« Previous | Contents | Next »
Listen
Chapter 7: Conclusion
The Protection of Vulnerable Groups Act creates a new vetting and barring scheme which aims to prevent those who are unsuitable from working with children and protected adults. Around 800,000 people in Scotland currently work (either in a paid or voluntary capacity) with children or protected adults, so the PVG Scheme will affect many people. Therefore it is important for an effective process of consultation to reach a wide variety of stakeholders. PVG Consultation events across the country were well attended with delegates actively participating and engaging with the consultation process. Written responses to the consultation demonstrated the complexity of many of the issues raised and questions asked within the consultation. A number of consultees mentioned that they were pleased to be given the opportunity to respond to the consultation.
Whilst concerns were mentioned about various aspects of the PVG Scheme, such as the PVG Scheme potentially resulting in over-regulation, or perhaps having a detrimental effect on the recruitment and retention of volunteers, on the whole there was support for the PVG Scheme and its primary intention of ensuring the protection of vulnerable groups.
"Thank you for the opportunity to respond to this important legislation. X fully supports the introduction of the Act."
Regulatory Body
"A new Vetting and Barring scheme is a good opportunity to improve the current system for staff, volunteers and service users of voluntary organisations. We welcome the opportunity to comment on the policy proposals. We must highlight that the new scheme will play only one part in striving to make vulnerable groups safe and the resources and time spent on it should not overshadow the continual need for improved protection policies. From the Government's own statistics the scheme will check one in every seven adults who either work or volunteer with vulnerable groups which is not a wholly proportionate approach to take."
Voluntary Organisation
The need for further consultation
This consultation was seen by some to be just one step in an ongoing process and further consultation and continued stakeholder involvement was called for on certain issues. Stakeholders commented that they would like to be involved in the development of guidance relating to regulated work with children. Further consultation was called for on issues such as using Council information as vetting information, and fees. Criticisms were raised that in this consultation there were no definitive figures provided for what levels fees would be set at, making it hard for consultees to comment, and they would like the opportunity to be consulted further at a future date.
"Handling of vetting information is a sensitive issue and we look forward to further consultation with voluntary organisations on this area before final policy decisions are made."
Voluntary Organisation
"Currently there is no information available on the cost of the new vetting and barring scheme, but indications have been made that it should not cost more than the current system which is estimated to cost £ 13.5 million… We welcome that further consultation will take place during 2008 in draft statutory instrument setting the charging regime and actual fee levels… We look forward to being consulted by the Government when the charging regime and fee levels are being set. Any fee levels that are proposed at a higher level than the current system will have a detrimental affect on voluntary organisations supporting vulnerable groups…It is extremely difficult to comment on a system that does not have the costings allocated and also there is no indication of the level of the cost for the new system."
Voluntary Organisation
The need for further guidance
There were calls for further guidance and clarification on many of the issues raised in the consultation. This included on the topics of:
- Interpreting the terms "child care post/position" and "regulated work"
- The "grey area" of the overlap of 16-18 coming both under the definition of "child" and protected "adult"
- Those who work in a building/environment where children or protected adults, are present, but who do not have access to them
- How "contact" is defined
- Those who have access to confidential records
- What is meant by a health and welfare service
- What information is required to make referrals
- What is good practice on maintaining or destroying records related to eg inconclusive disciplinary hearings
- What information the CBU would class as relevant vetting information
- The gathering and sharing of Council information
- How to deal with information relating to previous competent referrals
- What information it may be appropriate to withhold
- How the Scottish PVG Scheme interacts with the English scheme
- Vetting (and the inability to vet) overseas workers
Key findings
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. There was more support for the use of broad definitions of services that define whether an adult is protected than explicit lists
Views were also mixed views as to whether respondents favoured or opposed the proposal to allow disclosure information to be shared with a third party Concerns about this related to taking the responsibility and trust away from employers, and data protection issues
In terms of referral information most consultees felt that the prescribed list set out was acceptable and proportionate and that providing that information would not prove problematic, although there was a degree of confusion amongst some voluntary groups as to whether they would be required to gather information that they do not currently hold.
In terms of automatic listing and consideration for automatic listing the majority of consultees favoured widening out the list of offences
Opinion was evenly split on whether the age threshold for a shorter minimum no review period should be set at 18 or 25. There was most support for the minimum no review period to always start from the date of listing.
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 were identified. There was more support for disclosing Council and Regulatory Body information than for withholding it. There was not one consistent line of thought from Councils or Regulatory Bodies, but a range of opinions existed within both groups.
There was support for the civil orders mentioned in the consultation to be included on scheme record disclosures and standard and enhanced disclosures and there was some support for other civil orders to be included, such as ASBOs. Opinion was evenly split between whether or not details of previous competent referrals should be included on scheme records.
There was strong support for a managed process of retrospective checking and what is more if natural turnover were selected then there was more support within organisations for expediting PVG Scheme membership, rather than leaving it to natural turnover. Retrospective checking over 3 years was favoured and prioritising by date of last disclosure was preferred. Risk management was an important recurring factor in explaining these choices.
In terms of fees a two-tier fee system was more popular than an annual subscription model. 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
There was broad approval for cross-border arrangements and consistency between the Scottish and UK scheme was seen to be important. Information sharing should be robust, accurate and quick and efforts should be made to minimise costs and bureaucracy for those working across borders.
The fact that the consultation document did not touch on issues of vetting workers from overseas, or how the Scottish PVG Scheme might interact with schemes elsewhere in the world was highlighted as a major gap.
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. However there is still a need for further consultation and further guidance on many of the issues raised in this consultation.
« Previous | Contents | Next »