³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ

Will the minister accept an intervention?

As far as I can hear, a number of things are being suggested by the minister. The first is that another bill could be used for that, and the second is that there will be a round table to discuss it. I am getting a bit concerned, not least—given some of the concerns that we expressed earlier—because it is not this particular minister who is arranging the round table.

Who is arranging that round table, minister, and what conversations are you having with that person? Is it not possible to bring that forward so that the bill can be the best that it possibly can be? With respect, the committee is trying to do the best that it possibly can by ensuring that we do not miss an opportunity, as my colleague Willie Rennie highlighted, and that we do not subsequently have to revisit the bill.

I appreciate that. It feels a bit peculiar that it is more like a statement as opposed to a debate in which interventions are taken. That makes it difficult to have a detailed discussion on very detailed parts of legislation, which, of course, this is about.

To the substance of my intervention: on the amendments in Martin Whitfield’s name, the minister seems to be saying that part of the concern is not about the particular overreach into the judiciary, which I will leave for a moment, but that the effect could be to delay processes because there might not be enough buildings or the case might have to be moved. I look forward to debating my amendment on the numbers of panel members, because that, too, could frustrate and delay some aspects of justice—I hope that the minister will take a similar view on that.

I am a bit concerned that the minister is relying on the fact that the ECHR and the UNCRC are enough. Although the ECHR is international legislation to which we hope that the courts would adhere, there are reasons why we introduced domestic legislation in the area, such as the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (Incorporation) (Scotland) Act 2024. This is an opportunity to include in the bill part of the UNCRC, which may not cover all aspects of the bill because of the recent amendments that had to be made to the 2024 act. That concerns me.

I cannot see, from the points that the minister made about my amendment 205 on domestic abuse and violence, why my amendment to the Domestic Abuse (Scotland) Act 2018 would be a problem. It appears to me that all that it would do would be to strengthen the ability of the state to provide support. It is well known that failures can happen in the justice system, particularly for women who have experienced domestic violence. Therefore, at every point at which we have an opportunity to address that, we should do so. I believe that my amendment 205 does that and I see no reason, on the basis of what the minister has set out, why she would not support it.

I appreciate that. My amendment does not undo any of that. It literally adds another point at which someone could be caught from the system—another safety net, as it were—to ensure that that support would be in place.

I appreciate that, and I appreciate that the timetable is the timetable, but can the minister explain why the round table will not take place until 20 February, given how important it is to the bill that we have in front of us?

Yes.

It is my intention to abstain on amendments 60 to 62 and to vote for amendments 63 and 64, if that is helpful, convener.

Will the member take an intervention?

Given that the minister did not support six of the amendments that I lodged last week in this space, which would have given victims the opportunity to ask to intervene at various points and which were slightly more narrowly focused than amendment 206, where does the minister intend victims to have their say, and at what point?

There are several amendments in my name in this group. They focus on the importance of actively engaging with and considering the views of victims, recognising the impact on victims of behaviour that has led to proceedings and taking victims’ safety into consideration when discharging the duties of the panel in the disposals.

The amendments seek to ensure a fair and responsible legal framework that aligns with the principles of justice, respects the rights of victims and acknowledges their potential vulnerability and the need to safeguard their wellbeing. In short, I believe that they balance article 39 on rights to rehab and article 12 on the right of the child to be heard. A balance must be struck to ensure that the bill and the processes that it creates remain within the scope of children’s rights, particularly those in the UNCRC. The amendments in my name seek to strike that balance by satisfying the victim’s right to information while safeguarding the child’s best interests.

Amendment 168 makes provision for the panel or the sheriff to allow the victim, in so far as is practicable, the opportunity to express their views and to have regard to those views when making a decision whether to impose a movement restriction condition or a compulsory supervision order.

Amendment 173 looks to incorporate the impact on victims into the process by stipulating that, when a compulsory supervision order is imposed, the concerns and safety of the person affected must be taken into consideration.

Amendment 178 speaks to the safety of victims by making provision to expand the information that a victim is entitled to request to include whether a compulsory supervision order has been issued and, if so, the conditions of that order and how they are to be enforced, while amendment 180 allows the victim to be notified if such an order has not been complied with or if any review has been carried out as a result, as well as the outcomes of such a review.

Amendment 175 ensures that victims can be informed when such an order includes a movement restriction condition as well as what the arrangements specified by that condition are. Unlike some of the other amendments that colleagues have lodged, this amendment allows for the information to be withheld on the basis that sharing it could be detrimental to the best interests of the child subject to the condition.

Amendment 181 requires Scottish ministers to establish a single point of contact for the sharing of information with victims and—crucially—that that be introduced under the affirmative procedure.

I would just note that although I agree with much of my colleague Willie Rennie’s amendment 122, which suggests a similar system, I also feel slightly reticent about it because I am concerned that its section (2)(a)(i) disregards any major consideration with regard to the rights and welfare of the child. I will be listening carefully to the discussion in that respect.

I support Roz McCall’s amendment 4, which adds a clear provision for a compulsory supervision order to specifically prohibit the child subject to the order from entering the home, workplace or place of education of the victim of their offences.