���˿���

MRCs are obviously designed to be less restrictive than secure care. Expanding the circumstances in which MRCs can be used will mean that more children can be supported in that way, although I appreciate that the member has concerns about that. The conditions will be imposed where that is deemed appropriate. The safeguards that already exist under the Children’s Hearings (Scotland) Act 2011 will still apply, so I do not feel that they need to be added to the bill. A children’s hearing is not a sentencing tribunal—it makes decisions to safeguard and promote the child’s welfare throughout their childhood and not necessarily to punish a child for their actions. Therefore, MRCs, like any measure that comes through the children’s hearings system, can be imposed only if doing that is better for the child than not doing it.

Yes. As I said, it will be deemed on a case-by-case basis, depending on the circumstances surrounding that child.

We have been clear that the number of cross-border placements needs to be reduced. I do not want to say that such placements should end entirely, because, as I have mentioned, they are required in exceptional circumstances.

You will be aware that the Scottish Government currently funds the last bed in secure care centres in order to keep capacity for children in Scotland. That helps with capacity and funding issues, but we will need to monitor that.

I am going to meet Claire Coutinho, a UK Government minister, to discuss cross-border placements. The arrangements for my meeting with her were finalised just this morning. Although that will be an introductory meeting, the issue of cross-border placements will come up, because, regardless of financial circumstances, we want to minimise the number of such placements, which should be provided only when they are deemed to be absolutely necessary for the safeguarding of the children.

This is a finely balanced area. The issue of upholding the rights of the person who has committed the offence and, of course, those of the victim has had strong consideration. Crucially, at the end of the day, children’s hearings are not criminal justice settings and the rights of the victim in that setting must be balanced carefully against the rights of the child in question.

I know that evidence that the committee has received via written responses to its call for evidence has highlighted the range of views on this matter, including the challenges of the fine balancing act that I have spoken about. I consider that the bill strikes the right balance between the victim’s needs and the principles that inform and underpin the children’s hearings system.

I assure the member that we have listened carefully to the points made during the evidence sessions about information sharing, and we will continue to do so as the bill progresses through Parliament.

Absolutely. That will be taken into consideration.

I have already touched on this issue in previous responses. We considered extending compulsory measures beyond 18, using the children’s hearings system, but the system is completely designed around making decisions on compulsory orders on children, with relevant persons also having rights to the child.

The test that is currently applied is that compulsory orders can be made only if they are necessary to safeguard or promote welfare throughout childhood, and any extension beyond the age of 18 would require an entirely new framework for the system, and the tests that are needed to justify compulsion beyond childhood would need to be altered and restated in order to accommodate the rights of that young adult. That could also cause capacity issues in the system, and volunteer panel members would require to be trained and supported in decision making in relation to young people as opposed to children. Therefore, the proposal has not been taken forward. I know that, in its written evidence, the SCRA agreed with the approach that we have taken.

Absolutely. We do not want the system to say, “That’s you turned 18, so just get on and deal with it.” The bill is specific to under-18s but, in many areas, Scotland is still developing a really distinct approach to young people aged between 18 and 25. That includes, for example, the Scottish Sentencing Council’s guidelines, which I have already touched on; the extension of the whole-system approach under the youth justice vision; and youth court pilots. All of that will continue to be monitored to provide learning for future considerations for those between 18 and 25. We absolutely want the support to be there for that age group.

Thank you for repeating that for me. The bill increases the opportunities for local authority notifications and visits. That includes the ability for the local authority to advise that intimation should not be sent to a parent or a named adult if the authority feels that that might be detrimental to the wellbeing of the child. The aim is to ensure that every child has an appropriate person notified and that no child is left in police custody without being visited by either a parent, another adult or the local authority.

The bill also extends considerations for keeping children in a place of safety prior to attendance at court, as well as helping to ensure that a solicitor is present during police interviews.

Police Scotland has provided evidence on how the current provisions work in practice, and the Scottish Government is in on-going dialogue with Police Scotland on the potential implications of the bill in that light.

Following consideration of the responses to the consultation, I am content that there is already sufficient legislative provision to enable secure transport to be used when necessary and to ensure the safety—

I believe so—around 10 per cent.