Official Report 184KB pdf
Item 1 on the agenda is oral evidence on the general principles of the Protection of Children (Scotland) Bill at stage 1. I welcome Liz Gallacher from the Scottish Independent Nurseries Association and Judith Sischy from the Scottish Council of Independent Schools. Would you like to make any introductory remarks before we move to questions?
No.
In that case, we will proceed straight to our questions.
Do you carry out checks on potential employees? Will the bill place additional burdens on your members as employers?
I point out that our organisations are entirely separate, although we have similar concerns. Independent schools have always run checks. Since the 1989 circular was sent out, they have had the same instructions on running checks as local authorities have had. We conducted Scottish Criminal Record Office checks and now we all run disclosure checks. In all cases, we make applications for enhanced disclosure for teachers and for support staff. As well as making those checks, we have our own rigorous vetting procedures—we follow the usual guidelines and work with the Scottish Executive, Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Education, the General Teaching Council and others.
I will come back to that answer, but I am interested in the view of Liz Gallacher's organisation.
Previously, our members used the local authority's registration and inspection service. Now the burden of responsibility for checks is placed on individual employers, and we have to go through the disclosure system. We welcome the bill—we are happy to check everyone. However, the decision making is difficult and the decision-making burden has now been placed on the employer. A small employer, with perhaps only two or three employees, might be in receipt of information about an individual that they might not want to know—the employer might not want to have to make a decision about what to do with that information. Quite a lot of responsibility has been placed on employers and I suspect that that has a particular impact on small employers.
Is it difficult to cope with the extra work and demands on time that are required?
Yes, but the real difficulty is with the responsibility for decision making. We would prefer the responsibility to be held by an arm's-length body. Our members think that someone else should have to make the decisions for them, because individuals do not want to have to make decisions about whether a person is suitable.
Judith Sischy talked about volunteers and parents and it is clear that schools depend on their participation. Will the bill put barriers in the way of the participation of parents and volunteers in the work of a school? My next question is for both witnesses. Will the bill make it more difficult to replace staff or to recruit new members of staff, given that the checks will have to be completed before people are in post?
If schools explain the system properly to parents and volunteers, it should be accepted because everyone will understand that children have to come first. However, it takes away the spontaneity of people saying, "Ooh, I want to come in and help," and dropping everything to come in at the weekend or in the evening.
So there would be concerns about recruitment only if the system became overburdened.
Yes, I think so.
Does the Scottish Independent Nurseries Association hold the same view?
Yes. In general, we welcome the bill. Obviously, we would do anything to ensure that children were protected. However, the problem is that the burden of checks might put people off volunteering. Although they might understand why checks need to be carried out, they might not want to bother going through such a process.
My first question is for Liz Gallacher. In your written submission, you highlight the strong feeling that legal safeguards for individuals and employers need further consideration. Has your organisation considered any alternatives that address the particular burden of small employers who have to make decisions on individuals—albeit using guidance and information—in the knowledge that legal sanction might well fall on them?
That has been a major concern for some of our members. Articles in the press have suggested that they might be open to prosecution if they make the wrong decision. Because people sometimes change their names these days, we now have to consider people's birth certificates and passports and decide whether they are legitimate. That is a big responsibility. I do not know what the legal situation would be or whether we could safeguard people. Previously, a Government agency carried out these checks. It is a great fear for employers. Indeed, it might put people off starting businesses that are related to child care services, because they might not feel that they could take on such a responsibility. However, I do not have any answers to your question.
The committee has been pursuing the question of volunteers. I am interested to hear from Judith Sischy about her organisation's current practices and whether, because of the bill, it will have to check all volunteers. Moreover, does the bill make it mandatory for current volunteers to be checked?
Before the bill was introduced, we accepted that it was a requirement to carry out checks on anyone who worked with children. That situation has not changed. However, when we have asked whether the requirement also applies to volunteers, the official answer has always been the same: people who have unsupervised access to children need to make an enhanced disclosure. On the other hand, a parent helping a teacher with a football team might need to make only a standard disclosure. We are still trying to work with the system, which is all very new. I do not know whether it is a statutory requirement that volunteers have to be checked, and I would be very grateful if someone could give me an answer to that. We simply assume that anyone who works with children needs to be checked. As I have said, I do not think that the bill changes that. The bill clearly reminds employers that if they employ someone who is not suitable, they are committing an offence. That is what is new in the bill, as I understand it.
The bill will probably affect only a limited number of people. However, if one person is prevented from holding a position of authority over children and intentionally abusing them, it will be worth while.
I am not aware of any such situations—touch wood. The most that I am aware of is inappropriate use of the internet in a school, which is not uncommon. However, I am not aware of any dismissals on the grounds of abuse or suspected abuse of children.
I am not aware of anything like that.
Judith Sischy's submission mentions anxieties about infringing human rights legislation. What did you have in mind?
I will deal with the first question. We are such a litigious society that if—heaven forbid—we had to dismiss someone, or someone resigned because they would otherwise have been dismissed, we would have to decide whether to refer him or her to the list. We can be sure that that would be challenged and taken to the brink.
The matter may not have been in Liz Gallacher's submission, but does she have any worries about people who will be provisionally listed and the employers who will be able to access that list?
I do have worries about that. There could be a provider in a small village, for example. How can you guarantee that confidentiality will not be breached if someone there has access to the list? Who has access to the list needs to be considered carefully. You cannot just give access to employers per se.
Is that not what is going to happen?
No, it is not.
Does Judith Sischy have any concerns about the definition of harm and putting children at risk?
I mentioned that because the bill covers harm that is not physical. That is very vague. We all know now about child protection and bullying. In the school context, we know what it means if a child is harmed or upset. However, for legislation, it seems to be a wide definition. We realise that the term includes harm that is not physical but perhaps that needs fleshing out.
As there are no further questions, I thank you for your evidence and for the information that you have provided today. If there is anything else, we will come back to you while the bill is making its way through Parliament.
Field.
It should be field.
I cannot say "field". My colleagues are suggesting that I should say "field" but not all the witnesses are from the field. We have swimmers with us, and you do not swim in a field, Ms Baillie. Sport is not your strong point.
It should be noted that we all work in partnership. Although we are from different organisations, we are here with similar concerns.
To what extent is screening used with volunteers in your organisations?
I will start my answer by considering some of the developments in child protection in sport, particularly over the past year, since it became evident that we had to have disclosures for volunteers. We have made significant advances in the development of recruitment procedures, which include disclosure checks, and in the management of allegations or suspicions of misconduct or abuse. A number of sports have done a lot of work on those issues; as a result, quite a few now use checks. I will pass over to Pippa Murphy and Dougie Arniel, because their sports have gone through the process.
In swimming, we took the decision to work from local level all the way up to national level, so that we could start training people locally and have a big network of people. We have worked on recruitment processes, and that work led into work on discipline procedures, on rehabilitation of offenders, and on many things that we did not expect to go along with child protection. It has been a steep learning curve for everybody. However, it has been a lot of fun. We have turned things into a positive voluntary recruitment process. We have changed expectations of what child protection is all about: it is not about unveiling a lot of abusers in sport, but about rewarding good practice, trying to find out what is going on, and involving more people in our national governing body. We do not know everything that is going on in swimming in Scotland and we would like to.
We are in a similar position, trying to organise things so that all our volunteers will eventually be checked. That has taken some time but has met with very little resistance.
That is good.
As we move to the next stages, we will have to be very careful. So many positive initiatives for involving youngsters in physical activity and sport are coming along that we will need a massive recruitment campaign for adults. If I was looking for one thing today, it would be to run a national recruitment campaign for adults alongside the implementation of child protection guidelines. Each boosts the credibility of the other, but one on its own could frighten people away. It will be very important to get adults involved.
Can you give us a ball-park figure of how many volunteers are involved in swimming and rugby coaching?
In the past four or five years, we have put about 4,000 coaches through foundation level courses. Every one of them is issued with fair play codes, which talk about child protection, and any recruit to a club must sign up to that club's child protection policies. We hope that that will become part and parcel of coaching. The worry is that someone who helps with their son's rugby, one daughter's swimming class and another's brownies group will have to go through the process each time, which would become off-putting. However, it would be the bureaucracy that would put them off, not the principle.
How do you support the small organisations in your structure? Clearly, the local swimming club and the local football club will organise everything to do with the activities, the recruitment of volunteers and so on. How could you help a small organisation to identify a concern about an adult who is working with children? Would the clubs use the Volunteer Development Scotland structure or work through your organisation?
We provide member services only to those clubs that are affiliated to us. Some of those clubs are tiny, community-based clubs and some are larger, city-based clubs. When their concerns are reported to us, we advise them on the process that needs to be followed. We are in the process of appointing a child protection officer for every club in Scotland. We have about 100 at the moment, so we are about halfway there. They will all go through training and will deal locally with the issues as they arise.
We issued guidelines to all the clubs and made it clear that they were responsible for having procedures in place. We have 134 child protection co-ordinators registered with us and we need to train them to bring their knowledge up to date. Now that the new disclosure structure is in place, we want it to cascade down. We will start with one person at the SRU who will be the lead person and, from them, the system will cascade down through our organisation, through our development team and down to the local child protection development co-ordinators. We are big enough to be able to do that but it will be difficult for many small governing bodies to manage that situation. However, that is the model that we want to follow.
Could we have copies of some of the material that you use?
Yes.
Ours is available on our website, which is www.scottishswimming.com.
You are assuming that all of us know how to work a computer.
What might put sportscotland in the top tier in this regard is the fact that, for the past year, the main focus has been on the ethics programme, which I manage within the child protection system. Part of that programme involved employing, along with Children 1st, a child protection development worker. She will be working as what Dougie Arniel has called the bang person in rugby. We are trying to provide as much guidance and as many templates as we can and intend those to filter down through the organisation.
Ernie Turpie, you work with some areas of sport that involve a large number of people, such as bowling.
I think that there are 3,000 bowling coaches.
Have you had many concerns raised with you?
No, not as yet. Obviously, we would like to advise our members, but my main concern is about the number of clubs that are not affiliated to a governing body. How do we get to those clubs? A number of clubs are not members of local sports councils. It would be great if all clubs in a district were members of a local sports council—we accept that that is not the case—and were members of the governing bodies. In more rural areas, not all clubs are members of the governing bodies.
There can be a problem with small clubs that have been in existence for a long time. Such clubs are often run by one or two committed volunteers, who probably think that they do not need to seek affiliation because they have until now managed perfectly well. There is the issue of how to protect children and how parents can know that their bairns are safe when they go off to participate in sport.
I accept that. I have some knowledge of what the SRU has done. I was going to suggest that you are thinking of village clubs, but in fact village clubs are probably better protected than other clubs, because everyone kens everyone else. If one moves up a step, one gets into a situation in which the clubs are not so well known. How does a parent know that such clubs follow guidelines? There are certain sports councils that will not ensure a grant unless the club in question has a recommended child protection policy. It is easy to write a policy; to make it work is the major problem.
Must all clubs have a policy?
Most clubs that I know about are working towards having a policy.
It was interesting to hear about practical examples of child protection policies that have been put into practice in rugby and swimming. That will perhaps allay some of the fears that were expressed by earlier witnesses, who said that such policies might put off volunteers. You say that that is not the case. What were the resource implications of going through that process? I refer to the administrative and financial implications.
It is difficult to judge the financial implications. The big input is time. After one has taken the decision to make things work, it is a question of time and training. Training has to be organised and set up around the country, so that the relevant people can more easily attend sessions, rather than our having to train people centrally. It is a case of, "Where there's a will there's a way."
There are no huge amounts of money involved in such provision in swimming—even though we provide free training for 500 or 600 people a year—because the provision of such training is not expensive. However, there are resource implications. I am the national development officer and at least 50 per cent of my time is spent on implementing child protection. My chief executive, who handles any disclosures relating to such information, spends perhaps 25 per cent of his time on that. Twelve months ago there might have been no impact, but now there is an enormous impact on how much other development a smaller governing body—for example, one that has only one member of staff—can do.
The committee is not known for its generosity, unfortunately.
It was worth a try.
It is always worth a try. The woman with the cheque book is sitting behind you.
She is making faces behind you, too.
We were concerned that the bill did not refer to the strength of evidence or to sending evidence directly to ministers for decisions. We have recommended that a process should be undertaken, which most governing bodies have taken on, to pass the information to someone who has knowledge—such as a child protection co-ordinator—and who could decide on appropriate action. In an abuse case, a procedure would be needed to pass information to the police and social work departments.
I will try to clarify a matter for my simple mind. The bill creates a distinction between a regulated child care organisation and any other organisation. I understand that sportscotland would fall into the category of any other organisation. For a regulated child care organisation, the implications are that the processes that are outlined in the bill are mandatory. For sportscotland, they are optional. Is that your understanding?
Yes.
We are on the same wavelength.
The Scottish Rugby Union believes that, if a system is introduced for dealing with people who work with children—even if that system is not mandatory—it is advisable and desirable that it should apply across the board. How would a club feel if someone who had been excluded from working in a pair situation were allowed to volunteer and something happened? The system should be as near to mandatory as possible. We must ensure that the processes in place make it unlikely that such a person would have access to children.
Sports organisations have called for a list of the type that is proposed. People fear that a person who has been excluded from rugby will immediately move to badminton, for example. Our aim is follow good practice, rather than to do only what is required of us. That is why Jackie Baillie might have received the impression that we regard the provisions of the bill as mandatory.
That is fine. I am very happy with your response. It has been acknowledged that some smaller organisations might find it difficult to implement the provisions of the bill. However, we want to hold on to the policy purpose, which is to ensure that all children are protected, irrespective of by whom.
Are you worried about the rights of representation that the bill accords to people who are referred to the list? What sort of protection does the bill provide against malicious accusations or inadequate evidence? At what point should people be represented? Some folk have suggested that there should be a tribunal arrangement. It has been proposed that, before people are placed on the provisional list, they should have an opportunity formally to defend themselves.
It is important that we have as much information about candidates as possible. We will receive information about previous investigations through enhanced disclosure and we give people an opportunity to speak to that sort of information. Our approach in such situations is similar to the way in which rehabilitation is dealt with under employment law. If someone says that they were investigated in a particular county for a particular offence, we ask them what happened, what they learned and whether they have received training. We must distinguish between poor practice and convictions.
I support totally having a disciplinary process. This is not just a child protection issue; it relates to a number of different matters. In the past five years we have realised that a disciplinary process is needed in anti-doping cases, so that people can present mitigating circumstances. We are concerned that the bill does not appear to provide for such a process. Certainly sportscotland recommends that governing bodies and sports organisations are set up so that they have a supporting structure for disciplinary matters.
That would mean that once you had gone through the disciplinary process, the offence would have to be pretty serious before you would consider referring the offender to the list. The disciplinary process would recognise that infringements had been made that might not have been serious enough to lead to a referral.
It is different for different governing bodies, but generally there is some form of review process to take evidence and discover whether that evidence is strong enough to be taken through a disciplinary process. That is what a governing body will usually do.
I would argue for the panel process on the ground that if the SRU is the umbrella organisation, then enhanced disclosures would come back to the SRU. One person will look at the disclosures and decide whether the person is acceptable or not.
As there are no further questions, I thank the witnesses for their evidence, which has been useful and informative. If we want anything else we will get back in touch with you.
Meeting suspended.
On resuming—
I call the meeting to order. We will take evidence on the Protection of Children (Scotland) Bill from the Minister for Education and Young People, Cathy Jamieson MSP. She is joined by Jan Raitt of the children and families division of the Scottish Executive education department, and by Shirley Ferguson of the Scottish Executive's legal and parliamentary services. I know that they have sat in on much of the previous three meetings and have heard a lot of what has been said. That is helpful. I ask the minister to make her introductory comments.
I heard some of the evidence that was given earlier in the meeting. Throughout the process, the range of written and oral evidence that has been submitted to the committee has impressed me. The evidence shows that the majority of organisations take the issue seriously. We have come a long way on the child protection agenda, particularly in the voluntary sector, where people are putting in place good practice that will make a difference at local level.
There has been a considerable amount of lobbying of the committee in relation to teachers. I would be interested in your views in relation not only to teachers but to other governing and registration bodies, particularly those involved with nurses and doctors, which are not specified in the bill as bodies that may refer cases to ministers. My view is that employers should have primary responsibility for people employed by the trust, education authority or school. Has there been any thinking that it would be advantageous were the bill to include such registration bodies in the list of bodies that may refer cases?
The GTCS has made representations and submitted evidence on that issue. Our view is that it ought primarily to be employers who make referrals to the list. That ought to help safeguard against malicious or other inappropriate referrals.
Will you consider the GTCS as one of the organisations that can refer to the list?
We can certainly take account of the representations that have been made. I am aware from the EIS's evidence that there is concern to ensure a clear distinction between disciplinary procedures carried out by an employer and the steps that the regulatory body may itself take. We need to ensure that we take that into account when we consider implementation and guidance for the future.
I think that that would be helpful.
Let me focus on the tricky subject area of definitions and distinctions, which have become clouded, as we have noted during the past three evidence-taking sessions. Let me start with regulated child care organisations and other organisations. From some of the evidence that we have received, it is unclear what the distinctions are. If there are differences in the enforceability of the provisions on referring to and consulting the list, what are they?
The basic difference centres on enforceability. Many child care organisations are already regulated. Moreover, a body will examine all the work that they are carrying out and will in effect be able to deregister or withdraw consent for a particular organisation if it does not comply with the standards that are laid down.
If SCRO checks currently apply across the board, will not the bill's provisions form an additional layer on top of them? If small organisations are already having to cope with the reality of SCRO checks, it will build on the foundations that they have laid to extend sound child care practice across every sector.
The requirement to ensure that an individual is not on the list and that SCRO checks are carried out is only one aspect, and we would certainly expect people to meet that as a matter of good practice. Concerns have been expressed about the enforceability of potential sanctions by small voluntary organisations. Perhaps it would be helpful if we gave the committee some further legal information that we have gained from a closer examination of the matter.
We are aware of the committee's concerns on the matter, which is why we have been examining it. The difficulty is finding out what constitutes an appropriate sanction as far as small voluntary organisations are concerned. The bill specifies some offences for organisations and some for the individual who has been disqualified. After considering the responses to the consultation, we felt that it would not necessarily be workable to include a specific sanction—which would hit small voluntary organisations—in relation to referrals. However, it was difficult to come up with an appropriate sanction at that stage, although we are considering the matter further.
What sanctions have you considered? I am unclear about how much consideration has been given to the issue and which sanctions have been rejected.
Some of the issues centre on the aspects that we might be able to enforce. The fact that any sanction that is introduced must be enforceable was raised during the consultation and the evidence-taking sessions. As we have received conflicting information, we will need to examine the matter and ensure that there is clarity.
I am sorry to be awkward, but from my understanding, the bill places a mandatory requirement on child care organisations to carry out a referral to a list, but contains no enforcement provision to ensure that that happens.
I have perhaps misunderstood your point. If the organisation failed to comply with the mandatory requirement, the regulatory body would be able to apply the ultimate sanction of delisting or deregistering it or deeming it unfit to practice.
Is that enforcement provision spelt out in the bill?
My understanding is that it is and that that is how we will proceed. [Interruption.] I am advised that it is not in the bill. It will have to be specified in regulations.
Ah, so it is not in the bill. How do you intend to specify it? Will it be through regulations?
We will have to consider regulations and guidance. It is important that we have guidance that will provide some commonality of practice across the different organisations, because there are a number of different regulatory bodies.
Given that there is no real statutory difference between child care organisations and other organisations, aside from the enforceability provisions, is there any reason why the bill's provisions should not be extended to other organisations?
Do you mean organisations in general, or do you mean voluntary organisations, in particular those that are concerned with child care?
I mean general voluntary organisations, and organisations that are concerned with child care.
It is a question of striking a balance between including all organisations in the bill and believing that there is enough in organisations' practices and procedures to ensure that they would take up the power to make referrals if necessary. I have been interested to hear some witnesses suggest that, even though not all organisations are specified in the bill, they understand that they would have a moral duty, if not a legal duty, to make referrals. It is important that we have guidance that assists those organisations in acting on that.
One of the issues that has arisen in our inquiry is the balance between rights in the workplace and the rights of children. The Scottish Trades Union Congress was concerned about the sheriff's role in relation to a provisional list and how an employer might use the bill's provisions as a way of moving an employee on without giving the employee an opportunity to answer accusations, particularly in an organisation in which the grievance procedures are not laid down and practice is not as good as it might be in a local authority.
I am concerned that we get the balance right. I do not believe that the bill allows employers or others to make referrals unless they have a substantive amount of evidence. They would have to have gone through disciplinary procedures or another due process in the organisation before they got to the stage of putting people on a provisional list.
The thinking behind the tribunal approach is that those on the tribunal would have knowledge and an understanding of the sector and the issues. There is a feeling that, if appeals went to the sheriff, the sheriff would not have that background and would be less able to make the appropriate decision.
That perhaps relates to your earlier point about the possibility of employers using the list against employees. I return to my earlier point that the due process would have to be put in place by employers. It is not the case that employers would be able to make a referral and substantiate it without evidence to back it up and without going through the due process.
If someone runs a small organisation such as a nursery and goes through the due process, they may not be quite sure whether to proceed with it because of the potential effect of provisional listing. Does the bill place an obligation on a person in that position to make a referral to Scottish ministers?
It is worth reiterating that a person in the position of being provisionally listed would not be so listed until the initial evidence was submitted and the referral was considered carefully. We will not provisionally list people on the basis of unfounded suspicions; we will do so only on the basis of evidence. Those who are provisionally listed will not be banned from working with children at that stage, but any prospective employer who checks the list will be informed that a provisional listing has been made on that person.
The loophole that you described demonstrates the importance of information being made available. We are all aware of cases in the past when that has not happened. There are also cases in which good employment practice has not always resulted in the right outcome. We must ensure the confidentiality of the provisional listing, so that it can be accessed only by potential employers. The list should not be used to blacken someone's character. How do we deal with that issue? How to we prevent discrimination against people who have been provisionally listed but who are found not to be guilty? People will always say that there is no smoke without fire. We have to ensure the confidentiality of the system.
That is important. It is also important that the entire list is treated with absolute confidentiality. People must not be given unauthorised access to it. The system will be an improvement on the situation in the past, when information was held informally by people or when people did not have the opportunity to challenge suggestions that were made about them. The new system will give people the opportunity to challenge what is said about them or the information that is held on them in a way that has not been possible in the past.
The duty on employers to refer someone to the proposed list is another grey area. Does the provision apply to people who are paid by the employer or to people who work for the employer in an unpaid, voluntary capacity?
The provisions allow for employers to make references in relation to paid or unpaid staff. In the interests of good practice, I would expect large organisations to carry out the appropriate checks on their staff, including taking up references.
I want to ask about some things that came up a couple of questions ago when we were talking about the confidentiality of the list. First, should making an unauthorised disclosure be an offence?
The rules in part V of the Police Act 1997, where improper disclosure is an offence, would apply to this list. I hope that that sets Ian's mind at rest.
Minister, you heard the earlier evidence. That evidence, and other information, has shown that thousands of volunteers work in sports and all sorts of out-of-school activities across the country. I am not sure how this legislation will affect those people. Lord Cullen's recommendations were based on what happened in Dunblane, where the person concerned was involved in sports clubs with young people. This legislation is intended to tighten things up. How does it affect people who will not be registered, but who will be working actively with young people?
I value all the work of the voluntary sector and I value its commitment. I also acknowledge that this legislation will affect only a tiny minority of people who will want to work with children and young people. It should not put off volunteers and organisations from continuing to work with children and young people. However, we must acknowledge that there have been instances of people choosing to work in settings where they can get access to children and young people. That happens in both the public sector and the voluntary sector. The bill is not aimed only at sports clubs and voluntary organisations—I want to make that clear. In some instances in the past people have sought work in local authority social work departments—in particular, in residential child care. Although the gap that we are trying to plug will affect only a small minority, the damage that can be done to individual children is huge. Because of that, it is worth plugging the gap.
I agree that it is worth doing. However, consider a situation in which there is an inappropriate volunteer. I have a background of working with volunteers and have met a few inappropriate volunteers. They would go round agencies to try to do what it was in their mind to do. If an inappropriate volunteer has been in the statutory sector and comes to a small voluntary youth group, what protection will children have? Such people often work on a one-to-one basis.
I am aware of your background in the voluntary sector, Cathy. I know that many voluntary organisations have vastly improved their screening procedures and training processes and supervision of volunteers. I stress that the bill is not a catch-all or a panacea. It does not mean that the voluntary sector, statutory sector or anybody else can take their eye off the ball, say, "The bill is here," and relax child protection procedures. The bill is an added safeguard. If vetting procedures, recruitment, training and supervision of volunteers and staff are not in place, the bill in itself will not do the job, albeit that it will close an important gap.
Given that we are talking about sheriffs, among other things, I should refer to my entry in the register of interests and declare my membership of the Faculty of Advocates.
Your comments are helpful. You have mentioned issues that I want us to consider as we look to implementation and the guidance and training that might be required. Further discussions on such matters would be helpful and I would be happy to consider them.
I have a couple of comments—I promise that I will then be quiet. You are absolutely right to say that the bill does not replace robust child protection measures—that message must go out clearly. The bill is viewed as an added safeguard. For that reason, I am concerned about evidence that we heard that the bill, as an added safeguard, might introduce a two-tier system. We all want to reach the same end point, but the issue is how to do so.
It is clear that we need to consider that issue, which was raised in a number of submissions and in other evidence. However, we had to take into account the comments of some of the smaller voluntary organisations. We are trying to achieve the right balance, in order to ensure that those smaller organisations are not put at risk while at the same time ensuring that, across the board, people feel a duty to refer, even if that is not specifically spelled out in the bill. I was interested in the comments that a number of organisations made to the effect that they will refer, whether or not a duty to do so is spelled out in the bill.
I will ask the same question that I have asked a couple of times already. What are your comments on the worry that people have that the definition of harm is too vague? Will you make the definition more precise in the guidance?
As you are probably aware, one of the difficulties with the bill is that the minute that we start to specify in detail what harm is, or to define the degree of harm, we risk opening up loopholes. We ought to have further discussions about that. I know that the voluntary sector in particular has asked for clarification and assistance on that point so that it can take matters forward.
I will ask a couple of practical questions on issues that have been raised in the course of our evidence-taking sessions, so that your responses will be on the record.
Are you asking about checks made by child care organisations?
Yes.
The check will disclose that a person is on the list when that is relevant to the position that the person applied for.
What funding do you intend to provide to assist organisations with training on the proposed system?
I have examined the evidence closely, and many of the steps that people will be required to take are steps that they take already in accordance with good employment practice. However, I am interested in the voluntary sector's suggestion that organisations should have access to an advice panel or some other source of information. Once I have considered that suggestion in more detail, in order to see whether it is workable, I will come back with further information.
We understand that part V of the Police Act 1997 has yet to be implemented in Northern Ireland, where the equivalent list has yet to be put on a statutory footing. Can you explain the practical consequences for someone who comes from Northern Ireland, on the boat from Belfast to Troon, and tries to get a job here?
It is clear that we will have some difficulties until the systems in the component parts of the UK are able to talk to one another, which is the ultimate aim. There are also issues for people who come from abroad. I can say only that that is not the whole story and that there will be other checks that people will have to make, such as taking up references and implementing vetting procedures. However, we will work with our colleagues throughout the UK to make sure that our systems talk to one another. Jan Raitt has some up-to-date information on that point.
Disclosure Scotland does get information from Northern Ireland. The Northern Ireland records include in the police intelligence section information about whether someone is on the pre-employment consultancy service list, which is being put on a statutory footing. I hope that it is of some comfort that that information is available from Northern Ireland police records.
That is helpful.
The decision was finely balanced. The consultation process threw up a range of different opinions on that point, and we made the judgment call that it would be better for the decision to rest with ministers. It is a serious matter for people to be put on the list and ministers will be held accountable for the decisions that they make.
In respect of the European convention on human rights, and given some of the rulings on the decisions on sentencing policy made by the Home Secretary in England, have you had advice on whether a potential listing could be seen as a political decision?
We are confident that the appeals system that the bill introduces, alongside Scottish ministers being accountable to the courts for their decisions, will be compatible with the ECHR.
As there are no final questions, I thank the minister. Some issues are still outstanding. It would be helpful for the committee to thrash them out with the minister and officials over the coming months in the run-up to stage 2.
I would be surprised if there were not outstanding issues at this stage. It has been helpful that people, including committee members and those who have submitted evidence, have worked to see how we can make the bill work in the best interests of children and young people. I want it to be placed on the record that I thank people for their work so far.
Thank you very much, minister.
Previous
Scottish Parliament Education, Culture and Sport Committee Tuesday 8 October 2002 (Afternoon)Next
Scottish Media Group