Voluntary Organisations
We now move to members' business: motion S1M-156 on criminal checks for voluntary organisations. The debate will last for half an hour, so we will conclude at 17:40.
I call Andrew Wilson to open the debate, but first ask members who are not staying to leave quietly.
Motion debated,
That the Parliament recognises the invaluable work done by the broad range of voluntary organisations and calls upon the Scottish Executive to ensure that no charge be levied against voluntary organisations when they apply to have their volunteers, staff and office holders checked by the Scottish Criminal Records Office with regard to child protection.
Before I start, I wish to make a point that I would have raised as a point of order.
It was drawn to our attention earlier today that the Executive had the small-mindedness to issue a media release in advance of the debate. I have to say that that sought to undermine the spirit of the debate. The Executive issued an answer to a parliamentary question before it was even reached during oral questions. That shows a complete lack of respect for the Parliament and its procedures, and I seek your view at some point in the future, on the correctness of that approach.
I will answer the question now, as I have already seen the press release.
I want to register a little anxiety about the release at this stage. In mitigation, however, it may be that the Executive issued the release because Mr Keith Raffan's question, to which the comments were an answer, would have been the next to be called, had it not been cut out because of lack of time. I do not know what the circumstances were.
I was a little uneasy for similar reasons in the debate this morning on the concordats. I therefore want to make a general point. My colleague, Miss Boothroyd, gets extremely irritated by the United Kingdom Government's habit of issuing press releases before telling Parliament what is happening. We do not want, and I am anxious not to become, an irritated Presiding Officer. We should, therefore, watch the situation carefully. I understand that the Procedures Committee is also considering the matter. We shall leave it at that for now.
I am grateful for your remarks. However, people in the public gallery and in the
chamber should understand the situation to which I am referring. Jim Wallace issued a statement today that referred to a question from Keith Raffan on the Executive's position on charging voluntary organisations for criminal records on their staff. In the release, Jim Wallace is quoted as saying:
"I am . . . pleased to announce today that I am establishing a review group to consider charging issues and policies."
Two months ago, in a reply to a similar question from Tricia Marwick, Jim Wallace said that the Executive was
"keeping the matter under review . . . The checks are not mandatory and it will be for voluntary organisations to decide when a check is required and whether to re-imburse the individual."—[Official Report, Written Answers, 20 July 1999; Vol 1, p 106.]
One month later, in reply to a question from Donald Gorrie, Angus MacKay said:
"The intention is that the system of criminal record checks provided under part V of the Police Act 1997 should be self financing . . . we are keeping the position under review."—[Official Report, Written Answers, 2 September 1999; Vol 2, p 19.]
Now, in a press release, the Executive has said that it is to set up a review to review a situation that was already under review two times over. The situation is embarrassing and those on the Executive front bench must answer for the small- minded approach that has been taken. The Executive has shown a complete lack of grace in dealing with the issue and absolutely no respect for the parliamentary committees or for the Parliament. Ms Baillie should be completely embarrassed and I hope that she will show more grace in her summing-up remarks. We do not need a review—we need an equitable decision to be taken today and some hard answers.
Nevertheless, I thank all members who have shown the grace and decency to stay for the debate. The issue is of direct relevance to people's daily lives, as it affects the voluntary sector, which is so vital to our communities and to our society. I thank the Scottish National party, Liberal Democrat, Scottish Socialist party, Conservative and independent members who supported the motion. It is a disappointment that no member of the Labour party decided to support the motion, but we now know why that is.
If our new democracy is to work, we must all accept ideas irrespective of their source. Let us not allow narrow party divides to get in the way of taking a positive step forward. Small-minded tactics by the Executive do neither it nor the Parliament credit.
On a point of order, Presiding Officer. Could you ask the speaker to address himself to the motion, not to such side issues? This is a members' business debate. We are entitled to hear about the issues, not the background grudges that Mr Wilson appears to harbour.
I am sorry, but I cannot reply. I was busy looking at the large number of members who want to speak in the debate, rather than listening to what Mr Wilson was saying. I will not comment, but I ask the member to proceed.
We live in a cynical age. One of our country's greatest strengths is that our society is full of people who give time and energy to the service of others. I am delighted to welcome to the public gallery today people representing literally hundreds of thousands of volunteers from voluntary organisations across Scotland, including the Boys Brigade, the Girls Brigade, the Scout Association, the Guide Association, Volunteer Development Scotland, the Scottish Council for Voluntary Organisations, Children 1st, Youthlink Scotland, Fairbridge in Scotland, the Scottish Out of School Care Network, the Scottish Churches committee and Greenhills drop-in centre and Greenhills 2000 from East Kilbride.
Many other organisations supported the motion by e-mail, by telephone and by writing to my office and to those of my colleagues Lloyd Quinan and Fiona McLeod. I thank everyone for their support and advice.
The Executive has at last agreed with us that there is wide-ranging, deep and heartfelt support for the proposal. My colleagues and I wrote to the Executive in advance of today's debate as a courtesy, so that Jackie Baillie, the minister with responsibility for the voluntary sector, would be aware of exactly what we were asking for and would be able to respond in her summation. Members should have a copy of that letter. The Executive, however, appears to have abused the courtesy in an utterly graceless manner.
Moving on to the detail of the motion, I will repeat points that have been well made in other debates on voluntary organisations in the chamber. For example, research from Volunteer Development Scotland shows that over 50 per cent of our country's adult population undertakes voluntary work of some sort, which, as I understand it, is the highest incidence of giving and volunteering in the UK—the highest contribution is in Scotland. Voluntary work is an activity that contributes 10 million hours per week to the Scottish economy, which is a wonderful tribute to the people involved. People give and ask nothing in return and we should reward them, rather than place financial burdens upon them.
If I may be self-indulgent, Presiding Officer, I had years of free time from officers in my Boys Brigade company and from Duke of Edinburgh award scheme volunteers during my youth in
Wishaw in Lanarkshire. I am a product of their good work, which is probably a bad advertisement for them. I am absolutely certain that, without the help and the developmental advice that I received from those people, I would not be enjoying the life choices that I have today and, certainly, I would not be standing here today.
It is understandable that the Scottish Criminal Records Office checks were introduced—by part V of the Police Act 1997—to advance the protection of children. I do not think that any of us would dispute that. However, the key question that the Executive should address—sooner, rather than later—is why individuals and organisations working without profit and in the public interest should have to foot the bill for Government legislation. Why should a key group of people, who give so much to the inclusiveness of society, have to pay for a service that is provided free of charge to other public agencies? For example, the Boys Brigade—which is dear to my heart—has 11 full-time, paid staff and nearly 6,000 volunteers. The Scout Association—another wonderful youth organisation—has 17 full-time staff and nearly 8,000 unpaid volunteers. The Scottish Childminding Association has 6,500 members, most of whom are low paid.
We know that the checks are not mandatory from an answer to one of the many parliamentary questions that have been asked on the matter. The key point is that, although the checks are not mandatory, the costs still apply to voluntary organisations. We need clarity on that issue. As Jim Duffy of the Scout Association, who I believe is with us today, said:
"There is absolutely no statutory requirement, but the very fact that there is a system in place puts the onus onto us to use it."
Mr Wilson rightly says that SCRO checks are not mandatory. However, I am sure that he will agree with me and with more learned people, such as Lord Cullen, that those checks are a vital component in ensuring safe and secure environments in which our young people can flourish. I am sure that he will ask the Government to ensure that we do not put our children at risk by levying those charges, which the Police Act 1997 does not decree.
I am grateful to Fiona McLeod for her remarks, which deal with precisely the argument that we are putting today. What we need from the Executive is not a review of a review of a review, but a firm decision on who will be covered and who will be forced to pay the charges.
The legislation that put those checks in place is a result of the rushed nature of the circumstances. It is also a fault of the outmoded Westminster approach to legislation, but we have the chance to clear up the legislation today.
Many of us know that, under the more modern and considered legislative mechanism that the Scottish Parliament has in place, a policy and financial memorandum accompanies all bills. In that memorandum, the costs are clearly set out— not just costs to the public sector, as at Westminster, but costs to local authorities, other bodies and individuals. That process is far more inclusive, not exclusive—despite the Executive's best efforts—and would have captured the anomaly at the outset. Today, the Executive has a chance to show that the Scottish Parliament works better and in a more inclusive, together manner.
Does Mr Wilson agree that the idea of a uniform charge across the UK is a flawed concept, as, while we have the Scottish Criminal Records Office, the equivalent does not exist in England and Wales? The written answer that Angus MacKay gave to Donald Gorrie on 2 September indicated that the intention is that the SCRO checks would be self-financing. Does Mr Wilson agree that that is the way forward?
I do not think that that is the way forward. I think that I am right to say that, a month ago, that was the Government's position. I am glad that it has agreed, with good grace, to change that position, as it wants to review the situation. However, it is a matter of regret that the Government cannot come to a firm decision. It is unhelpful to voluntary organisations for the charges to be imposed on the basis that they should be self-financing.
Self-financing organisations have been mentioned. In light of the fact that several scout leaders approached me about the matter at a scout function just the weekend before Andrew lodged his motion, I undertook a little research. I contacted some acquaintances in the Territorial and Auxiliary Volunteer Reserve Association, which runs the cadets; it is one of the largest organisations in the United Kingdom. I established that that organisation, which is funded by the Government, takes care of the criminal records part of the exercise. The Government pays for those checks in its own youth organisations.
I am grateful to Mr Campbell for pointing out another germane argument—the public sector already appears to have a mechanism in place, which should be extended to the voluntary sector. In her closing remarks, perhaps Jackie Baillie could redress the somewhat questionable imbalance that was brought about by the publication of that notice. She could show some decency and admit that this is the correct way forward.
Although the associated costs are mentioned in the press release, they are still unclear and could amount to millions of pounds for hard-pressed voluntary organisations. The SCVO estimates that around 200,000 checks will be required and that the cost could be anything up to £3 million. That would be a drop in the ocean for the Government, but punitive for the voluntary organisations. Youthlink Scotland estimates that its volunteers— who are not rich people—already give around £350 per year of their own money. Those volunteers are committed to society and to their community and should be rewarded, not discouraged. Paying for the checks will create a huge fund-raising problem for organisations across the country, as they compete with one another to raise funds.
We know the issues. The Government, despite previous parliamentary questions, now appears to have changed its position. It should now go the whole way and admit that the motion is correct. Jackie Baillie should back the idea in her summing-up.
The Church of Scotland—an organisation with around 20,000 volunteers looking after more 100,000 young people—estimates that the cost to it of the initiative over five years could be £0.5 million. The Church, which is a great Scottish institution, can hardly afford to pay that sum.
Many uniformed youth organisations are represented in the public gallery today. For four of them—the Scout Association, the Guide Association, the Boys Brigade and the Girls Brigade—the cost would be some £220,000. That is a phenomenal amount for youth organisations that work to tight budgets.
I quote the words of Iain Whyte, the general secretary of the board of parish education of the Church of Scotland. He said in a letter to us:
"The government has—we believe rightly—recognised the value of volunteering"— nothing new in the press release there, Ms Baillie—
"and it would seem to us to be dangerous to put much of that at risk by imposing these costs on individuals, local churches or the national budgets of the church."
That applies to every organisation. Mr Whyte ends by saying:
"The effect would be demoralising and demotivating when much goodwill for child protection has been built up so far."
Why demoralise and demotivate? Why delay any improvement that could be made by holding a review?
Given what Mr Wilson is saying, a review seems a sensible course of action. Other issues are involved as well as cost. Does he support a review?
According to parliamentary answers, the Government has had the position under review for three months. There is no need to announce another review to review a previous review. The issues are pretty clear—the voluntary organisations have made their representations to us and to the Executive. A review is a classic stalling mechanism; anyone who knows anything about government and the civil service knows that that is the case. We have had the same experience with tuition fees. The Government could come to a decision on the basis of what it has been elected to do—to govern. We need a decision today, not a review.
I appeal to the minister for a clear, straightforward message.
Does Mr Wilson agree that there appears to be a deal of confusion in the Executive on the issue? A number of written questions have been answered by the Minister for Justice and his deputy, yet it would appear that responsibility has been shifted to the Deputy Minister for Communities with responsibility for the voluntary sector. The Minister for Justice and his deputy should be here for the debate, as they have been responsible for most of the replies to written and oral questions over the past few months.
It is a matter for regret that the Executive has shown a complete lack of respect for all the procedures and formalities of this Parliament.
Mr Keith Raffan (Mid Scotland and Fife) (LD)
rose—
Mr Raffan should try to contain himself for once in his life.
It is regrettable that the debate could not have been held in more inclusive circumstances. We might have all gathered together to examine what was before us, just as we had cross-party support—apart from the Labour party—for the motion. We might have had a more inclusive approach.
The Executive has politicised the issue by trying to pull the rug from under a parliamentary debate.
Mr Wilson acknowledges that the Executive has made it known for some time that this was a matter for review, so does he agree that he is playing politics with the voluntary sector, using this set-piece debate and interventions? Does he further agree that the Executive and the minister are dealing with the matter responsibly, by consulting the voluntary sector?
I am grateful to Cathie Craigie,
and the short answer is no.
I now come to the key questions that I would like the minister to answer. Does the Executive agree that the costs of the checks should be borne by voluntary organisations and individuals, yes or no? That is a straight question which requires a straight answer.
Does the Executive agree that we need explicit guidelines on who should be checked and when they should be checked, to protect voluntary organisations from legal proceedings that could arise from pursuit of that information, yes or no? We need to know: does the Executive agree on the exact costs and whether protection will be extended to all individuals who are classed as vulnerable?
Those are straight and obvious questions. The Executive has been elected by the electorate and is paid handsomely to make decisions on the electorate's behalf. Perhaps we can have some answers rather than reviews.
A review is not needed to find the answers. The Executive should admit that it has been wrong and that it has been graceless in the way that it has gone about things. It should show some decency and respect for the Parliament.
Members' debates belong to the member raising the subject and to the minister who replies at the end. I am afraid that only six minutes are available for everybody else who wishes to speak. That would allow 30 seconds apiece. There is no chance that that will happen, so I will call those who have not intervened so far, beginning with Karen Whitefield.
As a former officer of the Girls Brigade, I know what the issue means to the voluntary sector, and to uniformed organisations in particular.
I welcome the opportunity to be involved in what I had hoped would be a constructive debate. I share the concerns expressed by the voluntary sector about the financial impact of carrying out criminal record checks on volunteers. While I regret that such checks are necessary, we must put the safety of our children first. I am sure that we all hope that the adults who volunteer to work with our children do so for the right reasons, and it is important to recognise that the overwhelming majority does. Sadly, however, a minority of people use youth organisations to gain access to young people for more sinister purposes.
We have a responsibility to do all we can to protect our children and young adults. I am sure that we, as a Parliament, will agree that the safety of our children is paramount. Having spoken to many representatives of the voluntary sector, I know that that is a shared priority. While I recognise the many and complex difficulties that the issue presents, I firmly believe that part V of the Police Act 1997 offers us an opportunity to enhance the security of our children and to provide greater assurances to parents. In short, it offers an opportunity to improve the services offered to our young people.
Volunteers throughout Scotland enhance our lives and the lives of our young people immeasurably. Organisations such as the Girls Brigade and the scouts contribute greatly to Scotland's social cohesion. Between them those organisations have more than 10,000 officers and volunteers. They provide social, recreational and educational opportunities for some 49,000 young Scots. The confidence and skills that I gained as a member of the Girls Brigade played a significant part in my development into adulthood and played a small part in making sure that I stand here today.
The issue of criminal record checks raises many questions. It is not a matter simply of money, as Mr Wilson makes out. I welcome today's review because other questions need to be answered. Will the voluntary sector be expected to backdate criminal record checks for existing volunteers? For how long will the certificates be valid? What will be the impact on transnational exchanges? Is there a need for a statutory entitlement to access SCRO checks?
I ask the minister to review those questions, and I hope that she will address them in the review that she will chair. That review should be carried out in close consultation with all parts of the voluntary sector. We must also remember that criminal record checks are only one part of the equation; not all abusers have a criminal record. The importance of having a range of vetting procedures, including proper selection, training and supervision of volunteers, is already recognised by many parts of the voluntary sector, and should be encompassed in the minister's review.
I am confident that a review would be able to address those problems constructively, not in a manner that involved snide political point scoring. I am also confident that the Parliament and the Executive are committed to achieving the same goal: enabling the provision of safe youth services for young people throughout Scotland.
On a point of order, Presiding Officer. As members of the voluntary sector have turned up, would you consider a motion to extend the debate? That has happened in other debates.
Yes, it has happened before, but the Parliamentary Bureau is anxious that it should not become a habit. I am aware that
many members want to speak, so I am prepared to do a deal. I shall accept the motion, provided that everybody is brief.
I move,
That the debate be extended by up to 30 minutes.
The question is, that the motion be agreed to.
Motion agreed to.
I note what you say, Presiding Officer, and I shall be brief.
I raised this issue in an oral question on 1 July. I asked Jim Wallace whether he was going to implement a charging system for this check. He replied that the Executive had not considered it. I then asked whether he was aware of the costs, which I labelled. Andrew has quoted some of the organisations that would be concerned, which are only examples. I then wrote to Mr Wallace, who said that there would be a review. Although it is late in the response, I suspect that that is what we will get. I have not seen the document to which Andrew Wilson alluded today.
I have received letters and written to many organisations, including police forces. Senior police officers have said that they cannot afford to conduct checks without charging. Costs will be incurred. If checks are to be carried out, we must ask the Executive to ensure that there is adequate funding for the police to enable them to provide that service on a non-profit-making basis—they must at least break even.
A series of letters have been received. We have all been involved in youth work. I am a father of five and I am grateful for what my children have received from various organisations. We must supply security. That is fine, but when we conduct checks we must ensure—this has been mentioned in much of my correspondence—that they relate merely to proven wrongdoings, not to suspicion and rumour. There is evidence to suggest that that has not happened in some checks.
I ask the minister to ensure that in any review, that point will be researched and clarified. It is a worry that, in this age of ours, people are keen to go to law and to point the finger. Although we must scrutinise the people who put themselves forward as volunteers, we must be careful to be fair and to remember their rights.
I am grateful to Andrew for securing this debate. It carries on from where I started three months ago and I hope that it will continue.
I congratulate Mr Wilson on securing this debate and you, Presiding Officer, on agreeing to extend it. The credit for the review group should lie with the members of the voluntary sector in the public gallery; they are the ones who lobbied members of all political parties to obtain the review. I am glad that the Scottish Executive has shown sensitivity to their point of view, but the credit lies with them and with none of us. It is important to make that point in a non-partisan way to bring the debate to a higher level.
I hope that the minister, in chairing the review, will take a more independent and more liberal line than the UK Government has shown so far, especially in view of the fact that at least 90,000 staff and volunteers could be affected. That could cost at least £900,000 in initial checks and £150,000 a year thereafter. That would be a tiny amount of public expenditure, but it would be a huge burden on the voluntary sector. Mr Boateng has said that
"free checks would prove an unsustainable burden on the public purse".—[Official Report, House of Commons, Written Answers, 30 March 1999; Vol 328, c 608-9.]
They would be far more easily sustained by the public purse than they would be by the voluntary sector, and it is crucial to understand that.
We know the funding problems that the voluntary sector faces. I welcome the Scottish Executive's commitment to three-year funding, and I hope that Scottish local government will match it. Too many people in the voluntary sector are spending a lot of their time raising money rather than doing what they should be doing, what they are experienced in doing and what they were trained to do—their work as volunteers. They have to grub around for every penny to ensure that their organisation can survive.
I want to ask the minister about voluntary agencies in the drugs field, about which I have a particular concern. Many of the most experienced, valued and valuable counsellors in the drugs field are addicts in recovery, some of whom have had a brush with the law before coming into recovery. It would be a great loss to the whole field if those people were prevented from continuing their work.
I am particularly concerned about the third kind of certificate, the enhanced criminal record certificate. Following on from the point that Mr Davidson rightly raised, information from local police records, including non-conviction information, could be made available in that category of certificate. That sort of certificate applies particularly to people working with children but also to people working with vulnerable adults, so it could affect those who work in the drugs field.
I would be grateful if the minister could respond to that specific point, because I am concerned that it could affect the many people who do much good work for agencies dealing with drug problems. Miss Goldie was right to mention at question time today that that is a matter for all-party concern, as was reflected at the first meeting of the all-party committee on drug misuse last night. We cannot afford to lose valuable people and the work that they do in the drugs field.
Thank you, Presiding Officer, for extending the debate. I thank Andrew Wilson for securing this debate and I pay tribute to the Executive and to Parliament for taking seriously the contribution that is made to society by volunteering and the voluntary sector.
Having been a volunteers manager with Volunteer Development Scotland until last Christmas, I have a specific interest in contributing to the debate. I worked on an on-going pilot project called Volunteering in Practice, which was instigated to assess volunteering opportunities in general practitioners' practices, to encourage volunteer participation and to produce best practice guidelines.
Prior to engaging any volunteers, the issues of confidentiality and unsupervised access to children were of paramount importance. It was difficult to know at the outset of the project whether SCRO checks could be accessed, and the only avenues seemed to be through health boards or local authorities. The question of possible costs was very much in our minds.
We recognised the fact that SCRO checks did not have a fail-safe ability to deliver protection for children. The validity of the checks depends heavily on the information that is given by the individual in question. For example, failure to disclose a previous name or address could render a check invalid. Nor is it necessarily the case that all ex-offenders should be excluded from volunteering; their exclusion would depend on the type of offence they had committed and the type of volunteering they wanted to do.
Voluntary organisations must implement best practice. To add to what Karen Whitefield said, the recruitment and selection process, including the taking up of references prior to engagement, on-going staff and volunteer training and established supervision systems are all vital in providing a safe environment and ensuring rapid detection of any person who poses a danger.
The SCRO checks system cannot deliver guarantees on its own. Although the voluntary sector can have some relief in the knowledge that it can carry out checks, a number of concerns are posed. Interpreting information, assessing risk, securing indemnity insurance, its cost, the money required for the checks and whether the individual or the organisation pays, are all important issues.
I welcome the proposed review. Guidance is needed on when such checks should be used. Further consultation with the voluntary sector is essential to ascertain what other options may be available and what can be done to overcome the problems with the checks.
I echo other members in thanking Andrew for bringing this matter to Parliament and I thank you, Presiding Officer, for deciding to extend the debate. As a volunteer in youth clubs and drop-in cafes in my constituency I am pleased that Parliament has the chance to underline the importance of the issue. I hope that the minister will recognise the concerns of youth organisations and will fight their corner in the Executive.
I am appalled that the Government could compromise this vital component of child safety by even considering levying a tax on volunteers—and for the paltry sum of £2 million to £3 million. That figure is paltry when we hear about the number of people and the hours of work involved. Volunteers are delivering the Government's social inclusion agenda, and now they will be charged for the privilege.
Local authorities should run many of the clubs, but community education budgets are always soft targets when cuts have to be made. I enjoy my volunteering—well, maybe not toilet duty at Saturday night discos. I am sure that people we have heard from today get as much value from their volunteering as they put back into their communities but that is no excuse for introducing a charge that undermines the principle of child safety and it strains volunteers' good will. The minister and the Executive must be clear that Scotland's Parliament cherishes Scotland's volunteers and Scotland's children, even if she does not.
I welcome the debate but I am disappointed that it began to descend into slagging off along party lines. For the record, Andrew, I raised this issue in the debate on the voluntary sector and have passed on to the minister my serious concerns about the possibility of introducing charges because of the implications for the voluntary sector, particularly in less-well-off communities.
Tommy Sheridan spoke about the class war. There is no such thing as class in abuse. For someone who is a victim of abuse, it does not matter whether they are working class, middle class or upper class, it does not matter what gender they are or their racial origin, or if they are able bodied or have a disability; they are still an abuse victim. Statistics tell us that the chances are that there are several people in the chamber and the audience who have been victims of abuse or of inappropriate behaviour towards them as children.
I have a long involvement with this subject and I know that a piece of paper saying that somebody does not have a previous conviction will go only a very small way towards protecting children. We know that abusers are devious people who will find all sorts of ways of getting close to children and will spend time working with children trying to gain their confidence. We know that they are often in positions of trust—I have had to deal with people who were pillars of their communities and in other aspects of their lives would be considered fine, upstanding citizens.
We should not get carried away with this one issue in child protection. We should look genuinely at what we are going to do to protect children. The voluntary sector knows very well that protecting children is about training, recruitment, selection of volunteers and support. Many people form inappropriate relationships with children they become close to through voluntary activity or as paid professionals because there is not proper supervision and monitoring.
This issue is not a party political football to be booted around in the chamber or anywhere else— if we are serious about children's issues and child protection. I hope that Jackie Baillie will give us some answers. I hope that there will be consultation with the voluntary sector and, most of all, I hope that there will continue to be discussions with the victims of abuse, who are the people who can best say what could have been done to protect them.
Unlike Andrew Wilson, I was not in the Boys Brigade but I declare an interest, in that the guide commissioners of Scotland gave me dinner last month.
I welcome this debate and thank Andrew Wilson for raising the subject in the chamber. It has highlighted an area of profound concern for many people in Scotland—as is demonstrated by the fact that so many people have stayed. It is clear that many of us have been approached by representatives of concerned organisations. I am closely connected with the Church of Scotland, and it is in that context that I am aware of concerns.
Two issues arise. The first is that none of us can take exception to or challenge the issue of safety for young people who are involved with voluntary organisations. Everyone in the chamber agrees, as Cathy Jamieson said, that this is a matter of fundamental concern, and no responsible grouping of people would for one minute diminish the significance of the need for proper and extensive checks.
The other issue is cost. Might I suggest to the minister that, as many members have said—Mr Wilson made the point cogently—we have in Scotland an enormous reservoir of talent and good will. All those people, who are unpaid, use their own time and, in many cases, their own resources, help others, whatever form that help may take. They are numerous and the contribution they make to Scottish society is probably impossible to quantify. Theirs is a gesture of a responsible society and good will, and it is the sort of contribution that, in a healthy society such as we want in Scotland, is fundamental. It should be encouraged and in no way impeded or obstructed.
I view with grave concern the possibility that voluntary organisations will be subjected not just to considerable costs carrying out checks but, if we can take the estimates from the scouting and guiding movements as accurate, that the costs will be of a magnitude that will have a significant effect on their ability to do their excellent work.
I urge the minister to view that cost as an insurance premium that society ought to pay for the safeguards it needs. Is it unreasonable for the Government to regard that premium as an investment? There is arguably no item of public expenditure that could be better justified or more useful than underwriting and supporting what those thousands of excellent people in Scotland seek to achieve.
I am glad that a review has been announced and I urge the minister to consider with the greatest concern and care the excellent points that have been made in this debate.
I thank the Presiding Officer for extending the debate. It is pleasing to see people in the gallery for this debate. I share Cathy Jamieson's concerns and say to Andrew Wilson that in spirit we are all united on these issues, although we differ in our approach to them. Because of that, I was disappointed that Andrew took a confrontational approach. There is no doubt that Jackie Baillie's handling of this issue and her track record during
the many years she has been involved with the Labour party is second to none. I can assure anyone that her commitment is tremendous.
Once again, we have to ask where the media are. This is an important issue, but yet again they are not here.
There is no one in the press gallery because the Executive made a press statement at 3.30 this afternoon. That is why the media are not here.
That is cheap political point scoring.
Is it true or not?
I have only two minutes left. I do not agree with what Mr Quinan said.
I have experience in the voluntary sector and I understand the issues that we are discussing. I worked in west Fife villages for two years as a volunteer manager. I do not want to repeat the points that Karen and Elaine have made. I concur with them. There is a need to have a wider review, because this is not just about financial issues.
Guidance must be given. I hope that the minister will address that in her speech. Codes of practice and guidance must be given for all voluntary groups so that, for example, they know how to elicit more information from candidates. That process must be considered, so I welcome the review that the minister is proposing.
I, too, welcome this debate, albeit not the tone of some of the speeches, which is to be regretted.
This is an important subject, but we must ensure that we do not throw the baby out with the bath water in terms of the £10 charge, which falls erratically on the voluntary sector, as it impinges on only a section of it. It impinges on organisations in a variety of ways. I talked with the Scottish Youth Hostel Association, which is slightly different from the scouts or the Boys Brigade.
The SYHA has a large number of seasonal workers—students, catering staff and cleaners who stay for short periods. There are about 70 hostels in Scotland and they get about 800 people through their books in a year. The charge could therefore cost that worthy organisation about £8,000 per annum. suspect that voluntary groups will gladly shoulder the administrative burden of dealing with checks to ensure child safety, but they have already suffered from local authority cuts. Is it reasonable to ask them to shoulder the £10 charge as well? One or two million pounds is a fortune to the voluntary sector but a drop in the ocean to the Scottish Executive. Even the straitened finances within which we now operate in the public sector could deal with that.
There have been fine words about the voluntary sector, but the crunch is whether our fine words will be matched by fine action to deal with the problem.
We are not dealing with anonymous entries in bureaucratic receipt books; we are dealing with organisations that are the life-blood of this country and the life-blood of the enriching experience that we want to give our children. Those people provide children with positive alternatives, keep them off the street, out of trouble and out of harm.
Is it possible to deal with this in Scotland alone? I believe that it is. These matters are dealt with by place of address so there is no particular difficulty restricting inquiries to inquiries from Scotland. The original self-funding policy was misconceived, so there is an opportunity for the Parliament and the Executive to put that right and remove this burden from the voluntary sector and the volunteers who are the life-blood of that sector.
I am pleased to have the opportunity to highlight the value that we attach to those who work in the voluntary sector. We must encourage people to volunteer and take part in the enormous support system that the voluntary sector provides for society.
Voluntary effort is even more important in regard to children and young people. For generations, adults have complained about young people wasting their time hanging around the streets, but they do that because they have nothing else to do. Many voluntary organisations—scouts, guides, the Boys Brigade and youth cafes to name but a few—provide them with something to do. That requires a huge time commitment on the part of adults, the majority of whom are generous and well meaning.
However, those who prey on children try to join those organisations. We must protect children from them, so I support the initiative that gives voluntary organisations access to the SCRO checks that they require. I understand that that may put pressure on volunteers and voluntary organisations, so I welcome the Executive's decision to monitor the situation.
Some volunteers contribute money as well as time, and checks will not be a barrier for them, but there are others who are unwaged who look to volunteering to provide them with a focus. It also enables them to provide support for young people.
We need to consider their needs and ensure that we do not prevent them from making a contribution. I urge the minister to bear that in mind when she carries out her review.
Not being small-minded, and not lacking in grace, let me start by thanking Andrew Wilson for providing the Parliament with an opportunity to debate this important matter. I am sorry that some members are disappointed that neither Jim Wallace nor, indeed, Angus MacKay, is here before them. However, given Andrew's recent elevation to the ranks of Scotland's top 10 eligible bachelors, perhaps he will be excused from responding to debates in future.
He was 49th.
That is a shame.
Any disappointment should not lead members to question my commitment to this subject. I have not received a copy of the letter to which Andrew referred, but I will nevertheless endeavour to respond to the points that he raised. Before I do that, it might be helpful if I set out the background to the implementation of part V of the Police Act 1997.
The current system of providing access to information on the criminal records of people working with children has long been acknowledged as inadequate. While arrangements are in place to cover those who work in the public sector, the absence of checks for volunteers has been of particular concern. At the same time, it is recognised that any major expansion of the existing arrangements would require significant additional public expenditure.
Part V of the Police Act 1997 was designed to address some of the shortcomings of the current system and to expand considerably access to criminal record checks. The policy and legislation that we have inherited provide for those new checks to be self-financing, with those requesting the check paying a fee to cover the cost of producing it. However, this is a devolved matter; as such, it is appropriate for this Parliament to take a fresh look at the issue. That is the strength of the devolved settlement. I should say to Keith Raffan that I am not sure whether this is a partnership line rather than a Liberal line.
Three levels of checks are available. First, criminal conviction certificates, which are available to everyone, will show any convictions that are unspent under the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974. Secondly, criminal record certificates are for those whose occupations are exceptions to the
Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974, such as doctors and solicitors. Significantly, those certificates will show all convictions, whether spent or unspent. Last, enhanced criminal record certificates are primarily for those involved in regularly caring for, training, supervising or being in sole charge of children.
The legislation provides for the individual to pay the fee for the certificates, but there is nothing to prevent organisations from reimbursing individuals where they consider that to be appropriate. The checks will not be mandatory, and in the case of voluntary bodies it will be for them to decide when a check is required. The Scottish Executive plans to draw up guidance on the use of the checks, but that guidance would be non-statutory and bodies would still have to develop their own policies for dealing with positions in their organisation.
In Scotland, the Scottish Criminal Record Office is already well established as the vetting authority, and it will be expanded to deal with part V. On current estimates, the demand for checks could increase by as much as 10 times; a large project is under way to equip SCRO with the staff, machines and accommodation it will need. However, because it is very difficult to assess the likely demand for certificates, we plan to commission further research into that critical area. Demand will have a direct impact on the cost of issuing certificates.
I stress that we strongly support the work of volunteers and would not want the cost of checks to discourage people from volunteering to work with young people and children. The services that volunteers provide in voluntary organisations covering a wide variety of areas—including the scouts, guides and caring organisations—enhance the lives of many people.
At various stages, estimates of the costs have been made. When the legislation was being passed, the Administration of the day suggested that the cost of enhanced checks might be about £10. That figure has been used subsequently, and we have no basis at this stage to expect it to be any higher.
In "Making it work together", we made strengthening the infrastructure of the voluntary sector and volunteering a priority. We are therefore concerned about the possibility that having to pay a fee for a criminal record check could put people off volunteering and that the cost of reimbursement could put pressure on voluntary organisations' resources. For that reason—as Jim Wallace announced earlier today in his reply to Keith Raffan—we have decided to set up a review group to consider all the charging issues in detail, examine the scope for flexibility and seek positive solutions for the future. Leading figures from key voluntary organisations will be invited to join the
review team, which I will chair.
Last month, I made a strong statement to the Parliament about the voluntary sector. I emphasised that the Scottish Executive is committed to developing a new relationship with the sector. I pointed out that the sector is playing a key role in supporting a range of policies. I also said that I was strongly committed to supporting and developing volunteering as a vital example of active citizenship. I meant what I said.
Next month, I will ask the Scottish Parliament to endorse the Scottish compact, which sets out the principles that underpin the new relationship of positive partnership with the sector. One of those key principles is that, in the process of policy making, the impact of changes in policy and procedure on the voluntary sector and volunteering are considered and taken fully into account. I think that that is precisely what we have done by establishing the review group.
I am committed to working with the voluntary sector and volunteers on issues of mutual interest in a productive partnership which accurately reflects the needs of both parties. Those are not just fine words. Today's announcement of a review of charging makes it clear that the commitment is real.
There are no easy answers. Charging for criminal record checks has been considered previously. Hard choices will need to be made about priorities. However, I am confident that by working together we will find a way froward. As the minister with responsibility for the volunteering sector and chair of the review group, I am determined to find a way forward and I will carefully consider what has been said today.
The review has been welcomed by the sector. It is about partnership with the voluntary sector, which does not simply want money all the time. It wants to work towards a solution and does not want an uncosted, underdeveloped proposal. I reject the contention that Fiona McLeod made at the end of her otherwise useful speech, because I believe that the Executive does care.
I must take this opportunity to stress the importance of considering criminal record checks in context. A clear criminal record check cannot be treated as a guarantee that a person is suitable to work with children. The certificates can form only part of a thorough vetting process. Nor should a conviction automatically mean that the person is unsuitable—Keith Raffan is right on that point. This sensitive information needs to be handled carefully and we are working with representatives of the organisations that will make use of the checks.
We must use the legislation to improve the protection of vulnerable children—Cathy Jamieson is right, and that is our primary concern—but we will do so in consultation and partnership with the voluntary sector, in the spirit of the compact.
Meeting closed at 18:03.