���˿���

If, for some reason, a CPG wanted to cease to exist—whatever cause brought that about—it would have to come to the committee for formal recognition of that, which triggers changes to the website and to the requirement for the clerks to collect its minutes, for example. In addition, although CPGs are not a formal part of the parliamentary process, they enjoy certain privileges—for example, under the Lobbying (Scotland) Act 2016—so removing recognition from a CPG is a formal step that rests with the committee. I hope that that is helpful.

That is worthy of note. In the past, following various interactions with CPGs throughout this parliamentary session, the committee has written to ���˿��� to remind them of their personal and individual responsibility, notwithstanding the fact that many are supported by a competent secretariat and their members of staff, who carry out so much work. There is support and it is disappointing that, for whatever reason, some people who have a role that is placed on them under the code of conduct have—on the face of it—chosen to ignore requests from the clerks.

Part of the work programme that we envisage includes some form of inquiry into CPGs. From the outset of this parliamentary session, ���˿��� who were returned with considerably more experience than others had a view on the number of CPGs. Members have commented on that, subjectively and objectively, because of the time commitment and because, as far as the committee is concerned, CPGs have responsibilities under the code of conduct, which relate specifically to the ���˿��� who are involved.

I have said before that, sometimes, ���˿��� need to be protected from themselves. We have the opportunity to take evidence in whatever form from people who are involved in CPGs and to return to the report that we are considering today. Serious questions need to be asked. The original purpose behind CPGs, which I laid out at the outset, is incredibly important, and that has not changed. However, there is clearly a challenge in complying with the responsibilities that ���˿��� take on when they—willingly—agree to do the useful task of convening and organising a group.

It is.

I do not know that; I am just saying—

If there are no other comments, I will reiterate the committee’s significant disappointment about non-compliance. ���˿��� have a personal responsibility with regard to CPGs, which are an opportunity for ���˿��� across political parties to hear the lived experience and wisdom of people outside this place. CPGs fulfil an important role, not least with regard to the number of people who visit the Parliament because of them. The hybrid nature of so much of our interaction now means that people who are much further away can also contribute to CPGs, which is important.

First, I suggest that we put it in the diary to revisit the position in, say, three months. Secondly, I suggest that, if the committee is happy, I will write to the CPGs that are in breach to point that out, to reiterate that we are concerned about whether they should maintain their recognition as a cross-party group and, perhaps, to say that silence will not be accepted as an indication that they want the group to continue. Are we content with those actions?

Members indicated agreement.

Is proposed new section 90B expected to extend to transportation of young people by justice services? I am not talking about transportation between secure accommodation or to or from secure accommodation, but about transportation by law enforcement officers during the course of their duties.

I am grateful for the indication from the Government. Under those circumstances, I seek your leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 218, by agreement, withdrawn.

Amendment 219 not moved.

Sections 28 to 30 agreed to.

Schedule

Amendments 114 to 118 moved—[Natalie Don]—and agreed to.

Schedule, as amended, agreed to.

Section 31—Commencement

Amendment 220 not moved.

Sections 31 and 32 agreed to.

Long title agreed to.

Good morning to the committee and to those attending. Amendment 213 relates specifically to the provision of services that need to be made available to children in secure accommodation. I thank the minister for dealing with the context in her comments, which allows me to address some of the issues that appear to be of concern to the Government.

It is absolutely right that secure accommodation provides an integrated delivery model whereby individual assessments are made for each child, because those are unique individuals who are presenting in the system. Of course, secure accommodation has child protection policies in place. It is also true to say that some of the children who present have some of the most complex needs of any individual who comes into contact with the state.

With respect, however, I disagree with the Government’s assertion that amendment 213 is too open and could require the secure accommodation providers to have an on-going obligation to individual children. The reference in the amendment to “secure accommodation” is drawn from the Children’s Hearings (Scotland) Act 2011, which defines secure accommodation only as far as it extends to those providers accommodating young people. The 2011 act specifically says:

“for the purpose of restricting the liberty of children”.

The secure accommodation provider cannot, therefore, be held responsible beyond that obligation to secure the restriction of children’s liberty.

I respectfully disagree with the minister, therefore, that that would open an on-going obligation. If that was the argument, there would be an on-going obligation on primary schools, nurseries and local authorities, ad infinitum. There is a period of time in which an emanation of the state ceases to be the responsible party for a young person. That is defined and understood in almost all interactions between young people and emanations of the state.

Amendment 213 seeks to provide a baseline to provide an opportunity to achieve the intended outcomes, which we have discussed over the past three weeks and at stage 1. It would allow us to stand a chance of achieving a better outcome, because it would place on the secure accommodation provider a specific obligation in respect of those young people who come within that provider’s area of influence to take responsibility to ensure, where appropriate, the provision of

“advocacy services … education … emotional and mental health support … health care … support to maintain contact with the child’s family”

and

“transition and aftercare support.”

The minister confirmed in her submission that only some of those elements already sit within the secure accommodation provider’s responsibilities. The purpose of amendment 213 is to bring together a holistic overview to ensure that there is a baseline for every young person who comes within secure accommodation that will be looked at by the person who is engaged in the most important of tasks: restricting the liberty of the child. It should surely be for that secure accommodation provider to undertake that responsibility.

This set of amendments, which relate to data collection and reporting the outcome for children, are all intended to ensure, as we have discussed with a number of amendments, that the recognised outcomes that we seek from the bill are achieved and accounted for. I understand that there are challenges with regard to anonymisation and identifying individual young people. However, if we do not collect and analyse the data or have reports on the outcomes for our young people, there is a real risk of unforeseen consequences.

I am grateful to the Scottish Government, which has indicated a willingness to discuss the matter before stage 3. Therefore, unless other committee members have any questions, I do not intend to take this element of the debate much further forward.

I move amendment 218.