Chamber
Meeting of the Parliament 19 February 2014
19 Feb 2014 · S4 · Meeting of the Parliament
Item of business
Children and Young People (Scotland) Bill: Stage 3
The bill represents the coming together of two pieces of proposed legislation, one of which is a bill on children’s rights. As Jean Urquhart identified, the Government appears largely to have lost sight of that aspect of what we should be trying to achieve.
The Law Society of Scotland and the Faculty of Advocates said that the bill added little to what was in place and in some respects even diluted children’s rights. Our committee concluded at stage 1 that the duty on ministers was
“little more than a restatement of existing obligations.”
Although improvements were introduced at stage 2, the children’s commissioner is clear that
“So far the opportunity has been missed to be ambitious for children’s rights and to embed children’s rights in Scotland’s governance and public services.”
My amendments are an attempt to address that position, not just with regard to the bill but with regard to future legislation.
Like others, I did not feel that the case had been made for the full incorporation of the UNCRC, but more can and should be done to incorporate key principles, most notably articles 3 and 12. Tam Baillie proposed that idea in his stage 1 evidence, and he was backed by a wide range of children’s charities. Despite that, the minister and her Scottish National Party colleagues refused to support any of my stage 2 amendments.
Parliament should have a further opportunity to consider the issues and to take a view. My amendments 117 and 118 reflect what we have heard about the need to put children’s rights and interests at the centre of the bill, to make sure that their voices and views are heard, and to give proper effect to the principles that should underpin the bill. I am sad to say that the minister’s amendment 93 will not do that. While I have sympathy with Jean Urquhart’s amendment 116, the important thing is to get substantive and meaningful changes into the bill now.
At stage 2, I sought to beef up the reporting requirements on ministers with regard to the steps taken to comply with the duties that are placed upon them. All my amendments in that regard were rejected. I am pleased that Neil Bibby has taken up the cudgels at stage 3 and I will support his efforts.
I will be interested to hear Alison Johnstone’s comments about the amendments in her name. I am instinctively sympathetic, but it is perhaps unfortunate that she did not lodge amendments with such effect at stage 2, to enable more detailed consideration and, if necessary, refinement.
Amendments 125 and 126 represent an attempt to safeguard children’s rights in the context of future legislation. Amendment 126 repeats an amendment that I lodged at stage 2 and would require a children’s rights impact assessment to be carried out on every relevant bill that was introduced to the Scottish Parliament. Ministers would have discretion about how widely the approach would apply. The approach would enable us to reflect the Education and Culture Committee’s recommendation, follow the lead that has been taken in Wales and deliver a cultural shift in the way in which we view children’s rights.
The minister has argued that undertaking CRIAs could be delivered through non-legislative means. However, although the Government committed to trialling CRIAs in its UNCRC action plan in 2009, not a single CRIA has been carried out.
Amendment 125 tries to skin the cat in another way and would place a duty on ministers to make a statement or assessment of compatibility with the UNCRC, as currently happens with regard to the Human Rights Act 1998. I understand that such an approach works well in Australia. I hope that if amendment 126 remains unpalatable to the minister, amendment 125 will be an acceptable alternative.
On children’s rights, the bill remains a missed opportunity. The children’s commissioner has made clear that if my amendments and others in this group are not agreed to, the bill
“will fall far short of matching the high ambition to ‘make rights real’, often stated by Ministers.”
I urge the Parliament to vote to put that right.
The Law Society of Scotland and the Faculty of Advocates said that the bill added little to what was in place and in some respects even diluted children’s rights. Our committee concluded at stage 1 that the duty on ministers was
“little more than a restatement of existing obligations.”
Although improvements were introduced at stage 2, the children’s commissioner is clear that
“So far the opportunity has been missed to be ambitious for children’s rights and to embed children’s rights in Scotland’s governance and public services.”
My amendments are an attempt to address that position, not just with regard to the bill but with regard to future legislation.
Like others, I did not feel that the case had been made for the full incorporation of the UNCRC, but more can and should be done to incorporate key principles, most notably articles 3 and 12. Tam Baillie proposed that idea in his stage 1 evidence, and he was backed by a wide range of children’s charities. Despite that, the minister and her Scottish National Party colleagues refused to support any of my stage 2 amendments.
Parliament should have a further opportunity to consider the issues and to take a view. My amendments 117 and 118 reflect what we have heard about the need to put children’s rights and interests at the centre of the bill, to make sure that their voices and views are heard, and to give proper effect to the principles that should underpin the bill. I am sad to say that the minister’s amendment 93 will not do that. While I have sympathy with Jean Urquhart’s amendment 116, the important thing is to get substantive and meaningful changes into the bill now.
At stage 2, I sought to beef up the reporting requirements on ministers with regard to the steps taken to comply with the duties that are placed upon them. All my amendments in that regard were rejected. I am pleased that Neil Bibby has taken up the cudgels at stage 3 and I will support his efforts.
I will be interested to hear Alison Johnstone’s comments about the amendments in her name. I am instinctively sympathetic, but it is perhaps unfortunate that she did not lodge amendments with such effect at stage 2, to enable more detailed consideration and, if necessary, refinement.
Amendments 125 and 126 represent an attempt to safeguard children’s rights in the context of future legislation. Amendment 126 repeats an amendment that I lodged at stage 2 and would require a children’s rights impact assessment to be carried out on every relevant bill that was introduced to the Scottish Parliament. Ministers would have discretion about how widely the approach would apply. The approach would enable us to reflect the Education and Culture Committee’s recommendation, follow the lead that has been taken in Wales and deliver a cultural shift in the way in which we view children’s rights.
The minister has argued that undertaking CRIAs could be delivered through non-legislative means. However, although the Government committed to trialling CRIAs in its UNCRC action plan in 2009, not a single CRIA has been carried out.
Amendment 125 tries to skin the cat in another way and would place a duty on ministers to make a statement or assessment of compatibility with the UNCRC, as currently happens with regard to the Human Rights Act 1998. I understand that such an approach works well in Australia. I hope that if amendment 126 remains unpalatable to the minister, amendment 125 will be an acceptable alternative.
On children’s rights, the bill remains a missed opportunity. The children’s commissioner has made clear that if my amendments and others in this group are not agreed to, the bill
“will fall far short of matching the high ambition to ‘make rights real’, often stated by Ministers.”
I urge the Parliament to vote to put that right.
In the same item of business
The Deputy Presiding Officer (Elaine Smith)
Lab
We move to stage 3 proceedings on the Children and Young People (Scotland) Bill. Members should have copies of the bill as amended at stage 2, the marshalled...
The Deputy Presiding Officer
Lab
Group 1 is on duties of Scottish ministers in relation to the rights of children. Amendment 116, in the name of Jean Urquhart, is grouped with amendments 117...
Jean Urquhart (Highlands and Islands) (Ind)
Ind
The stated policy intention behind the bill is to contribute to Scotland being the best place for children to grow up, and I applaud that intention. It is vi...
Liam McArthur (Orkney Islands) (LD)
LD
The bill represents the coming together of two pieces of proposed legislation, one of which is a bill on children’s rights. As Jean Urquhart identified, the ...
The Minister for Children and Young People (Aileen Campbell)
SNP
I welcome the opportunity to respond to the range of amendments that focus on part 1 of the bill. The bill will ensure that children’s rights properly influe...
Liam McArthur
LD
I listened carefully to what the minister said. She seemed to be concerned that amendment 125 overlaps with amendment 126. That would make sense if she inten...
Aileen Campbell
SNP
As I have said, we are developing that. That is something that we will achieve in order to ensure that we make rights real for children and that the UNCRC is...
Alison Johnstone (Lothian) (Green)
Green
It has, at times, been difficult to articulate through this bill the potential impact of the United Nations convention on the rights of the child on children...
Neil Bibby (West Scotland) (Lab)
Lab
I welcome the opportunity to speak to amendments 121, 123 and 124 in my name as well as the other amendments in the group.Although I join members of all part...
Liz Smith (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Con
Over a lengthy period, I have listened very carefully to what has been the most challenging but nevertheless one of the most interesting aspects of the debat...
Joan McAlpine (South Scotland) (SNP)
SNP
Like Liz Smith, I listened as part of the Education and Culture Committee to the evidence on this section of the bill. Like the rest of the committee, I came...
The Deputy Presiding Officer (John Scott)
Con
Minister, would you like to respond to any of the points that were made in the debate? You do not have to by any measure.
Aileen Campbell
SNP
Joan McAlpine raised the fact that the committee did not support the full incorporation of the UNCRC, and I reflect again on Professor Ken Norrie’s comments ...
Jean Urquhart
Ind
I return to the wording of amendment 116 and reiterate what it would do and what it would not. It would require Scottish ministers to set up a body to consid...
The Deputy Presiding Officer
Con
I am afraid that I did not hear what you said. Are you pressing or withdrawing your amendment?
Jean Urquhart
Ind
I am upholding it—I am pressing it.
The Deputy Presiding Officer
Con
Right. The question is, that amendment 116 be agreed to. Are we agreed?Members: No.
The Deputy Presiding Officer
Con
There will be a division. We will have it shortly, as there will now be a five-minute gap—the word I am looking for is “suspension”.14:40 Meeting suspended. ...
The Deputy Presiding Officer
Con
We move to the division on amendment 116.ForBaillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab) Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab) Baker, Richard (North East Scotland...
The Deputy Presiding Officer
Con
The result of the division is: For 36, Against 84, Abstentions 0.Amendment 116 disagreed to.Section 1—Duties of Scottish Ministers in relation to the rights ...
The Deputy Presiding Officer
Con
The question is, that amendment 117 be agreed to. Are we agreed?Members: No.
The Deputy Presiding Officer
Con
There will be a division.ForBaillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab) Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab) Baker, Richard (North East Scotland) (Lab) Baxter, ...
The Deputy Presiding Officer
Con
The result of the division is: For 55, Against 65, Abstentions 0.Amendment 117 disagreed to.Amendment 118 moved—Liam McArthur.
The Deputy Presiding Officer
Con
The question is, that amendment 118 be agreed to. Are we agreed?Members: No.
The Deputy Presiding Officer
Con
There will be a division.ForBaillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab) Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab) Baker, Richard (North East Scotland) (Lab) Baxter, ...
The Deputy Presiding Officer
Con
The result of the division is: For 56, Against 65, Abstentions 0.Amendment 118 disagreed to.
The Deputy Presiding Officer
Con
Group 2 is on duties in relation to article 7 of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. Amendment 92, in the name of Siobhan McMahon, ...
Siobhan McMahon (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Lab
As I said at stage 2, the reason why we require the addition of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities is to give additional assurance ...
Liz Smith
Con
As I mentioned at stage 2, I have a great deal of sympathy for the intent of Siobhan McMahon’s amendments, and by bringing them to stage 3, she has allowed u...
Aileen Campbell
SNP
Amendments 92 and 94 to 100 seek to place requirements on Scottish ministers and public bodies to take steps with the aim of furthering the rights set out un...