Protection of Vulnerable Groups (Scotland) Bill: Stage 1
The next item of business is a debate on motion S2M-5338, in the name of Hugh Henry, that the Parliament agrees to the general principles of the Protection of Vulnerable Groups (Scotland) Bill.
I begin by reflecting on why vetting is undertaken. Every one of us would be appalled if children in Scotland were being taught by a sex offender or if care staff in homes for the elderly were serial violent offenders. No one in Scotland will forget the tragedy of Dunblane and the more recent horrific murders of the two little girls in Soham. In both those cases, the perpetrators had substantial access to children through work or regular volunteering activities. Both cases exposed critical deficiencies in employers' knowledge about their workers. Vetting is the means of closing off that gap.
The Protection of Vulnerable Groups (Scotland) Bill is about ensuring that, when we drop our children off at school in the mornings or when members of our family go into hospital or receive care services at home, we can be confident that the people with whom they come into contact do not have a history that indicates that they are not suitable to enjoy the trust that we place in them; confident that, if someone becomes unsuitable to work or volunteer with our loved ones, that information is passed on to and shared with the organisations with which they work or volunteer; and confident that those who are proven to be unsuitable to work with children and protected adults are prevented from doing so.
The introduction of the bill does not imply that we do not trust or value the hundreds of thousands of committed individuals who work and volunteer with children and protected adults every day. On the contrary, we know that the vast majority have their best interests at heart and play a valuable role in their care and development. However, we also know that a small number of people would do them harm if they could and would use the workplace—or the opportunity to volunteer—as a means of gaining access to their prey. The Protection of Vulnerable Groups (Scotland) Bill is about ensuring that all reasonable steps have been taken to keep such people out of the workplace, that our processes are robust and that we do not make Scotland's vulnerable groups a target.
I have not been deaf to the comments that there must be an easier way of finding a needle in a haystack than subjecting every piece of hay to microscopic analysis. A magnet would certainly do the trick if all that was required was to identify the needles, but there are three key dimensions to robust protection. First, it is necessary to identify the information—conviction and non-conviction—that is indicative of unsuitability and/or may be relevant to a particular post that involves working with vulnerable groups. Secondly, there is a need to link individual members of the workforce to specific organisations, but we must recognise that people may have more than one role—for example, someone may be a teacher and a volunteer netball coach—and may move around the sector over time. Thirdly, there must be continuous updating to remove the bureaucracy of multiple disclosures and ensure that new information is reviewed. The vetting and barring scheme is designed to offer the most streamlined and efficient way of delivering on all those dimensions.
We do not start with a blank sheet of paper. In the past decade, we have used part V of the Police Act 1997 to establish a system of vetting the workforce, which has been delivered through Disclosure Scotland since 2002, and the Protection of Children (Scotland) Act 2003 to establish a disqualified from working with children list, which went live in January 2005 and now includes 131 names, with a further 39 people under consideration for listing.
The Protection of Children (Scotland) Act 2003 was passed at the tail end of the previous session of Parliament, before dissolution in 2003. Does the minister share people's concerns that if the Protection of Vulnerable Groups (Scotland) Bill is rushed through at the tail end of this parliamentary session, it might not be as robust as it should be?
I dispute the implication that the Protection of Children (Scotland) Act 2003 is anything other than robust. In the past three and a half years or more there have been no criticisms of it and no suggestions about how it might be improved. If Fiona Hyslop has any such suggestions, we would certainly listen to them.
The fact that we are at the end of a parliamentary session is not the key point. The issue is whether this is the right thing to do. I think that the bill builds sensibly and proportionately on the strong foundations of our existing vetting and barring processes. Last year, there were 310,000 enhanced disclosure checks. The bill does not introduce vetting and barring; it strengthens the existing regimes and minimises bureaucracy, thereby providing more robust and more efficient safeguards and protections. We want parents and carers, as well as children and vulnerable adults, to be confident that the individuals who work with them are safe. The bill should make it easier for everyone—employers, employees, voluntary organisations, volunteers, parents and children—to ensure that that is the case.
I recognise that there would have been some merit in auditing the existing disclosure regimes before proceeding, but the gaps in the existing system are well known and understood. The bill implements the key recommendation of the Bichard report, which is underpinned by a solid and comprehensive analysis of the contributory factors that led to the tragic event at Soham. There seems little advantage in postponing action to address those factors when the safety of Scotland's children and protected adults is at stake and when we now have an opportunity to drive forward improvements in protection and cut bureaucracy. I am clear that we will keep the implementation and operation of the new vetting and barring scheme under close review and evaluate it at an appropriate point.
We must also ensure that Scotland does not fall behind. Westminster recently passed the Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Act 2006, which makes similar provision for England and Wales and, eventually, Northern Ireland. We cannot allow cross-border loopholes to develop, thereby making Scotland a safe haven for those who would abuse vulnerable people. The bill will ensure cross-border integration, while ensuring that Scottish ministers are accountable for the new system. We need to progress the bill now to ensure that Scottish stakeholders can help to shape cross-border elements of the new system to meet our specific needs.
The bottom line is that the bill will make a real difference. It will create, for the first time in Scotland, a list of individuals who are unsuitable to do care work with adults. Once implemented, the bill will bring an end to the excessive bureaucracy of multiple disclosure checks, which have been the subject of much criticism in the existing disclosure regime. Employees and volunteers will be able to move around the workforce and the voluntary sector with much greater ease and without the need for form filling at every turn. Employers and volunteering organisations will know that, once someone becomes a scheme member, the central barring unit has reviewed any relevant information and considers that the person is not unsuitable. They will also have the reassurance that, if new information comes to light that suggests that there is cause for concern about one of their workers, they will be notified and issued with guidance about what steps to take. The public, and parents in particular, will know that more robust procedures are in place for ensuring both that everyone who, through work, comes into contact with vulnerable friends and family does not have a history of behaviour that suggests that they are unsuitable and that the information is continually updated.
Successful implementation is the key to realising those benefits. We have engaged extensively with the full spectrum of stakeholder interests thus far and will continue to do so until implementation is complete. I know that there have been particular concerns about the possible impact of the bill on the voluntary sector. During deliberations on the Protection of Children (Scotland) Act 2003, the voluntary sector called for a single high standard of checking and safety for everyone who works with vulnerable groups, whether they are paid or unpaid and whether they are working in the voluntary, private or statutory sectors. I concur that a two-tier system is undesirable and could leave the voluntary sector vulnerable to becoming a hiding place for those who might harm vulnerable groups. That is why I fully support not differentiating the protections offered. Having said that, I recognise that particular care is required in implementing the bill's provisions in the voluntary sector, given the wide spectrum of voluntary organisations. The voluntary sector can be reassured that we have no interest in implementing a system that proves unworkable. That is why we will continue to engage closely with the sector to ensure that key concerns about implementation are addressed.
You have two minutes left, minister.
I understand that retrospective checking has caused concern in some quarters of the voluntary sector. I further understand that, at a meeting that was held by Robert Brown earlier this week, it was made clear that no decision had been reached on how retrospection might be progressed and that the issue will be subject to further comprehensive consultation in due course. It was also made clear again that a process would not be adopted that was unduly accelerated or would be likely to have an adverse impact, in financial and administrative terms, on any particular sector.
In relation to scope, it is not the case that every person who volunteers will need to be checked. The scheme is for people whose normal duties involve access to children and protected adults. I am fully committed to ensuring that the right information, guidance and training are made available to support all sectors to implement the bill successfully.
I am grateful to the Education Committee for its endorsement of parts 1 and 2 of the bill. Although I recognise its concerns about part 3 of the bill, I was disappointed that the committee felt unable to support it. Given that the focus of the provisions was children at risk of harm, I strongly supported proceeding with provisions that make explicit what is currently implicit good practice. However, I recognise the decision reached by the committee and intend to withdraw part 3 from the Protection of Vulnerable Groups (Scotland) Bill by lodging an amendment at stage 2. However, I am firmly of the view that the criticality of this area necessitates early action by a future Parliament and I hope that Parliament returns to the matter.
With the removal of part 3 at the request of the committee, I firmly believe that it is our duty to say yes to the Protection of Vulnerable Groups (Scotland) Bill, yes to a robust vetting and barring system and yes to those who need our protection most. I commend the bill to Parliament.
I move,
That the Parliament agrees to the general principles of the Protection of Vulnerable Groups (Scotland) Bill.
I am sorry that I hustled the minister along. However, this debate and the subsequent debate are both very tight. If members could shave a minute off their remarks, that would be much appreciated.
This is the latest in a number of pieces of child protection legislation that have been put before Parliament. The Scottish National Party has consistently offered constructive support, in a non-partisan way, to the Government in this complex and sensitive area, and it is in that spirit that I make my remarks.
We have heard from the minister about the background to the bill. I add that I have some concerns that the English legislation, which is similar, was not subject to the same level of scrutiny as the Scottish legislation was. That probably reflects the fact that the Scottish system is more developed in its thinking, as recognised in the Bichard report. That means that we are perhaps more up front, critical and prepared to express doubt where it exists.
The Protection of Vulnerable Groups (Scotland) Bill is a complex bill. As a member of the committee that examined the bill at stage 1, I was interested to note the spectrum of concern about this area of policy. Given that so many organisations that work to support and protect children are calling on the minister to delay or withdraw the bill, it is clear that there is a real problem. Even today, Scotland's commissioner for children and young people is saying that the minister should withdraw the bill and do further work on it. Other organisations state that it should be delayed until the Protection of Children (Scotland) Act 2003 is reviewed. They make a strong case. The minister himself said that there are gaps in the POCSA legislation, and it is clear that it is not as robust as it should be.
In the end, the decision on how to handle and manage the process of making law is a political decision. The minister would have our support if he decided to take the bold decision to withdraw the bill and make a fresh start, knowing that whoever is in charge of the Executive after the election in May will be in the same boat and will need to improve the law on the protection of vulnerable groups. Given that the commencement of much of the bill will have to be delayed while secondary legislation is drafted, withdrawing the bill would not make much difference to when the new law will take effect.
However, the SNP agrees that the proposed scheme could be a better approach to vetting and barring than the problematic POCSA regime. Many voluntary organisations support the proposed scheme, which will streamline bureaucracy and reduce the number of requests for repeat and multiple disclosure checks from small organisations. We recognise that those aspects should be progressed now.
We have a real problem in this country with the way in which we manage relationships between adults and children. We desperately need a public debate about the risks to children in our society. That debate should consider what the risks are; how we can minimise them, given that we can never eliminate them; how our society can live with risk and deal with it proportionately; and how we educate our children to assess risk. It should also consider how we make sure that everyone is equipped with common sense about how to be vigilant to risk and to take action when risk is likely to become a threat. The SNP is prepared to support such a debate, which should be held in the media and in our schools. It is also a prime candidate as a topic for our new parent forums. That debate is not about legislation but about policy and practice. Laws do not protect children—adults do.
I welcome the minister's willingness to drop part 3 of the bill and deal with the matter in future legislation on children's hearings and related matters. Again, it is policy, culture, change and practice that are important. Part 3 might have been counterproductive because it might have driven vulnerable children away from seeking advice and support. Given that the vast majority of abuse is by family and friends, we have to judge risk proportionately.
I trust that the minister has Mr McConnell's support for dropping part 3. All parties are committed to improving the provisions on people's duties and responsibilities, but the desire to create criminal offences in the area could be counterproductive because it might create a back-watching charter for professionals at the expense of children's welfare. That would turn the bill into a protection of vulnerable organisations bill. A witness who is involved in child protection told the committee in evidence that that is an alternative interpretation of the bill. None of us wants that to become the case, so the minister's approach and his willingness to drop part 3 are welcome.
I support the committee's strong view that the bill should not proceed to stage 2 until the committee is satisfied that information on the subordinate legislation has been provided. I thank the minister—and the deputy minister, in particular—for promising to provide that information. We look forward to seeing the substance of the promise. I hope that the minister appreciates that the committee must reserve judgment until we read the information.
I have some specific areas to cover. We need training, and we most definitely need clear definitions. What about 16 and 17-year-olds? How should they be covered? Vulnerable adults are in danger of becoming a Cinderella group under the legislation because of the controversy about the other aspects. That must be addressed. I am also concerned about retrospection, which is a double-edged sword. We do not want to penalise voluntary organisations, but if we do not have retrospection, we will take a risk in relation to people who are already in the system. That would call into question the system's validity.
There are questions about costs and information technology systems. The Finance Committee's criticisms are well made, but I recognise that the new, simpler vetting and barring system should reduce the number of disclosures—and particularly the number of multiple disclosures—in the long term. We should bear that in mind.
The bill is a small, technical part of child protection. It should not be treated as the key, fundamental part of child protection. It is necessary, but it is not an absolute guarantee of child safety. It provides the means to record whether somebody has a history of activity that makes it inappropriate to employ them to work with children and vulnerable adults, but it will not predict whether people with no such history who are members of the scheme will harm children in the future.
The bill is about adults' past. Our main child protection measures must be about children's present and future, which means that we must be vigilant and use common sense and that there must be support. We want adults to work enthusiastically with children, and we want a society in which relationships between adults and children are healthy, honest and positive. In that spirit, the SNP will support the general principles of the bill.
Two good speeches have been made. All members accept that children and vulnerable adults are among the most fragile members of our communities. Therefore, we have a particular duty to go the extra mile to protect them from harm. In that context, I applaud the bill's overall intentions, which are admirable.
The Parliament has already made progress in the area by passing the Joint Inspection of Children's Services and Inspection of Social Work Services (Scotland) Act 2006 and the Protection of Children (Scotland) Act 2003. However, members have differed from the Executive on the issue of taking enough time to have sufficient consultation with all relevant and legitimate interests. We prefer legislation that is based on sure and certain foundations and that will not have to be amended a few years later, although it may take a little longer to deliver. Some provisions in the Protection of Children (Scotland) Act 2003 will be superseded without evaluation or even implementation having occurred. Furthermore, much is being left to secondary legislation rather than provisions being included in the bill. We are concerned that the Executive is asking us to take a good deal on trust.
I welcome the decision by ministers not to proceed immediately with the provisions in part 3 of the bill. Of course I recognise that the importance of the issue in question is a reason to act, but it is also a reason not to rush. All parliamentarians—what I say applies to me, too—must be mindful of the example of the Gadarene swine in the Bible, whose frenzied activity was such that they made the mistake of running over a cliff. I am glad that parliamentarians and ministers may have taken note of that cautionary tale; if ministers have done so, they will not proceed in haste and repent at leisure. Ministers are right that action must be taken, but that action must be appropriate and must be taken after full professional consultation with interested parties. The information-sharing provisions will be better drafted and better received by the bodies that are charged with implementing them when those provisions are reintroduced in a later bill. A strong minister is a minister who can make necessary concessions; a weak minister cannot. The minister will not live to regret anything that he has said today. His speech will be much appreciated.
The new vetting and barring scheme is the essence of the remainder of the bill. I want to deal with three issues in that context: the scope and proportionality of the scheme; the need to keep bureaucracy under control; and the protection of voluntary bodies and charities from excessive costs.
The proposed scheme will vet more than 1 million people, or one in four of the population. The Executive thinks that around 40,000 volunteers are currently checked each year. The Scottish Council for Voluntary Organisations thinks that the new scheme will force 850,000 people to be background-checked during the phasing-in period. Recently, I was told about parents of children with special educational needs being subjected to enhanced disclosure checks simply to be allowed on to a bus to fasten their children's seat belts.
The people to be caught by the proposed scheme lie along a wide spectrum, from nurses and social workers right down to volunteers who have little unsupervised conduct with the vulnerable people with whom they work. The potential for risk differs from case to case, but the vetting and barring arrangements may end up being used identically. In order to avoid unnecessary vetting, considered improvements to the definition of "regulated work" would be welcomed. There should also be clear guidance from the Administration, and the Education Committee should be allowed to see and comment on that guidance before it is issued.
A danger of widening the net, increased bureaucracy and retrospective checking is that people may be discouraged from volunteering. However, many children depend on adult volunteers. Jeopardising things for the many must be weighed against the prospect of serious harm to the few. The clerks summed up well, in one sentence in paragraph 3 of the report on the bill, what the Education Committee thought. That paragraph states:
"Protection of children is, of course, vital, but it must not come at the expense of their welfare and their right to experience a rich and stimulating childhood."
What the Executive calls dynamic updating will allow a reduction in repeat disclosure checks while simultaneously diminishing the level of risk. I therefore accept that the bureaucratic burden should be lowered once the phasing-in is complete.
I believe that the removal of part 3 is extremely important. When ministers do the right thing, they should be congratulated even if they may have needed a bit of enlightened persuasion along the way. The new vetting and barring scheme will provide more comprehensive protection, which we support. However, we hope that every effort will be made to ensure that voluntary organisations and charities are not disproportionately disadvantaged in the process.
On the basis that ministers will act as parliamentarians of good will, paying heed to our concerns, we will support the bill. When we first met in this chamber, the First Minister said that he hoped that the opportunity for us to raise our game would be taken. I hope that that will be done in the next stage of the bill, as I believe that there is room for further improvements. What we want is not a victory, but a success.
It is one of the fundamental duties of society to protect its most vulnerable members; therefore, no one could object to a bill that genuinely sought to do that—a bill the principles of which were directed to such an end. I believe that this is such a bill. In its preamble, it talks about protecting children and certain adults from those who would harm them. It is for that fundamental reason that Liberal Democrats will support the bill today.
As other members have said, the bill is primarily a response to Sir Michael Bichard's report on the horrific murders in Soham. We should not, however, overlook the fact that it is also born of the experience of cases of the abuse of vulnerable adults, one of which infamously occurred in the area that I represent. A further motivation is a dissatisfaction with the system that has come about as a result of the Protection of Children (Scotland) Act 2003. To anyone who says that we do not need to proceed with the bill today because we have the so-called disclosure system in place, I say that we must signal our collective intent to replace it with a streamlined, less costly and less bureaucratic set of procedures that have the effect of improving child protection. Also, if we did not proceed with the bill today—if it was to fail at stage 1—we would fail to begin to introduce the protection for vulnerable adults that is clearly necessary.
That is not to say that the bill, as introduced, is all that it should be. I am afraid that we are some considerable distance from that being the case. Although I note what the minister said about the removal of part 3, I add a note of caution. Past experience of child protection and vulnerable adult cases has underlined the importance of appropriate information sharing among responsible agencies. In certain cases, information being in the hands of one agency and not finding its way to another agency has forestalled an appropriate intervention. Joint action is often required, and many tragedies have occurred when there has been a lack of co-operation between agencies. Parliament must return to the issue before too long and produce proper and appropriate guidelines for the sharing of information to ensure that we do everything to avoid a repeat of the experiences of past cases.
The bill is complex and perhaps suffers from the interweaving of the often complementary but sometimes different requirements for the protection of children and the protection of vulnerable adults. That derives from the decision not to incorporate vetting and barring into the Adult Support and Protection (Scotland) Bill. Nevertheless, even at this stage it might be worthwhile for ministers to consider separating the two sets of requirements into different parts and chapters of the bill. The purest method of the parliamentary draftsman might not necessarily produce the clearest of texts for the layman, so I offer that particular suggestion to ministers.
In the few moments I have left, I want to touch briefly on retrospection. Provisions to require retrospective checking under the Protection of Children (Scotland) Act 2003 were not commenced, partly to ensure a phasing-in period, especially for voluntary organisations. It was also to allow time for risk analysis. If, as a result of this bill, retrospective checking is to be used, I strongly suggest that the Executive pays to undertake a trial with a range of willing organisations to find the scale of any potential risk that—intuitively—must reduce the longer the period of employment or engagement in any activity. We need evidence of risk before proceeding with retrospective checking. We should introduce the principle of retrospective checking into the legislation, but let us not commence it until we are clear that there is an identifiable risk.
The principle of protection is of overriding importance. The bill is part of the Executive's welcome child protection programme. That, and the added protection for vulnerable adults, means that we must make progress today. The new vetting and barring is a welcome objective, but we have much to do to get this legislation right and I am sure that the committee will lodge several amendments, as will ministers, to ensure that the legislation will be fit for purpose and will achieve its objectives.
I welcome the opportunity to speak on behalf of the Education Committee in today's debate.
The committee grappled with the complex issues raised by the bill, and I believe that we produced a balanced report that addresses the range of concerns that were raised with us during our stage 1 inquiry. I take this opportunity to thank the many organisations that gave the committee written or oral evidence, the diligence of my committee colleagues in considering that evidence, and our excellent clerking team for its assistance in producing our stage 1 report.
As we have heard this afternoon, this is not a party-political issue. That is reflected in the stage 1 report, which was agreed unanimously and without a single division, although there were some robust debates on our recommendations. The committee was as one when we said:
"The welfare and best interests of children and young people are the Education Committee's paramount concern".
That is reflected in the time that the committee has dedicated to child protection during this parliamentary session.
The committee is also clear that child protection is only one part of safeguarding and promoting the welfare and best interests of children. As the children's commissioner, Kathleen Marshall, put it:
"Children have a right to protection, but they also have a right to develop, to access leisure and recreation and to form relationships … this is a question of risk management and proportionality."—[Official Report, Education Committee, 22 November 2006; c 3797.]
We need to ensure that we are not setting up a system of child protection that sends the wrong messages about risk and, equally important, does not paralyse people who want to do good work with children. Let us not forget that the vast majority—more than 85 per cent—of children who are abused are abused in their own home by close relatives or close family friends. Very few are abused or are at risk of abuse by those who work with children, although there are no absolute guarantees.
Of course, everyone agrees that those who present a real danger to children or vulnerable adults should be prevented from working with them. However, we must ensure that both the risk that the person represents and the situation in which the person is working are properly assessed. For example, a parent who, along with others, is helping to supervise the school disco—an infamous case during the committee's inquiry—is clearly less in a position to present a risk to children than an adult who has frequent, prolonged or physical contact with children or vulnerable adults with no other adult present, such as a teacher, care worker or doctor.
In addition to the seat belt case that Lord James mentioned, the committee heard evidence of a case where two senior pupils were denied a trip to the mainland because only a male worker was available to accompany them, and the council policy required that male staff could not be alone with the pupils, despite the fact that those staff had probably already gone through the checking system.
We also heard that some sports and arts clubs restrict membership to over-18s to avoid being caught up in the system, that parents who want to help to supervise a school trip are sometimes asked to undergo a full disclosure check and that a 14-year-old who volunteered to be minute secretary for a community council was refused because of a concern that the council would then fall within the ambit of the legislation. Clearly, many of those examples result from a wrong interpretation of the existing law, but they show what happens if public bodies and organisations take a risk-averse approach. As Fiona Hyslop mentioned, we do not want a protection of vulnerable organisations bill.
On the committee's specific concerns, we are pleased that the Executive has accepted our key recommendation that part 3 of the bill should be dropped to allow for full consultation with stakeholders. No one disputes the importance of appropriate information sharing between professions, where that is necessary to protect a child's welfare. However, an unspecified duty might result in inappropriate information sharing that might harm children's welfare. For example, a child might choose not to seek advice on sex or drugs-related issues because of the fear that the information might be passed on to the police.
I welcome the ministers' commitment to provide, ahead of stage 2, pre-consultation papers on some of the key areas of concern. Whether that will be sufficient to meet the committee's concerns will be for the committee to consider if the bill proceeds to that stage. I anticipate that we might wish to take further evidence before commencing our consideration of amendments. I also think that ministers should consider a number of issues of detail before we reach stage 2.
Although the committee spent less time considering issues surrounding the protection of vulnerable adults than it perhaps should have, a key issue is the definition of what constitutes a protected adult. At present, the bill defines such adults in relation to the receipt of services rather than in relation to protected adults themselves. I hope that the definition in the bill is consistent with the definitions in the Adult Support and Protection (Scotland) Bill, which—I agree with Euan Robson on this—might have been a more appropriate place for those provisions.
A related concern is how the bill defines what is a child and what is an adult. It seems inconsistent to have an overlap, as is currently the case. I am not convinced that there is not a case for defining a child as someone who is under 16 rather than under 18. I would welcome some clarification from the minister on the rationale for the current definition and on whether unforeseen consequences might result from changing the definition of "child" to mean someone who was under 16 rather than under 18.
I have considerable concerns about the use of non-conviction information. I doubt that anyone would object to the use of such information where there was clear evidence of a pattern of behaviour that indicated that a person presented a real risk to children. However, in some cases, when people have been wrongly accused and charged with an offence on which proceedings were not taken, because they did not have the chance formally to clear their name in court, information about the charge has still appeared in vetting information on an enhanced disclosure certificate. There must be clear opportunities for individuals to challenge such information. In my view, such provision must be included on the face of the bill.
Although there are several other definitional issues that I cannot go into because of lack of time, I will highlight the fact that we do not want the bill to deter volunteering. We must ensure that people do not avoid volunteering because they fear that a relatively minor incident in their past might be dragged up and become public knowledge. We must also ensure that those who administer voluntary schemes, such as management committee members, are not put off by the complexities of becoming involved in personal matters.
I am pleased that ministers will look carefully at the costs involved in the retrospective checking for vulnerable groups. I also hope—
You must be brief.
Briefly, ministers need to look at what is meant by working with children and vulnerable adults. We need to ensure that we do not end up with the school disco situation that was mentioned earlier.
I also hope that ministers give further consideration to whether the central registered body in Scotland can provide more assistance to voluntary organisations.
Despite the committee's concerns, I hope that the Parliament will approve the general principles of the bill at stage 1, although we may need to come back to the issue before stage 3.
We move to open debate. If members can confine their remarks to five, rather than six, minutes, that would be helpful to the management of both this and the subsequent debate.
As a member of both the Finance Committee and the Education Committee, I approached the bill with a number of significant reservations on the basis of the evidence that the Finance Committee had taken.
The Finance Committee was concerned about the number of individuals who seem likely to be captured in the vetting and barring scheme once it becomes fully operational. Although the minister compared the task to looking for a needle in a haystack, we were a bit concerned that the bill treated all the hay as needles. We also worried about the accuracy of the financial memorandum regarding the costs of implementation, the setting up of the scheme and the costs to the voluntary sector. We asked whether there was sufficient money available to ensure that the scheme could be operated effectively. In addition, we were concerned that individuals such as relatives could be put off helping out at events on a casual basis for fear that the organisation that was being helped would be breaking the law if the individuals were not covered by the scheme. We were also concerned that people would be put off volunteering.
As other members have said, the evidence to the Education Committee was contradictory. The statutory sector was extremely enthusiastic about all sections of the bill and urged the committee to proceed with them all. The trade unions—the Educational Institute of Scotland and Unison—were generally in favour, although Unison was a bit worried about provisions that meant that a malicious employer could make an allegation about the behaviour of an employee who had left that could end up being reported to the scheme.
Voluntary organisations welcomed the passporting proposals, which would mean that they were no longer required to have multiple disclosures, as under the current system, but they were concerned about the cost and whether volunteers might be deterred. However, they saw the bill as an improvement on POCSA. We must acknowledge that some of the proposals will certainly be a significant improvement on the current situation.
The commissioner for children and young people, Children in Scotland and Children 1st asked us to have the bill withdrawn. They wanted a review of POCSA and believed that the bill was a disproportionate response that would contribute to a risk-averse culture. However, we must acknowledge that those organisations did not consider the situation of vulnerable adults, as Euan Robson said. If a review were undertaken, the vulnerable adults provisions would also be lost.
As has been said, the greatest concern was about part 3. That is not because there is not support for sharing information. I say that as somebody who is from Dumfries and Galloway, where a very young girl—three-year-old Kennedy MacFarlane—was able to be murdered by a step-parent because the statutory agencies did not share information. Nobody is against sharing information, but some voluntary organisations are concerned that if they are obliged by law to share information, children and vulnerable adults who have been abused and who wish to disclose that in confidence to those organisations, could be deterred from doing so. That is why we have asked for that provision to be removed, so that we can consult on the issue. We hope that the provision might be reintroduced, possibly as part of the getting it right for every child proposals. My colleague Marilyn Livingstone might say more on that issue.
We would have liked more time, but we are where we are in the parliamentary timetable. I acknowledge that it is important that the vetting and barring system in Scotland is coherent with that south of the border, so that nobody slips through any holes between the systems in the two countries.
Guidance that is as strong as we can make it is needed on who should and should not be in the scheme, to prevent the risk-averse behaviour that Lord James Douglas-Hamilton described, whereby a council refuses to allow somebody to fasten their child's seat belt if they do not have enhanced disclosure. That is happening under current legislation, not because of the bill. We need to tighten the position to prevent silly, risk-averse behaviour by councils and other organisations.
The voluntary sector is concerned about retrospective checks. Is it possible to introduce them in secondary legislation, to allow Parliament and the committees to have another look at the provisions before they are implemented? That would allow some consultation of the voluntary sector on how and whether that could be handled. I would like ministers to consider that.
I agree with other members, including Fiona Hyslop, that we need to consider the risk-averse culture, which involves not just legislation but litigation. We cannot become a society in which children are not allowed to do anything just in case something happens. We will never be able to legislate to remove all risk, particularly as people who wish to harm children and vulnerable adults may use their children or their friends to access children. We cannot prevent everything awful that could ever happen to a child. We do not want to destroy children's quality of life by being so frightened that something might happen to them that they do not have a normal childhood. I would like the Executive to lead on something to counteract that risk-averse culture.
I echo James Douglas-Hamilton's comments. Credit must be given where credit is due and that is not simply for the speeches that have been made. All parties—not simply the political representation, but the Executive and the committee—have sought at today's stage 1 debate and throughout proceedings to work towards a solution, notwithstanding the timetable and the juncture that we are at in the political calendar. It is accepted that the issue is too important to be made into a political football, so it brings credit to the Parliament and to all involved that we attempt and desire to work out the correct solution for the people of Scotland and not simply to score party-political points.
We have to consider not simply where we will be at stage 3, but the current context, and we find ourselves in a difficult situation. In introducing the bill, the Executive seeks to balance a multitude of things. In some, there is a synergy that involves protecting youngsters. However, there is also a dichotomy because, at some stage, we reach an impasse between seeking to protect by legislating and imposing restrictions while, at the same time, seeking to maintain our society and the important aspects of volunteering that other speakers have commented on.
We are seeking to introduce laws at a time of cultural and societal change. Those changes have not only taken place over recent years, but are taking place under our feet, and they all have an impact on the legislation that we create. That is why it is important that we take time to analyse proposals that we introduce and ensure that they are appropriate and flexible. We must be prepared to take a broad view of matters.
There are great difficulties in legislating, but it is obviously important that we protect youngsters. No political party and no Government in Scotland would ever seek to leave not simply youngsters but vulnerable adults open to being preyed upon or abused, so we need to legislate. It is also important that we acknowledge that the Parliament, other legislatures and our predecessors have introduced necessary legislation as a result of appalling incidents and to try to address obvious lacunae. To some extent, the bill seeks to bring such measures together, if not achieve some consolidation. That is appropriate, as various measures have been introduced and had an effect over five or 10 years, at the same time as significant social change.
We all know about the effect of an aging society. We have debated it in the Parliament and the futures forum has reported on it. It has an effect on how we deal with youngsters and how the generations interact. Some of those matters come round perpetually; there will always be a generation coming through that questions matters and an older generation that is more sceptical.
However, there is a danger that we will go too far, which is why we must ensure that we get the balance right. If we do not get it right and impose too much through legislation, we will run into difficulties. We have to take into account the other social and cultural changes. As Fiona Hyslop and others said, we will never be able to guarantee a risk-free society. Unfortunately, we are human and our society includes people who will transgress and commit horrendous acts, so we have to ensure that we have appropriate laws. However, as Fiona Hyslop said, laws are not the fundamental problem and will not offer fundamental protection, although we must have them; the fundamental issue is the relationship between adults and the youngsters or vulnerable adults upon whom they may prey or who they may seek to abuse.
It is to the Executive's credit that it is prepared to make substantial changes to the bill. The Scottish National Party welcomes the general principles of the bill. We recognise that it is necessary and we recognise the difficulties—life is much more complicated than it used to be. We must acknowledge the importance of volunteering to our society and the importance of maintaining the relationship between the older and younger generations. It is sad that that relationship has, to some extent, broken down. Lord James Douglas-Hamilton mentioned the difficulties, about which we have all been e-mailed, with putting a seat belt on a youngster in a bus. To be frank, we did not legislate to bring that situation about, so it is clear that something is wrong. We can argue about whether that is a correct interpretation of the legislation but it reflects the society that we have created.
Volunteering is important. The problem is not simply the legislation that we have introduced. There are other factors, such as the 24/7 society, the dislocation in families and Saturday fathers. Those all have an impact, but we must ensure that any legislation that we introduce to try to protect youngsters does not make matters worse, not only for volunteers but for the relationship between generations. That is why we welcome the commitment to withdraw part 3. We think that matters can be discussed and, as the general tenor of the debate shows, we can reach a solution together.
I congratulate members of the Education Committee on the huge amount of work that they have already done on the bill, and I apologise for my impetuosity in lodging a motion to get rid of part 3 just before—rather than just after—the report was published. I hope that my apology is accepted.
I and members of my party are as keen as anyone else in Parliament that vulnerable groups receive all the protection that can properly be afforded to them, but we have been reading the evidence from across the board—particularly from organisations such as Children 1st, Children in Scotland, Scotland's commissioner for children and young people and the Law Society of Scotland. We are concerned that there is, between now and dissolution, not enough time to bring the bill to the finished state in which we would like it.
Iain Smith has already admitted that the committee should have spent more time on the part of the bill that deals with protection of vulnerable adults—we have not spent as much time on that as we should. The children's commissioner expressed the opinion that an audit of current legislation and practice must be instituted before the bill is progressed. She acknowledged that that would inevitably entail delay in the progress of the bill, but believes that such delay would be worth while in the long term in order that we can ensure that we devise a system that takes account of the risks that are posed to children and vulnerable adults, and which can respond appropriately and be implemented consistently and fairly. That is obviously what we want.
The Minister for Education and Young People himself has said that the Executive has no interest in implementing a system that would prove to be unworkable, but the fear in many quarters is that there is simply no time to produce workable legislation. In his opening speech, the minister mentioned the position of the children's commissioner, but stated quite clearly that he feels that an audit would delay progress. There is a clear difference of opinion—I am afraid that I side with the commissioner.
I expect and hope that every party in Parliament wants the bill's passage to be completed by Christmas. If we approve it at this stage, however, there will be tremendous continuous pressure to have it finished by Easter. Why cannot we wait until Christmas? It is not that long. There is no great urgency to pass the bill and I do not foresee anything dreadful happening between now and Christmas as a result of the delay. However, I can see that by passing a bill that is not fit for purpose we will deny ourselves the chance to do real good.
Does Robin Harper accept the view that was expressed to me by the voluntary sector, that it is the retrospective element of the bill that gives rise to most concern? The Executive has said that it will consult on whether, when and how the retrospective section will be implemented. Other than that, it is a matter of dealing with the same sort of numbers in an improved scheme. That is the essence of the bill.
I accept that that is one of the views that was expressed by the voluntary sector, but I repeat that the children's commissioner would like to have an audit before things go further, but I simply do not think that there is time for a thorough audit before we get to that stage.
Will parents understand the Disclosure Scotland website? What if they do not even use websites? Will having a statement put people off because they do not understand the system? I know that we need a proper system to ensure that those who wish ill on vulnerable individuals are barred from having contact with them; that will end up being quite a complicated system.
I do not believe that the bill has been properly thought through. The Executive has abandoned part 3, but everybody expects its provisions to reappear in legislation that will follow another set of Executive consultations.
The Green party is in a bind: we support the general principles of the bill but we do not want the bill to proceed further just now because we would prefer that much more time were spent on it. We will probably abstain in the vote later this afternoon.
I fully support the recommendations that arose from the Bichard inquiry. They came at the right time and cannot be classified as a knee-jerk reaction. There has been time to ponder and consider.
Politicians have a responsibility to ensure that legislation neither diminishes nor disadvantages the voluntary sector. As Kenny MacAskill rightly said, it is a question of getting the balance right.
A few years ago in Fife Council, I heard a councillor comment on changes to support for voluntary organisations. The councillor said that volunteers
"would just have to accept the changes."
The paradox that volunteers do not have to do anything did not seem to have crossed that councillor's mind.
We have to be conscious of the effects that the Protection of Vulnerable Groups (Scotland) Bill could have on people such as the people who turn up on cold winter nights to coach youngsters in myriad sports. Many of them started out as coaches or trainers because their own children were going along, so rather than simply stand on the touchlines or at the poolside, they offered to help. For many people, that offer of help has extended beyond the initial period when their own offspring were involved; I belong to an athletics club and some of the coaches are now training a second generation of youngsters, such is their love for the sport. All that work is done with never a penny piece paid nor expected.
However, all voluntary work is as vulnerable as anything to unnecessary bureaucracy. Faced with additional paperwork or costs, many of the unpaid army might well decide that it is much simpler and much less stressful just to walk away.
I welcome the minister's assurance that the Executive will work sympathetically alongside the voluntary sector to ensure that this fragile part of our society will not be damaged. Any damage could be disastrous to our country. We could not fill the gap with paid support and we would, for example, end up with less sports coaching—which would lead to more obesity—and less involvement in the arts. I appeal to the Executive to keep regulations simple to ensure that the many small voluntary groups that do so much good work bear the lightest of burdens.
I welcome the proposed relaxation on retrospective checks, but I share Fiona Hyslop's concern that that particular part of the haystack may—and I stress "may"—include some needles. However we want to describe them, I am referring to people we want to remove from the vicinity of vulnerable children.
I support Euan Robson's call for a pilot to establish the scale of risk arising from those who have worked for decades with the young, the aged and the less able. That would be a sensible solution to a major problem.
Elaine Murray expressed some of her concerns. I am concerned about the lack of robust financial information on the bill. Inevitably, with major decisions still to be made through secondary legislation, it is difficult to be precise. The Finance Committee has made the point that it was being asked to
"scrutinise the costs of legislation where significant financial information will be contained in secondary legislation."
The Finance Committee also recommended that the lead committee—the Education Committee—further probe the bill's financial consequences. I am interested to note that the Education Committee feels that sound financial information is still lacking, as are examples of how secondary legislation will impinge financially on voluntary organisations. Everybody here realises that many groups in the voluntary sector operate on a shoestring and that additional financial burdens that arise from the bill will not be welcome.
The financial memorandum estimates a turnover of £30 million in Disclosure Scotland in the first three years. That figure is based on there being 500,000 applications each year. The financial memorandum also mentions an additional cost of up to £5 million coming from various sports bodies, arts organisations and other parts of the voluntary sector. The aims of the bill are admirable, but I remain concerned about its implementation and about its cost to voluntary organisations.
There is a legal maxim that hard cases make bad laws. Essentially, we are being given a warning not to generalise from the particular and not to take one case, however appalling it might be, as the sole foundation for a whole new raft of laws and regulations that may not be just disproportionate to the real risk, but might also pose a threat to civil liberties, spawn injustices of their own and produce wholly unintended consequences. Good intentions do not always make for good laws.
The genesis of the bill lies in the horrific murders of Holly Wells and Jessica Chapman and the subsequent inquiry that Sir Michael Bichard held into the procedures for vetting and assessing the suitability of persons to work with children and vulnerable adults, whether on a professional or voluntary basis.
It is interesting to consider how divided opinion was in the both the written and oral evidence that was submitted to the Education Committee. Broadly speaking, public sector bodies—the local authorities, health boards, professional organisations of public sector employees and the police—are in favour of the proposed vetting and barring scheme. In fairness to them, by creating a more cohesive and consistent approach, the scheme may be an improvement on the system that was established under the Protection of Children (Scotland) Act 2003.
In all this, one cannot escape the feeling that a substantial measure of covering one's own back is involved. Process and procedures seem to have been given a status that they do not deserve—it seems that what matters is ticking of boxes. Couple that with the unfounded belief that all that has to be done wholly to eliminate any vestige of risk is to make the vetting and barring procedures even more elaborate and wide ranging and the question remains: what will happen if an unsuitable individual slips through the net of scrutiny? I fear that another attempt will be made, in vain, to regulate risk out of existence by way of the passage of still more laws, the establishment of further regulatory bodies and/or recruitment of additional staff.
In contrast, those who are opposed to the bill either in principle or in detail are voluntary sector organisations, which rightly raised the issue of proportionality, and others—such as the Faculty of Advocates—which questioned whether the measures will be effective. In part, that opposition came about because the Executive has left so much of the detail of the operation of the scheme to subordinate legislation that is yet to be introduced.
A truly staggering number of people are to be vetted under the measures—more than 1 million employees and volunteers. We need to compare that figure with the number of individuals who are on the present list of those who are disqualified from working with children, who number a mere 131. There are valid concerns that circulation of inaccurate so-called soft intelligence on individuals could effectively bar people, without justification, from working in a number of occupations or as volunteers. A pernicious combination of safety-first recruitment policies and no-smoke-without-fire attitudes could have that result.
I will support the bill at stage 1. I do so on the recommendation of my friend James Douglas-Hamilton and his colleagues on the Education Committee, whose consideration of the proposal was in greater detail than the consideration that I was able to bring to bear on the subject. I suspect that all of us would find it hard to forgive ourselves if we omitted to take action, or if we were to pass a law that, in hindsight, could have prevented a horrific case such as the Soham murders from taking place in the future.
That said, a wider public debate on the issues is needed. We are in the grip of something-must-be-done syndrome. Despite all the evidence that has been accumulated to the contrary since time began, we are becoming a society that has an irrational belief in the perfectibility of man and human institutions.
One minute.
I am sorry, but I have to finish.
We have to think seriously about the road down which we are going so I am encouraged that the Education Committee highlighted that concern in its report. I am also encouraged by the speeches that we have heard today. I hope that the operation of the legislation will be kept under very close review by the Executive and Parliament.
I welcome the debate—in particular the minister's agreement to withdraw part 3 of the bill. The Education Committee worked well and the minister listened. That is a good example and is an approach that we all welcome.
Members will agree that all children and young people should be protected from individuals who might harm them in any way. However, we should note that child harm and abuse are committed overwhelmingly by adults whom the child knows personally and not by strangers or providers of children's services. It is therefore pertinent to stress that, although the bill is important, we should guard against complacency and the creation of a false sense of security. One of my major concerns throughout the evidence-taking sessions in the committee has been that people will believe that we have tied up the loose ends and ensured that there can be no risk. We can never eliminate risk.
It is therefore extremely important to put resources into education. We must ensure that appropriate funding is put in place to educate children, young people and adults on how best they and our communities can play their parts in protecting vulnerable people. Resourcing of services is key and will help organisations and individuals to take a lead in training in how to be alert to identifiable risk factors, and in how to deal with, and alert services to, such issues. Such training, in conjunction with exchange of information among bodies and organisations, is crucial. I hope that the minister will tell us about the resources that will be put in place. That is a far more important way of dealing with the issue.
Scotland's commissioner for children and young people has said, rightly, that we cannot create a regime in which children and young people are not allowed to do anything. We have to be able to give young people the space in which to develop as individuals, without wrapping them up too much. However, we must also take responsibility for their protection very seriously. The way forward is not just through good and sound legislation, but through strong education.
I welcome the proposed changes to vetting and barring, which will create a system that will be less complicated than the current arrangements. The streamlining of the system, by moving from multiple disclosures to a single list, is welcome. Implications for organisations need to be addressed, such as the additional administrative costs to voluntary organisations and the possibility that potential volunteers will be less willing to volunteer if they find that an incident that happened a long time ago and which has no relevance to child protection will be disclosed to the community. We must give assurances in that regard.
There is a need for clarity about the status and treatment of 16 to 18-year-olds in the vetting and barring system, which needs to be sorted out before stage 2. I would like to mention many other issues, but I do not have time.
It is important to acknowledge that the bill has been rushed. I sympathise with Robin Harper's position: it is difficult for us to know what will happen next. We support the general principles of the bill, but I hope that consideration will be given to how best to proceed and that, by stage 2, the minister will have provided more clarity. In the long term, we might regret passing rushed legislation.
I am pleased to have the opportunity to contribute to this important debate in my roles as a relatively new member of the Education Committee and as convener of the Scottish Parliament cross-party group on survivors of childhood sexual abuse. I thank fellow committee members, the committee clerks and everyone who gave evidence to the committee, without whose support and hard work we would not have been able to have this stage 1 debate.
It is important to draw a clear distinction between the bill's provisions on vetting and barring in parts 1 and 2, and the provisions on child protection information sharing in part 3. The committee was clear that no single piece of legislation or guidance and no single change in wider social culture will guarantee the safety of our children and young people. However, we must do all we can do to ensure the safety of our children and young people—we are agreed on that—and the bill is one tool that is available to us to do that. We are all acutely aware that we must balance protection with the need to allow our children to develop and grow and to develop relationships to equip them for the future.
Parts 1 and 2 of the bill are based on the recommendations for England and Wales that resulted from the Bichard inquiry. I agree with the minister that we must ensure that no cross-border loopholes exist in the UK that could be exploited in Scotland.
It is important that we support the bill at stage 1. I ask Robin Harper and the Greens to reconsider their position, because we must do everything in our power to ensure that people who prove to be unsuitable to enjoy our trust are prevented from continuing to work with our most vulnerable people. The bill will ensure that the correct balance is struck and, importantly, will strengthen the Protection of Children (Scotland) Act 2003 by providing more efficient safeguards and protections.
I have been the convener of the cross-party group on survivors of childhood sexual abuse for six years and have worked with young children, parents and adult survivors of sexual abuse. We believe that greater public awareness and understanding are essential if we are to combat the many myths that surround the issue, which Rosemary Byrne explained well, and its impact on society. All too often, we see the long-term effects and the links with mental health problems, alcohol and drug abuse, domestic violence and homelessness. Our generation has acknowledged that abuse happens, so our generation must find a solution.
I am pleased that the minister has agreed to remove part 3 of the bill to allow further debate. I agree that we need to ensure consistency of understanding and practice, but we must also ensure that there is a safe space in which children or very vulnerable adults can disclose information. Many people within the voluntary sector fear that, without such a safe space, some victims may not seek much-needed help and support. Sometimes, information is hidden away for days, months or years because of fear, intimidation or self-blame.
We must understand and reflect on the fact that poor information sharing has been a contributory factor in several tragic child deaths. We must ensure that there is a code of practice that will help to generate consistency and understanding and which will encompass and address the concerns that relate to consent and confidentiality, to which the Education Committee convener and others have referred. We must pursue a non-statutory code of conduct at the earliest opportunity. I agree with the minister and colleagues that we need to pursue legislation on the matter as soon as possible, but that must be done following consultation and when we have achieved an understanding of the correct balance.
As I said in a debate on survivors of childhood sexual abuse, we are in the 21st century, in the first Scottish Parliament in more than 300 years, and have within our grasp the opportunity to contribute lasting legislation that will change people's lives forever. We can give a clear message to perpetrators that they can no longer hide behind or rely on the silence that they impose on their victims. I asked Robin Harper to change his mind because the bill will allow us to throw light on the shadows that those people cast on the most vulnerable people in our society: our children. The bill will allow us to move in the right direction. Please support it.
The ministers and the Education Committee deserve credit. We are in the situation of a long-distance runner who sets out far too fast in a race. If we could start again, we would deal with the issue in a more measured way. However, at least the ministers acknowledge that we are where we are and have made concessions. The committee made some good comments on the bill. It is important that we drop part 3.
I would find it helpful if the deputy minister, in winding up the debate, could elaborate a little on the comment that he made in an intervention to the effect that the retrospection element is up for grabs and that there might, in the end and after a lot of discussion, be no retrospection—or a variant of it. It is important to the voluntary sector that the issue is still genuinely up for discussion.
I agree that we legislate too much and that we try to make people good by act of Parliament, which, notoriously, cannot be done. We should try to make the bill as simple as possible; at the moment it is too elaborate and there are problems related to the policy. The emphasis on disclosure means that not enough consideration is given to the wider issues of good child protection and to having organisational policies that encourage employees to look after children well and to look out for people who may wish not to look after them well.
Concentrating on disclosure is also liable to lead to neglect of good appointment procedures. If we had a decent appointment system we would not appoint those unfortunate people in the first instance. We should not put too much emphasis on disclosure and we should resource adequately services that provide wider training and support for good youth work and for looking after adults.
We should provide good advice and not start all over again with new, free-standing and expensive organisations, which is the usual Government response. We should support the existing organisations, often at regional and local levels, which already provide good advice. For example, there is a good scheme that gives advice to sports clubs, but it is in danger of grinding to a halt through lack of money. We must fund adequately our advice-giving system, especially for small organisations, which need the most help. The public sector must try to understand the voluntary sector. It is no use having consultative meetings during the working day and being surprised that no volunteers come to them. There has to be a bit of intelligence shown on the part of the public sector—it exists, but it is a question of digging it out.
We need to audit the present and future systems to see how well they are working and to consider their defects. For example, the minister mentioned multiple disclosures. We must ensure that we do not make similar mistakes. On compliance, I am advised that only three people in Scotland are responsible for achieving compliance with the existing system. That needs to be considered, too. Although we have left too much to secondary legislation and guidance and so on, at least we will have to introduce it as quickly as possible so that people know the guidance before the legislation takes effect. That was not the case with the previous system. Furthermore, all the stakeholders must get a real opportunity to influence the guidance.
Members have raised many points about 16 to 18-year-olds and protected adults. The idea that a protected adult can be identified by the services that he or she receives is bizarre, foolish and bureaucratic. It is a question of defining terms, such as "psychological harm" and "risk".
There is also the question of workers from overseas. Section 47 tells us that we can be severely punished if we fail to tell the minister that we have changed our address. There are a lot of small issues like that. The position that we are in is not ideal, but we should go ahead and make the bill as good as possible. We should keep a careful eye on the bill and make it proportionate, so that high-risk and low-risk individuals are not all treated in the same way, which will result in foolish situations such as have already been described. It is with some reluctance that I say that we should support the bill and try to make it as good as possible.
I am pleased to contribute to this afternoon's debate, not just because of the importance of the Protection of Vulnerable Groups (Scotland) Bill, but because it allows us to touch on wider areas of interest and concern. Several, if not all, speakers, starting with the Minister for Communities and Fiona Hyslop, and including Elaine Murray and David McLetchie, have mentioned the dangers of living in a risk-averse society and the damage that we can do to our children in overprotecting them from the experiences of life. I echo Elaine Murray's point that risk is an important part of life. We must learn to live with it and to make judgments for ourselves.
I hope that there is no doubt about where I stand on the subject of overly risk-averse behaviour. I have taken every opportunity over several years to voice my frustrations at the obstacles that seem to be designed to prevent everyday, normal activity. I have four young children, and I wonder whether members are aware of how difficult it can be for my wife Claire and me to take them swimming, for example. Rules that have been introduced by swimming pools—they are rules or guidance, not laws, as they might sometimes be regarded—can insist on a ratio of one adult to one child under two, or sometimes one adult to one child under four, and one adult to two children under eight. I will let members do the maths, but the bottom line is that, unless there is a stand-alone baby pool, we often cannot get in.
As for the inappropriate use of or references to disclosure legislation, members on the Education Committee have threatened to throttle me if I mention yet again how I was almost prevented from escorting my own children safely to school because of the need for a disclosure check in order to participate in a walking bus. Our school nursery almost had no Santa this year, because we could not find someone who was disclosure checked. Of course, I was disclosure checked, but I do not have the figure for it.
Yet.
Thank you, minister.
Can we really lay all those problems and frustrations at the door of the bill? I think not. There are many factors at work in creating risk-averse behaviour. I include changes to how we approach outdoor pursuits and other activities; health and safety legislation and guidance; our increasing tendency as a society to sue for damages whenever anything goes wrong; and the blame culture. Kenny MacAskill spoke about significant changes in our society, our aging society, the interrelationship between old and young people and the role of men. All those factors are at work.
When the bill was introduced, as a couple of members mentioned earlier, it was joked that it should be renamed the protection of vulnerable organisations (Scotland) bill. The cynical view is that the rules will be used to cover people's backs rather than protect individuals. I warmly welcome the debate on the bill, and I have every sympathy with that fundamental concern. I am the first to decry the overzealous application of guidance as if it were law, and I do not want to overwrap our children in cotton wool. The crucial factor, which we should not miss in discussing the principles of the bill, is that it will hugely improve the current situation. It is an improvement on the law and the rules that are already in place.
Given the member's sensible remarks on our risk-averse society, and given that the bill will just make it even less likely that something bad could happen to a vulnerable person, what extra risk would there be in delaying the bill so that we could have a really good look at it before passing it at Christmas?
The bill offers a real improvement on the current situation. It takes us forward. We are better off with the bill, as opposed to continuing in the current situation. The bill will not add to risk-averse behaviour; it will improve on the current disclosure regime.
With or without the bill, everyone who currently works with children or who applies to do so will still have to get a disclosure check. Half the frustration with the current system is not about being checked; it is about the need for a new check for every activity that a person engages in. A person will require a disclosure check to teach in a school. They might then go to another school in a different local authority area, for which they need another check. If they volunteer with the scouts, they have to get another check. If they take members of a youth organisation out on a fishing trip, they have to get another check. The bill addresses the problem of too much bureaucracy by introducing a far more portable disclosure system. Euan Robson commented that we are replacing the Protection of Children (Scotland) Act 2003 with a
"streamlined, less costly and less bureaucratic"
protection system—a passported disclosure system.
There has been a lot of concern about the number of people who will be included in the scheme. I point out that they are already part of the system. Retrospective checking is to be introduced under the existing child protection legislation, and that is a far more onerous and burdensome system than the one that is to be introduced under the Protection of Vulnerable Groups (Scotland) Bill.
There is a strong argument for flexibility over the timescale for retrospective checking, and I believe that that is exactly what the minister has signalled the Executive's approach to be—flexible.
Volunteers and people working with children change jobs and activities—as we all do—and there is every reason to believe that many, if not most, people who work with children will have applied for their vetting and barring status within a couple of years. That will greatly reduce the need for and the burden imposed by retrospective checking.
My final point was touched on by both Iain Smith and Euan Robson. Crucially, the bill extends to vulnerable adults the protection that we already afford our children. We have done much in the Parliament to address issues of elder abuse. Much has been done through the work of the Scottish Commission for the Regulation of Care and others to improve what goes on in our care homes, but the bill is another vital measure as it extends to our vulnerable older citizens the care and protection that we expect and give to our young.
Many of the issues that have been aired this afternoon are worthy of serious attention, but they were not invented by the bill. During the committee stage, a lot of witnesses—particularly those from the voluntary sector—talked about the direction of travel. Marilyn Livingstone pointed out earlier in the debate that we are the generation that has recognised that abuse happens. It has always happened, but we are the generation that has recognised it and has created the legislative framework to enable the abuse to be tackled. Those abuse issues were not invented by the bill, they were not created by the bill and they will not be added to by the bill. Far from it: the bill represents a huge improvement on the protection regime that we currently enjoy. For that reason, I have no hesitation in recommending that we all endorse the general principles of the bill.
I hasten to add that I was not invited to be Santa Claus either.
Although, like other members, I welcome the bill, I fear that pre-election haste is in danger of undermining its honourable aims and objectives. Sadly, the circumstances leading to the introduction of the bill are not wholly dissimilar to Dunblane—legislation is often driven by tragic events. The aim of the bill is to create a balance between protecting the vulnerable and providing a well-run service.
I agree with Elaine Murray that common sense must prevail. In my experience, many adults are reluctant to volunteer because of the intrusion brought about by multiple disclosures. Accordingly, I welcome the introduction of universal disclosure that will cover a group of organisations. However, it is imperative that we do not let others like Ian Huntley slip through the net. As Iain Smith said, the welfare of our children is paramount.
The bill omits a lot of fine detail and leaves much to be decided by ministers in secondary legislation, such as timescales and legal definitions of terms such as "enhanced disclosure". There is an accountability issue. The place to decide those matters is a meeting of Parliament rather than ministerial offices.
As David McLetchie said, estimates from SCVO indicate that up to half a million new checks—double the current number—will need to be carried out each year by Disclosure Scotland, as a greater number of people will fall under its remit. It is important that sufficient resources are made available. I suggest that the £2 million that is allocated hardly seems adequate.
Nevertheless, as Euan Robson said, there is an obvious reason for change. Let us consider the record to date. In November 2006, Borders education chiefs admitted that a significant number of teachers had not undergone mandatory disclosure checks, because legislation was not in place when they took up their posts.
Does the member acknowledge that computer systems are only as good as the information that goes into them? Obviously, John Reid's experience at the Home Office and the concerns about people who have committed offences coming into the country also have implications. We need robust computer systems, but it can be the actions of individuals that make the difference rather than whether the system is in place.
I agree.
In July 2004, the Education Committee found Disclosure Scotland application delays of up to 12 weeks. In September 2002, a backlog crisis in England and Wales caused thousands of children to be sent home from school as staff were unable to work. Unvetted staff were then ordered to start work immediately while the backlog was cleared.
The system is clearly under strain. It is vital that sufficient resources and investment are introduced to prevent system meltdown.
Let us examine some of the current opinions on the measures. I refer first to the ones in favour. Local health boards are in favour of the proposals. Directors of social work are also in favour. They said:
"Improved vetting will make the scheme more cohesive".
Unison stated:
"The new system will protect the wider community and increase public confidence in the workforce."
However, others are opposed. For example, the commissioner for children and young people said that there was a lack of consultation and scrutiny. Some in the voluntary sector are critical and feel that the bill was too influenced by a heightened fear of child abuse in the community, whereas most cases of child abuse involve close family members, as was mentioned earlier. The EIS was scathing about the lack of detail, which leaves issues to be decided by ministers in secondary legislation.
Many definitions need to be enhanced. The definition of inappropriate medical treatment needs to be clarified to avoid the threat of prosecution in emergency medical situations. There needs to be greater clarity about whether 16 to 18-year-olds are classified as children or vulnerable adults.
Accordingly, we have the following reservations. There is a general fear that a tightened system will lead to unwarranted confidence in its reliability and less scrutiny during the referencing process and by the normal channels. People who work abroad outwith the European Union will not be effectively scrutinised, and even within the EU there will be problems, as has been highlighted recently. Further intrusion could discourage volunteers and financially hinder social community projects. I agree with Andrew Arbuckle that there could be a major impact on sports clubs.
There is a general concern that the bill could be being pushed through in a hurry to ensure that it reaches the statute book before Parliament is dissolved. It is important that we do not allow unscrutinised and bad legislation to pass due to parliamentary time restrictions. However, any legislation that improves the safety of Scotland's children is a good step forward. We must never allow a repetition of Soham. Accordingly, we support the bill, despite the omissions, and hope that ministers will have the foresight to make the necessary amendments at stage 2.
No one takes issue with the bill's overall objective, which is to better protect children and vulnerable adults from abuse by people who are working with them on either a paid or a voluntary basis. Similarly, there is no significant opposition to the notion that a registration scheme of the type that is recommended by the Bichard report should be established. However, the debate today and the Education Committee's consideration of the bill have raised serious concerns about the nature and shape of this Executive bill. Specifically, doubts have been raised about whether the bill is a proportionate response to the problem that it seeks to address and whether its implementation might have adverse—albeit unintended—consequences. The biggest potential downside to the bill is that it might reduce the capacity of the voluntary sector to deliver services to children and vulnerable adults by diverting resources to administering the protection system or by deterring volunteers.
To his credit, the minister has allayed some of the fears by responding with proposals for a longer timescale to phase in retrospective checking for the existing workforce. That should ease some of the burden. Incidentally, I hope that Euan Robson's interesting suggestions on how to take retrospection forward are taken on board.
Similarly, on information sharing, we believe that the minister has made the correct decision to drop part 3. Ensuring that relevant information is shared among agencies is vital if we are to avoid a repetition of some of the tragic cases that we have witnessed in recent years, when failure to share information resulted in horrific abuse and the deaths of youngsters who could and should have been afforded the protection of the relevant authorities. However, it is clear that consultation on that part of the bill has not been sufficient and that, if it were enacted in its current form, it might have a damaging effect on the welfare needs and human rights of those whom it was designed to protect. Iain Smith and Elaine Murray explained that particularly well.
Dropping part 3 and addressing the timetable for retrospective checks for the existing workforce are significant concessions. However, a question remains about whether the benefits that the proposed vetting and barring scheme that is outlined in parts 1 and 2 will bring will significantly outweigh adverse impacts. Certainly, the proposed improvements—the continuous updating of disclosure checks and an end to multiple applications—are desirable and worth having. On that basis, the SNP supports the general principles of the bill. However, we share the Education Committee's reservations, particularly its concern that so much of the guts of the bill will be left for ministers to determine in secondary legislation and codes of guidance. We agree with the committee that the bill should not proceed to stage 2 until draft regulations, guidance and codes of practice have been produced for scrutiny. I am interested to hear what the minister says on that when he sums up.
We should not rush through any legislation without adequate scrutiny just because we are coming to the end of a parliamentary session, least of all legislation on a sensitive matter. Although legislation might be important for child protection, it is not the be-all and end-all. David McLetchie spoke well about the something-must-be-done tendency that dominates the agenda. New laws will certainly do something, but will they be effective? That is the real question. To paraphrase Fiona Hyslop, bureaucratic systems do not necessarily protect children and vulnerable adults; it is people who protect other people.
Even if the bill is passed, we cannot afford to be lulled into a false sense of security. After all, even if the vetting and barring scheme works perfectly to exclude those with a history of harming vulnerable people, there will still be potential offenders who need to be detected and prevented from causing harm. I hope that the Executive and its successor will recognise that reality and ensure that policy development is not confined to legislation such as the bill but is extended to the inculcation of best practice in recruitment and workforce training to enhance the protection of vulnerable groups.
I call on Robert Brown to wind up. Minister, you have about 10 minutes.
I am obliged, Presiding Officer, although I am slightly confused by the timescale. I thought that the debate went on until 4 o'clock.
I begin by thanking the Education Committee for its careful and anxious consideration of the bill and its generous comments about the way in which the bill was approached. It has rightly been said—Fiona Hyslop touched on this at the beginning of the debate—that the bill is not party political. We are all anxious to get the bill right and to take it forward in a way that is workable and which goes with the grain of what people require.
I hope that our agreement to withdraw part 3—details of which were set out in Hugh Henry's letter to Iain Smith, convener of the Education Committee, on Thursday or Friday last week—and our undertaking to provide the policy information on which the subordinate legislation will be based will go a long way to satisfy the committee and the Parliament about the details of what we are trying to do.
Before I leave the issue of information sharing, it is important to emphasise that, as a number of members have said, it is an important issue. It is important to take the time to get it right, given that it has not been consulted on in the same way as the other parts of the bill. From that point of view, it is extremely important to go ahead with the code of guidance and the practical things that Adam Ingram mentioned in a different context at the end of his speech.
We should acknowledge—as a number of speakers have—the context in which the bill has been debated and discussed. Entirely valid issues have been raised, most of which are relevant to the bill but do not arise directly from it. Ken Macintosh made some quite good points about that and the way in which it should be approached. There are two important principles. There is the idea of risk. We want to let children have their childhood. The idea lurks at the back of people's minds that the streets outside the home are infested with dangers and with people who are ready to harm children. There is also a linked concern that too officious interference, particularly with voluntary sector bodies that provide exciting opportunities and experiences to widen minds and enhance lives, may deter volunteers from coming forward and providing such opportunities.
The Executive wants young people to have the greatest opportunities to live their lives to the full. They should be able to go white-water rafting or camping or to tramp around Scotland. The work of uniformed organisations, youth clubs, organisations that work with disadvantaged young people, care organisations and pre-school organisations, for example, is vital in providing opportunities to play, develop, grow up, innovate, lead and care, and in providing opportunities in many other areas that we also want the formal education system to cover. Our forthcoming youth work strategy, which is due to be issued in the spring following the recent consultation—to which around 3,500 responses were received—will consider the recruitment, training and retention of volunteers. It is appropriate to consider whether there are ways in which we can change the tenor of the debate and the things that stand in the way of youth organisations and others providing controlled risks and life experiences to young people, and whether we can turn around the circumstances that sometimes cloud the debate.
On behalf of the Executive, I make it absolutely clear that the health of the voluntary sector is central to our vision for Scotland. We want the voluntary sector to do more and to encourage many more people to volunteer, not least to work in the youth work sector. A key part of the role of many groups and professional stakeholders is to provide important life-enhancing activities to young people. It is also important that parents and carers can entrust their children or dependants to public, private or voluntary organisations, confident that unsuitable people who would harm them do not have access to positions of trust and care in the workforce. As Hugh Henry said in his opening speech, the bill is about protecting our children, but it is also about protecting parents, family members, friends and ourselves when adult care services are needed. It is about ensuring that people who have been proven to be unsuitable to enjoy the trust that we place in them are prevented from continuing to work in that sector.
I do not deny that a substantial part of the child abuse that takes place occurs in the home or that it is done by people whom the individuals know. Several members have mentioned that reality. However, that is not the same as saying that we should not do anything about protections in the workplace, which is what the bill is primarily about. That is the fundamental reason for progressing the bill and the proposed vetting and barring scheme.
Issues relating to proportionality, which are central to the debate, have been raised. We must get things in perspective. The proposals in the bill will build on and streamline the existing system, with which there have been issues. For example, I think that Dave Petrie talked about Disclosure Scotland delays. I hope that such matters will be of historical interest. The information that I have received is that the disclosure system now works reasonably smoothly, the timescales are quite reasonable and the difficulties that we had a year or two ago are now not prominent in the system. The issues have been tackled and, I hope, overcome. We know the costs of the current system, the updating problems and our assessment challenges, particularly with respect to non-conviction information. The bill is designed to tackle those matters, remove bureaucracy and make things easier for users. I think that everybody would admit that the changes are badly needed.
I make it clear that there will be no substantial basic change in the numbers. Currently, there are around 490,000 disclosures of all kinds annually, only half of which—around 240,000—relate to children or vulnerable adult positions that are covered by the bill. Under the new arrangements, the 240,000 full or enhanced checks will be reduced to around 60,000 a year once the system is fully implemented. A simple online update check will be used for the rest. That approach represents a great simplification of the system.
The voluntary sector has made it clear to me—most recently at the meeting on Monday, to which I referred—that although it has lower-level issues to be dealt with at stage 2, which will obviously be raised with committee members and ministers, it does not substantially disagree with the scheme, aside from on the issue of retrospective checking, to which I turn.
My colleagues and I have made it clear from the beginning that retrospective checks, along with the fees scheme and the approach to the level of bar by the central barring unit, will be fully consulted on after the bill is passed—no argument, no ifs, no buts. We have no interest in forcing implementation until the stakeholders—especially those in the diverse and dynamic voluntary sector—are comfortable with what we propose. It is true that the financial memorandum illustrates the cost and the numbers if we took, for the sake of argument, three years to implement retrospective checks. However, the financial memorandum states clearly that that is for illustrative purposes and is not a policy decision by the Executive.
Suggestions such as that which Euan Robson made will be taken on board in implementing the legislation and, if we go ahead with retrospective checking, we will work closely with the voluntary sector for however long it takes to ensure that the checking is satisfactory and effective. That is central to our position on the issue. The implementation process will be measured and purposeful. If there is one thing that I have learned—as, I am sure, have other members—it is that passing a good bill is one thing, but implementing it effectively on the ground is another. We have all been stung by that in different ways in the past.
I would like to touch on one or two of the good points that have been made in the debate. I apologise to members whose points I do not mention. We will study all the speeches that have been made in this excellent debate later. A number of examples have been given of the bizarre nature of the disclosure system—the difficulty in getting a Santa, the East Renfrewshire issue and so forth. I would not say that they do not raise substantial issues, because they do, but quite a lot of them are, according to any view, outwith what is required by the bill. That takes us back to the climate issue that I talked about at the beginning of the debate.
As one or two members have stated—most recently Andrew Arbuckle—advice is important. So far, we have tended to direct people to all the documentation that we worked with the voluntary sector to produce for the previous arrangements, but we have told them that, at the end of the day, they must make their own decisions on the matter by looking at the legislation. That is probably not the best way to approach the matter when dealing with a small parent-teacher association or similar group. We need to reconsider the role of the central registered body and others to see whether we can improve the advice arrangements that are in place, the accessibility of advice and the way in which it is given, to ensure that it works and that people can clearly and easily get information that helps them to make decisions. We must also be careful not to mislead people about the legislation.
Donald Gorrie made a key point about the need for good appointment procedures. Other members also talked about that, including Adam Ingram. We must be extremely careful that in implementing the bill—which deals with those who are unsuitable, not those who are suitable, to work with children and vulnerable adults—we make it clear that it is up to organisations to make the decisions about who they employ and how they employ them. We must make it clear that they should properly assess not just the information that is given in any disclosure arrangements, but good employment practices as well. At the end of the day, the people who make the decisions are responsible for the good health of their organisations.
The Scottish ministers are fully committed to implementing the bill in a workable way. We are prepared to consider the suitability of appropriate amendments at stage 2—I do not doubt that many such amendments will be lodged. We are prepared to consider especially whether the commencement of retrospective checks, on which consultation will take place, can be reinforced in some way, perhaps by regulation. We are happy to consider that. We are fully committed to finding workable ways of embedding the scheme so that it becomes—as it is—a beneficial addition to normal recruitment and retention practice, and we will engage fully with all the stakeholders as we go along.
I thank members for an excellent debate. I urge the Parliament to support the general principles of the Protection of Vulnerable Groups (Scotland) Bill.