 at the end of his statement, and so there should be no interventions or interruptions. On 6 October, the Supreme Court gave its judgment on the European Charter for Local Self-Government in Cooperation Scotland Bill and the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child in Cooperation Scotland Bill. When I updated Parliament that day, I explained that comprehending the implications of the judgment would require careful consideration. I also committed to keeping Parliament updated as and when I could. Since the Supreme Court's judgment, I have made clear that I remain committed to the incorporation of the UNCRC to the fullest extent possible and that to allow incorporation of the UNCRC as soon as practicable, our preference is to address the Supreme Court's judgment by returning the UNCRC Bill to Parliament via the reconsideration stage. I reassured Parliament that even though the European Charter for Local Self-Government Bill was a member's bill, the Scottish Government remained committed to supporting the bill and to work closely with Mark Ruskell as the designated member-in-charge to support him in taking forward the next steps. I have also been open about my attempts since receiving the judgment to engage with the Secretary of State for Scotland to explore potential routes to increasing the infectiveness of incorporation of the UNCRC. Regrettably, the Secretary of State has made it clear that he is unwilling to address the issues with the devolution settlement that have impacted on our ability to do that. Members will be aware that the Supreme Court judgment had implications in terms of the application of the UNCRC to United Kingdom legislation that predates devolution but is now within the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament, for example, the Education Scotland Act 1980. Although that is legislation that relates to our own children, our own schools and our own country, it is Westminster legislation, so we cannot, following the Supreme Court judgment, apply the UNCRC to it. That is the ludicrous constitutional position that Scotland finds itself in. Our approach to the United Kingdom Government also included steps that could be taken to ensure that all legislation on devolved matters is brought efficiently within the scope of the UNCRC bill without altering the devolution settlement. The Secretary of State has now made it clear that he is unwilling to explore even standard Scotland Act order options that are within the current devolution settlement. Members will form their own views, but I cannot see how that is consistent with the Secretary of State's comments in the House of Commons in October, where he committed, and I quote, to engage constructively with the Scottish Government to ensure relevant issues that may arise are addressed at the earliest possible stage. The United Kingdom Government has refused to countenance expanding the devolution settlement to allow for full incorporation of the UNCRC into Scots law. It has also refused to take steps to support incorporation of the UNCRC into areas that are wholly devolved. At every stage of the process, it has acted as a barrier to this Parliament legislating to protect the rights of children in Scotland. Having exhausted those pragmatic options with the UK Government, I am now in a position to update Parliament on what we consider is necessary to fix the bills. I am grateful to the minister and the minister for making time to have this statement today. When the UNCRC bill was unanimously passed in March 2021, Parliament came together to make a significant statement of intent on who we are and what we collectively seek to achieve as parliamentarians for the people of Scotland. That was a landmark moment in the Scottish Parliament's history. The intent behind the bill is to deliver a proactive culture of everyday accountability for children's rights across public services in Scotland. As passed, the bill would require all Scotland's public authorities to take proactive steps to ensure the protection of children's rights in their service delivery and make it unlawful for public authorities to act incompatibly with the UNCRC requirements that are set out in the bill. Children, young people and their representatives would have a new ability to use the courts to enforce their rights. On 12 April, the United Kingdom Government referred four provisions of the bill to the Supreme Court. Those were section 6, which makes it unlawful for a public authority to act in a way that is incompatible with the UNCRC requirements. Section 19, which creates an obligation to interpret legislation compatibly with the UNCRC requirements so far as it is possible to do so. Section 20, remedial power to allow a court to strike down certain legislation found to be incompatible with the UNCRC requirements, and section 21, which allows a court to declare certain legislation to be incompatible with the UNCRC requirements. The Supreme Court's judgment was that aspects of each of those sections were outside the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament. The referral also covered the European Charter of Local Self-Government Bill. That bill strengthened the status and standing of local government by incorporating the European Charter of Local Self-Government into Scots law. Starting as a member's bill, it, too, was passed unanimously by the Scottish Parliament and supported by the Scottish Government and by local government through COSLA. The bill was intended to develop and further strengthen the relationship between the Scottish Government and local government in Scotland, so ensuring that priorities and policies are developed and delivered in partnership. The Supreme Court's judgment was that section 4 creates an obligation to interpret legislation compatibly with the requirements of the charter so far as it is possible to do so, and section 5, which gives the courts the power to declare legislation to be incompatible with the charter, were outside the competence of the Scottish Parliament for the same reasons applied to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child Bill. In my statement on 6 October, I expressed my disappointment that the court's judgment could potentially limit the aspirations agreed by this Parliament. That judgment made plain that we are constitutionally prohibited from enacting legislation that this Parliament unanimously decided was right for Scotland. We have, however, fully respected and carefully considered the implications of the judgment. We will now begin engagement with key stakeholders on what we believe are necessary changes to the bill at reconsideration stage to address the judgment and support Mark Ruskell in doing the same for the European Charter of Local Self-Government Bill. To address the judgment in relation to section 6 of the UNCRC bill, it is clear that we need to expressly limit the compatibility duty to devolve functions and devolve bodies. We also need to include in the bill a provision equivalent to section 6.2 of the Human Rights Act 1998 so that public authorities cannot be found to have acted incompatibly where the underlying primary legislation cannot be read in a compatible way. To address the judgment on the judicial remedies in both bills, we need to remove UK acts from the application of the interpretative obligation, the strike-down power and incompatibility declarator power. That is a disappointing delusion of the effect of the bills. The Supreme Court judgment means that this Parliament's power to give the court's remedial powers is limited by the mere fact that existing statutory provision happens to be in an act of the Westminster Parliament, even when they concern matters on which the Scottish Parliament could and frequently does legislate. To be clear, the judgment does not prevent the Scottish Parliament from amending or repealing legislation in devolved areas, either in an act of our Parliament or the UK Parliament. Where we need to take action to ensure that legislation in devolved areas is UNCRC compliant, that power will be available to us. As a Parliament that has across all political parties demonstrated its commitment to the UNCRC bill, I hope and expect that we will exercise that power whenever we need to. However, a simpler and faster route to remedy would have been for the courts to have access to the judicial remedies for all legislation in devolved areas, including UK acts. There will now be three weeks of engagement with key stakeholders, including with children and young people and with COSLA. For the UNCRC bill, the purpose of that engagement will be to ensure that those who have lobbied passionately for this bill understand the changes that have been made and why. The engagement will also help us to understand any concerns that need to be aired during reconsideration stage. For the European Charter, we will engage extensively with Mark Ruskell to explain the changes that we think are necessary and to support him taking his bill forward. Following that engagement, I will update the relevant parliamentary committees before amendments are brought forward. We will liaise with the parliamentary authorities about the timescale for reconsideration stage, recognising that we need to make sufficient time to engage with Parliament on the substance of our proposals. We will also engage with the United Kingdom Government, given the UK law officers' power under the Scotland Act to refer a reconsidered bill to the Supreme Court. It is regrettable that the UNCRC bill and the European Charter of Local Self-Government Bill have been delayed and will not become law in the form that our Parliament agreed. I reassure Parliament that, although the UNCRC bill has been delayed, work in relation to the implementation of the UNCRC work has continued at pace. That includes building the capacity for public authorities to take a child's right-based approach to the delivery of services and ensuring that children, young people and their families are aware of and understand the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. I am delighted that we can now move forward with legislation to build a Scotland that values the unique role of local government and with respect for human rights, anchors our society and the institutions that govern and deliver public services for the people of Scotland and especially for the young people of Scotland. The Deputy First Minister will now take questions on the issues raised in his statement. I intend to allow around 20 minutes for questions, after which we will move on to the next item of business. I will be grateful if members who wish to ask a question were to press their request-to-speak buttons, Miles Briggs. I thank the Deputy First Minister for advance sight of his statement as well. Following the ruling by the Supreme Court, we have seen both those bills left in limbo for months now. As the Deputy First Minister concluded, I hope that we can now see this movement on legislation and Parliament being able to enact this. The UK Government and the Office of Advocate General for Scotland have reached out to the Deputy First Minister on a number of occasions to try to speed up the process and stand ready to engage and help the Scottish Government in taking forward workable amendments to bring the bill within legislative competence of our Parliament. The Deputy First Minister has previously stated that this is urgent and I hope that we can generally see how Parliament can be fully included in developing these amendments needed to make the bills legally competent. Can I ask the Deputy First Minister, which is not included in his statement today, when will ministers set out a timetable for the bill to be tabled in Parliament and for that committee process to start? The European Charter of Local Self-Governance looks to protect the powers of local government. That is something that we all agree on and when we all passed the bill supported. What assessment will ministers also now make of the impact that the Scottish Government has proposed on national care service and the removal of powers from local government will have when that bill has also passed? I am grateful to Miles Briggs for his points. Reaching out from the United Kingdom Government and the Office of Advocate General is an interesting observation to make on my statement. I made it quite clear that there was complete inflexibility from the United Kingdom Government on those questions. I know willingness to use existing Scotland Act orders arrangements, which are part of the Scotland Act to try to expedite those issues. I thought that it was reasonable for me to approach the United Kingdom Government given that Parliament had unanimously passed the legislation. I did not think that it was in my gift to essentially undermine the legislation that Parliament had passed. I was trying to seek from the UK Government an understanding to get them to a position of respecting the will of this Parliament, and they have refused to do so. I am afraid that if Miles Briggs describes the conduct of the UK Government over the course of the past few months as reaching out, I would hate to see what outright hostility looks like. On the question of the involvement of Parliament, this is the first bill that we will have had to go through a reconsideration stage. We are in new territory here, so we will be engaging. It is not in the gift of the Government to specify to Parliament what a reconsideration stage looks like, so we will engage with the parliamentary authorities through the bureau and the committees to make sure that we undertake that scrutiny as effective as we can. Obviously, I want to move quickly, but I also have to be mindful of the requirement for parliamentary scrutiny, so those will be the parameters that we work within. Lastly, on the point in relation to the European Charter for Self-Government Bill and the National Care Service, the Parliament has passed the European Charter for Self-Government legislation, and any future legislation that the Government brings forward must be so compatible. Michael Marra Thank you, Presiding Officer, and thank you to the Government for advance sight of the statement. We are glad in the Labour benches that we are now dealing with the reality of this situation. I give the Deputy First Minister assurance that the Labour Party will engage to ensure that the reconsideration stage is dealt with at pace and that we can get this legislation finally confirmed. The Conservative Government, though, is recalcitrant, is beyond question, but we do believe that the events of the last year beg some serious self-examination from ministers. On 4 March 2021, the UK Government informed the Deputy First Minister of their interpretation of the legal position. Nothing was told to this Parliament and the legislation passed amid great fanfare on 16 March. The real common ground found in Parliament was that the children of Scotland deserve so much better than they currently get. Savage cuts to education funding for the poorest and scandalous waiting times for mental health contribute the rights-based approach that this Government purports to uphold. The use of mosquito devices to disperse children breach articles 2, 3, 15, 19 and 31 of the UNCRC. What type of ministers found amidst the constitutional wrangling to act on these issues that harming Scottish children every day? First of all, I welcome the assurance from Mr Marra that the Labour Party will work with us on undertaking this work expeditiously. I have committed to doing exactly that. I think that it is very interesting that Mr Marra describes the events of the last year or so as constitutional wrangling. Parliament unanimously passed a bill that Parliament believed was necessary to protect the rights of children and young people within Scotland. I do not think that Parliament should be cowed by the United Kingdom Government in its aspirations. I think that Parliament should be bold about its aspirations. I think that Mr Marra probably agrees with that that Parliament should not in any way be inhibited from making the boldest possible commitment. I am sure that he and I agree on this about protecting the rights of children and young people in Scotland. For us to want to take the maximalist position to give that protection, I do not think that the Parliament should be inhibited from doing that, but we are now inhibited because the UK Government has intervened. I have spent a number of months trying to find pragmatic ways of getting the UK Government to accept a fairly basic reality, which is best expressed as follows. The Education Scotland act is an act that we can revise. The Education Scotland act 1980, to be precise, is an act that we are empowered to revise, but it is not under the UNCRC bill that is caught by the Supreme Court judgment, because the Supreme Court judgment says that that is an act to the Westminster Parliament and because the Westminster supremacy is the sovereignty principle, you cannot put that legislation into this framework. I have simply tried to find a pragmatic way to enable that to be case, because I think that that is what Parliament wanted, that is what Parliament legislated for. I have just been trying to protect the interests of Parliament, and I do not think that it is part of my duty to be—I do not know what is going on over here—but I do not think that this Parliament should be trampled over by the United Kingdom Government. I do not believe that. That is why I have been doing what I have been doing, and that is my self-examination analysis. As for some of the other measures that Mr Marra talked about, this Government is doing a lot to address the circumstances of children and young people in our country. Doubling the child payment and extending it even further is one of the strongest things that we can do to tackle the rights and human rights of children and young people in Scotland. Joe FitzPatrick, to be followed by Mark Ruskell. In session 5, the Equalities and Human Rights Committee unanimously recommended the general principles of the UNCRC incorporation bill, and I welcome the cabinet secretary's renewed commitment to implement the UNCRC to the fullest extent possible. That really matters to Scotland's young people. Can the cabinet secretary say more on the discussions with the UK Government on routes to ensure the effectiveness of incorporation beyond those that are currently available to this Parliament to ensure that all legislation within the competence of this Parliament can be meaningfully made subject to international human rights standards? Essentially, there were two propositions that I put to the United Kingdom Government. One is that the devolution settlement could be altered to offer the Scottish Parliament additional routes to increase the effectiveness of incorporation. The other was using the Scotland Act orders to allow us to bring UK acts in devolved areas within the scope of the bill. Both of those were ruled out, and we will now proceed to the reconsideration stage. I suspect that the committee that Mr FitzPatrick now chairs may well be involved in that, but that will of course be a matter for us to discuss with the parliamentary authorities. I look forward to engaging with the relevant committees on that. I can confirm that the member is now in charge of the European Charter of Local Self-Government Bill that I will be seeking a reconsideration phase to ensure that the work of Mr Wightman, COSLA and the Parliament as a whole is not lost. The Deputy First Minister made a clear commitment to work closely with stakeholders in relation to amendments on the UNCRC bill. Can he also make the commitment that, in relation to the council charter bill, he will work with me and with stakeholders, in particular COSLA, and we can have a meeting sooner than later to discuss the shape of some of those amendments that may be coming forward and what the options may be? I am very happy to confirm my willingness to do that. One of the points that I would make—this is a really important parliamentary point—is that the reconsideration stage needs to look very tightly at the issues that emerge out of the Supreme Court judgment. It is not a reconsideration of the whole bill or its principles, it is a reconsideration of the issues at stake in the judgment. I have applied a very tight judgment to that in relation to the UNCRC bill. I would be taking the same approach in relation to the European Charter Bill, but I am happy to engage with stakeholders and with Mr Ruskell in making sure that he is well supported to bring forward the appropriate measures to Parliament. The Scottish Government's legal experts no doubt warned the Deputy First Minister that those bills were not compliant with UK law. Why did the SNP choose to push forward with this bill anyway? I know that Meghan Gallacher was not a member of Parliament at the time that the bill was passed, but her Conservative colleagues voted every single one of them in favour of the bill. It looks like the Conservative Party is trying to suggest that they only did things because I told them that it was the right thing to do. I generally do not think that I command such influence. If that is now the scope of my influence over the Conservative Party, then the prospects for the Conservative Party are improving no end from where the doll runs. Members of Parliament looked at the bill. It was thoroughly scrutinised by all members of Parliament. As I answered Mr Marra, Parliament wanted to have the most ambitious set of provisions in place to protect children and young people, and now the Conservative Party is running away from a commitment that it made only a little while ago. I think that that is a terrible indictment of the Conservative Party. Eleanor Wittam, to be followed by Sarah Boyack. To ask the cabinet secretary what the Scottish Government can do to ensure that local democracy is upheld and supported. In light of the absurd constitutional position, Scotland finds itself in within the devolved settlement, which sees our wealth thwarted. Specifically on the basis that the local self-government bill sought to strengthen local government by incorporating the European Charter into Scots law and was passed unanimously in this very Parliament, as well as being supported by Scottish Government and local government through causes community wellbeing board and leaders decisions in the previous council term. I think that the bill gives us many abilities to protect the position of local government within Scotland as a consequence, and we will be seeking to make the necessary remedies to ensure that the bill is compliant so that it can then come into effect and achieve the objectives that Eleanor Wittam has put to me. Of course, there are other measures that the Government can take to support the position of local government within Scotland, and the Government will engage in those questions with the leadership of COSLA when the local authority administrations are established and the new leadership of COSLA is in place. Of course, Eleanor Wittam has significant formidable experience of exercising responsibility in that direction over many years of service in local government and in COSLA. Sarah Boyack, to be followed by Fulton MacGregor. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Would the Deputy First Minister like to confirm that the Scottish Government knew that there were issues regarding both those bills but did not respect MSPs enough to tell us before we voted through those bills? The Deputy First Minister says that he is delighted that we can now make progress, but is not it the case that we could have progressed both those bills, transforming children's lives and empowering local government through amendments at stage 3 last year, but that the SNP preferred a constitutional fall-out and delays to both those pieces of vital information? As we are seeing in a number of local authority chambers around the country, the Labour Party is being enthusiastic that it is supported by the Conservatives. I am lost for words at what Sarah Boyack has just put to me. I thought people like Sarah Boyack were interested in maximising the protection for children and young people in Scotland and we should not be trampled over by the UK Government in doing so. Fulton MacGregor, to be followed by Willie Rennie. Perhaps in the back of that last question, does the Deputy First Minister hope that I do that the cross-party spirit, which led to the initial unanimous passing of those bills, can be found again as it was before, as this Parliament tries to the maximum that it can within current powers to legislate in favour of a world-leading status for the rights of children and the empowerment of local democracy that we can all be proud of? I hope that that is the case. When Parliament legislated, particularly on the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, with which I was more closely involved than the European Charter Bill, it was very clear that Parliament wanted—we had gone through extensive evidence taken through the whole parliamentary process. Indeed, Mr MacGregor may well have been on the committee scrutinising this bill. Parliament was clear that it wanted to take the maximalist position that it could take. I was enthusiastically asked that that was the proposition that I put to Parliament. Parliament appeared to me to be very supportive of such an objective. Therefore, legislating to the maximum extent possible is a critical part of the contents of the bill. I want to make sure that, at the reconsideration stage, we maintain as much of that protection as we possibly can do for satisfying the legislative competence requirements that are placed on us by the conclusions of the Supreme Court judgment. People expect our two Governments to be able to work together, but the relationship to be frank has been atrocious between our two Governments for years. Responsibility for that lies with both Governments, so pointing the finger does not help. Meanwhile, children and local communities have lost out. As there is nothing new in this statement today, why has it taken so long for the Government to start another consultation with stakeholders? Why was this not done months ago? First of all, Mr Ray talks about the relationships between Government. I have put on the record today as dispassionately as I possibly can do. The comments of the Secretary of State, who told the House of Commons in October that he was committed to engaging constructively with the Scottish Government to ensure relevant issues that may arise are addressed at the earliest possible stage. In my answer to Joe Fitzpatrick, I set out two particular propositions that I put to the Secretary of State, both of which were rejected. They were attempts by me to try to ensure that the will of the Parliament was protected, but the Secretary of State has essentially vetoed that, and I regret that very much. I will have to bring a bill, a reconsideration proposition to Parliament, which will restrict what Parliament passed back in the spring of 2021. I regret that, because I certainly did not think that it was in my gift to do that without exhausting the dialogue with the Secretary of State for Scotland and that he has not been interested in engaging in that dialogue. I hope that the Secretary of State and the Office of the Advocate General will engage with us constructively and the advice that is required about ensuring that the bills are compliant in the next period, and I will update Parliament on that. As for Mr Rennie saying that there is nothing new, I have set out to Parliament the list of changes that I will make. That is the first time that I have done that. I did not want to do that earlier, because I did not want to give up on the possibility of the Secretary of State for Scotland saying that, with those changes, you can keep your bill the way it is. That is the explanation. Obviously, there has to be adequate consultation within Parliament. We will engage with the parliamentary authorities to do all that to ensure that we minimise the impact of those changes on the bill. Despite the wholly unnecessary obstacles put in the way of full UNCRC incorporation, Scotland is today a good place so much to raise a child safely and happily. Can the Deputy First Minister assure this Parliament that the interventions of the UK Government have not and will not undermine the will of the Scottish Government to adhere to our shared vision to reinforce the civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights that all children everywhere are entitled to? I agree wholeheartedly with the statements that Ruth Maguire has made and also to the importance of ensuring that, in two respects, we live up to that very high ambition that she has set out. The first is that the Parliament should be prepared to change legislation where we do not believe that we live up to those aspirations. For example, on the Education Scotland 1980, if we do not believe that there are provisions on that that are UNCRC compliant, we can legislate to change it and we should be prepared to do so. The second is that, in relation to the way in which we exercise our wider policy responsibilities, I am thinking particularly about the work on getting it right for every child, which is fundamental to ensuring that the aspirations that Ruth Maguire has set out are lived up to. I give that commitment to Parliament this afternoon. There is a danger that the First Minister is trying to rewrite history this afternoon. Does he agree with me that, at stage 3 of the UNCRC, two amendments were brought forward that would have made the bill legally compliant if the Scottish Government wanted to protect our children? Why does he not simply bring those two amendments forward today and get cross-party support and get the bill passed rather than spending time debating things that he knows cannot happen under law? I am not doing that. I am offering Parliament a resolution to an issue and a difficulty that has arisen out of Parliament's unanimous support for a bill. That is not just a bill that my colleagues voted for. Everybody in Parliament voted for this bill, and I do not really think that it would be appropriate for me to undermine the unanimous will of Parliament, as expressed by the legislation that we have put in place. We will bring forward the reconsideration stage. I hear Mr Balford saying that it should all be done this afternoon. If I was to say that it is all going to be done this afternoon, Mr Kerr would be on his feet saying that there is no enough time for us to do all that and all the rest of it. There is a rail road in Parliament, so we will take the necessary time to discuss those issues with the parliamentary authorities and bring them forward, the necessary amendments forward to Parliament. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Far from being about constitutional wrangling, this is about the rights of children. Accidents disproportionately impact children from more deprived backgrounds, making accident prevention a social justice imperative. The UNCRC contains provisions directly linked to accident prevention. Article 19 outlines the right to protection from harm, and article 24 more specifically includes the right to accessible information in support of prevention of accidents. What possible reasons are for denying the rights of children under those articles? What measures has the Scottish Government taken to ensure that accident prevention will be a priority for children's safety going forward? The whole focus of the UNCRC incorporation bill is to proactively establish an approach within public authorities and public bodies in Scotland that is about protecting the rights of children. That culture is vital to being created as a consequence of the legislation, and the obligations that the bill places on public bodies are exactly the type of obligations that will enable the aspirations that Clare Adamson has put to me to be fulfilled as a consequence of the legislation. I assure Clare Adamson that much of the preparatory work has already been undertaken, but we will be able to reinforce that with the passage of the bill, and there will of course be legal remedies that are available to a range of different people around the country to seek remedy should they feel those rights are not being fully enacted by existing legislation and the protection that is offered by the UNCRC bill. That concludes the ministerial statement. Following the Deputy First Minister's statement, I wondered if you could advise members as this will be the first time that Parliament will take forward a reconsideration bill. That is something that I do not believe any member wants to see the Scottish Government setting the parameters for. What process will be developed for all MSPs across this Parliament to be able to influence that bill? Secondly, would the Presiding Officer also look at the publication of the Parliament's legal advice, which the Presiding Officer at the time received, around this legislation and its competence when it was originally passed? Sorry, Mr Briggs, could you repeat the second point there? In terms of the publication of Parliament's legal advice, which the Presiding Officer at the time provided to point towards the legal competence of that legislation when Parliament was considering it, would that advice be published? The legal advice is not shared for very good reasons. With regard to Mr Briggs's point on the reconsideration stage, clarity will be provided for all members, of course, and that will be discussed at the bureau. All members will be notified accordingly to enable them to fully take part in any scrutiny. That is not to disappoint the Deputy First Minister. If it is in the judgment of the Presiding Officer that further time should be allowed for further questions to be put to the Deputy First Minister under rule 18.14.4 and the President of the Dr Graves maternity unit in Murray's ministerial statement of just a few months ago, would he consider extending the time for questions? The time that was set aside today was the time that was agreed by the Parliamentary Bureau. Therefore, we will move on to the next item of business. There will be a short pause before we do so.