Chamber and committees

I will move the motion on behalf of Oliver Mundell.

Currently, those aged 18 to 25 who wish to apply to be removed from the children’s or adults’ list, as set out in the Protection of Vulnerable Groups (Scotland) Act 2007, can apply to do so after 10 years. Individuals who are on the lists are on there because it has been decided by ministers that it would be inappropriate for them to work with children or vulnerable adults. Reasons for referral can include engaging in child sex offences, among other things.

The regulations would lower the threshold by five years for 18 to 25-year-olds, meaning that they could apply to be removed from the children’s or adults’ list five years after being placed on it. That is concerning, because it might allow people who have been identified as harmful to children to work with children sooner as they could reoffend and then reapply to be removed from the list within five years instead of 10. That might also reduce competence in the disclosure system if the individual who was on the children’s or adults’ list has been removed.

There are also concerns about victims who might feel that the Scottish Government is favouring the perpetrator. What happens if they are living in the same community? There could also be wider issues there.

As has been discussed this morning, the sorts of offences and cases involved are too wide. That would need to be looked into further for the regulations to be approved. There are also concerns about the five-year limit and the overall justification for amending the regulations today. Moving the limit is a serious cause of concern and it should not be done, for the reasons that I have listed today and for the other reasons that members have raised.

I move,

That the Education, Children and Young People Committee recommends that the Protection of Vulnerable Groups (Scotland) Act 2007 (Applications for Removal from List and Late Representations) Amendment Regulations 2021 be annulled.—[Meghan Gallacher]

Will the minister outline the justification for amending the legislation? Where does the five-year limit originate from?

Would the introduction of the regulations make it easier for people between the ages of 18 and 25 who are identified as having harmed children being allowed to work with vulnerable groups sooner? Is there a risk in making the process more accessible?

How do you think the victims who have had such crimes committed against them would feel if someone could go through the system, be approved and be able to work with vulnerable groups sooner? There is a risk that the legislation could favour the perpetrator over the victim, in this instance.

I do not have much to add to the debate, but I will touch on one or two points that colleagues made.

I reiterate the point that I am absolutely not scaremongering. The concerns are legitimate. We need to weigh up risks and I am not convinced that the regulations would eliminate the risks that we have spoken about.

Stephanie Callaghan mentioned an assertion that it was all about serious offences. That is not what I said and I think that she has picked me up wrongly. I said that there was a wide-ranging list of offences. That is where another concern comes in. It could be something minimal or it could be something more serious. It is a matter of weighing up what would be approved and what would not be approved. We need to have more discussions about that instead of approving the legislation as is.

I want to touch on the barred list. I understand James Dornan’s point. However, as we heard earlier, 13 out of the 19 applications were successful. That shows that there is a sway in respect of applications being approved. That is okay if they have gone through robust processes, but it adds a further element of risk.

In response to the Deputy First Minister’s previous update on the scheme in June, it was noted that 25 per cent of applications to the advance payment scheme had been rejected. How will the Government continue to support survivors who struggle to access the appropriate records? Does the Deputy First Minister expect that that rate of rejection of applications will continue?

I refer members to my entry in the register of members’ interests: I am a serving councillor in North Lanarkshire.

My question relates to the one about tourism that the convener asked. I have heard concerns that the proposed licensing scheme could have a damaging impact as businesses try to recover from the pandemic. Many businesses rely on tourism at home and the tourism industry to give them a boost. What are the panel’s concerns about the timing of the legislation? What lasting impacts might it have on businesses across the sector?

I refer members to my entry in the register of members’ interests. I am a serving councillor on North Lanarkshire Council.

The debate has highlighted the need to deliver urgent improvements to ventilation facilities in our schools. Members have repeatedly raised concerns about the inadequacy of ventilation systems in public buildings, but despite those warnings, little action has been taken by the SNP Government.

The pandemic has changed how young people are educated, including how school buildings are used. Teachers and pupils need proper ventilation to help suppress the spread of the Covid-19 virus. Although the Government distributed £10 million to local authorities to improve ventilation, which is of course welcome, we have yet to see exactly what adjustments councils have made. That is despite the First Minister, Nicola Sturgeon, stating on 13 July that

“Ventilation and the implications of airborne transmission are, increasingly, key parts of our decision making.”

She also stated that she would

“keep Parliament updated on our work on ventilation.”—[Official Report, 13 July 2021; c 36.]

The minimal updates that Parliament has received from the Government outlined a delay in funding to local authorities, and the cabinet secretary even admitted that the action that Scottish councils have taken to improve ventilation in schools has been small, in the main. Such statements do not fill teachers, parents or pupils with any comfort or give them the knowledge that their schools are properly ventilated. As Oliver Mundell rightly said, the Scottish Government has failed to understand the magnitude of the issue and has shifted the responsibility on to councils, leaving them to go it alone.

I want to touch on some of the contributions to the debate. Michael Marra reminded the chamber of the risk that our young people face by not having good ventilation. The exchange between Mr Marra and the cabinet secretary regarding the adaptations that councils have made was interesting, as it suggested that the Scottish Government does not have further ideas beyond windows and CO₂ monitors. Willie Rennie outlined that the UK Government and others are looking beyond the basics for solutions, and he was right to say that we must do the same.

Pam Gosal mentioned the importance of mental health and of ensuring that our buildings are fit for purpose. Ross Greer said that better guidance would allow councils to prepare and that measures could be outlined more effectively—the Scottish Government should look into that.

Fulton MacGregor mentioned the measures that North Lanarkshire Council has taken. I welcome his willingness to look at other measures to improve educational experiences for young people and I agree that the Scottish Government must be bolder when it considers adapting school buildings.

The SNP has had every opportunity to provide members with an update on the ventilation fund roll-out to reassure parents and pupils that the issue of pupils’ safety is at the forefront of the pandemic response, which would have allowed discussions to take place before today’s debate.

Given the recent news of the new omicron variant, the Scottish Government must get a grip on this on-going issue. It is not good enough for the Government to tell the Parliament that it has tried to improve ventilation by giving councils funding when it did not follow that up by providing members of the public with confidence that a young person who attends school is learning in a safe environment.

The SNP’s failure to understand the importance of ventilation in our schools has meant delays and no real understanding of the progress that local authorities have made. Teachers, pupils and school staff deserve to be able to work and learn in a well-ventilated environment, safe in the knowledge that the Government has acted to introduce measures that will help to prevent the spread of the virus.

I urge the cabinet secretary to get a grip of the issue and to provide much-needed reassurance that our schools will be properly ventilated as we continue to navigate through the pandemic.

Before I ask my question, I refer everyone to my entry in the register of members’ interests, which states that I am a serving councillor on North Lanarkshire Council.

My question is about the relationship between retrofitting and protecting the distinctive characteristics of individual places. How do we protect the character of a community?

My second question is similar to one that Willie Coffey asked earlier. How do we involve communities to ensure that their views are represented in that regard and that there is an element of protection for them? I would like Aaron Hill to answer those questions first.

The question is about the relationship between retrofitting and protecting the distinctive characters of individual places. How can we protect the character of our communities? How can we get members of the public and those communities involved so that their views are heard and the communities that they love are protected?