UNCRC (Incorporation) (Scotland) Act 2024 - part 2 and 3 (section 18) - statutory guidance: consultation analysis

Other comments

This section sets out the ‘other comments’ that were provided across the consultation, that did not answer any of the set questions, but provided valuable additional feedback, either about the guidance or the consultation document/ process itself.

Additional comments about the guidance

A few organisations focused on Gaelic medium education (GME) responded to the consultation with specific comments and feedback. It was stressed that the guidance and implementation of/compliance with the UNCRC Act would require consideration of the Gaelic language:

“The UNCRC Act clearly impacts Gaelic speaking children and it will be important to ensure that there is absolute clarity for local authorities on their obligations to meet all requirements of the UNCRC, especially around linguistic issues.” (Organisation)

In particular, it was stressed that the guidance should make reference to Article 30, and that easily accessible information should be made available to Gaelic speaking children and young people (and their families).

As outlined above, (but worth noting again as a more general overarching comment related to the guidance as a whole), respondents repeatedly called for an accessible child friendly version of the guidance to ensure that children and young people, their families, and other supporters can understand their rights and how to advocate for their rights to be upheld:

“An accessible, shorter version with the key points will be needed to sit alongside the full guidance so children and young people, and their parents and carers, can understand how public bodies are expected to uphold the UNCRC.” (Organisation)

A range of other comments and concerns were raised about the guidance as a whole, albeit typically by just one respondent each. This included suggestions to:

• Clarify that no rights are prioritised;
• Include further detail on the application of General Comments within accompanying non-statutory guidance, to include information on their introduction, purpose, and interpretation within a Scottish context;
• Make specific references to the role and responsibilities of parents - it was felt this needed to be included throughout the guidance;
• Include coverage and provision for advocacy and independent advocacy as both a support for children and young people and a mechanism to ensure rights are understood and upheld;
• Make clearer the need for general planning from all duty-bearers in order to realise the rights in the Act; and
• Include references to the non-statutory guidance on Taking a children’s human rights approach, as a means of interpreting the statutory guidance was considered inappropriate and “appears to create an expectation in the statutory guidance that following non-statutory guidance is, in effect, a statutory expectation.” (Organisation)

There was also a more general sense among some respondents that the guidance did not place enough emphasis on the participation of children and young people in all decision-making relevant to them:

“While elements of this guidance are strong, and clear, we would argue that the guidance itself does not reflect what it is trying to communicate. The UNCRC incorporation act was fought for by children who want to guarantee a redress in how Scottish public authorities uphold their rights - including their right to have their views solicited, respected and enacted. This guidance could serve as a vehicle to show as well as tell key actors within this space how children’s voices can be embedded at every level of public authorities’ work. The main message throughout this guidance should be that children and young people’s rights are central to all decision-making relevant to their lives. As it currently stands, far from being central to the guidance, children and young people are entirely absent from the text.” (Organisation)

One individual outlined general disagreement with the UNCRC Act itself and resistance to incorporating UN legislation into Scottish laws.

Comments about the consultation

A few respondents expressed dissatisfaction and disappointment around the lack of consultation and involvement with various sectors and stakeholders in both the development of the draft guidance and the consultation process itself. In particular, it was suggested that input from teachers and school leaders should have been sought in developing the draft guidance, and there was a perceived lack of engagement with NHS Boards to support and consult effectively.

It was also felt that the consultation document should have been provided in a number of different languages, and that complementary in-person meetings would have been helpful to broaden the consultation’s scope, particularly in reaching underrepresented groups and areas. More pro-active and accessible consultation activities would have been welcomed.