Chamber and committees

I am very grateful for that. That was helpful.

On the issue of restorative justice for children, such an approach can work only when all parties are open to it and maintain that openness as they go through the system. We have seen challenges arising with restorative justice in other environments in which there has been a misunderstanding as to what the restorative justice is, or rather a misunderstanding among those surrounding the individuals who take part in restorative justice. The minister was right to mention the 2017 publication. Is there an intention to revisit, to review or, indeed, to republish that guidance under the provisions of the bill that the committee has already amended? Will that be taken forward?

It is right to say that others’ rights and an individual young person’s welfare can clearly come into conflict. However, when a young person’s own rights and own welfare could come into conflict, I struggle to see when the decision would be that their welfare should take priority over their rights. Will the minister expand on when she sees the potential danger of a conflict between a young person’s rights and their welfare?

On that point, is there not a challenge, given that, when you have a victim who is within the children’s hearings system through one part of the referral, their welfare is taken into account, but a victim who does not happen to be part of the children’s hearings system, because of the circumstances of the individual referral to it, will go unheard?

It is a pleasure to take part in this stage 2 debate. For the purpose of practice, if nothing else, it may be beneficial that there is only one amendment in this first group.

Amendment 164 aims to highlight the importance of the purpose that underpins the bill, which is to promote the wellbeing and rights of children in the children’s hearings system and the criminal justice system. That was reflected in the policy memorandum that was published when the bill was introduced, but clearer evidence as to the purpose behind the bill should be given in the preamble.

I move amendment 164.

I am slightly disappointed by the minister’s response. There is almost a contradiction between seeking the nuance that the bill and its amendments contain and saying that my amendment 164 would blur the overall view. The promotion of the rights of children and their wellbeing should sit at the heart of anyone in Scotland, particularly when children come into contact with the children’s hearings system and the criminal justice system. Under the circumstances, I will press the amendment.

Three amendments in this group bear my name. Two of them—amendments 174 and 176—cover a similar situation in that they seek to add the victim into the consideration when an MRC or CSO is made.

The other amendment in my name, amendment 184, relates to the procedural rules and speaks to the responsibility to take into account the victim’s needs in decision making. We have heard a lot about transparency and the role of the children’s hearings system in making decisions, and it is important that those who are closest to the situation but who are not immediately involved in the decision making are aware of what is going on and that their needs are taken into account when decisions are made.

I am, as always, conscious of the time and the contribution necessary to get these things over the line.

My amendments relate to the reporting duty by which the use of multi-agency approaches will be held to account. The fact is that no one solution will help any individual young person; what is required is the coming together of different areas of support. There is an obligation on the Scottish ministers to ensure that those different areas can come together, are recognised and can have a say in supporting our young people. Amendment 188 requires the steps that have been taken and approaches that have been pursued to be set out, to allow us to hold to account the Scottish Government or the Scottish ministers as those responsible for such approaches.

I have a question for clarification. Has the minister considered a situation in which there might be disagreement between the provider and the senior social worker, and whether the senior social worker’s decision would prevail in that case?

I am very supportive of the proposals that are set out here, but the minister will be aware that one of the challenges is how that information is disseminated, particularly by people who are close to a young person in the system. Given that the Children’s Hearings (Scotland) Act 2011 makes reference to the Broadcasting Act 1990, which is obviously reserved, is the minister content that there is sufficient control and coverage of social media—say, TikTok or Facebook—so that that would amount to a broadcast that would allow a potential breach to be investigated and pursued?

This is, of course, a public hearing in which the contributions are noted and, in due course, could be reflected in decisions that are taken. It is useful for people to be able to articulate their position—exactly as the minister has done—and for it be shown where there is disagreement and whether that ground can be bridged before stage 3, which is the last step in a bill before it potentially becomes legislation. Does Willie Rennie agree that it is right that we are able to articulate the reasoning behind our amendments? That may reduce some of the discussion that needs to take place—hopefully, it will not show that discussion does not need to take place, but that there is a positive reason for it.