The Scottish Government

« Previous | Contents | Next »

Listen

Chapter 2: Coverage of the Workforce

2.1 Who should be included?

In commenting on these proposals specifically, 45 consultees agreed with the intentions as stated.

2.1.1 Individuals requiring vetting and barring disclosure

With regard to proposal 1, most consultees and respondents felt that any individual new to the workforce should undergo vetting and barring, although this was not universal. One respondent representing an education body noted that the new system as proposed was "using a sledgehammer to crack a nut."

Views on whether changes of post within an organisation should require a full disclosure varied, with 12 consultees stating that this should be the case and a further 6 suggesting that anyone taking up a new position should be disclosed, regardless of whether or not they already worked for the organisation.

2.1.2 Range of Applicants

Proposal 2 intends that parents and personal employers will be able to ask applicants to apply for disclosures and also to allow them to check on the barred status of applicants. Although 24 consultees commenting on proposals 1-3 specifically agreed that this should be the case, 32 others cautioned on the need for careful regulation to avoid malicious enquiries or other misuse of the system. One consultee from the voluntary sector remarked "There should be safeguards on those allowed access to the list of barred individuals and what can happen to this information so that, for example, it is not possible for the press to make reference to this."

These views were echoed by respondents participating in the information events, focus groups and interviews. While it was acknowledged by some that parents should have a right to check on an individual working directly for them - perhaps in a caring role for an elderly relative or as a tutor of their child - there were concerns that unless properly set up and managed, this could offer wide potential to be abused.

Most of these respondents agreed with the proposal to set up a registered body through which parents and personal employers could obtain disclosures. That said, there was wide ranging comment that the amount of information made available to parents and personal employers should be very restricted. Most of these respondents felt that it was suitable for parents and personal employers only to be able to obtain a "yes" or "no" response on disclosure. Furthermore, most did not want conviction or non-conviction information to be available to these parents and personal employers seeking disclosure for an employee.

A couple of alternative suggestions were made by a number of respondents. Some suggested that an applicant should have their disclosure form on hand to show to parents and personal employers on request. Another was that perhaps an applicant and employer could have access to an online facility whereby a one-off pin number could be provided by the applicant and used by the employer to obtain information on whether the applicant was disclosed or not. This pin number could then be changed by the applicant to prevent further visits to the online facility by an employer.

Four consultees commenting at question 2 (comments on the recommendations) also noted the need to make disclosure information accessible to people employing personal carers or other similar personal employers.

2.1.3 Range of Positions

The majority (162) of consultees commented in some way on proposals 1-3, with the main issue raised being that of a need for guidance on, or clarification of, the type of applicants or posts requiring disclosure. Sixty-four consultees felt that clear definitions were needed for various terms used in the consultation document including "child-care", "regular contact" and "vulnerable adults". However, a consultee from the education sector felt it important to "err on the side of caution" rather than "get bogged down on the debate about what posts could be considered 'child care'."

While twenty consultees felt the proposals should include anyone in contact with children or adults at risk, 25 mentioned specifically their view that posts with indirect contact should be included and 8 specified the need to include support staff. Ten consultees, however, felt indirect contact should not be included.

Eleven consultees agreed that there should be a non-job specific approach; "Agree with not specifying job titles, thus leaving the definition for liable groups open - should ensure breadth for those requiring disclosure." (Education)

Consultees gave a variety of suggestions for posts or types of applicants which, they felt, required disclosures and these are listed below:

• Any educational establishment staff (5 consultees);
• NHS staff or other medical workers (7 consultees);
• Employees of regulated bodies or agencies (10 consultees);
• Care centre staff (8 consultees);
• Police (6 consultees);
• Self-employed or freelance (5 consultees);
• Drivers or escorts (2 consultees);
• Foster carers (1 consultee)
• Trades people (3 consultees);
• Sub-contractors' staff (3 consultees);
• Development workers (2 consultees);
• Co-ordinators (2 consultees);
• Ice-cream sellers or shop staff (2 consultees);
• Clergy (1 consultee);
• Trainers or work experience supervisors (1 consultee);
• Social workers (1 consultee);
• Immigration officers (1 consultee).

Some consultees also mentioned non-employed and unpaid positions which, they felt, should require disclosure. These included 9 mentions of guardians or those with power of attorney and 11 specified voluntary staff. Five consultees felt that disclosures should be required for anyone in a position of trust.

While 13 consultees welcomed the extended range of positions mentioned in proposal 3, there were a variety of suggestions for other specific or more general posts to be included. In addition to the wide range of posts mentioned where staff would be in physical proximity to children or adults at risk, other, more indirect posts were also mentioned. These were positions where applicants would have access to information about children or vulnerable adults and included:

• people with substantial access to information about vulnerable groups (15 consultees);
• telephone help-line operators or any other telephone contacts (12 consultees);
• chat-room monitors or other internet contacts (9 consultees);
• database operators (6 consultees).

The range and type of positions covered by disclosures were questioned by 11 consultees providing comments on the recommendations (at question 2) who felt that the current system does not distinguish between different levels of risk. A further 11 consultees also mentioned that adults at risk are not currently protected.

Respondents attending the focus groups and information events had varied views on how decisions should be taken as to whether or not an individual would need disclosure. Some organisations felt that it would be useful to have a list of posts that would require disclosure, and it was felt that this would particularly benefit smaller organisations that may need guidance on who needs to be disclosed. However, there was a greater level of support from respondents for setting out a wide ranging definition based on contact for those in working with children or adults at risk. This, it was noted, would ensure widest possible coverage of all individuals needing to go through the vetting and barring system. Some respondents who had experience of POCSA noted that something similar to the wide-ranging coverage would be required for the new vetting and barring scheme.

These themes emerged at other points in the consultation. For example, when asked to comment on the interests of employers (Q4), the need for clarification on the sort of posts for which disclosures are necessary was mentioned by 21 consultees, with 17 requesting official guidance on this matter. One consultee from the justice sector commented "Clear guidance on what posts are applicable together with education and training on the new process are essential."

Among individuals attending qualitative discussions and information events, the majority view was that the proposed vetting and barring system should err on the side of caution. As such, most respondents acknowledged the need to widen out those positions requiring disclosure. However, there were concerns about the cost implications this would have for many organisations who would have a large increase in the numbers of staff needing disclosure. Respondents pointed not simply to the direct financial cost but also the indirect cost in terms of recruitment practices, training of staff and so on. Some respondents suggested that, in the first instance, there would be a need to prioritise those posts requiring immediate disclosure. Additionally, some organisations had concerns that they might lose staff in that some staff who had previously not needed to be disclosed might leave their jobs rather than submit to going through the disclosure process.

Two consultees also noted the need for the system to allow adults at risk or adults with disabilities access to employment or voluntary posts.

Proposal 9 specifically asked about extending the definition of child care positions (see below) and consultees were asked to comment on any further changes, other than those outlined, which they would like to see made to the DWCL.

Of the 120 consultees who commented on this specific proposal, 42 stated that no changes were necessary to the DWCL and 18 said they agreed with the amendments or made other general positive comments about the changes.

Twenty-three consultees desired more clarity on what defined childcare positions or contact positions with children, while 6 wanted to further extend the scope of the childcare position definition. Specific categories (mentioned by only 1 consultee each) were:

• Those registered on the Provisional List
• Third Party workers (e.g. Confectionery, Ice cream vans)
• NHS Staff
• Workers for unregulated providers (e.g. day care providers not registered with the Care Commission).

2.2 Definitions to be applied

The consultation document stated: We are not looking for comments on the Disqualified from Working with Vulnerable Adults List ( DWVAL), since this has been covered by previous consultation. However, we would like to know if this new context raises any new issues.

Of the 115 consultees commenting on proposals 7-8 ( DWVAL), 30 felt there were no new issues raised by the new context and 12 commented positively in general terms.

Eighteen consultees stated that the 'vulnerable adult' definition needed to be clarified, while 9 wanted to extend the scope of the definition beyond those receiving services in regulated and NHS care settings.

"We need to make sure we have the highest standard of care, safety and protection for vulnerable groups…. … urges the Executive to amend the proposed definition of vulnerable adults to cover a wide range of settings - including voluntary sector services - in order to ensure that as many vulnerable adults as possible are protected."
(Voluntary)

Twelve consultees raised a specific problem as to whether 16-18 year olds should be classified as adults or children. Some qualitative respondents noted that under current law, for the purposes of the DWCL a child is any individual up to the age of 18, but for the purposes of some criminal activity, an individual is an adult from the age of 16. There was a preference from some respondents for this lack of consistency in definitions to be resolved.

Of the consultees commenting on the interests of vulnerable groups at question 3, 22 also noted the need to ensure that any changes to rules and definitions used in the process did not have any adverse affect on opportunities for children and vulnerable adults.

"The proposed scheme could also impose permanent restrictions on certain people who could provide valuable input to the education of young people e.g. reformed drug addicts. An opportunity and mechanism for appeal and review at a suitable time following offending should be considered."
(Education)

2.3 Overseas Workers

The problem of obtaining accurate disclosure information for paid or unpaid workers from overseas was raised by a number of respondents, including 17 consultees commenting at question 2 (inviting general comments on the Bichard recommendations). It was noted that in some instances it is not possible to obtain information and / or the degree of reliability that can be attributed to any available information is questionable.

One respondent from the health sector attending an information event also noted that obtaining disclosure information on overseas workers was an increasing problem and that this also raises the potential for discrimination. He felt that if a disclosure is not available or is potentially unreliable, should an individual then be offered employment? He noted that this was a particular issue within the health service where recruitment of workers from overseas countries is on the increase. Another respondent participating in an in-depth interview, within a care setting, noted that disclosures are currently obtained for all potential employees but acknowledged that any worker coming from abroad will in effect not be properly disclosed due to a lack of available information from their country of origin.

Five consultees (in response to question 5 of the consultation paper) noted an allied need to ensure forms are accessible and that links with information held in other countries are in place. While consultees responding to question 6 of the consultation paper were broadly supportive of the proposals to create a cross-borders system within the UK, 12 consultees also stressed the need for the system to include the ability to check workers, students or volunteers from overseas.

In summary,

There was broad agreement for widening out the range of individuals requiring vetting and barring disclosure. That said, there were some calls for clarification of who needs to be disclosed and preferences tended to be for a contact-based definition rather than simply a listing of different positions. There was agreement that the range of individuals for whom disclosure could be requested should be broadened out to include those with both direct and indirect contact with children and adults at risk.

While there was general agreement that parents and personal employers will be able to ask individuals to obtain disclosure, most respondents cautioned on the need for careful regulation to avoid misuse of the system. There was a preference from many for the set up of a registered body through which parents and personal employers could obtain disclosures. There was also a preference for any information made available to parents and personal employers to be restricted.

There were calls for a clarification of the definition of "adult".

There was concern over disclosure for overseas workers primarily because the information, or quality of information, available from many countries cannot be relied upon as accurate. This is a particular issue in certain sectors (such as health or social work) where there are relatively high proportions of overseas workers employed.

« Previous | Contents | Next »