Hansard

I am delighted to open on behalf of the Scottish Conservatives in this important stage 1 debate. I extend my thanks to the committee clerks and all those who provided extensive evidence on a complex subject.

We are nearing the end of a long journey, during which this matter has been debated at various stages in different parliamentary sessions at Holyrood. For the Scottish Conservatives, the journey has been a long one. Back in 2013, the then Education and Culture Committee was asked to provide evidence on the Children and Young People (Scotland) Bill. The Scottish Conservatives agreed, like other parties across the chamber, that we had an obligation to deliver better legislation and enhance the protection of young people. Members will know, however, that we did not agree to some of the final key provisions in that bill.

With regard to the initial discussions during evidence taking for stage 1 of that bill, when the incorporation of the UNCRC into Scots law was mooted, our concerns were largely due to some issues about how the provision would be implemented. For example, we raised concerns about the fact that on certain points of law in relation to the possibility of the incorporation of the UNCRC into Scots law, there were differences of opinion between the Scottish Government advice and the legal profession, and between the Scottish Government and the then Scotland’s Commissioner for Children and Young People.

Members present at that time know that the Government, in citing its own concerns, quoted Professor Kenneth Norrie, who said:

“to incorporate the convention into the domestic legal system of Scotland would be bad policy, bad practice and bad law.”—[Official Report, Education and Culture Committee, 3 September 2013; c 2682.]

We have moved a long way during the past seven years.

Although the Equalities and Human Rights Committee’s stage 1 report is unanimous in its recommendations as to why the principles in the bill are the right ones, I want to address some practical issues that were identified in it.

What is needed to be put in place to ensure that we have good law? I remind members that legislation, if it is to be defined as good law, depends on whether it has clarity of purpose, whether it can be understood in simple language, whether it has a strong evidence base, whether it is workable and whether it is accepted by the public at large.

With those criteria in mind, I think that that last aspect is a given, namely because the public, and the clear majority of key stakeholders, want to see the bill passed, as they recognise that the enhancement of the protection of young people is vital.

However, there are some hurdles that require to be overcome before the bill becomes good law. That will require amendments at stages 2 and 3. In its briefing note, Families Outside spoke about the need for amendments in order to strengthen many areas, including access to free legal advice; improving data collection and supporting monitoring and evaluation; training for ministers, civil servants and politicians to ensure a better understanding; and promoting best practice for children’s rights. All those suggestions have merit, and amendments on them may well be lodged at stage 2.

The Scottish Prison Service and the Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service may well need to be included in the public bodies listed in section 16 of the bill, given their role in helping to secure the rights of children.

As a member of the Equalities and Human Rights Committee, I am most grateful for the support that we received from individuals and groups that would benefit from the bill when we were gathering evidence. Extensive work was done to ensure that we captured the views of many organisations, groups and individuals. The evidence from the children and young people’s groups, human rights experts, public authorities and members of the legal profession showed considerable support for the changes to legislation and strengthening of children’s rights.

As a committee, we believe that, on balance, the approach in the bill is appropriate. However, some people want to raise issues, such as the potential risk of incorporation being seen as achieving the minimum of UNCRC standards.

Part 3 of the bill covers the children’s rights scheme. Several of those who responded to the calls for evidence, and some of the people who gave oral evidence, spoke about the safeguards and the language in section 11(3), arguing that they needed to be strengthened. I heard the cabinet secretary say in his opening speech that that section needs to be strengthened, which is to be welcomed.

The bill states that the scheme “may” introduce certain arrangements around children’s rights. Many stakeholders have called for that to be a requirement.

The scheme also mentions protected characteristics and vulnerable groups. The lack of access to advocacy, human rights education and a child-friendly complaints mechanism should be considered, as there are gaps in supporting children in the provisions.

There was strong support for section 40, which is on commencement. However, many witnesses and respondents to the call for evidence talked about the lack of a commencement date in the bill and the need for that date to be clear. We have heard today that the cabinet secretary is looking seriously at when commencement will take place.

It must be acknowledged that children and young people have been significantly impacted during the pandemic. Children must have their rights respected and fulfilled as a matter of urgency. Therefore, it is vital to ensure that a generation of children and young children do not suffer long-term impacts from the current crisis that they face.

The bill must have some content on raising awareness, and we must ensure that barriers to the good work that is being undertaken are removed. Indeed, much of that work has been achieved.

We in the Scottish Conservatives fully support the move to ensure protection for children and young people and to enhance their rights. There is no doubt, however, that the bill raises many questions, and we must all acknowledge that much progress will be required to achieve the bill’s aims, through the stage 2 and stage 3 amendments that may well come forward—not least in relation to how the eventual legislation will work alongside the United Kingdom Human Rights Act 1998. We must recognise the various technical challenges that incorporating the UNCRC into domestic law may bring, with the potential for conflict caused by clashes between rights set in the reserved law and those within the UNCRC itself.

The bill must not result in endless clashes of legislation and long-lasting legal battles. That is not what we want to achieve; what we want to achieve is support. We support the general principles of the bill, and we will lodge amendments at stages 2 and 3.