Bichard Report
The next item of business is a statement by Peter Peacock on proposed action following publication of the Bichard report.
One of our key duties, as ministers and as parliamentarians, is to put in place provisions to protect the people who are most vulnerable in our society, whether they be children or adults at risk. Few people in this country will be able to forget the tragic events that unfolded in Soham in the summer of 2002, when two young girls were murdered by their school janitor. Following the conviction in December 2003 of Ian Huntley for those murders, Sir Michael Bichard undertook a review of the circumstances and has made 31 recommendations to improve practices. Most of those recommendations are directed at England and Wales, but some have direct implications for Scotland. Either by administrative means or by legislation, we will address all the Bichard recommendations that are applicable in Scotland.
As part of that commitment, and complementing our wider child protection reforms, I am announcing today our intention to introduce a bill in September. That bill will set out provisions to improve protection of vulnerable groups by preventing people who are unsuitable to work with them from doing so. The bill will put in place the legislative framework that will be required to deliver the new vetting and barring scheme that was recommended by Sir Michael Bichard, and it will make other necessary changes to procedures to further tighten protection measures. The provisions will not be only for those—paid or unpaid—who work with children, but for those who work with adults at risk. With Parliament's approval, the implementation programme for the new scheme will begin towards the end of 2007.
Today, I am publishing a consultation paper, "Protecting Vulnerable Groups: Scottish Vetting and Barring Scheme". The paper sets out the principles of the proposed scheme and its key features and benefits. It indicates what the legislation will include and seeks views on that and on some of the operational aspects of the scheme. Much of the detailed operation of the scheme will be contained in secondary legislation or elsewhere, and will be the subject of further extensive consultation. Copies of the consultation paper have been placed in the Scottish Parliament information centre; I believe that they are now available for members at the back of the chamber.
I was happy to give Opposition parties early sight of the consultation paper. I did so to maintain the spirit of co-operation that has hitherto been shown across the parties as we seek to build consensus about the best way to construct the improved protections that we seek.
The prime responsibility for the safe recruitment of staff into positions of responsibility rests with employers. It is primarily for them to ensure that their recruitment practices are robust and comprehensive. The systems that we have in place to check that people who are known to be unsuitable are not employed in relevant positions form just one part of safe recruitment, but they are vital. It is our job to ensure that they are as effective and comprehensive as possible. We have rigorous vetting systems in place to ensure that people who are unsuitable to work with children are not employed in our schools or in other places where there are children. We are by no means complacent and we want to make improvements wherever possible.
Since the Bichard report was published in June 2004, Scottish Executive officials, the Association of Chief Police Officers in Scotland and Disclosure Scotland have been considering the issues and how to take them forward with officials in the Home Office and the Department for Education and Skills.
A key recommendation of the Bichard report was recommendation 19, which proposed the development of a registration scheme to cover all those who work with children and vulnerable adults. Following discussions with key partners and a detailed feasibility study, which was carried out by the Department for Education and Skills, it has been agreed that a barring scheme, rather than a registration scheme, should be developed. That will mean that unsuitable people will be barred from working with children and/or adults who are at risk. Sir Michael Bichard has agreed that that will meet all the material requirements of his recommendation and he is happy to endorse that approach.
The purpose of the bill that I am announcing today will be to put in place the framework that will be required to deliver the new vetting and barring scheme, and to further improve protection of vulnerable groups. The new scheme will build on the current disclosure system, police information systems and the disqualified from working with children list. It will require amendment to the Protection of Children (Scotland) Act 2003 and part V of the Police Act 1997.
A major component of the bill will be the introduction of a list of people who are disqualified from working with adults at risk. That will afford the same protection to adults at risk as is currently available to children. It will mean moving provisions for the introduction of the list from the protection of adults (Scotland) bill, which is to be introduced to Parliament next month, to the new bill that I am announcing today. That will ensure that there is a consistent and comprehensive package of measures to aid safer recruitment of those who work with vulnerable groups. The protection of adults (Scotland) bill will contain a range of important and complementary measures to improve the care and protection of those adults who require it.
The aims of the new vetting and barring scheme are to ensure that unsuitable people do not gain access through work to children or adults at risk, and that those who become unsuitable are detected early and prevented from continuing to work, or seeking to work, with children or adults at risk.
In developing the new scheme, improvements can and will be made to tackle issues that have been of concern in the systems that we have in place. For example, there has been concern that a disclosure is current only on the day that it is issued, which is why the new arrangements will flag it up to employers if an individual's status changes.
There has been concern about individuals requiring multiple disclosures as they move jobs or take on other activities such as volunteering. The new system will remove the need for that. Concern has also been expressed that information that could be relevant when considering someone's unsuitability may be held elsewhere. We set out in the consultation paper the need for cross-referencing of registers of offenders and other lists.
There has also been concern about the difficulties that some employers have had in assessing the relevance or importance of all the information that is currently provided on an enhanced disclosure check. Under the new system, the initial decisions will be taken by a new central barring unit. That will increase the consistency of decision making both within and between disqualified lists and will reduce the range of information on which judgments are to be made by employers.
The consultation paper outlines a range of options on how the central barring unit might be governed: from within the Executive, by an Executive agency or by a non-departmental public body.
There has been concern that parents and personal employers cannot access enhanced disclosures. Our proposals will seek to allow that in a controlled way.
We seek to make the improvements in such a way as to reduce bureaucracy, reduce the burden on employers, support effective recruitment practices and ensure consistency, compatibility and connectivity across the United Kingdom, even though we might adopt slightly different approaches to some of the detail.
It is vital that, in securing protection as our first priority, we also create a climate in which people who can contribute so much and so significantly to enhancing the quality of life of children and adults at risk are not discouraged from doing so.
We are also seeking to introduce improvements to the current system as and when we can. To that end, we intend to lay regulations before Parliament that will make a number of important changes to the Police Act 1997 and the Disclosure Scotland service. Those changes will provide additional safeguards for vulnerable groups in advance of the coming into force of the vetting and barring scheme. We intend to lay the draft regulations in time to allow the changes to come into effect by 1 April this year. We will, through the regulations, implement a number of the Bichard recommendations that are not related directly to the new vetting and barring scheme, but which will further tighten current procedures.
We will implement recommendation 21 from April, which will provide that all child-care posts as defined in schedule 2 to the 2003 act and all posts involving work with adults at risk as defined in the forthcoming criminal records (Scotland) regulations will be eligible for the enhanced check.
We will define eligibility for enhanced disclosures in secondary legislation, which means that if a gap in eligibility ever appears we will be able to address it more quickly than is the case through the current arrangements. We will implement recommendation 23 by allowing Disclosure Scotland access to a range of databases to assist in verification of the identity of applicants. We will implement recommendation 31 by extending the range of organisations from which Disclosure Scotland can seek information as part of an enhanced disclosure.
Other changes that will be covered in the regulations include strengthening Scottish ministers' powers in relation to persons and bodies that apply to be registered with Disclosure Scotland for the purpose of countersigning applications. We will also introduce a new application form for Disclosure Scotland to make completion and administration easier and clearer. The new form will come into effect this summer. The regulations will increase the fee for disclosures to £20 from £13.60. That will be the first fee increase since the service was introduced in April 2002, and it is needed to cover the costs of providing the service. In England, by comparison, an enhanced disclosure costs £34. Scottish ministers will continue to cover the cost of disclosures for volunteers who work in the voluntary sector with children or adults at risk.
We are confident that the proposed new vetting and barring system will strengthen on-going protection of vulnerable people while taking account of European convention on human rights considerations. It will streamline the current system and reduce bureaucracy for users; it will better support employers in discharging their responsibilities for safe recruitment; and it will make more and relevant information available from across various sources. That will not be straightforward. This is an immensely complex area of policy; the issues are difficult and the administrative links that need to be managed and maintained are complex. We are nonetheless determined to make the necessary changes to further improve our current system to ensure that those who are unsuitable, or who become unsuitable, to work with vulnerable people are prevented from doing so. I encourage all those who have an interest to respond to the consultation on the legislative framework and to help to inform the detailed decisions that we need to take. I look forward to Parliament's support in making the necessary changes that we seek.
I thank the minister for giving Opposition members early sight of the consultation paper—I appreciate the spirit in which it was given. The Scottish National Party, as it has done continuously in the child protection agenda, will provide constructive support and, where necessary, criticism and scrutiny in Parliament to ensure that we deliver for Scotland's children. I am pleased that the minister accepts that although the bill is a vital part of the child protection agenda, it is only one part of that agenda. I urge him to pursue the wider agenda with as much vigour as he is pursuing this aspect. Perhaps he might want to reflect on the timescale for the introduction of the legislation, bearing in mind the fact that the Bichard report came out 18 months ago, and the importance of that report to the Executive's agenda.
I wish to question the minister on three specific areas. Cross-referencing, in particular, has been a key matter for criticism and concern. In practice, what difference will the central barring unit make to cross-referencing between the sex offenders list and the list of people who should not work with children? Currently, the decision about who should not work with children lies with civil servants. My understanding is that the disqualified from working with children list will still apply. Therefore, what change will there be if a small number—60-odd—are on the disqualified from working with children list and several thousand are on the sex offenders list? The consultation document says that there will not be automatic referencing or debarring. If the central barring unit decides to close the gap, how will it do so more quickly and efficiently than has happened in the past year, to reassure the public that those—
Ms Hyslop, I am sorry, but this is a question-and-answer session. You have already said that you have got three areas and you are now—
I am asking a question.
Will you stick strictly to questions, please?
The question, as the minister will acknowledge, is this: what is the relationship between the sex offenders list and the central barring unit, and what will be the difference from current governance if the same people could be making decisions?
Retrospectivity is a concern. How long will the process take? What timescales does the minister propose for retrospective checks on all those who work in relevant jobs?
People may question the difference between the list of people who are disqualified from working with children and the list of people who are disqualified from working with vulnerable adults. As both groups are vulnerable, what is the rationale for having two lists? Did the minister consider having one list for all those who work with vulnerable people, irrespective of whether they are children or adults?
I will try to pick up as many of those points as I can. I openly acknowledge that the approach that Fiona Hyslop, Kenny MacAskill and others have taken recently has been constructive and helpful; I hope that they continue in that spirit. It is important to try to secure consensus about what is right, and we have much consensus.
Fiona Hyslop asked about cross-referencing between the sex offenders register and the disqualified lists—more than one list relates to children. I clarify that we are opening up—and want—the possibility that there will be more correspondence between lists. We will require the central barring unit to be notified of all those who are on the sex offenders register, and it will be required to consider that when making a risk assessment to determine who should and should not be barred. A clear process will operate under which everybody will be referred to the central barring unit and risk assessed. Decisions will be based on that.
We propose that every disclosure certificate will show whether the person is on the sex offenders register—whether or not they are barred—so that that fact will become clear and open. We should also remember that the courts make specific decisions about who goes on the sex offenders register. In making such judgments, the courts can also make specific decisions about who goes on the barred list. The courts will be largely in charge of deciding whether putting a person on both lists is appropriate. I hope that that is a major reassurance. Even if a court were to decide to put somebody on the sex offenders register but not on the barred list, other information that will be available to the central barring unit might make it decide to put that person on the barred list. A range of provisions will secure greater correspondence between the lists and greater certainty that people who are unsuitable will be put on the barred list.
We expect the new barred list to be longer than the current list, for a variety of reasons. Names are added to the list not only by the courts, but when people are obliged to give notification under a variety of criteria, such as someone's being moved or dismissed from a job or putting a child at risk. Whenever an enhanced disclosure is sought in the future, the central barring unit will make a separate new decision, with all the information that is available to it. That will inevitably increase the number of people who are barred. For a variety of reasons, the provision will be strengthened substantially, which will reassure people.
We should remember that the sex offenders register is a tool for police forces to manage the behaviour of sex offenders and that it was designed principally for that purpose. We want to ensure that no gap exists between the people whom the register considers to be a risk to children or vulnerable adults and those whom the list considers to be such a risk.
Fiona Hyslop asked about retrospective checks. Under the present system, we are carrying out many contemporary checks. When the new system starts, we will have a substantial database of people who have been barred. The new system's wider provisions, which I have just talked about, will principally require the registration of new people who enter the workforce. We must find the right balance between that priority and retrospection.
Employment of a person who is on the barred list will not be legal, so employers will be under a duty to consider the position; that will involve retrospection. We will have to take great care to phase that and to prioritise positions. Without phasing, the volume of people who work with children would overwhelm current systems, which is why we will have to take our time. Such matters will be part of the parliamentary process and scrutiny. We have yet to decide the timescales for that, so we are keen to hear people's views. We want such checks to happen as quickly as possible, but they must be done in a way that maintains the systems.
The matters are complex. Fiona Hyslop asked why the lists of people who are disqualified from working with children and people who are disqualified from working with vulnerable adults are separate. The reason is that different criteria might be used to decide who is added to those lists. For example, there might be much more concern about individuals who want to get close to vulnerable adults in order to secure their finances, change their wills or whatever. Such concerns would not relate to children, so there might be different criteria. That said, we are acutely conscious that the fewer lists we have the better, and we are open to thinking about the best way of securing the right connections between the lists in the future. We will welcome views on that.
Eight members wish to ask questions, but there are only nine minutes left. Members should therefore ask one brief question with no preamble.
I will be brief. I thank the minister for his statement, but will the proposed legislation result in greater clarity about what each list is intended for? Will it reduce bureaucracy and, in particular, assist the voluntary sector, which may have to make multiple disclosures for sports coaches who coach many youth groups, for example?
The simple answer to both the member's questions is yes. Through consultation and in the legislation and regulations that we will propose, we are seeking absolute clarity about who should go on the lists. That is one key objective.
Secondly, we believe that the new system, which involves notifying employers of changes in the status of individuals, will remove the need for individuals constantly to seek reregistration. A teacher who has been checked through an enhanced disclosure, who becomes a scout leader, then wants to coach a separate football team and then does something with a youth choir, would not require four separate checks—only one check would be required. Any subsequent change in that individual's status would be notified proactively to employers who are known about, so the need for further checking would be removed. We see considerable opportunities for the necessary slimming down of bureaucracy.
I thank the minister for his comprehensive statement and for the consultation that he has set in motion. Will he confirm that everyone who currently works in child care in Scotland has been disclosure checked?
To the best of my knowledge, all those who should have been checked since the new system was introduced have been checked. However, the point about retrospection that Fiona Hyslop made still arises. Not everybody from 20 or 30 years ago may have been checked, although they might have been in regular employment and their employment and behaviour patterns might be well understood and known. If there are concerns about such people, mechanisms exist to address them, as I have said. In fact, the law currently requires that such people be referred to the group that considers whether to put them on the disqualified from working with children list. Many provisions are in place.
In addition, there is registration through the General Teaching Council for Scotland and other professional bodies, which sometimes strike people off their lists and prevent them from working in their professions, if that is deemed to be necessary for child protection or other reasons. Because of the range of checks that are already in place, I have no reason to believe that anybody is inappropriately working in a child care position in Scotland. That said, for the reasons that I have given, we know that we can make further improvements to the system and streamline bureaucracy, which is what we intend to do.
Does the minister agree that we live in a blame culture? I compliment him on his excellent statement, but will he underline the fact that no matter how much legislation is passed, new offenders whom no one has even thought of will always slip through the net and so we should not blame the minister or his department for any shortcomings that may occur in the future?
I am grateful for absolution in advance of any situations that may arise.
John Swinburne makes an extremely important point. We can, and are seeking to, do a huge amount to help to improve the protection systems and we are constantly refining what is done but, in the final analysis, all individuals—parents, operators of or workers in voluntary organisations, individuals in their workplaces and employers—carry a huge responsibility that we can never eliminate. We can support the decisions that people have to make when they employ people, but those decisions ultimately rest with individuals and employers, who must exercise discretion and judgment in the light of the extra information that we can give them.
John Swinburne is also right to say that one of the features of this area of work is that potentially, the first time the authorities come across an unsuitable person is at the time of their first offence. It is therefore difficult to know in advance about certain things.
That said, we are seeking through consultation to strengthen the provisions that allow the soft intelligence that the police have about people's behaviour, or potential behaviour, to inform the decisions of the central barring unit. Notwithstanding that there has been no conviction, if the police—and others—believe that information ought to be made available to the central barring unit because it might be material to barring a person, they can make that information available and that person can be barred. We are seeking to cover as many potential loopholes in the system as we can.
On the same point, I draw the minister's attention to Bichard's conclusion in paragraph 79 of the report. It acknowledges that, however important it is to make the existing systems work, none of them will be perfect. If our task in relation to offenders is—as Bichard says—
"to make it as difficult as possible for them to succeed",
does the minister agree that every bit as important as getting the legislation and the systems right is creating a culture in which children and young people have the skills, confidence and trust that they need to be able to report abuse, if it is happening, and ensure that it is made to stop? What is the Executive doing to ensure that primary schools, in particular, are playing their role in bringing about that change?
There are two points to make. I echo the first point that Patrick Harvie made. He is right to draw attention to the fact that, although we will do all that we can, we cannot do everything—the responsibility is shared with many others. The Government cannot protect everybody from every situation and every eventuality.
The point that Patrick Harvie made about giving young people the confidence and providing the systems—telephone helplines and the like—to make known their concerns is important. He also made the point—or, at least, he implied—that we must enable young people to have the confidence to move about in our communities while understanding what the risks and dangers are and not being terrified of leaving their homes to go to youth clubs, sports clubs, or whatever. We must ensure that there is not a climate of fear.
We cannot wrap our children in cotton wool; we have to expose them to the decisions that they will have to make in life and we have to help them to make those decisions confidently. A lot of work goes on in primary schools and in nursery schools to alert children to potential dangers in a way that informs and empowers them rather than frightens them.
The minister was right to mention the consensus that exists. I am sure that consensus will continue to exist in relation to improving protection of our children.
Will the minister comment on resourcing? He has mentioned that reduction of bureaucracy is a target, which is welcome. However, he will be aware of the huge backlog of work that built up when Disclosure Scotland was first established, and which has now been worked through. Can he give us clear evidence that the system will be properly resourced and that it will have a built-in and robust appeals mechanism to ensure that malicious allegations cannot be placed on an individual's record for all time, and which will allow adults to appeal against such allegations?
Yes. On the latter question, I am happy to clarify, for people who are placed on the barred list, there will be a procedure for appeals to the sheriff court if it is felt that barring is unjustifiable. Prior to that, internal procedures that the central barring unit will have to follow will ensure that it will look closely for malicious or mischievous allegations. That will be part of its consideration in deciding whether to place people on the list.
On resources, it is not our intention to set the system up but then to starve it of resources. We want it to work effectively and we will ensure that it does. Tommy Sheridan is right to point out that, in the early days of Disclosure Scotland, a backlog of work built up. We allocated extra resources to clear that backlog, which has been successfully cleared. We need to ensure that we keep that going. Resourcing is also one of the issues that we need to think about in considering how and when we will trigger retrospective checks, because those checks will have huge resource implications. That is one of the factors in which we have to find a proper balance.
My question follows Mr Sheridan's question. The minister is to be supported in trying to create a political consensus, but as well as political consensus and co-operation, interagency involvement is required. Mr Sheridan mentioned resources for Disclosure Scotland, but there will be implications for other bodies, such as the police or social work departments. Will the minister assure Parliament that additional funding will be found instead of those bodies being expected to do more work with the same resources?
I give that assurance as a minister, and collectively, because we are all working on the issue. We want to make sure that the system is adequately resourced. There is no point in setting up systems if they are not given the resources to perform properly.
We are talking not necessarily about additional work but about new ways of relating existing bits of information more effectively. There will be some additional work in the central barring unit, which will have to be resourced properly. However, we are seeking to improve current systems, to make them more effective and to make them talk to each other and link up so that there are as few loopholes and gaps in the net that we are creating as possible. A lot can be done by improving practices, but we accept that wherever we need to strengthen resources to make the system work, we will do that.