���˿���

If I can continue with my points, I will be happy to take it once I finish them.

Last week, the member asked where responsibility for referring a child should sit. When an offence is reported to the police, the police will usually provide information about victim support organisations, although I note Police Scotland’s previous evidence to the committee that that is not always the most appropriate time at which to provide such information. The key must be to ensure that there is access to appropriate support throughout the child’s journey through the justice system, not just at the point when it meets the court process, surely.

On all occasions requiring police attendance, when children are present during a domestic incident, or when they reside in a household where such an incident takes place, regardless of their presence, officers in attendance will consider all information, including previous incidents, to assess whether there is a child wellbeing or child protection concern. That response is outlined in our child protection guidance.

Domestic abuse is always a wellbeing concern. Although I cannot get into a full discussion about information sharing as set out, for example, in the getting it right for every child guidance, information can be shared in a lawful, appropriate and proportionate way, if there are concerns about protecting a child or a young person’s wellbeing. Reasonable efforts must be made to inform the child or young person and appropriate family members that that information has been shared.

Almost all local authorities operate multi-agency risk assessment conferences—MARACs—as part of multi-agency risk management work for domestic abuse cases. MARACs also allow for the sharing of relevant risk-focused information in a safe environment to support the development of a co-ordinated multi-agency safety plan to increase victim safety. Any specialist support that a victim might require can be part of such considerations. Such cases might involve child protection concerns, if there is evidence that significant harm has occurred or may occur, with clear multi-agency procedures that are based on national guidance requiring to be followed in such cases. The response could include referral to specialist support services.

I cannot, therefore, support the amendments, and I urge members not to press or move amendments 193 to 205. I encourage the committee to reject them if they are moved.

Just to be clear, my statements are quite long, but I am more than happy to take interventions and to have a debate.

I believe that I said in my comments that officials have been discussing the matter with key stakeholders and that I am more than happy to share details of that.

Yes.

As I have said, it will be up to the panel to determine what information it requires to deal with an individual child’s case, and that will be done on a case-by-case basis.

Do you mean if there was an overcapacity problem?

As noted, the amendments in this group are all minor and technical. Although I am happy to explain any of them in detail, if committee members wish, I am equally happy to move amendment 99 and to invite members to support it.

I am confident about that, although, given the extra attention to the matter, with the whole-system approach, if it became something that I was not confident about, I would certainly look to take action or look at what could be done.

Things would be dealt with on a case-by-case basis. Every child’s situation is different. I probably could not give an example in this meeting, but, as we have established, welfare and rights are different things, and welfare is the basis of the children’s hearing. I would be worried about putting anything else above the idea of welfare, just in case that had an impact on children’s hearings. An example could be the right to family relationships. Welfare concerns might suggest that family relationships are not a priority due to a family member’s behaviour. There could be issues with family conflict, for example. I would be willing to discuss that further with Martin Whitfield, but, at the moment, we cannot support the amendment as it is worded. However, we can certainly work on that.

We understand that amendment 167 seeks to ensure that, when decisions are being made about a child under the 2011 act, decision makers do not discriminate against the child on any of the grounds that are mentioned. Although we agree with the principle, we do not think that the amendment is necessarily workable or necessary.

What is meant by discrimination and the referenced characteristics is not set out in the member’s amendment. That would make it impossible in practice to effectively enforce the obligations that it seeks to impose. In addition, there is a range of statutory duties that already apply to public authorities, including the courts, the Scottish Children’s Reporter Administration and Children’s Hearings Scotland, which oblige them to protect children’s rights and not unlawfully discriminate. Those include non-discrimination duties and the public sector equality duty in the Equality Act 2010, the requirement under the Human Rights Act 1998 to act compatibly with ECHR rights, including article 14, on non-discrimination, and duties to act compatibly with requirements under the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (Incorporation) (Scotland) Act 2024, which include duties in relation to non-discrimination and will come into force this summer.

All of those duties have been carefully framed and do not cut across the established law and principles of the children’s hearings system. They preserve the ability of decision makers to recognise that it might be necessary to treat children differently on the basis of characteristics such as age. For example, it would be appropriate to share information only with a child who is old enough to understand it.

I am discounting amendment 189 altogether, given the way it is worded. I have already been very clear about victims’ rights and information for victims. I have already gone through the Government’s amendments in relation to more information for victims, and I intend to cover that at the end of my remarks.

If the convener is happy for me to continue, I will be happy to respond to any other questions at the end.

Amendment 190 would allow

“any person who is or appears to be a victim”

to seek a review when a child is referred to the principal reporter under the decision-making process governing joint referral.

As well as going against the grain of the bill, the amendments in this group fly in the face of existing law and practice. For example, amendment 3 provides that the principal reporter should refer the matter of alleged serious offending by a child to the Lord Advocate, but that is unnecessary. Current law and guidance mean that both will receive a report of the alleged offending behaviour from the police. The Lord Advocate will carefully consider the case for prosecuting the child in the light of that, taking into account all factors relevant to the public interest, including the rights of any potential victim.