way and, as I have said, it will be consulted on. Unfortunately, I do not have a timescale for that at the moment, but I am more than happy to keep the member updated on it.
The treatment of children in the justice system is a known area of interest for the children’s commissioner and others. As I have said, something in that area will be forthcoming, will be informed by consultation and will be proportionate in its resource implications.
Various amendments to reporting requirements have been lodged by members across the parties. Ms Duncan-Glancy proposes a reporting requirement in amendment 87, which we will debate in a later group. I believe that that amendment sets out a more proportionate approach that goes some way towards meeting the aims of the amendments in this group, and the Government will support it when it is debated in group 15.
In summary, I cannot support the amendments in this group and I ask the relevant members not to press them. If they are pressed, I urge members to reject them.
Meeting of the Parliament
Meeting date: 24 April 2024
Natalie Don-Innes
I will briefly respond to a couple of the points that have been raised in this debate. To a certain extent, I agree with Martin Whitfield’s comments about how more could have been done at an earlier point. Perhaps more could have been done to flag that to stakeholders prior to this point, but I do not agree that it should always be on the Government’s back to flag those things.
In relation to Liam Kerr’s comments, at stage 2, I had not had interactions with the press around the amendments or had their concerns brought to me.
On other avenues, a year 5 bill could be an avenue for this aspect. I am sorry that I am not able to confirm that at this point but, of course, I will keep the Parliament updated on it. Members should remember that other legislative changes in the space will be required—for example, the children’s hearings redesign, which will happen.
I will take members’ views or suggestions on the process for this. I want to be very clear that young people should absolutely be at the core of the work, because we need to understand the impact that it has on our young people.
Although it might be for different reasons, we are all in agreement, and we will move forward with this work.
Amendment 25 agreed to.
After section 6C
Amendment 49 not moved.
Section 7—Supervision or guidance post-18
Amendments 50 to 53 not moved.
After section 7
Amendment 57 moved—[Pam Duncan-Glancy].
Meeting of the Parliament
Meeting date: 24 April 2024
Natalie Don-Innes
As I said, there is pending action in relation to the 2020 act, and reconsidering the suitability of the legal assistance that is available to children in the hearings system is already part of wider on-going work. The “Hearings for Children” redesign report recommended further exploration of the mechanisms for children to access legal aid. I know that that concern has been raised by members.
Those issues will not only be subject to public consultation this summer, but non-legislative aspects will be overseen by the children’s hearings redesign board in the course of 2024. It would be odd to make that change now only to revisit it again in the coming weeks as part of the hearings redesign process, and only consult on it after its introduction here.
Significant further work with social workers, local authorities, the SLAB and wider legal professions representatives, including the Law Society of Scotland, is required. That work will allow us to keep under review our current assessment about the appropriateness of existing arrangements.
I therefore urge the member not to press amendments 54, 55 and 56, and if they are pressed, I urge members to reject them.
Meeting of the Parliament
Meeting date: 18 April 2024
Natalie Don-Innes
The Scottish Government recognises the vital role that school-age childcare plays in supporting families to meet their childcare needs.
In October 2023, we published the school-age childcare delivery framework, which sets out our approach to building a system of school-age childcare. We are working closely with providers, children and families to co-design a future system, including considering what support those providing school-age childcare might need.
Last year, we invested more than £12 million in supporting families to access school-age childcare services through a range of partners, including local authorities, childcare services and activities providers.
Meeting of the Parliament
Meeting date: 18 April 2024
Natalie Don-Innes
We absolutely understand the vital services that school-age childcare provides for working parents and know that the cost of childcare provision is a challenge for many families on low incomes. That is why we remain committed to expanding access to childcare that is targeted towards the families that need it most.
The Scottish Government does not directly fund school-age childcare because it is the responsibility of local authorities to allocate financial resources, based on local needs. However, as I said in my previous answer, we are working with providers, children and families to co-design a future system that includes consideration of the support that those providing school-age childcare might need. We will soon host a series of sessions with providers to discuss the topics that they have told us are important and to think about how we can make positive changes to support providers and make the system more sustainable. I will be happy to update the member on that.
Meeting of the Parliament
Meeting date: 21 March 2024
Natalie Don-Innes
As part of our “Learning for sustainability: action plan 2023 to 2030”, which was published in June 2023, we have committed to establishing a new national policy workstream on outdoor learning, to be supported by a national working group that will report to the Scottish ministers. The group will pursue a range of actions to ensure that all children and young people receive entitlement to outdoor learning in all its forms.
In addition, Education Scotland continues to support schools in taking learning outside through professional learning provision. A new learning for sustainability portal will launch later this year, as will a learning for sustainability peer mentor network.