 The final item of business is a member's business debate on motion 7485, in the name of Martin Whitfield, on UNCRC, Incorporation Scotland Bill. This debate will be concluded without any questions being put, and I would ask those members who would wish to speak in the debate to please press the request-to-speak buttons. I call on Martin Whitfield to open the debate. It is a pleasure that you are in the chair for this debate on the UNCRC, Incorporation Scotland Bill. I would first like to thank all those members across the chamber who supported my motion to make this debate possible. I am conscious that people are concerned about the political element with regard to members' debate, but I make no apology for that tonight, because the bill was passed unanimously by the chamber. The concerns are not one of political nature in reality, but one of process. The bill was introduced to the Scottish Parliament on 1 September 2020, passed unanimously on 16 March 2021. In 37 days, we should have been celebrating its second birthday, a birthday that, if it was a person, could potentially have opened up funding childcare for it. On 6 October 2021, the UK Supreme Court gave its judgment on the UNCRC. The judges unanimously decided that four sections of the bill go beyond the powers of the Scottish Parliament. That risk was warned about, both prior to stage 3 with correspondence from the UK Government but also at stage 3 in the debate that took place in this chamber, where members pointed out. I am very grateful to Martin Whitfield for giving way. Martin Whitfield rightly reminds this chamber of the correspondence that was received by the UK Government instructing of the potential illegality of the sections of this bill. Had this Parliament been made aware of the correspondence at this time, it might have acted differently at stage 3. Does he share my concern that we did not learn of that correspondence until after the bill had passed? I am very grateful for that intervention. 2020 hindsight is always very strong, but it is right to say that this chamber was aware of concerns regarding this bill, both during the voyage of stage 3 and before that. Whether or not the conclusion would have changed with the publication of the correspondence from the UK Government, I cannot say. I did not have the pleasure of serving in the Parliament at that session. We were aware of the potential of the overreach. Let us move forward. What has happened since October 2021? In March 2022, the Scottish Government, we were told, was carefully considering the effect of the Supreme Court decision. On 24 May 2021, the Deputy First Minister came to this chamber and gave a statement, setting out the theory behind the proposed changes to section 6, 19 and 21. There was also a targeted engagement with the third sector. By June of that year, we know that all stakeholders who had responded were supportive of the proposed fixes to the bill. By August amendments were being drafted and committee time was being sought to deal with it. By 25 August stakeholders were being told that the aim was to return the bill, have it passed by the end of the calendar year. On 27 September this timetable was still on track. Ministers were content with final amendments, a motion would be lodged in this Parliament. From published Ministers we know that the Scottish Government had drafted amendments and that these were being discussed in detail with the UK Government. It was still on track on 27 September for end of year implementation, but by October that message was starting to change. The Scottish Government were engaging with the Scottish Parliament over admissibility of amendments and SPICE were preparing a leaflet. In fact, SPICE have prepared a briefing that was published on 27 January 2023 regarding the reconsideration stage, which is a procedural stage here within this Parliament, that is required to amend the bill. At a minute meeting when asked about any parallel process should reconsideration not be agreed to, it was confirmed that we don't have another approach at present. By November the minutes show that the Scottish Government couldn't say whether the amended bill will be presented before the end of the year, so where are we? On 30 January 2023 a question was tabled to the UK Government seeking their position on the matter. That was answered on 6 February 2023. The UK Government through Alistair Jack have said, it has always been the responsibility of the Scottish Government to determine how they will comply with the requirements of the Supreme Court judgment. The Scottish Government has yet to formally set out how they plan to proceed. I raise these questions in the background to where we are, because this week sees children, young people and indeed adult human rights defenders from Scotland who make up the hashtag Team Scotland UN joining their partners from across the UK to give evidence to the United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child in Geneva. Bo Johnson, MSYP and Daisy Stewart-Henderson MSYP are joining members of the Children's Parliament, Arden and Amima, 13 and 14-year-olds old, in raising children and young people's rights issues with the UN Committee. They do so because of course the UN are reviewing the human rights record of the UK. Incorporation of the UNCRC and the urgency for action from both the Scottish Government and UK is one of the most important issues that they will raise. I salute Bo, Daisy and all of Team Scotland for raising on an international stage the failure of this Government. Where are we? Legislation heralded us world-leading, supported by this Parliament, supported by third sector. Most importantly, a promise to our young people not just to be listened to but respected for their views, for their human rights. Where are we? Will the Scottish Government publish the draft amendments that are being discussed with the UK Government? Will the Scottish Government publish the deadline given to the UK Government to agree these amendments? Will the Scottish Government confirm and publish formally its plan to proceed to make good this bill and confirm that it has been shared with the UK Government? Will the Scottish Government publish its timetable to rectify this bill? Those are my asks tonight, not from a political position, not from an ideological position, but because the children of Scotland deserve to know these answers. I now call Bill Kidd to be followed by Stephen Kerr around four minutes, Mr Kidd. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer, and thank you to Martin Wittfield for lodging this motion. I am pleased to be able to contribute to this important debate today. With some amendments and I expect with broad cross-party support, this bill will pass through its reconsideration stage. Its enforcement will provide an umbrella of critical protections for children across Scotland. Its intention is to embed a culture that prioritises children's rights in such a way that when children's rights are not upheld in practice, MSPs will be equipped indeed compelled to take action to remedy incompatible laws. This movement to reconcile children's rights in international law with their realisation on the ground will, I believe, foster the development of a radical change in how children are treated in Scotland. Bill Kidd is speaking very positively about the possibilities of this bill coming back to this Parliament, but he is speaking so positively. Can I ask him? Does he know when what the timetable is for this to happen? Well, strangely enough, I have not been made a Minister of any description. I do not actually know. However, what I am saying is that I believe that this will be coming back and I know that there is genuine enthusiasm for bringing this back as soon as it can be and I will be supportive of that. This movement to reconcile children's rights in international law with their realisation on the ground will, I believe, foster the development of a radical change in how children are treated in Scotland. We know from cases of historic child abuse such as in sports abuse scandals stretching from the 70s to the 90s that, in relatively recent years, some people in Scotland have turned a blind eye to child abuse and sexual exploitation. I believe that times are changing. However, child abuse still goes on today and we must make every effort to erode structures or gaps in safeguarding that allow for perpetrators to continue in their abuse of children. In a previous debate on ending violence against women and girls, I raised the story of Emily, a survivor of sex trafficking. At the age of 11, Emily was forced by her friend's father to move drugs for a gang. She was then trafficked by this gang into prostitution. She is not the only child from across the whole UK who has been forced into prostitution and trafficking for sexual exploitation. There are, sadly, many cases of this kind of exploitation. Often, however, we are not aware of those stories happening in our own towns and cities as the disappearance of 200 unaccompanied asylum-seeking refugee and children is evidenced. Trafficking and exploitation of children across the UK is very much a present reality. Of the UNCRC provisions relating to these serious areas of concern, article 35 obliges governments to protect children from trafficking in or outside of their country for the purposes of exploitation, article 19 protects children from abuse or neglect, article 34 enshrines the rights of children to freedom from sexual exploitation and abuse. It is also worth noting the protocol on the sale of children, child prostitution and child pornography, which will be incorporated in this bill. Believe that this bill, once amended, will help to protect children who are at risk of trafficking and exploitation. It will also reinforce the legal rights, protections and duty of children, care of children who have been forced into various illegal activities at the hands of their traffickers. The UNCRC and the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child are clear that victims of trafficking and sexual exploitation should be recognised as such, provided with appropriate support and benefit from protection against arrest, charged detention and prosecution. Unfortunately, it is often the case that child trafficking victims are charged for crimes that they were forced to commit. The Children and Young People's Commissioner's Office has explained that, in Scotland, traffic children can still be prosecuted in the adult justice system and, moreover, gaps in Scotland's legal and policy protections for children trafficking victims have resulted in a number of child victims being detained. I have to wonder what steps would have stopped Emily at the age of 11 from being sex trafficked as a child who saw the red flags and did fear of prosecution stop her from reaching out for help as a child? Whilst Emily's abuse began in the early 2000s, the same vulnerabilities continue and people who seek to exploit children still exist. The full incorporation of the UN rights of the child is required to offer real protection for children who are most vulnerable to exploitation and abuse. On top of the bill, children must have adult champions who can identify when something is wrong, know when to investigate further and act to stop this abuse. They can also raise policy and legal issues with the Parliament. In recognition of their duty of care for children as parliamentarians, we must remain committed to the passage of such a bill and the fullest possible implementation of children's rights in Scotsloch. I now call Stephen Kerr to be followed by Pantheon Danson. I congratulate my friend Mark Whipfield for bringing forward this motion and congratulate Bill Kidd on what was an excellent speech dealing with a very serious and sobering matter. When we consider any statement of rights, it is always interesting to give consideration between the rights of a small number or even a single individual against the rights of the majority or the larger group. Balancing those competing forces is essential in any consideration of rights. In Scotland today, we have a growing epidemic of disruption and violence and threat in our classrooms. Scottish Conservative research found that there had been over 70,000 assaults on teachers in Scotland over the last five years. That is a remarkable and horrifying statistic that is made worse when you realise that those include the Covid years when children were learning remotely. Understanding the importance, atmosphere plays in a child's education. Monitoring what is happening in Scotland's classrooms should be a top priority of those involved in education, and that is currently not happening. In Falkirk Council, Scottish Conservative councillor James Bundy asked in November for the rates of assaults on violence against teachers in Falkirk. He was told by the director of children's services that there had been, and I quote, no significant increase and that it was an odd incident. However, last week, councillor Bundy revealed that he had received a freedom of information request from a freedom of information request, that there had been a 989% increase in the rate of assaults against teachers and staff in Falkirk in the past five years, and that on average there is 4.95 assaults per day. This is not an odd incident, this is a significant increase. You might be asking what this is to say about our approach to children's rights. Does the UNCRC have anything to say to us on the ability of children to enjoy their schooling free from the threat of violence, free from bullying and misconduct? Last week, the Herald led on a story from a whistleblower, a teacher in Glasgow's East End, who spoke about a culture of toxic positivity in schools, one where school bullies and violent pupils were not challenged about their behaviour, one where the focus on individual rights eclipsed the rights of a class to learn. Articles 28 and 29 of the UNCRC do provide help and direction in this respect. We have a responsibility to provide education for our children, something that historically we would not have needed a UN charter to remind us in terms of our responsibilities. We also have a responsibility to ensure that children have a respect for the charter of rights itself. We have come to understand this as children understanding their own rights, but perhaps a new reading of those rights within the UNCRC could help our children to understand the rights of others. It should also help children to understand that with rights come responsibilities. The charter outlines this. It speaks about respect for parents, respect for their values, we have a country and preparation to live in a free society. By letting the epidemic of violence continue, we let our children down. We let down the children who do not learn the lessons of respect that the UNCRC outlines. Perhaps most importantly, we let down the majority of children who turn up to school to learn, who want to do their best. We let them down by destroying their life chances, undermining them at the very least and stopping them from learning by not dealing with the disruptive elements in their classroom. I agree with the motion that we need a cultural shift. We actually need a new deal for our classrooms. It is time for a right to a school day uninterrupted by violence or threats of violence or intimidation—a reality far too familiar to too many of Scotland's children today. Today's debate should be about celebrating two years of the UNCRC incorporation bill. Instead, 16 March will be a sad reminder of the delay and that two years after it passed through the chamber, the legislation has still not been enacted. That is disappointing for this Parliament and for the children and young people who still do not have access to the rights and provisions that should already be written into our domestic legislation. It was children and young people who led the fight for incorporation. I think that we all recall how proud they were of that achievement. Now they are disappointed and many of the provisions and protections within the UNCRC are still not accessible to them and they are being met with more delay. Silence over when they can expect the rights to become a reality. It has now been well over a year since the Supreme Court ruled that the bill has passed, reached beyond the powers of the Scottish Parliament. The last update from the Government, as we know, was from the Deputy First Minister's statement in May, which gave a welcome promise that the Government would amend the bill and consult with children and young people in doing so. The statement was 10 months ago, but we are still no clearer as to when these next steps will take place, despite various attempts from MSPs across the chamber to secure some clarity. An indication on when the reconsideration process might start is the very least children and young people deserve. They should not have to face any more delay. The UK Government has been clear in setting out where the bill strays beyond devolved functions and the Scottish Government has recognised those concerns, so there is no need for a hold-up. It is time to implement solutions and bring before Parliament a bill that legislates within devolved competence to deliver for children and young people the rights that they have fought so passionately for. There is often a tendency in the chamber to focus on what divides us rather than what unites us, but the matter of the UNCRC incorporation is one that unites us all, regardless of party. We all want to see the legislation progress and become a reality for children and young people's lives in Scotland, because, as Martin Luther King said, a right delayed is, of course, a right denied. The longer incorporation is delayed, the longer Scotland's children and the young people are denied proper protection of their rights in law, or the ability to challenge where their rights are not being met, and they are losing out on the wider legal and cultural changes that international experience has shown comes hand in hand with embedding children's rights into domestic law. Countries including New Zealand, Finland, Canada and Sweden all demonstrate that incorporation ensures that Government is held to account at a national level and compels public bodies to act in a manner consistent with children's rights, which creates a culture of better informed policy and greater respect for children and young people as individuals. As it works towards the reintroduction of the legislation, the Scottish Government must do all it can in its wider decision making to protect and promote children's rights by taking a rights-based approach to policy development and spending, including by improving transparency of its budget so that money directed towards ensuring rights are being met can be identified. There is an absence of legislation, but that does not mean that there needs to be an absence of action. The UNCRC incorporation Bill included a duty on ministers to report on their actions to further children's rights via the children's rights scheme. It may not yet be required to do so, but such a report would be a signal that it has a forgotten commitment to always consider the best interests of children and young people. The chamber is united behind incorporation, but the ball is firmly in the court of the Scottish Government. As parliamentarians, our hands are tied until the bill is brought back before us, so I urge the Scottish Government, please gather pace in doing so. Children and young people cannot afford Scotland to lag behind on their rights anymore. I now call Alex Cole-Hamilton to be followed by Brian Whittle. The incorporation of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child into Scotland's law was one of my main motivating factors for seeking election to this place. Before I was elected, I had spent 13 years in the children's voluntary sector working for a variety of children's charities. I had spent 19 years as a youth worker. It was my concern for the rights of children that first drove me towards elected politics. I believed the Scottish Government when it came to power, when it said that it wanted to make Scotland, in their words, the best place in the world to grow up. I believed it. The journey to this point has been a very long and circuitous one. It had tried to make good on that original commitment, that overarching aim, with the introduction of a rights of children and young people bill in 2012. That was then folded, if you remember. It was compromised into what became the much bigger children and young people bill. Foothills of work that were done around incorporation at that time were junked. They were dispensed with. We were told at that time that it was just too complicated to incorporate the UNCRC into Scotland's law. Year after year, we watched countries that we idolised. Countries that this Government will point to as a blueprint for independence or for a more progressive way of living incorporated exactly that. It's because this Government tells us that it wants to be a rights leader, but it has a history of talking a good game on that but then not delivering in the final analysis. I need only point to the age of criminal responsibility legislation, which was a flagship of this Government's intent towards children and young people in the last session. It wanted to finally bring us up from the awful age of eight years old at which we were holding children criminally responsible for their crimes and bring it to 12. But guess what, during the consideration of that legislation, the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child, of which we have heard so much this evening, changed that floor to 14. Amendments in my name fell at the stage two and stage three to try and bring us into line with that de minimis position of 14, but we were rejected. We still sit behind Russia and China, those bastions of human rights observance in terms of the age at which we hold children responsible for the crimes that they commit. I'll give way to the minister. I thank Alex Cole-Hamilton for taking my intervention. I remember the passion with which he argued that we should raise age to 14. The then Minister for Children and Families agreed that we would review the age of criminal responsibility, and that is something that we have committed to. Alex Cole-Hamilton I am delighted, but I am concerned that that might fall in the basket of jam tomorrow, which is the reason why we are here. We are now two years since this Government unanimously passed the legislation that we are all debating tonight, and we have seen no sign of the amendments coming back that agreed with the UK Government for passage by this Parliament. What are we talking about here? It's not complex. It's done the world over in jurisdictions that recognise in law the rights of children, and that is about making sure that their voices are heard in decisions around them, that they have access to redress and, in some cases, justice when those rights are impinged by the state. We know time and time again when that happens. We have heard some of the words, particularly in the eloquent words of Bill Kidd, of when historically that has happened. We want to make sure that we have a legal basis, a legal architecture, underpinning those rights going forward. It's one of the reasons that this bill was passed with unanimity in this Parliament. I am very concerned that, whilst amendments were brought forward to try and ameliorate the issues that the UK Government eventually took the bill to court over, we're not passed at stage 3, but I think that's in large part because we were unaware of the salience of those amendments at the time. Had we been privy to the correspondence that the Scottish Government had received in the transit of the bill through this Parliament, we would have understood its susceptibility to legal challenge, and we would have taken steps at stage 3 if needs be to remedy that, but we were not made aware. That gives me a cynicism about the motives of this Government that they could see a fight in the offing with the UK Government, and so the rights of children and young people in this country were sacrificed on the altar of grievance that we know all too well this Government is capable of. Let us look, if I may, very briefly. There are only four points that the UK Supreme Court has suggested need to be amended, and they can be done so tonight. I know several people in this chamber who have already ghostwritten amendments that would do the job. We need to bring them back to Parliament because the children of this country have their eyes on this chamber. The Scottish Youth Parliament made it their priority for several years, and we have let them down if we do not bring them back to Parliament and make the amendments required. I thank Mark Whittle for bringing the debate to the chamber. I have a specific interest around the UNCRC Bill, which I will come on to. It was the UNCRC Bill that was incorporated and passed unanimously on March 16, 2021. Unfortunately, as we have heard, the UK Government had to send a bill to the UK Supreme Court, which was heard in June 2021. Although, in the judgment, which was unanimous in October 2021, there was no objection to the intention behind the Bill of the Scottish Parliament's ability to incorporate the UNCRC. In fact, the Supreme Court said that no-one disputes the right of the Scottish Parliament to regard the UNCRC as an important convention and give effect to it, and provided that it does so within the limits of its legislative competence. As Alex Cole-Hamill has said, there were just four issues that they raised. One was around the definition of public authority, and this specific bill was written broadly to include third parties carrying out services on behalf of public authorities. The court found that the definition to be too broad, meaning that it could apply to UK authorities acting in reserved areas. The Scottish Government, to its credit, said that it will amend to make it clear only that Scottish authorities acting in devolved areas will be subject to law. It also said that it would be changed so that public authorities would not be found to have broken the new law if an existing law meant that they could not respect children's rights in this area. That is the same approach that was taken to the Human Rights Act 1998. We also know that section 20 on strike down powers was an issue. We know that section 21 in compatibility declarators was also an issue. Looking at the ministerial statement on May 24, John Swinney wrote to the Secretary of State on 1 February 2022 to find a way for the bill to become law without needing to change what it says, which is really at odds with what the Scottish Government said it was going to do. The Secretary of State replied a week later to say that it was not possible as it would mean changing the powers of the Scottish Parliament. In the ministerial statement, John Swinney announced a three-week consultation with stakeholders to begin the reconsideration of that process. In response to John Swinney's statement that the UK Government was unwilling to engage, it meant that the UK Government had to issue a statement that said, and I quote again, UK Government made suggestions during the passage of the UNCRC Bill about how it could be brought within the Scottish Parliament's existing powers, which were unfortunately rejected by Scottish ministers. The Supreme Court subsequently determined that that legislation was not within the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament. It also has gone to say that we, of course, were all in favour of John Swinney's proposed improvements, which was not about seeking additional powers for the Scottish Government, but about curtailing those specific paragraphs that were causing problems in the Supreme Court. It seems to be at loggerheads with the idea that the UK Government was interacting with them, and they had already decided that that was the best way to get this bill through Parliament. I wanted to go on to my specific interest in UNCRC, so the bill being finally adopted is because, as the cabinet secretary would have testified to, he will know that I was involved in trying to amend the redress scheme bill in the last Parliament to include all children abused in a public care setting. It is my contention, and that of many other interested parties, that the redress scheme, although very much welcomed in its intention, is fundamentally flawed and narrow in its effect because it excludes many historical cases of child abuse within a similar setting to the care setting where the cabinet secretary contains parental responsibility that should be adopted by the state. However, the education bill uses the words, in locust parentis, which effectively gives parental responsibility to teaching staff. As Bill Kidd said, it is similar in a coaching setting where, often, parental responsibility is handed over to the coach, and there are others such as the Farnethys survivors who have petitioned the cabinet secretary, and I am hoping that they are getting towards a successful conclusion. I will end here by saying that we need the Scottish Government to expedite the passing of the bill to ensure that all safeguards and rights protections that the bill enshrines in law can give to our children. Across the chamber, we are all agreed with its importance. It is just time that this bill was passed, Deputy Presiding Officer. Thank you, Mr Whittle, and I now call on clear Hohien Minister to respond to the debate around seven minutes. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. I would like to start by thanking members for their continued commitment to protecting and strengthening children's rights. It is clear that the commitment that was demonstrated in Parliament unanimously past the UNCRC bill in March 2021 remains, and I am confident that, when we are ready to bring an amended bill back to this Parliament, it will again receive the support that it deserves. Presiding Officer, we have emphasised our commitment to that process on several occasions, most recently, on 26 January, when the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Skills responded to Mr Whittle's question about early discussions with the UK Government. The cabinet secretary also explained the importance of discussions with the UK Government and that those discussions currently focus on what the Supreme Court judgment means for the application of the UNCRC compatibility duty when a public authority is acting under powers conferred by UK acts in devolved areas. I hope that members may find it helpful for me to provide some further details on that. We have been clear to Parliament and to stakeholders that the Supreme Court judgment means that the duty to act compatibly with UNCRC requirements set out in the bill cannot apply when a public authority is acting under powers conferred by a UK act and that act requires them to act in a way that is incompatible. However, there will be cases where a UK act in a devolved area gives a public authority discretion about whether or not to act in a way that is compatible. Our hope has been that, in those circumstances, the bill could require a public authority to act compatibly. The discussions with the UK Government are focused on whether the Supreme Court judgment does indeed enable us to do that. As well as carefully considering whether that is possible in the context of the Supreme Court judgment, we also need to consider whether setting more conditions on the application of the compatibility duty would overcomplicate the bill. The compatibility duty cannot become so complicated that duty bearers and children and young people and the representatives find it difficult to understand. I am very grateful for the minister to give way. It is not the case that we have an amendment that is being considered. It is the case that the Scottish Government and the UK Government are still having—I use that word carefully—a philosophical discussion about the extent of the Supreme Court decision over the relevance of UK legislation that may or may not apply in a devolved sense. The time that is taken to consider those amendments has been due to the complexity of the legal landscape, especially from the Supreme Court judgment and the implications for the devolution settlement. I appreciate members that have mentioned on several occasions across the chamber that there are four areas that the Supreme Court came back with concerns about, but those are really complicated matters of law. I understand members' frustrations that we have not yet been able to start the parliamentary process of reconsidering the bill and that we cannot yet set out a clear timetable for that process. I trust that members will understand why it is important to take the time to work through the issues that I have described. That is not an insignificant matter or a matter of prevarication. It is important to understand and to get right for children now and for generations of children to come. It is also important for our incorporation of other human rights treaties in the proposed human rights bill on which we will be consulting in coming months. I understand that the delay in bringing the UNCRC bill to Parliament is concerning for stakeholders. As the Deputy First Minister said in me last year, we are committed to incorporating UNCRC through amendments to the bill. That has not changed. The motion includes that. I am very grateful to the minister for giving way on those points. One of the challenges that the third sector has found is that statements that are being made in committees and subcommittees are then being contradicted by ministers and cabinet secretaries here within the chamber. There is an air of confusion about that. My understanding is that there are amendments that are still being discussed. I wonder whether, as to my requests, any of those could be published so that people could see. My final question—I promise you, Deputy Presiding Officer—is my final question. Do the Scottish Government have any concerns about the legislative procedure that is the reconsideration stage here in Parliament? We have not even got to that part yet. I would be somewhat saddened to discover that that suddenly becomes the hold-up rather than the discussions that the minister has been referring to. I am grateful, Deputy Presiding Officer. I can understand that this is a complex area. The reconsideration process, as far as my understanding, has not been used in this Parliament even though it has been in statute. We are absolutely committed to bringing those amendments back to Parliament under that reconsideration process for Parliament to look at and vote on. I am sure that there will be much discussion when that happens. The motion includes a request that the Scottish Government sets out a timetable for the reconsideration process. As Mr Witfield pointed out last week or the week before, previous estimates have proved to be optimistic. The nature of our engagement and the groundwork required to reduce the risk of another referral to the Supreme Court means that not all of the milestones are within our own control. However, the 16 March will be an important date, and we will endeavour to provide another update by then. In the meantime, our programme of work to embed children's rights continues at pace regardless of the status of the bill. We are building the capacity for public authorities to take a child's rights-based approach in the delivery of services by, for example, developing a skills and knowledge framework, providing a fund to test innovative approaches to embedding children's rights, developing tools to assist public bodies to evaluate and improve their approach to children's rights, funding the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman to develop a child-friendly complaints process for public authorities under their jurisdiction, and funding the improvement service to assist local authorities and their partners to successfully implement the UNCRC at local level. I am very grateful to the minister for giving way. I am gratified to hear that the Scottish Government is trying to move forward with these measures to improve children's rights at pace, as she describes. However, I am concerned that, without the legislative architecture that the incorporated UNCRC would provide, that is for the birds. I would need to disagree with Mr Cole-Hamilton. I do not think that it is for the birds, and I think that we have evidence through some of the work that we have mentioned that the Scottish Government takes children's rights very seriously. We are also raising awareness of children's rights among children and young people and their families by providing national funding for the rights-respecting school award, providing information on the parent club website and working in partnership with the Children's Parliament, the Scottish Youth Parliament and Young Scot. Would the minister accept, as per my remarks in this debate, that there is a right to an uninterrupted school day? Is she satisfied that the Government is doing everything that it can within its existing powers and within the spirit of what we have been discussing tonight to ensure that that happens, because clearly across Scotland, on a daily basis, it is not happening? I know that this is an issue that perhaps not Mr Kerr has raised, but certainly his colleagues have raised. The Cabinet Secretary for Education and Skills has responded to that, saying that we all have a part to play here as schools in terms of setting discipline and maintaining order within schools. Children have rights, and they need to learn about their rights, but we also need to be respectful of each other. We can agree on that, and certainly bullying and harassment have no place in our schools. On World Children's Day in November, we published a report that set out the progress that we have made in relation to children's rights in Scotland since 2016. It explains, for example, how we are supporting children's mental health and wellbeing to deliver their right to be as healthy as possible and what we are doing to support children's rights to nutrition, adequate housing and extra financial support if their family needs it. Judging by the commitment to the bill that this Parliament has demonstrated this evening, we will deliver the bill, and we will have more to celebrate in the future.