 The next item of business is the statement by Shirley-Anne Somerville on the reconsideration of the United Nations conventions on the right of the child incorporation Scotland bill. The cabinet secretary will take questions at the end of her statement, therefore there should be no interventions or interruptions. I call on Shirley-Anne Somerville, cabinet secretary, around 10 minutes please. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. I would like to start by thanking Parliament for making the time for the statement in a very busy week, but I think it is important that I give an update on the UNCRC incorporation Scotland bill before we break for summer recess. As the First Minister set out in the policy prospectus, we remain absolutely committed to Scotland being the first UK nation to incorporate the UNCRC in domestic law, ensuring that we are a country that respects, protects and fulfills children's rights. Members were last updated on progress with the bill in February and March, and at that stage we made clear that we intend to amend the bill to address the judgment of the Supreme Court and that there was engagement about the amendments with UK Government lawyers in the Office of Advocate General. As explained in those updates, that engagement has been focused on how the duty to act compatibly within UNCRC can apply when a public authority is acting on the powers conferred by UK acts in devolved areas. 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. I will explain what that means for the powers in the bill that will be returned to Parliament. With regard to the coverage for children's rights, it is clear from the Supreme Court judgment that the bill cannot require public authorities to act compatibly with the UNCRC when they are delivering duties under powers in the UK act in devolved areas and that the act requires them to act incompatibly. Our objective has, however, been to ensure that the compatibility duty should apply both when public authorities are delivering duties under a UK act in a devolved area and that the act requires them to act compatibly with the UNCRC and when they are delivering duties under a UK act in a devolved area that gives them some discretion to act compatibly. Our assessment has been that amendments to the bill could achieve this and could comply with the Supreme Court judgment. We considered that one way we could cover as much devolved legislation as possible would be to differentiate between existing and future UK acts in devolved areas so that the compatibility duty applies to existing legislation in those categories but not to future legislation. We also believe that we could bring in scope provisions in future UK acts in devolved areas by adding to the bill a regulation making power, which could, with the approval of the Scottish Parliament, extend the compatibility duty to devolved functions created under UK acts in the future even if just on a case-by-case basis. There has been engagement since September last year with UK lawyers in the Office of the Advocate General on our proposals for amending the bill. While that has helped us to develop those proposals, the UK Government lawyers have continued to raise questions and it has become clear to me that they cannot give us reassurance, no matter what is put to them, that would guarantee there will be not another referral to the Supreme Court. Alongside that engagement, we have also been considering the need for clarity in the duties imposed by the bill. Our assessment is that clarity reduces and complexity increases as we seek to achieve greater coverage. That is the result of the legislative landscape within which we operate as a devolved administration and implications of the Supreme Court judgment. Our analysis of the usability of the approach that I have outlined has revealed that, although it would give the greatest coverage, it would be extremely complex for users. That could arise, for example, because of the need to establish the legal source of a public authority's function. If that source is a UK act in a devolved area, whether this is a function from an act that was passed before the commencement of the UNCRC bill or whether or not it has been modified by a UK enactment that was commenced post UNCRC commencement. If the original act or modification was passed after the commencement of the UNCRC bill, the user would have to establish whether the legislation had been brought into the scope of the compatibility duty by the use of a regulating making power. Complexities would become even more challenging where a UK act had been amended by an act of the Scottish Parliament. Our assessment is that, as we seek more coverage in the compatibility duty, the provisions become more complex, uncertain and challenging for children and young people and their representatives and for public authorities to work with. We have discussed the options available with the Children's Commissioner's Office, together the Scottish Human Rights Commission, UNICEF UK and members of the Scottish Youth Parliament and have reached a conclusion that the most effective route forward is to progress the option that minimises the risk of a further referral to the Supreme Court and which also minimises the complexity of users who will need to navigate. That is for the compatibility duty to apply only when public authorities are delivering duties under powers in an act of the Scottish Parliament. That will, of course, entail a loss of coverage of the compatibility duty in respect of certain laws that relate to children's rights. There are many existing acts of the UK Parliament that set out duties that impact on children and young people in devolved areas, but I have time to give but two examples here. The compatibility duty would not apply to services being delivered under the Education Scotland Act 1980. That covers the provision of education, including standards, special needs provision and free school books and equipment. Another example of where the compatibility duty will not apply is when services are being delivered under the Children's Scotland Act 1995. That will include, for example, local authorities' duties in relation to looked after children and personal relations with their parents and brothers and sisters. I am aware that some stakeholders have asked that the Scottish Government considers mitigating for this loss of coverage by commissioning an audit across UK acts in devolved areas and acts of the Scottish Parliament. The aim would be to maintain compatibility in devolved areas and also to identify UK acts in devolved areas that impact on children's rights to the extent that it would be worth bringing them into the scope of the compatibility duty by being converted into new acts of the Scottish Parliament. I want to reassure them that I will give that proposal due and proper consideration. Any audit would take time to complete and any legislative change would need to be paced in a way that manages pressure on Parliament's legislative programme. Despite its limitations, the proposal set out today will result in a bill that provides valuable protections for children's rights and that does so in a way that is legally sound and is clear for users. That is what we consider will give us the greatest effective coverage for children's rights, given the legislative landscape within which we operate as a devolved administration and the implications of the Supreme Court judgment. It will also allow us to begin our journey to legislate for children's rights and wider human rights and provide a solid legal foundation on which to build in the future. We believe that the bill and the supports that we are already putting in place for its implementation are creating a wider cultural change that we can continue to foster, but being no doubt that journey would become easier if there was political commitment in Whitehall to legislate for children's rights. The simplest way to secure protection for children's rights in Scotland and across the UK, and to do so as fully as possible, is for the UK Government to incorporate the UNCRC into UK law. The concluding observations from the UK state party's recent examination by the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child published this month include a recommendation that the UNCRC be incorporated into national legislation across the whole of the UK. While Scotland was commended by the committee for its efforts to incorporate the UNCRC into our domestic law, we have learned over the past few years that, without a similar legislative incorporation at the UK level, it is impossible to achieve this to deliver the breadth of protection that our children and young people deserve. Presiding Officer, will therefore be writing to the Secretary of State for Scotland to confirm how we will amend the UNCRC bill and urge the UK Government to bring forward its own legislation to incorporate the UNCRC. The former Deputy First Minister was open about his attempts to engage with the Secretary of State for Scotland to address the issues with the devolved settlement. It is regrettable that he was unwilling to do that. Presiding Officer, once again, we find the democratic will of this Parliament being blocked by Westminster. With devolution under attack, we cannot simply afford to leave rights such as UNCRC at the behest of a Tory Government. Surely the fact that we are seeing the UNCRC threatened by the Repugnant Illegal Migration Bill is proof enough that this bill is essential for protecting children in Scotland. Of course, as the First Minister set out last week, with independence our nation would have the opportunity to right this wrong by incorporating UNCRC into our written constitution. In the meantime, I will now make arrangements to begin the process of parliamentary consideration of a revised UNCRC incorporation Scotland bill. The processes agreed with the parliamentary authorities for this bill means that the next step is to confirm the admissibility of our proposed amendments with them. I will then lodge a motion so that Parliament can confirm its willingness to reconsider the bill. We are confident that our proposals for amending will be within legislative competence and will deliver a clear, coherent and workable bill that provides some valuable protections for the rights of children in Scotland, and we look forward to presenting the amendments to Parliament as soon as possible after the summer recess. Thank you, cabinet secretary. The cabinet secretary will now take questions on the issues raised in her statement. I intend to allow around 20 minutes after which we will need to move on to the next item of business. It would be helpful if members who haven't already done so wish to ask a question could press the request of speak buttons as soon as possible. We are tight for time across the afternoon, so I appreciate its succinct questions and answers wherever possible. Thank you, Presiding Officer, and I thank the cabinet secretary for advance sight of her statement. I am becoming increasingly annoyed by this Government and its inability to legislate. It has been 834 days since the UNCRC bill was passed in this Parliament, 630 days since the Supreme Court ruled in favour of the UK Government's challenge of the bill. That is 630 days for this Government to decide whether or not to write a letter to the UK Government about the UNCRC bill. No wonder nothing gets done in this place. Instead of making the necessary changes to this bill, the SNP have deliberately provoked grievance, have continued to politicise children's rights, have played constitutional games and have prioritised a debate on independence this afternoon. However, they have been found out. If this Government really cared about children's rights, work would have progressed by now. If that was really about young people, MSPs would have something to scrutinise today. However, it appears that the Scottish Government has done nothing. We still do not know when this bill will come back to Parliament, what on earth has this Government been doing? Why did the Scottish Government do its homework before bringing the bill before Parliament, and when will this bill be finally brought back to this chamber? I am presuming from some of the questioning that Menekin Gallacher does not understand the reconsideration process and the part that I said in the opening statement that it must go through the parliamentary authorities' step. I am not in charge of that part, Meghan Gallacher. In the response to the part that I am responsible for, we are absolutely determined to bring that back to the chamber at the earliest opportunity after the summer recess, once it is passed through the parliamentary authorities the timetable of which I cannot fix. When it comes to how we will then move forward with this, I do hope that we will see progress and the ability to have this bill worked through before Christmas, but again the parliamentary process and its timetable is not something for me. I am becoming increasingly annoyed about our inability to protect children's rights within the Parliament. That is what annoys me about this process. The reason that we have taken time to look at this is to see how we can have the maximum protection possible for our children and young people. I appreciate that the statement in parts was quite technical, but I hope that what it showed was the ability for us to be able to protect—well, people find it funny that we are trying to protect children's rights. I am sorry that Stephen Kerr thinks that it is funny that we have been working to protect children's rights within this Parliament, but what we have been doing and what I laid out in the statement was how, unfortunately, we have had to take out children's rights from what we had within the bill to ensure that we are within our legislative competence and respect the Supreme Court judgment, which, of course, we do. I ask members to desist from shouting from a sedentary position. It will prolong proceedings, it will enable not everybody that wants to get in to have an opportunity to speak. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer, and I want to thank the Minister for Advanced Site of her statement. I welcome the reintroduction of this bill, but today's announcement does not come without disappointment. The Cabinet Secretary has been clear that neither the Education Act or the Children's Act will be covered in the scope of the bill, meaning that provisions of education standards, special needs provisions, local authority duties in relation to looking after children and a whole host of other vital areas children and young people were counting on will not have the protection of incorporation. This is a damning indictment of 16 wasted years during which the Cabinet Secretary herself led on education. Does the Cabinet Secretary accept that the SNP Government's failure to act on its self-proclaimed priority means that we are still now relying on an outdated faturite piece of legislation that is older than me and that, ultimately, that in action has led to a betrayal of children and young people today? I am genuinely disappointed by that question from Pam Duncan-Glancy, because I think that there is not probably much difference between where her and I are on the protection of human rights. The limitations that I have discussed in my statement are because of the devolved competence that we must have and the Supreme Court judgment. That is why we have had to look at the acts that can be within scope and the acts that cannot be. It is not because the SNP is bad, it is not because we have not been doing anything, it is because of the way the Scotland Act is developed and genuinely developed. As I say, I think that there is not much between Pam Duncan-Glancy and I about how we would want to take forward children's rights. To attempt to find some consensus, I look forward to working with her to see how we can have more protection in this Parliament and more rights within this Parliament, but we will not get it within the current devolved settlement. Ruth Maguire, to be followed by Rachel Hamilton. The fact that the UK Government can block Scottish legislation that advances and furthers the right of children is a stark illustration of the limitations of our place within this union and the urgency of regaining our independence. Can the minister provide assurance to the thousands of people who contributed to the passing of the original bill, many of them children and young people, that even with limitations imposed by the UK Government, the Scottish Government remains ambitious for children's rights and committed to incorporation? Absolutely, as the First Minister has set out in the policy perspective, we are absolutely committed to Scotland being the first UK nation to incorporate the UNCRC and domestic law. Despite the limitations, the proposal set out today will result in a bill that provides valuable protection for many children's rights in a way that is legally sound and is clear for users. While it is disappointing that we cannot do more, I do believe that the proposals that I am discussing today will give us the greatest effective coverage for children's rights, given the legislative landscape that we are in and the implications of the Supreme Court judgment. Despite what the cabinet secretary says, the blockage lies firmly with this Government and its inability to deliver a modicum of competence in its work. Furthermore, the statement disappoints because it gives some children rights but lets other already marginalised children down. This SNP Government should hold their head in shame. Will the cabinet secretary commit the summer recess to putting in place an impact assessment of those proposals for the rights of the children for all children across Scotland? I would be more than happy to assist with publication in Spice, for example, about the summary of the options for amending the compatibility duty that we have been looking at and the impact that that has on the acts that have to be removed to get to the point where we have a piece of legislation that we believe we can bring forward is effective, but that does not have a threat for another action within the Supreme Court. I hope that Rachel Hamilton would support the Government's work to try and include as much as we possibly can, which is exactly the work that we have been taking forward in the past few years. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Like all children, unaccompanied asylum-seeking children should have access to the full care support and protection of children's legislation. I am deeply concerned about what the UK Government's illegal migration bill will mean for vulnerable children and victims of human trafficking who flee to the UK for a place of safety. Will the minister provide further detail as to any engagements with UK Government lawyers to try to reduce the risk of another referral to the Supreme Court on a revised bill, which would cause further delays to the vital protections that the incorporation of the UNCRC can provide? Mr Whittle, I have told the chamber about sedentary interventions. You are wanting in, it is less likely if you make those interventions. Rona Mackay to continue. Will the minister provide further detail as to any engagements with the UK Government lawyers to try and reduce the risk of another referral to the Supreme Court on a revised bill, which could cause further delays to the vital protections that the incorporation of the UNCRC can provide? There is a limit to what I can put in the public domain, because engagement with the UK Government has been mainly in a confidential lawyer-to-lawyer engagement. Of course, those details cannot be shared in public, but what we have tried to do within that engagement is to get as much reassurance as possible that UK Government lawyers are broadly content with our amendments before we proceed to the reconsideration stage to avoid another referral to the Supreme Court. There is a great deal of discomfort within Scottish ministers about where we have ended up, because, as the debate that we have just had before this statement on the illegal migration bill shows, there are many vulnerable children and victims of human trafficking, as Rona Mackay has discussed, who will not receive protection. That is because of the settlement that we have and the decision of the Supreme Court, which we will respect and work with others to improve the bill to deal with that. I am very grateful to the Deputy Presiding Officer. It is right to say that, of course, if a young person irrespective of where they are in the UK thinks that their human rights have been breached, they do have vehicles to pursue that and should be supported to do that. In essence, this statement is to cut through what is a very complex point. Simply, legislation that is passed in Scotland about Scotland will fall under the UNCRC. Discussions have been made of reconsideration of the bill's rejected procedures. It is right that the parliamentary authorities, the provision is to confirm that the new proposed bill in amendments comes under the auspices of devolved authority. That should be relatively straightforward now that you have had those assurances. Can you confirm that the bill will be legislatively competent and passed by Christmas this year? Well, as I said in my statement, we do believe that it is legislatively competent. I certainly hope that it will be passed by Christmas. Of course, the parliamentary timetable is not something for the Government, but given our intention is to move as speedily as we can once the parliamentary authorities have opined on the amendments going forward, we will bring back this as quickly as possible and we will work with the Parliament to see that go through Parliament as quickly as it can. John Mason, to be followed by Alex Cole-Hamilton. Thank you. The cabinet secretary has made it obvious that this is an incredibly complicated area of legislation, but she has also made it clear that Westminster basically has a veto over human rights. Would she agree with me that people both in the UK and in Scotland would benefit from a written constitution so that our rights would be written down as most sensible democracies have? John Mason raises a very important point. The bill that we will reconsider is a very important landmark bill to protect children's rights, but there are undoubtedly limitations on that and the reconsideration stage is all about how we deal with those limitations. We try to work as a Government with the Secretary of State, as I said in my statement, to find other ways around this. He refused to do so, so within the powers that we have we will do what we can, but John Mason is quite right. The only way to be able to protect all our human rights and all UNCRC is through a written constitution under independence. Alex Cole-Hamilton, to be followed by Karen Adam. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. This chamber first considered the incorporation of the UNCRC in the foothills of the Children and Young People Bill back in 2012. That is 11 years ago. Many tens of thousands of children will have since attained majority and be forever denied the protections that this legislation contains. Given that so much time has now passed, will she instruct legislative drafters to make sure that commencement of this bill now happens on royal assent and is not delayed further? The bill already has a short commencement period and will be delayed in six months after royal assent. If we can commence any of the provisions earlier, we will do that. However, we need to work through with representatives of public authorities and rights holders and the courts so that this is done in a logical and realistic way with access to the necessary guidance. To commence the public authority compatibility duty any earlier than six months would be extremely challenging. There is a statutory requirement that we allow a period of 12 weeks for the consultation and the guidance that will accompany the duties, and that consultation cannot begin until the bill receives royal assent. Alan Miller, who is the founding chair of the Scottish Human Rights Commission, has said, Scotland's human rights journey has been marked by an increasing ambition and internationalism as evidenced in the unanimous vote in the Parliament for the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child Bill. Scotland's progressive agenda, however, has been stifled by a hostile Tory Government at Westminster. Can the cabinet secretary outline any discussions that she has had with the UK Government to amend the devolution settlement in any way to allow us to better incorporate the convention of the rights of the child in Scotland? While I have had responsibility for this bill, we have been looking at the amendments that I have discussed in my statement today. Previous to my responsibility, yes ministers were in touch with the UK Government on this issue. Parliament will be aware from letters shared with the Equalities Committee that, in early 2022, we engaged with the UK Government to explore routes to increase the effectiveness of incorporation. Engagement covered two areas, whether the devolution settlement might be altered to offer the Scottish Parliament additional routes to increase the effectiveness of incorporation and whether we could ensure all devolved legislation is brought quickly within scope of the UNCRC bill without altering the devolution settlement. The Secretary of State for Scotland made it clear that he was unwilling to make changes to the devolution settlement. He said quite right that we shouldn't actually change the devolved settlement to protect more children. What a sad indictment, Presiding Officer. Maggie Chapman, to be followed by student care. I thank the cabinet secretary for advance sight of her statement and for the conversations that we have had about this since she came into post. The loss of coverage of rights that she outlined, where the compatibility duty will not apply, is deeply regrettable. Can I ask the cabinet secretary for information on what other mechanisms might be open to us to ensure that we extend coverage of rights in practice, if not in law, for all children in Scotland, including those who will be negatively affected by the illegal migration bill? I thank Maggie Chapman for her question. I think that this is something that we will need to continue to work on right across the Parliament to ensure that we are using our powers and our ability to support children and young people in the wider issue of their human rights. She will be aware of the work that has been going on still around the support from implementation, even when the bill has been held in obedience. For example, the Scottish Skills and Knowledge Framework, the Fund to Test approaches to embed children's rights. Obviously, the work that is going on to develop tools to assist public bodies to evaluate their approach to children's rights. Those are some examples, Presiding Officer. I think that Maggie Chapman is a very important point that we need to continue that work, and I will be happy to work with her and indeed members right across the chamber to see what more can be done on that issue. Stephen Kerr, to be followed by Fulton MacGregor. The Cabinet Secretary should know how fed up the people of Scotland are with these SNP games. The reality is that the idea of opening up the devolution settlement is just another SNP rws to create grievance. Will she tell the chamber what measures the Scottish Government has put in place now to monitor and evaluate the effectiveness of their efforts to incorporate UNCRC into Scots law, and what the key indicators are that they are using to assess their progress in this area? I am sorry that Stephen Kerr thinks that protecting children's rights is not a game. That is exactly why we have been working very, very hard to try to protect as many rights as possible as we have gone through this process. As I have mentioned to Maggie Chapman, there is a great deal of work that has been on-going around implementation and how we will have to work with children and young people and their representatives as well as public bodies to ensure that the Government, the public authorities and everyone that is responsible for children's rights that will be taken up by this bill are working as effectively and quickly as possible. I have given some of the details of that to the answer to Maggie Chapman, but there is more that we need to do on that. A UN committee has called on the UK Government ministers to urgently amend their illegal migration bill and I quote, to repeal all draft provisions that would have the effect of violating children's rights under the convention and the 1951 refugee convention and bring the bill in line with the state party's obligations under international human rights law to ensure children's rights to nationality, to seek asylum and to have their best interests taken as a primary consideration as well as to prevent the prolonged detention and removal. Does the cabinet secretary share those incredibly serious concerns in particular in relation to the importance of the UNCRC incorporation? It is extremely frustrating that our hands are tied in relation to the UNCRC incorporation and I agree wholeheartedly with the concerns around the illegal migration bill, which serves as a real time example of just how urgent and important the consideration of the UNCRC bill is in protecting rights. As I set out to John Mason, an independent Scotland could of course provide constitutional safeguards for human rights and equality protections, including the rights under UNCRC. That would mean that the UNCRC would not only have the effect on domestic law but that protection would extend to what are currently reserved matters as well as devolved and without the limitations placed on it by Westminster. I think that I could agree with Fulton MacGregor on the fact that that would be the best thing for the children, the very vulnerable children that will unfortunately be harmed by the illegal migration bill currently going through Westminster. I will try my best. For campaigners against use of seclusion restraint, the exclusion of the 1980 education act will be a matter of disappointment. Given that the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child said that the guidance on the use of restraint and seclusion should be put in a statutory footing, will the Government consider making an amendment to the legislation to do just that? Failing that, will the cabinet secretary or colleague the cabinet secretary of education meet me to discuss my proposal for a member's bill to do the same? Cabinet secretary, as briefly as possible. It is a disappointment that the 1980 act is not in it. Clearly, the member will be well aware of the fact that there has been a public consultation on the issue of restraint. I said when I was education secretary that the Government would be happy to see whether there is more that needed to be done on that. It would not be a meeting for me to undertake, but I am sure that my colleague Jenny Gilruth would be delighted to meet the member at some point in the future. Thank you, cabinet secretary. That concludes the item of business. There will be a brief pause before we move on to the next item of business, the live front benches to change.