Chamber and committees

We absolutely support the intentions of the bill. However, in our party manifesto and in our programme for government, we have committed to improving transitions. We recognise that transitions need improvement. We also need to recognise that, as the convener alluded to and as you heard in evidence earlier, transitions are not one point in time, whereas the bill as drafted refers to “a ... plan”. Transitions happen in lots of different ways—people do not leave school and then go to a destination, and they do not move from one school to college and then not move on to something else. We need to be person centred and holistic in our planning.

The bill has certainly highlighted to the committee and wider stakeholders that we need to improve transitions but, as I said, we have already committed to doing that. Obviously, we would look to see whether the bill would add value to that.

Good morning, convener and committee, and thank you for your invitation to Ms McKelvie and me today.

I will start by recognising and thanking Pam Duncan-Glancy for the attention that she has drawn to the important topic of transitions for disabled young people through the bill. We know about the importance of good transitions planning in preparing children and young people for life beyond school. However, we also know that, for many disabled young people, the transition to young adult life still presents challenges.

We recognise that disabled young people leaving school and transitioning to young adult life is a complex area and that multi-agency collaboration and co-operation and a person-centred approach are required. We therefore whole-heartedly share the member’s ambition to improve the experiences and outcomes for disabled young people as they make the transition to young adult life.

However, we also share some of the questions that were raised by those who responded to the committee’s call for views and those who have already given evidence to the committee. The issues include the potential duplication or overlap of provisions in the bill with existing policy and legislation; considerations around implementation and the proposed duties on local authorities; clarity around definitions, data sharing, eligibility and resources; and, fundamentally, whether the bill as drafted could have its intended impact.

I therefore welcome the committee evidence sessions to consider the details of the bill’s provisions. It is essential that we consider all the evidence and options to ensure that we meet our shared aspiration of improving transitions for disabled children and young people.

As I set out in the Scottish Government response to the committee’s call for views, there is already a range of legislation, plans and policies in place that support the objective of improving transitions to adulthood, and we are committed to doing more.

We have already given non-statutory effect to two of the main provisions in the bill. We have done that through the joint ministerial leadership for transitions, which Ms McKelvie and I are taking forward, and through our programme for government commitment to introduce in this parliamentary term the first national transitions to adulthood strategy for disabled young people.

There are other important developments across the Scottish Government that support our shared outcome of improving transitions for disabled children and young people. Those include refreshing the planning guidance under getting it right for every child; developing a new approach to getting it right for everyone; continued support to the ARC Scotland principles into practice trial and to the Independent Living Fund Scotland’s transition fund; continued investment in employment support, including through the young persons guarantee; and important legislative developments, which include the incorporation of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child and the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, and, of course, the national care service.

Ms McKelvie and I would be happy to provide more details on any of those things today. I look forward to any questions that members might have.

I met Ms Duncan-Glancy late last year, in November or December—I cannot remember exactly when it was—along with Ms McKelvie. At that meeting, we raised our concerns about the financial memorandum as presented. Ms Duncan-Glancy said that she would do some further work on that. If my memory serves me correctly, at that point she said that was continuing to engage with COSLA on some of the figures.

That is a really important point and is where planning comes in. We need to look at planning at all stages of a child’s or young person’s life to ensure that they have the opportunity that they want, as opposed to our using the Government term “positive destination”. The positive destination is that that young person gets to where they want to be, rather than our envisaging that as a higher or further education college course or work. You make a really important point. That is why that planning through school, giving people opportunities to experience different things and make choices in their life, is really key.

Outdoor education has a range of benefits, such as connecting young people with the natural world, supporting their wellbeing and developing their skills for life, learning and work. Regarding recent assessments, His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Education’s thematic inspection of outdoor learning, which was published in February 2022, reiterated those benefits and concluded that

“increasingly, outdoor environments are being used to deliver the curriculum”.

I thank Mr Greene for those follow-up questions. In relation to Liz Smith’s proposed private member’s bill on residential outdoor education, the Government is currently reviewing the final bill proposal. As with any new legislative proposal, stakeholders’ views must be taken into account, and the full range of consequences, costs and options must be explored. We are reviewing those perspectives, the various costs and the potential impacts before deciding on our position on the bill.

I am aware of the potential closure of Arran Outdoor Education Centre, which is one of a range of options that North Ayrshire Council has consulted on. My understanding is that the council is still in the process of finalising its budget proposals and will not make final decisions until 1 March. As Mr Greene is aware, local authorities are accountable to the public that elects them, and they have the financial freedom to operate independently, taking into account local need. However, I reiterate that the Scottish Government values the many forms of outdoor learning, including the specific role of residential centres.

I start by thanking members for their continued commitment to protecting and strengthening children’s rights. It is clear that the commitment that was demonstrated when the Parliament unanimously passed the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (Incorporation) (Scotland) Bill in March 2021 remains, and I am confident that when we are ready to bring an amended bill back to the Parliament, it will again receive the support that it deserves.

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 Whitfield’s question about our latest discussions with the UK Government. The cabinet secretary explained the importance of the discussions with the UK Government and said that they are currently focusing 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 will find it useful if I provide further details on that. We have been clear to the Parliament and stakeholders that the Supreme Court judgment means that the duty to act compatibly with UNCRC requirements as set out in the bill cannot apply when a public authority is acting under powers conferred by a UK act, and when that act requires it to act in a way that is incompatible. However, there will be cases in which a UK act in a devolved area gives a public authority discretion over whether 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 enables 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 over-complicate the bill. The compatibility duty cannot become so complicated that duty-bearers and children and young people and their representatives find it difficult to understand.

It is a complex area and, as far as I understand, the reconsideration process has not been used in the Parliament previously, although it has been in statute. We are absolutely committed to making amendments to the bill under the reconsideration process for Parliament to consider and vote on. I am sure that there will be much discussion when that happens.

The motion includes a request that the Scottish Government set out a timetable for the reconsideration process. As Mr Whitfield pointed out in Parliament last week, 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 control. However 16 March is 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 children’s rights-based approach in the delivery of services, including by 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 its jurisdiction; and funding the Improvement Service to assist local authorities and their partners to successfully implement the UNCRC at a local level.

The amount of time that has been taken to consider the amendments has been because of the complexity of the legal landscape, especially the Supreme Court judgment and the implication for the devolution settlement. I appreciate that members from across the chamber have mentioned on several occasions that the Supreme Court came back with concerns about four areas, but they are really complicated matters of law.

I understand that members are frustrated 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. This is not an insignificant matter or a matter of prevarication. It is important to understand that and to get it 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 the coming months.??

I understand that the delay to bringing the UNCRC bill to Parliament is a concern for stakeholders. As the Deputy First Minister said last year, we are committed to incorporating the UNCRC through amendments to the bill. That has not changed.