 The next item of business is a debate on motion 10429 in the name of Shirley-Anne Somerville on United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child Incorporation, Scotland Bill Reconsideration. I call on Shirley-Anne Somerville, Cabinet Secretary, to speak to and to move the motion up to nine minutes, please. Thank you, Presiding Officer, and I move the motion in my name. The programme for government includes a commitment to invite the Scottish Parliament to bring back the UNCRC Incorporation, Scotland Bill for Reconsideration, and this is an invitation that I make to Parliament this afternoon. As the First Minister set out in his policy prospectus, we remain absolutely committed to Scotland being the first UK nation to incorporate the UNCRC into domestic law, ensuring that we are a country that respects, protects and fulfills children's rights. The path to achieving this has not been straightforward. The UNCRC bill was unanimously passed by the Scottish Parliament in March 2021, but in October 2021, following a referral by UK law officers, the UK Supreme Court found certain of the provisions in the bill to be out with the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament. I provided a statement to Parliament on 27 June in which I explained how we proposed to amend the bill in response to that judgment and the impact that that will have on the coverage for children's rights in respect of the compatibility duty. I explained that in drafting amendments to the compatibility duty. We have tried to balance three important considerations, protecting children's rights to the maximum effective extent possible, minimising the risk of another Supreme Court referral and making the law as accessible as possible for users. When balancing those considerations, I reached a conclusion that the maximum effective coverage is for the compatibility duty to apply only when a public authority is delivering devolved functions conferred by or under acts of the Scottish Parliament or common law powers. That means that the duty will not apply when powers are delivered under acts of the UK Parliament, even in devolved areas and even where the legislation requires or gives discretion to a public authority to act compatibly. I thank the cabinet secretary for taking my intervention. She has just outlined that we will not be able to act in Scotland and therefore uphold children's rights if the compatibility duty determines powers with the UK Government and UK Government legislation. In her view, can she tell the chamber what she thinks it means for the rights and services that we deliver for children and to children here in Scotland, given the wide-reaching implications of UK acts like the illegal migration act? The example that the member gives in relation to the illegal migration act is one that I would share her concerns with. Of course, we have had this debate in the chamber a number of times. She is quite right to point out that there are a number of important pieces of legislation that will not fall under the remit of the UNCRC act once it is hopefully passed by Parliament. I am grateful to the cabinet secretary for giving way. She talked rightly about the three tests that were being applied by the Government and the second one about minimising the risk of another Supreme Court referral. Much discussion in the chamber has happened over the two years about contact between the Scottish Government and the UK Government. In the correspondence to the committee, there is an indication that perhaps the response from the UK Government was less than satisfactory. Will the cabinet secretary be able to expand on that and what challenges she may potentially face when she comes down the line with regard to those amendments? I hope that the member will appreciate that the work that it has gone on is legal advice. It is important that I respect the confidentiality, not just the legal advice to the Scottish Government but also to the Office of the Advocate General. There have been numerous pieces of correspondence and work between officials on that. It is disappointing that we did not get to the point where the Office of the Advocate General, indeed representatives of the UK Government, could say that they are content with the amendments that we proposed to put forward. I think that that would have been the point that we would get to, so we are a point that is suboptimal in this issue. However, we are content that certainly the amendments that we are bringing forward are within competence on that. If I can continue in balancing the considerations, we have reached the conclusions about maximum effective coverage. That is a disappointing loss of coverage for children's rights compared to what we originally hoped to achieve. Nevertheless, it represents the maximum effective coverage that we think we can achieve in the present devolved context. Amendments cannot be formally lodged and an official decision about the admissibility of the amendments cannot be made until Parliament passes that motion to reconsider. However, I have shared draft amendments to the bill with the Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee in response to Parliament's request to see those amendments. Assuming that Parliament passes the motion, I will formally lodge the amendments on Monday when the Office of the Clerk is open. The purpose of this motion today is not to debate the detail of those draft amendments. That debate will take place at a later stage. We are today simply asking Parliament to agree to the UNCRC Bill proceeding to the reconsideration stage. On that question, I trust and hope that we will have Parliament's full support. The fundamental intent behind the bill is to deliver a proactive culture of everyday accountability for children's rights across public services in Scotland. Although the scope of the compatibility duty in the bill has been narrowed, bringing the bill back will provide an important signal about the kind of country we want to be as well as provide a solid legal foundation on which to build in the future, including via the proposed human rights bill. In June, the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child published its concluding observations following its state party examination of the UK in May. Among its recommendations was that the UK should strengthen efforts to fully incorporate the convention into national legislation in England, Wales and Northern Ireland overseas territories and crown dependencies. Following my statement to Parliament in June, I wrote to the Secretary of State for Scotland to provide an update on our plans for the revised UNCRC bill, highlighting the loss of coverage for children's rights that are a consequence of how we need to amend the bill, to underline the need for the UK Government to incorporate the UNCRC into UK law to give children and young people the full protection that they deserve. The Secretary of State for Scotland responded on 14 August, saying that the UK Government is currently giving careful consideration to the concluding observations but gave no indication of the UK Government's willingness to incorporate the UNCRC into UK law, and that is deeply disappointing. Alex Cole-Hamilton I am very grateful indeed for the cabinet secretary allowing my intervention. The concluding observations of the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child are what keeps it alive, what keeps the convention alive, and she will know that one of the criticisms that they repeatedly level against our country, Scotland, is that we still have an age of criminal responsibility below the recommended international norm. Can she update the chamber as the progress being made to yet again review the age of criminal responsibility to uplift it to the minimum of 14? The member raises a very significant point because the UNCRC and indeed the concluding observations do not just deal with the UNCRC bill progression. If he will allow, I will get back to the member in due course in writing on that particular point. The importance that is underlined in what we see and the importance of this to children is not an example that Maggie Chapman has indeed already brought to the chamber's attention once again, and that is around the illegal migration act. Act which includes a ban on the right to claim asylum, allows for the prolonged detention and removal of children, creates barriers for acquiring nationality and lacks a consideration of the principle of the best interests of the child. The UK Government's assessment of the impact of this legislation on children's rights is simply not robust enough. In its concluding observation, the UN Committee expressed its deep concern about the potential impact of that legislation on children for exactly the reasons that Maggie Chapman has pointed out. Although the committee has called on the UK Government to urgently repeal all provisions that would have the effect of violating children's rights, we are still waiting for a response from the UK Government. That shows the limitations, Presiding Officer, of what we have the powers to do within this Parliament. However, in saying that passing this motion today would also allow us to progress a concluding observation that was directed specifically at Scotland and that is to bring forward the amendments necessary. If the motion is passed, we can then work with Parliament to consider next steps, which will hopefully allow Parliament to debate and vote on amendments to the bill before the end of the year, but of course the deliberations on how long that will take will be for Parliament and not government. When it originally passed the bill in March 21, the Scottish Parliament made a significant statement of intent about what it collectively wanted to achieve as parliamentarians. Sadly, we cannot deliver a package of provision that fully reflects the democratic will of the Parliament, but I know that there is a keen interest, Presiding Officer, in passing this bill, not just within this Parliament or our stakeholders but from our children and young people but internationally as well. I look forward to the day when Scotland becomes the first UK nation to incorporate the UNCRC into domestic law. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I accept wholeheartedly what the cabinet secretary has just said, and I am happy and delighted to speak on behalf of my party on this important debate on the reconsideration of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child Bill. The significance of predicting and safeguarding the rights of our children is of fundamental importance to me personally and for us all, and I am sure that it is no surprise to the chamber that I am going to come at this at a very child-orientated and very personal level. The value in the contributions that our children make in the decisions that directly impact them is a crucial part of our democracy and society as a whole, and I think that I am well documented as fully supporting that young voice input. Therefore, we will be supporting the Scottish Government's motion to finally reintroduce the bill. I make no apologies for using my short time in this Parliament to consistently stand up for the rights of all children, whether it be those who are care-experienced, those who are struggling with their mental health or children who are being failed currently by our education system. I have offered to work collaboratively on many occasions with both the former First Minister, the former children and young people minister and the current minister for children, young people and keeping the promise, and I stand by that and reaffirm my offer to meet with any of them. However, I would be remiss in representing the children in Scotland if I did not state that there was a little fiasco over this bill and it has shown a problem with the Scottish Government's inability to legislate. It has now been 912 days since the Scottish Parliament unanimously passed the UNCRC bill, a bill that was backed by the Scottish Conservatives who worked constructively and positively with parties across the chamber because we recognise that the bill is far more important than any individual or party. It has also now been 708 days since the Supreme Court ruled in favour of the UK Government's challenging to the bill, a challenge that the Scottish Conservatives saw coming when we warned at stage 1 that the bill must not result in endless clashes of legislation and long-lasting legal battles. So I repeat the question posed by my colleague Megan Gallacher in June on what on earth has the Scottish Government been doing. The truth is, Presiding Officer, instead of making the necessary changes to the bill required by the Supreme Court, the SNP has deliberately provoked grievance, politicising children's rights and I find that abhorrent. I note from the cabinet secretary's statement as she has repeated on 27 June that, in drafting amendments to the compatibility duty, we have tried to balance three important considerations. Protecting children's rights to the maximum effect possible, minimising the risk of another Supreme Court referral and making the law as accessible as possible for users. Many across Scotland will be wondering whether the Scottish Government should have thought about those considerations in the initial passage of the bill. However, that being said, it is essential that this bill receives full cross-party support and my party will continue to play a constructive role in what is left of the passage of the bill. We have a proud tradition when it comes to championing human rights and playing a key role in drafting the European Convention on Human Rights, and it was ratified back in 1951. In 1998, the Human Rights Act then transposed the European Court of Human Rights rulings into domestic law. Every child, regardless of their background or circumstances, deserves the opportunity to grow, thrive and reach their full potential. The UNCRC provides a framework that serves as a beacon for our collective commitment to protect and nurture our children. I will, yes. I am grateful for the opportunity. I wonder then, given the member's clear personal commitment to the issue that she would join with me in encouraging the UK Government to also pass UNCRC into domestic law, given the limits of what we can do within this Parliament, to get to the point that her and I both seem to want, which is giving the rights to the child on every single issue, not just in the limited way that we can do within this Bill. Here we are again, unfortunately, with a similar kind of response that we get. It is important to say that we have things that we can do here, and we should be doing them. I will help to support to make sure that that happens. Let us reaffirm that the importance of children's rights is not disputed. I would like to take a moment to comment on some of the articles and how they should apply here in Scotland. Article 28, right to education reads, every child has the right to an education, primary education must be free, and different forms of secondary education must be available to every child. Discipline in schools must respect children's dignities and their rights. In article 29, goals of education states that education must develop every child's personality, talents and abilities to the full. It must encourage the child's respect for human rights as well as respect for their parents, their own and other cultures and the environment. Every child must have access to education that allows them to reach their full potential, and this Government is duty bound to ensure that that happens. To properly follow article 29, I would suggest that we should be raising attainment for all and references to attainment gaps, poverty or otherwise run the risk of reducing achievement for our children. The SNP's commitment to eliminating the attainment gap has been watered down over the years. While they have repeatedly pledged to focus on closing this gap, little substantial progress has been made. Eight years ago, the former First Minister vowed to close the attainment gap completely, and the current First Minister said in his programme for government statement that we will continue to focus on closing the attainment gap. It is a promise after promise, but figures are showing that we have had a three-year consistent reduction in attainment, so instead of closing the attainment gap, we are seeing it stagnate, and we should be raising attainment for all, as per article 29. Article 24, health and health services, the UNCRC, states that every child has the right to the best possible health. Governments must provide good quality health care, clean water, nutritious food and clean environment and education on health and wellbeing so that children can stay healthy. A delay in providing school meals to all primary schools in Scotland is a matter of deep concern, and a clear indicator of a significant policy setback. The Scottish Government has made a firm commitment to ensure that every primary school student would have access to free school meals, a critical step in addressing child poverty and promoting equal opportunities in education. However, the reality stands in stark contrast to those promises, and again we are missing the directive behind the UNCRC. Instead of delivering on the commitment within the promised timeframe, we now hear about future plans to include expanding free school meals to primary six and seven by 2026. While expansion is a positive step, it doesn't negate the fact that the Government failed to meet its initial obligations. The delay in implementation means that children who needed the support for years have gone without, and it actively promotes the stigma that is attached to child poverty when it comes to school meals. The delay in providing school meals is a fundamental support mechanism that exacerbates in this crisis. It sends a message that the Government's commitment to addressing child poverty is not as steadfast as it should be, and it raises questions about their priorities being placed on the wellbeing of our youngest citizens. As a mother of two daughters, I have tirelessly fought for their rights from the moment they enter my life, and I will continue to do so until my last breath. The rights of the child are not up for debate, they are fundamental to the wellbeing of our society. Our world becomes a better place when we amplify the voices of our children and champion their rights. In principle, I agree with the UNCRC bill, and its crucial steps towards ensuring children's rights are recognised and protected in Scotland. We find ourselves today with the UNCRC incorporation Scotland bill introduced on 1 September, as we have just learnt 912 days ago, so we are just shy of 30 months. I welcome this debate very much so. Even if, technically, a debate is not required for this motion, I am very glad that the Scottish Government has provided time, because I think it is important that the people that sit in this chamber have the chance to explore some of the reasoning behind it, and also to allow a message to go out—I hope from this chamber again—that all parties still support the UNCRC. On 6 October 2021, the UK Supreme Court gave its judgment. The judges unanimously decided that four sections of the bill go beyond the powers of the Scottish Parliament. This was a risk that we were warned about, both prior to stage 3, with correspondence from the UK Government, but also at stage 3 by members in this chamber and with amendments that sought to prevent that overreach. I have no intention of rehearsing the event since October 2021, as this has been covered previously, not least in my member's debate earlier. Suffice it to say that, from the United Nations all the way up to our young people here, and almost every group in between, the call to the Scottish Government has been, get on with it, share your ideas, show us your plan. So today, we vote to reconsider the bill, another first for this Parliament, and indeed this session. If passed, this motion will open the chapter that will become known as the reconsideration stage. As yet, untested procedures are laid out that support this stage are standing orders rule 9.9 and 9.9A for those interested. Rules on what makes a valid amendment rule 9.10.5, which I feel will prove interesting in the debates that will follow. I know that we will, as always, be ablyguided by those who advise the chamber, both within the chamber and further afield. That brings me to the body of what I wish to discuss today. I welcome the support and comments from those outside of this chamber for today's debate, and I think that it can be summed up no better than the Children and Young People's Commissioner of Scotland, who has written to MSPs and, as I say, quote, it has taken longer than any of us would have wished for the bill to reach this stage. That should not detract from the importance of the decisions you will be asked to focus on now as human rights guarantors, because that's what we are within this chamber. We are one of the walls of human rights guarantors that young people have. We need to protect children's rights in Scotland to the fullest extent possible. I would also like to thank correspondents from both the Scottish Human Rights Commission and other organisations that make up the Together Group. The bill, although narrowed in some scope, in some ways, will still increase protections for those who are most vulnerable. It will demonstrate to children and young people in Scotland that we will continue to uphold the commitments to them now and into the future. The culture change that we want to see happen as a result of incorporation will still be possible. There is more, which can be done in the near future, to bring further devolved issues into the scope of the bill, but we can act now to secure what is possible. As part of the programme for government, correspondence was published between the First Minister and Cabinet Secretaries. In the correspondence to the Cabinet Secretary, the member bringing this motion today, it was written that you will bring a revised UNCRC Incorporation Scotland bill back to Parliament. In similar correspondence to the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Skills, a revised UNCRC Scotland bill will be brought back to the Scottish Parliament later in the year, this year 2023. I raise this because there has been secrecy over the wording of amendments to rectify the bill. I respect the Cabinet Secretary's contribution and defence of legal advice, but there has been secrecy over the wording that was being anticipated. On numerous occasions, I and others, both within and outwith this place, have called on the Scottish Government to publish, share and even talk about the wording of their amendments. I thank Martin Whitfield for everything that he has done with regard to making this a matter of urgency in terms of the UNCRC. I share his concerns around some of the information and lack of the information during the process of the Equalities Committee in which many committee members asked for an update. I think that we can learn lessons from this or particularly the Government can. I am very grateful for that intervention and of course the member is right. If mistakes are made, we need to learn from them and I think that we have an opportunity to see whether that learning will take place. In the very short period of time, we have between now—this Chamber has between now and Christmas—when this Bill is going to hopefully become law. That is prescient because, of course, the First Minister spoke in this Chamber with an offer to all parties represented in this Chamber. I repeat the offer that I made on becoming First Minister. You will sometimes disagree with things that we do, but when you can work with us, you will find that my door is always open. I have already shown my willingness to work with others in recent months. If today's motion is supported and I confirm that members on this side will do so, I understand that the amendments have been in interim published to the Committee in correspondence but will be formally laid on Monday, which is right. However, there is a weight of expectation on the Scottish Government. There is a weight of expectation that the Scottish Government will listen to the advice from organisations that do speak with authority for young people from outside this place, from experts who may propose changes to the Scottish Government's amendments and that those across the Chamber who here represent young people across the Chamber will also have ideas and, of course, to listen to young people themselves. The Scottish Government has kept the ball close to themselves since 6 October. If the assurance of the bill by the end of this year is to be met, then the Scottish Government must be open to discussion on other views as to whether the amendment will achieve the goal sought or other wording is needed. I welcome the comments from the Cabinet Secretary today to work across this Chamber. The Scottish Government and indeed this Chamber must listen to the committee or indeed committees who may take an interest at this. All this in a tight timeframe, which was completely unnecessary. The time for secrecy never actually existed, but from now on the Scottish Government and the Member in charge must be transparent in intentions and open to suggestions. This Chamber, this Government will not be forgiven for failing Scotland's young people again. Thank you very much indeed, Presiding Officer. It gives me great pleasure to offer the support of the Scottish Liberal Democrats in the motion and the reconsideration of this vital piece of legislation. Why are we here? What is important about the legislation that sits before us today? I turn to the words of my friend and the outgoing Children's Commissioner Bruce Adamson, who said that the incorporation of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child into Scotland was, in his words, the most important thing that we can do in legislative terms for our children. Why is that? Again, it is important in this place to illustrate policy with human experience. I do so with reference to an individual who is known to this chamber who once spent a night in police cells after punching a police officer. I am sure that that is something that happens from time to time across Scotland. However, what was different about this case was that the individual in question, Lindsay Hambridge, was only 13 years old. She was arrested on the night that she was taken into care. She lashed out, understandably, because she was being separated from her siblings and she was connected with a police officer. She then spent a night in adult prison accommodation at the age of 13. I use her story, even though she is older than our age of criminal responsibility, which is still one of the lowest in the world, not because of reference to the age of criminal responsibility, but because she had no access to justice under her article 37 rights under the UNCRC, which is about ensuring that when children are arrested, they are held in suitable accommodation. Nobody in this room would suggest that compounding one adverse childhood experience of being taken into care with another, putting her in the night in the cells, was in any way in the best interest, the test of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Childers that applied to children. However, there is no recourse to justice for Lindsay. This has been a long road, and it is a road that predates my time in this chamber. In fact, it began with a commitment in several party manifestos, my own included, but with the governing parties manifesto in 2011 election to bring forward the rights of children and young people bill. That was drafted. It talked about incorporation of the UNCRC, but then was conflated into what we now know to be the Children and Young People Act of 2014. Several times at several stages in that piece of legislation incorporation was mooted, amended or attempted to be amended and then dispensed with, largely because the Government felt it too complicated to make public bodies or itself act compatibly with the provisions of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, but happily we have moved still forward. There have been bumps in the road, and I turn again to the Age of Criminal Responsibility because I think that that was an unedifying period. It was embarrassing when a piece of legislation that the Government, who I do believe the credentials on in terms of their wish to make this the place, the best place in the world for children to grow up, brought forward a piece of legislation to lift our arcane Age of Criminal Responsibility from 8 to the diminished position of 12, yet during the consideration of that Bill, the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child increased the international floor still feather to 14 and we fell short of it. We are still behind Russia and China in terms of the rights we afford to children who are suspected of a crime in the age at which we hold responsibility for that. You cannot lead the world on human rights from the back of the pack. Now we have heard many times this afternoon of the stipulations of the court and the court judgment. There was no dispute that this Parliament can incorporate a UN convention such as the UNCRC into Scotland. I think that that was a very helpful and important precedent because it paves the way for other conventions to be incorporated in the Scottish law, whether that is convention on the rights of people with disabilities. I hope to see similar legislation coming forward for them, but the four provisions were clear. The four provisions were clear, but they were also simple and they should not have been a surprise. Several members in the chamber raised concerns that there might be a lack of compatibility with the strictures of devolution based on those points. There is even an inference or suggestion that this was communicated to the Scottish Government in advance of stage 2 and stage 3, yet still they pressed ahead. Had we known that this would have resulted in this delay, then I think that the Scottish Parliament would have taken amendment steps at those stages to make sure that we were compatible. I hope that that was not done deliberately. I hope that that was not done on the altar of grievance to necessitate constitutional fight or a grievance battle. I echo Martyn Whitfield's points. I think that they are very well made in terms of how we proceed forward and look at the amendments and, most importantly, include the voices of the people whom this will affect. The organisations such as the Alliance for Children's Rights and it's important that I reflect that. My chairmanship of that was very much focused on how we get the Convention of the Rights of the Child incorporated in Scotland in a living way, in a way that is meaningful to the people at the business end of this, the children of Scotland. As I said earlier, we want to be the best place in the world to grow up. I hope that everybody in this Parliament shares that laudable ambition of the Scottish Government. It's an ambition that it has had for the 16 years that it has been empowered, but to this point we aren't much further in realising that. I want to come back and I'll finish by resting on the words again of the person that I mentioned at the start of my remarks this afternoon, Presiding Officer, Bruce Adamson, the outgoing Children's Commissioner. He said that every day of delay is a failure to properly respect, to protect and fulfil children's rights. This bill was approved by Parliament, but the prevarication and delay is robbing children of the protections that they are entitled to. He was talking about Lindsay Hanford and he was talking about many of the thousands of children who every day find themselves wronged by public bodies, public institutions and acts of this Parliament. Every day of delay is a failure, he said, every day of delay. There have been nearly a thousand of them since this Parliament passed this bill with unanimity. It's time that we brought an end to that delay and made rights real for Scotland's children. Thank you, Mr Cole-Hamilton, and I now call on the cabinet secretary, Shirley-Anne Somerville, to wind up up to six minutes, please. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. I thank members for their contributions today. A number of members, quite rightly and quite understandably, have pointed to the amount of time until we reached this stage. I would say simply this. What we have been doing during that point is looking at the options to ensure maximum effective coverage, because there were a variety of ways that we could have gone down, which could have given us more coverage but did run the risk of legal challenge and did make the bill exceptionally complicated to the point where it genuinely may have become unworkable, particularly for our children and young people who we want to ensure the rights are protected. We have an obligation to continue to point out where the gaps and provisions are on this, particularly because of the changes that we have had to make because of the Supreme Court judgment. I fully respect the Supreme Court judgment and our requirements to do so. Ross McCall gave, for example, some issues surrounding education. I am not going to get into the more political aspects of her speech on that. What I will say is that, because of the changes that we have made, a number of important education acts no longer fall into the scope of the bill. That, I am afraid, proves the point about why it was necessary to take some time to see whether there is more that could be done to get a workable piece of legislation that incorporated as many acts as possible. Ms McCall may call that politicisation. I call that a statement of fact about where we have got to. I have provided a solution that is the UK Government to incorporate in the UNCRC. It is unfortunate that we cannot collectively, as a Parliament, come towards that. I would have thought that, again, it is not political to say that we want to protect all children's rights, not just the ones that we will be able to protect under this act. A number of members have suggested and talked about the process that led to this stage in Parliament before. I do not want to go over that in too much detail. We do not have time for that. I also do not think that it would be helpful, because I am keen to move forward. However, I will say, for the matter of record, that no amendments that were brought forward at stage through would have covered the Supreme Court judgment. To say that there was something that was on the table at that point that would have allowed us to progress is not a correct analysis of where we are. We are at the point now of looking at reconsideration. Actually, there were amendments at stage 3 that took us beyond the powers of this Parliament, rather than at stage 3 amendments trying to pull it back in. The debate was had, and members voted on that bill, as amended. However, I would say that we are at the point of reconsideration now. That is brand new to the Parliament. There are certain aspects in starting orders, and certain aspects would be fair to say that the Parliament is free to roam on. I certainly look forward to working with the Parliament, with the committee, in whichever way they decide that they will want to take that forward. We have been working with stakeholders for a long time now on the possibility of amendments. There were until recently a number of options. As I said, we are on the table. In June, we announced the option. I announced the option to the chamber about what we were going forward with, and we have been working with stakeholders on the detail of those options before formal drafting took place within Government. I have no interest, and there is no benefit in secrecy as we move forward on that. I am not aware, and I am sure that members will correct me if I am wrong, that I have turned down any offers of meetings from anybody in this Parliament to come forward and discuss this issue. I would once again, as the First Minister has said in general, that my door is always open to those who wish to discuss this matter. I conclude by thanking the most important people involved in the process. That is the children and young people who have continued to campaign for this bill and highlight the challenges that are still present to ensure that their rights are protected. I am immensely proud of the children and young people who, for example, represented Scotland in Geneva in May as part of the regular scrutiny of the UK by the UN Committee on the Rights of the Children. The committee clearly reflected in their questions to the delegation and the issues that they raised with them. I am also very grateful to the children and young people who have met the cabinet and the executive team over the years. I owe them. We all owe them a degree of hard work and a degree of concentration on this bill that will ensure that they can be reassured what comes forward at the end will protect their rights to the maximum effect possible that we can under the devolutionary set-up. That concludes the debate on the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child in Corporations Scotland bill reconsideration. There will be a short pause before we move to the next item of business to allow front-bench teams to change positions should they so wish.