« Previous | Contents | Next »
Listen
Executive Summary
Background Overview
A Scottish Government consultation " Protection of Vulnerable Groups (Scotland) Act 2007 Scottish Vetting and Barring Scheme -Consultation on Policy Proposals for Secondary Legislation" took place between November 1 2007 and 12 February 2008, although late replies were allowed until the 19 February. The purpose of the written consultation was to allow respondents to inform the detail of policy proposals for secondary legislation. It set out a number of options for each major issue as well as seeking general comments on the proposals. The output of the consultation will be secondary legislation in the form of a number of draft Scottish Statutory Instruments. The consultation was supported by 7 PVG consultation events from November through to January (and 9 related Central Registered Body in Scotland ( CRBS) events).
The aims of the events were to impart information to relevant stakeholders about the Protection of Vulnerable Groups (Scotland) Act 2007, to encourage them to respond to the consultation on proposals for secondary legislation under the Act, but also to gain information about their understanding and opinions on the subject, in order to use this information to supplement the analysis from the formal written consultation
Overview of Respondents
Responses to the written consultation
The Protection of Vulnerable Groups ( PVG) Consultation ran from 1 November 2007 - 12 February 2008, although late responses were accepted until the 19 February 2008. A total of 199 responses were received. 187 of these addressed the questions raised in the consultation paper and were included in the statistical analysis, the remaining 12 took the form of letters which did not follow the layout of the response form and so they were looked at separately. The majority, 90% of responses came from those answering on behalf of groups. Voluntary Organisations were the most widely represented, making up 42% of the total responses. As well as the 10 background categories listed in the consultation document, it was felt that there was also value in analysing responses by 3 additional groups - Councils, Regulatory Bodies and Child Protection Committees - as these groups were represented, but did not neatly fit into the categories provided.
Delegates at PVG events
In addition to the written consultation, 875 people attended the 7 PVG events. The Voluntary Sector made up just under half of the audience (47%), and the Statutory Sector made up just under one-third of the audience (32%). In terms of work service area Social Work/Social Care was the most represented group at 30%.
Nine related events were held by the Central Registered Body in Scotland ( CRBS), and 176 people attended these events (bringing total attendance at events to over 1000). These were not formal consultation events, but were supported by the Scottish Government and intended to complement the SG events. These events reached rural communities and delegates were primarily from the voluntary sector.
Overview of Chapter 2 - Regulated work and access to disclosures
Regulated work with children and adults
- Consultees were in favour of further guidance around the definition of regulated work with both children and adults
- There was more support for the use of broad definitions of services that define whether an adult is protected than explicit lists
- There were mixed views towards the 'blanket' proposal that an individual should be a protected adult if they are in receipt of any health service with some preferring the option of identifying more specific health services where this would be the case.
Contractors and disclosure
- There was concern over the extent to which disclosure information could be shared with third parties, with consultees accepting that in certain circumstances this would be necessary however, disagreeing that it should be open to all.
Changes to registration of registered bodies
- Consultees were generally opposed to bringing a minimum threshold as to the number of disclosure applications as being a condition of maintaining the status of being a registered body.
Overview of Chapter 3 - Referrals and listing
Making referrals
- The majority of consultees (77%) felt the list of prescribed information was acceptable and proportionate.
- The majority of consultees (60%) reported that they would not find it problematic to provide the information they already held.
Automatic listing
- The majority of consultees (55%), from a cross-section of organisations, thought that individuals with convictions in any of the groups mentioned should be automatically listed on both the children's and adults' lists.
Automatic consideration for listing (children's list only)
- A clear majority (60%) of consultees, across all sectors, felt that the list of relevant offences against children set out in Schedule 1 should be expanded to include those set out in Annex 4 groups 2 and 3.
- 43% did not feel any offences should be removed, although this was recognised to be a complex area.
Removal from lists
- Opinion was very evenly split as to whether the age threshold for a shorter "minimum no review period" should be set at 18 or 25, with 39% saying 18, 37% saying 25 and 25% not answering the question.
- The majority of consultees found the proposed approach to be fair, appropriate and comprehensive, although it was emphasised that the system must be developed to be robust and professional.
- There was most support for the minimum no review period to always start from the date of listing (39%)
Overview of Chapter 4 - New types of Vetting Information
Regulatory Bodies and Councils
- There was felt to be no need for further Regulatory Body information beyond that laid out in the consultation document.
- Consultees were generally in favour of sharing Regulatory Body information, however situations where it would be suitable to withhold such information include; if disclosing it would compromise an ongoing police investigation or place someone at risk.
- Councils were seen to hold relevant information as a service provider with information relating to people's domestic lives - information relating to Child Protection issues was the most commonly cited example of relevant Council Information.
- There was support for gathering Council data as set out in paragraph 175 of the consultation document.
- Other suggestions for gathering Council data were through a central point in the organisation, and through a panel.
- There was more support for disclosing Council and Regulatory Body information than for withholding it
Civil Orders
- There was support for the civil orders mentioned in the consultation to be included on scheme record disclosures and standard and enhanced disclosures.
- There was some support for other civil orders to be included - ASBOs were the most commonly cited example.
- Opinion was evenly split between whether or not details of previous competent referrals should be included on scheme records.
Other possible sources of vetting information
- There was felt to be no need for further vetting information beyond that laid out in the consultation document.
Overview of Chapter 5 - Retrospective checks and fees
Retrospective checking: whether and how?
- There was strong support for managed retrospective checking
- If natural turnover was selected there was more support for expediting membership rather than leaving it to natural turnover.
- The majority did not feel that retrospective checking should be delayed.
- The majority favoured retrospective checking by date of last disclosure
- Retrospective checking over 3 years was the preferred option
- Risk management was an important recurring factor in explaining why these options were chosen.
Fee levels and charging regime
- A two-tier fee system was more popular than an annual subscription model
- Up to £25 was mentioned as an appropriate level for the higher tier of fee
- There was more support for volunteers to pay a fee to join the scheme when they enter paid work, than for them not to - the voluntary sector was evenly split as to whether or not this should be the case
Overview of Chapter 6 - Connecting with the rest of the UK
- There was broad approval for cross-border arrangements
- Consistency between schemes was seen as important
- Information sharing needs to be robust, accurate and quick
- The system should aim to minimise costs and bureaucracy for those working across borders (perhaps only require membership of one scheme)
- There was concern that there was no mention of wider ( EU, international) cross border arrangements or how to deal with overseas applicants within the consultation document.
Conclusion
In summary the themes of risk management and proportionality came across very strongly in consultation responses. Consultees were strongly in favour of measures to reduce risk to vulnerable groups, however they felt that it was important to do so in a way that did not impose undue burdens (financial or administrative) on organisations. It was suggested that there is still a need for further consultation and further guidance on many of the issues raised in this consultation.
« Previous | Contents | Next »