Chamber and committees

The delay in implementation of the legislation was created by the UK Government’s law officers’ reference to the Supreme Court. That is the only reason for it.

On the point that Mr Cameron raises about the scope of the bill, I simply remind him that, at stage 3 of its passage, his colleague Alexander Stewart said:

“The direct incorporation method adopted by the bill will ensure a maximalist approach, which is very much to be welcomed.”—[Official Report, 16 March 2021; c 101.]

It is a maximalist approach that has caused Mr Cameron to express such concern in his remarks today.

The Government is absolutely committed to implementing the legislation at the earliest possible opportunity, after addressing the remedies that are necessary. I make absolutely no apology whatsoever for being determined to do as much as possible within statute to protect the interests and rights of children and young people in our country. For the United Kingdom’s law officers to take us to the Supreme Court to stop us doing the maximum that we want to do is an absolute disgrace.

Let me use an example to illustrate the position that Michelle Thomson puts to me to substantiate the argument that she has made. The contents of the Education (Scotland) Act 1980 are entirely devolved and this Parliament can amend that act in its entirety. However, if we wish to extend to the citizens of Scotland the right to judicially challenge the bill in terms of the UNCRC—I refer to the point that I advanced to Mr Marra—that is no longer available to them, because the United Kingdom law officers have taken the action that they have taken.

The act and the area of policy are entirely within the competence of this Parliament, but we cannot extend the rights that we and Parliament want to extend to the bill because of the actions of the UK law officers. Therefore, I am rather with Michelle Thomson on the point that this was not a legal but a political intervention. [Interruption.]

I say to Mr Whitfield that I will do it as quickly as I can. We will have to consider the judgment and other aspects of the legislative programme, and we will come back to the Parliament on those terms. I am certainly very keen to work with members of Parliament, as I was throughout consideration of the UNCRC bill, which ended up being passed unanimously. Not all the legislation that I bring to this institution passes unanimously, but the bill did so and I am keen to work with other parties to rectify the issues. As for the timescale, Mr Whitfield will have to give me some time to consider what is possible.

Not long before I came to the chamber today, I received a letter from Together—the Scottish Alliance for Children’s Rights—which is signed by countless organisations that work in the field of children’s rights and interests. They appealed to me—I confirmed this in my statement, but I take the opportunity of Gillian Martin’s question to repeat it—to ensure that the Government does everything that it can to work within the spirit of the legislation that the Parliament passed, which is in no way constrained by the referenced unlimited elements of the provision. We will make sure that we advance the cause of children’s rights and operate in a fashion that is consistent with the UNCRC while taking the necessary legislative remedies to address the situation.

As Mr Briggs knows, because we rehearsed a lot of these arguments in the previous session of Parliament, the Government does not publish its legal advice. That is a well-established—[Interruption.] We know that Mr Kerr is new to this institution, but he will become accustomed to the fact that Governments do not publish their legal advice.

As for the issues in connection with Parliament, those are not issues for me and it would not be appropriate for me to comment in any respect on their contents.

There are clear limitations placed on the Scottish Parliament’s ability to legislate to the maximum extent through which it wished to protect the rights of children and young people in Scotland. We will do as much as we can to remedy that, in the spirit of the unanimous view of Parliament.

United Kingdom Government actions of the type that Rona Mackay has cited certainly do not help to strengthen the rights and the position of children and young people in Scotland.

That is a legitimate point to be considered as part of the sequence of events that we take forward. We are aware of the limited range of issues that were the subject of challenge in the bill, and organisations will have the opportunity to consider the basis of the legislation that the Parliament passed. Pam Duncan-Glancy’s point is a material one to consider within the timetable for the scrutiny and implementation of any future legislation.

I have a lot of sympathy for that point. I come back to the example that I have repeatedly cited, which is that this Parliament has legislative competence to amend the Education (Scotland) Act 1980 but the UK Government has objected to our extending the right of independent judicial scrutiny of whether issues in the 1980 act are compatible with the UNCRC. That, to me, is a vivid example of how absurd the United Kingdom Government’s objection is, and it illustrates the willingness that Audrey Nicoll talked about to try to constrain the scope and actions of the Scottish Parliament.

The local governance bill was not initiated as a Government bill, but we supported it and Parliament adopted it unanimously. I recognise it as a constructive and helpful piece of legislation that cements the position of local government in Scottish democracy and society. Although I regret the fact that we cannot proceed with the legislation at this stage, I give Elena Whitham and the local government community the assurance that the Government will work within the spirit of the legislation as far as we are able without the legislative power being in place.

As I indicated in my statement, the Government is fulfilling the commitment that it made to roll out the child payment by the end of next year. We have committed to doubling the child payment during this session of Parliament, and we want to do it as quickly as we can, when resources become available to do so. I assure Mr Johnson that that has the highest priority in Government. I welcome his support for the issue of securing the financial wellbeing of families, because I view that as critical in the work that we have to do to eradicate child poverty.

We have to be cognisant of the research evidence that demonstrates that there are a number of ways in which we can tackle child poverty, one of which, as Mr Johnson rightly alighted on, is to boost a payment such as the child payment. There are other ways, such as delivering effective childcare support for families to enable individuals to enter the labour market and command well-remunerated employment. There are also ways in which we can try to reduce household costs, such as through some of the measures that I set out. For example, we can try to reduce the cost of the school day, which I recognise is a significant factor for some families in our country.

We have to view such measures as part of a collective endeavour, through a number of interventions, to make sure that we deliver security for family incomes, rather than focus on one measure, such as increasing the Scottish child payment by doubling it—or quadrupling it, as Mr Johnson suggested. We must look at a range of interventions if we are to make the maximum impact when it comes to ensuring that there is security for family incomes.