Chamber and committees

I understand the trepidation about the amendments, but it is important to pinpoint my position. They are probing amendments and I will not move them all, but I reserve the right to bring them back at stage 3, because there are some important points that the bill may not necessarily have taken into consideration. I hope that my narrative will help to explain the reason for the amendments.

Sixteen and 17-year-olds who are considered to have committed the most serious of offences—I have already stated what those are—will be placed in a position in which a CSO is applied, with a residential placement or movement restriction conditions. A CSO being applied in a residential care facility would mean that there is the potential for care-experienced young people who have caused harm to be located beside care-experienced young people who are being protected from harm. Understanding the effects of trauma in that case means that the care-experienced young person who is there to be protected from harm could experience instant anxiety, fear and perceived danger. No amount of separation in one facility will mitigate that; retraumatisation is inevitable. It is essential that there is adequate Government funding to ensure that there are sufficient residential facilities so that the scenario that I have laid out is not an option.

I have lodged my amendments because I am concerned that the balance is not there. As I have already stated, I will not press amendment 11 or move the others in the group, but I need reassurances from the Government that we will not have a situation in which young people, whom we have been charged to take care of because they are unsafe in their home environment, are placed with people whom we are charged to take care of because they have caused harm. I will not press or move my amendments, but I am interested in the Scottish Government’s response to my points.

I move amendment 11.

I accept the Government’s offer to speak to me, especially on amendments 4 and 5, so I will not press my amendments in the group. I hope that we can move forward with some change of wording and press the point at stage 3.

Amendment 2, by agreement, withdrawn.

Amendments 167 and 166 not moved.

Amendment 168 moved—[Pam Duncan-Glancy].

I am sorry—I will have to take my glasses off for this. The Promise—I am sorry, but I am trying to articulate my point.

Certain criminal offences have to be treated as severe. They are solemn court cases, and they should go through a process that recognises that solemn nature. It is therefore important that we have an option to do that, especially when it comes to serious crime.

We need to be mindful of not only the children who cause harm but the people who have had harm inflicted upon them. The amendments would ensure that, in the one or two cases in which it is required, there is the option to go through the criminal process, especially when it comes to severe criminal processes.

I have spoken to the three amendments and I will stop there.

I move amendment 3.

As I have stated, I will not press amendment 11 or move the other amendments. It will be unacceptable in solemn cases that we move towards a movement restriction condition. It is relevant that we ensure, through the process of the bill, that we have adequate residential care. However, I will not press amendment 11.

Amendment 11, by agreement, withdrawn.

Section 6—Provision of information to person affected by child’s offence or behaviour

Amendment 12 not moved.

Amendment 13 moved—[Natalie Don].

My amendments seek to strengthen the rights of victims while not taking away from the process in the bill for change for young offenders. If we accept the premise that young people who cause harm are themselves victims of harm and therefore traumatised, we must also accept that victims, especially young victims, will most likely be from a similar background and be equally traumatised. It is essential that changes to the children’s hearing system are set up to accommodate a balance.

Amendments 2, 4, 5, 6, 12 and 14 set out the considerations for young victims that are equally important and should also be at the centre of a child-based process. The purpose of my amendments is to ensure that victims are afforded protections through any court process to ensure their safety and that the rights of all children involved in the process are articulated to them.

I do not have a long speech to make, because I know that we have a lot of amendments and that time is short, so those are my comments on the amendments.

I move amendment 2.

I want to respond to Ross Greer’s comments. Amendments 18 and 19 seek only that reference cases be referred to the Lord Advocate; they do not seek to impact on her decisions in that regard.

I seek to withdraw amendment 3.

Amendment 3, by agreement, withdrawn.

Amendment 172 moved—[Pam Duncan-Glancy].

I will just make sure that I have got this correct in my mind. For every policy variance that the Scottish Government puts forward and every change that it wants to adopt, there needs to be cognisance of the insecurities that follow on from that as far as the budget process is concerned and we need to be aware that there will be an additional effect based on the Government’s policy decisions.

Thanks very much. That is very helpful and informative.

The initial question was about the uprating policy putting pressure on the Scottish Government’s budget choices, and we have been very focused on inflation, which I understand. Is inflation the biggest concern when it comes to those pressures or is it the variance of the Scottish Government’s policy decisions?

That is excellent. Thank you very much indeed.

Yes, I would. Bob Doris keeps doing that to me. This question follows on from the one that he asked.

I am very interested in forecast error. My question touches on what you have said. I appreciate the information that you have provided. According to the information that you have given us, we are looking at a forecast error of 3 per cent, or £127 million. As has been mentioned, as time goes on and the bill increases, a 3 per cent variance becomes a lot of money. Can we continue to expect to have a 3 per cent forecasting error? Moving forward, we really need to have a plus or minus figure in our thought processes as we look at budget forecasting.