The Scottish Government

« Previous | Contents | Next »

Listen

Chapter 4: Information

A key theme emerging across the consultation was that of sharing information on adults, the type of information that could be available and to whom this should be available. This chapter looks at this issue specifically.

4.1 Information sharing

4.1.1 Needs of the new scheme

As noted in the consultation paper in relation to proposal 17 (information released to applicant by Central Barring Unit), effective information sharing will be crucial for the scheme outlined to work. The purpose of sharing information is to determine the suitability or otherwise of those who work with vulnerable groups. The range of issues in relation to information sharing and the frequency with which this was mentioned, serves to highlight its importance to consultees and other respondents.

The need for changes to sources of information and information to be shared was noted by those commenting on the current system at question 1 of the consultation paper. Of these, 21 consultees felt there needed to be more robust procedures for communication between relevant bodies to share information. One consultee from the social work sector voiced the concern that,

"At present, there is no robust mechanism for cross-referencing information - for example, individuals may give different names, dates of birth etc and this can lead to their history being lost to those seeking the information."

Three consultees responding to question 1 specifically also noted the need for legislation to require relevant information to be passed to interested parties. As one consultee in the education sector noted, "There has been no requirement on regulatory bodies and others to pass on information they have on their members/ employees resulting in relevant information not being available to those who need it."

The accuracy of information sharing was also highlighted by 9 consultees providing general comments on the Bichard recommendations (Q2) who commented on the need to ensure accurate exchange of information between agencies. A further 10 consultees felt the system should ensure prompt updating of lists; "I believe any system which can update information quickly when circumstances change is good." (Education)

Additionally, in response to Q2, 7 consultees commented on the issue of security and suggested that there needed to be protocols in place for accessing information. One individual commented "Information to be shared must be subject to an appropriate level of security."

One further issue highlighted by 2 consultees commenting on Q6 (providing comments relevant to the new scheme) was that of accuracy and fraud. These consultees stressed the need to check the accuracy of any information held about an individual, with stringent procedures in place to eliminate the risk of human error. Two other consultees were concerned over the increase in identity fraud and felt steps should be taken to ensure the security of the new system against similar acts of fraud. Two consultees were also concerned about the possibility of fraudulent disclosure certificates.

Proposals 18-20 refer to information sharing between the Central Barring Unit, public authorities, employers, police, regulatory bodies and so on. The consultation paper asked for comments on who should be required to pass what information on to whom? The following three sub-sections of this chapter deal specifically with these questions.

Among responses from 142 consultees to this question, most were qualified. Four stated their agreement with the proposals, while 1 consultee stated that they did not agree.

4.1.2 Sharing information - who

Proposal 18 deals with legislation to require the police to share relevant information with the CBU and 13 consultees agreed that this should be the case. Other agencies would also have a duty to pass relevant information to the CBU and there were a variety of suggestions as to which agencies should be involved.

Eighteen consultees felt that all public bodies should share information with the CBU and 6 made the more general comment that public bodies should share information. Sixteen consultees were in favour of including any relevant agency, with 1 other consultee mentioning private companies. Two consultees asked for clarification on the definition of 'public authority' in relation to proposal 18.

The need for professional or regulatory bodies in the field of social work, along with social work services, to share information was mentioned by 16 consultees and employers were also mentioned by 16 others.

"There was support for the sharing of information held within local authorities, especially Social Work services and COSLA, who may have a range of `soft' information relevant to the work of the Vetting and Barring Unit."
(Social work)

Eleven consultees felt that the duty should also be placed on local authorities and 7 consultees highlighted the voluntary sector.

Professional or regulatory bodies in the field of health, along with health services and providers attracted 5 mentions and similar bodies in the education sector were mentioned by 4 consultees. Ten consultees made more general comments, mentioning "other" professional or regulatory bodies but not specifying which.

Other suggestions included:

• charities (3 consultees);
• that the CBU itself should share information (2 consultees);
• that the CBU should not have an obligation to share information (1 consultee)
• job candidates or employees (2 consultees);
• SCRO (1 consultee);
• The prison service (1 consultee).

In general, those attending focus groups - including some of the organisations that would be involved in sharing information - were positive about this concept and voiced support for a more "partnership working" based approach. However, there were also comments that the logistics of setting up systems capable of information sharing would be a huge task to take on. Furthermore, there were also concerns over how the sharing of information would fit with the Data Protection Act and human rights law. There were also queries over how regularly information would be updated by different organisations or regulatory bodies.

4.1.3 Sharing information - what

In terms of what sort of information should be shared, 29 consultees voiced the opinion that this should include any relevant information, while 6 consultees stated that this should be only relevant information. Thirteen consultees asked for clarification on what constituted relevant information and 4 thought that the CBU should define 'relevant' information. However, 3 consultees felt it should be up to the individual body to decide what information to share. The issue of how to define what is - and what is not - relevant information was also raised by some of those attending information events, focus groups and interviews.

The need to validate information was stressed by 13 consultees who felt unsubstantiated information should not be shared and 6 consultees requested guidance on sharing unsubstantiated allegations.

"Only relevant information should be shared between any of the foregoing bodies and the Central Barring Unit, - and only once the body/agency has had the opportunity to verify its accuracy and provenance."
(Police)

Various comments were made on this specific issue in regards to what information should be shared and these included the need to share information on:

• Professional misconduct, including behaviour resulting in deregistration (8 consultees);
• People in non-notifiable occupations (2 consultees);
• Barred or listed individuals (5 consultees);
• Those on the provisional lists (4 consultees);
• Convictions (5 consultees);
• Details of charges should be shared (2 consultees).

Those participating in focus groups and interviews had concerns over what information would be provided in disclosure and this related primarily to information perceived to be irrelevant to a specific disclosure. An example cited by one respondent was a teacher who may have had a conviction for speeding which would have no impact on the ability to do their job and should not be disclosed.

While Proposal 21 focused primarily on the role of regulatory / professional bodies in the disclosure process, some consultees also commented on the type of information that should be shared. Twenty consultees specified information on all people with barred status and 24 other consultees felt that this should include any information relating to a change of status. One local authority commented "Any body which regulates part of the child or vulnerable adult workforce should be informed if the barring status of an individual changes or an initial decision is made to bar that person." Ten consultees, however, felt that regulatory bodies should only receive information relevant to their organisation or about individuals on their own register and 2 others felt this should include individuals who had previously been registered.

Nine consultees felt that the information should be detailed while 3 others felt it should be restricted to status only. Eight consultees felt that regulatory bodies should receive the same information as employers and 2 felt the level of detail should depend on the level of disclosure requested.

Twenty-one consultees wanted information to be shared on anything which might be of relevance to an applicant's suitability and 4 others mentioned the need for regulatory bodies to be informed of any investigation or provisional barring.

4.1.4 Sharing information - with whom

In response to the specific question raised in relation to proposals 18-20, a range of suggestions were made as to which organisations should be sharing information with others and these included:

• CBU (17 consultees);
• Employers (18 consultees) and a further 5 consultees who noted that employers needed to be informed of any updates or changes, although one consultee also noted that organisations should not be given information on individuals no longer in their employ;
• Any relevant body (15 consultees);
• Professional or regulatory bodies (8 consultees);
• Police (5 consultees) and 2 other consultees specifically noted that the police should be able to withhold information that might compromise an ongoing investigation;
• Individual concerned (2 consultees);
• Colleges / workplacement agencies (1 consultee);
• Children's Panel Advisory Committee (1 consultee);
• Parental information via an intermediary (1 consultee).

A further 10 consultees commented on the need to share information freely, or as widely as possible but 3 felt that sharing information should not be mandatory. Seven consultees referred to the need for a designated person in each organisation with responsibility for sharing information.

Some respondents attending focus groups and interviews also had concerns over the role of employers and even applicants themselves in terms of information sharing. For example, will employers always update relevant regulatory bodies or the CBU if an individual leaves their employment after an allegation has been made? Will they appreciate the need to share 'soft' information? Certainly organisations were concerned about the extent to which the onus will be on employers and applicants to provide information and how this could be enforced.

4.1.5 Cross Referencing Issues

Proposal 9 referred to change to the DWCL and while not directly relevant to information sharing, a number of comments were made in response to this specific proposal in relation to information sharing. Seventeen consultees highlighted a need to address information cross-referencing problems with other pertinent systems or agencies or countries. Specific systems and agencies mentioned included:

• The Sex Offenders Register (2 consultees);
• The General Teaching Council Disqualification list (2 consultees);
• The Scottish Criminal Record System (1 consultee);
• SSSC (1 consultee);
• Care Commission (1 consultee).

"The police have a role to play, which is critical to the protection of children (as well as vulnerable adults); it seems somewhat anomalous that the police have no access to these lists for operational policing purposes."
(Police)

4.1.6 Police powers (proposal 20)

This proposal deals with the issue of power for the police to require an individual to give them details of their occupation in cases where the actions of an individual would be of concern if they worked in the vulnerable groups' workforce. Twenty-eight consultees agreed with the extension to police powers described in proposal 20 and only 1 disagreed. In addition, 13 consultees felt that the police should have the power to request details of any voluntary or other unpaid work. Five consultees commented that these proposals would provide information at an earlier stage in an investigation, with 3 commenting that this would allow the relevant organisations to be informed.

However, there were some concerns over problems or loopholes in the implementation of this proposal and these were raised by 5 consultees. For example, 1 consultee noted that potential employees may choose not to reveal details to the police of any voluntary work they undertake; another noted that there are some posts (such as being a member of a Children's Panel) where there may be non-occupational contact.

While those attending focus groups were broadly supportive of proposal 20, there were comments from some that it could be difficult to enforce. Many respondents noted that if an individual chooses to withhold information from the police, there may be no other means of accessing this information.

4.2 Updating of information

In general, for consultees and respondents, the updating of information was seen to bring a distinct advantage to the proposed scheme and to remove the "point in time" disadvantage of the current system.

For example, three consultees commenting on the scope of the new vetting and barring disclosure (proposals 1-3) mentioned a need for "portability" of disclosures and 3 others stressed the importance of updating information. Two consultees commenting on proposal 9 (changes to the DWCL) highlighted the importance of keeping the list updated with changes.

Consultees commenting on proposals 11-13 (Central Barring Unit) also noted the need for continuous updating of information. Eleven consultees welcomed the introduction of a system for continuously updating information, although 13 others felt they needed more information on the details of this part of the system; it was felt that this would be a complex system and that planning for it would need detailed consideration and perhaps further consultation. That said, there were concerns cited by more than one respondent as to how realistic this would be:

• whether a new system will be effective from day one;
• the staff levels that will be needed for continual updating of information will be very high and these will all need adequate training;
• how logistically viable it is to create an environment where information is shared across a number of different bodies and sources.

Finally, in this section, 10 consultees commenting on proposals 18-20 specifically (information sharing) stated their agreement to the continuous updating of barred lists and 2 others stressed the need to include information from abroad.

4.3 Provision of conviction and non-conviction information

The extent of information to be provided through disclosure was raised by those participating across the various consultation exercises and a number of key issues emerged in relation to "hard" and "soft" information specifically. Sixteen consultees responding to question 1 (which asked about the three greatest issues with the current system) noted the accuracy of information contained within disclosure certificates, and this was also highlighted by some individuals attending focus groups. One consultee within Social Work reported their "experience of situations where incomplete/incorrect 'soft information' is provided through Enhanced Disclosure certificates. This has caused real difficulties in dealing with some cases. Where an individual disputes the 'soft information' there is no mechanism for dealing adequately with matters of dispute."

Twenty consultees (commenting at Q1) also felt that restricting disclosure forms to report only convictions was an issue, although it should be noted that enhanced disclosures may, in fact, also provide non-conviction information. These consultees felt, though, that information relating to potential risks should be included in all disclosures. One individual commented on "The differences which emerge in the level of detail provided in the softer information across police forces".

Question 2 asked for comments on the Bichard recommendations and again there were concerns over the sort of information that would be provided. Ten consultees saw the need for information on potential risk as well as information on convictions. One voluntary organisation welcomed "the intention to link conviction information with other soft information". That said, a number of respondents attending consultation events and focus groups commented on the current lack of training for employers to interpret soft information or for the potential for different employers to use different criteria to make appointments. A small number of respondents also noted that there may be instances when the police might not be able to release specific information, for example, in relation to an ongoing investigation.

While the interests of the children and adults at risk were a priority for all respondents, 11 consultees commenting on question 5 (interests of applicants) felt that applicants might experience concern, fear or embarrassment over the sort of information that might be disclosed. Eighteen consultees were concerned that there was not enough information on the type(s) of "soft" information that might be disclosed, and 5 felt that applicants would worry that irrelevant information or unproven allegations might be disclosed. The potential for damage which could be caused by incorrect information being disclosed was also of concern to 8 consultees and 7 others felt that applicants might be concerned over who had access to their information.

In order to alleviate concerns felt by applicants, 18 consultees (again, commenting at Q5) noted that there should be penalties for the misuse or mishandling of disclosed information. This, it was felt, would safeguard the rights of applicants by ensuring confidentiality. In addition, 4 consultees saw the need for intermediaries to provide independent advice or to assess the relevance of disclosed information.

The issue of non-conviction was also raised by 14 consultees in relation to proposal 17 specifically, who were concerned over the problems of verification, the inconsistency of use across police forces, the lack of procedures to enable individuals to check or appeal against its use and the fact that it could be irrelevant or out of date. A further 2 consultees commenting on proposal 9 (changes to the DWCL) also had concerns about information being retained on spurious complaints.

4.4 Interpretation of information

Some respondents attending focus groups and interviews had concerns over how some organisations (often smaller employers) might assess and interpret the relevance of information provided to them. One respondent from a voluntary organisation cited an example where two very different offences ("bottom flashing" in a drunken moment or sexually molesting a minor) could both lead to an individual being placed on a sex offender register. It was felt that the former should not lead to an individual being barred from working with children or adults at risk, while the latter most certainly should. An ability (or inability) to interpret information provided was a reason provided as to why parents or personal employers should only be provided with very basic disclosure information.

4.5 Cross border information

4.5.1 Outwith the UK

The current position is that convictions from other countries are only included on disclosures if the authorities in the convicting country notify a UK Police Force. Four consultees commenting at question 2 on the Bichard recommendations mentioned the need for the new system to ensure accurate information on overseas workers or volunteers. One individual commented on the need "to make the inter-country (including EU & non- EU countries) interfaces work". That said, many respondents attending focus groups noted that it may be impossible to set up cross-country border information with certain countries and that information provided by some others could be questionable.

Twenty consultees commenting specifically on proposal 23 (cross-referencing with offender registers and other lists) also noted the need to ensure access to information from lists held in other countries, although 2 highlighted the need to ensure that this did not lead to racial discrimination in employment practices.

4.5.2 Within the UK

Five consultees commenting at question 2 also highlighted the need for the system to be UK-wide. As one Voluntary Organisation noted, "We believe that the Scottish lists must be linked to those in England and Wales, and Northern Ireland." There was an assumption from some respondents attending information events and focus groups that while there might be some teething problems in setting up systems that are UK-wide, that these would be short lived.

4.6 Access to information

Access to this information could be via the internet or, in the case of individuals, via a registered body. The consultation document asked for views on w ho has a legitimate interest in the barred status of an individual and how should "fishing trips" be prevented?

The proposal that potential or current employers, including parents and personal employers, should be able to access information about the barred status of a potential employee was supported by 62 individuals responding to the consultation paper. Fifty consultees agreed that parents or personal employers should access the information via a registered body or other suitable intermediary. A further 3 consultees felt this information should be accessed via local authorities, possibly involving the local authority producing a list of barred individuals. Only 1 consultee felt an intermediary was not necessary.

The right of any legitimate stakeholder to access the information was supported by 18 consultees and 11 consultees specifically mentioned access for vulnerable adults or their representatives.

Two consultees felt that only the applicant should have access; that they should apply and then provide a certificate to potential employers.

A number of other suggestions were made as to who could access the information:

• Professional or regulatory bodies (13 consultees);
• Voluntary or charitable organisations (8 consultees);
• The applicants themselves (5 consultees);
• Public or governmental bodies (3 consultees);
• Agencies representing foster carers (1 consultee);
• Colleges - in order to check students (1 consultee);
• Employers - to check staff of any sub-contractor (1 consultee).

Most respondents attending information events, focus groups and in-depth interviews had concerns over the need to maintain confidentiality for those being disclosed. As such, there was widespread support for parents and personal employers to access information via a third party and a need to avoid "fishing trips". Thirty-eight consultees stressed the need for robust systems and guidelines to ensure only those with a legitimate interest accessed the information in order to protect confidential information.

The main safeguard, mentioned by 43 consultees, was the need for the applicant to give permission for any check, perhaps using written permission or the provision of a PIN number. The current system of counter-signatories was thought, by 17 consultants, to be an effective control and 3 felt there should continue to be levels of disclosure information available. PIN numbers for employers, passwords, or some other safeguard provided via a registration scheme for employers would be welcomed by 27 consultants.

Twelve consultees pointed out that attention would have to be paid to the internal systems and security of the employers receiving information and this would include the security of their IT and internet systems. In total, 32 consultees voiced concern over security issues relating to information available in the internet; as one consultee from the education sector noted "Watertight security on any internet accessible information is essential."

Various accessibility issues were raised, including:

• that access to information should be speedy or direct (twelve consultees);
• the need for a simple system (6 consultees);
• the need for the information to be accessible online (4 consultees).

Two consultees doubted whether "fishing trips" could, in fact, be prevented. Most respondents attending focus groups noted that it would be difficult to prevent fishing trips and reinforced this with the suggestion that any disclosures should be with the permission of the applicant and provide only very limited information.

Other issues noted by consultees included:

• Concern over resource implications for registered bodies if they were to act as intermediaries for parents or personal employers (4 consultees);
• Access would need to be regularly audited or have the ability for requests to be tracked (8 consultees);
• Penalties for misuse of the system or information were seen as an essential measure (11 consultees);

The consultation document asked respondents 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?

Thirty-two consultees agreed with the proposals to continue with current arrangements while 28 chose not to comment on proposal 17.

The release of all relevant information necessary for an employer to either appoint or continue to employ an individual was favoured by 61 consultees and 5 others felt employers needed all available data.

Views on the amount of information to be made available varied, with 16 consultees noting in the case of a barred individual it was sufficient for an employer to know the barred status without the details behind the decision. A further 5 consultees felt that a recommendation on whether to employ would be appropriate, although 1 felt that as much information as possible should be shared.

"Employer does not need to know why they are barred - only that they are."
(Individual)

Five consultees felt that there should be the opportunity for the employer to request further information, perhaps similar to current levels of disclosure. Two consultees queried whether the proposals were in addition to current disclosure procedures.

4.6.1 Withholding Information

Proposal 17 allows for information to be withheld by the police, usually because it would compromise an ongoing police operation or would put the source of the information at immediate risk of harm.

Forty-five consultees commenting on proposal 17 felt information should not be released if it pertained to an on-going criminal investigation and this included 12 of those who felt applicants should receive all information. The need to withhold information that had the potential to cause harm to other parties was agreed by a further 27 consultees and this included 9 of those who felt applicants should receive all information. Nine consultees felt that the CBU, or perhaps a specialist panel, should make the decision on whether to withhold certain information.

"Any decision not to release information to the applicant should be based on risk assessment - would releasing this information to him/her have the potential to put other(s) at risk of physical or mental harm?"
(Voluntary)

Twenty-two consultees considered that the withholding of information should be justifiable and closely monitored but only used in exceptional cases, while 2 felt that it should never happen.

In cases where information has been withheld, 9 consultees felt that the applicant should have the right to know that information had not been released and to be given an indication of when it would become available. Three consultees voiced their concern that applicants would be unable to check or contest this information. Five consultees also noted that in instances where information is withheld from employers, they should be informed of this fact, while 1 consultee felt the employers should be advised if the withheld information contained cause for concern in relation to the post in question.

However, a small number of respondents participating in focus groups noted that if, for example, information was being withheld by the police as part of an ongoing investigation, to tell an employer that information was being withheld would be tantamount to notifying an employer that this individual should not be offered a job. This could lead to confidential information being made available, compromise a police investigation and cause greater danger to children or adults at risk. That said, there was a view that only in a few very specific circumstances would it be suitable for the police to withhold information.

In terms of information held by regulatory bodies and information providers other than the police, most respondents did not consider there to be benefit to withholding information, unless it was part of a police investigation. For example if a GP has been provisionally listed in relation to working with children or adults at risk and is being investigated, the majority view was that this GP should not be allowed to continue as a GP until allegations have been disproved.

Twelve consultees felt that the employer and the applicant should both receive the same information. As one consultee within the education sector noted,

"The information provided by a vetting and barring disclosure should be made available to the applicant and employer. An applicant who is listed has legal remedy. However, an applicant has no obvious legal remedy against information which appears on disclosures. Where such information relates to intelligence provided by the Chief Constable it seems to be against natural justice to deny the applicant legal rights to challenge that intelligence."

With regard to applicants specifically, 38 consultees were of the opinion that applicants should be entitled to access all information held about them in order that they can verify its accuracy.

In the case of barred individuals specifically, 15 consultees felt that they should be entitled to all information that had led to the barring decision and that failure to provide this information could be seen as a breach of their rights.

Twelve consultees felt that applicants should have the right to all information they would need to lodge an appeal against a barring decision and that they should be able to challenge any 'soft' information contained in their record.

At information events, focus groups and in-depth interviews, the overall view was that the applicant should be provided with the same information as an employer, so that they have a chance to query anything they do not understand or to have opportunities to rectify any inaccuracies in information held on them. One respondent within the judiciary pointed to the need for the system to be fair to all and to allow applicants the chance to raise queries over any allegations that had been made against them. One example given was an instance where an ex-partner or colleague of an applicant might make malicious allegations against an applicant and that the applicant should have the right to be able to defend themselves against these allegations.

While most comments in relation to the withholding of information were made in relation to the police, some respondents attending focus groups noted that it is also possible for applicants to withhold information. "If someone is determined not to disclose information, it is easy to do so by lying." There were some concerns that the new system would not serve to address this issue.

4.7 Civil orders

4.7.1 Discretionary disclosure

Twenty-nine consultees commenting on this proposal agreed that some civil orders (specified in the regulations as part of the new Vetting and Barring system) should be disclosed where relevant, but that not all civil orders should be disclosed. Five consultees stated that there should be a clearly defined, mandatory statutory list of civil orders to be specified for the disclosure check, with a separate list provided for more discretionary disclosures.

Eight consultees suggested the need for clear guidelines on which civil orders would be included in the disclosures and how these would affect employers, small and not-for-profit organisations.

4.7.2 Range of civil orders for disclosure

Consultees provided a variety of suggestions relating to the types of civil order which should be disclosed. A majority of those who responded agree that civil orders pertaining to children (29), adults at risk (32) and vulnerable groups in general (16) should be disclosed.

Other areas which consultees felt civil orders should be disclosed included those pertaining to:

• Sexual offence or harm (29);
• Physical violence, harm or abuse (14);
• Antisocial Behaviour Orders ( ASBOs) (11);
• Criminal offences (4);
• Drugs and alcohol (3);
• General harassment and abuse (3).

A consultee from the police services remarked "Only those impacting on the assessment of risk to the child or vulnerable adult which may include civil orders pertaining to sexual matters and any civil order that identifies/includes a risk of abuse regarding children and vulnerable adults. The identification of those non-sexual orders and their relevance might be more difficult to determine."

Two consultees suggested that the final decision for which civil orders should be disclosed, ultimately lay with the decision-making body for the new system.

Other, single comments included:

• Where civil orders pertain to children, the Scottish Children's Reporter Administration should be involved;
• Civil orders pertaining to gambling addiction;
• Civil orders pertaining to those banned from keeping animals (animal welfare);
• Civil orders pertaining to financial situations;
• Mental Health Act orders should not be disclosed;
• If a civil order results in the barring of an individual then this should be disclosed;
• Only appropriate civil orders which can assist in determining an applicants status should be included;
• Disclosures should only be made if granted in the ten years prior to the date of the application for a disclosure check.

While respondents attending information events, focus groups and interviews were broadly in agreement with this proposal, there were some concerns that this could cause problems within some voluntary organisations in particular. While there was agreement that some civil orders should be disclosed, some respondents commented that there are individuals - often in a voluntary capacity - who are involved in working with children or adults at risk who will have had a civil order imposed on them in the past. For example, ex addicts involved in helping others on rehabilitation programmes.

4.7.3 Cross-referencing Information

The consultation asked for views on how the DWCL and DWVAL should relate to other registers and lists, e.g. the Sex Offenders Register.

The majority of responses relating to proposal 23 were short answers simply agreeing to the need for cross-checking. Of the 145 consultees commenting at this proposal, 116 felt some form of "joined-up" system for cross border checking was necessary or essential. In addition, 21 consultees felt this should be extended to all relevant lists or registers, including professional registers.

"If the proposals are to be effective, links with the wider body of lists, registers etc need to be considered. This will reduce the risk of relevant information being held by one body not being shared because this is subject to a different set of regulations or is part of a different structure, organisation etc."
(Other)

The need for interaction of databases containing information, with the automatic transfer of data, was highlighted by 12 consultees. As one consultee from the education sector commented "We should be looking towards the development of a system whereby registers and lists are able to "talk" to each other to avoid weaknesses between the two."

Nine consultees felt that these measures were important to close any loopholes and ensure that no-one "slipped through the net" and 6 felt that any and all relevant information should be available for cross checking.

4.8 Regulatory bodies

Respondents were asked w hich regulatory bodies should receive information through disclosure? What information should they receive?

While some consultees mentioned specific regulatory bodies which should receive information, others gave more general answers. Forty-four consultees did not comment on proposal 21. Regulatory bodies mentioned included:

• Scottish Social Services Council (35 consultees);
• General Teaching Council / General Teaching Council Scotland (32 consultees);
• Care Commission (17 consultees);
• General Medical Council / British Medical Association (11 consultees);
• Royal College of Nursing / Nursing & Midwifery Council (11 consultees);
• Commission for Racial Equality (1 consultee);
• Central Government (1 consultee);
• Scottish Criminal Records Office (1 consultee).

Fifty-eight consultees felt that any regulatory or professional body in a relevant field should receive disclosure information and professional or regulatory bodies associated specifically with care, community or social services were mentioned by 10 consultees. Ten others included those concerned with charities or the voluntary sector.

"Regulatory bodies that have a role in deciding an individual's competence to continue in their profession: The General Teaching Council or the General Medical Council (if as we have proposed in comments on proposal 9, health care professionals are included) should be made aware of an individual's barred status."
(Voluntary)

Regulatory or professional bodies in the field of health specifically were mentioned by 18 consultees and a further 5 consultees felt that those responsible for the regulation of protective services such as police or the prison service should be included.

Sixteen consultees voiced their agreement with the need for regulatory bodies and the CBU to share information, with 3 others stating the need for the CBU to have access to the registers held by regulatory bodies. Four consultees felt regulatory bodies should also share information amongst themselves.

As well as sharing information with other regulatory bodies, the need to share information with employers was also commented on in relation to proposal 21. Four consultees felt that regulatory bodies should share the information with employers or associated organisations and 3 felt that as the employer takes the decision whether or not to employ, the information should be shared with them rather than with regulatory bodies. A further 3 consultees also felt it was important to communicate any information to the individuals concerned.

In summary,

The need for a system that allows for information sharing was recognised by many participating in this consultation, although some questioned the effective implementation of a system that would allow for information sharing across a wide range of organisations. A capacity to update information was also perceived to be a key advantage to the proposed new scheme.

The amount of information to be shared between different organisations and individuals varied, although some noted the need for any information provided to be relevant. There were concerns from some over the sharing of non-conviction information, primarily due to a perceived lack of ability on the part of some employers to interpret information provided to them. For parents and personal employers specifically, there was a preference for information to be provided via a registered body.

There was broad support for the police and other agencies to share relevant information with a wide range of regulatory bodies, although there were some queries over the logistics of setting up and managing information systems capable of storing information in a consistent way. There were also some concerns expressed over the likelihood of employers providing updated information, particularly if an employee leaves their employment.

There was broad agreement that civil orders should be included in the disclosure. However, guidance was requested on which civil orders would be pertinent.

« Previous | Contents | Next »