Chamber and committees

Given the Government’s undertaking to discuss the issue, I will not move amendment 191 at this stage.

Amendment 191 not moved.

Amendment 30 moved—[Natalie Don].

I am concerned, because my amendments are to the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) 1995 Act, which, unless it is expressly brought within it, will not be covered by the UNCRC. Young people will have to rely on the existing vehicles, which, as Michelle Thomson has highlighted, might not be available in the future.

I am quite disappointed by the approach that has been taken with regard to my amendments, because they were lodged in good faith. The Government has sought to rely on the support of the Children and Young People’s Commissioner Scotland as authority to pass its amendments, but my amendments are also supported by the commissioner. With that in mind, I will press amendment 193.

I am very grateful, convener, and I will be brief. Does the member share my concern that we seem to be having a tautological argument over the phrase “victim impact statement” instead of talking about what this should be, which is an understanding of the victim’s experiences when either panels or, indeed, courts are reaching decisions?

I am very grateful.

That brings me to amendment 209, which deals with the rehabilitation and reintegration of children who have been guilty of offences. That is a very important matter, and I am grateful for the contributions that the minister has made. It is right that rehabilitation and reintegration are paramount in relation to how our young people can reintegrate into communities. During our discussions today and, indeed, during those that we had last week, we have heard about how that sits at the heart of what we are trying to achieve.

Regarding the reporting principles, is the minister absolutely confident that sources of reporting will be available to the public—albeit not necessarily through the Government—that can measure the success of the rehabilitation and reintegration of young people at the end of their period of involvement?

I am grateful, convener. Is the minister prepared to share the response that her officials have received from, in essence, the judiciary? The minister raised a number of matters that fundamentally boil down to the Scottish Government’s apparent disagreement to adding “and rights” after the word “welfare” throughout the bill. When we are talking about legislation, we are talking about the rights that are given or, indeed, taken away in response to the coming together of a young person and the criminal justice system, the welfare system and most aspects of a young person’s life.

The rights of a child sit above that. We debated the UNCRC long and hard in this Parliament over a long period of time, and, across the chamber, there was very strong agreement about the hierarchy of protections that young people have. Sitting at the top are rights, but there has always been the question of a challenge between one individual’s rights and another individual’s rights. The entire process of the court system and the environment of that decision making is about balancing those rights, but we heard across the chamber during the enactment that, across Scotland, we put children’s rights at the top of that. That does not mean that those rights will be applied every time, but it means that those rights will have to give way to other individuals’ rights only in exceptional circumstances and for exceptional reasons. Even with the amendments that I have proposed, there are facilities whereby that can happen.

With regard to comments about the court and resources, I say with respect that, again, the minister appears to be saying, “We can’t do this because of resource.” Of course there are challenges, but there are always challenges. There were challenges when a number of courts across Scotland were closed, with people making representations in that respect, but it is a very dangerous position to take if we are saying to our young people, “The resources aren’t there for the particulars of your case, so it’s not important.”

That issue arises particularly with regard to amendment 204, which relates to the co-accused and the acts of adjournal in the courts. Even with my amendment, there would still be exceptional circumstances in which the court could act according to what is right, but the presumption would be that the procedure adopted by a court should accord with the child’s needs, which I would suggest in a co-accused case must always take priority over the needs of an adult co-accused. I have thought and struggled long and hard to find a situation in which the rights of an individual child who has been co-accused with an adult would give way to the rights of an adult, simply from the point of view of competency, understanding and age.

In this space for questions—I am sorry, convener; I am adjourning—

Will the minister take an intervention in relation to this section?

Section 14 of the bill deals with the steps to safeguard the welfare and safety of children in criminal proceedings. My amendments include provisions to take better account of young people, and to insert in various parts of the bill the obligation to consider not just the welfare and the safety of young people but the rights of young people.

A number of the amendments are short, but amendment 196 would add a provision to section 14 of the bill—which, in turn, adds a section to the 1995 act—to allow

“the child an opportunity to express the child’s views in”

a way that the young person prefers.

As we have already heard in relation to a number of amendments this morning—and this is the position of the Scottish Government—the young person, including their role, maturity and ability, needs to be taken into account. As a consequence, we must also take into account the manner in which the young person can express their preferences and understanding. That would extend to having regard to the child’s views, taking into account their “age and maturity” in particular. I have already pressed the Government in respect of the test that would be applied to that and it has offered to discuss that.

All of my amendments refer to the importance of a young person being able to understand what is happening to them and being in a position in which they can, as far as is practicable, be comfortable with those around them so that they can express their views. It is important that they are able to understand the consequences of decisions that they might be asked to make in circumstances in which they would, understandably, be concerned, stressed and emotional. Given the purpose of the bill, it is important to have a requirement to make their journey not only as comfortable as possible but as understandable as possible to the young person in a way that is appropriate to their age and their levels of understanding.

I could go into some detail with regard to specific amendments, but, having detailed amendment 196, I will just mention that amendment 198 and subsequent amendments would remove “may” to insert “must” so that the requirement is that the adults—not just those immediately around the young person but those who are involved in the administrative processes—must take account of the young person.

I have nothing further to add, but I will respond to any questions that members might have, and I will respond to any comments that the minister might make subsequently. I will move all of my amendments in this group when required.

I move amendment 193.

Will you take an intervention, minister, or would you rather take it at the end?

Will the member take an intervention?

Or an undercapacity problem.