 The next item of business is a statement by Marie Torr in the Disclosure Scotland Bill. The minister will take questions at the end of her statement, so there should be no interventions or interruptions. I call on Marie Torr, minister, please. Thank you, Presiding Officer. The Scottish Government has committed to policies that balance public protection with the right to move on from past offences. These are not contradictory aims, both can be achieved. Since the Deputy First Minister announced the review of Scotland's disclosure regime in November 2016, we have engaged extensively with stakeholders to achieve this balance. Last summer, following pre-consultation engagement with over 300 individuals and organisations and an online survey generating more than 800 responses, we undertook the statutory public consultation on disclosure. This was distributed widely to stakeholders, including all organisations registered with Disclosure Scotland. The consultation received 353 responses from a broad cross-section of Scottish life, including individuals, charities, sports associations, advocacy groups and private sector businesses. The views and experiences shared by respondents provided vital insight into ways in which the disclosure regime, including the PVG scheme, can be improved. Those that we engaged with consistently highlighted the value of the service and the safeguarding that it provides. However, they also stressed a real need to make it more proportionate and simpler to use. From the outset, the Government intended to capture the best ideas in striking a new balance between delivering a fairer disclosure regime and strengthening its ability to protect the most vulnerable in society. Yesterday, the Scottish Government introduced the Disclosure Scotland Bill, and I take this opportunity to update Parliament on how the bill will deliver this balance. We must ensure that safeguarding the vulnerable in society continues to be at the forefront of our minds. We must never forget the reasons why this service is so important. This bill will deliver a range of reforms to the protection of vulnerable groups, ensuring a world-class service and protecting the public from those whose past conduct makes them unsuitable to carry out regulated roles with children and adults. It is widely recognised in the light of past tragic events that there is a need for additional scrutiny of a person's background if they want to work with vulnerable groups or in other sensitive roles. The bill intends the focus to remain on a system of robust disclosure checks for roles that involve such access. However, we also recognise that the safeguarding purpose must be balanced with the legal right of people to have appropriate protection of privacy and, indeed, the ability for people with convictions who now lead law-abiding lives to move on from their past. I believe that the bill achieves that. The disclosure bill must also be seen in the context of wider Government strategy to make positive change to the justice and disclosure systems. This journey, which started with the management of offenders' bill and through the Age of Criminal Responsibility Scotland act, continues with those proposals. If enacted, they will represent a transformational improvement in the position of those seeking to move on from their past behaviour. The Government has been committed to ensuring that all three have been designed together for that larger purpose. The bill contains provisions to introduce a mandatory PVG scheme for those carrying out regulated roles with children or protected adults. Although many organisations treat it as such, the scheme is not currently mandatory, which has made it difficult for individuals and employers to understand their responsibilities and legal duties under the current legislation. There is overwhelming support among stakeholders for this proposal. It was also recognised by the Parliament's health and sport committee, which concluded that there is a compelling case that it should be mandatory for those working with children in sport. We have also simplified the process for determining what roles must be in the PVG scheme. The public perception is that the current system is too complex and we need to develop a system that makes this process easier, ensuring that the scheme focuses on those who hold power and influence over children and protected adults. Our engagement with stakeholders has highlighted areas where safeguarding can be improved and we have sought to address those in the bill. We are providing better protections for individuals who employ or engage the services of another individual in a personal capacity, for example those who are ranging self-directed care. We believe that those provisions complement strengthened referral arrangements for Police Scotland and new referral powers for local authorities, enabling individuals who employ others to have even greater protections. The bill will allow Disclosure Scotland to impose public protection conditions on scheme members who are under consideration for barring. Since the PVG scheme was enacted, there have been cases where the ability to impose such conditions would have benefited safeguarding. Our engagement has supported this with organisations telling us that it would assist them when managing risk in such situations. As a Government, we aim to focus public services on creating a more successful country with opportunities for all of Scotland to flourish. That includes creating a strong, sustainable workforce, making sure that no-one faces unnecessary barriers to gaining opportunities. Of course, there will always be those who, through their past behaviours, will not be suitable for certain roles. That is why we need the disclosure ratio. Disclosure Scotland will continue to identify such individuals and ensure that they are legally prevented from carrying out a regulated role. However, we must give extra consideration to people who have found themselves involved in the criminal justice system during childhood or adolescence. That is especially true for experienced individuals who we know are more likely to come into contact with the criminal justice system and end up with a criminal record. It is widely recognised that having a criminal record can significantly impact on future life chances and outcomes for young people, including access to education, training and employment. Their opportunities and horizons can be severely limited. The Age of Criminal Responsibility Act ensures that harmful behaviour by children under the age of 12 cannot be criminal. However, the provisions laid out in the ACR Act only changed the position for children under this age. We are learning more and more about the impact of trauma and adverse childhood experiences on life chances. We have to do more, not only to prevent that from happening in the first place but to limit the damage that is done to individuals, families and communities in the long term. The bill aims to address that, providing a system that takes into consideration the context surrounding childhood offences. The consultation strongly supported the idea that disclosure of such information should remain a possibility, but only after careful and informed consideration of its necessity to public protection. Although it is vital to consider the impact of those changes on safeguarding functions and those with convictions, the majority of certificates that disclosure Scotland sends out will not contain any criminal history information. We want to simplify the system, to make it accessible and easy to use for all, taking a user-centred approach for individuals, accessing disclosure and the employers that they need to share their information with. Our intention is a responsive digital first system, better suited for those who prefer to carry out their business online. We are moving away from the slow and onerous paper-based system, increasing the extent to which applicants and employers can engage digitally with disclosure Scotland. This engagement has been vital to shaping the bill now before Parliament. We will continue to listen and engage with Parliament and with members of the public to develop the best way to implement the proposals within the bill. Along with that, the Scottish Government is committed to ensuring that clear training and guidance materials are developed as we transition into any new provisions. As previously stated, the safeguarding aim of the system must remain the focus of disclosure. A number of the proposed reforms will complement and improve the safeguarding tools that are afforded by the current regime. Today, we will publish the Government's response to our consultation analysis. It has been provided to the Scottish Parliament Information Centre and it will be sent to all key stakeholders, including every organisation that is registered with disclosure Scotland. The response sets out the policy intent of the bill clearly and simply. Presiding Officer, I commend the bill to the Parliament and I look forward to constructive engagement in the months ahead. I am happy to answer questions from the members. I have about 20 minutes in hand for questions. Can I ask those who wish to ask a question, press the request to speak button now? I call Liz Smith, followed by Pauline McNeill-Miss Smith. I thank the minister for prior sight and I can also put on the parliamentary record that I am a member of the PVG system. The Conservatives very much support the main thrust of this bill. It is absolutely right that we do everything that we can to ensure that the PVG system works as well as possible and that it is as simple as possible to use. We are broadly very supportive of the aims. I have two questions, minister, if I may. First, in terms of making the system mandatory, the minister cared to comment on any estimates of how many more adults will become members of the system in comparison to the current system and what discussions have taken place between the Scottish Government and key stakeholders to measure the additional costs to organisations who choose to pay the £59 PVG fee. Secondly, on page 17 of the Government's response, there is an acknowledgement that the transition from the current membership arrangements to the new system will pose challenges and a quote will require careful consideration of fairness. Can I ask the minister to comment on what she sees as the specific challenges and what the Scottish Government is doing to address them? I thank the member for that question and I welcome the broad support for this bill. In terms of the specific questions that you asked, you asked about the additional costs of the system with the mandatory nature of the scheme. The reason that we are making the mandatory is because there have been incidents in the past where we realised that there was not clarity on whether somebody needed to be disclosed or not. In those incidents, we realised that it was important to make it mandatory. In fact, the Parliament also agreed that it should be mandatory through the health and sport committee recommendations. As well as making it mandatory, we are putting a five-year limit on the membership at the moment. It is a lifelong membership. The costs will balance each other out. I am sure that, at the moment, 1.2 million people daily are at criminal record checks. We suspect that there are hundreds of thousands of people in the system who currently have daily criminal record checks, which are not necessary because they are not performing regulated roles. I apologise that I have forgotten the first question, but I wonder if you could give it to me again. The Deputy Presiding Officer, it is specifically about the costs to organisations who will have to ensure that the system is mandatory. As you know, some of those organisations pay the £59 instead of the individual paying it, so that is the first one. The second one is about the statement that is on page 17 of the Scottish Government's response that says very clearly that the change from the old to the new model may pose challenges and will require careful consideration of the fairness. I am just asking for some details if you could explain what those challenges are and what the Scottish Government is going to do to address them. Thank you. Mr Gray, do not lump in my ear. It is very, very distant. It just takes me off my balance here. We will get there. You will get your chance. Thank you. Many of the organisations already see the scheme as mandatory, so I do not think that there will be an extra cost for them—health, education and all those people—and they will make decisions as to whether they continue to pay or whether individuals must pay themselves, but that is decisions for them to work out. In terms of the complexities, this is a very complex technical bill. It is going to take a great deal of effort and engagement to work out how it is going to be implemented, and that will be on-going. There has been a great deal of stakeholder engagement thus far, and we will continue with the stakeholder engagement in future. Pauline McNeill. Labour strongly welcomes the bill. We recognise that a lot of work has gone into getting it right. Having robust protection for our children and young people balanced with an easy-to-navigate system of disclosure, allowing people to get on with their jobs and those to continue with their voluntary work. First of all, I would like to wholeheartedly welcome what I believe is a long-overdue proposal to recognise that minor offences committed in a person's youth should not necessarily be used in assessing sustainability for working with children. First of all, will she consider what support voluntary organisations may need because of the switch-to-mandatory requirements? I just want to make sure that there is support. The biggest concern that I have and the question that I need to put to the minister—she does not mention in her statement what I think is a critical part of the change, which is a suggestion in the document published that it has to be renewed every five years. Could the minister confirm that this is still the intention, why it was not mentioned in the statement? Five years might be considered by some to be quite a short period, and will she give a commitment to Parliament that she will probe that if that is the case, to make sure that it does not become a barrier to people having their certificates renewed? I again broadly welcome the support for the bill, and I am pleased to hear it. In terms of the voluntary sector, we will certainly be providing good training and awareness so that we are able to navigate the new system well. In terms of the five-year limit, you will have heard me say in my response to the member Liz Smith that, at the moment, more than 1.2 million people are members of the PVG scheme and daily undergo a criminal record check. That is not necessarily proportionate, because many of them are no longer requiring that criminal record check or working in regulated roles. There is a huge cost associated with that. We think that there are hundreds of thousands of people who are members of the scheme who are no longer needing to be members. It is important to provide an easy way to exit the scheme. We think that the five-year limit is an appropriate balance, but, of course, that will form part of the scrutiny of the bill as it passes through Parliament. John Finnie fell by Alec Cole-Hamilton. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I thank the Minister for Early Sight of the Bill and lend the Scottish scheme party's support to the general direction of travel. Minister, there are a couple of mentions in the ball of simplification. There is also the phrase, the public perception is that the current system is not too complex. It might well be the case that the public, unless they have been directly involved, is largely unaware of that. Is there a danger that simplification will be seen as weakening? Can you say what steps the Scottish Government will take to reassure the public that this remains a robust system, please? I think that simplifying it actually makes it more robust, because it makes it easier for people to engage with it. There is greater clarity on what is required and which product is required. There are a number of simplifications included in the bill. All of the disclosures will be issued under one act. The number of disclosure products will reduce confusion, so we are going from 10 down to 4. The implementation of digital services will modernise and radically simplify the disclosure system. That means that somebody will not have to decide before they apply which disclosure product they are looking for. They will be able to go online on to a website, and the website will guide them to the appropriate disclosure product for the role that they are performing. All of that strengthens protections, because it makes it much simpler for people to use it. Another great simplification is that the regulated work caused some confusion in previous years. The bill will allow us to refocus the membership of the PVG scheme on to those who possess power over children and protected adults, rather than using job titles to determine membership. I am grateful for the early sight of the statement and offer the broad support of the benches for the bill. Given that we as parliamentarians have regular access to vulnerable groups through case work and sometimes young people through school work experience, will the minister take the opportunity of the bill to extend the disclosure scheme to cover parliamentarians and key members of staff who have regular unsupervised contact with vulnerable groups? The Parliament can certainly consider that as the bill progresses through Parliament. As I said in my response to John Finnie's question, one of the simplifications of the bill is to remove the concept of regulated work so that your need for being a full member of the PVG scheme does not rely on your job title. What it relies on is whether there is a power imbalance and you hold power over children or vulnerable groups. It is certainly more than happy to assess whether parliamentarians fall into that category as the bill progresses through Parliament. I am pleased that the bill will build on the progressive reforms taken forward in the management of offenders bill, which the Justice Committee has scrutinised. Does the minister agree with research evidence that shows clearly that continuing to have to relive an offending past damages the chance of people being able to move on and contribute meaningfully to society? Yes, I do wholeheartedly agree. For most offenders, the passage of time and the adoption of a crime-free lifestyle provides a basis for them to access work and make a great contribution to society. However, we recognise that this can be very difficult for employers, and that is why I would encourage employers who are wary of employing people with convictions to sign up to release Scotland and to avail themselves of the training that is offered by Disclosure Scotland to help them to understand how to evaluate convictions better. Some people have offending backgrounds and past conduct that make them wholly unsuitable for roles with vulnerable groups or valuable assets. The disclosure system aims to help to protect the vulnerable in a very strong way, but not to lock out all those with convictions from good employment because we know that good employment reduces re-offending. I declare that I am a member of the PVG scheme. Can the minister guarantee firstly that any online upgrade to the disclosure system will be implemented smoothly and secondly that it will simplify the system enough to reduce the number of people who are dissuaded for applying for roles? Certainly, we are intensely focused on the digital programme and we are confident that the system is at an appropriate stage to be able to complete in time for the delivery of the new services. Our transformation programme has continued right throughout 2018-19. Disclosure Scotland's new technology platform, past protecting and safeguarding Scotland, began processing applications in June 2018. By the end of March 2019, past had taken in excess of 78,000 applications. 45 per cent of all disclosures are channeled through that new service. That 16,000 customers have given us feedback on past and 96 per cent are very satisfied. That high level of satisfaction demonstrates how well we have listened to our customers and what they have told us they need as the new services have been developed. Ruth McGwarfall, by James Kelly. Welcome the modernisation, but can the minister confirm that alternatives to digital services will still be offered in recognition that online access will not work for everyone and does the minister agree that those alternatives are essential if the new membership scheme is to be truly inclusive? Indeed. I thank the member for that question. We agree fully that alternatives to the digital service have to be provided. Although our engagement with counterpart services elsewhere in the UK has shown that the vast majority of people are able to access and use well-designed digital services, it remains vital that those who can are catered for. To that end, my officials will carry out full engagement with users to design with them alternative ways to use the disclosure system that meets their needs. James Kelly, followed by Gil Ross. Thank you. Can the minister state whether reductions in fees will be applicable to those who are reapplying after five years, bearing in mind moving from a system of one-off fees to repeat fees, maker tales and volunteers from coming forward? Certainly the fees are not on the face of the bill and we are certainly in the process of working out the fees that will be applied. I think that the member is asking about transitional arrangements between the lifetime membership and the five-year membership, and we are working very carefully to ensure that that transitional system is fair. Gil Ross, followed by Maurice Corry. Can the minister outline how the bill will build on the reforms introduced in the Age of Criminal Responsibility Bill and ensure that young people can move beyond their mistakes and fulfil their potential? The proposals in the bill take forward the recommendation from the advisory group in the Age of Criminal Responsibility that consideration is given to ceasing the disclosure of convictions that is accrued under the age of 18. The disclosure bill contains proposals that childhood convictions will no longer be disclosed automatically, and that if ministers decide that the information about such a conviction should be disclosed, the applicant will be advised before disclosure to a third party takes place and be offered the option of having ministers' decision independently reviewed. By the independent reviewer, the member will remember having been closely involved with the Age of Criminal Responsibility Bill that that was a post-created by that bill. Maurice Corry, followed by David Torrance. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I declare that I am a member of the PVG scheme, too. I thank the minister for advance sight of her statement. The minister says that although it is vital to consider the impact of these changes in safeguarding functions and those with convictions, the majority of certificates that disclosure Scotland sends out will not contain any criminal history information. Could the minister provide some further detail on the number of certificates that will not contain criminal history information? Minister. Let me give you some figures about the disclosure applications that disclosure Scotland receives every year. In 2018, disclosure Scotland processed 647,410 checks. On an average week, disclosure Scotland processes 5,000 PVG applications, and disclosure Scotland checks approximately 1.22 million criminal records on a daily basis, as I have already said. Despite those incredibly high numbers, in 2017-18, disclosure Scotland had an average processing time of 3.3 days, and 99.49 per cent of processing within 14 days. It is coping already with a huge number of applications, and it is processing them very effectively. David Torrance, followed by Ian Gray. Can the minister outline how stakeholder engagement has shaped the bill? Disclosure Scotland carried out three rounds of engagement before publishing a formal consultation in April 2018 to ensure a high level of stakeholder engagement. It used a number of channels and methods throughout the pre-consultation process. A wide range of participants took part in the pre-consultation engagement, and disclosure Scotland engaged in person with over 350 organisational representatives and individuals throughout Scotland and received feedback from 800 more through an online survey. The evidence gathered during this intense period of engagement assisted disclosure Scotland in the development of the proposals for formal consultation. There were responses from a range of stakeholders to the formal consultation with varying backgrounds, including judicial bodies, the legal sector, local government, voluntary organisations, the health sector and individual scheme members. The results of the consultation have informed further development of the policy and bill provisions. I draw the chamber's attention to my register of interests as chair of the Burning Community Foundation. In the passage of the Age of Criminal Responsibility Bill, it was amended to allow the possibility of further appeals to the independent reviewer should the first appeal fail. Will the bill allow for similar further appeals in the context of disclosure? As with many of the other proposals in the bill, I am sure that the Parliament will scrutinise the bill and put forward amendments that it wishes to see in the final bill. We will certainly assess whether those that are appropriate for the bill during the course of the passage through Parliament will be able to do that. John Mason I understand that one of the changes is that the concept of doing regulated work will be replaced with regulated roles. Will the minister explain whether she feels that that will help to clarify around the edges, as there will always be margins and grey areas? I thank the member for that question. In the past, the concept of regulated work has led to some confusion about who should and should not be a PVG member. That is why we are switching away from the old system that focuses more on job roles and establishments towards a system that allows us to evaluate a wider range of roles for the presence of power and influence. I will give you an example that has been topical over the past few years. For example, a football scout does not educate or supervise children and yet a football scout can hold make or break power over a child's future. They will be in the revised scheme but were not eligible for the old one. That concludes questions on the statement. I will have a brief pause while we allow the front bench to change positions for the next item of business.