Chamber and committees

My intervention was going to be very similar to that of my colleague Ruth Maguire. I am a bit concerned about part of your answer to her question, particularly the bit where you highlighted that Children’s Hearings Scotland had a recruitment campaign but did not recruit enough panel members. That is exactly the sort of concern that I want to avoid, because that could introduce delay to what could otherwise be a system that could get children and young people through it at a reasonable rate.

I appeal to the minister to work with me to address the principle of the underlying point. I take her point about the wording of the amendment, but is there a mechanism that she could work with me on to make sure that there is capacity in the system to deal with the increase in cases and substance that will go through it, so that we do not retrospectively create a delay or backlog in the system?

The committee’s report on the bill acknowledges the significant resourcing and training challenges that implementation of the bill will pose, particularly to a number of key agencies, including Children’s Hearings Scotland, the Scottish Children’s Reporter Administration and local authorities. The report also notes the reassurances that were provided in evidence by Children’s Hearings Scotland that the resource would be in place ahead of the bill’s implementation. Children’s Hearings Scotland expressed confidence that it could successfully recruit additional panel members who will be needed as a result of the bill, but it also said that that is crucial to the successful delivery of the bill.

On that basis, it is important that the bill does not commence until those panel members are in place. If, as organisations have said, the required numbers are put in place, there should be no concern about amendment 220. If that does not happen, the amendment would serve as protection to ensure that there would be no delays for the young people who are in the system, either on offence or welfare grounds, as a result of our not having recruited enough panel members to deliver the provisions in the bill.

Amendment 220 would be a responsible way to ensure that everything that is required in the children’s panel is in place to support the implementation of the bill, should it be passed.

I take the minister’s point on that, and those matters were considered previously. However, now that that information has come to the Government and the committee, it is quite important that the Government responds to it so that we can understand the context in which we will vote on the bill at stage 3.

As far as I can hear, a number of things are being suggested by the minister. The first is that another bill could be used for that, and the second is that there will be a round table to discuss it. I am getting a bit concerned, not least—given some of the concerns that we expressed earlier—because it is not this particular minister who is arranging the round table.

Who is arranging that round table, minister, and what conversations are you having with that person? Is it not possible to bring that forward so that the bill can be the best that it possibly can be? With respect, the committee is trying to do the best that it possibly can by ensuring that we do not miss an opportunity, as my colleague Willie Rennie highlighted, and that we do not subsequently have to revisit the bill.

I appreciate that. It feels a bit peculiar that it is more like a statement as opposed to a debate in which interventions are taken. That makes it difficult to have a detailed discussion on very detailed parts of legislation, which, of course, this is about.

To the substance of my intervention: on the amendments in Martin Whitfield’s name, the minister seems to be saying that part of the concern is not about the particular overreach into the judiciary, which I will leave for a moment, but that the effect could be to delay processes because there might not be enough buildings or the case might have to be moved. I look forward to debating my amendment on the numbers of panel members, because that, too, could frustrate and delay some aspects of justice—I hope that the minister will take a similar view on that.

I am a bit concerned that the minister is relying on the fact that the ECHR and the UNCRC are enough. Although the ECHR is international legislation to which we hope that the courts would adhere, there are reasons why we introduced domestic legislation in the area, such as the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (Incorporation) (Scotland) Act 2024. This is an opportunity to include in the bill part of the UNCRC, which may not cover all aspects of the bill because of the recent amendments that had to be made to the 2024 act. That concerns me.

I cannot see, from the points that the minister made about my amendment 205 on domestic abuse and violence, why my amendment to the Domestic Abuse (Scotland) Act 2018 would be a problem. It appears to me that all that it would do would be to strengthen the ability of the state to provide support. It is well known that failures can happen in the justice system, particularly for women who have experienced domestic violence. Therefore, at every point at which we have an opportunity to address that, we should do so. I believe that my amendment 205 does that and I see no reason, on the basis of what the minister has set out, why she would not support it.

I appreciate that. My amendment does not undo any of that. It literally adds another point at which someone could be caught from the system—another safety net, as it were—to ensure that that support would be in place.

It is my intention to abstain on amendments 60 to 62 and to vote for amendments 63 and 64, if that is helpful, convener.

Will the member take an intervention?

Given that the minister did not support six of the amendments that I lodged last week in this space, which would have given victims the opportunity to ask to intervene at various points and which were slightly more narrowly focused than amendment 206, where does the minister intend victims to have their say, and at what point?

I support the amendments in this group in the name of my colleague Martin Whitfield. It is incredibly important that any young person is supported to fully understand the process that they are going through, and I echo all that he has said so far.

My amendment 205 would require that, when a child who is subject to proceedings is residing with an individual who has committed a domestic abuse offence or when the child has been witness to domestic abuse, a referral must be made to a specialist domestic abuse support provider. That is in recognition of the fact that many young people—60 per cent—who are remitted at ages 16 and 17 to young offenders institutions have witnessed domestic violence.

The provision acknowledges the unique vulnerabilities of children who have been in an abusive environment. In speaking to similar amendments in earlier groupings, I highlighted that children who witness abuse may also suffer emotional, psychological and developmental challenges. I emphasised then, and I re-emphasise now, the need for targeted specialist support and intervention that is delivered in a safe and secure environment, so that the child is able to express their feelings and experiences, to process emotions, to build resilience and to develop coping mechanisms.

As I said earlier, it is really important that as many touch points with the state as possible, such as this one, are used as an opportunity to identify where support could be needed in a domestic abuse situation and to provide it at the earliest opportunity. That will be critical in mitigating the potential long-term effects on mental and emotional wellbeing and contributing to the child’s overall health and recovery from trauma.

On that basis, I urge committee members to support my amendment 205 and the others in the group in the name of Martin Whitfield.