Hansard

For the avoidance of doubt, I start by saying that Scottish Conservative members support the bill in principle. If we voice technical concerns, that is a reasonable approach; it does not mean that we do not share the ambitions of the members of the committee or of the stage 1 report.

I thank the members of the Equalities and Human Rights Committee, its convener, its clerks, and those who co-ordinated the committee’s work during what was a very difficult time for pulling together its stage 1 activity, as I know that that is not easy. I was briefly a member of that committee, and I know that its members—including Alex Cole-Hamilton and Mary Fee, who have spoken—are so passionate about the topic. I also know that a tremendous amount of stakeholder engagement took place in difficult circumstances.

When the bill was introduced in Parliament and the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Skills made a statement, I pledged that Conservative members would support measures that enhanced the rights of children both in our domestic law and in international conventions. That remains the case. However, the bill has been a long journey because, despite the convention’s having been agreed to in 1989, it has not been widely implemented, nor, I think, often understood. Scotland will be among the first countries in the world to implement it.

UNICEF has pointed out why the bill is so important and why such conventions are so relevant in today’s world. I quote:

“Millions of children continue to suffer violations of their rights when they are denied adequate health care, nutrition, education and protection from violence. Childhoods continue to be cut short”.

I think that we have made progress, both domestically and internationally, over the past 30 years, but surely what has happened in the past 12 months has only added to those pressures. Coronavirus has served to magnify many of those challenges, not just in Scotland, but throughout the world. I quote again from UNICEF:

“Children are not the face of this pandemic. But they risk”

becoming “its biggest victims”, because

“for some children, the impact will be lifelong.”

Here in Scotland, we know that Covid is exacerbating challenges that children face in our most disadvantaged communities and in households with less income. They have inevitably suffered through school closures, household job losses, exposure to substance abuses in their houses, domestic violence, and that lack of physical daily interaction and intervention from teachers who are trying their best, but who cannot protect every child in every household all the time.

I know that members’ inboxes will have been filled up over these past few months with a range of views on lockdown measures, restrictions and closures, and on the very issue of what state intervention is and what our rights and freedoms normally are—especially the rights of young people to an education, to social interaction, to exercise and to sport. I argue that we do not always need legislation or philosophical debates on rights in order to improve people’s quality of life or make good existing deficiencies in their rights.

Solutions in that regard often lie at the door of Governments. On the attainment gap, housing quality, the quality of the school estate, training and employment opportunities, the funding of outdoor learning and sport, meaningful LGBTI-inclusive education and young people’s experiences in care and interactions with the justice system, the Government has control over levers that could improve outcomes for young people in Scotland.

That said, incorporation of the UNCRC is a powerful method of putting those rights into law. Queen’s University Belfast found that incorporation “had significant effect” in the places where it happened.

The convention contains a number of obligatory and optional protocols to be considered by those who ratify it. They are wide ranging and their introduction is no mean task for a Government. Conservative members stand ready to work with the Government and the other parties to ensure that we enhance children’s rights in Scots law.

However, we must make good law. There are outstanding questions about whether and how the bill might conflict with other human rights legislation, as Alexander Stewart said. Will it interact and conflict with the Human Rights Act 1998 or the provisions in the European convention on human rights? If there is a conflict, which provisions will take precedence? Who will decide that? What assessment has been made of any interplay in the bill between devolved and reserved matters? How will such issues be dealt with on the least political basis possible? If there are changes to relevant United Nations conventions after the bill is passed, what effect will they have on Scots law? How will we keep pace? Is keeping pace necessarily a good policy if we do not know what changes will be made? Measures and mechanisms must be put in place to deal with conflicts quickly and easily.

I am aware of the time constraints, but it would be remiss of us to talk about young people’s rights without reflecting on the views of the Scottish Youth Parliament, which has been engaging with members of all parties. It supports the bill and has made a number of asks that I promised to mention in the debate. I know that at stage 2 the committee will, in good faith, consider the voices of young people.

I have talked about our technical issues with the bill, but it is not all doom and gloom; I take the cabinet secretary at his word when he says that he will approach stage 2 constructively, as will we. However, I am nervous, because—and this is my only reservation—we are trying to cram seven long years of hard work into seven short, frantic weeks, ahead of an election and in the middle of a pandemic. The work will progress at pace; it must also do so precisely. I am told by members who have been here much longer than I have that this Parliament has a habit of rushing through bad law in the closing days of a session—[Interruption.]