The Scottish Government

« Previous | Contents | Next »

Listen

Chapter 5: Retrospective checks and fees

Chapter 5 Key Points Summary

• 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.
• 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 PVG 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

Introduction

Chapter 5 of the consultation document deals with the related subjects of retrospective checking and fees. The issue of fees is seen to be closely related to retrospective checking, as the number of people joining the system at any one time will impact upon the amount of work the agency will be required to do, which in turn will impact on cost.

Section 5.2 Retrospective checking whether and how?

The PVG Act introduces a scheme membership system for people who work in regulated work with children and protected adults. After the PVG scheme "goes live" anyone who joins the regulated workforce, or moves post within it, can become a scheme member. However this will not encompass those who are already in the regulated workforce before the scheme goes live. The principal aim of the Act is to provide protection for vulnerable groups and there are risks involved in having people in the regulated workforce who are not PVG Scheme members. There are two main options for including existing workers in the PVG Scheme. The first is natural turnover, where nothing extra is done to bring people already in the workforce into the PVG Scheme, but as people move posts and require a new disclosure check they become PVG Scheme members. It is estimated that if there is a relatively high turnover rate of 30% per annum, then around 97% of the work force will become PVG Scheme members after 10 years (page 55 of the consultation document). The alternative is to introduce a managed process of retrospective checking, which would phase existing workers into the PVG Scheme in stages. Options for managing this process include checking by date of last disclosure, by sector or by a random personal characteristic of the employee. Consultees were also invited to suggest other options for managing retrospective checking.

Q17a Should scheme membership be phased in through:

• natural turnover
• a managed process of retrospective checking

Q17 asked consultees if they were in favour of allowing a process of natural turnover or if they favoured a managed process of retrospective checking. There was very strong support (77%) for a process of managed retrospective checking, with only 12% opting for natural turnover and 11% not answering the question. This is reflective of the findings from electronic polling undertaken at the PVG Consultation Events, which also showed strong support for a managed process of retrospective checking.

Certain areas were more in favour of retrospective checking than others, there was unanimous/almost unanimous support for retrospective checking in Sport and Leisure and Child Protection Committees (100% each) and Councils (94%). Natural turnover received the most support in Education, 36%, and Early Years, 25%, and the least support in Sport and Leisure, Police, Regulatory Bodies, Councils and Child Protection Committees where no one opted for natural turnover.

Reasons consultees opted for natural turnover

Within the voluntary sector, the predominant theme emerging was concern about the additional cost in relation to the administration of retrospective checking, and that using resources to retrospectively check staff would risk diverting resources away from front line services. Natural turnover in contrast, was seen as a more manageable process. Other themes emerging in the voluntary sector in relation to natural turnover included a concern that the process of retrospective checking would have to be handled sensitively so as not to offend, or put off long-serving volunteers. There were also calls for Scotland to follow a system that was in line with the rest of the UK, and for new employees to be prioritised over retrospective checks within the system.

Within the Education sector, there were also concerns about the administrative burden of retrospective checking, and that it may potentially be off-putting in the recruitment of staff. It was also mentioned that retrospective checking was an infringement of human rights.

Within the Social Work sector staffing issues were mentioned, such as the problems with recruitment and retention of staff, and as such natural turnover was favoured.

Within the Health sector it was mentioned that retrospective checking was unnecessary in that organisations and employers should know their staff, and that the complexity of retrospective checking was disproportionate to the public gain from the system.

Reasons consultees opted for retrospective checking

A common recurring theme prevalent across all response groups was the feeling that retrospective checking was important in terms of risk management. Natural turnover was seen as taking too long, and would not capture those who stay in post for a long time, allowing potentially unsuitable people to remain undetected within the workforce and therefore increase the risk to children and protected adults. Within those who favoured retrospective checking there was an acknowledgement that this would entail an administrative burden, however it was felt that protection of vulnerable groups should be prioritised above any potential administration burden.

"Natural turnover merely encourages anyone with something to hide to stay in the one job."
Voluntary Organisation

"We believe it is correct to consider proportionality and the matter of risk and to question whether natural turnover should be allowed to dictate the rate of take-up of membership. However, as illustrated in paragraph 198, even a very high turnover rate would not have the whole workforce signed-up within 10 years. Given the reasons why the scheme has been established this is, we suggest, an unacceptably long period. It is acknowledged that there will be resource demands attendant upon any managed process of retrospective checking. However, if the scheme is to enjoy credibility then these demands will have to be met".
Child Protection Committee

Within Early Years, Education, Voluntary Organisations and Other groups there were comments about the importance of Scotland applying retrospective checking as this would be in line with procedure in the rest of the UK. It was felt that this would minimise confusion in organisations that have staff in Scotland as well as in the rest of the UK.

There was a feeling amongst Health, Sport and Leisure, Voluntary Organisations, Councils, Child Protection Committees and Other that a managed process of retrospective checking would benefit organisations in that it would allow them to plan the administration systems required and budget for the resources required for checking employees. Within Voluntary Organisations there was a particular concern that the bodies that contract work out to Voluntary Organisations may attempt to force Voluntary Organisations to retrospectively check all employees as a condition of issuing a contract. It was felt that retrospective checking in line with a government prescribed process may offer Voluntary Organisations some protection from this pressure.

"X suggests a managed process would be preferred as the organisation would have a better picture of when the process will begin and how retrospective checking should be carried out. Within X, it would make the management easier and on a national basis it would cut out the uncertainty of the natural turnover option. It does however require additional resources and this would need to be considered by central government"
Voluntary Organisation

"In an effort to minimise the number of organisations forced by these third parties to retrospectively check their entire regulated workforce, we propose the introduction of a managed process of retrospective checking, as discussed below. It is our hope that voluntary organisations could then use this legislation in contract negotiations with local authorities, for example, to change clauses specifying that all staff are checked to one where all staff will be checked in accordance with the managed process of retrospective checking as defined in the secondary legislation."
Voluntary Organisation

The administration process for processing retrospective checking was mentioned by Voluntary Organisations, Councils, Child Protection Committees and Other, both in terms of how their organisations would cope, but also in terms of how the system overall would cope with the demand. It was felt that it was important that priority was given to new starts in the regulated workforce over retrospective checks and that a clear system must be in place to ensure this - perhaps something on the application form that immediately distinguishes new applicants from retrospective checks.

"Consideration should be given to a separate 'fast track' system for 'new' recruits to the sector, parallel to retrospective checking, thus not delaying or causing potential recruitment issues"
Regulatory Body

In Other there was a feeling that whilst there were benefits to retrospective checking, the decision on whether or not to check existing employees should be at the discretion of the employer, as there was potentially very little to be gained from checking employees who had been working for a long time with unblemished records.

Q17b If natural turnover was selected would your organisation

• make arrangements to expedite scheme membership for your staff
• allow turnover to complete this process over time

There was greater support for making own arrangements to expedite PVG Scheme membership 43%, than for allowing natural turnover to complete the process 11%, although 46% did not answer this question. Health and Early Years were the most likely so say they would let natural turnover take its course (25%). No one said they would rely on natural turnover in Police, Social Work, Sport and Leisure, Councils or Child Protection Committees Attendees at PVG Consultation Events also favoured making their own arrangements, rather than relying on natural turnover.

Amongst Early Years, Social Work, Voluntary Organisations, Councils, Regulatory Bodies and Other there was a feeling that expediting staff membership to the PVG Scheme was an issue of best practice, and there was a keenness to join the PVG Scheme. Some organisations stated that they already had policies of checking existing staff in place and they would continue with this practice. Early Years and Voluntary Organisations also mentioned that they would be contractually obliged to retrospectively check in order to comply with the wishes of Local Authorities.

"We would want all our staff to join the new scheme and to be seen to be embracing the new legislation. We need to set an example to our membership groups."
Early Years

"Care Commission guidance on best practice recommends checking staff every 3 years and we would wish to continue with this process"
Voluntary Organisation

As a reason for expediting PVG Scheme membership, comments from within Health, Voluntary Organisations, Child Protection Committees and Other reiterated the fact that natural turnover would take too long, and increase the risk to vulnerable groups, particularly within organisations that identified themselves as having low staff turnover.

"X would choose to make arrangements to expedite scheme membership for relevant staff. Proactive sports organisations, mindful of the potential risks associated with relying entirely on natural turnover, would wish to do the same."
Voluntary Organisation

Staffing considerations were mentioned by Early Years, Voluntary Organisations and Councils. Some mentioned that as they had a small number of employees retrospective checking would not pose a problem for them. The importance of accurate and up-to-date staffing records was also mentioned, as was the need to treat individuals fairly across an organisation, by making sure that they were also subject to the same checks.

An opinion was expressed within Education that a mixture of natural turnover and retrospective checking, where retrospective checking was prioritised in a risk based manner, was the most appropriate option.

Although opting for expediting membership, concerns were mentioned in Voluntary Organisations, Councils and Other about the impact of this on administration, both at the level of the individual organisation and also how Disclosure Scotland would cope if organisations all across Scotland were trying to push their staff through the system at one time. Voluntary Organisations cautioned that smaller groups who did not have the capacity to respond to the consultation may struggle to undertake retrospective checking.

"Whilst it is likely that many organisations, who are aware of this consultation and have the capacity to respond, will be in a position to expedite retrospective checking for their staff, those smaller organisations who have not responded to the consultation are exactly those who would not be able to expedite retrospection. Tabulation of a majority of organisations who answer in the affirmative to 17b (make arrangements to expedite scheme membership) should not be regarded as tacit ascent to immediate retrospection."
Voluntary Organisation

Reasons for choosing natural turnover

Only 11% of consultees opted for natural turnover instead of expediting membership. Education, Health and the Voluntary Organisations believed that natural turnover would be easier for organisations to manage in terms of cost and administrative burden. Within Other it was mentioned that as staff already held enhanced disclosures it was felt that retrospective checking was not necessary.

Q18 Should the period of retrospective checking be delayed until such a time as a proportion of the workforce have joined by natural turnover?

• Yes
• No
• Don't Know

If yes, how long should this delay last and why?

The majority of consultees, 51%, did not think that retrospective checking should be delayed. Only 17% suggested an appropriate length of time for the delay. Suggestions for this ranged from 1 year to 5 years, with 3 years being the most popular proposal. Voluntary Organisations were the most in favour of a delay (40%), followed by Education (36%), Health (33%) and Early Years (25%). There was no support for a delay within Police, Social Work, Sport and Leisure, Regulatory Bodies and Child Protection Committees.

Although the question only asked for comments from those who favoured a delay, some used this question as an opportunity to comment on why it should not be delayed, with risk emerging as a reason within Education, Social Work, Voluntary Organisations, Regulatory Bodies and Other. Within the Voluntary Organisations it was mentioned that a delay in the start of the process would probably only result in pressure and a backlog at the end of the process.

There were some who supported a delay in checking and gave reasons for this, but did not specify how long this delay should last. The reasons why they supported a delay included: allowing organisations time to prepare; reducing the burden as natural turnover will have encompassed a proportion of workers and to allow time for training guidance and support; and were similar to the themes coming from groups who specified a specific time frame for the delay. It was also highlighted that most employees would already be disclosure checked. Within the Education sector there was a suggestion that there could be a delay, and checking could then be prioritised on a risk assessment basis.

"We need to learn the lessons from the POCSA [Protection of Children Scotland Act] introduction and take the time to prepare the way with guidance, training and support. It would be prudent to allow an initial period of natural turnover to process those who want to join the scheme promptly and have the resources to do so, before then any retrospective checking process was implemented."
Voluntary Organisation"

"Delaying retrospective checking might be appropriate as many, if not most, of the people doing regulated work will have been checked under disclosure arrangements or SCRO [Scottish Criminal Record Office] checks (Police circular 4/89). … Finally, although it may seem incautious, common sense would suggest that regardless of conviction history a long serving employee who has not manifested risk by his or her actions in an employment context up until now must also represent an ongoing low risk".
Council

One year was felt to be an appropriate delay by some in Health and Voluntary Organisations as this would allow any initial teething problems in the system to be resolved. It would also allow organisations time to prepare, according to comments from Health and Council consultees. However in the Other category there was a feeling that a 2 year delay would be appropriate to allow the new system to get imbedded. Within the voluntary sector it was mentioned that a 2 year delay would help to spread the burden for organisations.

"For a period of 12 months; allowing this delay would ensure that any initial problems or issues could be identified and resolved prior to the commencement of retrospective checking."
Health

Within Early Years, Voluntary Organisations and Other groups there were comments that a 3 year delay would be good in that it would allow organisations time to prepare and put processes in place to manage retrospective checking and allow the cost to be spread. It was also felt that this delay would allow natural turnover to bring a number of employees into the PVG Scheme and would therefore ease the burden on organisations somewhat.

"Three years as this will bring in a considerable number through natural turnover and also give organisations time to provide information and training on new obligations."
Early Years

3 to 5 years was highlighted as an option by Other, so as not to risk overburdening the system by attempting to process too many applications at once. Within Voluntary Organisations, a 5 year delay was mentioned on staffing grounds as there was a fear that older volunteers may choose to retire early rather than go through the perceived hassle of filling out forms. A longer delay would allow them to naturally come to their retirement age and by then if PVG Scheme membership was more widespread it may be easier to persuade volunteers to join. It was also suggested that after 5 years would be an appropriate time to "mop-up" anyone who had not been covered by the natural turnover route.

Q19 If retrospective checking is to be undertaken, which of the options for prioritising retrospective checking of individuals do you prefer?

• By date of last disclosure
• By sector
• By random personal characteristics
• Other

The majority (58%) of consultees favoured retrospective checking by date of last disclosure. Retrospective checking by sector and other each got 13% and retrospective checking by random personal characteristic was the least popular option on 4%. This reflects the electronic polling undertaken at the PVG Consultation Events, where retrospective checking by date of last disclosure was the most popular option followed by retrospective checking prioritised by sector. Using date of last disclosure got the most support from Early Years and Social Work.

Health were equally split between using date of last disclosure and sector with 42% for each. Early Years provided the most support for using random personal characteristics on 13%.

Risk management appeared to be an important factor in influencing consultees' answers. Risk was mentioned as a reason by those prioritising by date of last disclosure, and also by those who opted for using sectors to prioritise. Those who came up with alternative answers felt that the alternatives seemed to be the best way to manage risk.

By date of last disclosure

Prioritising retrospective checking by date of last disclosure was the most popular option. Reasons for choosing date of last disclosure included risk management, a belief that it would be the easiest system for organisations to manage, a feeling that it was the most logical option, and the fact that it was seen to be in line with practice in the rest of the UK. When choosing this option consultees sometimes stated why they felt that this approach was better in relation to perceived weaknesses of the other approaches. For example, prioritising by sector would result in an organisation having to check all their employees at once, the same would be true of geography, for organisations that only operate within certain areas. However prioritising by date of last disclosure would spread the checking out for organisations.

That the current disclosure system offers a point in time snapshot, and is out-of-date soon after being produced was a contributing factor in the belief that retrospective checking should be prioritised by date of last disclosure in order to minimise risk. Employees who have been in post so long that they do not have disclosure checks were viewed as priority, followed by those who have not been checked for a number of years. Groups who cited risk management as a factor in choosing date of last disclosure spanned a wide spectrum and were Early Years, Health, Social Work, Sport and Leisure, Voluntary Organisations, Regulatory Bodies, Child Protection Committees and Other.

"The staff who have never been disclosed get checked first plus staff who have very old checks. This way the most needed checks are completed first, particularly focussing on any individuals 'hiding' with offences or information that may be unknown to their employers."
Early Years

Retrospective checking by date of last disclosure was seen as being easier for organisations to manage by consultees in Early Years, Education, Voluntary Organisations, Council and Child Protection Committees. There were comments that some organisations already managed their disclosure procedures in this way, and would continue to do so. It was also seen as being a good way to phase retrospective checking in, so that organisations did not have to check all of their staff in one go. Although it should be noted that some who opted for disclosure by sector, or by random personal characteristics also did so because it was felt that that was easier for organisations to manage.

"We would like to see retrospective checking of individuals to be done mainly by date of last disclosure as this system is likely to suit organisations that currently re-check enhanced disclosures, and is potentially the easiest to administer as these dates are likely to be spread out throughout the year."
Voluntary Organisation

By Sector

Retrospective checking by sector was seen by Education, Health, Social Work, Sport and Leisure, Voluntary Organisations, Councils and Child Protection Committees to be an effective way to manage risk as sectors which are more likely to be working directly with vulnerable groups can be prioritised for checking first.

"This allows a risk management approach to be adopted which, in turn prioritises employees working with most vulnerable groups of children and protected adults."
Social Work

Within Health, Voluntary Organisations, Councils and Child Protection Committees, views were expressed that prioritising by sectors would be easy for organisations to manage including a comment from within the voluntary sector that it would be helpful to process most of their applications together, something which for others had been seen as a negative impact of disclosure by sector. It was also seen as being a clear and easy system to understand, leaving little room for doubt about who was expected to go through the disclosure process first (Voluntary Organisations).

By random personal characteristics

Although being the least popular option, prioritising by random personal characteristics did have some supporters. There was a feeling in Early Years and Voluntary Organisations that random personal characteristics would spread the burden for the Central Barring Unit ( CBU) and the organisations. An opinion voiced by a Council consultee was that random personal characteristics could be easier for organisations to manage as it does not rely on the accuracy of an organisation's records.

"Random personal characteristic has the advantage of meaning everyone will be eventually included. Relying on employer records of, for example, date of last disclosure risks inconsistency and confusion as these records will be held in various ways and may be inaccurate. Random personal characteristic will also be easier for employers to administer, and allows for the volume of retrospective checking to be controlled nationally."
Council

Other Suggestions

13% opted for an "other" option. Certain problems relating to the suggested methods were highlighted. For example it was felt that not all organisations would know the information about date of last disclosure for their employees and would therefore inundate the CBU with requests to find out this information.

A number of alternative suggestions were put forward. A role/client based approach to risk assessment was advocated by Education, Social Work and Voluntary Organisations. This would involve organisations identifying staff who work with the most vulnerable groups and/or are in the most frequent contact with vulnerable groups and disclosing them first.

"If retrospective checking is to be undertaken, it is suggested that this be done by role thereby enabling universities to target specific groups of staff whose responsibilities are aligned with those encompassed by the proposed Act. As the key driver here is to increase safeguards checking might be prioritised by sector and function. A risk-based approach should be taken depending on the nature of the work undertaken in each role across the organisation, focusing on those areas where the employee is most likely to come into direct one-to-one contact, constituting 'regulated work' with vulnerable groups."
Education

"The first three [options in consultation document] all rely on good information being available and some small voluntary sector organisations may not have this. It will also cause some large organisations administrative difficulties. If working with a particular client group was used, selecting the most vulnerable group first organisations would easily be able to identify staff and plan registration."
Voluntary Organisation

In the "other" options that were being suggested there was a desire for an element of flexibility in how an organisation goes about the retrospective checking process. Suggestions included that it should be left to the discretion of the employer to decide (Other), and that it might be appropriate to vary the method according to the size of the organisation, with date of disclosure being used for smaller organisations and sector for larger organisations (Voluntary Organisation).

Other suggestions included using a combination of factors, such as date of disclosure and type of work together which was seen to best address the risk element. (Voluntary Organisation, Council, Child Protection Committees, Other). Another suggestion was to use geographical areas subdivided by type of work (Voluntary Organisation).

Within Health there was a suggestion that prioritisation should be broken down into smaller units, such as wards or departments. The following option was put forward by a Child Protection Committee and suggests Local Authorities allocating a set number of disclosure checks within an area.

"A further option would be that each local authority area is allocated a number of retrospective checks per year and that agencies within that area agree upon the allocation per agency. This would ensure equal spread across the country and across professions/disciplines within an area."
Child Protection Committee

Duration of the retrospective checking period

Q20a If there is to be a period of retrospective registration of the regulated workforce onto the scheme, which of the following options would you prefer?

• retrospective checking over 3 years
• retrospective checking over 4 years
• retrospective checking over 5 years
• retrospective checking over 6 years
• 3 years delay followed by 3 years retrospective checking
• 4 years delay followed by 2 years retrospective checking

Retrospective checking over 3 years was the most favoured option on 43%; 3 years delay followed by 3 years retrospective checking was the next most popular on 20%. Councils were most in favour of retrospective checking over 3 years (88%). Voluntary Organisations were most in favour of a 3 year delay followed by 3 years retrospective checking (33%). This ties in with Voluntary Organisations being the most likely to agree, at Q18, that retrospective checking should be delayed until a proportion of the workforce have joined by natural turnover.

Retrospective checking over 3 years

A recurring theme amongst most of the background groupings was that retrospective checking over 3 years was a desirable option as it meant maximising protection for children and vulnerable adults as soon as possible.

"The three year time scale means that children will be protected more quickly than under either of the other options"
Early Years

"It may be impracticable to check everyone at once, however, decisions on prioritisation and timing should be based on the minimum time that is manageable, and on the assumption that everyone should be checked as soon as practicable. There does not seem to be any justification for creating detailed system for vetting new employees, and yet having a lesser standard for existing employees. The longer an individual has been in post, the less rigorous the original vetting process is likely to have been. The assumption at paragraph 210 on page 59 that "after three years of natural turnover around two thirds of the workforce would become scheme members and after 10 years around 97% would be scheme members" will not be true for all organisations".
Council

Consultees from Early Years, Social Work, Voluntary Organisations and Councils also noted that checking over a 3 year period fits in with Care Commission and Scottish Social Services Council ( SSSC) guidelines on best practice and as such is seen to be appropriate. Within Social Work, Voluntary Organisations and Other there was also the comment that 3 years fits in with their current re-checking practices, and as such retrospective checking over 3 years would be seen to have a limited additional impact on the organisation.

"As I stated previously we currently re-check disclosures when someone has worked for us for three years. As to create no additional burden we would prefer retrospective checking over three years. We would expect this to have a limited impact on us other than the current administrative and financial burdens".
Voluntary Organisation

In general, amongst Social Work, Sport and Leisure, Voluntary Organisations, Councils, Child Protection Committees and Other, 3 years was seen as being a manageable length of time for organisations to handle the administration process and financial implications of retrospective checking. Within Health it was commented that there was no need to delay retrospective checking as organisations could start the planning process for retrospective checking now. Within Councils and Regulatory Bodies it was felt that 3 years gave the optimum balance between risk and the administration burden and cost of implementation.

"There is a balance between the need to quickly have an operational system with complete coverage and a realistic timetable on the logistics of achieving that. Given the volume and complexity of the task, three years is likely to be the minimum, but longer than that could be difficult to justify to the public. Actual period to acquiring target will be governed by quality & quantity of resources deployed on the task"
Regulatory Body

Some consultees stated that they were in favour of retrospective checking over 3 years; however they also noted their reservations about how workable the 3 year period may be. Within Health, Voluntary Organisations and Regulatory Bodies there was concern as to whether or not all organisations would have the capacity to manage retrospective checking over 3 years. Within Regulatory Bodies there was also a concern about the capacity of the Scheme to handle retrospective checks over this time period, without it impacting on the ability to prioritise checks for new entrants to the workforce. It was suggested that the timescale should be monitored and reviewed, and extended if necessary. Within Councils there was a suggestion that 2 schemes may need to be in place, one for new employees and one for retrospective checking.

"While X believes this is desirable, we acknowledge there may be capacity issues for other organisations in the voluntary sector and consideration should be given an assessment of the gaps in capacity and additional resource implications."
Voluntary Organisation

Retrospective checking over 4 years

Retrospective checking over 4 years was not a very popular choice, with only 4% opting for this. However amongst those who did choose this option there was a feeling amongst Education, Sport and Leisure and Voluntary Organisations that 4 years gave organisations longer to plan and prepare, however without extending the time so long that risk would be increased. Amongst Other groups there was a feeling that 4 years was a realistic time frame as it represented a mid-point between 0-6 years.

Retrospective checking over 5 years

Retrospective checking over 5 years was chosen by 12% of the consultees. Reasons for opting for 5 years varied. Amongst Voluntary Organisations, Regulatory Bodies and Other this was seen as being a realistic time period to manage the process. There was a feeling that 5 years represented a good balance between cost and risk (Education), that it would lessen the administrative burden on organisations (Police, Voluntary Organisations), and allow time for administration systems, both at an organisational level and at the level of the Scheme Administration and Disclosure Scotland to prepare (Voluntary Organisation). Checking over a 5 year period was in line with current practice for some organisations (Health, Voluntary Organisation).

Retrospective checking over 6 years

Retrospective checking over 6 years was not very popular on 3%. Reasons for choosing retrospective checking over 6 years included that it was seen as a manageable time period and that larger organisations may need more time to complete the process (Social Work, Voluntary Organisation, Child Protection Committee). It was also seen as providing a good balance between protection and the administration burden (Other).

3 years delay followed by 3 years retrospective checking

A 3 year delay followed by 3 years retrospective checking was the second most popular choice on 20%. This was particularly popular amongst Voluntary Organisations, where it was mentioned that this was a manageable time period. One of the benefits of having the 3 year delay followed by 3 years retrospective checking was seen to be that the 3 years of natural turnover at the start of the process would get a proportion of the workforce onto the PVG Scheme and therefore reduce administration and costs for organisations of organising retrospective checking. It would also allow organisations time to prepare and enable training and to ensure that staff understand the new system. It was also thought that this should give the system for processing the applications time to get over any initial problems, during the turnover phase before dealing with the increased volume of retrospective checking too (Early Years, Education, Voluntary Organisations, Other).

"Allowing three years for natural turnover and three years for retrospective checking is proportionate and allows all sectors to ensure full membership to the new scheme at a reasonable speed but without causing financial instability in the various organisations."
Early Years

"Ensure that Disclosure Scotland and the CBU [Central Barring Unit] are able to identify, discuss and deal with any "teething problems" that may arise from the operation of the new regime, as it would be counter -productive to embark on a large -scale, retrospective checking exercise on a relatively untested system"
Voluntary Organisation

A 3 year delay followed by 3 years checking was seen to strike an appropriate balance between the need for retrospective checking and a need to manage the resources that this requires (Child Protection Committees). It was commented that this time frame would keep risks to an acceptable level (Other).

It was felt by Voluntary Organisations and Other that this was a good time period within which organisations would be able to manage the process. A particular concern was voiced by Voluntary Organisations and Other who work under contract to Local Authorities and other third parties was that these third parties may try to enforce a rushed period of retrospective checking on them and (as mentioned in response to Q17a above) it was hoped that a managed period of retrospective checking, set out by the government, would reassure these organisations and avoid any "backdoor" retrospective checking.

"It is likely that organisations such as X will be involved in discussions with the Care Commission, and Scottish Social Services Council, for instance, and this will be an added pressure on organisations. For example, there would be little point in delaying retrospective checking for 5 years (or even ruling it out) only for local authorities to insist on it (despite there being no legal compulsion for retrospection) in order for voluntary organisations to use facilities or access funding from the authority. This would in effect introduce retrospection by the backdoor without any 'phasing in' period. Consequently, a "delayed " period of natural turnover of three years is appropriate, followed by a formal period of three years within which retrospection must be carried out on all staff….. We would like to emphasise a particular point that it will not be acceptable for third parties to insist that voluntary organisations retrospectively check their entire workforce before that third party will consider offering additional or continued funding, or will agree new service/work contracts. It should be sufficient comfort for any third party that the voluntary organisation simply confirms that their workforce continues to be checked and that retrospective checking of existing workers will be carried out under the managed process agreed in secondary legislation."
Voluntary Organisation

Additional suggestions were made from within the Voluntary Organisations that a delay of 2 years might be better and that there should be facilities for those who wish to retrospectively check their staff from the beginning of the PVG Scheme.

4 year delay followed by 2 years retrospective checking

A 4 year delay followed by 2 years retrospective checking was the least popular of the options with only 1% choosing this and it did not elicit many comments. However there was a comment from within the Voluntary Organisations that this would be easier for them to manage.

An alternative suggestion from Voluntary Organisations was that the length of time allowed for retrospective checking could vary according to the size of the organisation, with smaller organisations being given 3 years and this being extended to 5 for larger organisations.

Q20b What impact would a quick programme of retrospective checking have on your organisation?

Answers to this question varied from a quick programme of retrospective checking not having much of an effect, particularly in the case of smaller organisations, with relatively few employees to check, or where retrospective checking fits in with current practices, to organisations feeling that a quick process would have serious financial and administrative implications for them.

Minimal Impact

A recurrent theme mentioned by all background groups, apart from Councils, was that a quick programme of retrospective checking would not have much of an impact on their organisations. This was particularly true of smaller organisations that would not have many checks to carry out. It was also mentioned amongst Voluntary Organisations, Social Work and Other that as their current practice is to re-check employees, a quick process of retrospective checking would not have a great impact on them. Some groups even went further and said that a short programme of retrospective checking would be a positive thing in terms of protection for vulnerable groups. (Voluntary Organisations, Councils, Other)

"It wouldn't have a huge administrative impact as there is only 15 - 20 people required to join the scheme and the quicker the better as it gives us and clients the peace of mind that we are members of the scheme."
Sport and Leisure

"We prioritise the welfare of vulnerable groups so would find additional admin support to undertake this - Scottish Government should do same"
Voluntary Organisation

Significant Impact

In contrast however, there were a number of comments relating to the fact that a quick programme of retrospective checking would have a major impact on organisations.

Recurring comments were made across all backgrounds, with the exception of Sport and Leisure, about the administrative and financial burden that a quick period or retrospective checking would entail. A very real concern was that complying with a quick programme of retrospective checking would mean diverting resources, both in terms of administration and finance away from other things, such as frontline services and as such may have a negative impact on service provision and a detrimental impact on the vulnerable groups that organisations are trying to serve.

"Many voluntary organisations working under contract to local authorities work within a very tight financial environment. To expect them to deal with retrospective checking quickly would place them in huge difficulties resulting in either a failure to comply with the legislation or in a cut in services to cope with such an onerous task."
Other

"A rushed programme of retrospective checking would impose a potentially overwhelming economic and administrative burden on voluntary organisations, which could impact on organisations' ability to both deliver a service and carry out the whole disclosure process, a situation detrimental to both the organisations and their service users."
Voluntary Organisation

Not only were there concerns about coping administratively at an individual organisational level, but there were also worries about how the Central Registered Body in Scotland would cope with the administration process if there was to be a short period of retrospective checking, and that delays there would have a knock-on effect on organisations.

"It would lead to previous experience where CRBS [Central Registered Body for Scotland] and Disclosure Scotland were unable to cope causing long delays in turning round disclosure checks causing frustration and loss of potential volunteers".
Voluntary Organisation

Staffing issues were also mentioned by Voluntary Organisations, Councils, Child Protection Committees and Other in relation to a quick process of retrospective checking. There were particular concerns amongst the Voluntary Organisations that a quick process of retrospective checking might risk alienating longstanding volunteers, who may feel that they are no longer trusted and there is a risk that they may choose to leave rather than go through the disclosure process. Issues were also mentioned about the need to communicate clearly to staff about the process, in order to minimise any potential employee relation issues. That it might be seen as a civil liberties issue was also raised by Education.

"We would also have to 'sell' this idea to experienced volunteers who may feel that they are no longer 'trusted'".
Voluntary Organisation

Some even went so far as to state that they would not be able to do a quick process of retrospective checking; it just would not be manageable for them in terms of administration and having the systems in place to comply. (Health, Voluntary Organisations, Regulatory Bodies, Other)

"We consider that a programme of retrospective checking of less than two years would be unmanageable for our systems and likely to compromise the quality and credibility of the output."
Regulatory Body

Others were of the opinion that the impact would depend on the level at which fees were set and would also vary according to the size of an organisation and the numbers of paid staff and volunteers. (Voluntary Organisations, Child Protection Committees, Other).

Q20c What difference would it make if the phasing-in period was significantly extended?

Opinion was split between those who thought an extended phasing-in period of retrospective checking was good, in terms of training, administration, budget, staff considerations, legal obligations and managing the process, and those who felt that a longer period of retrospective checking would be a bad thing in terms of increasing the length of time vulnerable groups were at risk and lessening confidence in the system. There were, however, others who felt that the phasing-in time was not that important, and comments from Education, Health, Sport and Leisure, Voluntary Organisations, Regulatory Bodies and Other that a significant lengthening of the phasing in period would not have much of an impact on them.

Positive to extend phasing-in period

A recurring theme amongst some respondents from a variety of background groups, was that it would be positive for the phasing in period to be extended, as this would address some of the concerns, noted in 20b above, by allowing organisations more time to plan and train staff and spread the costs and administrative burden over a longer period of time, all of which would be beneficial to organisations. It would also allow organisations to familiarise themselves with any legal issues surrounding the process (Early Years).

"It would allow the organisation to strategically plan the implementation to ensure that our business objectives were not adversely affected".
Voluntary Organisation

Amongst Education and Voluntary Organisations there was a feeling that a longer phasing-in period would be more acceptable to staff and would allow for a more people centred approach, which should increase "buy-in" from staff.

Within Voluntary Organisations there was further comment that a longer phase in time would be reasonable and it fitted in with current disclosure checking practices.

In Question 20b above, there were concerns about how the administration of the system would cope with a short period of retrospective checking, and within the Voluntary Organisations and Child Protection Committees it was commented that a longer phase in period would be good to stop the system getting overwhelmed and would allow any initial teething problems to be resolved.

Negative to extend phasing in period

A concern that was prevalent amongst all of the background groups was that to significantly extend the phasing in period for retrospective checking would increase the length of time that vulnerable groups remain at risk from potentially unsuitable people remaining undetected in the workforce. It was commented that this was an unacceptable trade off in terms of the administration and cost benefits of a longer phasing-in period. Amongst Other it was commented that a longer phasing in period would also result in less confidence in the system. Voluntary Organisations had particular concerns that lengthening the process may add to the confusion about what was expected and when, as well as a fear (also expressed by Other) that it may result in organisations leaving it to the last minute to process their employees which could lead to a backlog in processing applications. Councils said that they would consider instigating their own processes of retrospective checking if there was to be a long phasing-in process.

"The longer the phasing-in period the longer our children are less protected. The plus point is it spreads the cost but should that come before vulnerable people & children's protection? We don't think so."
Early Years

"A phasing-in period would have obvious benefits in terms of cost and administrative resource, but in order to protect the reputation of the organisation a significantly extended phasing-in period might be regarded as undesirable. Unless actively prevented it is likely that we might progress with retrospective registration unilaterally as a result of this disquiet."
Council

"It would defeat the object of the legislation - To help protect vulnerable groups."
Child Protection Committee

There were some comments that the phasing-in period of the checking was not really that important as it is the robustness of the efficiency of the process that is important (Early Years), whilst in the Voluntary Organisations it was commented that they would continue with their current arrangements and Other mentioned that the financial and human resource requirements would still be needed, albeit over a slightly longer period of time.

Section 5.3 Fee levels and charging regimes

This section of the consultation asked consultees how they thought fees for joining the PVG Scheme should be gathered, it also asked about what fee levels were seen to be acceptable in relation to a two tier system and whether or not volunteers (whose fees are paid by the government) should be asked to pay a fee if and when they join the paid workforce.

The costs of running the PVG Scheme should be met by the fees that are charged. The actual fees to be charged will depend on a number of factors, so whilst the consultation document provides some estimations of possible fees it does not contain definite final figures for the fees. There are two main options for the payment of fees - a two tier system, where fees are paid per disclosure or an annual subscription model, where a fee is paid for membership of the PVG Scheme. These two options are mutually exclusive.

In the two-tier system (option 1a in the consultation document) the higher fee would be charged for all initial applications to the PVG Scheme and scheme record disclosure, and the lower tier would be charged for short scheme record disclosure and disclosure of scheme membership (assuming that the individual is already a scheme member). Short scheme record disclosure would ultimately be available on-line, and provide immediate confirmation that the individual is a PVG Scheme member. In the vast majority of cases, the short scheme record disclosure will indicate that there is no new information and no further steps will be necessary.

A variation on this (option 1b in the consultation document) is that the higher fee would be paid for the first disclosure, then all subsequent checks would be at the lower level.

The alternative is an annual subscription where a one-off fee is paid each year for PVG Scheme membership, irrespective of the number of checks requested.

Q21a Which of the charging regimes do you prefer?

• Two tier
• All subsequent checks at lower tier
• Annual Subscription
• Other (please specify)

Two tier was most popular option on 37%. If support for all subsequent checks at a lower tier (11%) is included, which is a variation on the two-tier option, then this brings support for two-tier in some form up to 48%, nearly half. In contrast only 12% favoured an annual subscription model, which only gets support from Councils, Child Protection Committees, Health and Other. A third of Health and Child Protection Committee responses favoured annual subscription as did 38% of Councils. Nearly as many consultees opted for "other", 11%, as did for annual subscription.

Attendees at the PVG Consultation Events also favoured a two-tier model, although at the Events the most popular option was the two-tier model with all subsequent checks at a lower tier. The consultation document describes the "all subsequent checks at a lower tier" model in greater depth than it was covered in at events. This may account for the discrepancy between the popularity of this option at events compared to the written consultation responses.

However it should be noted that 29% of consultees opted not to answer this question. It was commented that a lack of concrete information about fee levels made it hard to decide on the best option.

"Without specific cost models it is difficult to suggest which of these methods would suit us the most - we look forward to commenting on this in the future. We of course would not like the fees to increase as this will add additional operating costs which we are going to have to absorb. Local Authorities, who purchase our services, will not increase the rates they pay us to assist in covering these costs as with when the current Disclosure system was brought in this was a cost we had to absorb. The cost remains a key concern to us as an increase in overall cost will have a knock on effect on our ability to offer services that we provide."
Voluntary organisation

Two tier

Reasons for favouring a two-tier system included that it would be easier for organisations to manage, it would be fairer, it would be cheaper and it would be based on demand. In highlighting the positives of their favoured option consultees would sometimes compare it to what they saw as being the unfavourable attributes of other options.

It was felt that a two-tier system would be the simplest option and be the easiest for organisations to manage (Early Years, Police, Social Work, Voluntary Organisations, Regulatory Bodies).

"Less complicated and could save costs overall as people will be less likely to use scheme excessively"
Social Work

There appeared to be a widespread feeling that the two-tier system would be fairer than annual subscription in cases where an individual had multiple employers. For example, there may be issues about who pays and also because it means that payment is only being asked for in instances where a disclosure has been requested therefore, it relates to demand and reflects the costs of the system.

"It seems the fairest way to do it so we can all just pay for what we require at that time".
Voluntary Organisation

"This seems the fairest option given that the majority of the costs will be associated with initial set up on an individual scheme membership and the vetting process required at this stage."
Council

"We note that within the proposals for a two-tier regime there are two options presented. We favour option 1a.This will do two things: 1) Ensure that fees are paid only when there is enquiry activity in relation to a person's membership. In other words, no 'extra' costs would be incurred for the long-term employee who remains in post once scheme membership has been created. 2) Encourage employers to only seek that record that is appropriate in the circumstances; i.e. short scheme or full scheme record."
Child Protection Committee

Linked to the issue of fairness, Councils and Child Protection Committees queried whether an annual subscription may encourage over checking, which may have a negative impact on the management of the scheme.

"Two tier charging would seem fairest. The main problem with annual subscription would be for risk-averse employers to overuse the scheme to provide additional comfort to managers. This would affect capacity in turn having a detrimental effect on employers who use the scheme sensibly. The same concern applies to the second option [all subsequent checks at a lower tier]. In addition annual subscription might be more costly to administer if the employer chooses to reimburse employees (as it is likely we would.)"
Council

Within the Voluntary Organisations and Other there was a feeling that a two tier system would be cheaper. It was mentioned that this would be particularly true in the case of people who did not move around the workforce but stayed in one post and would not require more than one disclosure in a 10 year period; it was felt that the cost of paying an annual subscription may dissuade them from entering the regulated work force. However it was also noted that there needed to be faith in the system in order for it to work effectively.

"This will presumably be cheaper than an annual subscription, and for those who are not changing roles or taking on more roles, the costs should minimal for 10 year cover"
Voluntary Organisation

"As 90% of disclosures contain no information, scheme membership disclosure at a lower tier would be more cost effective when employing new staff, than the present full disclosure system."
Voluntary Organisation

"However, this relies on total confidence in the system and it therefore important that it is seem to operate effectively; otherwise there is risk that employers will opt for full scheme disclosure records, undermining the intention of the short scheme system".
Voluntary Organisation

All subsequent checks at a lower tier

A concern raised by Councils and Other was that one of the arguments against all subsequent checks at a lower fee in the consultation document was that there would be no disincentive under this PVG Scheme to prevent excessive checking. It was felt that this should not be a criterion for judging a charging system on, as any disincentive to excessive checks may also act as a disincentive to legitimate checks.

Within Early Years there was a feeling that all subsequent checks at a lower tier would be the simplest and easiest way to manage system. Within Voluntary Organisations it was felt that this would be a more cost effective option. Regulatory Bodies and Other commented that this would appear to be the fairest system. Linked to fairness was the opinion, expressed by Voluntary Organisations, Regulatory Bodies and Other that if the information on a PVG Scheme member already exists, then it should not be any more expensive to generate a PVG Scheme record than a short scheme record.

"This seems the fairest system since in most cases the majority of the Scheme's effort and cost will be associated with providing the first check on an individual. We do not think as indicated in the consultation paper that this approach would generate additional demand for full scheme record disclosures because there would be no price difference between the short scheme record disclosure and the scheme record disclosure. We think that where possible employers/regulatory bodies will ask for short scheme records because they will be quicker to obtain."
Regulatory Body

Annual Subscription

12% of consultees opted for an annual subscription model. Amongst Voluntary Organisations, Councils and Others there was a feeling that an annual subscription would be easier to manage in terms of administration. Health mentioned that annual subscription would be more cost effective and the benefits of knowing how much outlay was being paid for checks each year would allow organisations to budget appropriately. (Voluntary Organisations, Councils, Child Protection Committees). Consultees from Other sector mentioned that it would be good for temporary staff who move post a lot.

"It is felt for organisations the costs will be predictable and can be budgeted for each financial year."
Child Protection Committee

Other Suggestions

11% of consultees opted for an "other" option, although not everyone who chose this option proposed an alternative. Some merely chose to comment that the options that appeared seemed over-complicated and that a simple fee structure was required that was good value to frequent users and those in low paid posts (Early Years, Social Work). There were some comments from amongst Voluntary Organisations and Sport and Leisure that as voluntary groups this was not seen as being particularly relevant to them as their fees were free.

Within the Voluntary Organisations suggestions were put forward for the fees paid to be based on the number of members an organisation has, or the number of disclosures that an organisation requests in a year.

"1. The two tier scheme is too complex - 2. Annual subscriptions on an individual member basis would be too difficult for the scheme to administer. 3. Another option would be for organisations to pay an annual fee based on the number of employees. This would be simple to collect and would help organisations budget. We do not believe that this would encourage organisations to apply for un-necessary disclosures; most employers have better things to do."
Voluntary Organisation

"All fee levels are based on the individual (although we pay the costs of Disclosure for staff). Would it be possible to have an annual membership for organisations based on the nos. of Disclosure requested? There would be a saving on administration costs and it would be simpler to operate."
Voluntary Organisation

Another suggestion from Voluntary Organisations was that the fee be directly related to the level of work required to provide the disclosure.

"It should really be guided by average work load of checking applications. If first application is much more expensive to process set it higher than renewals. If little difference, charge a single flat rate for admin simplicity"
Voluntary Organisation.

Within Regulatory Bodies there was a suggestion that a minimal one-off payment be made for disclosure.

"We do not see a subscription model being attractive to those individuals who are not expecting to be the subject of multiple checks. Since the fee will be unattractive whatever level it is set at it is probably best to get it all/the majority of it paid at the onset when the motivation for getting the check should be high. However, where employers are paying the cost of checks for their staff a subscription service could provide a good means of reducing administrative costs and more accurately estimating the annual costs of disclosures. A more radical approach would be to recognise that much of the fee money will be paid by employers from the public purse and significant administrative savings could be achieved through the application of no fee or one minimal flat fee".
Regulatory Body

A variety of suggestions were put forward along the lines that checks should be free, or free for certain groups.

"A free of charge service at the point of use would surely be preferable given that the purpose of the scheme is the protection of children and protected adults"
Voluntary Organisation

Within Health and Regulatory Bodies there were reservations about requiring members to pay a fee to register with a regulated body and then to make them pay again for registration with the CBU.

"Pharmacists registered with the RPSGB [Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain] are already required to pay a registration or annual retention fee (e.g. £395 for Pharmacist's retention in the Register for 2008) and the RPSGB has concerns regarding compelling these registered health professionals to pay another fee to enable them to become registered with the CBU [Central Barring Unit]. Again any such cost added to that already placed on pharmacy as with any other healthcare provider will ultimately result in a cost to government and the tax payer."
Health

It was acknowledged that the Scottish Government pays the disclosure fees for volunteers within the voluntary sector, however there were calls for these free checks to be extended to include paid workers in the voluntary sector, volunteers in the council sector and freelance workers who may be working short-term with a variety of different organisations and therefore be subject to multiple disclosures at personal cost throughout the course of a year. Voluntary groups also expressed concerns about the proposed self-financing of the PVG Scheme and hoped that this would not be at the expense of voluntary groups who will have costs related to complying with the legislation, including increasing insurance costs.

"Coping with the new legislation relatively soon after introducing procedures for the Protection of Children (Scotland) Act will result in a huge administrative task for all voluntary organisations. The Committee is very concerned as to the financial consequences of this. While it is relieved to note that the current arrangements where no charges are made with respect to volunteers will be continued, it would urge that no fees should also be charged with regard to those in paid employment with voluntary organisations. This small concession would go some way to offsetting the huge costs which such organisations will incur in implementing the new legislation."
Other

"We strongly recommend that the offer of free scheme membership for voluntary workers should be extended to all those who are not in a full-time, salaried role and that a legal requirement to pay for subsequent online checks should be placed upon the organisations who require the services of such individuals. If these concessions are not made the scheme will amount to a punitive tax on the self-employed. Several payment systems have been proposed, but according to feedback from the country-wide consultation events the Two Tier system appears to be the favourite. Assuming a not unlikely scenario of an up-front membership fee of £30 followed by a lower fee for subsequent checks of £15, it's easy to imagine the workload of a typically engaged Scottish visual artist (including residencies, workshops or community projects frequently involving children, the elderly, those in care or those with special needs) could easily incur a bill of £150 or more per annum as they move from project to project and differing funders, employers or sponsors request assurances".
Other

"The Scheme must be adequately resourced by the Scottish Government and costs must not be passed onto the voluntary sector to achieve this "self-financing". Fees should not increase substantially above current disclosure costs or this will have a knock-on effect on service provision and people entering the sector. …It is also likely that insurance premiums for voluntary organizations will increase when the Scheme comes into force, as insurers inevitable increase premiums when organizations are required to undertake additional responsibilities."
Voluntary Organisation

Q21b What do you feel the maximum acceptable level for the higher tier fee should be (to keep the lower tier as low as possible or free)?

Consultees were asked what they felt the maximum acceptable fee should be for the higher tier fee. Just over half of consultees responded to this question. Options proposed ranged from free to £100. One quarter felt that up to £25 would be acceptable; there were some calls for fee levels to remain consistent with the current levels for enhanced disclosures. Some consultees responded that they had not been provided with enough information to comment, and others did not mention specific fee levels, but felt that fees should be charged at the minimum level needed to make the PVG Scheme self-financing (Health, Police, Voluntary Organisations, Child Protection Committees).

"The fee should be the minimum that is required to meet that requirement for a self financing scheme."
Police

Within Health and Voluntary Organisations there were calls for it to be free. A maximum level of £20, or in line with current disclosure costs which sits at £20 was indicated as appropriate by 15% of consultees including some in Early Years, Education, Sport and Leisure, Voluntary Organisations, Councils and Other.

"This should be in the region of £20 as with the current Disclosure Scotland check as this is a figure which providers budget for and which employees may pay. There will be more stability in the system and it will be more readily acceptable if it is around the current level."
Social Work

14% of consultees opted for £25 and this received support amongst Education, Social Work, Voluntary Organisations, Councils and Regulatory Bodies. £30 was cited by 9% of consultees and received support amongst Early Years, Education, Sport and Leisure, Social Work, Voluntary Organisations, Councils, Regulatory Bodies and Other. £40 received very little support with only 2% opting for it, those who did were from Sport and Leisure and Voluntary Organisations, and there was a feeling that £40 was only acceptable if this resulted in subsequent checks being kept at a very low price. Fees in the region of £50 - £100 were similarly unpopular with 2% saying these. These higher fees were mentioned by Education, Health and Voluntary Organisations.

The level of fee to be charged for the lower tier influenced some consultees' responses to how high the higher tier should be set. Some were willing to pay more for the higher tier if this would result in free lower tier checks. Where levels of fees for the lower tier were mentioned between free and £15 was seen to be acceptable.

"£20 to £25 if lower tier fee is going to be in the range of £10 to £15 but £35 to £40 if there was going to be no additional cost for short scheme checks in the ten year membership period."
Regulatory Body

"The consultation suggests a higher tier fee of £20 - £30 and lower tier fee of £10 - £15; however, it might be preferable to increase the higher tier fee with the lower tier having no cost. This view is based on one university's approximate level of Disclosure Scotland checks. However, this approach would be, to all intents and purposes, an annual subscription. Overall, the equivalent of, or indeed, lower than the current level of £20, should be the considered in order to address the need for efficient use of financial resources available to all organisations."
Education

Q21c To what extent does the level of fee affect your answer to question 21a? ( EG you prefer a subscription model if it's les than £x/year.)

Some consultees responded that they had not been given enough information for them to comment on this question. Some felt that fee levels would affect whether they opted for an annual subscription or a two- tier model, others indicated that the fee level did not have an impact on their answer.

There were comments from amongst Early Years, Education, Health and Voluntary Organisations that they would favour the most cost effective option.

"As an employer, we would choose the most cost effective scheme - assuming that the level of information and security was comparable."
Early Years

In response to this question, there were comments from amongst Early Years, Voluntary Organisations, Councils and Regulatory Bodies that, depending on fees, an annual subscription may be the better option.

"Annual subscription could be a good idea if it is a system that is split into different levels. i.e. larger employers pay a higher annual subscription and smaller voluntary groups pay a reduced annual fee."
Early Years

"X would support a subscription model only if the cost was significantly lower. If for example the subscription was less than £10 per year this would be preferable."
Regulatory Body

However, others in Early Years, Voluntary Organisations, Sport and Leisure, Councils and Child Protection Committees took this opportunity to say that they would not favour an annual subscription model, and that a two tier system may be preferable.

"As a voluntary organisation cost is a major consideration and as an agency with low staff turnover we do not wish to be penalised by paying e.g. a subscription."
Voluntary Organisation

Concerns were raised amongst Social Work and Council consultees as to how the level of fees would interact with other registration fees paid by professionals.

"People were concerned as to how the level of fee would impact other registration fees to regulatory bodies of professional staff".
Council

There were comments from amongst Social Work, Councils and Voluntary Organisations that although fees were important, other things were important too, such as the efficiency and robustness of the system and additional administration resources being supplied to organisations.

"Cost is a factor but overall we want an efficient system so if two tier provides a disincentive for over using that will help to keep the system faster and more efficient which is helpful for recruitment".
Social Work

"The importance should be placed on ensuring a rigorous and robust process rather than an emphasis on cost."
Council

Within Voluntary Organisations there were some specific issues raised relating to the costs of fees, about the importance of fees being kept down and the need for fees to be subsidised by the government. It was also mentioned that the fee level charged should relate to the level of work required to provide that disclosure.

"Fees should reflect the differential cost of providing each tier of service. If all subsequent checks are at a lower rate, it would create an inequality where an individual is checked by more than one organisation. It would be more equitable for the costs of each tier to reflect the costs of providing the information at that level. If a second organisation requires a check on an individual who is already a member of the scheme it is likely that a scheme record disclosure would be required to make an informed recruitment decision. If all subsequent checks were at a lower level this would have the effect of increasing the first tier charges effectively subsidising the costs for organisations that carry out second and subsequent checks of individuals".
Voluntary Organisation

Q22 Should individuals who become scheme members through volunteering be required to pay a fee for joining the scheme if and when they join the paid workforce?

• Yes
• No
• Don't Know

There was more support (43%) for volunteers to pay to join the PVG Scheme if they join the paid workforce, than for them not to (35%). Interestingly views from Voluntary Organisations were in line with views overall and were very evenly split with 41% saying yes they should pay and 40% saying no they shouldn't . Health were the most likely to say yes they should pay, on 67%.

Yes Volunteers should pay when joining the paid work force

Within Early Years, Health and Voluntary Organisations there was some support for volunteers paying a fee to join the PVG Scheme when they entered paid work, as long as they were only charged the lower rate.

"But at the lower tier rate as they should already have been fully checked."
Voluntary Organisation

Voluntary Organisations also commented that they were in favour of volunteers paying a fee when they joined the workforce as long as this did not have a negative impact on people wanting to volunteer. Within Other it was commented that the fee paid when joining the paid work force would probably be paid by the employer and therefore should not put anyone off volunteering. It was also mentioned by Voluntary Organisations that whilst they were in favour of volunteers paying a fee when joining the work force this would be very hard to monitor and "police".

Issues of fairness and treating all workers within a sector consistently were raised by consultees in Education, Health, Social Work, Voluntary Organisations, Councils, Child Protection Committees and Other.

"All individuals who are employed in the regulated workforce should be treated equally and pay the same fee in relation to employment".
Council

There was a feeling expressed by those in Health, Social Work, Sport and Leisure, Councils, Regulatory Bodies, Child Protection Committees and which appeared to be particularly prevalent amongst the Voluntary Organisations that charging volunteers a fee when they join the paid work force could close a potential loophole of people volunteering in order to get free checks. There were concerns that if this loophole existed, it may push up the fees for disclosures in general to cover this cost.

"It is suggested that volunteers who transfer to paid regulated activity should pay to join the scheme again, to avoid exploitation of the free membership for volunteers. Perhaps a timescale can be introduced, such as if the volunteer enters paid work within 6 months they would have to renew their membership"
Social Work

"This is the only fair way to operate the scheme, otherwise everyone will 'volunteer' and no fees will be paid!"
Voluntary Organisation

"This is a reasonable way of closing a potential loophole in terms of avoiding fees for joining the scheme but should not discourage people from genuine volunteering."
Regulatory Body

Related to this, was a concern from within Education and Voluntary Organisations that employers may encourage potential employees to volunteer for a set period first in order to avoid paying the disclosure fees.

"To avoid being asked to volunteer prior to a period of employment but as a condition of employment".
Education

It was noted by Councils and Other that they believe that the Regulatory Impact Assessment has underestimated the number of volunteers and that this may have implications for the amount of pressure that the new disclosure system is placed under.

No volunteers shouldn't pay when joining the paid workforce

Within Early Years a view was expressed that not only should volunteers who enter the paid workforce not be required to pay a fee for disclosure, but that employees in paid work who go on to volunteer should receive a discount on the disclosure for their paid work as an incentive to volunteer.

"If the individuals would also need a disclosure check due to their permanent employment, the rate should be reduced in recognition of the value of voluntary workers. It may be that a minimum period of voluntary work should be stipulated to ensure that token volunteering wasn't used as a way of avoiding the full fee. However, we would encourage the use of discounted scheme membership as an incentive and reward for volunteering".
Early Years

It was felt within Police, Councils, Child Protection Committees and Other that there would not be a significant number of people attempting to abuse the system by volunteering in order to get a free disclosure check, and that to suggest otherwise was an insult to genuine volunteers.

"The only factor to be considered in relation to this question is financial. The information held and available about the individual is going to be no different whether they are required to pay a fee or not when joining the paid workforce. … Further, the validity of the scenario set out in para 233 has to be questioned. That we might see people, who intend to take up paid employment, seeking to obtain free scheme membership via volunteering ahead of the deadline, and/or those that do so might abuse the system by not actively engaging in voluntary work. We do not think there are significant numbers who would be so minded, particularly if they think/know that any prospective employer will meet the cost of scheme membership. Whilst there may be a few who abuse the scheme by seeking 'free entry' via the volunteering route, we think the introduction of such a rule would be offensive to the great many people who, whilst they might benefit from this provision, would not seek to deliberately gain advantage by abusing it".
Police

Social Work, Voluntary Organisations and Other raised concerns that charging a fee for volunteers who go on to paid employment may put people off volunteering.

"We would wish to continue to encourage volunteering and charging to join the scheme may act as a barrier to some people."
Voluntary Organisation

Sport and Leisure, Voluntary Organisations and Other consultees raised the point that if an individual has been a volunteer their scheme record has already been created, and the costs for this met, therefore why should they be asked to pay when the information already exists?

"No. The individual moving from a voluntary to a paid position would already be a scheme member and the cost of their membership would already have been incurred by the government."
Voluntary Organisation

"Should a coach recruited temporarily to run a holiday sports play scheme suddenly have to foot the bill or find someone else to foot the bill for disclosure when they are already disclosed? We say "definitely not". The cost to sport and to local authorities promoting health and fitness could be considerable. Very few coaches are currently paid at all but there are a growing number of coaches who are primarily volunteers becoming involved in paid coaching work, usually on a part-time basis. It is likely that such individuals would continue to volunteer their time during and after any paid period of work. This is currently happening in athletics with coaches being paid to run grant funded after-school and holiday clubs. If sports clubs or governing bodies were to employ existing volunteers in this capacity and they were already in the scheme it is clearly unreasonable to levy a charge for what is essentially the same work. It is not clear to us how it would be fair to require organisations or the individuals to pay a fee in such circumstances or how it can be argued that not so doing is an unreasonable cost to government. We propose that volunteers in sport whose paid work remains in the voluntary, public or not for profit sector should be exempt from any such ruling"
Sport and Leisure

Within Voluntary Organisations it was mentioned that volunteering is often used as a route into paid work, which is something that ought to be encouraged and could act as an incentive for people to volunteer. It was felt that to charge volunteers who then enter paid work would be at odds with this ethos.

"Volunteering is a route into work which we try to encourage. It could incentivise more people into volunteering. Once people have tried volunteering they are more likely to volunteer again - so in the longer term volunteer involving organisations may benefit".
Voluntary Organisation

"People who come in via the volunteering route often come into lower paid jobs and use volunteering to get a foot on the ladder. They should not be penalised for this."
Voluntary Organisation

Voluntary Organisations raised some specific points about this question. It was felt that to charge volunteers a fee when they join the regulated workforce is not in line with creating a system that is fair and easy to use. There were also concerns about volunteers finding the funds to pay fees when moving to a paid post. It was commented that it appeared to be inconsistent with some of the aims of the PVG Scheme, by appearing to encourage over-use of the PVG Scheme, by requiring another check on an individual, and be inconsistent with encouraging volunteering, as it then seemed to penalise those who went on to work in the same area.

Other also raised some specific points as to why volunteers should not pay to join the PVG Scheme when they entered paid work. It was felt that this would be tantamount to being a tax on jobs, and it was also mentioned that in the long run volunteers getting free checks and then joining the workforce would be balanced out by those who joined the PVG Scheme through paid work taking up volunteering.

Chapter 5: Summary

Retrospective checking vs. natural turnover

Risk management and maximising protection for vulnerable groups was a driving force influencing consultees' responses to questions in section 5.3 relating to issues of retrospective checking.

There was very strong support (77%) for a managed process of retrospective checking. Risk management was an important consideration as natural turnover was seen as taking too long, and would allow potentially unsuitable people to sit undetected within the workforce and therefore increase the risk to children and protected adults. However amongst those who opted for natural turnover, Voluntary Organisations and Education raised concerns about the additional administration cost and burden that retrospective checking would entail.

If natural turnover was selected, there was greater support for organisations making their own arrangements to expedite PVG Scheme membership, 43%, than for allowing natural turnover to complete the process, 11%. Once again risk management was a factor and it was mentioned that natural turnover would take too long and increase the risk to vulnerable groups. Issues of best practice and being in line with current disclosure re-checking processes were also mentioned. However amongst those who said they would expedite membership, concerns were mentioned over the administration required to do so. Those who opted for natural turnover mentioned that it would be easier for organisations to manage in terms of administration.

The majority (51%) of consultees did not feel that retrospective checking should be delayed. Voluntary Organisations were those most in favour of a delay. Once again risk was mentioned as a reason not to delay retrospective checking. Those who favoured a delay did so because it would reduce the burden for organisations, through natural turnover, and it would also allow more time for training, guidance and support relating to the new system.

Options for retrospective checking

The majority (58%) of consultees favoured retrospective checking by date of last disclosure, although 13% came up with their own alternative option. Risk management appeared to be an important factor in influencing consultees' answers. Risk was mentioned as a reason by those prioritising by date of last disclosure, and also by those who opted for prioritisation by sector. Those who came up with alternative answers also did so as these alternatives seemed to them to be the best way to manage risk. Other options included a client/role based approach and using a combination of factors such as date of last disclosure and type of work together.

If retrospective checking is to be undertaken, retrospective checking over a period of 3 years was the most favoured option; a 3 year delay followed by 3 years retrospective checking was the second most popular answer. Voluntary Organisations were the most in favour of having a 3 year delay. Retrospective checking over 3 years was favoured as it maximised protection for children and protected adults as soon as possible. It was seen to provide a good balance between risk and the burden of implementation. It's also in line with Care Commission and SSSC guidelines on best practice. Those who favoured a 3 year delay followed by 3 years retrospective checking did so because natural turnover would reduce the administrative burden and costs for organisations. It was also felt to strike a balance between the need to retrospectively check and the resources required to do so.

Some consultees felt that a quick period of retrospective checking would have a minimal impact on them. This was particularly true of small organisations with few checks to carry out, and organisations that routinely recheck employees/volunteers already. It was also mentioned that a quick process would be positive in terms of protection for vulnerable groups. However, in contrast, there were those who felt that a quick process would have a significant impact on them in terms of an administration and financial burden. Concerns were also noted about how the CBU would cope administratively with a quick process of retrospective checking. Positive and negative elements to extending the phasing in period were identified. On the plus side it was seen to spread the financial and administrative burden and allow organisations more time to prepare. On the downside it was seen to increase the risk to vulnerable groups of potentially unsuitable people remaining undetected in the workforce.

Fees levels and charging regime

Of the potential charging options presented in the consultation paper two tier was most popular option on 37%, if support for the variation of all subsequent checks at a lower tier (11%) is included, this brings support for two-tier in some form up to 48%, nearly half. In contrast only 12% favoured an annual subscription model, which only got support from Councils, Child Protection Committees, Health and Other. Reasons for choosing a two tier system included; it would be easier for organisations to manage, it would be fairer, cheaper and be based on demand. The benefits of an annual subscription were seen to be that it would be easier to manage and would allow organisations to budget for a known amount. Other suggestions for a charging regime included organisations paying fees based on the number of members or number of disclosures requested in a year, as well as calls for free checks to be extended to more groups.

When asked to suggest an appropriate fee level figures given ranged from free to £100, with around a quarter feeling that up to £25 would be appropriate. There was some willingness to pay more for the higher tier if it would result in very cheap or free lower tier checks.

There was more support (43%) for volunteers to pay to join the PVG Scheme if they join the paid workforce, than for them not to (35%). Interestingly views from Voluntary Organisations were in line with views overall and were very evenly split with 41% saying yes they should pay and 40% saying no they shouldn't. Issues of fairness and consistency and closing a potential loophole of people volunteering in order to get free checks were mentioned as reasons why volunteers should pay when joining the paid workforce. However amongst those who felt that volunteers should not be asked to pay there was a feeling that there would not be sufficient numbers of people trying to abuse the system and it was an insult to genuine volunteers to imply otherwise. It was also mentioned that as the PVG Scheme record will already have been created for them as a volunteer, why should they have to pay when the information already exists?

« Previous | Contents | Next »