³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ

I want to be very clear that I have said that I will consider the matter. We have sought appropriate legal advice and have proceeded on that basis. Mr Kerr made reference to media law experts. It is the role of the Lord Advocate to satisfy herself on legality, not media law experts. I will make no further comment on the matter at the moment other than to say that I have given assurances to the committee and I am happy to come back to the matter at a later stage.

Amendments 218 and 219, as Martin Whitfield alluded to, cover ground similar to that covered in amendments that were lodged previously. I will not talk about every amendment in the group, as I understand that Mr Whitfield does not intend to press or move his amendments. However, I have already confirmed that I will be discussing the issue further.

I turn to amendment 220. I fully appreciate the challenges that are inherent in the scale and operational needs of the children’s hearings system. I have met Children’s Hearings Scotland, and further meetings are being scheduled with the organisation to make sure that the previous assurances that it gave me that appropriate plans are in place to ensure capacity in the current tribunal model are maintained.

Placing a duty on ministers to report to Parliament on whether there are sufficient numbers of panel members would present a couple of problems. We would risk interfering with the absolutely vital independence of the national convener of Children’s Hearings Scotland. It is for the national convener to determine how to resource children’s panels, as enshrined in the Children’s Hearings (Scotland) Act 2011.

Beyond that fundamental principle, amendment 220 would have serious practical implications. It would risk removing flexibility now and in the future, given that identifying a pre-determined figure on which to base commencement of the bill would create a number of limitations. We must recognise, for example, that the number of hearings and the number of panel members are not fixed. The number of hearings that are scheduled each year can and does change, as can the number of volunteers who are required on a month-to-month basis. In addition, any one volunteer might have more or less time to give to the system than another. Therefore, we could have thousands of volunteers but, depending on their availability, that would not necessarily mean system readiness or capacity. I do not feel that reading into the numbers specifically in that way is necessarily helpful.

Absolutely.

Thank you for the intervention. I do not feel that it needs to be as prescriptive as that. As I have said, commencement plans will, in practical terms, rely on a positive Children’s Hearings Scotland report on the numbers. The bill would not be commenced without an assurance that the numbers are in place to cope with the situation.

On Ruth Maguire’s point about discussions, the situation is fluid, which is why those on-going discussions are important. For example, in November, Children’s Hearings Scotland planned to run a February recruitment campaign, but now it does not, because, I believe, the situation has improved. It is fluid, it is fluctuating and it needs to be considered on a continual basis, rather than setting in stone what is required for it to go ahead.

I am trying to set out why I do not feel that the amendment is necessary at this stage, and I hope that I have provided reassurances in that respect. I have said everything that I was planning to say in response to those interventions, so I ask the relevant members not to move the amendments in the group, and if they do, I ask the committee to reject them for the reasons that I have outlined.

Absolutely. As I said, I will make all efforts that I can to encourage take-up of that provision.

On the issue of rurality and distance, there are a number of reasons why uptake might not be as high for our two-year-olds as it is for our three to five-year-olds. I am certainly looking to understand the reasons for that variation.

In relation to our further expansion and announcements in the programme for government, the member will be aware that we have early adopter communities under way. Those communities were limited to four, but we added another two in the programme for government. Discussions and plans as to how we roll out in those areas are now under way.

Those early adopter communities are working with families to look at providing childcare from nine months right up to school age. As I said, it is about understanding what is best for families, what is best for the children and what is best for the local areas, which goes back to Willie Rennie’s point about locality and rurality. Work is under way to extend our current offer to ensure that it works for parents, children and families. I do not have to tell the member that we are operating under extremely difficult financial circumstances. We are trying to go as fast as we can, but more important is that we get it right for families. Single-parent families will obviously be a consideration in our work.

I cannot commit to lodging an amendment, but I can commit to considering the matter further.

To follow on from that, the information-gathering and publication duty in amendment 158 could impose a disproportionate and misplaced burden on local authorities. As I said, I am happy to consider that further.

On amendments 159 to 161, as I said, in addition to their raising technical drafting issues, they could be problematic. I understand that the intention of amendment 159 is to ensure that needs assessments are undertaken for children entering secure accommodation. However, that already happens, and regular reviews are carried out, as required by the legislation.

I feel that it is being reported, and, in fact, I have had conversations with officials this morning about whether improvements can be made in relation to that. However, the amendments that have been lodged raise a couple of problems in terms of overlap. There needs to be either more refinement of them or more work in relation to that issue.

I will comment on the amendments in relation to Mr Kerr’s questions in just a second. I thank him for those.

I assure the committee categorically that legal advice has been sought on all the bill’s provisions and the amendments in the normal way, as is the normal bill process. As members will appreciate, the ministerial code requires that I respect the confidentiality of advice that is given, and I am not able to get into the details of that now. Mr Kerr can be assured that legal advice has been sought, and we have proceeded with that in mind.

I will try to get through all Mr. Whitfield’s points. In relation to his first point about allowing people to apply for the order, as I outlined in my opening comments, that provision is extremely important to allow the police and the prosecutor to publish the information when that is required. New section 106BA(2) is left open so that others can apply—it is not restricted.

The sheriff would look at matters objectively and weigh up all the factors. Obviously, that would be done on a case-by-case basis, and it would be for the sheriff to make decisions based on each case individually. It would be for the sheriff to consider how best to consider the views of the child, depending on the circumstances of the specific case and the age of the child.

The opportunity to make representation is, again, wide, and it will be for the court to decide who has an interest, based on the specifics of the case. The court involvement should minimise any risks of the child being, or being perceived to be, coerced into consenting to a third party publishing identifiable information about the child. It is about safeguarding the child in that respect.

As I said, I am more than happy to have further discussion with Mr Whitfield about some of his more specific points, but I believe that the Government amendments provide what is required as well as the appropriate protections for children and young people. I urge Mr Whitfield to support the Government amendments.

I will begin, as I did in group 13, by reiterating that I absolutely recognise the intention behind the amendments in this group, which is to reduce the trauma that is experienced by those who lose a child as a result of crime, and I understand Ms Maguire’s motivation for lodging them. I reiterate that the Government is committed to considering the issue in more detail and in discussion with those with lived experience, but—