Seòmar agus comataidhean

Yes, I can confirm that.

No, convener, but I think that it gives some context.

It just gives us some context for the changes and shows that we are not just doing something—

We recognise the need for victims of crime to be respected and to feel that they have received appropriate support, regardless of how the person who perpetrated the crime is punished.

It is worth recognising that the change in regulation will affect young people and that there is a robust process to look at whether they should be removed from the barred list. Lynne McMinn has explained the process that people would go through. We can be assured that anyone who is removed from the barred list is suitable to work with groups that they had previously been barred from working with. None of us would want to remove from the lists anyone whom we felt was not suitable for work with children and young people or with vulnerable adults.

Thank you for inviting me to speak to the regulations. I will not go into the technical detail of what they do, because that has already been explained in the accompanying documents that have been produced by Scottish Government officials, which are complemented by the Scottish Parliament information centre paper.

I point out that the Protection of Vulnerable Groups (Scotland) Act 2007 has always included provision to allow barred individuals to make an application to be removed from the barred lists. Removal is contingent on ministers being satisfied that the applicant is no longer unsuitable to work with vulnerable groups.

To be absolutely clear, I point out that the policy proposal allows people aged 18 to 25 to apply to be removed from the barred lists sooner, but such an application does not lead to automatic removal. A thorough and well-established process for considering removal applications, which replicates the process for inclusion in the barred lists, is carried out by Disclosure Scotland’s protection services. The proposal in the regulations is also consistent with the situation in the rest of the United Kingdom, where individuals are able to ask for a review of a barring decision by the disclosure and barring service.

The system of state disclosure that we have today is in direct response to the tragic Soham murders of August 2002. This Government will never forget why the service is so important. Indeed, my predecessor introduced the bill that became the Disclosure (Scotland) Act 2020. Once fully implemented, the 2020 act will deliver a range of reforms to the protecting vulnerable groups scheme to strengthen the national barring service.

The Scottish Government is committed to giving everyone a better chance of overcoming early adversities, including youth offending, in order to allow people to become productive and valued citizens in adulthood. Our policy proposal in the regulations is in keeping with the wider reforms that have been achieved by the 2020 act, and it strikes a balance between safeguarding and proportionality by enabling people with offending in their past to move on—where safeguarding considerations allow it—into work, employment or volunteering.

Disclosure Scotland has been engaging with relevant academics and experts in the formulation of policy supporting the measure. There is a clear association between age and desistance from crime, and the evidence supports recognition in policy of that association. However, in every case it is right that the individual circumstances be considered in order that a safe decision can be made about whether it is right to remove a person from the barred list.

We know from the responses to the 2018 consultation on protection of vulnerable groups and disclosure of criminal information that there is stakeholder support for the changes that the amendment regulations will make—particularly for how they will benefit care-experienced individuals, who are more likely than their peers to have experiences with the criminal justice system. Who Cares? Scotland said in its consultation response, which can be viewed on the citizen space website, that it welcomes the change, which is

“motivated by an understanding that those who commit crimes at a younger age are often trying to move on when coming into contact with PVG processes.”

I invite Ms Gallacher, on Mr Mundell’s behalf, not to move his motion to annul. If the motion is pressed, I ask members not to vote in favour of it.

Thank you for inviting me to say a few words on the draft regulations. The amendments are technical and are necessary to ensure that the Age of Criminal Responsibility (Scotland) Act 2019 can be applied as intended. The 2019 act raised the age of criminal responsibility in Scotland from eight to 12, and it established the role of the independent reviewer, who oversees the disclosure of convictions and other relevant information relating to when a person was under the age of 12. The purpose of the regulations is to amend the 2019 act.

The regulations are a consequence of the Age of Criminal Responsibility (Scotland) Act 2019 (Consequential Provisions and Modifications) Order 2021. That order, which is currently being considered by the Westminster Parliament, makes provisions in relation to the independent reviewer that will apply in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. In particular, the order places a requirement on specified persons in those jurisdictions, such as chief police officers, to refer and provide information relating to an individual’s pre-12 behaviour to the independent reviewer.

The regulations therefore modify, in light of that order, the relevant functions of the independent reviewer in the 2019 act, in order to require the independent reviewer to review that information, invite representations, notify the outcome of the review and, where appropriate, advise on the right to appeal that decision.

The changes support the Scottish Government’s decision to raise the age of criminal responsibility from eight to 12 by ensuring that the independent reviewer can review relevant information that is received from specified persons in other parts of the United Kingdom, as well as in Scotland. Committee members will wish to note that the regulations do not take forward any new policy. They are required to fully implement the 2019 act.

I would be happy to take questions on the regulations.

That is an important question. We are very aware of that issue. We are working across Scotland to ensure that all families know the benefits of the offer and are able to access it. That includes working with the UK Government to address data-sharing issues so that councils in Scotland can target information at eligible families. We are working across agencies to improve access of information to families, to help them to make informed decisions about ELC provision. We are also working with councils and Who Cares? Scotland to make the most of the extension to funded ELC to two-year-olds with a care-experienced parent. In addition, we are exploring further ways of engaging with the professionals who work closely with those families—for example, family nurse practitioners, health visitors and social care workers—to ensure that they inform families of their eligibility and encourage them, when appropriate and when those families wish to, to take up the offer of ELC.

Thank you, convener. This is my first opportunity to speak to the committee. I welcome you, Ms Stewart and the new committee members to your roles.

This amending order will increase the income thresholds for families with a two-year-old who is eligible for funded early learning and childcare because they get a joint working tax credit and child tax credit or a universal credit award. Without the amendment, the relevant order specifies that a two-year-old is eligible for funded ELC if their parent is in receipt of child tax credit and working tax credit, with an annual income that does not exceed £7,320, or if their parent is in receipt of universal credit, with an income that does not exceed £610 per month. The amending order will increase the income threshold to £7,500 per year for households in receipt of both child tax credit and working tax credit. The universal credit income threshold will increase to £625 per month.

We are making the change to reflect changes at a United Kingdom level. The UK Government has increased the national living wage from £8.72 to £8.91 per hour and has reduced the age at which a person receives that living wage from 25 years of age to 23. Those changes mean that it is no longer possible for a parent of a two-year-old who is 23 or older to meet the criteria for those who are on combined working tax credit and child tax credit or on universal credit.

The purpose of the order is to protect eligibility for two-year-olds whom we would expect to be eligible for funded ELC as a result of their parents or carers being in receipt of those affected qualifying benefits. We estimate that, if we chose not to make any changes to the income thresholds, about 1,000 two-year-olds would no longer be eligible, despite there being no significant difference in the household circumstances of their families.

It is important to be clear that no two-year-old who currently receives funded ELC will be affected by the changes. Once a child has met the eligibility criteria, they will remain eligible, despite any subsequent change in circumstances.

In relation to any child who became eligible after the change to the national living wage in April 2021 and who has applied for a place to start in August, which is the next start date for children with a birthday between 1 March and 31 August, we wrote to all local authorities in June to request that they use their discretionary powers to allow for the increase in the national living wage.

As the purpose of the amendment is to maintain eligibility, we do not anticipate a significant increase in the number of two-year-olds becoming newly eligible for the provision, and we do not expect there to be a significant impact on local authorities’ ability to fund the provision within the current financial settlement. As such, there is no evidence that additional funding is required to support implementation of the amendment.

However, the impact on uptake will be closely monitored by the Scottish Government and the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities through the appropriate mechanism—the ELC finance working group—and appropriate arrangements will be made if uptake is significantly above the level that is expected and local authority costs increase as a result.

We will monitor future increases to the national living wage, and we expect that it will be necessary to uprate thresholds annually to keep pace with the standard of living. We have agreed with COSLA that the current amendment is, and future amendments will be, necessary to maintain a similar profile of eligible children.

I am happy to respond to any questions that the committee has.

I do not have anything further to add, other than to thank the committee for its questions this morning.

Motion agreed to.

Convener, I missed part of the start of that question, but I hope that I can answer Mr Rennie fully. If not, I am more than happy to write to the committee with an update on the work that we are doing with COSLA.

As Mr Rennie will be aware, there has been a huge expansion of the ELC estate right across the country. In just about all local authorities, additional building work has been done. We are certainly keen to encourage and promote the ELC offer to eligible two-year-olds, and we will continue to do that through all the avenues that we can. We work closely with COSLA on that and on other issues relating to ELC.

If I have not answered Mr Rennie’s question fully, I am more than happy to come back to the committee.