Official Report 882KB pdf
Disclosure (Scotland) Act 2020 (Incidental, Supplementary and Consequential Provision) Regulations 2025 [Draft]
Disclosure (Scotland) Act 2020 (List A and B Offences) Amendment Regulations 2025 [Draft]
Regulated Roles with Children and Adults (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 2025 [Draft]
Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 (Exclusions and Exceptions) (Scotland) Amendment (No 2) Order 2025 [Draft]
Welcome back. The next item on our agenda is subordinate legislation. The committee will take evidence from the Minister for Children, Young People and The Promise, Natalie Don-Innes, and her officials, regarding several instruments related to the Disclosure (Scotland) Act 2020. The minister will also move motions to approve the instruments.
I welcome Natalie Don-Innes, who is the Minister for Children, Young People and The Promise; Gareth Wilks, who is the director of policy and engagement, and Laura Robertson, who is the deputy chief executive, both from Disclosure Scotland; and Susan Bonellie, who is a solicitor from the Scottish Government legal directorate.
I invite the minister to speak to the draft instruments.
Thank you for inviting me to give evidence to the committee on the four draft Scottish statutory instruments. I hope that the following information will be of help to committee members.
The disclosure system in Scotland comprises two broadly aligned parts—self-disclosure and state disclosure. Self-disclosure is when an individual provides information about their own criminal history, perhaps to an employer or to a regulatory body, and what they must disclose in different circumstances is set out in law. The purpose of state disclosure is to provide a means to verify those disclosures. That balances two objectives. The first objective is to ensure that relevant criminal history is disclosed, and the second is to ensure that irrelevant matters are not disclosed so that an individual who is no longer offending can move on in life.
The draft Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 (Exclusions and Exceptions) (Scotland) Amendment (No 2) Order 2025 will make modifications to the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 (Exclusions and Exceptions) (Scotland) Order 2013, which I will now refer to as “the 2013 order”. Those modifications will maintain full alignment between the state disclosure and self-disclosure rules. The amendments that will be made to the 2013 order are necessary to prevent an individual from being at risk of overdisclosing spent convictions through self-disclosure, and will ensure that state disclosure and self-disclosure work as intended, following the changes that were made to the disclosure system by the 2020 act.
The draft Disclosure (Scotland) Act 2020 (List A and B Offences) Amendment Regulations 2025 will amend schedules 1 and 2 of the Disclosure (Scotland) Act 2020 by modifying the list A and list B offence lists. List A offences include the most serious offences, such as serious violence, sexual offending and terrorist offences. List B offences contain less serious offences that still warrant disclosure. The SSI will amend those lists by adding new offences that were not in existence when the Disclosure (Scotland) Act 2020 received royal assent, by moving offences from list B—which consists of offences that are considered to be less serious—to list A, which includes the most serious offences, such as serious violence, sexual offending and terrorist offences, and adding comparable offences that are not currently in each list following a systematic review.
List A and list B offence lists were first introduced to Scotland’s disclosure regime in September 2015, in response to a 2014 United Kingdom Supreme Court ruling that was made in respect of England and Wales. Scottish ministers pre-emptively reformed the disclosure regime by ending the practice of indefinite blanket disclosure of information about spent convictions through state disclosure or self-disclosure. If an offence is not included in either list, a conviction for that offence cannot be disclosed on any level of disclosure once it is spent. However, list A offences—which are serious offences—require disclosure once they are spent. List B offences are less serious, but still warrant disclosure once they are spent. The offence lists therefore serve an important purpose in fulfilling the task of protecting vulnerable groups and safeguarding sensitive assets or information.
The draft Regulated Roles with Children and Adults (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 2025 will amend schedules 2 and 3 of the Protection of Vulnerable Groups (Scotland) Act 2007 in relation to regulated roles with children and regulated roles with adults, following extensive stakeholder engagement, which Disclosure Scotland conducted, regarding the operation of the schedules.
In practice, the schedules determine which roles require protection of vulnerable groups scheme membership. The regulations are necessary to ensure that schedules 2 and 3 are complete, correctly scoped, clear and concise in setting out which roles are regulated. One of the safeguarding reforms that was made by the Disclosure Act 1998 was the introduction of mandatory PVG scheme membership for anyone undertaking a regulated role. The mandatory PVG scheme will provide assurance that anyone undertaking a regulated role with children or adults is not unsuitable to do so.
The draft Disclosure (Scotland) Act 2020 (Incidental, Supplementary and Consequential Provision) Regulations 2025 is necessary to make various incidental, supplementary and consequential modifications to primary and secondary legislation. That will ensure that the changes that were made by the 2020 act are reflected in the disclosure regime in order to ensure that it operates effectively and efficiently.
I am happy to take questions on the draft regulations and order.
The first affirmative instrument to consider is the draft Disclosure (Scotland) Act 2020 (Incidental, Supplementary and Consequential Provision) Regulations 2025.
As there are no comments, I invite the minister to move motion S6M-16124.
Motion moved,
That the Education, Children and Young People Committee recommends that the Disclosure (Scotland) Act 2020 (Incidental, Supplementary and Consequential Provision) Regulations 2025 [draft] be approved.—[Natalie Don-Innes]
Motion agreed to.
The committee must now produce a report on the draft instrument. Are members content to delegate responsibility to me, as convener, to agree the report on behalf of the committee?
Members indicated agreement.
11:45
The next affirmative instrument to be considered is the draft Disclosure (Scotland) Act 2020 (List A and B Offences) Amendment Regulations 2025. Do members have any questions or comments on the instrument?
Members indicated disagreement.
As there are no comments, I invite the minister to move motion S6M-16125.
Motion moved,
That the Education, Children and Young People Committee recommends that the Disclosure (Scotland) Act 2020 (List A and B Offences) Amendment Regulations 2025 [draft] be approved.—[Natalie Don-Innes]
Motion agreed to.
The committee must now produce a report on the draft instrument. Are members content to delegate responsibility to me, as convener, to agree the report on behalf of the committee?
Members indicated agreement.
The next affirmative instrument to be considered is the draft Regulated Roles with Children and Adults (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 2025. Do members have any questions or comments on the instrument?
Members indicated disagreement.
As members have no comments to make, I invite the minister to move motion S6M-16126.
Motion moved,
That the Education, Children and Young People Committee recommends that the Regulated Roles with Children and Adults (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 2025 [draft] be approved.—[Natalie Don-Innes]
Motion agreed to.
The committee must now produce a report on the draft instrument. Are members content to delegate responsibility to me, as convener, to agree the report on behalf of the committee?
Members indicated agreement.
The next affirmative instrument to be considered is the draft Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 (Exclusions and Exceptions) (Scotland) Amendment (No 2) Order 2025. Do members have any questions or comments on the instrument?
Members indicated disagreement.
As there are no comments, I invite the minister to move motion S6M-16127.
Motion moved,
That the Education, Children and Young People Committee recommends that the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 (Exclusions and Exceptions) (Scotland) Amendment (No 2) Order 2025 [draft] be approved.—[Natalie Don-Innes]
Motion agreed to.
The committee must now produce a report on the draft instrument. Are members content to delegate responsibility to me, as convener, to agree the report on behalf of the committee?
Members indicated agreement.
That concludes consideration of that group of instruments.
Protection of Vulnerable Groups (Prescribed Services and Activities) (Protected Adult) (Scotland) Regulations 2025 (SSI 2025/4)
Disclosure Information (Accredited Bodies) (Scotland) Regulations 2025 (SSI 2025/5)
Fees for Scheme Membership and Disclosure Applications (Scotland) Regulations 2025 (SSI 2025/25)
The next agenda item is consideration of three instruments that are to be considered under the negative procedure.?Are members content to consider the instruments together?
I am content to consider them together, but I have a question about one of them. Is it okay to put that question now?
That is fine—on you go.
Good morning, minister and officials.
With regard to the Fees for Scheme Membership and Disclosure Applications (Scotland) Regulations 2025, I am interested in understanding the level of engagement with staff who will now pay fees for their membership of the scheme. What is the minister’s understanding of whether those fees should be passed on to individual staff to pay themselves, or whether organisations should be looking to cover them? Does the minister think that staff should have to pay the fee themselves?
The member will be aware, in terms of the consultation, that the Scottish Government will continue to fund PVG scheme membership for volunteers in qualifying voluntary organisations, and has chosen to retain fees at their current level.
On engagement with staff members, I am more than happy to bring officials in to go into some of the engagement that has taken place. As I alluded to the last time that I was before the committee, there has been a wealth of engagement around the disclosure legislation.
I will ask Gareth Wilks to elaborate on the engagement that has taken place.
In respect of the fee waiver for volunteer applications, there was a public consultation in the course of last year, which informed the decision that the minister has taken in that regard.
On engagement on the fees that are contained in the regulations that are applicable to level 1 and level 2 disclosures, there has been a lot of direct engagement across a number of sectors, including local authorities, sports organisations and charities.
On the question about fees, they will remain at the same levels as they are currently—the fees that are payable for a disclosure today.
With regard to who pays fees, there is always flexibility between the individual and the organisation, and that continues through the 2020 act. Different sectors and organisations will take different views on it. There is no Government view on who should pay for the disclosure: it is a matter for the organisation and the individual to determine.
I appreciate that. However, there are some variations among very similar organisations. For example, for staff who work in the care sector with vulnerable children or adults, in some areas the cost of joining the scheme is covered by the employer, whereas in others it is passed on to the employee. Does the minister have a view on that?
I do not have a view on that, specifically. As far as I am aware, that was not raised as an issue during the consultation period. I understand that it will be worked out between an organisation and employee members.
As I said, I have retained the fee waiver for fees this year: I have retained the fee waiver for volunteers. However, thinking ahead, in line with the 2020 act we will, in the future, be looking to transform and change the rhetoric around fees for disclosures, by taking it away from being a transaction-based system and making it fit for the future. That work will have to be taken forward in the future.
However, as I have said, given the difficulties that people have experienced over the past few years in relation to the cost of living crisis and other external factors, the decision has been taken to retain fees at their current levels for this year and to retain the fee waiver.
It is a fee waiver for volunteers, but it is not for other low-paid staff who the fee is sometimes passed on to?
No.
Okay. Thank you.
Following on from that point, I note that, normally, fees would be charged to cover costs. However, in this case, the decision has been being made for them to be below cost. Can you explain the thinking behind that?
As I have said, that is, in essence, because I am very understanding of the difficulties that organisations and individuals have been through in relation to the cost of living crisis and other factors. This is a very important area in terms of safeguarding children and ensuring that everybody who is involved in roles with children is part of the disclosure system. I have therefore taken the decision that that is what is best for the country, at the current time.
To come back to Pam Duncan-Glancy’s question, I assume that all volunteers have the waiver. When I applied to be a host to a Ukrainian family, the fee was waived. However, the big issue at that time was the length of time that it takes to process a disclosure application. Is it one period for everybody? I had the impression that priority was given to particular areas. Is it the case that volunteers or others will get priority and be dealt with first, or is everyone dealt with on a first-come, first-served basis?
Applications are dealt with on a case-by-case basis. Obviously, there will be different circumstances for different people. I know that the timescales around disclosure have been raised in the past, and it is something that has been improved with the move to digitisation through Disclosure Scotland, which is reducing the timescales. However, I will bring in Gareth Wilks or other officials to speak about the priority groups.
Could Laura Robertson come in on that?
Our current processing times are well below our set target. Our service-level agreement and our public commitment—for want of a better term—is to process 90 per cent of all disclosure applications, regardless of the level, within a 14-day period. That is set at 90 per cent, as opposed to 100 per cent, because there are a number of cases in which we have to seek further information through the vetting process in order to ensure that the information is correctly disclosed before we issue a certificate.
Our average processing time for this year to date is about seven days. That is an average across all products, so there will be variations in the time, and it will also be subject to peaks and troughs in the volumes of applications that are sent to us at various points throughout the year.
To answer the question about prioritisation, we will take prioritisation actions according to ministerial instruction. Keith Brown mentioned the homes for Ukraine scheme and the provision for host applications. That was deemed to be a priority because that effort was a national response. Therefore, those applications were prioritised through a ring-fenced dedicated team that would progress them in a faster timescale than the 14-day target.
However, we set the same target across all disclosure products—that 90 per cent of them be processed within the 14-day period. Our year-to-date performance is currently around 97 per cent, or just over that.
Thanks for that. I have one final question, and it relates to John Mason’s question, which I think was about a concern that the income is not washing the face of the expenditure that you are incurring. The reasons that you have given relate to helping people who are low paid and so on, or to helping people to become volunteers more easily. A contrasting point would be that, for example, if you were to become a volunteer minibus driver, you would not be exempted from having to pay the test fee that is needed for that.
It is a generous scheme, but I wonder whether, next year or in the future, it will be your intention, minister, to try to restore the equilibrium, if possible, between the cost of providing the service and the income that you receive for it.
I alluded to that in relation to the disclosure service being “fit for the future”. I have now been to the committee twice on a number of SSIs that have gone through in relation to the 2020 act. There certainly will be a case for making that scheme fit for the future and, as you say, for making sure that we are financially sustainable. I have had to balance various issues regarding whether to increase the fees, and I felt that this was the right move to make for this year, given some of the issues that I have already referred to.
Thanks.
As no other members want to speak, does the committee agree that it does not wish to make any recommendations in relation to the instruments?
Members indicated agreement.
That is agreed. I suspend the meeting to allow for a change of witnesses.
11:58 Meeting suspended.Provision of Early Learning and Childcare (Specified Children) (Scotland) Amendment Order 2025 [Draft]
I reconvene the meeting, and the committee will now take evidence on the draft Provision of Early Learning and Childcare (Specified Children) (Scotland) Amendment Order 2025. We will hear from Natalie Don-Innes, the Minister for Children, Young People and The Promise, who is supported by Joanna Mackenzie, team leader for targeted children and family wellbeing, and Kirstie McKerron, who is a solicitor in the legal directorate of the Scottish Government.
Minister, I believe that you would like to make an opening statement.
Thank you, convener. The Provision of Early Learning and Childcare (Specified Children) (Scotland) Order 2014—that is, the 2014 order—currently specifies that a two-year-old is eligible for funded ELC if their parent is in receipt of a universal credit award with a monthly income not exceeding £796 per month. The amending order will increase the maximum income level for households who are in receipt of universal credit to £850 per month.
As in previous years, the amendment is necessary to reflect changes to the national living wage at the United Kingdom level. This year, an additional amendment will be made, due to the imminent conclusion of the UK Government’s planned migration to universal credit of working tax credit and child tax credit. As tax credits will end on 5 April 2025, we are removing from the 2014 order references to those credits as qualifying benefits.
Do any members wish to raise questions?
This is my opportunity to ask my usual question about take-up for two-year-olds. The numbers have improved from 52 per cent to 59 per cent from 2023 to 2024, but we are still not capturing everybody. Why is that? Do you understand the reasons for that uplift and why we are not getting the greater uplift that we are all looking for? Are there regional variations, or whatever? Can you give us an idea of what you have learned from that increase?
Of course, Mr Rennie. You will be aware that, because of the data arrangements, this is the first year that we have had a real year-on-year comparison of uptake rates for two-year-olds. At the national level, the figures indicate an increase in uptake for eligible children from 52 per cent in 2023 to 59 per cent in 2024, but I agree that some families are losing out, and we need to try to maximise uptake as much as possible. As a result, I have set out on a national improvement project to try to increase the numbers.
I would not say that it is so much a regional variation—there is huge variation among local authorities. I have not necessarily found any trends in that respect, but the variation alarms me, which is why I have set out on the project. The project itself will involve intensive support for five identified local authorities with quite low uptakes. It was important to me to use a range of local authorities, so we have included rural and urban authorities, and we are making sure that we have a range of factors to try to understand the reasons for uptake being low in the first place, and how we can increase it.
Very individual and intensive support will be given to the five identified local authorities—Aberdeenshire, Falkirk, Glasgow, North Ayrshire and North Lanarkshire councils. We have sought to engage with local authorities that are already working with the Improvement Service or which have expressed an interest in maximising uptake, and that service is providing support based on each of the local authorities’ unique contexts, which I have alluded to.
We also have a programme of online content that is available to all local authorities, because we understand that the situation might go beyond the five authorities that are interested in increasing uptake. At the moment, though, my priority is to take a targeted approach and to see what we can do and what we can learn from those five areas.
That is very good. I am very pleased that you are doing that, because it is important that we try to get the numbers up. Next year, when you come back and present to the committee, I hope that the numbers will be up nearer to 100 per cent, if that is possible. Thank you very much.
Do members have any other questions?
Related to the issue of uptake are the issues that specific family groups are facing. For example, we know that families with children with additional support needs and single-parent and lone-parent families are finding it difficult to access provision, and sometimes families work particular shift patterns that do not necessarily fit in with current provision. What work is being done to address those concerns?
You have absolutely hit the nail on the head with regard to the difficulties in relation to childcare. Every family’s—and every child’s—needs are different, and the Government is doing a number of things to try to understand families’ needs and how we can best support them.
On your point about additional support needs, I am very switched on to that issue. Our work on the rates review is looking at specific points to understand what providers require in order to support or help children with additional support needs.
Our early adopter communities, which the member will be aware of, deal with families in a very targeted way. They speak to families to understand what they require, tie that up with other areas of work, such as employability schemes, and try to provide the wraparound support that a family will require to meet their individual childcare needs. I say in relation to Ms Duncan-Glancy’s point that the early adopters work is key to understanding what families need, and it is work in progress.
There are a number of different strands to what we are doing to support families with their childcare needs in Scotland. As the member has alluded to, the picture is complex, but I am absolutely committed to driving forward work on the issue and to ensuring that families are supported.
Is there any specific action that you think will be taken within the next six months to improve the situation?
As I have said, the work on the rates guidance is on-going—it is something that we are working on just now. I do not know whether officials can give me an understanding of the timeline.
I think that it is imminent.
It is imminent. That relates to the rates guidance, but wider discussions are being had on the wider rates review—not just on the specific rates themselves but on what is required for additional support needs, meals and a range of other things. We are actively working on that, just now.
As I have said, the early adopter communities work is on-going, too, and we are continuing to speak with families. We recently increased the number of early adopter communities by two, from four to six, which increases the number of families who are involved in the programmes and gives us more understanding of what is needed for a national picture.
Thank you.
As no other members have questions, I invite the minister to move motion S6M-16276, in her name.
Approved—I mean moved. Sorry. [Laughter.]
Motion moved,
That the Education, Children and Young People Committee recommends that the Provision of Early Learning and Childcare (Specified Children) (Scotland) Amendment Order 2025 [draft] be approved.—[Natalie Don-Innes]
Motion agreed to.
The committee must now produce a report on the draft instrument. Is the committee content to delegate responsibility to me, as convener, to agree the report on behalf of the committee?
Members indicated agreement.
Minister, I thank you and your officials for your time this morning. That concludes the public part of our proceedings.
12:08 Meeting continued in private until 12:28.Air ais
“Higher History Review 2024”