UNCRC Strategic Implementation Board minutes: June 2024

Attendees and apologies

Board members

• Brian Taylor (Chair), Deputy Director, Children’s Rights, Protection and Justice (Deputising for Andrew Watson)
• Dragan Nastic, UNICEF UK 
• Lucinda Rivers, UNICEF UK 
• Juliet Harris, Together Scotland 
• Amy Woodhouse, Parenting Across Scotland 
• Eleanor Kerr, Healthcare Improvement Scotland
• Jennifer Davidson, Institute for Inspiring Children’s Futures 
• Laura Caven, COSLA 
• Nicola Anderson (LIT), Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service 
• Norma Ruettimann, Care and Learning Alliance 
• Craig Morris, Care Inspectorate 
• Andrew Montgomery, Social Security Scotland (Deputising for Helen Fogarty)

Scottish Government supporting officials 

• Gita Sharkey, Joint Unit Head, Children’s Rights Unit 
• Liz Levy, Joint Unit Head, Children’s Rights Unit 
• Lyndsey Saki, Embedding Children’s Rights in Public Services Programme Lead 
• Rachel Nicholson, Scottish Government Legal Directorate
• Dean Snape, UNCRC Project Manager
• Rachel Cieciwa, Rights Reporting and Monitoring, Children’s Rights Unit

Guests

• June Stefani, South Ayrshire Council
• Nick Fellows, COSLA

Apologies

• Andrew Watson, Director for Children and Families 
• Helen Fogarty, Social Security Scotland 
• ACC Catriona Paton, Police Scotland
• Gina Wilson, Children and Young People’s Commissioner for Scotland 
• Ben Farrugia, Social Work Scotland 
• Paul Gorman, Empowered Children and Young People Lead 
• Andrew Preston, UNCRC Programme Assistant 
• Michael Cameron, Scottish Housing Regulator 

Items and actions

Welcome and apologies 

Brian Taylor (BT) welcomed the board and introduced himself. Apologies were given for those not in attendance.

Minutes and actions from previous meeting 

Dean Snape (DS) advised members that minutes of the last meeting were circulated on 4 June 2024. Two amendment requests were made in relation to errors on the attendee list. The attendee list for the May meeting has been updated to reflect these amendments and an updated version shared with the papers for this meeting.

DS noted there were eleven actions raised at the May meeting and one outstanding action from a previous meeting. All but four of the actions have now been closed as detailed within the action tracker circulated on 18 June 2024. The actions which remain open are as follows:

• Andrew watson (aw) to arrange an introductory meeting with Lucinda Rivers from UNICEF (UK). Andrew's office is progressing this
• Liz levy (ll) to share a revised version of the Children’s Rights Scheme with Together and UNICEF UK, in addition to the statutory consultees. We are hoping to share this in early July
• Lyndsey saki (ls) to provide an update on the Innovation Fund at the next SIB meeting. This will be provided at the September meeting
• ls to scope whether relevant organisations involved in early professional training could be added to the UNCRC programme update distribution list. Other pressures on the team mean that it has not been possible to action this yet

Highlight report 

DS confirmed that the programme Highlight Report, was shared with members on 21 May 2024 and sets out progress against previous activities, upcoming priorities for the next 2 months and the status of deliverables associated with the implementation programme. Members were asked to consider this report ahead of the meeting.

Juliet Harris (JH) raised four questions in relation to the highlight report. Firstly, asking whether the analysis reports from the recent consultation on statutory guidance will be published ahead of publication of the guidance. Secondly, she queried if there was further information on the work being taken forward with analytical colleagues and stakeholder organisations on complaints raised by children and young people, as similar work is being undertaken by the Observatory for Children’s Rights which could offer an opportunity to share expertise and insights. The third point was in relation to the national awareness raising work referred to as under consideration and whether any further update was available. Finally, JH asked if there was any update on the development of a model by which public authorities can jointly consider and develop their approach to particular areas of rights practice.

LS noted that the priority is currently getting statutory guidance published and available to those who require it. As a result, publication of the analysis reports will be after publication of the statutory guidance and followed by a child friendly version. As regards JH’s final question, LS confirmed that the Embedding Team are still considering this , however, there is a tricky balance to be found in supporting public authorities and those undertaking functions of a public nature to consider their practice in relation to the UNCRC requirements of the Act while not giving what might be perceived as legal advice. Compatibility with the UNCRC requirements of the Act is ultimately a matter for the courts to determine.

SG was unable to fully respond to the other two questions as Paul Gorman (PG) and team were not in attendance. Gita Sharkey (GS) noted that the ‘Pathway to remedy’ work that PG was leading on had two strands. The first centred on the provision of materials to support children and young people to know what to do and where to go if they had concerns that their rights were not being met. A procurement process was underway to secure a provider to work with children and young people on this. The second strand, looking at how we might collect and monitor the type and frequency of issues being raised – is in its infancy but the Empowerment team would be happy to keep JH in the loop as things develop.

As regards the question on the awareness raising campaign, GS noted that the priority is to target children whose rights are at risk. LL explained that in considering the focus of awareness raising it is important to consider the intended target audience and the benefits to be achieved in terms of positive outcomes against the resources available. Value for money is important, as is ensuring investment is being made where it can make the most difference. The responsibility to raise awareness is a shared one amongst members of SIB.

Public authorities have a role in demonstrating they are taking a children’s human rights approach, and that children and young people are aware of this and what it means.

Action: PG/GS to keep JH informed as project looking at monitoring and collecting issues being raised develops

Dragan Nastic (DN) noted that the highlight report mentions commissioning a review of UK acts in devolved areas and that initial discussion on this is to be undertaken. He queried whether there would be opportunity for UNICEF to provide input also, noting concern that if SG internal discussions were confidential, this would limit ability to consult with stakeholders. LL confirmed that she does not anticipate any barriers to discussion however planning is not yet advanced enough to confirm how this would be approached.

Laura Caven (LC) raised a point regarding work being undertaken to identify rights issues that are being highlighted by stakeholders. In particular, a concern for potential misalignment between what stakeholder organisations and children and young people (CYP) identify as priority issues. LL noted that there are robust mechanisms in place for young people to highlight calls to action. The CRU are looking at strengthening this approach and in parallel having a process by which we can engage with children’s rights stakeholders on key issues. LC clarified her question related more to public authorities and what concerns they would be raising. LL explained that Together will be a key stakeholder in helping public authorities raise issues/concerns, although a separate process for wider public authorities is still to be considered.

LC also raised a query regarding procurement and grant guidance which has been developed, namely whether Scottish Government has engaged with Scotland Excel and other national regulatory bodies involved in procurement? LL confirmed that the guidance is now available for all public authorities. As this work was primarily driven by procurement colleagues within SG it is unclear who else they engaged with however an action would be noted to follow up with them and confirm.

Action: LL/DS to follow up with procurement colleagues and confirm whether other regulatory or advisory bodies were engaged in development of the guidance.

Amy Woodhouse (AWo) requested an update on the parents’ leaflet which is being developed – whether it would be ready for commencement and why it has taken so long.  DS noted that as PG was not present an action would be recorded to follow these points up and provide an update after the meeting.

Action: PG to provide update on parenting leaflet timeline

Children’s Rights Skills and Knowledge Framework - presentation by Juliet Harris and June Stefani

JH and June Stefani (JS) presented on the development of the Children’s Rights Skills and Knowledge Framework (the Framework). The Framework will be a useful resource for public authorities and is the result of a joint project between JustRight Scotland, Together, Children’s Parliament and the Observatory on Human Rights of Children at Swansea University.

In developing the framework Together worked with a Professionals Panel, which included representatives from local authorities, health boards, other public bodies and third sector organisations.  Children’s Parliament worked with a Children and Families Panel comprised of thirteen diverse families from all over Scotland. There were twenty-one adults and twenty-five children, including children whose rights are at risk. The youngest participant was one year old. Families explored children’s rights, experiences of public services and what the workforce should know to ensure the realisation of children’s rights.

JS talked through the journey of developing the framework and highlighted its potential to support workforces in all sectors and services to engage with rights at an appropriate level. The framework offers consistency and allows professionals to take information from it and develop their own courses and modules which will be instrumental in driving their rights practice forward.

JH highlighted that high interest from stakeholders in this project meant real collaborative efforts across all sectors and levels of interest in children’s rights. Interest was so high that they were able to engage with an additional 230 workers across Scotland who undertook user testing, engaged with the project and provided feedback. JH went on to outline briefly what the framework looked like, noting that it is based on the five principles of the children’s rights approach developed by the Welsh Children’s Commissioner.  

The five principles are also used in the Scottish Government guidance on taking a children’s human rights approach. They are embedding, equality/non-discrimination, empowerment, participation and accountability. Those working through the framework can build their knowledge starting from ‘informed’ level with the ability to build up to “skilled” and “enhanced levels”. It is meant as self-directed learning but will also be useful for trainers to identify gaps in training needs for organisations.

JH acknowledged there are some gaps in the framework, so further development is still needed. She added that the learning library can be added to in future allowing people to suggest new resources via a submission form and feedback on existing ones.

JS outlined next steps noting that a high-profile launch and roll out of the framework would be beneficial so that everyone understands how useful it is and use it across their services. Consideration is being given to guidance for LEAs (local educational authorities) on how to implement and share the framework so that it becomes standard.

DN noted the impressive range and profile of stakeholders and children involved from all over the country including consultation with a 1-year-old which may be a world record for participation. DN asked whether resources in the library included resources on the UN’s general comments. He also noted that, as other treaties are also relevant to children it would be good if all these could be included in library.  JH confirmed that the project team went through all UNCRC general comments and conducted a mapping exercise however not all general comments on broader treaties were included.

DN raised a further query around the panels used and whether sessions were organised where family members were not present given that some children might be more comfortable discussing certain issues this way.  JH confirmed that children had the opportunity to speak without parents and carers present.

LS noted that all outputs are expected to be signed off imminently. She shared that, while it was hoped that publication of initial versions of the framework and training plan could take place ahead of commencement, statutory guidance will be prioritised. LS also noted that SG are exploring options for testing, hosting and ongoing support of the full digital interactive version framework and will launch it once this work is completed and the necessary requirements are in place. 

Attitude readiness for commencement

BT noted that commencement of the duties in the UNCRC Act are only a few weeks away (16 July). As such it would be helpful to have a discussion to gauge general attitude and readiness for commencement. He invited LS to start off the conversation with a summary of what Scottish Government have been hearing from stakeholders and public authorities.

LS noted that the key concern from local authorities is resource constraints when meeting the ask of the legislation in both administrative terms i.e. the policy work needed and in the progressive realisation of rights given budgetary circumstances.  Particular areas raised when noting limited resources were training, report writing and producing child friendly reports.

There is currently a high level of interest in child friendly complaints. Local authorities have shared a continued need to emphasise that the legislation is relevant to all Council service areas and not just education and children’s services. They are considering alignment with other agendas e.g. corporate parenting. 

Local authorities have questions about how to raise awareness amongst the wider community, particularly parents and carers without raising unrealistic expectations of provision of services. Some have asked for national level resources to ensure consistent messages and save resources.  

There is a call for the final version of the Statutory Guidance for Part 2 and 3 to be made available as soon as possible and anticipation for the launch of the Skills and Knowledge Framework. Local authorities have also asked for guidance or examples of practice on how to consider UNCRC requirements as part of their procurement processes. 

LS advised that within health boards there is some apprehension about UNCRC incorporation due to the complexities of healthcare provision and delivery, for example, the implications for services outside of children’s services. While there is uncertainty about the potential legal challenges, there is an understanding that this cannot be predicted. 

Health boards are looking for further clarity regarding the responsibilities of organisations that perform public duties but are not public bodies. i.e. GPs and dentists. They would welcome additional support and guidance on child friendly reporting and child rights budgeting. Health boards have shared that further consideration is needed within health re the governance of reporting and action plans. 

LS went on to outline the position with listed authorities in terms of their readiness/concerns for commencement. She noted that the Scottish Government have met with relevant teams engaged in UNCRC implementation in all the fourteen non-executive public bodies listed authorities to gain a baseline understanding of where they are on their journey to embedding a children’s human rights approach and their state of readiness for the UNCRC Act.  

All have an understanding of their responsibilities under the UNCRC Act and have begun to identify opportunities and challenges e.g. developing CRWIA templates and guides, developing training for staff and partners, nominating staff champions in various business areas. 

 The key challenges they have identified relate to alignment with other reporting requirements and a lack of experience in producing child friendly versions. They are considering how best to communicate with the wider system, as not everyone within listed authorities and their partners are aware of the UNCRC Act and what it means for them.

Listed authorities recognise the importance of children and young people knowing about their rights, particularly those whose rights are at risk.

DN thanked Lyndsey for her comprehensive overview and added that he has attended several meetings over the last few months with representatives from local authorities and other Scottish stakeholders. All identify section 6 of UNCRC Act as being challenging (scope of duty to comply). As such it is important that suitable guidance and resources are available to help them navigate this. In response LL noted a key question for public authorities is why do they need to make a distinction? They should be taking a children’s human rights approach to service planning and delivery regardless of whether it was in scope or not. Children and young people will need to be supported to distinguish this if considering seeking remedy but that should not be the main focus of public authorities.

DN acknowledged this point but highlighted that the response (from PAs) is that public authorities want to know about the degree of accountability and where they could face action in a court of law? They feel they need to know in advance to be cautious.

LC commented that it does matter as public authorities have role in advising young people. She acknowledged that Scottish Government had its own source of legal advice as did public authorities, but we need to understand that more support is required. BT noted a need to consider action on this further to make sure concerns are responded to.

AW asked about LS’s earlier comment regarding concern from parents/carers about unrealistic expectations and whether she had any further detail to this? LS advised that she did not but that she would go back to the Improvement Service to see what more they can tell us about this.

Action: LL to consider how to respond to concerns about identifying when the compatibility duty does and doesn’t apply. 

Action: LS to contact Improvement Service to clarify above comments

DN suggested that a standalone discussion on this [i.e. public authorities’ concerns re assessing which of their functions the section 6 duty in the UNCRC Act will apply to] would be useful and that he can see the viewpoint of public authorities on this. He said that given the potential for a child/young person to take action through courts the issue of scope is highly relevant, and it is understandable public authorities want to know in advance where they could face legal action. DN noted that this was the main point of incorporation – to make it applicable in court of law. As such this, warrants further discussion.

JH noted that Together members were taking a comprehensive approach and looking at where they can strengthen what they do.  She noted that it was interesting to see from work with members that everyone is keen to take a two-pronged approach– considering how they can progress children’s rights and how they can use the Act to advocate on behalf of children and young people. Discussions across Together’s members have been positive and they are looking at how they can embed a children’s human rights approach across all areas of their work.

DN asked LL about CRWIAs.  At the previous meeting it was noted Scottish Government were hoping for the new template and guidance to be published pre-commencement. He asked if this was still the case

LL clarified that external CRWIA templates are with publishers to be uploaded onto the SG website as soon as possible.

Risk register 

As a result of the previous item generating so much useful conversation the board did not have time to discuss the Risk Register. This item will be moved to the next meeting

Action: Increase time allocated to Risk Register in next meeting.

All other business and close 

Brian thanked all members for their engagement and contributions. The next meeting would take place 24 September 2024.