Hansard

I start by reminding members that I am a current member of the PVG scheme, through the Church of Scotland.

Rehabilitation and reintegration into society for people who have committed offences in the past is a key part of creating a more just and safe society, but it must be balanced with safeguarding vulnerable people against those who might still pose a risk.

Getting that balance wrong has serious consequences. A system that is too punitive creates cycles of reoffending, because people with past convictions face obstacles to mainstream employment and are instead pushed to the periphery of society. That is still very much part of the reality here in Scotland, despite our efforts. There are no shortage of examples of more punitive systems, in which reoffending rates are even worse.

Being too lenient, however, could leave people, especially vulnerable people, at risk, so we would be failing in our duty to safeguard their wellbeing.

The disclosure system must balance those issues and set out robust procedures for when past convictions should be disclosed. Over time, the system has become pretty complicated. Its legal framework stems in large part from the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974, but since then a significant volume of further legislation and statutory instruments by the United Kingdom Parliament and then the Scottish Parliament, as well as court cases, have created new rules and schemes.

As a PVG scheme member, I certainly welcome the bill’s aim of simplifying and strengthening the system. That is not an easy task, as the Education and Skills Committee saw at stages 1 and 2. Although the committee was broadly supportive of the aims of the bill, a number of issues were raised about aspects of the current system and about proposed changes that required to be addressed.

I was not the only one to express concerns about the impact of barring under-16s from PVG membership—which Iain Gray and Jamie Greene mentioned—while still permitting them to engage in regulated work, and simultaneously making it an offence for anyone aged 16 or over to engage in regulated work without PVG membership.

Currently, several hundred under-16s are engaged in such roles, mostly on a voluntary basis. My primary concern was that organisations—often small voluntary groups—might understand the message to be that under-16s could no longer engage in such voluntary work or that, even if they were technically allowed to, the legally safest option for the organisation would be to avoid that.

Another concern that is worth noting again is that the small number of under-16s who present a risk and are barred by ministers from working with vulnerable groups could slip through the net, were the PVG scheme not to apply to them.

I appreciate the Government’s position that having under-16s in a continuously monitored scheme is disproportionate and that, in any case, they should not be engaging in regulated work without an adult present who is a PVG scheme member. I also understand that other disclosure products are available. The argument was finely balanced for me, but I am content with the Government’s commitment to monitor the impact of the changes on young people’s participation in volunteering, and to communicate clearly the other available disclosure products. I note that the introduction of the offence of engaging in regulated work without PVG membership will not apply to those young people.

I acknowledge that the literal handful of under-16s who are barred and who pose a risk should be monitored by other statutory services, thereby preventing their engaging with vulnerable groups. However, as I said at stage 1, reliance primarily on overstretched social work departments is far from perfect, particularly when individuals may move between local authorities, which is when communication between services often breaks down.

The other substantive concern that I raised at stage 1 related to the two-part test for level 2 disclosures, to be established at a later date following consultation of stakeholders. Although I appreciate the importance of such consultation, the arrangements could have left parts of the system dealing directly with balancing privacy and safeguarding, without any parliamentary scrutiny. I am pleased that the Government lodged amendments at stage 2 to address that issue by providing further provisions on how the test should be applied.

I also welcome the changes that have been introduced to address other issues that MSPs and organisations including Scottish Women’s Aid raised at stages 1 and 2.

The Scottish Greens welcome the steps to simplify and strengthen the disclosure system. We thank the bill team, the committee clerks and those who contributed evidence for working towards a set of proposals that we are happy to support.