The Scottish Government

« Previous | Contents | Next »

Listen

Chapter 6: Connecting with the rest of the UK

6.1 Introduction

235. This Chapter explains how we anticipate the vetting and barring scheme connecting with the scheme covering the rest of the UK. These proposals are subject to development between the Scottish and UK Governments. There are no specific questions for consultation in this chapter, which is included principally as background information for individuals and organisations operating in Scotland who also operate elsewhere in the UK. However, a general question at the end of this chapter and space in the response booklet allow stakeholders to provide any comments.

236. The Act makes devolved provision for Scotland only. The Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Act 2006 (" the SVG Act") makes provision for a scheme for England and Wales and, in conjunction with the Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups (Northern Ireland) Order 2007, for Northern Ireland. For the sake of clarity, the vetting and barring scheme in the rest of the UK is referred to as the SVG scheme.

237. It is intended that the scheme covering Scotland will interact with the SVG Scheme. The policy aspiration of all administrations is to create vetting and barring schemes that interact smoothly and effectively with one another, making them simple to use and understand for scheme members and employers while preventing any loopholes that could be exploited by those who would seek to harm children or protected adults.

238. Most of the regulated workforce operates only in a single jurisdiction at any given time, so the interaction of the schemes will not be an issue to them. But compatibility is important for the minority of individuals who work in more than one jurisdiction (whether simultaneously or sequentially) and to identify unsuitable individuals who might otherwise try to exploit any incompatibility. Systems will need to work for the small minority of individuals whilst not imposing an unduly heavy burden on the majority who only work in a single jurisdiction.

239. This chapter summarises how it is proposed that the two schemes will interact, focusing on three major issues:

• the exchange of vetting information between the two schemes;
• management of scheme members working across the border; and
• making and sharing listing decisions between the two schemes.

240. There are a number of statutory powers to make provision to achieve this through the Scottish Parliament and Westminster Parliament ⁵¹. These powers will be used to establish effective cross-border integration across the UK.

6.2 Sharing vetting information across borders

241. Chapter 4 summarises sources of vetting information, which can be broadly classified as:

• police information (conviction, non-conviction and civil orders)
• regulatory body information
• council information
• case files (e.g. historic referrals from employers and others).

242. Where an individual member of either scheme is either working simultaneously in both jurisdictions, or is currently working in one and has previously either lived or worked in the other, it is possible that relevant vetting information may be held by organisations within the other jurisdiction. In addition, it is possible that an individual may live and work in one jurisdiction but commit an offence in the other, e.g. whilst on holiday.

243. It is proposed to make provision to share such vetting information between jurisdictions as necessary. All administrations will seek to share no more or less information than is necessary to support the operation of both schemes and underpin the protection of vulnerable individuals.

Police information

244. Police information will be shared directly by agencies who hold criminal history information (Scottish Police Services Authority and the National Police Improvement Agency) and police forces with the relevant vetting and barring authority.

Secondary legislation will place a duty on all UK police forces to:

• provide information relevant to a consideration for listing; and
• provide available vetting information on scheme members on an ongoing basis.

245. In addition, it is proposed to make available to all UK police forces the names of Scottish scheme members and individuals listed by the Scottish scheme. This information will help the police elsewhere in the UK provide relevant vetting information to the Scottish scheme and investigate possible offences where a listed individual is attempting to undertake regulated work.

Regulatory body information

246. Chapter 4 discussed the provision of relevant vetting information from regulatory bodies. There are two particular circumstances where there is added complexity around the way in which such information is handled.

247. A referral from a UK-wide regulatory body for an individual working in both jurisdictions: in this instance it is proposed that the consideration should take place only in the jurisdiction where the alleged incident occurred. The two schemes will share information as required, so there will be no additional burden on the regulatory body concerned in making a referral in these circumstances.

248. Where vetting information is held by a regulatory body with limited geographical jurisdiction that may be relevant to a decision in the other administration: this is particularly relevant to the teaching and social care workforces. There are three Scotland-only regulatory bodies, the General Teaching Council for Scotland, the Scottish Commission for the Regulation of Care and the Scottish Social Services Council. Each has a counterpart covering England, Wales and Northern Ireland. It is proposed that these regulatory bodies should only interact with their local vetting and barring scheme and it would be the responsibility of the two schemes to exchange information as required. For example, a request for information about an individual seeking work in Scotland who was previously a teacher in England would be passed to the GTC via the Independent Safeguarding Authority.

Information from Councils

249. Chapter 4 discussed the possibility of provision of relevant vetting information from councils. There may be examples where an individual lives on one side of the border yet works in regulated work on the other. In such circumstances, any relevant information received by the Scottish scheme that relates to someone in regulated work on the other side of the border will be passed on to the Independent Safeguarding Authority.

Historic referrals

250. Both jurisdictions will gradually build an archive of historic case files about individuals who have been referred on one or more occasion. Where a referral led to listing, the case file is important for any appeal or review at a later date. Where a referral did not lead to listing, the case file(s) could be important in establishing a pattern of behaviour in conjunction with a later referral. It is proposed to share historic referral information between the CBU and the Independent Safeguarding Authority where appropriate, so that decisions can be based on the full facts about an individual's current and previous conduct. It is important to remember that one issue with the Ian Huntley case was the failure to consider information held in aggregate and thereby spot an alarming pattern of behaviour. For all scheme applications in both administrations, a search for relevant information held by the other scheme is proposed where the applicant has previously worked or lived in another jurisdiction.

6.3 Management of scheme members working across the border

251. Most individuals in the regulated workforces will work in only one jurisdiction. Therefore, they will either be a scheme member in Scotland or an SVG scheme member. However, there will be individuals who work in more than one jurisdiction, for example in Scotland and England. These circumstances need to be handled in a way that minimises bureaucracy and maximises protection:

• Where an individual is simultaneously working in regulated work in more than one jurisdiction: they will need to be a member of both schemes. It is proposed that whichever jurisdiction first receives the application for scheme membership will carry out the initial assessment of any vetting information. If someone subject to monitoring elsewhere in the UK applies to join the Scottish scheme, they will:
• pay the lower tier fee ( see chapter 5);
• have access to a simple application process; and
• become a scheme member without further consideration of their case, since they are considered to be not unsuitable by the Independent Safeguarding Authority.
• Where an individual works for a single employer in Scotland, but their work takes them across the UK: it is proposed that they will need to be a member of both schemes, but we are working with the UK government to streamline the application process in these circumstances.
• Where an individual works temporarily⁵² outside of Scotland in another jurisdiction: provisions are being explored which would mean they were not committing an offence by not also being a member of the SVG scheme where:
• the individual is already a member of the Scottish scheme; and
• the regulated activity is undertaken in pursuance of arrangements made by a Scottish organisation; and
• the vulnerable groups concerned are normally resident in Scotland (e.g. Scottish schoolchildren).
• Where an individual transfers from working in one jurisdiction to working in another: then they can cease membership in one and take up membership of the vetting and barring scheme in their new country of employment. Discussions with the UK Government will establish means to ensure a smooth transfer of scheme members and for historic case files to be made available to the receiving jurisdiction, while avoiding any duplication of effort in collecting vetting information.

6.4 Making and sharing listing decisions between jurisdictions

Who makes the listing decision?

252. The Act and the SVG Act provide that an individual who is listed in one jurisdiction is barred from that type of regulated work across the UK. An individual who would normally be considered for listing in Scotland need not be so considered in certain circumstances set out in the Act ⁵³. It is proposed that the CBU will operate according to a detailed protocol agreed with the Independent Safeguarding Authority for the use of this power in the following broad circumstances. An individual will not be considered for listing in Scotland where:

• it is more appropriate that the individual be considered for listing by the Independent Safeguarding Authority; or
• the Independent Safeguarding Authority has already considered whether the individual should be listed, and decided not to list the individual.

253. The SVG Act makes similar provision for circumstances where an individual working in both jurisdictions should be considered, or has been considered, for listing in Scotland. Again, the details of this will be set out in the protocol. The protocol will ensure that there is consistency across the administrations and prevent any individual being considered for listing twice on the basis of the same information.

Sharing listing decisions and access to the lists

254. Sharing information about listing, consideration for listing and removal from the lists between CBU and the Independent Safeguarding Authority is essential to enable:

• accurate disclosures to be made - i.e. revealing that an individual is under consideration for listing in another jurisdiction;
• unsuitable people to be removed from the workforce quickly - i.e. because they have been listed in another jurisdiction and are consequently barred from regulated work; and
• efficient decisions about who leads on listing decisions when new information comes to light.

Provisions will allow for the sharing of such information and its disclosure as appropriate. All applications for scheme membership will trigger a search of the lists in both jurisdictions. All types of scheme disclosure will include the fact that an individual is under consideration for listing in Scotland. The Scottish Government is working with the UK Government to ensure that information about individuals under consideration for listing in Scotland or by the Independent Safeguarding Authority is shared appropriately across the UK.

Q 23: Do you have any comments about proposed cross-border arrangements with the rest of the UK set out in chapter 6?

« Previous | Contents | Next »