📜 Delegated Legislation Committee

General Committees

🌶️ 🌶️ 🌶️ 🌶️ 🌶️

In a crucial session, the UK Parliament’s committee reviewed the draft Disclosure (Scotland) Act 2020 Order, aimed at enhancing the safety of Scottish communities by ensuring seamless information sharing between UK and Scottish law enforcement. The order, set to come into effect on April 1, will maintain the effectiveness of Scotland’s vetting and barring system, crucial for protecting vulnerable groups. Concerns were raised about potential criminalization due to the new legislation, but assurances were given that extensive consultations and information campaigns had been conducted to prepare stakeholders. The committee approved the order, emphasizing its importance in maintaining a robust safeguarding framework across the UK.

Summary

  • The Draft Disclosure (Scotland) Act 2020 (Consequential Provisions and Modifications) Order 2025 was discussed in a parliamentary committee session on March 19, 2025.

  • The order is a result of collaboration between the UK and Scottish Governments and is made under section 104 of the Scotland Act 1998.

  • It makes changes due to the Disclosure (Scotland) Act 2020, which simplifies the system for criminal history disclosures in Scotland, often used for PVG (Protecting Vulnerable Groups) certificates required for working or volunteering with vulnerable groups.

  • The order ensures that UK law enforcement agencies continue to provide necessary information (like conviction details and fingerprints) to Scottish Ministers for their vetting and barring functions, emphasizing public safety.

  • Part 2 of the order places duties on UK law enforcement chief officers equivalent to those in Scotland, ensuring consistent information provision to Scottish Ministers.

  • Part 3 mandates law enforcement to share additional information such as central records and fingerprints with Scottish Ministers.

  • The order is set to come into force on April 1, 2025, with guidance to be provided to UK law enforcement before that date.

  • Harriet Cross (Conservative) raised concerns about potential criminalization due to uneven legal frameworks and queried the engagement between UK and Scottish Governments, consultations, information campaigns, and clarity of forthcoming guidance.

  • Martin McCluskey (Labour) clarified that the Act was intended to simplify and streamline disclosure processes, not to criminalize. He confirmed extensive consultations and an 18-month information campaign by Disclosure Scotland, though exact statistics were not available during the session.

  • McCluskey reassured that guidance for the new system would be available and that the order ensures the continued effectiveness and safety of the disclosure regime across the UK.

  • The session concluded with the order being agreed upon, emphasizing its role in maintaining the safeguarding system across the UK.

Divisiveness

The parliamentary session displays a minimal level of disagreement. The session primarily focuses on the technical aspects and the implementation of the Draft Disclosure (Scotland) Act 2020 (Consequential Provisions and Modifications) Order 2025. The discussion remains largely cooperative and fact-based, without significant opposition or heated debates, which justifies a rating of 2 for disagreement. Here are the details and examples that support this rating:

  1. General Tone and Collaboration: The session begins with Martin McCluskey introducing the draft order, emphasizing its collaborative nature between the UK and Scottish Governments. This sets a tone of cooperation rather than contention.

  2. Questions by Harriet Cross: Harriet Cross from the Conservative Party raises several questions about the implications and implementation of the order. While her questions touch on potential issues, such as concerns about criminalization and the adequacy of information campaigns, they are phrased in a manner that seeks clarification rather than outright opposition. For instance, she asks, ‘What conversations has he had with the Scottish National party Government about both the problem and the proposed solution, and what steps are the Scottish Government taking?’ This indicates a desire to understand the process rather than to challenge it directly.

  3. Responses by Martin McCluskey: McCluskey’s responses to Cross’s questions are detailed and aim to provide clarification. He acknowledges areas where he does not have immediate answers and offers to follow up in writing, showing a willingness to engage and provide further information. For example, when addressing the issue of criminalization, he explains, ‘The Disclosure (Scotland) Act was put forward by the Scottish Government and passed by the Scottish Parliament to simplify the quite complex landscape of disclosure.’ His response does not counter Cross’s concerns but rather contextualizes them within the legislative framework.

  4. Conclusion and Agreement: The session concludes without opposition to the motion. The question is ‘put and agreed to,’ indicating unanimous agreement among the members present, which suggests minimal disagreement throughout the session.

Overall, the session shows a moderate level of questioning and a need for clarification, but it lacks significant opposition or conflict, hence the rating of 2 on a scale of 1 to 5 for disagreement displayed.