Protection of Vulnerable Groups (Scotland) Bill: Stage 1

Speech delivered on Wed 17th Jan 2007

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.

To read the debate in full please click on the link below

Related Link:

Protection of Vulnerable Groups (Scotland) Bill: Stage 1.