UNCRC Strategic Implementation Board minutes: November 2024

Attendees and apologies

• Andrew Watson, (Chair) Director of Children and Families
• Lucinda Rivers, UNICEF UK
• Juliet Harris, Together
• Amy Woodhouse, Parenting Across Scotland
• Norma Ruettiman, Care and Learning Alliance
• Laura Caven, COSLA
• Jennifer Davidson, Institute for Inspiring Children’s Futures
• Gina Wilson, Children and Young People’s Commissioner Scotland (CYCPS)
• David Gregory, Education Scotland
• Clare Wilson, Social Work Scotland
• Leanne Blacklaw, Police Scotland (Deputising for CI Elaine Tomlinson)

Scottish Government supporting officials 

• Ian Donaldson, Joint Deputy Director, Children’s Rights Protection and Justice
• Liz Levy, Unit Head, Children’s Rights Unit
• Gita Sharkey,  Unit Head, Children’s Rights Unit
• Lyndsey Saki, Embedding Children’s Rights in Public Services Programme Lead, Children’s Rights Unit 
• Paul Gorman, Empowered Children and Young People Lead, Children’s Rights Unit  
• Joe Smith, Right Reporting and Monitoring Programme Lead, Children’s Rights Unit
• Dean Snape, UNCRC Project Manager, Children’s Rights Unit
• Andrew Preston, UNCRC Programme Assistant, Children’s Rights Unit
• Ceri Hunter, Children’s Rights Capacity Building Manager, Children’s Rights Unit
• Kavita Chetty, Deputy Director, Human Rights Division

Guests

• Katelin O'Neill, COSLA

Apologies

• Laura Pasternak, Who Cares? Scotland
• Eleanor Kerr, Healthcare Improvement Scotland
• Chloe Riddell, The Promise
• Eleanor Kerr, Healthcare Improvement Scotland
• Nicola Anderson, Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service
• Michael Cameron, Scottish Housing Regulator
• Craig Morris, Care Inspectorate
• Helen Fogarty, Social Security Scotland

Items and actions

Welcome and apologies 

Andrew Watson (AW) 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 2 July 2024 with no amendment requests received. There were three new actions raised at the September meeting, two of which are now closed. The action that remains open is for risk associated with pausing various activities due to budget restrictions to be considered for inclusion on the Risk Register.

Highlight report 

The Programme Highlight Report was shared with members on 19 November 2024. Members had been asked to consider this report ahead of the meeting. 

Gina Wilson (GW) asked whether the future horizons work, on which children and young people are to be engaged, is just in relation to UNCRC Implementation or broader. Paul Gorman (PG) confirmed that this is broader  This project is not just focused on rights issues but instead will work with young people to explore what broader issues impact their lives. GW asked if it would be possible for the CYP Participation Framework Tender to be shared with SIB. PG confirmed that he would be happy to send on the Prior Information Notice  which had issued.

ACTION: PG to share Future Horizon PIN with GW

Laura Caven (LC) asked whether there was any indication that the projects paused due to spending controls would resume in the new financial year. LL confirmed that the CRU have identified some pieces of work are being progressed without a budget and others will needs to be considered after the Unit budget for 2025/26 is confirmed.

Amy Woodhouse (AW) asked for an update in relation to the awareness raising work with ParentClub. PG indicated that he was hopeful that some of this work could resume.

Juliet Harris (JH) congratulated SG on the publication of Progressing the Human Rights of Children in Scotland: A report 2021-24 published on World Children’s Day which was broadly welcomed by Together’s members. She noted that one Together member had questioned the assertion in the report that advocacy provision for care experienced children was available in all 32 Local Authorities. PG confirmed in the chat that he would look into this and feedback separately outwith the meeting.

ACTION: PG to check the assertions about the extent of advocacy provision for care experienced CYP in the report about the 2021-24 programme.

Support for public authorities on commencement

Lyndsey Saki (LS) shared that the Consultation Analysis Report for the UNCRC Act Statutory Guidance has been published, with the child friendly consultation report and the "You Said, We Did" document expected to follow soon. The full consultation analysis is available.

The launch of the Children’s Rights Skills and Knowledge Framework has faced significant delays. The team continues to focus on ensuring that the final product best supports the public authority workforce in adopting a children’s human rights approach. While an interactive digital version of the framework is not yet available, interim PDF versions of the Framework and Training Plan are being developed. The Scottish Government is currently working on the reconfiguration of these outputs, though no timescale can be provided at this stage. With regard to the interactive digital version, the hope is to launch this next financial year, contingent on budget approval, though user testing and an accessibility review will be necessary to ensure the product is user-friendly and meets accessibility standards.

The Scottish Government (SG) is funding NHS Education for Scotland (NES) to support Health Boards with implementation. A recent roundtable discussion with the Mental Welfare Commission brought together strategic leads from Health Boards to discuss tier 3 and 4 Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services (CAMHS).  Additionally, NES has held focused discussions to explore how adult services can incorporate child friendly approaches, even when their primary service users are not children. NES is also developing a webinar to address children’s rights for disabled children in transitions from child to adult services. NES is conducting a retrospective review of Health Board action plans to assess how these plans would change if a children’s human rights approach were applied, with outputs to be shared with SG.

The Improvement Service (IS) continues to support Local Authorities, some of which are still in the early stages of raising awareness about the UNCRC Act. The IS is offering presentations to senior leadership teams and providing guidance to key colleagues. Some local authorities are using the "Getting Ready for the UNCRC Tool" to evaluate their current child rights practice and develop action plans.

Local authority Peer Network discussions on topics such as Children’s Rights and Wellbeing Impact Assessments (CRWIA), advocacy, and procurement have been well received and have generated resource sharing and discussions around best practice. Additionally, the IS has collaborated with the Scottish Youth Parliament to host a session for Elected Members in Scotland on International Day of Democracy. The IS is also working with six Local Authorities through an action inquiry approach on child rights budgeting.

Local Authorities have expressed a need for more support in several key areas:

• Developing a local-level approach to CRWIA that aligns with other impact assessments
• Understanding the practical application of the legislation, beyond the theoretical aspects
• Addressing challenges related to children’s rights budgeting, especially in difficult financial conditions
• Clarifying the future requirements for children’s rights reports, including indicators and governance
• Ensuring that participation models are meaningful and effective
• Addressing the high cost of training delivery, which is currently unaffordable for many local authorities

The Embedding in Public Services group met on 18 November. Attendees agreed that the purpose of the group remains valid: to support the Embedding Children’s Rights in Public Services Team (ECRPS) in assisting public authorities with implementing the UNCRC. It was also agreed that a new element would be added to the remit, focusing on sharing intelligence and experiences of UNCRC implementation on the ground. This would include discussing where public authorities feel there are gaps in their capacity to implement a children’s human rights approach.

Resources thus far have focused on supporting individual public authorities, and there is now a need to consider how partnerships and multi-level services, such as Community Planning Partnerships and Health and Social Care Partnerships, could be better supported.

GW noted that the account of feedback from children and young people (CYP) in the analysis of the consultation on the statutory guidance was one of the best examples of conveying feedback from CYP that she’d seen.

JH asked how the CRU are ensuring that the 5 principles of a children’s human rights approach are used consistently to support UNCRC implementation in Scotland. LS explained that this approach will be promoted in the Skills and Knowledge Framework and the Unit will consider where there are other opportunities to raise awareness of these principles.

Update on proposed amendments to the UNCRC Act

Joe Smith (JS), reminded SIB that there has been previous discussions about three potential amendments to the UNCRC Act and confirmed that, currently, only one of these amendments is being progressed: the proposal to add an exemption to the compatibility duty.

Ceri Hunter (CH) provided an update on the considerations about amending the duty to prepare and publish CRWIAs (

She reminded SIB that there had been a proposals to automatically exclude temporary road orders under road traffic legislation from the CRWIA requirements and introduce a ‘minimal or no relevance’ test for CRWIAs all other SSIs and Bills.

In response to feedback from the Children and Young People’s Commissioner Scotland (CYPCS), an alternative option was considered to retain the CRWIA and statements of compatibility requirements for all Bills (without exception), while amending the requirements for SSIs, including temporary road orders, so that they would be required only for SSIs that are deemed to have relevance to children’s rights.

CH explained that the CRWIA template has now been revised to allow policy colleagues to quickly move through some sections by marking them as ‘not relevant’ when there is no relevance to children’s rights. If no aspects of the legislation are deemed to impact on any of the UNCRC requirements, the assessor must provide a brief explanation and contact the CRWIA team for further discussion.

Since the commencement of the duties (up to 25 November), 152 CRWIAs have been prepared and published, 133 of which are for SSIs. Out of these, 53 were assessed as having no relevance or neutral impact on children’s rights, and were therefore processed more quickly using the new template.

CH concluded that the intention is to continue operating under the existing CRWIA and Statements of Compatibility provisions in the Act, requirements for. However, she noted that the practical operation will continue to be monitored and the provisions will be reflected upon as part of the development of the forthcoming Human Rights Bill.

JS provided more detailed information on the exemption to the compatibility duty.

Initially, the amendment was intended to be introduced through the Human Rights Bill. However, while the Government remains committed to the Human Rights Bill, it will not be brought forward in the current parliamentary session. As a result, the Scottish Government had to identify an alternative legislative vehicle for amending the UNCRC Act. That vehicle will be the recently announced Bill to change the current legislation on religious observance (RO) and religious and moral education (RME) in schools. The primary purpose of this Bill is to ensure that children and young people’s views are considered in relation to their participation in RO and RME, in alignment with the UNCRC. The Government aims to bring this Bill forward within the current parliamentary year, subject to agreement and the wider legislative programme.

JS explained that, for reasons of legal coherence, the exemption would clarify that the compatibility duty does not apply when a public authority is delivering functions under provisions in other legislation that prevent them from acting compatibly with the UNCRC. The exemption will also ensure that public authorities can continue to exercise functions and deliver services, even if they are incompatible with UNCRC requirements, until remedial action is taken to address the incompatibility.

Next steps are to engage with CYP to ensure the rationale for the exemption is explained in a way they can understand. Further engagement with public authorities (including SOLAR) is also required on the CYPCS’s request that if a public authority becomes aware of a legal requirement to act in a way that is not compatible with the UNCRC, then the public authority should have a duty to report this to the Scottish Government and the Commissioner’s office.

JS encouraged the group to share their views on this possible duty, either in the meeting or separately. .

GW asked to be kept informed of feedback from that engagement but explained that this was not a ‘make or break’ request. The CYPCS has no strong objection to the reasoning for the amendment but would like to see some arrangements in place (legislative or otherwise) to ensure that, where there are areas of legislative incompatibility, these are made  visible so that they can be prioritised for amendment.

Update on development of Children’s Rights Scheme

Liz Levy (LL) provided an update on the development of the Children’s Rights Scheme (CRS).

Comments on the draft Scheme were received by the end of September from CYPCS, Together and UNICEF UK and the Scheme has now been redrafted in response to that feedback. Those who provided comments would receive an account of how their feedback was addressed in due course. The next stage of consultation is with CYP  . LL explained that there are no plans for a full public consultation on the Scheme. There is no legal requirement for this and the targeted consultation, particularly with Together's wide membership, is considered sufficient.

DS provided an update on the plans for engaging with CYP. A contract has been awarded to Young Scot. .

This will begin with a survey for 9–18-year-olds in Scotland to launch in January running to mid-February so as to avoid the Christmas/New Year holidays and maximise response rates. The survey findings will also be fully analysed, including demographic information, to allow future segmentation of results. Young Scot will then deliver in-person engagement sessions to provide space for more in-depth contributions. These sessions will be based on the survey findings – alongside any other themes that we have specifically identified. The intention is to engage directly with approx. 30 CYP over the course of 4 sessions with engagement with younger CYP (9-13) being supported, if required, through engagement with schools.

LL explained that, following engagement with CYP, a revised draft of the Scheme will be published, explaining how the feedback received has influenced its development. A meeting of the SIB will be scheduled to discuss the draft before it is laid before Parliament in April 2024. The first report on the Scheme will be scheduled for November 2026, to coincide with World Children’s Day, with annual reports thereafter.

LL noted that previous discussions within the SIB had considered amending the UNCRC Act to reduce the frequency of the  review of the Scheme from annually to every three years.

The view now is that, by drafting the commitments to have a three-year shelf life, the Scheme can be operated under the current provisions, While there are no current plans to amend this provision, it will be reviewed as part of the development of the Human Rights Bill.

Terms of Reference / Future of SIB

Members were asked to consider five questions regarding the future of SIB in advance of the meeting. Responses were received from six organizations: The Institute for Inspiring Children’s Futures, Together, Parenting Across Scotland, Police Scotland, The Care Inspectorate, and COSLA. Fourteen other SIB member organizations have not yet responded. LL summarised the responses from these members as follows:

• Members found SIB valuable for staying up-to-date on the progress of the UNCRC Bill, the program of work, and training opportunities.
• SIB allowed organizations to feed in interests and suggestions, gain insights from other public authorities, and identify challenges and opportunities for joint working.
• Responses highlighted the importance of promoting collaboration between rights holders and duty bearers, as well as identifying and addressing gaps in knowledge.
• There was also recognition of the transparency and accountability provided by regular papers and updates.

LL raised the question of whether there is still a role for SIB now that the Children’s Rights Scheme (CRS) will have statutory consultees. Responses were mixed, with some members agreeing there is a continuing need for SIB to ensure decisions are taken in a proportionate, effective, balanced, and transparent way.

Those in favour of SIB’s continued role emphasized the importance of SIB’s oversight in ensuring that prioritization decisions, especially in light of resource restrictions, are informed by an understanding of the impact on children. It was also suggested that SIB could have a role in reviewing the effectiveness of arrangements for rights holders and duty bearers, offering recommendations for improvement.

There was a consensus that the Embedding in Public Services Reference Group is the appropriate forum to discuss the provision of further support for public authorities. However, some feedback suggested that membership of this group has become narrow over time and should be expanded to include a broader representation of public authorities and third-sector partners, as well as children, young people, and their families.

LL noted that some felt SIB could provide strategic oversight of the supports being implemented to ensure they align with the UNCRC’s overall governance framework. It was suggested that SIB could also consider organizing annual training sessions on children’s human rights, ideally co-designed with CYP, to ensure all members are equipped to make rights-based decisions.

There was interest from some organisations, in joining a group to explore additional support for public authorities. It was suggested that such groups should be project-based, allowing partners to opt in when they feel they have something to contribute.

LL noted that several suggestions were made regarding potential additional functions for SIB:

• Ensuring a collective government effort to embed children’s rights across all portfolios. Liz highlighted that this is a focus of the Children’s Rights Scheme, and once the near-final version is seen, there could be further discussions about how SIB can support its delivery.

• Helping identify priority issues for securing UNCRC compatibility, potentially in collaboration with CYPCS, Together, SHRC, and UNICEF UK.
• Scrutinizing the use of CRWIAs in strategic decision-making.

LL also highlighted that one suggestion was for SIB to have an annual scrutiny session, co-designed with CYP, allowing them to assess progress, ask questions, and make suggestions directly to the Board. While CYP are involved in individual projects and meet with Cabinet, it was proposed that they could be invited to join a discussion during the publication of the annual review of the CRS, offering input on the progress made and how work should be prioritized for the year ahead.

Some responses suggested that there was room to strengthen and better coordinate reporting and relationships between various boards and groups involved in the children and families governance landscape. . Additionally, it was suggested that the National Leadership Group would benefit from more input from those with experience in embedding children’s rights within public services.

Any other business and close

Andrew thanked all members for their engagement and contributions. The next meeting will take place Tuesday 28 January 2025.