Chamber and committees

I will look to the minister for safety in an intervention, and I can then move amendment 190 to allow the discussion to happen.

I extend my apologies to my colleague Roz McCall for trying to defeat her debate on her amendment. I will now read from the next bit of my script. Following the assurance given by the minister, I seek to withdraw amendment 190.

Amendment 190, by agreement, withdrawn.

Amendments 54 to 59 moved—[Natalie Don-Innes]—and agreed to.

Amendments 191 and 192 not moved.

Amendments 60 to 73 moved—[Natalie Don-Innes]—and agreed to.

Section 14, as amended, agreed to.

Section 15 agreed to.

After section 15

As the minister has indicated, amendments 193 and 194 relate to article 16 of the UNCRC, which provides for the right of children not to be subjected to unlawful interference in their private or family life. The amendments would ensure that, when considering whether to prevent a relevant person from attending a hearing, the UNCRC would be considered on the same basis as article 8 of the ECHR, which is the right to private and family life. As I have argued on many occasions, that right embeds the UNCRC into Scots law and gives further routes for children and young people to challenge decisions. I welcome the Government’s support for the amendments.

I will not take up too much of the committee’s time.

I thank the minister for her contribution. Contained in it is the challenge that we face in respect of the amendments. Over the past 20 years, as the minster has pointed out, we still have not found out why there is so much delay. We do not know why things take so much longer. The good practice guides will be published next month, which, unfortunately, is after the passage of the bill.

I do not undermine what the minister has said. Throughout the entire process of the bill, we have heard words of good intention about the children’s hearings system in relation to permanence. It is an incredibly challenging question that has to be answered because it is about fracturing a family and re-establishing a future for a young person. We must be grounded in what is right for the young people, and I am not convinced that placing an arbitrary timeline would put us in a worse position than the one that we are in at the moment. There may be situations in which people have to push the decision about permanence to a different venue, because of a timetable. However, we have a system that is not working.

I am mindful of the proposal that the minister has put. We cannot bind future Parliaments or Governments, but if the minister wishes to intervene to talk about lodging an amendment at stage 3 that would indicate an obligation to review the system, I would be more than happy to take that intervention.

I absolutely recognise the narrative that the minister relates about when the issue was raised and whether it has been looked at. At a fundamental level, is the Scottish Government against the concept of having an arm’s-length holder of the register at some time in the future? Can the Scottish Government never envisage having that, even if it came about through consultation and was seen as a way of improving the situation?

I am content with that response.

My apologies, convener. I did not want to move amendment 177.

The challenge that is being expressed is this: there is no misunderstanding of the fact that there will be a limit on such decisions, but the reality is that, if an incorrect decision is taken, that is, in essence, potentially the end of the situation, without the young person, their advocate or anyone else being able to ask for a reconsideration of that view by a whole panel.

In relation to the previous discussion that John Mason prompted, does the minister envisage that interim orders will be made by a single-member panel—the chair—when everyone is in agreement with the interim order, as opposed to when the appropriateness of an interim order is challenged? I am just trying to understand when she envisages interim orders that are not controversial being made, because the problem relates to what happens when decisions are controversial. Does the minister believe that interim orders will be made by a single chair when, in essence, everyone in the room, including the child, is in agreement on the interim order? Is that the sort of area that she is thinking of for such decisions being made, rather than in cases in which there is a conflict?

Like our debates on amendments last week, the debate on this group has been interesting. The discussion about the composition of the panel has opened up areas where I agree with Jeremy Balfour that we are in a different position from where we were before the bill was introduced. However, I see a great deal of agreement among the members who lodged amendments in the group. There is a desire to reach a solution in relation to the role and remuneration of the chair compared with other, wing members of the panel—if I may use that phrase. There is also a great deal of interest—and I think that there is also an ability to reach a decision—on the expectations that will be placed on the chair. The amendments in the group, including mine, speak to that.

The minister talked about taking the matter offline. Given the circumstances, I wonder whether there can be a cross-party discussion to seek an agreed position that the Parliament can get behind at stage 3. Our amendments contain different wording, but I genuinely believe that there is an intent among members to find agreement.

I will not press my amendments 226 and 227, because I have no intention of circumventing the very sensible proposals on the importance of reflecting the expertise and professionalism of those who are involved in the system.

I do not know whether the minister is in a position to intervene or whether she will address this when she sums up but, given what she said about taking the matter offline, I think that it would be sensible for members not to move their amendments in the group, given that we are all in similar places on the matter. I think that we all need some time to consider amendments that the Government and the Opposition could lodge for stage 3.