Seòmar agus comataidhean

The question has been an interesting part of the discussions that we have had with stakeholders as we have prepared for the reconsideration stage. It is not only about the amendments but about how we deal with the implications of the bill as it stands.

The UNCRC strategic implementation board was informed at its last meeting that I have asked officials to commission a review of UK acts in devolved areas. I make it clear that that review is not to identify whole UK acts that would be worth converting into Scottish Parliament acts but to identify provisions in UK acts that could be converted.

As the committee is well aware from its own discussions on legislation, an entire UK act could have hundreds of provisions in it. The Scottish Government might wish to amend such legislation, as might the Scottish Parliament—I am sure that members might wish to make amendments. That will take time to go through the parliamentary process. As I mentioned in my answer to Maggie Chapman, we are also keen to look at the priorities of children and young people as we consider the audit.

I have already made a commitment to such work. At this point, I cannot give a timescale for it, because we need to scope out exactly what it will entail, but I am keen to get it initiated as soon as is practically possible. As I said, it is very important to involve children, young people and others who are impacted in how we can generate findings in a phased way and how we can take them forward.

We are keen to see what the Government can do to respond to requests in relation to an audit and to see how we can work together with stakeholders on how we do that, which is also important.

On 18 October, I wrote an open letter to children and young people to provide an update on the bill, which explained why we are seeking to amend it and how it will apply to them. We are also keen to continue our work on communicating directly with children and young people and, obviously, with stakeholders. We have touched on communicating and working with stakeholders in previous responses but, if Ms Wells would like further information on that, my officials and I can go into it in further detail.

There is a real need for us to work with children and young people and ensure that any communication is child friendly—that is very important. That is one reason why we have the rights-respecting schools award, which is available to all state schools in Scotland. We also have a communications group that is helping us to develop our approach. We have, for example, Young Scot working on a social media campaign for young people, and we are grant funding the Children’s Parliament to help raise awareness of children’s rights among children and young people. We also have a guide for parents, carers and family members that will be updated when, with the will of Parliament, the bill is passed and, as I mentioned, there is the Clan Childlaw funding. The Children and Young People’s Commissioner Scotland will play a central role, too, but it will be very much up to the commissioner to decide how to take that forward.

Once the bill becomes an act, the process will become more legalised. Even without the bill being passed, we are taking it into consideration in legislation that we are working through at this stage, to ensure that things are UNCRC compliant. Other members might wish to amend bills in various ways—that is not an issue for the Government—but this is certainly something that the Government is already looking at. The bill brings it into legal focus.

Thank you, convener, and I thank Arden for the question.

Now that we have gone through the bill process, and as we look forward to what will come next, after it is passed—as, I hope, it will be—it is important to ensure that children and young people remain very much at the heart of everything that we do. It is also important that we remain focused on the dialogue that we are already having with children and young people, and that we keep it going. For example, one of my most recent meetings on the subject was with two members of the Scottish Youth Parliament—not the Children’s Parliament, where Arden is—to talk about the issues that are in the bill and, importantly, about the steps that will happen next.

We need to ensure that we give children and young people much greater awareness of their rights, and we currently have a number of funding streams to ensure that that is happening. As I said in my opening remarks, that will, we hope, help Arden and others to look not just at where we have had to change the legislation at the reconsideration stage regarding the compatibility duty but, more widely, at their rights and how to ensure that those rights are being respected and observed.

A great deal of work has gone on and will continue. I and other cabinet secretaries and ministers meet Children’s Parliament and Scottish Youth Parliament representatives, and we have the Cabinet takeover as well. For a number of years, the UNCRC has been one of the issues that they have spoken about. It is for them to decide on the topics that they address, but I would be surprised if that discussion does not continue.

Certainly—yes.

We explored what could be done to achieve more coverage for UK acts in devolved areas within the compatibility duty. One example of how we sought to do that was by looking at an approach that would have differentiated between existing and future acts in devolved areas, so that, for example, the compatibility duty would have applied to existing, but not future, legislation.

We also tried to identify ways in which future acts in devolved areas could be included by adding in a regulation-making power under which Scottish ministers could, with the approval of Parliament, extend the compatibility duty to devolved functions that are created under UK acts in the future, even if that were to be done on a case-by-case basis. The reason why we chose not to do that goes back to the complexity that the bill would then have had. It is already a complex piece of legislation, but it will be more complex if those amendments are passed and the bill becomes an act.

When we looked at the complexity issue alongside our assessment of the risk of another referral to the Supreme Court, we, as a Government, came to the view that greater coverage would, in effect, make the provisions too complex for users. We did some testing within the Scottish Government and realised that we were in danger of producing legislation that would be too complex to use, whether by children and young people, their representatives or the public bodies.

We also considered that compatibility could have applied when public authorities are delivering their duties under powers that are conferred by amendments to UK acts that are made by acts of the Scottish Parliament. We do not feel that there is a legislative competence barrier to doing that but, again, the provisions that would come from that would be extremely complex. That balance of the risk of complexity in coverage, and the risk of a Supreme Court referral led me to take the decision that I have taken.

When the Supreme Court judgment came through, the Scottish Government asked the Secretary of State for Scotland to look into whether the current devolution set-up could be changed to allow the bill to proceed, as the Parliament had voted for. That would have been an alternative, but the Secretary of State for Scotland was not willing to consider it. On that basis, we needed to adapt the bill. That was clearly disappointing, but that was the state of play, so we are where we are.

The other obvious way to achieve greater UNCRC incorporation is, of course, for the UK Government to do what we are doing within our limited powers, and put the UNCRC on the UK statute book.

Those are two alternatives, but they were not open to the Scottish Government; they needed the UK Government to take action.

I will very gently push back, Mr Balfour. In no way did I say that everything is perfect and that people should back off from scrutiny. I have recognised on a number of occasions that the waiting times are unacceptable for processing, which is why a number of pieces of work have been done. Therefore, if you will forgive me, I will push back a wee bit on that part.

I am happy to look at the individual case, should Mr Balfour wish to pass that on. We are very keen to do that, to make sure that we are learning from particular cases.

Again, I urge the committee to take up the opportunity to go to Dundee to look at the situation in great detail, because an extraordinary amount of work has been done and continues to be done to improve the systems and handling processes that are in place. That work has been on-going for months, and we are seeing the benefits of it—I am confident of that. However, that will take time to find its way through, because we still have cases that have been waiting too long for a decision.

Sometimes, it will take time for processes to change, but a number of changes have already been made, such as to application forms and the way in which cases are dealt with in the agency. We have also seen an improvement in call waiting times, which the committee was very concerned about. I will give two examples of what we are doing. Mr Balfour has known me for long enough to know that I do not take anybody’s word at face value and that I will look into things very seriously. I meet senior leaders in the agency and within the programme very regularly to go through that, but I am also conscious of ensuring that we look at the client surveys, which are statistically sound, about people’s experiences.

It is also important that we speak directly to individuals and stakeholders, such as the Glasgow Disability Alliance. I have met with individuals affected by cancer, for example, who have had a poor experience with the agency. We are very keen to learn from that——all of us, from ministers all the way through to everyone working in Social Security Scotland, who are determined to deliver the type of service that we have spoken about wanting to provide.

I hope that I can provide the member with some reassurance that I take the matter very seriously. With the greatest respect to my officials, I do not just take their word for it. The work that we are doing with stakeholders is very important. A number of changes have already been put in place—we are seeing those changes.

I will never be complacent about the service; I know that a great deal of work still needs to be done. If the committee, after further investigation, visiting Dundee and having discussions with agency staff, feels that more could be done in this area, we will happily take further advice.

The examples that have been given today in relation to these regulations demonstrate how committed we are to looking at continuous improvement. The aspects of the regulations that we are discussing are technical, but we are also looking at continuous improvement in our systems and in the way in which we, as individuals, handle these matters both in Government and in the agency.

I am not aware of the UK system having an independent advocacy system that clients are advised to use. If there is one, I am happy to clarify that in writing.

The way that we ensure that our mechanisms are working is, again, by asking people who are going through the system how they are experiencing it and whether it works for them. That approach was a key part of the way in which we developed the system initially, and, now that we have our own system, we will continue to ask what people think of it, whether it is working for them and whether further improvements need to be made to it.

That is a key point. We need to ensure that we are working with stakeholders. It is great that we have a local delivery system with various aspects in place, and we are also conscious that there are trusted organisations and people that folk will be working with in their family setting who they may wish to go to for support and guidance. That is why, as with all the work that the Government and the agency undertake, a great deal of stakeholder work goes on to explain the differences that regulations will make and the impact that they will have, and also the support that is available to people.

We are now getting to the point at which the process that takes people from CDP to ADP has been in place for a reasonable amount of time, and we are seeing a good level of feedback from the third sector about the support that is provided. However, there is no complacency in that, because the process is very difficult.

If the committee recommends that Parliament should pass the regulations, one of the key things that we will do is go back out to stakeholders to explain any changes and differences and to reassure people around some of those areas.