³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ

I understand that. My apologies, convener, if my question was not put in the correct way. I accept that we have concerns with the GP gateway—we are agreed on that. I was thinking that, when Social Security Scotland is getting additional information that is not from a health process—from education, for example—I hope that that is as smooth as possible. That is what I was referring to, rather than the gateway process. I am happy with your suggestion, convener, but we should also ensure that education and other parts of government are aware of the need for a smooth process.

Thank you.

I will.

My amendments in this group are probing amendments.

I am aware that, over recent years, councils have made decisions to reduce their residential estates. That begs a question on safeguarding. It is very important that we ensure that there is a prudent level of safeguarding in relation to our residential placements.

We could easily have a situation in which someone over the age of 18, who is legally an adult, is in secure accommodation because it has been deemed important that their liberty is withdrawn but they are living in the same secure accommodation as a child—in other words, someone under the age of 18—who has been placed there so that they can stay out of harm’s way. That is an unacceptable position. Given the situation as regards residential placements and the state of the residential estate across the country, I would like the minister to outline the safeguarding measures in the bill and explain how she will ensure that that scenario will not arise in reality.

That is my general feeling as regards section 16. The intention of my amendments is to start a debate on the subject. I am not 100 per cent sure that the safeguarding measures that are in place are sufficient. I would be interested in hearing what the minister has to say on that.

I move amendment 95.

I was talking about a specific scenario, on which I am not 100 per cent sure that I got a response. It is about safeguarding. Although I understand that decisions will be made case by case and that it will be for local authorities to decide, there has to be absolute certainty that the financial provision and support to ensure that that happens are available.

I am not 100 per cent convinced by the answer that we have a failsafe in place. As much as I understand the position on young offenders institutions and that people will be concerned or even worried about the direction of some of the amendments that I have lodged, an option needs to be in place. I am really not sure that it is.

I will not press the amendments in the group, but I am still concerned and will discuss with the minister how we move the matter forward for stage 3.

Amendment 95, by agreement, withdrawn.

Section 16 agreed to.

Section 17—Detention of children on conviction

Amendments 96 to 98 not moved.

Thank you, convener. This is the first time that I have spoken today.

The group of amendments that I have lodged balance previous amendments that came up last week but that, in the end, were not moved. My amendments in this group are designed to allow the courts to refer to the children’s hearings process, if deemed appropriate to the child’s treatment, when the child pleads guilty or is found guilty of an offence in solemn proceedings. They are designed to ensure that the child’s welfare is at the centre of decision making and to allow the support network provided by the children’s hearings system to be provided in such cases. However, given that the previous amendments were not moved last week, these amendments—that is, amendments 85 to 88—will have to be withdrawn or not moved.

I move amendment 85.

It is interesting to be winding up a debate that has moved on in such a way. As I stated, I will seek to withdraw or not move my amendments, but I have to say that I am concerned about the process that has been followed in the debate. It is, as I have said, interesting to sum up on what might be called an additional amendment, and I should say that, if I were in a position to do so, I would support amendment 206. I am concerned about the disparity in this respect and about the ethos in question holding true, perhaps to detrimental effect.

I agree with that.

At this point, I will just say that I wish to withdraw amendment 85.

Amendment 85, by agreement, withdrawn.

Amendments 86 to 88 not moved.

Amendment 206 moved—[Liam Kerr].

My amendments in this group are on the prosecution of children in the appropriate system and would apply only to cases involving what are considered to be the most serious offences. I know that we have gone over this, but I will repeat it.

The offences that are covered are those that are required by law to be prosecuted on indictment, which are common law offences of murder, treason, rape and certain statutory offences, including possession of a firearm with intent to injure, causing death by dangerous driving, sexual assault by penetration, rape of a young child and sexual assault on a young child by penetration. The intent of my amendments is to ensure that such cases are prosecuted via the criminal courts and cannot be dealt with by the children’s reporter.

It is important that the Mackie review is enacted in tandem with the bill. I note that the Government’s response to the Mackie review was published just before Christmas recess. The changes to the children’s hearings panel, funding for paid positions and training are all crucial to ensuring that the bill works for all young people. As the Government will not support the recommendation on paid positions and will continue to follow the existing volunteer model—unfortunately, the system is haemorrhaging volunteers—it is essential that cases involving 16 and 17-year-olds and the most serious offences proceed through the criminal courts.

Amendment 3 seeks to prevent the principal reporter from being able to investigate and refer cases to a children’s hearing where a child who is aged 16 or over is accused of serious offences, as I have stated. Amendments 18 and 19 would require the Lord Advocate to consider the risk to the victim if a child is dealt with via the children’s hearings system instead of being prosecuted.

No, thank you.