HOLYROOD has voted against attempts to raise the age of criminal responsibility in Scotland to either 14 or 16.
LibDem Alex Cole-Hamilton lodged amendments to a planned new law to increase the age from eight to 12, arguing a further increase would be in line with international responsibilities.
The current age is one of the lowest in the world, and below the rest of the UK at 10.
During a debate on the Age of Criminal Responsibility (Scotland) Bill at stage two at Holyrood’s Equalities and Human Rights Committee, Cole-Hamilton said the United Nations will increase the baseline age from the current 12 to 14 in the coming days.
He said: “Unamended, this Bill is an embarrassment ... I will only vote for this Bill because the current age of criminal responsibility in Scotland is, quite frankly, medieval.”
He said history, the international community and the children affected will judge the Government for not backing the further increase, which he said wrecks any claim that Scotland is a human rights champion.
His amendments to raise the age of criminal responsibility to either 14 or 16, to give 18 months for this to come into effect once the legislation raising the age to 12 is passed and to increase the age of criminal prosecution to either 14 or 16, were all voted down by five votes to two.
Cole-Hamilton was backed by Labour’s Mary Fee in voting for the change, while SNP and Conservative committee members voted against it.
The LibDem MSP said last year 11 cases against 12 and 13-year-olds committing offences were taken to court, rejecting claims that a further increase from the age of 12 would cause a capacity issue.
Minister for Children and Young People Maree Todd urged the committee not to back the amendments for a further age rise.
She said she had “significant concerns” about using the Bill to raise the age past 12, highlighting worries about the readiness to deal with further increases, which she said would require additional primary legislation.
She also raised capacity concerns.
She said: “I think that by setting arbitrary time limits there is a risk we rush this and fail to address all the matters that need to be considered. We need to take the time to get it right.”
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel