I recognise the important role that child contact centre services play, and I want to ensure that, in all cases, contact at such centres is safe and appropriate for children. Section 9 gives ministers the power to set, by regulations, minimum standards for contact service providers that they must meet, and continue to meet, in order to be registered as a provider entitled to take court referrals.
The point has been raised with the Government that a provider can operate multiple centres and so deregistering the provider for a failure to meet the minimum standards at one centre may be a disproportionate response. If the other centres are operating well, there is no reason why their work should be interrupted. Amendments 15 to 28 address the point by providing for individual contact centres, as well as service providers, to be registered so that, if there is a problem with an individual centre, it can be deregistered without affecting the work of any other centre that is operated by the same provider. However, if the problems encountered at one centre indicate a problem that is endemic to everything that a particular provider does, the option of deregistering the provider entirely will still be available.
In order to facilitate contact for families in remote areas where there are no permanent contact centres, rural service providers use alternative premises on an ad hoc basis. In that context, requiring the registration of premises would not be practicable. The amendments therefore also allow for regulations to specify circumstances in which a provider may use unregistered premises, subject to those premises still meeting the minimum standards that are laid down in the regulations. There will be a full public consultation on the detail of the standards as the secondary legislation is developed.
Amendments 52 and 53, in the name of James Kelly, would require that all referrals to a contact centre would be to a regulated centre. That would include solicitors who refer clients, social workers and other agencies that refer families, and individuals who self-refer.
Currently, the bill provides that court-ordered contact must take place at a contact centre that is operated by a regulated contact service provider. I would expect that, once regulations are in place for court referrals, solicitors and others would, in practice, refer families to a regulated contact centre. However, concerns were raised at stage 1, and the committee recommended that the Scottish Government should amend the bill at stage 2 so that referrals to contact centres from solicitors and others must be made to a regulated centre.
I am not inclined to introduce mandatory measures that might impose a duty or require enforcement measures if that is unnecessary. For that reason, I made a commitment in the “Family Justice Modernisation Strategy” to discuss with the Law Society of Scotland and the Faculty of Advocates whether guidance could be issued to encourage solicitors to refer clients to regulated contact centres.
However, in light of concerns that have been raised by my officials, we are now engaging with the Law Society to consider whether we can go further in relation to solicitor referrals and whether a legislative duty could work in practice. If our conclusion is that such a duty would be workable, I will lodge amendments to that effect at stage 3, and I would be willing to work with James Kelly on that.
On referrals made to contact centres from other persons, including individual parents who self-refer, I still have a concern about how a duty or a mandatory provision in that area would work out in practical terms. However, given the commitment that I have made to look further at solicitor referrals in advance of stage 3, I ask James Kelly not to press that amendment.
Amendment 70 would require contact centre regulations to include provision for staff to be trained and to hold recognised professional qualifications in relation to issues that concern children. I agree that staff who work in contact centres should have the right professional qualifications. The bill already provides an appropriate mechanism for addressing staff training and qualifications in regulations, so amendment 70 is not necessary.
Because of the way in which amendment 70 is framed, it could place an undue burden on services by requiring them to ensure that all their staff and their volunteers have those professional qualifications, irrespective of their individual roles. For example, some staff might work in reception and not have direct contact with the children.
I would be happy to discuss staff training and qualifications further with Neil Findlay as the regulations are developed, but I cannot support amendment 70, and I ask him not to press it.
Amendment 71 would require contact centre regulations to make provision about access to, and facilities at, contact centres for disabled children. I assure Bob Doris that I fully recognise the seriousness of that issue. I want to ensure that all children have access to a contact centre service and that all contact is facilitated safely.
The bill already provides a mechanism for addressing accommodation and staff training issues. Addressing those by regulation allows us time to consider in more detail what standards are required and how to undertake a full assessment of the existing laws on issues such as disability access.
In this instance, we need to ensure that we do not cut across or duplicate existing provision. There may also be implications for the law on equal opportunities that would require detailed consideration. We will explore those issues fully as part of the process for developing the regulations.
There will be a full public consultation on the draft regulations next year. I give my commitment to Bob Doris that the issue of disabled access will be considered as part of the consultation, and I am happy to discuss that further with him at any time. We will also ensure that the consultation includes disability organisations and the Equality and Human Rights Commission.
In short, I understand Bob Doris’s concerns and the intentions behind amendment 71, but I cannot support it at this point for the reasons that I have given, so I ask him not to press it.
I would like to touch on a couple of other amendments, if that is okay.
Amendment 72, in the name of Neil Findlay, would add a function for the body appointed to oversee contact centre regulation to undertake risk assessments, and for those to be carried out by staff who are trained in undertaking such assessments.
11:30
I expect that the body that is appointed to oversee contact centres will undertake risk assessments as part of the inspection process, and I also expect persons who carry out the risk assessments to have the necessary training. The functions of the regulatory body will be set out in regulations, and I will work with the Care Inspectorate to consider the matters that it has set out in its feasibility study report as the regulations are developed.
Although I understand the intention behind amendment 72, I do not think that it is necessary, for the reasons that I have set out, so I ask Neil Findlay not to move it.
On amendment 73, I agree with Neil Findlay that we need to ensure that people with relevant lived experience give us their views when we consult. I have done that throughout the bill process, and I intend to continue to do that, so I ask Neil Findlay not to move amendment 73.
Amendment 74 would require regulated contact centres to be
“publicly provided and accountable to the Scottish Ministers”.
I am not clear what the amendment is supposed to cover, and I have concerns that it could exclude third sector organisations, public sector bodies, private sector bodies and even local authorities. If the intention behind the amendment is to address concerns that were raised at stage 1, including by the committee, about the long-term funding of contact centres, I point out that I have lodged an amendment to allow the Scottish ministers to enter into arrangements for the provision of contact services. That would pave the way for the Scottish ministers to let a contract for contact services and ensure that contact services are funded on a secure and sustainable footing.
For the reasons that I have stated, I cannot support amendment 74, so I ask Neil Findlay not to move it.
I move amendment 15.