Protecting vulnerable groups: Scottish vetting and barring scheme

Part I General

• The process of obtaining a disclosure is time consuming, for example checking that the forms of volunteers have been completed correctly and delays in receiving certificates.
• The current application form for a disclosure certificate can be difficult to complete.
• It is expensive for Alzheimer Scotland as a voluntary organisation which employs paid staff to obtain disclosures.

2. Bichard recommendations - Do you have any comments you would like to make on the recommendations, especially recommendation 19 in respect of vetting and barring?

Whilst Alzheimer Scotland generally supports recommendation 19 of the Bichard report, it is our view that these proposals are only a part of good practice in the employment, management and supervision of staff.

The final definition of a vulnerable adult will be extremely important and it should be borne in mind that no system can prevent every case of abuse of vulnerable adults, particularly first offences.

3. Interests of vulnerable groups - Do you have any concerns about the way the proposed system might adversely affect the opportunities for children and vulnerable adults to participate in education, employment, sport and leisure activities? What could be done to mitigate this?

There is a danger that people will be less likely to volunteer if they think they will be vetted and that lengthy periods awaiting vetting could cause volunteers to lose interest; thus the scheme could act as a disincentive.

In addition, the scope of the scheme would need to be made clear. It is important that people who already help out individuals informally, such as a neighbour or friend doing the shopping for someone with dementia where there is an existing acquaintance or relationship, should not be deemed to be volunteers requiring vetting.

4. Interests of employers - Do you have any concerns on the impact of the proposals on the recruitment and selection of individuals to work with children and vulnerable adults? What could be done to mitigate this?

As an employer of care sector staff, Alzheimer Scotland has the following concerns:

• There may be increases in the time and cost of recruiting new employees.
• The issue covered by ‘loss of capacity’ in Para 3.2.9 is of importance – only those who are at real risk of abusing vulnerable adults should be barred.
• There needs to be clarification of the range of positions, which “…have substantial access to personal and sensitive information about vulnerable groups” that the vetting and barring scheme would apply to; for example, would this include such as administrative and Human Resources staff?

5. Interests of applicants - Do you have any concerns on the impact of the proposals on those who might apply for disclosure to work with children and vulnerable adults? What could be done to mitigate this?

• Awaiting disclosure will lead to delays in being able to take up employment. Will the Benefits Agency take this into account when people are coming off benefits?
• Individuals applying to work with children or vulnerable adults should be given clear information on the vetting and barring process.

Part II Consultation Paper Proposals

Proposals 1-3 - Scope of new Vetting and Barring Disclosure. Do you have any comments on the type of position for which the new scheme will apply?

The spectrum of positions that should be eligible for vetting should be as broad as possible to include all ancillary staff in care homes. The range of positions to which this will relate to needs to be clarified, for example with regard to administrative staff.

Proposal 4 - Costs of Vetting and Barring Disclosure. How much more would you be willing to pay upfront for the new Vetting and Barring Disclosure? Please be as specific as you can, e.g. £10.

We are unable to suggest a sum, but believe it is important that checks for volunteers should continue to be free.

Proposals 4-5 - Funding the vetting and barring scheme. Do you agree with the broad proposals for: a more expensive initial disclosure, low cost or free subsequent checks and free disclosure for volunteers?

We agree with the proposals, which would encourage employers to continye to make enquiries. We are in favour of free disclosures for volunteers. We support a single initial fee, which could reduce the bureaucracy involved in the scheme.

Proposal 6 - Retrospective Vetting and Barring Disclosure. Do you agree with the proposals for phasing the vetting and barring of the existing workforce?

Alzheimer Scotland generally agrees with the proposals. as some workers will move in and out of the care industry and retrospective reporting will protect vulnerable adults from workers in this situation. However, we believe this would be extremely difficult to implement and that it could conflict with Human Rights legislation.

Proposal 7-8 - Disqualified from Working with Vulnerable Adults List. We are not looking for comments on the DWVAL, since this has been covered by previous consultation. However, we would like to know if this new context raises any new issues.

The definition of a vulnerable adult will be extremely important.

Proposal 9 - Changes to the Disqualified from Working with Children List. Are there any changes, other than those outlined, which you would like to see made to the DWCL?

No comment.

Proposal 10 - Decisions on barred lists by new Central Barring Unit. Do you think decisions on barring should be made by a special panel, a case conference or administrators?

Decisions should preferably be made by a special panel or case conference. This would ensure a wide range of experience in the decision making process. However, there might be a time delay involved if the group only meets intermittently.

Proposals 11-13 - Central Barring Unit. Do you have any comments on the status and governance arrangements for the Central Barring Unit? What degree of separation is needed from the Scottish Ministers?

The Central Barring Unit should be as independent as possible from the Executive, preferably as a Non-departmental Public Body with ‘lay’ as well as ‘expert’ membership. Its activities, though of course dealing with highly confidential material, should be open to public and parliamentary scrutiny. It should also be separated from the Scottish Minister to ensure independence from political influence.

Proposal 14 - Provisional listing. What should the criteria be for provisional listing? Do you agree that the individual should be able to continue to work during the determination process?

If individuals are allowed to work during the determination process, conditions should apply, such as only working under supervision. However, this may be difficult or impossible to achieve depending on the nature of the post. There should be time limits on provisional listing to ensure that there is no clash with employment law.

Proposal 15 - Appeals against listing. Do you agree that the right of appeal should be to the sheriff court with a three month time limit?

Independent judgement is necessary and a time limit is essential.

Proposal 16 - Access to barred status. Access to barred status. Who has a legitimate interest in the barred status of an individual and how should "fishing trips" be prevented?

Only individuals within organisations and individuals making selections for personal appointments should be able to make enquiries. It should only be possible to make enquiries with the consent of the potential worker and with proof that an appointment is to be made.

Proposal 17 - Information released to an applicant. Information released to applicant. How much information passed on to the Central Barring Unit should be released to the applicant and employer? What criteria should there be for not releasing information?

Only information relating to working with children and vulnerable adults should be shared and information relating to an ongoing police operation should not be released.

Proposals 18-20 - Information sharing between the Central Barring Unit, public authorities, employers, police and regulatory bodies etc. Do you have any comments on who should be required to pass what information on to whom?

There should be free sharing of information between all agencies. To achieve this, there should be established protocols involving designated individuals who are responsible within agencies for the sharing of information.

Proposal 21 - Role of regulatory bodies. Which regulatory bodies should receive information through disclosure? What information should they receive?

No comment

Proposal 22 - Disclosure of civil orders. Which civil orders should be disclosed?

No comment

Proposal 23 - Cross referencing with offender registers and other lists. How do you think the DWCL and DWVAL should relate to other registers and lists, e.g. the Sex Offenders Register or Protection of Children Act List in England and Wales?

Alzheimer Scotland does not believe that there is a need to have separate lists for people disqualified from working with children and vulnerable adults and puts forward the suggestion that consideration should be given to having a single list.

There is a European dimension as well as a UK dimension to employment, therefore there is a need to check with similar regulators in the European Union.

Proposals 24-25 - Referrals. Do you agree with the proposals for who can make a referral? Should parents and personal employers be able to make a referral?

It should be possible for parents and personal employers to make applications.

Proposal 26 - Lifetime of certificates and checks. Do you agree that the vetting and barring disclosure certificate should have a finite lifetime, after which a new applications for full disclosure needs to ne made?

Vetting and barring disclosure certificates should have a finite lifetime.