Seòmar agus comataidhean

Thank you for your contributions. Do any of the witnesses have concerns about the inclusion of traditional bed and breakfast accommodation in the definition of a short-term let? Can you provide reassurances to those who own such accommodation?

This time round, I will start with Andrew Mitchell.

Tony Cain and Leon Thompson want to come in—I am not quite sure in which order, because I cannot see what is in the chat function.

I see that Ailsa Raeburn is also looking to come in.

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.

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 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?

It would be good to hear from Derek Logie about the rural perspective, given the make-up of rural communities.