Consultation on the Minimum Age of Criminal Responsibility

Further training and supports will need to be put in place and this in itself will require increased resources to be available in order to achieve any measure of success eg staffing and financial.

Not only helpful but vital. All agencies need to ensure that they have a consistent approach. This will be promoted if they have a shared understanding and knowledge of the underlying reasons behind the changes being implemented. There is no point in having partner agencies working to different agendas.

The hearing system already deals with all children referred to them by ensuring that the principles of offering protection, control, guidance and treatment are adhered to and that their best interests are safeguarded. If agencies can evidence to a children's hearing that a child is in need of compulsory measures in order to provide them with safety, security and stability and the grounds can be justified in a different category then I see no need for a new grounds category to replac it,

This is dependant upon the seriousness of the circumstances and the assesses risk to the child or others.

But with strict guidelines as to what happens to these samples in the future and how they at collected and stored.

An independent advocate or legal representative must be made available to the child to evidence that their rights were being safeguarded throughout the process.

However it would be dependant upon the seriousness of the circumstances and whether or not the child themselves or others had been at risk.

Again I feel that it would depend on the risk to the child or others that was evident at the time.

There must be an awareness of the consequences of releasing information to the public. It would need to be absolutely clear that there was an immediate risk to the child or others and how the consequences of the information being made public would impact on the lives of the child and the family.

Again it would need to be assessed on an individual basis and be dependant upon the nature of the circumstances at the time and the development of he young person since that time.

Given that the brains of young people are not fully cognitively developed until at least the age of 21 ther needs to be great care taken in regard to this. A young person over the age of 18 may have a very different response to the way they reacted when they were much younger as they now have an increased awareness of consequences and risks. An individual approach would need to be taken as it would be unfair in many circumstances to penalise a young person for the actions that they took when they were much younger and more immature.

There should be as much support available to the victims of harmful behaviour as the perpetrators receive through the hearing system. Our focus is often on the perpetrator and how we can help them rather than with the victim.

If the perpetrator and the victim are likely to come into contact with each other on a regular basis either at school or in the community it would be helpful for the victim to be made aware that action has been taken and that their concerns were taken seriously. If no information is given then it may have consequences for everyone in that environment going forward as there woild be no clarity as to any action that has taken place.

I agree that the age should be increased to 12. This means that primary aged children who have a little less maturity would be dealt with in the more appropriate setting of the hearing system. The number of children that this will affect is small and the hearing system is well placed to deal with these young people.

Groups such as Who Cares Scotland?, Child Clanlaw and other agencies which represent young people on an independent basis should be consulted. Children in school should have an awareness of this proposal and be consulted possibly during social studies lessons during school time.