Scotland's Commissioner for Children and Young People (Annual Reports 2006-07 and 2007-08)
I open the 18th meeting in 2008 of the Education, Lifelong Learning and Culture Committee. I remind all those who are present that mobile phones and BlackBerrys should be switched off for the duration of the meeting.
I am pleased to welcome Kathleen Marshall, Scotland's Commissioner for Children and Young People, to the committee. She will speak to both of her annual reports. The committee has perhaps not been as diligent at getting you to come to the committee to hear from you as it should have been, so we have two annual reports to consider this morning. I welcome you and ask you to make an opening statement.
Kathleen Marshall (Scotland’s Commissioner for Children and Young People):
I thank members for giving me the opportunity to speak to my annual reports for the past two years. In many ways, it is appropriate to take them together, as many of the substantial pieces of work undertaken by my office in 2006-07 bore fruit in the many reports published in 2007-08.
The summary of the annual reports that has been set before the committee shows how the focus of the work has developed since I took up post in April 2004. Year 1 focused on establishment. In year 2, I consulted widely—particularly children and young people, as required by my founding statute—on my priorities. In year 3, I commenced the mapping and evidencing of my priority issues, as set out in the safe, active, happy action plan, which was the result of the consultation. That bore fruit in the reports published in year 4. During the 5th year, I am taking forward the recommendations in my reports in order to effect real change. That does not mean that there has not been change already as a result of our work, but the depth and nature of the change is different.
Some issues that I tackle can be addressed on the basis of applying the principles of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child to specific issues. Others involve me developing an evidence base as the foundation for recommending changes in law, policy and practice. That takes longer than the application of principle, therefore it was inevitable that my early work would be more about principle and my later work would focus on the unique evidence base that my office has created. You might say that it represents the difference between tackling acute issues through principle and chronic issues through principle and evidence.
The greatest power and privilege that I have as commissioner is to bring issues back to the Parliament that created my office. Over the past year, I have laid reports that set out a number of recommendations. I make one further recommendation in the latest annual reports, concerning incorporation of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child into domestic law.
I will be happy to answer your questions on those and any other aspects of my work that members wish to explore.
Thank you for your comments and for keeping them short, so that we have the maximum time for questions. Can you give the committee a little further detail on the work that you have done on the rights of children who have a parent in prison? You indicate in your annual report that your report "Not Seen. Not Heard. Not Guilty." had some impact, as the Scottish Prison Service responded positively and said that it would make it possible for there to be more support for prisoners at HM Young Offenders Institution Polmont and at HM Prison and Young Offenders Institution Cornton Vale. Can you update us on the work that has taken place within the SPS? Are you involved in that work as the SPS reviews the systems that are in operation?
The SPS wrote to me recently to say that it is reviewing the prison and young offenders institution rules, and that in doing so it will take account of the recommendations in the report. It also invited me to contact it to participate in those discussions, and I will certainly respond to that invitation.
"Not Seen. Not Heard. Not Guilty." has had quite a big impact in international circles as well as in Scotland, and it has been quoted widely in England. It is unique in that it is not just about mothers and babies, important though they are; it is about fathers, older children and teenagers. It tries to make children visible from the point at which a parent is arrested, sometimes in the presence of their children, through to sentencing when, although on the face of it a decision to imprison a parent breaches the child's rights to family life, that is often not even part of the decision-making process.
The report considers facilities for visits in prisons and asks whether visits can be withdrawn as a punishment for the prisoner. Who do the visits belong to? Do they belong to the prisoner or to the child who has a right to contact? How is that taken into account? The report explores further the decision to release prisoners, including on home detention curfew. Some people have commented that such aspects develop the subject further than was the case with the Scandinavian examples.
I was at the Council of Europe in Strasbourg where people talked about their child-friendly justice programmes. They were very interested in the children of prisoners report, because they had not considered that aspect. It has also appeared in the documentation of the UN Human Rights Council, which is interested in taking the report forward.
Many aspects in the children of prisoners report are critical. Although some of the things that I get involved with can be controversial, people have just not thought about the rights of prisoners' children. Once you start to think about it and go through the process, you realise how invisible such children are and how seriously their rights are affected, which makes people think. At least as many children are affected by the imprisonment of a parent as are looked-after children in Scotland, and it is amazing that there has not been more focus on them up to now.
We are taking the subject of prisoners' children forward and are considering having an international seminar on it to try to bring in other examples. For example, a decision of the Constitutional Court of South Africa introduced child impact assessments at the point of sentence. We would like to bring that example here, so that the legal fraternity in Scotland can see that the idea is not outrageous but principled, and that it can work and help.
Obviously, you have had limited discussions with the SPS, but have you had any discussions with the Scottish Government as a consequence of the report?
We have had meetings with ministers in which we have covered a lot of ground. There have been a lot of reports; the focus of our meetings with ministers depends on the stage at which we want to involve them. With the children of prisoners report, for example, we flagged up the issues and told them about our recommendations, but I have to engage with other constituencies to ensure that I have their report before I make a big ask of ministers that might result in a "No" if I do not tackle those other constituencies. For example, I must try to ensure that I have the legal fraternity on board and that we show it that the recommendations would not allow parents to use their children as a shield or whatever, but instead are focused on the rights of children and would make life better for everyone. The recommendations would also help to rehabilitate the prisoners. I have discussed the report with ministers, but I have not pushed it as much as some of the other reports, because I have more work to do before I can do that with an even firmer evidence base.
Good morning, commissioner. It is lovely to have you here today. I notice that in all your reports you focus in particular on asylum and the detention of children and young people who are seeking asylum. One of the recommendations in your document to the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child is that the United Kingdom Government should remove its reservation to article 22 of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child and repeal section 9 of the Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants, etc) Act 2004. Will you elaborate on some of the work that you have done with the Scottish and UK Governments on those points?
As you know, I have been deeply concerned about those matters ever since I was appointed, because the way that children were being treated at the time was one of the most fundamental breaches of human rights. Things have got a bit better, but we are not being complacent; the situation is not all right yet.
We have followed up the issues in conjunction with colleagues across the UK, particularly the English children's commissioner. We have responded to consultations and have worked on matters with organisations such as the Scottish Refugee Council. I have had a number of meetings with the UK Border Agency on a number of asylum issues, and I keep in contact with it about cases that come to light that do not seem to reflect the appropriate standards of dignity or the procedures that it says are in place. It is fair to say, however, that in relation to the reservation to article 22 and the repeal of section 9, the focus is on Westminster.
The general point, which is that children who are in Scotland are our responsibility, is one that I have constantly had to reiterate. However, I think that that is now accepted. Recently, I have done a lot in that regard because, in the beginning, there was an issue about whether the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Government could talk about the subject, whereas now they are talking about it. That, in itself, is progress.
I note the progress that you made in relation to how the immigration service's staff treat young children, especially in dawn raids. Can you tell us more about how you got to that successful position?
Listening to the children made a big difference. In one primary school that I visited, most of the 30 children were asylum seekers, although some were indigenous Scottish children. We had a powerful meeting with those children, who told us what the experience of a dawn raid felt like from their perspective, and how the event reverberated among their friends. Two of the children burst into tears and had to leave the room. Their teachers who were supporting them were also traumatised by the whole situation. When you demonstrate the impact that dawn raids have on children, it makes people sit up and listen. I do not believe that anyone sets out to treat children in that way, but people who are involved in the process justify what they do and distance themselves from what goes on. That is why we have to keep coming back to the human face of the issue.
One of the children whom we spoke to talked about not being able to sleep at night because he was afraid that people would come into his house. I learned later that his family's immigration status meant that they would not be subject to dawn raids. However, he still had that fear, because he knew that other children were experiencing them. The fear lingers on. The way that children think is not the same as the way that other people think—they have all of those fears.
I am glad that more than 90 per cent of the legacy families in Scotland have been allowed to stay. However, for those who leave there are still issues about the transparency of the decisions that are taken, because they are supposed to be based on criminality, but we are not clear about what level of criminality or immigration offences is applied. That is important, because we are talking about radically changing the lives of children who have been here for a number of years.
I could speak all morning, but my colleagues have questions for you. I commend you for your report.
I am interested in the work that you did with Children in Scotland at the European Union seminar, and would like to explore baseline information that you feel might be shared with us to our benefit and, perhaps, to that of the seminar participants.
Although our focus has been on the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child—partly because that is the main convention for children and partly because the UK is reporting to the UN on the convention this year—many other things are happening, such as the development of other international conventions and treaties and developments in the Council of Europe and the EU. We need to engage with all of that if we are to have an impact on the early stages of the formulation of policies that affect children.
I attended a meeting of Eurochild in Brussels, during which we gave a presentation on our children's rights impact assessment. I listened to everything, and I feel that we really have to get a starting point in Scotland. People are drawing back from that because it is so complicated, and we are all so busy with other things.
The seminar was a starting point; we worked on it with Children in Scotland and invited policy officers from a range of Scottish children's organisations. Some Government representatives and people from the other children's commissioner offices across the UK were also present. From their point of view, it would have been pretty simple stuff, about the institutions and how policy is developing. At the end of the meeting, we felt that it had been a worthwhile start, and that the way to go forward was probably for us to identify a piece of work that we could work on together to make it a reality for us.
I spoke to Catherine Stihler MEP the night before last about whether we could identify a piece of work that would help us to learn by doing, rather than just by reading. The situation obviously has been affected by recent issues about the Treaty of Lisbon. There has been a move to incorporate children's rights in it, which, if there is not a treaty, could be put on the back burner. There are many live debates, but we are just at the beginning.
That is interesting, because at a much earlier stage in my life I was involved in the campaigns to get rid of the belt in school.
Good.
Indeed. The European element was vital in allowing us to raise our standards in this country. Could you give us a few keynote points about the issues and decisions? Even one or two bullet points would help.
The Council of Europe passed a resolution on 13 March on prison issues—about the children of prisoners—which picks up on a lot of the things that we are talking about. The council and the EU have also made resolutions and recommendations about physical punishment in general, and they are coming along a twin track on physical punishment and prisoner issues. A lot of our issues are being picked up at international level. We are partly informing those bodies, but we also have to be involved at an early stage to pick up on what they are doing and to have a chance to shape it, before we are landed with a direction into which we have not had any input.
The process is two-way, but we are not wholly engaged with it yet. We are learning. We are more involved in the Council of Europe issues than in the EU issues. I met the Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights when he visited a few years ago, and I wrote a report for him on Dungavel and immigration, which was reflected in his report. We are more tied into the council—the EU is a bit more of a mystery, which we are trying to unravel in order to get involved.
There are so many things that we could do. At this stage, I am reflecting on what we have done over the past four years and what our direction should be. If we were to engage properly with all of the international instruments and bodies, it would take up all our policy time. That is where we could have a fruitful interaction with organisations such as the Scottish Commission for Human Rights in parcelling out the work.
Good morning, commissioner. In your report you raise issues around child protection, which is on all our agendas. There is often a dilemma between providing security for our children and young people, and—as you refer to in your report—adults fearing getting involved because of their concerns. How do we get the balance right? Are there things that we still need to do?
That is one of the deeper issues that we have been addressing. It relates to children having voted that having things to do should be a priority. If children and young people are to have more stimulating things to do, they need adults to be involved to help provide them. Our research shows the extent of adult fears about contact with children and young people, and that is where my office adds some value. When we first proposed making things for children and young people to do a priority for my office and discussed it with stakeholders such as the other children's agencies, the message that came out was that the issue was difficult.
We should consider introducing anonymity before conviction—we should consider that principle for everyone, not only people who work with children—because people are afraid of the consequences of an allegation and of being named and shamed before they ever have an opportunity to defend themselves. If that proposal came from somewhere else, it could seem to be promoting an adult agenda. The added value of me saying it is that I am clearly coming from the children's point of view. I am saying that, if we have reached a situation in which ordinary, well-meaning adults are afraid of contact with children and young people, there is a problem, and it is not helping children.
There are some practical things that we should do. We should think about how to take the heat out of allegations. Of course there will be false allegations for various reasons but, even if there are only a few and they are unlikely to be made, people are so terrified of the consequences that the fear outweighs the statistics.
Another practical step concerns our disclosure system. As I responded to the proposals on vetting and barring, for example, it became clear that we did not have a good enough mechanism to filter out non-conviction information that had no foundation. People are rightly terrified that, if an allegation is made against them, even if it is not proven, it can turn up in an enhanced disclosure and follow them for the rest of their lives, so we must put in place a better filtering system.
People do not understand the disclosure system or where to find out about it and health and safety requirements. Some of our work, particularly on opportunities for looked-after children to engage in outdoor play, showed that people have misunderstandings about health and safety that affect the way that they operate and affect opportunities for children. For that reason, we have pointed out that much of the language about working with children is negative: it is about vetting and barring. Our research shows that everyone agrees that we must put obstacles in the way of unsuitable adults having contact with children, but we need to do something to enable other adults to have contact with children as well.
That is why we have said that we need an easily accessible central point of reference that agencies can phone up and ask, for example, whether they need disclosures for people, how to get them and how to get help interpreting what comes back; whether is it true that it is not permissible to go near water unless the child is tied by a rope to a member of staff or a tree, which we were told in some children's units; and how to strike the balance between keeping children safe and giving them a stimulating environment.
My contact with organisations, including organisations that provide such a service for their own constituency groups, shows that there is a lot of support for such a point of reference. We had a meeting with Volunteer Development Scotland, the Scout Association, sportscotland and other organisations. Some of them provide such a service for their groups, but the wee agencies at the grass roots have projects that never get off the ground because people are frightened off. We need to encourage them, enable them and give them the support and confidence to do what they want to do for children and what children want them to do. It is sad and tragic that we have such barriers in the way of healthy human contact that adults and children want.
That is a helpful and full answer. It gives us some direction on what we need to consider to ensure that children have the full life that we want for them.
I have a question on a side issue to child protection. In your report, you mention how part 3 of the Protection of Vulnerable Groups (Scotland) Bill was removed because there were fears that it intruded too much. I recently attended a local authority committee meeting on child protection, and I also attended a follow-up meeting of professionals on the subject of one of the Edinburgh incidents. At those meetings, issues to do with the sharing of information still arose. I am not necessarily suggesting that we put back the part that we removed from the bill, but how can we ensure that people feel secure about information that is being shared?
I have been involved in child protection and child protection law for 20 years, and I am aware of the concerns about information sharing. Those concerns have usually been expressed by the medical profession, often by general practitioners. However, GPs would not have been covered by part 3 of the Protection of Vulnerable Groups (Scotland) Bill. For groups that would have been covered, there was to be a duty to share information and the thresholds were to be very low. People would have been sharing information about the lives of children all over the place. We received a strong message from children and young people that, if that was to be the case, they would not access the services. Our response was based on that message and on similar views that we heard from other agencies.
In child protection, appropriate information sharing is an issue. Some years ago, I prepared a background paper for the then Scottish Executive's child protection reform exercise. In doing so, I went through all the guidance on information sharing that was available to medical staff. The guidance was ambiguous: people were told to share information, but they were also told, "Be it on your own head if you share information inappropriately." In child protection, some information has to be shared. We could have been more supportive of the medical professionals, and we could have been clearer with them about what information had to be shared.
Part 3 of the bill did not tackle the main issue and there was a risk of serious unintended consequences. Children and young people were very concerned about that.
Commissioner, as a new MSP, I would like to say that staff in your office have been extremely helpful to me over the past year, as have you.
Thank you.
I want to ask about some of your recommendations, and my questions will relate to points that Christina McKelvie made about asylum. Some issues to do with asylum are reserved to Westminster, and you have said that your job would be easier if your remit were to be widened to give you more control over issues that are currently reserved. How could your role be enhanced? What barriers have been created by restrictions in your remit?
At the beginning of my term of office, many voices said that I had no right to speak on asylum. I was adamant that I had a right to speak on it—indeed, I felt that it was a duty.
There can be a tendency to divide children's lives into parts. When groups of children have problems, they are often multifaceted. We can take poverty as an example. Some issues relating to poverty come within the remit of the Scottish Parliament; I am thinking about the provision of services and about assistance from local authorities. However, other issues such as benefits, employment and minimum wages do not come within the remit of the Scottish Parliament.
There can be confusion when people have different roles. That has not affected me as much as it has my counterparts in Wales and Northern Ireland, because I do not have a role for individual complaints. If I had such a role, things would become more complex. I am not saying that that is a reason for my not having that role, because there are arguments for developing it. Depending on which part of the United Kingdom they are in, a commissioner might be able to take up a complaint on one issue but not on another.
The disadvantages of the fragmented approach across the UK have been mitigated by the fact that all the UK children's commissioners work very well together. That has been great, but had we not worked well together, it could have been mayhem. However, we often feel the same about issues, and we have the same agenda. We have worked together closely on asylum issues, for example. However, if we had been sending out different messages, the voices that said that I had no right to speak on asylum would have been even louder.
The focus should be on children. The devolution settlements are complex and the interface between Westminster and the devolved Governments is different in different parts of the UK. For example, in Wales juvenile justice and family law are not devolved, whereas in Scotland they are. However, we professionals should deal with any complexity and not leave it to children and families. We should not have to say, "That's not my job." That is a terrible thing to have to say to any child or person who is in distress. We should be able to deal with whole people.
I compliment you on all the work that you have done to flag up many important issues in this area of debate.
I return to the issue of child protection. About a year ago, I remember you speaking very eloquently on Mary Mulligan's point about getting sufficient adults to volunteer to help with activities. You raise some interesting issues. I am not convinced that we have got the right playing field that will enable us to take this further. The problem is very serious and because a lot of the legislation is not good, it comes in the way of adults volunteering and participating.
I would be very interested if you would consider doing an inventory, during your work, of the legislation that you feel is a hindrance rather than a help in getting more adults involved with children. It is difficult for us, as MSPs, to get the all-round picture. You must come across the problem regularly; I am sure that people in the legal profession do so as well. I would be interested in a list of legislation that is a barrier to some of the work that you do.
Sometimes the issue is not so much the legislation as the interpretation and application of it, which can be inconsistent. That is where problems often arise and cause conflict. Some of the interpretation and application might be affected by the Crerar moves towards more streamlined scrutiny.
For example, when all the agencies met to discuss our idea of having an enabling unit, which they supported, one of the women, who runs nurseries, talked about one agency coming in and saying to her, "You should have woodwork" and then another agency saying, "If we see hammers and nails in here, we'll close you down." One agency says, "You should have healthy eating and the children should be involved in preparing the food" and the other says, "No eggs, because eggs are dangerous and the children shouldn't touch the food because it's unhygienic."
People are subject to a welter of different rules and they do not know where to go, what to do, or what might cancel out something else. I spoke about that to the front-line play agencies at a conference, where I had a good session with about 30 front-line workers. I asked them, if there was one thing that I could do for them, what that would be. At that point, their answer was about the Scottish Commission for the Regulation of Care and they focused on all the different regulations, risk aversion and so on. However, when I met members of the care commission and told them what had been said, they sighed and said that one of the care commission's priorities is stimulating play, but that it is not always about the care commission's standards; sometimes, it is about the local authorities' standards. There is also an issue about how consistently inspectors interpret and apply standards locally.
Much of the discussion about legislation is around that level. I am not sure that some of the disclosure system needs primary legislation; how we operate the system is more important. However, if we start from the point at which people are having problems and find out where the obstacles are, that will be more effective than looking at the system from the top down. The messages that people at the top think they are giving are not always the messages that people are receiving further down the line. Moreover, people receive messages from so many different places that they are confused.
There is a lot at stake when it comes to child protection. In the middle of their confusion, people react defensively, which can be paralysing, and they then opt out. That is why I suggested the idea of an enabling unit, even one that lasted for only three years and was based in another organisation. We need to try to instil some confidence back into people. When I am asked how we tackle the seemingly enormous culture of fear that we have, I point out that one of the depressing—but possibly encouraging—things is that this culture of fear has developed relatively quickly. Even 10 years ago, we would not have had quite the debates that we have now. We will not change that culture overnight, but we can make some explicit commitments and take some steps to give people confidence that they will be treated fairly. We can assure them that they will be given information and that they will be supported and encouraged, instead of being left in that welter of confusion and fear.
I totally accept what you are saying. Last week's newspapers contained the story of a school sports day that had been cancelled because the playing field was not even. I am sorry, but that is going far too far. It was the most ridiculous thing that I had ever seen. The decision upset numerous parents and teachers, as well as the children concerned. That is not just about the interpretation of law; it shows a lack of common sense in considering what motivates children. I am deeply concerned that that is not just an isolated example. As with the example of the canoeist being required to be tied to a tree, the person who wrote that legislation has never been in a canoe and has probably never been up a tree either. We need to get rid of that kind of thing. Otherwise, we will not be able to do half the things that you are suggesting.
I agree with you completely, but no legislation requires that a canoeist be tied to a tree or that playing fields be level. We need to go back to what the legislation says. One example of risk aversion in children's residential units meant that children were not allowed to ride a bike unless they signed a risk assessment, wore protective gear for head, ankles and elbows and were accompanied by a member of staff carrying a first aid kit and a puncture repair kit. Now, that just would not happen. When the Scottish institute for residential child care followed that back—we commissioned SIRCC to carry out the research for us—it found that the practice was based on 1992 Strathclyde Regional Council guidance, which was in turn based on 1980s guidance for schools that had been devised for organised groups that were involved in activities such as cross-country biking. In that context, it made perfect sense to require that a risk assessment be carried out and that a member of staff have a puncture repair kit and first aid kit. Part of the climate of fear is that, when people do not have rules to apply, they take them from another context.
Similarly, in our report "Handle with Care" on the moving and handling of disabled children, we found that people were taking standards that had been developed for hospitals and applying them to home care. We highlighted the ridiculous situation in which carers who know that they can help a young person to the toilet without a hoist—this is a young person who has some mobility—are prevented from doing so by a blanket ban on lifting and handling. Often, out of sheer human kindness and compassion, carers just do away with the rule and actually help the young person. However, by doing so, the carers put themselves outside all employment protection and open themselves to disciplinary action—with which some have been threatened—if they are found out. If there is an accident, the carer is not protected.
Such practices, guidance and rules are supposedly developed to protect children, but instead they protect the institution. Some of them are supposed to protect the workers, but kind-hearted people subvert rules that are not sensible or humane and, in doing so, they make themselves vulnerable. We constantly need to ask what the agenda is behind the rules. Some of the standards were developed for nurses who are dealing with such people day in, day out in hospitals where they have all the equipment, but the standards were then being applied in the child's home. As a result, some children lose the mobility that they have because they are not allowed to use it and are put up in a hoist unnecessarily.
There are many such issues. Fear is part of it. People are fearful and lacking in confidence, and they are looking for boxes to tick so that they can say, "I ticked these boxes and I did the right thing. It's not my fault." That is not a healthy or satisfying way of approaching critical human relationships.
The issue is of concern to all committee members—we are all aware of examples of such risk-averse behaviour. I wonder whether the Education, Lifelong Learning and Culture Committee can do anything to address what you call the culture of fear; the other term is the culture of blame. You have experience of high-profile inquiries. The first thing that happens afterwards is that the finger of blame is pointed everywhere. It is not surprising that many people—for example in local government—take a defensive attitude. We need more practical suggestions. An enabling unit is a good idea, as is the idea of an enabling culture.
The Parliament could do more to produce guidance or legislation—although legislation must be proportionate, so I do not know how we would frame that one—on the way in which fatal accident inquiries and other inquiries are handled, so that people could contribute to those inquiries without feeling that they will be fingered in the media or elsewhere. That issue was being looked into, but I do not know what has happened to it. I am not sure that anonymity is the answer. The answer might be to create a different culture. What steps could the Parliament take and, in particular, what role could the committee take to address those issues?
You say that you do not think that anonymity is the answer. We did some follow-up research on adult attitudes, which we have not yet published formally. We were trying to get under the skin of the issues. We thought, "We've evidenced the problem. Let's see if we can evidence the solution." We asked focus groups to go through various scenarios and ask themselves, "What is the fear? What would help?" We asked the researchers not to mention anonymity up front. If anonymity had not been mentioned by the end, the researchers were to ask the groups whether it would help. In fact, anonymity emerged as one of the things—not the answer—that would help people feel that they were not being judged at the beginning. Standard phrases are dotted throughout the research, such as "Guilty till proven innocent" and "Devastating consequences". We suggest that anonymity would give people the confidence that they will be treated fairly. Anonymity is a complex issue—it is linked to all sorts of other things. We thought that it might be appropriate to refer the issue to the Scottish Law Commission, so that it can consider the history and so on. What does open justice mean? Why do we have it? How would anonymity impinge on it? How have things changed?
We could even have an inquiry into how we reduce the barriers and fears between children and adults, and how we give people the confidence that the issue is acknowledged and is being addressed at a high level. As I said, that is part of the added value of my office. However, I realise that I am walking a fine line on this issue. I am sometimes quoted on it in the same context as other quotations about all of these malicious children and how we have to punish them. I have to distance myself from that. If we do not take the heat out of the consequences of allegations for adults who are innocent, that other line of argument will continue to come to the fore, in which we hear people saying that if children have made false allegations they should be prosecuted for it.
That is exactly how to squash genuine abuse cases and prevent them from surfacing. Over the years, we have learned that, when children have been abused, they do not speak out about it because they feel that they would not be believed or because they have been threatened with the consequences of their not being believed. If we say that we will listen to the children but that, if we do not believe them or if the case cannot be proven, we will prosecute them for telling lies or sue them for defamation for maligning somebody's character, that will squash the real progress that we have made in helping children to speak. I would rather take the heat out of the situation by lowering the stakes for adults if the allegations that are made are untrue. Maintaining people's anonymity is one of the things that we could do to help the situation, as well as tackling the disclosure issue about how we use non-conviction information.
We instructed another small piece of research, "Toe in the Water", about disclosure systems in six or seven other countries that are mostly in Europe, but which included New Zealand. We wanted to see the state of the debate in those countries. We discovered that we are off the scale in our use of non-conviction information—we have a lot to teach other countries and could be world leaders in the field. We are ahead of the game in ways that some of those countries would like to be. Some of them are still struggling to create systems that would allow them to have checks for the criminal records of people who apply to be scout leaders, and so on.
We are way ahead in a good way; however, because we are so far ahead, we are dropping off the cliff edge. We must think about what we are doing. The research showed that none of the seven countries that it covered has evaluated the impact of its disclosure system. Are we making life safer for children? At what point do we lose the benefits and start to get into the negatives? Those are questions for us to think about.
We must hold to the principle of putting up as many barriers as we can to prevent unsuitable adults from working with children while trying to find the tipping point at which we start to put barriers in the way of innocent, well-meaning adults and create a climate of fear. We must have that debate. If we do that, we can send a message to the rest of the world, which has not yet got anywhere near where we are on this.
Has your work in this area produced evidence about the anxiety that men, in particular, face in working with children?
Absolutely. It is much worse for men. When I was working on the secondary research, I asked one man what he thought would help his situation and he said, "A gender change." Men have a fear of working with children, and that is very damaging because there are many young men who need good male role models in their lives. I have heard residential care workers say that people tend to think that there must be something about men who want to work in that area. We must address that and ensure that men feel more comfortable and supported in taking on that role. There is always a balance to be struck. We do not want to roll back from all the valuable work that we have done; we just want to find a balance and redress the situation. That is a valid point.
Thank you for your attendance at the committee. We are likely to reflect on and return to some of the issues that we have discussed—especially those concerning vulnerable groups—when we consider the secondary legislation under the Protection of Vulnerable Groups (Scotland) Act 2007 later this year. We might even want to have a session on the rights of the children of prisoners, and we will hope to engage with you at that point. I also look forward to seeing you tonight, as I understand that you will be back in the Parliament for the members' business debate on the age of leaving care.
Thanks very much. Tonight's debate is important, because one of the conclusions of the report was that there is a culture of leaving care at 16. The more people who say that that is not right, the better. I therefore thank members for tonight's debate as well.
I suspend the meeting briefly to allow a changeover of witnesses.
Meeting suspended.
On resuming—