���˿���

I am sorry, convener, but I was responding to comments from another intervention, so it was just a bit difficult there.

On Ms Duncan-Glancy’s comments, I have been clear that I believe that the amendments would result in duplication and complexity. I have laid out the reasoning for not supporting Ms Duncan-Glancy’s amendment 205. I believe that that support should be in place prior to the point at which it meets the court process, and I have laid out the avenues for that to be possible. If Ms Duncan-Glancy is saying that that is not always happening or that it needs to be improved, then we need to look into that. However, I think that the support for domestic abuse is required at a much earlier stage than the point at which it meets the court process.

That would be very concerning, and the implications would stretch much further than the bill. However, we would still be compliant with the UNCRC in that regard.

Yes, I would say so. As I will come on to, there are already vehicles in the children’s hearings system to allow the impact on a victim to be taken into consideration.

Can you repeat your second question?

Absolutely. I have said many times that each referred child’s case is different, so it is for panel members to decide what information they require to inform their decision. They would have appropriate avenues to gather that information from the various services that are involved.

Regarding the idea of having further information in the children’s hearings system, the committee agreed last week that it was not appropriate to give further voice or to give that opportunity, so I am a little unclear as to why we are debating that again when the committee has already agreed that that should not be the case.

As I have said very clearly, the impact of any act on the victim will already be taken into consideration by the panel, and decisions will be made by the panel on what they feel is the best approach. I cannot be any clearer about the ethos of the children’s hearings system and how it is not a mini-court setting or, going back to my previous response, about how a victim impact statement could impact on the judgment on what is right for the child who is at the centre of the children’s hearings system.

I am sorry, convener, but I really do not understand how I can be any clearer than that. As we debated last week, through the bill there will be increased support and information for the victim. However, we have to remember that the referred child has to be at the centre in the children’s hearings system and that decisions are made to best impact on that child.

The provisions in sections 16 and 17 of the bill as introduced on enabling children who have been detained in secure accommodation to stay in that accommodation after turning 18 are necessary in enabling us to keep the Promise. The independent care review concluded:

“If a young person turns 18 during their time in Secure Care, there must not be an automatic transfer to a Young Offenders Institute. There must be more scope to remain in Secure Care for those who have turned 18.”

Such a change was also recommended by a previous justice committee of this Parliament. The amendments in this group are contrary to that aim, which—although I appreciate that they are probing amendments—is disappointing, given the shared commitment in the Parliament to keeping the Promise to people who have experience of Scotland’s care system.

The approach in the bill as introduced supports stability, continuity of care and support, and enduring relationships for children in secure care, as well as providing for gradual and improved transitions for children as they turn 18, which is crucial to supporting their reintegration and rehabilitation. Those benefits would be lost if Roz McCall’s amendments were agreed to.

In allowing case-by-case decision making, the bill as introduced is consistent with the UNCRC and with international human rights standards. When decisions are made about whether to allow a young person to remain in secure accommodation beyond the age of 18, those decisions will be made on a case-by-case basis to ensure not only that they are in the best interests of the young person concerned, but that they are not contrary to the best interests of the other children in that facility.

I will touch on such matters later in my comments, but, as the issue is one for secure care centres to deal with on a case-by-case basis, I could not say today how that specific instance would be dealt with. I will continue, and if Ms Thomson would like to come back in, I would be more than happy to allow her to do so.

The specific considerations will be detailed in the regulations, which will undergo parliamentary scrutiny and be subject to the affirmative procedure. If it is concluded that remaining in the secure accommodation will not be in the best interests of the young person or of any other child, the young person would not remain in that accommodation. I hope that that alleviates any concerns that the committee and others outside Parliament might have regarding any potential negative implications for the other children who are cared for in the secure accommodation setting.

Although secure care centres do not currently support children over the age of 18, they are supportive of the change. Discussions are on-going about how it will be implemented. Secure care centres are already working to prepare for implementation of that element of the bill, if it is passed, and to ensure that the needs of all children and young people in their care can be met. Those provisions also received positive support in the public consultation on the bill proposals in 2023.

There is no distinction on secure care that is based on gender, as I will discuss later. Each centre has its own considerations on each case and how that would be managed. As I said, discussions are taking place now. I am sure that, if the member wishes further information on the implementation, that could come at a later date.

We have not met with that scenario in recent years. There has been capacity in the secure care centres. Again, we would have to deal with the issue at the time on a case-by-case basis in discussion with the secure care centres. It would be about what was best for the children involved. Although I can imagine that scenario—I am sure that Mr Whitfield can, too—I probably could not lay it out in black and white, because it would not be a decision for me as a minister to take.

Amendments 95, 97, 103 and 104 would remove the ability to allow children who are detained in secure accommodation before the age of 18 to remain there. Obviously, that would mean that those young people would be required to move to a YOI on their 18th birthday—we have seen that happen—regardless of their needs, vulnerabilities or best interests and regardless of how much or how little of their sentence remains to be served, which could be just a few days. I am sure that the committee agrees that it would be a lot of upheaval for a young person to be transferred to a young offenders institution for a matter of days.

There is no provision in law for children who are detained under sections 44 and 216 of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995 to be detained in YOIs. Therefore, on turning 18, they would need to be released or moved to another place. That would be chosen by the local authority but it would not be secure accommodation.

Ms McCall’s amendments would mean that young people who were detained in secure accommodation would be subject to a cliff edge. However, I appreciate that she has said that she does not intend to press them. If they were pressed, I would not be able to support them.

I am confident about that.