Seòmar agus comataidhean

As I mentioned to Mr O’Kane, decisions on future funding will be a matter for the budget process as we go forward, and I look forward to the committee and, indeed, all political parties coming forward with suggestions—preferably costed—to see whether we can move on this area as well as on others.

However, the question, again, highlights a very important point. I will not repeat myself, convener, as I think that I touched on some of this in my answers to Mr O’Kane, but it points to recognition of the fact that, just because the act has been passed, that does not mean that this is all over. When I met the members of the Scottish Youth Parliament last week, it was explained to me that this is, in many ways, only the beginning—although it might not feel like that to some of us who have been around this process for some time. We are keen to look at the range of support that is in place to ensure that it is working effectively, and we are also keen to work with children, young people and public bodies to ensure that we are looking at what more needs to be done.

I have already mentioned the UNCRC implementation programme. Clearly it will need to continue as the provisions in the bill are commenced—I hope, next year—and we will continue to work with public bodies, children, young people and their representatives to build on the comprehensive support that has already been provided, for example, through the rights-respecting schools awards, the funding for Clan Childlaw and the funding for the Improvement Service.

We have recognised that putting the bill into practice once it becomes an act is important. A piece of legislation is just that: it is a piece of legislation. How we support children and young people and public bodies so that it becomes genuinely meaningful is the important part.

In my previous answer, I talked through some of the funding work that is already in place to support that. Obviously, work on implementation will need to continue once the bill becomes an act, if Parliament sees fit to pass the amendments. We are very clear that that work will have to continue.

Budget discussions will take place as part of the normal discussions that we do in relation to the budget, but we are keen to work with local authorities and other public bodies to ensure that we get the maximum effect out of the bill and that it is genuinely meaningful once it becomes an act. I recognise that that work does not stop if and when the bill is passed.

The issue is a consequence of the bill’s referral to the Supreme Court. For clarification, I should say to the committee that I intend to lodge an amendment to change the reporting dates so that listed authorities have clarity on the timing of their duties. It is, of course, for the Presiding Officer to determine whether such an amendment is admissible under standing orders for a reconsideration stage, which is not something that the Parliament has gone through before. It is certainly my intention to lodge that amendment, though, and it will then be for the Presiding Officer to take a view on it.

I absolutely appreciate that children and young people in particular want us to just get on with it, as we were told at the Cabinet takeover, and I have kept that in my head as we have been considering the situation, trying to ensure the maximum coverage in such a way that the bill is a piece of living and breathing legislation that will make a difference to children and young people. There has been frustration within Government that we have not been able to move faster, and I know that that is very much felt by children and young people and their representatives, too. I still think that it was important to take the time to consider those matters, and the work between the Governments at lawyer-to-lawyer level took time, but I certainly felt that it was important to get the maximum coverage possible.

There has been frustration. To mitigate some of that, we have tried to ensure that we are involving children and young people, their representatives and others as we have looked at the options that have come through. Clearly, we cannot go into the legal advice that we receive within the Scottish Government or the lawyer-to-lawyer discussions that have happened between the two Governments, but we take the conclusions of those and we have been trying to discuss them with stakeholders as the situation has progressed, to keep them up to speed.

We have also continued to work on the implementation, because not everything had to wait for the bill to be passed for us to consider what more we could do in the education field to ensure that children have a much greater understanding of their rights.

I do not know whether members have had the opportunity, either as constituency members or with the committee, to visit their local schools and talk to children and young people about their understanding of their rights and how they can take that forward. Certainly, one of the most inspirational parts of my time as Cabinet Secretary for Education and Skills and in my current post has been listening to children and young people express with passion—as well as a wee bit of frustration—what the bill can and should mean for them. I thank all children and young people for their patience as we have gone through the process, but also for their work in, I hope, our getting the bill as right as it can be under the settlement that we have.

I will first deal with the example of the Government avoiding making amendments to UK acts. Clearly, there will be an impact on what the Government thinks about as it plans legislation in the future. When we are deciding whether a change of law should be expressed as a freestanding provision or as an amendment, we look at parliamentary resource implications and accessibility to law. In the future, the Government will consider the implications of such decisions on UNCRC scope—that will be built into how we look at things.

Of course, bills will go through Parliament that measures could be attached to. Ministers are open to doing that, but we need to be careful, so I will not give an overall commitment to that, because it is important that we look at issues on a case-by-case basis. For example, we need to consider what provisions would benefit from being in an act of the Scottish Parliament, what would happen to the scope and timetable for a bill if it was already progressing and what level of consultation would have to be undertaken if we were to put something into a bill as it goes through. Would that delay a bill? Would members feel that it was a reasonable way forward if the measure was not in the bill at stage 1 and evidence had not been taken on it, for example? People might have concerns if we do not consult properly.

We need to look at issues on a case-by-case basis. It is an interesting proposal, but we will need to consider the issues each time that we look at such provisions. My encouragement to stakeholders and others is that, if they feel that there is an opportunity, they should absolutely reach out to officials and the ministers responsible for those bills to see what can be done and to have that conversation. Clearly, it is not as simple as lifting something from a UK act and putting it somewhere else, because Government and Opposition members may want to change, update and modernise the law.

We therefore need to be mindful of that. We are certainly not closing down the idea, but we will need to look at the issues on a case-by-case basis.

Dr Tickell raised a very important point. The human rights bill, which has been consulted on, is already some of the most complex legislation that the Parliament will have had to consider since being reconvened. Therefore, we absolutely have to learn lessons from the UNCRC bill about its scope and how we deal with it. We also have to learn lessons about the difficulty that comes with such complexity.

Stakeholders will wish to have many things in the human rights bill, and my ask all along, as we have gone through the consultation for the bill, has been that if stakeholders do not think that we have gone about things in the right way, they should be encouraged to come forward with alternative proposals. They should not just say that they would like something to be in the bill or that they would like something to be done differently; we genuinely want to know how we can work together within the devolved settlement.

The UNCRC bill has been an example of the limitations of the devolved settlement and of the willingness of the UK Government to seek Supreme Court judgments, et cetera. We need to be very cautious about that, because I do not want to get into the same position with the human rights bill, which I think is even more complex legislation than the UNCRC bill.

To say that the human rights bill is complicated is an understatement, and the conversations that we are having in relation to the UNCRC bill throw into sharp focus some of the discussions that we will inevitably come back to as part of the human rights bill—particularly when stakeholders ask us to go further when the Government or others might have concerns about scope and legislative competence.

I would be very concerned if public authorities stopped taking a children’s rights approach when delivering their duties just because they are not in scope of the compatibility duty. As I said in my opening remarks, a real desire has been expressed by the Parliament and, more importantly, by children and young people for that approach to be taken regardless of whether the legal compatibility duty comes into effect.

Regardless of the scope of the legal duties in the bill, UNCRC is already at the heart of getting it right for every child, as the convener will be well aware, and it is important that we consider that in its entirety. We are keen to work with local authorities to take a children’s human rights approach in the delivery of their services, regardless of the source of their powers. I know that children and young people want us to do that as legislators, and it is important that our services are delivered in that way. We were speaking earlier about the funding that is in place, and we should not differentiate here: it should not be a matter of just taking that approach when the legal compatibility duty arises while somehow leaving aside the rights of children and young people, as if they are lesser rights, when they are impacted by a UK act, for example.

We are keen to work with public bodies to ensure that we are still considering that approach in the round, regardless of the legal compatibility duty, because it is the right thing to do. As I stressed in my opening remarks, although we are disappointed about the changes that we have had to make, there is still a lot in the bill that requires that wider look to be taken, rather than just considering whether something will end up in court.

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.