Good morning, everyone, and welcome to the 18th meeting of the Health and Sport Committee in 2017. I welcome everyone back from recess. I'm sure fully refreshed and I'll got a new school bag in pencil case with us for the new term. I could ask everyone in the room to ensure that their mobile phones are switched off. Or switch to silent. I'm chic and used for social media. Don't film, don't record proceedings. The first item on our agenda is declaration of interest. In accordance with section 3, the code of conduct, I invite Brian Whittle to declare any interest relevant to the remit of the committee and remind members that any declaration should be brief but sufficiently detailed to make clear to any listener of the nature of the interest. I'm the director of a collaboration communication platform that includes healthcare as part of its clientele. I don't take any active part in that business anymore and don't take any remuneration from that business. I'm also a board member of the West of Scotland NSPCC and pertinent to this case, I'm a level 4 coach, former chair of the Coaches, Scottish Coaches Association and a member of the European Coaches Association. Thank you, Brian, and welcome to the committee, and I think it's the only right that we put on the record. Thanks to Donald Cameron for his work while he was a member of the committee. Agenda item 2 is subordinate legislation. We have one negative instrument to consider today, and that is the Carers Scotland Act 2016, prescribed days regulation 2017, SSI 2017-07. There's been no motion to annul and the delicate powers and law reform committee has not made any comments on the instrument. During our predecessor committee scrutiny of the Carers Bill, concerns were raised by stakeholders regarding the estimated costs set out in the financial memorandum. In response to the Scottish Government's set up, a financial-led group with stakeholders, including COSLA carers organisations and others, to consider costs estimates, the Scottish Government's response to the committee stage 1 report stated that the Scottish Government would write to the health and sport and finance committee to set out the conclusions of the financial-led working group. The members agree that we should write to the Scottish Government and ask for the findings of the financial-led group. The SSI requires local authorities to publish their eligibility criteria. However, it's not clear if this will be before or after the funding to local authorities has been established. If it's after funding has been allocated, there could be concerns that, rather than ensuring delivery of better and more consistent support for carers, the level of support provided by carers could be driven by the budget. Does the committee agree that we should also write to the Scottish Government to establish the timings for the criteria and the budget setting aspects for eligibility and that the committee could request information on the mechanism that will be used for distributing the funding? Does the committee agree to defer whether it wishes to make a recommendation on the SSI until we receive further information from the Scottish Government if we don't have to make a decision until the 25th of September? Agenda item 3 is child protection and support. We have two panels this morning. I welcome to the committee Stuart Regan, chief executive of the Scottish Football Association, Andrew McKinlay, chief operating officer of the Scottish Football Association, John McCriman, chairman of the SYFA and Duncan Maze, director of finance of the Scottish Youth Football Association. I remind members for the purposes of standing order rule and subjudice. No mention should be made of any live, on-going cases during this evidence session or anything that might prejudice those cases. First, I will ask for some clarity on the chief executive of the SYFA. I am correct in saying that he has now stood down. Thank you, convener, and thank you panel for coming along to join us this morning. I wonder if you could help the committee by describing how someone applies for PVG through one of your organisations. I present tomorrow morning to a soccer academy or a soccer youth group and want to volunteer. What is the process? Can you talk me through that, please? I will talk you through that. The process is that the individual presents himself to the club. The club will know the individual, knows what he is about and they will do the original vet on it to make sure that they are happy with him presenting. We have made some changes that we have presented within our written submissions. At the moment, when the individual gets presented, the club then accepts that they are going to bring him into their organisation to work with the kids. They will then, from 21 August this year, apply for an application to join the SYFA. At that point, they will not be allowed to join the SYFA until they have presented themselves to a PVG night where they are allowed to fill in the PVG form and start the process. Once the office receives that application form, they will then grant them provisional membership. That is a provisional membership that allows them to work with the club under supervision from other PVG holders. Once their PVG process is complete and we receive the return certificate provided that is all in order, they will be granted full membership. Prior to 21 August, we have three months to allow them to get to the PVG night, but we have closed that on 21 August. Can you explain to me a bit more about what that is? That sounds very strategic overview. Practically, what happens? Practically, what happens is that the individual will be with the club, the club will go online as a registered club and they register the official. From that, it is generated the information that they need to go to the league to present themselves for an additional signature to ensure that they are who they are and that everything is in order with the form. Do they go on to another meeting? Yes, they go to a meeting with an additional signature. It can happen in several different ways. They can go to a pre-organised meeting with their league. They can go to another club who has an additional signature there, one of our additional signatures who can do it for them, or if that is urgent and they need to be done quickly, one of the additional signatures can go and meet them at the club and deal with the forums. That then goes into the SYFA office. They are checked against the system, logged on and then they are granted that previously membership. Who checks them on to the system at the SYFA? The SYFA office staff, yes. Is the office staff not volunteers? No, office staff do that. You spoke about PVG nights. Can you tell me what that is? What happens is that there will be certain parts of the year more than others, but clubs will have more than one new volunteer coming along. You may have five, six, seven, eight and nine clubs all with new volunteers. The league organises a specific night for these volunteers to turn up with their documentation, their identifications and they are then beginning the process of PVG. Who is the league? Who are the people who run these PVG nights? The league are volunteers who are members of the league committee who organised that particular league's event. The league competitions and the cup competitions, they organised that. They administrate the league. They start that process with the individual. A couple of supplementaries to Claire's line of questioning. Firstly, how often do you hold these PVG nights and do you hold them throughout the country? Yes, they help throughout the country. As part of their on-going improvements, we have met with the leagues and working along with the leagues to put in. We have requested that they do one every month so that we can have an on-going system of getting it done. We have also spoke with the league. That is what we have requested. Not all leagues will do that because some are smaller than others. It depends on the size of the league. It depends on the requirement. We are also in the process of setting up a group of additional signatories who can support leagues. We might need a bit more help if they have got a backlog of the amount of people they have got to do. If they have got, say, 20 to do and they can only do 10 that night, we can supply additional signatories to support them. Would you be able to give us a little bit more detail on that? I represent Highlands and Islands and I can see already that there might be a challenge for folk getting all over the country. A little bit more information on just how often these things are happening and where people are based and how far they travel would be very helpful. Very much, as you said, depends geographically on the area. When you got into Highlands and Islands, we would look to have individuals from the clubs sanctioned to be additional signatories to allow the clubs to do that part so that we can verify that so that the system can start to run. That's fine. The other question that I had was, we had an email from a chat, Peter Glancy, who used to be the chair of the SYEFA. He mentioned that the SYEFA look for a birth certificate when confirming ID, which isn't a standard requirement. There are usually alternative types of ID that you can use for a PVG check, so why do you ask for something that isn't different from the general PVG requirement and might be trickier for people to get their hands on? To be perfectly honest, I don't know the answer to that question. I wasn't part of the original set-up on what the requirements were. I would need to take that back and look into it and see where we decided that we needed that as against other organisations. Do you provide the committee with that information when you find out? Certainly. Thank you. Get that voice. Jenny. Just as a supplementary to my colleague Claire Hoy's point, with regard to those PVG nights, I was previously a teacher before I was elected. I understand that some sort of child protection training would be involved in applying for the PVG scheme. Can I ask if any of the PVG nights involve any level of child protection training? Do you expect that from volunteers or is that something that you work with the SYEFA with or with Disclosure Scotland? It's something that we're working on on an ongoing basis, training with Disclosure Scotland, Volunteer Scotland and obviously with the SFE. The leagues have training nights in regard to welfare and there is additional signatory training so that they understand exactly what their requirement is in respect of the additional signatory. Can I ask if that training compulsory? Yes, it's part of what we set out. It's not something that would be not done if that makes sense. Okay, thank you. Is it compulsory? It's not right that it's compulsory, but it's part of going forward. It will be part of a directive that we're working on with the SFE on, which makes it compulsory to answer that. Maybe if we can add on that point part of the directive that the Scottish FFA put in place last October involves online education being taken on a compulsory basis by all people that would go through the PVG scheme. And if they don't complete that? Clearly the organisation is in breach and we would bring it to their attention and deal with it through our normal channels. The organisation being the team? We would in the first instance flag it to the youth FFA. The youth FFA would then be responsible for taking it up with the relevant league and or club depending where the fault lies. Forgive me, but they maybe haven't got the best of records in that regard. So therefore are you confident that they have got the capacity to do that? I'm absolutely confident.  They've acted very diligently, very conscientiously. They've put in place a series of new processes and procedures. They've also invested in resource, which was one of the points this committee raised at the last meeting. So they have put additional resource in place, not voluntary resource. And I'm very confident with the changes that have been made, their agreement to come on board with the Scottish FFA's own IT system to actually have a single IT solution. I'm very confident that some of the challenges that were presented at the last committee meeting have now been addressed. OK, Brian. Tears get to work with children in this process. As of 21 August, they are not allowed to work with children until we have received the forums in that they are now in the PVG process. At that point, they become a provisional member, which allows them to work with the kids, provided they are working and supervised by a PVG holder. For the information for the committee, from 1 April 2018, we'll be removing that provisional membership and it will become the situation that they will not be allowed to work with kids until such times as we have completed the PVG process on that individual. Excuse me, if you see that system as being not satisfactory and you're going to change it, then you have to change it, presumably you would want to change it now. What's stopping you from changing it now? We made the first change from going from having a three-month time lag to having, from 21 August, the situation where the individual now has to present itself. For us to get to where we want to be and we think that it's the right place to be, we have to make sure that we have the infrastructure in place to deliver that. That's why we're doing this in two stages. Stage one is to remove the three months, which we've carried out, and then in April, leading in for season 18-19, we'll then move directly to having the PVG forms back before we allow membership. Can I maybe just clarify for the members' understanding? Currently they have a category within the youth affair called provisional member. A provisional member means you can work in a club environment with children providing you're working with somebody who has already got a PVG agreement in place. In the future, from 21 August, the provisional membership category will disappear completely. You're either approved or you're not approved, and if you're not approved, you're not allowed to work with children in the club environment, so it's black and white and it's very clear, very simple. Is it mandatory for clubs to have a child protection officer? Yes. Is it mandatory? Yes. So there's no way that they can circumvent these rules, a club can circumvent these rules? When you say no way, the rules are in place, we monitor the clubs in respect of the PVGs, respect of their child protection officer. So we're confident that we have the infrastructure in place at the moment to handle that particular situation, so we don't see that being something that we would have a problem with. There's just a supplementary act. Can I ask what level of coach, do you have to have a coaching qualification to work with the children? At the moment, the club required to have at least one 1.2 level coach. So therefore you can work with the kids without a coaching qualification? Yes, you can be a coaching assistant if you like. You can work with the coach. With the greatest respect, a coaching assistant is still a level of coach. So what I'm saying to you is that they can work with the children without a coaching qualification? Well, they can work with the club, but the club must have that overall 1.2 level to supervise that. From where we are at here today, if that's not really relevant to this, is it? Oh, I think it is. Part of coach education is around child protection. That's part of what you do during coach education. I'm only asking the question to see whether or not there's a direction of travelling in which you're going. No, that's fine. I just needed to understand the relevance of it. You're correct that the coach education in respect of child welfare and child protection is paramount. It's not tied to whether it's a 1.1 or a 1.2 coaching certificate. It's part of what we're doing with the clubs, part of what the directive we're working with the SFA and making sure that the clubs, as Stuart pointed out there, part of the directive is that every one of our members, so that's all 15,000 will be required to do at least an online child welfare training. All the child protection officers will have to do the online training and a two-hour session in respect of child welfare. So it's part of that directive if that was where you were going with it. To the dates, Mr Reagan said 21st August the new system, I think you said April. No, no, sorry to correct you. 21st August 2017, we removed the three-month allowance and went to, you have to start the PVG process from the 1st April 2018. We will remove it completely. We would have liked to have done it right away, but we need to have the infrastructure and everything in place to make it work. Mr Whittle referred to child protection officers in the letter that we received. It mentions the S-Y-F-A child and wellbeing protection officer. Is this a new post? Within our organisation, there is a child protection officer responsible for the running of it within the office. How long have they been there? That's always been there. Why have we never heard from them? Can you answer that question? At this stage, given that we are dealing with child protection and wellbeing, are we only finding out that you have such a person in your organisation from a letter that you are submitting at this date? I can only apologise if you feel they have not contact us. It's pretty fundamental to the issue. I can only apologise if it's been dealt with through the organisation. It's their role within the office as they deal with the stuff as it comes in. Thank you, convener. I'm two of the organisations that might help you get to where you want to be and might provide at least some infrastructure support, our Disclosure Scotland and Volunteer Scotland. The Scottish Government, when they were responding to the committee's report, suggested that they were anxious that the SYFA could fall behind again due to limited administrative capacity, but that Volunteer Scotland and Disclosure Scotland could provide that additional support. The Government also stated that they feel that progress is being made to improve the way that the SYFA operates. I'd just like to understand what kind of support you are receiving from Volunteer Scotland and Disclosure Scotland. We are very much engaged with Volunteer Scotland and Disclosure Scotland and the SDS, as well, in respect of what we are doing. We have, as Stewart again pointed out earlier, put in resource to make sure that we can deal with what we are doing. I do have some information in respect of where we are in the numbers, so to speak. We looked at where we've been from the last committee meeting. From March to August, we sent to the SDS 6,181 applications for PVG. From March to August, we've received back 6,171 certificates. We're working with them in respect of letting them know where we are, the numbers we're working with, what support we need, and it's been working well over the last few months. We're looking forward to taking that forward. The committee report suggested that funding should be conditional on adequate procedures being in place, and the Scottish Government response states that its investment agreement with the SFA for 17,18 will, and I'm quoting, include robust conditions related to safeguarding, and the SFA will be held to account on those conditions. I just wondered what specific conditions have been included in any agreement. We've agreed a series of objectives that come out of our directive that we've put in place with all members. There's a series of stages that members have to go through, including areas such as training, for example completion of implementation of new guidelines and policies. They have to be in place for all members. We've got a series of trigger dates, and we've agreed with Sport Scotland and the Scottish Government that all of those dates will be adhered to, and the funding will be conditional on that. We've signed up to that. Thank you, convener. Good morning to the panel. Since the committee published a report in April, a BBC investigation in the 28th of June reported that between 2014 and 2016, Disclosure Scotland had informed the Scottish Youth Football Association that 116 of its members were under consideration for listing by Disclosure Scotland, but the association only had records of 69 such cases. I'm sure that you appreciate that it's very difficult for you to take action on cases like this if you simply don't appear to have the records that match up with Disclosure Scotland. Can I ask the panel if you're satisfied that such a situation where the information is clearly completely different from that held by Disclosure Scotland cannot arise again as a result of the steps that you've taken, and can you outline for the committee exactly what steps you have taken to make sure that this doesn't arise again? I can answer the question in respect of where it came from, where we are and where we're going. It came from the fact that our IT systems were inadequate in respect of answering the questions around that particular number. Subsequent to that BBC report, we engaged with Disclosure Scotland to check all of the 116 records. Although we couldn't extract easily the number, what we could do was interrogate the system for every single individual that we carried out. We have worked closely and big thanks to the SFA in respect to the IT, where we are integrating our system into the SFA system, which will allow us the important suets that we require to answer those questions going forward. In the short term, we will work closely with Disclosure Scotland on numbers and talk to them and make sure that we're on track and we can keep that going, but the future is the ability to pull out this type of information on request. You're satisfied that the procedures that you've got in place on the interim basis are all individual cases, and you have that information in order to do that? We can extract the information and work with Disclosure Scotland. We are happy with that. You say that you interrogated closely the records. Is that of the 116 people who have been identified by the BBC or is that of everyone? It's the 116 plus up to the date at that point. The 116 was up to 2016, I believe. We then checked along with Disclosure Scotland right up until July 2017. Each one of the 116 was double-checked. There were three individuals who had been listed by Scottish ministers in that list. How long had they been working with children since they had been listed? I don't have that personal information on that. I can say that once they were identified via the systems, they were removed. Once they were identified via the BBC? No, no. Once they were identified by Disclosure Scotland, they were dealt with in the appropriate manner at the time it happened, so there's no gap between when they were dealt with and the BBC report. If an individual was listed in 2015, they would have been removed in 2015. The answer that I'm giving you is that... How could there have been out of those 116 people? How could there have been three people who were listed who were still on your books? No, no. The three people were removed from the association at the point that they were informed. When Disclosure Scotland let us know that there's an issue, that individual will be precautionary suspended and then, if they're listed, they'll be removed. They'll be removed immediately, we're told. Forgive me, I'm not completely... No, no. Keep pushing because I can get the answers in a fashion that I can maybe explain. I don't think that I'm quite understanding the system and neither am I understanding. If you have an absolutely watertight system for when Disclosure Scotland informed you that someone is being considered for listing, then how did you think that you only had 69 people being considered for listing and yet you had 116? It's a good question. I'll explain two things. I'll explain how the system works in respect of when Disclosure Scotland let us know that there's somebody considered for listing. They'll inform us, we'll go into our system and we will... So did they inform you about 116 people? Yes, yes. We checked all that information and out of there there was the three that were eventually listed. When they inform us that somebody's been considered for listing, we're immediately going to suspend them because they're being considered. We then have to wait to wait the outcome of that consideration, which may be listed or not listed. If they're listed, we'll remove them then, but they've been taken out from the minute we were told about the consideration. The problem with our previous IT system is that when you change the status of an individual, it overwrites it. So it's been able to interrogate the historic information. So if you say, well, how many people are listed between that day and that day, it's difficult for us to go into system and get it. However, going forward, as we work closer with the SFA, we'll be able to answer the questions when we need to. Is that simple terms and hope that I understand it? That your internal systems for removing people who were identified were working? Yes. However, your communication system between Disclosure Scotland in terms of information technology was not working? I don't know if it's between Disclosure or however. Our ability to go back and pull out from a particular time scale, a time date and say how many people are listed in that month or considered for listing that month, we can't get that. That would be consistent from what I understand the BBC found out because they went back several times and said to the SFA, are you sure about those numbers to which your organisation said yes? And they said, well, they aren't correct according to their FOI information. Is that how you see it? I see it exactly as you said. So yes is the answer. We could not get that information correctly. We gave the BBC the information that we had and we believe was correct. However, it's turned out that it's not. Miles? I wanted to pursue this IT question because if you've admitted that your IT systems have not been up to scratch but you're handing this down to member organisations, what assurances do you have that they are not going to in a year's time actually be in the same situation that you've been in and what investment are they putting into their IT systems, which you know about? The IT system covers all of our members. It doesn't cascade, it covers the members. To give you the linear sections of it, at the beginning of the season, the leak registers, so that becomes a leak. The club is then registered to the leak, the official is then registered to the club. Going forward, all of that information and along with the appropriate reporting suites will be sitting on the SFA's system. So not only will we get the reporting suites but we'll also be working closely with the SFA and the SFA will get the reporting suites so they'll know exactly what the numbers are at the same time as we do. For parents and guardians, you can now say that this is completely watertight. I say that when we get there, yes, once we've got all that in place, we will be there. In the short term, we have to migrate the stuff over and get the right reporting suites in and then we're able to look at historic information. Can I just add to that? When you use phrases like watertight, it implies that there's actually a safety issue as far as a child is concerned. What John's describing is improving the process and the visibility of information. When he said they cannot pull off historical reports, that was why they couldn't identify the gap between the 69 and the 116, which Ms Todd was referring to earlier on. They'd taken action with the individuals at the point they were notified but they couldn't produce the historical data to back that up. What they will now have is a situation where they'll be migrating to the Scottish FA. Our system, which has been available for all of our members now for many years, and which the youth FA were the only affiliated association that didn't come on board, will now provide historical reporting and give access to the data that we're all talking about. From the information that you've submitted to the committee, do you think that this is more or less bureaucratic now? I think I wouldn't use the phrase bureaucratic. What I would say is it's a robust process and it's a system which is actually used in all other parts of our non-professional game which gives visibility and transparency and identifies when the PVG scheme has been completed. So I would say robust rather than bureaucratic. Do you accept now that you have a much more important role in oversight and scrutiny? I think the panel's position on this has encouraged us to have a look at the distance between the Scottish FA and the Scottish Youth FA and where there was a gap was working more closely together. I think I would still say that the affiliated associations have devolved responsibility to run youth football. They are responsible for making things happen. Where we have come closer together is in terms of making sure we provide the support to allow them to do the job, so governance, IT, support, resource, finance. So we are actually providing a much closer work in relationship that wasn't there previously under the last regime. I understood the latter part of your statement there but I didn't quite understand the former part. But I accept that you are more involved. Would it be fair to say that you are more involved? We are more involved now in working much more closely with the Youth FA. Okay, thank you. Ivan? Thanks, panel. Just for the record and to clarify some of the terminology, you are talking about listing and consideration for listing. I would just like to understand what exactly those mean and what part of the process that becomes apparent. My understanding was that the PVG process made the application. Disclosure Scotland would then check against a list that they have and come back and say, yes, here's your certificate or no, we're not giving you a certificate. Is that what you mean by listing or is listing something that happens later when their database changes or some other information comes apart? It can happen in two ways. At the point of an application and disclosure may send the information back that that individual is being considered for listing. So that may come back with the PVG. So that's when they're applying. A new individual who's coming into your organisation and disclosure Scotland tell you that individual is being considered for listing. So that's one. The second one is when you have an individual who is in your organisation, who, through other information with due respect to disclosure, will explain. They will then inform you that that individual is being considered. So on the one hand you have a new applicant who you can see is being considered and the other is an applicant or somebody who's already a member who you're informed is being considered. The process is the same for both. The process is suspended until such times as disclosure comes back with either they're being listed or they're not being listed. If they're listed, straightforward membership is not granted or removed if it's an existing member. Again, just to be clear, the 116 number that we're talking about was over a period of time and you're obviously putting through thousands if not tens of thousands. So is that the total number that we're rejected, if you like? No, Ms Todd's. Three were rejected. No, sorry. Of the thousands or tens of thousands that went through, 116 was the number that were considered for listing and total. Yes, that was the number. And that was, I think, belief from 2014. Right, so the vast, vast majority, the percentages, but it's 100 not out of tens of thousands. Yes, it's sort of a last number. Okay, and then out of that number there was only three that were actually listed. Listed. So, again, the vast majority of the ones that were considered for listing weren't listed as such. Okay, okay, that's clear. Thanks. Clear. Thank you, convener. Can I ask if any members of the panel have completed child protection training? I have. No, I've... No. Do you have any plans to do, though? Yes. Part of discussions were having with the SFA and make sure that we're all in line with the directive. Okay, and can I ask how long both Mr McCrimmond and Mr Mace have been members of the SFA? Yeah. I've been a member of the SFA since 1990. Or since the inception of 1999. So a member of youth football in the SFA when it came into prison in 1999. 1999. Yeah. I have been on previous child protection courses with children first, but in the context of where we are right now, I'd like to say that we want to go through the new processes. Okay. So you have completed some child protection training, but not the current child protection training. And Mr Mace? Yeah, done nothing. No. You've done no child protection training whatsoever. Although I have been passed for PBG. That wasn't what I was asking about. No, I know. I was about child protection training. Yes. Okay, and that's something that you are planning on doing? I plan to do that, yeah. I'm not active in football. I purely deal with the finance, although there will be games which I attend, where obviously children are about. So I've got a PBG training. But do you accept that as a senior member of the SFA you have a responsibility to be aware of your protection issues? Yeah, I think that we should be setting an example. Yeah. Absolutely. Yeah. I want to turn to Mr Regan. It's about an issue that I'd raised with you last time you were here at committee. And which was in the committee's report where I had asked about issues that were raised by the then children and young persons commissioner about his concerns about the overall culture in professional football regarding children and his words at the time about control over children. And I had asked you about the power imbalance within the relationship between clubs and children. Now, as I see from the report, we'd said that we didn't accept that it wasn't credible that there was no power imbalance. However, you've reiterated that in your letter to the committee today. I wonder if you could perhaps explain why you still take that stance. I think it's the context in which the comments were made in the letter that we received from the then children's commissioner. He suggested that an imbalance could allow opportunities for sexual abuse to take place. But that wasn't the question that I'd asked you at the committee. Sorry to interrupt you there, because I'd asked you about what he'd said at a previous committee meeting not about a letter that had been sent to yourself. And I was quite specific about that. Well, I couldn't recall what was said at a previous committee meeting when you made reference to the term power imbalance. The term power imbalance was used in a letter we'd received from the then commissioner in the context of providing a vacuum where sexual abuse could take place. We thought that was significantly overstated and reiterated that we didn't believe such a power imbalance would allow sexual abuse to take place. That was the point I was making in the last committee meeting. If I've answered or if I've given you the impression I was talking about a different question, I'm happy to take any specific question about what you meant by power imbalance and I'm happy to take that now. Absolutely. Perhaps I could repeat the question that I asked you at the committee when I clarified that at that meeting, which was where I'd said to you, sorry but that's not the issue that the Children's Commissioner was alluding to. It certainly was not the inference that I took from the information that he gave us at the hearing. So I was quite specific that it was about at this committee. Rather it was about a power imbalance between clubs and children because of contracts that children were signing and the conditions attached to those that were imposed on children and young people. It wasn't about sexual or physical abuse and I'm quoting here from that. It's about power imbalance which in itself can be abusive. Do you accept that? Well, I don't accept that there is a significant power imbalance in such a way that the children are somehow disadvantaged or put in a difficult place. It's very clear at the outset, at the beginning of the registration process, exactly what happens as far as that child is concerned. Parents are involved. There's a very clear process in place and children are free to go back to play amateur football on a 28-day period if they're not playing for their team. You told me at that point in time and I raised that, that 28 days is not their free. It's not they? It's not that they are free too. They have a contractual obligation. They are able to go back and play. They're free to go back if they're not playing for their team. So, if the issue is about opportunity and if the issue is about not getting chances to play, then they're able to go back and play recreational football. If they wish to move to another professional academy, then there is a process in place which is very similar to every other country across Europe where compensation is paid between clubs for the training that has been provided in the formative years of that child's development. That's a mechanic to compensate clubs for giving free coaching and free training to potential footballers, which if they weren't with a professional club, they would typically pay for in the youth or community sector. So, it's a compensation mechanism, not a contract. Can I see there, Mr Regan, that what you're talking about is children as a commodity? No, I disagree. I think what we're talking about is a pathway to develop elite players, which works in every other country across Europe where there is a process in place to ensure that clubs who are investing a lot of time, energy and resource in developing elite players, and we have a duty of care to develop elite players as well if we want to be successful on the international stage. We have that process in place and a suitable compensation mechanism for the clubs. It's very clear. It's very transparent. Parents are aware of it. The clubs themselves have all signed up to it. That's the mechanism that we've been talking to the Children's Commissioner about for a number of years, and there's a misunderstanding between registration and contract. It's not a contract, it's a registration scheme, and there's a compensation mechanism for any player that moves between academies. There is a release clause, which we've put in place, having had discussions with the Public Petitions Committee and, obviously, you raised the point at the last meeting. That 28-day release clause has been put in as a way of actually giving children further opportunities to go and play football if they feel they've been frozen out. With all of that, all that you have said today, you still don't accept that there is a power imbalance between a professional club and a child? No, there's a process in place. I'm not asking about a process, I'm asking about a power imbalance that can then lead to abuse.  By using phrases like power imbalance, you're implying that the clubs are somehow abusing that position that they find themselves in. No, no, no. You've used the word abuse. I said I wasn't alleging that. What I'm saying is, do you not accept that there is a power imbalance between a large professional football club and a child? No, I don't accept that. I believe that there's a process in place. I understand that there's a disagreement here. That's absolutely on the record. Brian. From a coaching perspective, and further to that, obviously when a child starts to work with a coach, there is an imbalance. There has to be an imbalance. There has to be a different form of relationship. I think that what concerns me is that in most coaching child relationships, there is an easy mechanism where that child, if not happy with the situation, can move on to another coach and can leave. My concerns, as soon as a contract becomes into consideration, that becomes a much bigger imbalance than would naturally be expected within a coach athlete relationship. Do you not accept that by contracting or signing some sort of registration form, that becomes a much bigger imbalance? Is that not something that you can accept? I'm not alleging anything at all. I accept that. That leaves itself open to certain kinds of issues. I accept that there's a relationship where the club has the ability to make decisions for the benefit of the club. What they're doing is considering all of the training that they've provided to that player during the pathway and they're considering during a three-year period whether to offer that player a professional contract. All of that is outlined at the beginning of the process and if a player is not offered a contract, he's actually released. What I don't accept is that there is somehow a position where the club is abusing that situation or somehow bullying the child or putting the child in a difficult position. It's a very transparent process. You've answered my question in a roundabout fashion because in your answer, at no point did you say benefit of the child. That's where I'm always going to have an issue here in any sport looking after your youth and making sure that the youth are benefited to the extreme. To any sports benefit, that's the start and finish. I've got to say, Mr Meaghan, we've had this discussion before. Again, you never mentioned the welfare of the child in any of your answers. With respect, the benefit of the child comes if that child is offered a contract at the end of it. The ultimate benefit is a job in football, a job as a professional footballer in the academy. No, it's not. I'm sorry. The benefit of the child is to have a positive experience playing football. If I ask you the question, what percentage of youth players in your academies at the moment get a full-time contract? A very small percentage. We all know that. We all know that there are very few jobs in football, but the clubs, as we pointed out in our response, the clubs do a huge amount for players. They have well-being programmes, lifestyle education, academic education, football education, child protection, parents' nights. There are a huge amount of benefits to the player. If you were to visit as a committee any of our performance schools or any of our academies, and we've made that offer to you previously, you will see the fantastic work that goes on. As far as the ultimate benefit of coming through an elite training programme, the ultimate benefit is being awarded a job at the end of it, being awarded a contract. If you don't get that contract, then many kids go and find careers elsewhere using some of the education that they've had. Many go back to playing grass-roots football, and ultimately that's a positive thing as well. Many are cast aside, heartbroken and left without that support as well, when I've seen it in my own community and among my own group of friends. I think that what's taking the temperature off the committee is causing concern, is the failure to recognise that football players are a huge valuable commodity, and that is the priority for teams who are bringing people through. I think that not to recognise that and the financial worth of an individual who goes through that process and becomes very successful is something that I think everyone's finding frustrate. When you use phrases like commodity, you're implying that that is the be all and end all as far as the process is concerned. What we do within Scottish football, what we do with our clubs, is put a process in place to develop a pathway to develop elite players. That pathway is an investment on behalf of the club, and that's why when there is a registration scheme at the age of 15 years old to 17, which is one of the points that's been raised in the Public Petitions Committee, what the club are looking for is a period where they can make a decision on that investment. If a player isn't playing regular football and wishes to exit that process, he has an opportunity to do that within 28 days. If he wants to move to another academy, then as long as there is a compensation mechanism fulfilled, that can also happen. Commodity feels like you're trying to imply that it's simply about the financial value. You've used terms like investment, you've used terms like compensation. Investment in the child. These are terms that normally apply to financial transactions. Investment in the child can be time, it can be resource, it can be education. It doesn't just have to be financial investment, but if you're not going to provide a free coach for many years, or coaches for many years, that is an investment. That's an investment that clubs put in that you wouldn't get in the youth sector where many children pay a monthly fee to be coached in the youth sector. Jenny. Does this follow up to that? On page 6 of your submission from the SFA, with regard to the power imbalance, you alluded to training in relation to wellbeing, lifestyle education, academic education, the idea that taking part in sport can impact on a child's academic performance. That's been my experience as a teacher previously. All those things focus on the child, and they don't focus on the behaviour of a coach. Therefore, in terms of what we've discussed today, has the SFA had any discussions with the SYFA and Disclosure Scotland about putting together some sort of child protection training package where you all work together and deliver it to all coaches? Because there seems to be a pretty systemic lack of understanding about GERFIC, about child wellbeing, about protecting children in terms of sport. Would you agree that that's something that needs to be looked at? We separate out coach education for a second from the PVG process that we were talking about. As part of the Scottish FFA's coach education programme, child protection is a part of that. In addition, we've also gone through a programme with Positive Coaching Scotland, which is part of the Winning Scotland Foundation. It's a programme that they run. That's now embedded into all of our coaching programmes. The Youth FFA have run the Positive Coaching Scotland programme. What we're trying to do is to focus not just on child protection, which is clearly important, but also on behaviour and attitude as well. That is an intrinsic part of the programme that's in place. Do you accept, though, that the PVG application process isn't just about filling in a form? Because Mr McCrimmon, at the start of today's committee session, talked about PVG nights, which, to all intents and purposes, sounded like people sitting in a room and being taught how to fill in a form. Actually, PVG is about so much more than that. It's about child protection. It's about getting it right for every child, the two go hand in hand. You're absolutely right, but the process has to start with an application. It has to start with somebody filling in an appropriate form with an appropriate signatory and getting themselves into the system. Once that's approved, there is then online education, online training, which we've put in place with the Youth FFA, that everybody has to do, and that's mandatory in order to comply with the directive that we've agreed. Can I just add to that just one specific? It's further down page 7 in our evidence where we say that in September 2016, we appointed a Children's Rights and Wellbeing Officer over and above our manager to assist in advancing the developments of education for coaches and referees, which is the point that you're making, and then making Children's Rights and Wellbeing essential elements for people coming into those roles. So we do see that as a very, very important thing. Does that officer work with your clubs directly? That person works within the Scottish FFA, so he works with our members, which includes our clubs and would-be people like the SYFA to help them to embed within their membership. Do you measure how that's embedded or how do you gather that information in terms of if that person has an impact? That's on-going. That was September 2016, so it's a good step forward, I would suggest. Thank you for being on a good morning panel. It's just pertaining to the issue of football agents in section 6 of both submissions, particularly to any legislative impediments to the PVG checking of agents. The SYFA response is that it is fully supported with any change to the appropriate legislation, which would bring intermediaries, agents within the scope of the PVG legislation. The SYFA response is, the SYFA notes the content and has no further comment. Would the SYFA like to clarify what their position is? Well, the SYFA don't deal with agents in respect, you know, as an association. We don't have any interaction with agents. We don't have anything in respect of that through the association that works within that type of remit, so that's why we've just said we note the comments. It's not something we felt that we would be able to answer anything on. Okay, I'm just a point of clarification. Thank you. Anecdotally, we have had, I personally have had and I know the committee members will have as well, communication from former officials within the youth football, who have raised concerns about issues around child protection PVG or other issues within the running and governance of the SYFA. They have then been subject to disciplinary procedures themselves for making those complaints. What do you have to say about that? I'll speak on this, and then I'm sure Mr McCrimmond will add to it. The two individuals that you refer to have had, well, okay, we are aware of two individuals who have come to the Scottish SYFA and raised concerns about the way that the membership of the youth SYFA was handled and the way that their club was handled within the league it plays within. Both myself and Andrew McKinley have met the individuals. We have then broken meetings with the youth SYFA. We have met those individuals and the youth SYFA and we've put in place a series of constructive steps to try and address those concerns and we are confident that those challenges will be dealt with in the coming weeks. If we can contact us who finds themselves in that position what is the procedure for them to try and address that issue? The individuals would, clearly in the first instance, go to the youth SYFA and it's fair to say that Mr McCrimmond and his new board have been very proactive in addressing any concerns that have been raised from the previous regime. We're aware of where they've done that on several occasions and there is a meeting plan next week to try and deal with those. That's helpful. If we have further communication with any of those individuals you will refer them to yourself in the first instance or Mr McCrimmond. I'll be for them to be referred to myself and we'll put them in touch with the relevant people at the youth SYFA. In relation to the SFFA's review that's under way any recommendations that come forward how will those be implemented you know how will there be a negotiation between the SFFA and the SYFA about are you accepting all the recommendations how will it be overseen who will ensure that things are implemented Can I just check it on some of its terminology we've obviously got the independent review with Martin Henry which won't report to the beginning of next year the independent inquiry that children first have carried out which we refer to in the interim report we've had from that, is it a latter? I think that both the anything that reflects anything that impacts on the issues that we're discussing today and there's recommendations go forward either to the SFFA or the SYFA to overseen the implementation and the acceptance of all those recommendations The specific one we have at the moment which is the one from children's first we've shared the interim report with the SYFA we accept that all of it and is the interim report still not in the public domain that's correct will it be coming in the public domain? yes it will, once we get the final report we asked if we could put it in the public domain and we were asked if we would wait until the final report was done which we accepted it will absolutely be in the public domain you were asked by not to put it in the public domain we asked children first about the interim report and understandably they said we would prefer if we waited until the final report and I think we've mentioned here that the final report we're happy to make available to the committee we'll work with the SYFA to go through recommendation by recommendation and to check that every one of those is done in fact it's our intention at the end to ask children first to go back in and to double check that that has happened okay so yeah, in relation to the governance review that's on going at the moment you said governance review referring to the Martin Henry historical child sex abuse review that is currently underway we are getting monthly progress reports we're expecting the the chair to provide us with a final report early in 2018 and again we're more than happy to share the content of that report okay, thank you very much for the evidence this morning I think on some issues we've found it much more productive than previous sessions on other issues I'm sure the committee will have concerns but thank you very much for your evidence this morning okay, thank you can I suspend briefly can I welcome to the committee Lorna Gibbs, chief executive of Disclosure Scotland and Gerard Hart director of detection services and policy Disclosure Scotland you're welcome this morning just moved to questions Colin and good morning to the panel can I begin by following up on a question I asked the previous panel which was in relation to the BBC investigation which reported in June in that investigation reported that there was a big discrepancy between the records held by yourself Disclosure Scotland and the records that the SYFA held in relation to notifications that a person was under consideration for a listing can I ask whether the discrepancy has not been resolved and you're satisfied that the information held by the SYFA is correct and whether the discrepancy is in relation to record keeping or whether there was any indication at all that action hadn't been taken at the time happy to do that when the discrepancy came to light we had an immediate meeting with colleagues from SYFA where we talked through the approaches that they had taken and what they were doing one of my colleagues then went and spent quite a considerable amount of time in SYFA's office comparing our list to their list and checking to make sure that they could identify the 116 people who we had given them notification of so I'm confident that the figure that we have is our 116 is correct and I'm confident that they have now been able to identify all of the people in their system so yes I'm confident that we are now in a position where the figures are accurate In terms of going forward are you satisfied that any changes that have taken place within SYFA means that we won't have a repeat of that type of discrepancy in the future My understanding of where they are is that they're on a journey with their IT system and that certainly seemed to be what had been causing the problems I mean their IT system is for them to implement in the customer engagement team to come and see how they plan to operate the new system and to talk through their new guidance and make sure that we're content so at the moment they are on a journey to a better place and we will continue to have conversations with them to make sure that we're giving them the help and support they can to make sure that their figures are in a better position Just on the issue of help and support Is there many other sporting bodies in organisation to get that same level of support that you're providing to the SYFA and additional support Just on the issue of your own compliance checks when you carry out compliance checks is one of those checks to ensure that an organisation has records of notifications from Disclosure Scotland that a person is under consideration for listing We offer advice and support to a number of organisations Certainly the bulk of our time in recent months has been SYFA but we have also been providing support and advice to bodies like the Scottish Rugby Union We provide regular briefing sessions and help sessions for regulatory bodies who are doing counter signatures so we have a whole series of events where people will come together will get advice from my team on how the process works particularly on what their responsibilities are so that's a programme that's been going on for some time The compliance visits will look at a range of things including whether or not it's understanding and aware of its full responsibilities and how those are being implemented We provide help to as many organisations as we can Obviously as any other Government organisation there are constraints in our capacity but SYFA have taken the bulk of our activity but we are making sure that we're carrying on with that broader range of support to other organisations that might also require the help One final point In the support that you provide to different organisations there are particular themes particular concerns that are standing out that should be tackled as part of the whole review of the PVG system Just for some information Over the last 18 months we've visited 323 different registered bodies and given them information about the PVG scheme and how it operates and we've carried out 46 workshops all with organisations that deal with children One of the themes that comes out of these is the degree of awareness in the public and in organisations about how the barring system works and how the PVG scheme works generally so there is a need to raise public and organisational awareness of PVG What does it stand for? Is it about a simple check or is it about much more than that which we believe it is? It's about an on-going relationship between a person and the organisation they work for and Disclosure Scotland to monitor and check that person over time so we want to really think through those issues in the PVG review and make sure that when we emerge from that review what's left is a scheme which is much more publicly synonymous with safeguarding over a longitudinal type of idea rather than just a bit of paper you get when you apply for a disclosure In relation to the organisations that you deal with 1,000 Is it 2010, 10,000 or 50,000? It's less than 10,000 Over the last as I say over the last 18 months we've visited 323 different registered bodies However there are fewer bodies than there are individuals who apply for disclosures These umbrella bodies or clubs are probably less than 1,000 but there are many tens of thousands of different customers that we have I'm sorry to have those numbers You can provide us with that In relation to those organisations is the SYFA one of the largest by volume Yeah? Is it the largest by volume? I think it is the largest sports club by volume In your view For that organisation the largest by volume in Scotland to be running such a weighty system on the back of volunteers in goodwill I think we're increasingly working with them to get them to understand what their responsibilities are Is it credible for them to run such a weighty system on the basis of volunteers in goodwill in your opinion and you're allowed to give your opinion I'm a civil servant I'm not sure I'm comfortable giving my opinion I think there needs to be checks and balances The ministers when they were here during your previous session were talking very much about the value that we place on volunteers and certainly there is nothing that we would want to do that would restrict the ability of people to go out there in local communities I think there's always going to need to be a balance between the people who want to volunteer for a short period of time where their child is a particular age and having a structure that sits alongside that that makes sure that people have a sense of the wider responsibilities so I think there always needs to be checks and balances and a mix of people who are there to volunteer and people who are there for a more sustained period of time and therefore are responsible to that So the SYAFA will by volume send more disclosure checks to you than say Glasgow City Council I would need to double check the numbers I don't have the numbers to hand I mean certainly in terms of sporting bodies they would be the largest whether they're the largest single entity across what District of Scotland do I'm not sure but we can certainly find out the biggest customers The large public sector organisations are the majority of the PVG scheme teachers, social workers nurses and alike The sector within much the SYAFA work is what we would refer to as the free check area where people who are volunteering to do work with children receive a fee waiver for those checks and they are a large volume part of that segment but the PVG scheme is 1.1 million strong and there are obviously thousands of coaches in youth football but they're only a drop in the ocean compared to the large number of people who are in the PVG scheme I think the issue around safeguarding within that kind of volunteer context is one where I think the interfaces between the club and the outside agencies who are responsible for child protection have to be really well developed so good child protection training good adherence to GERFEC and the ideas around child development is a good interface with us in terms of that whole checking and barring part of it I think it's feasible to have a large volunteer organisation when you have those really carefully designed interfaces that allow statutory systems to step in whenever there's a problem and for problems to become apparent when they start to develop much more readily than perhaps was the case at the end of 2016 when the backlog became apparent so I think there is a rationale behind it but obviously the safeguards have to be also in place I think it's fair to say that the vast majority of coaches are volunteers and the system would obviously collapse without that If I could just very briefly go through my own recent experience having taken on a young 16-year-old T20 Paralympic athlete within about three seconds of taking him on, I can see that the child protection officer arrived in front of me and said I want to see a licence I want to see a PBAG check For me that's good practice that's the way it should happen it's fairly obvious that's not happening within football and my question to you is that do you feel there's a cultural issue here that's getting in the way of child protection in that the governing bodies are more involved with protecting the rights of the clubs than protecting the rights of the children I think you're taking us into areas that are really out with the remit and responsibility of Disclosure Scotland so we have a particular remit and responsibility in relation to the PVT scheme and how it operates I think when you start getting into some of the issues around power and balances and how coaches work it's just not something away from what we do I'm sure you would accept that within the investigation of the part this committee has done and other committees have done around this are suggesting that there are many many coaches historically in the last few years have come to light that are not PVG checked with that note indicating and that's not the same across the vast majority of sports so football at worst can catch up with a lot of other sports and I'm just asking if there's a cultural issue we need to deal with you I think that the issues that were identified around the backlog with the SYFA were not so much that the SYFA hadn't thought that it was right that these people should be checked because they clearly had a policy that they should be checked the issue was that they weren't processing and sending the checks through with the required speeds to make sure that the regarding outcomes of the scheme were being upheld so it was an administrative inefficiency insofar as the backlog was concerned so I think that's a different question to whether or not there's an appetite to do checking per se because I think that there is an appetite to do checking within the SYFA and hopefully that will continue and be strengthened so I don't know if that helps but I think as well Disclosure Scotland works with a whole range of different organisations within Government around the GERFIC agenda around the Government's purpose so we very much see ourselves as part of a constellation of services around young people trying to strive for those inclusive outcomes of which safeguarding and protection is a very important part so we don't see ourselves in isolation from these protective systems and I think that for example we are involved in a whole range of development that are about child welfare and development but as far as the particular matter of the SYFA checking people are concerned our understanding is that that wasn't a principled objection to doing it it was simply that there was a really serious problem in how they had chosen to go about doing it which had caused this major backlog Can I just for clarification a PV check's historical so when somebody applies for a PV check you're looking to see whether there's anything that would prevent them from working with children? Not entirely because there's two aspects to the PVG scheme the first thing is the first one is that check that you refer to looking back at a person's criminal record and seeing what's on there and representing that on the disclosure if there's anything the second part is that the chief constable is given the opportunity to put on to the disclosure any information that the chief constable thinks is pertinent to working with that group of children or vulnerable adults so that's also there and the third part is the prospective part so you've entered into the disclosure process but you've also signed up to being on-going monitored if you like and so we upload 93 million records every month to match against our scheme membership to see whether or not there's new information coming up about that person if there is just to answer Mr McKee's point earlier on if there is new information that comes up on that person's scheme record and it's of a sufficient degree of seriousness to act we will write to the organisations who that person works for and tell them that the person's under consideration for barring so that's how that process works it's an active monitoring I think the point I'm going to the final point the final point I was going to to is that I accept that that's the case but surely part of the process should then be into child welfare and child protection training should be part of the next stage of a PVG after a PVG sorry certainly when we've done our workshops and we do our visits to the regulatory the registered bodies rather our customer engagement team constantly talks about the purpose of PVG not just the mechanics of PVG why it's there so organisations are clear that we really talk about the duty to refer for example if somebody's barred not barred rather sacked from working with children or protected adults on one of the grounds of referral that's in the act they must be referred to us so we do deal with that qualitative aspect around the purpose of the scheme and not just the mechanics of it I think is also in the PVG review which is currently on going we're really focusing in the laser focusing in on trying to find the right messages and the right branding for the future of PVG to capture entirely that aspect of why the scheme exists not just that it's a perfunctory step on the way to a job or a volunteering opportunity it's actually something with a much more significant role very much can I just pick up the issue that Ivan McKee was pursuing there and with specific reference to the SYFA are you comfortable that they did act appropriately when you informed them of people who were being listed or potentially listed and that it was simply an IT glitch in terms of pulling the data out I think we are as far as we can be I mean as I said we've sat down to identify all of those individuals the responsibility to take action is very much upon them but there's certainly nothing that we have come across in the past few months of working with them very closely suggests that there is a problem with that it looks like it's been a as Gerard said it looks like it's been an administrative problem and that they have been taking action they just have not been able to then go in and identify that because of their IT systems The other two things I wanted to ask about it came to light that the SYFA look for birth certification as part of an identification and I know that other organisations that I personally have volunteered with sometimes ask for different types of ID rather than the standard ID that is required for a PVG check Are you aware of that being very common or I mean I can see the obvious problem with that you know for example when I was volunteering myself I went along to an evening to get checked and had the wrong kinds of ID and the organisation I was volunteering for wanted I had checked the PVG website Do you think that it would be useful in your PVG review to standardise that? We're actually really investing a lot of time and effort in that particular aspect we're going to move to a digital platform so in that digital platform there will be a new way to verify ID within that process to make it much easier and much more straightforward the way that you would with those kinds of electronic commercial activities that we're all really used to now so you're absolutely right there's a confusion around that whole ID verification and there's a good reason for it is to make sure that you're matched with the right records but you know there's too much variation and we're going to fix that in the PVG review The other thing I wanted to ask about was this issue which keeps coming up and was certainly raised by a next chair of the SmyFA which is being disclosed for multiple different organisations I was in that situation myself for my job I was disclosed and I also had a number of different organisations that I volunteered for I was PVG checked Are we moving towards one single PVG check and everyone being able to access that register? It's certainly one of the things that we're looking at as part of the wider PVG review and also the future thinking about the organisation and how we operate we are exploring a number of options that make it easier for the individual to access their records without endangering the safeguarding so exactly how we will do that is something that we're still looking at but we are aware of the challenges at the moment of having to get several scheme records of different people so it's balancing the protection angle of it so that we don't miss anything with making sure that it's as streamlined as it can be for the individual so it's always going to be a balance but we're looking at how we can improve that Absolutely, the doers in a community The reason why we it's kind of necessary just now is that by applying for a disclosure an organisation puts their name against that person so that if we come across new information about that person's conduct we then know that they're working for the scouts and for the boys brigade or whatever it might be to write to them so it registers an interest against that organisation and that's why that's important so we need to find new ways to in the future achieve that outcome A single register but multiple groups could be listed Thank you, thanks very much Thank you, convener I just look about a clarity about when you became involved when it became apparent that the SYFA were experiencing difficulty because the committee has heard previously that offers were made to a system that were declined so I'd just like to understand what it is that alerts you to the fact that an organisation isn't on top of this We have a customer engagement team and we also monitor our volumes and we anticipate and profile our volumes so that we know that for example in a certain month that we were expecting from past behaviour a certain number of applications from certain quadrants so putting that together with our customer engagement teams intelligence and tendrils they have out there we became aware of the SYFA issue as a potential backlog I think it came up through Volunteer Scotland I then wrote to them I think it was December or November and said have you got a problem and we offered some assistance I gave more detailed accounts of this to the previous committee I can't remember the detail now it's a bit foggy but I wrote to them several times by Mr Little the previous chief executive so I think that they're followed a process whereby the committee got involved and we had various discussions with them and then the help was put in to assist them but it would be through that process of our customer engagement team monitoring our volumes listening to what there's a lot of contact between ourselves and organisations and with Volunteer Scotland and other umbrella bodies and we just have good intelligence coming in that way assistance was declined were you surprised or concerned and did you do anything with that information at that point? Yes, I escalated the matter and offered assertively several times to support the organisation we've leased with Volunteer Scotland I can't remember that it was around the time of the first committee so it very quickly came to committee obviously as a civil servant we made the Government more generally aware of the issue and escalated within the Government as well so there was a very active response from Disclosure Scotland as we would do in any situation where we perceived a child protection problem like that I think the committee have been aware through correspondence from previous officials of a system that seems to work the PVG evening system I have a picture in my head of a little hut or changing room and forms being filled in in this manner, is there a model of best practice that you'd like to see in place? Do you make sure that organisations understand the expectations upon them? We've been doing increasing work around that and we've been doing work not only with SYFA but also with other bodies and we're looking at doing an online training package we get round as many organisations as we can but we recognise that we can't get round everybody so we've been working with colleagues in Volunteer Scotland and others to say what could we do to make something more readily available to people so it's certainly something that we've got in train at the moment. Can I ask one more question? What is it that's happening now with yourselves and the SYFA that wasn't happening before? I think it's collaboration, it's speaking to one another and it's actually SYFA accepting help as Gerard had said and trying to get in and help them for some time but they're now actively engaging in that help so it's been easy for us and our colleagues in Volunteer Scotland to set up additional meetings and when we've had 13 training sessions around the country since the end of April and the start of the summer holidays we've got another two happening today so I think it's that willingness of SYFA and others to let us in and let us help, that's what's felt to me like it's made the difference. Can I ask in relation to an organisation if you have concerns about an organisation you've raised it with them do you and there's not any response what happens next or is not a satisfactory response? We don't have powers to go in and force people to act on our recommendations if there are major issues around child protection then there are a number of formal mechanisms which Gerard can talk you through but most of what we do is around offering help, trying to get people to listen explaining why what we do is important but do you want to talk specifically about child protection concerns? If there are particular child protection concerns we would immediately escalate those through all the relevant channels we wouldn't sit on and... What are those channels? The child protection concern that might be the police and we wouldn't hesitate to do that and when we detect bad people trying to work with children or vulnerable adults we immediately report them to the police so we take that very seriously That would be an indication of here's bad person A trying to work with these children of course she would phone the police that's just what anybody would do but here's a systematic breakdown we've tried to deal with this organisation and all that so how do we then escalate that? Our powers to audit an organisation under our codes and the legislation relate mainly to the ways in which the law is complied with in terms of the disclosure law there are very few powers as Lorna said around the softer stuff the more qualitative aspects of performance however we wouldn't abdicate responsibility in that situation as we didn't with the SYFA we would use our customer engagement team to lean in to that organisation to try and get as much intelligence as possible about what was going on we've got really good relationships with the umbrella bodies who volunteer Scotland are one of them but there are many other bodies who represent smaller entities who use them to counter-sign disclosures and they have a power relationship with those organisations so we can use those levers to try and influence what's going on also often there are other parallel parts of government which have got an interest in that part or that activity for example active Scotland or sport Scotland in respect of SYFA because we are part of government we can link up with those parts of government and we did do that with the SYFA around sport Scotland and active Scotland so there's a co-ordinated, it's about being switched on it's about having your head up and looking at what the bigger picture is of the power that you might not have or have with regard to the organisation but we certainly would always be assertive in leaning in to these situations and would never knowingly allow a situation where a safeguarding risk was built up or building up to persist without continual escalation of that until we were satisfied it was being dealt with Is this one of the most stark cases you've had of problems or are there other cases where you've had much worse? No, I wouldn't say there's been cases where there's been worse, I mean I think this is one of the ones where we were because it was a sort of a part of this which wasn't visible you know, the backlog wasn't immediately visible to us you know and when it became apparent that there was a backlog the magnitude of it was shocking to us and we felt that that was a real problem because there was a risk that the approaches could be exposed to young people without necessarily having been checked and for that basis we took urgent action around that there have been other we've just been through four years of bringing on the Scottish workforce on to the PVG scheme and some of that was about people who were already in jobs already having been enhanced disclosed, checked whenever PVG went live in 2011 there was a period of time within which we had to onboard into the scheme large numbers of public sector retrospectives checking and so we did that in phases there was a period of time whenever some organisations were doing better than others about getting those people on but we managed that process and concluded it so that it's not entirely unprecedented that there's backlogs but the fact that this was happening within the context of a rather hidden situation and in a very sensitive area with football coaching was a real concern to us You mentioned earlier the Scottish Rugby Union Are they working with you because they came to you for assistance or were similar issues backlog or systematic problems flagged up there? My understanding is that they came to us for assistance we had a meeting ministers had a meeting around about the time of the last committee with a number of bodies and sports and I think that the conversation with rugby football came out of that So is the same seeking assistance to get their systems up to scratch? We've been done one of the things we did with the SYFA was that we did a series of road shows following the issues that happened and those road shows particularly focused on not just PVG checking but also on training around safeguarding our ambition is to do that with a wider body of sports organisations and we've got some agreement around the table that we can have that role so we're looking to roll that out in partnership with Sport Scotland and other organisations to try and offer that to other sporting bodies Just to be clear I don't want the SRU tarred with anything that they haven't done but this is not about protection or issues within that sport Thank you In relation to the PGV review that's going on what's your involvement in that and when will it report and how is the review going? It's being led by our organisation in particular it's being led by Gerard and his team so there is a series of steps in place which I'll get Gerard to talk you through but it's basically owned by our organisation and then we will bring recommendations to ministers in terms of future action The PGV review has been going on since the end of last year Mr Swinney announced it in Parliament following an inspired question and then spoke at a conference on 21 November 2016 at which he announced the PGV review The first phase was around setting up the terms of reference and those were published in February and those terms of reference set out a fairly wide virus for the review it's looking at a whole range of fundamental aspects of the PVG scheme around whether the scheme should be either fully or partially mandated the nature of regulated work is part of that the financial arrangements for the scheme and how it will sustain itself in the future are part of that so it's a very wide ranging and large number of events targeting a large number of organisations over the last few months of the review and that will lead to a formal consultation being published in the late autumn early about December, January period and then a bill will come forward at some point in 2018 probably towards the end December 2018 so that is the plan for the review and the review is going very well we've had enormous engagement from a whole range of different organisations including a major charities concerned with child protection child welfare employers organisations representing people with convictions so it's been the full gamut of interested parties have engaged with the review so we're very hopeful that it's going to be a very useful exercise there's a lot of support for the scheme itself I mean people have different ideas about how it could be improved or whether it should be mandatory but the principle that there should be a way of checking people who work with vulnerable children and vulnerable adults has definitely been accepted across the piece are looking at potentially mandatory it's one of the areas that we're looking at we're a long way from reaching a decision and the consultation we've done so far there isn't a single view but it's absolutely something that we'll be looking at and that issue around professional membership as well will be considered as well Do you mean in terms of the SYFA's behaviour? Well that isn't really a thing that the PVG has within it that's something the SYFA did Did you not provide guidance in relation to that? Well Or comment Because the scheme isn't mandatory it's impossible to say to an organisation that you must have a check done before you allow that person to be working with children of vulnerable adults However, our advice would be You've probably just answered the question that we're probably all thinking of here Our advice would be that that should be done It's particularly where we're regulated work is being undertaken The review will look fully at this and whether the scheme should be mandatory or not or the degree to which it should be mandatory is actually one of the things that we can enter with our thinking in terms of this review Thank you, Em, do you want to ask a final question? Miles, final question Welcome to today's meeting In the previous session I'd asked Mr McCrimmond when he thought the system would be watertight and he said specifically when we get there when do you think they'll get there given your expertise and looking at other organisations like this I wouldn't There's nothing that would make me think they can't deliver on the timescale that they're working to I think what they need to do is carry on working with us and other bodies to make sure that they're looking at the full picture so that they are putting as you say child protection front and centre and I think if they continue to do that I mean certainly it feels the relationship between us and them feels appreciably different than it did last time we were in front of the committee and that in itself gives us hope that we will get to a place where we can make sure that they're providing the safeguarding checks that they should do Just one final thing we missed was in relation to agents Is it your view that they should be covered? It really depends on the work they're doing it's one of the issues with regulated works that one job title can mean a range of different things so if they are actively supervising children that aren't being without other people being there then yes but different agents will do things in a different way so it's hard to absolutely say in a job title but people who are having unsupervised access to children whatever they're doing then yes But you're considering that aspect Definitely one of the options of policy options that we've discussed with people who've been coming along to our events is if you were to make part of the scheme mandatory you could specify certain roles which would be in the scheme regardless and obviously whether or not football agents would be something that would have to emerge from the review but if you created the mechanism to have a scheme like that then that would be one of the possible outcomes but right now they could be and I think it's also important to say to the committee that any one of us can join the PVG scheme under our own scheme but the difference is that if we don't have an employer who's offering us regulated work what we get is a statement of scheme membership which says that we're in the PVG scheme it says whether or not we're under consideration for barring or not but it doesn't give any criminal history information now people can use that students who are coming out who maybe want to offer the PVG scheme membership on their CV can join the PVG scheme so that is not being employed or having a countersigning employer such as to generate a disclosure isn't the only way to become a member of the PVG scheme and when you do you can be subject to on-going monitoring so football agents if they wanted to could join the PVG scheme and ask any of us Thank you very much for your evidence and we'll now go into private session