Marie Curie Response Protection of Vulnerable Groups and the Disclosure of Criminal Information July 2018 1. Marie Curie welcomes the opportunity to respond to the Scottish Government consultation on the Protection of Vulnerable Groups (PVG) and the Disclosure of Criminal Information. 2. We provide care and support for people living with a terminal illness and their families and carers. We provide support through our two hospices in Glasgow and Edinburgh, as well as our community nursing services across 31 local authority areas, and our volunteer led services. We also provide nationwide support through our information and support service including our national helpline. 3. Last year we provided care for over 8,600 people living with a terminal illness, as well as their families and carers across Scotland. 4. Marie Curie s vision is for a better life for people and their families living with a terminal illness. Our mission is to help people living with a terminal illness, their families and carers, make the most of the time they have together by delivering expert care, emotional support, research and guidance. 5. Marie Curie has a range of paid staff and volunteers, some of whom require enhanced disclosure or Protection of Vulnerable Groups Scheme (PVG) Membership. The PVG scheme and disclosure system is a vital part of protecting and safeguarding people and, overall, we welcome the proposals for change outlined in the consultation document. We do have some concerns and areas of clarification that we would like to see explored further, which we will detail within our response. 6. We have below set out our response to the relevant questions to Marie Curie posed in the consultation document. Section 2 Disclosure Products Question 1 7. We agree that reducing the disclosure products will simplify the system and this is a welcome move. However, we also believe that there should be clear guidance provided for the Level 2 disclosures proposed in this consultation. We welcome the proposals to develop a digital system to help guide applicants to the right disclosure type and the development of a code of practice around the handling and use of disclosure products. Question 2 8. We agree that the product should be named Level 1 disclosure in the simplified system. This fits with the numerical Level 2 also proposed. 1
Question 4 9. Option 2 detailed in the proposal document is our preferred option for fees of the Level 1 disclosure. This would help individuals working across different Level 1 roles in their career, saving both money and time. Question 5 10. We agree that it is appropriate to regulate registered bodies in relation to B2B applications. Question 8 11. Annex A lists the eligible roles and employment types for Level 2 disclosures. We believe that this needs to be extended to include any non-clinical role based within a Hospice. 12. Regulations from Healthcare Improvement Scotland state that, in a hospice setting, there is a requirement on the employer to demonstrate that they do not employ: any person who has been convicted, whether in the United Kingdom or elsewhere, of any offence which is punishable by a period of not less than 3 months and has been sentenced to imprisonment (whether or not suspended or deferred) for any period without the option of a fine and who in the reasonable opinion of the manager of an independent health care service is unsuitable to work in that service. 13. Many roles undertaken within Hospices are detailed within Annex B, which highlights the protected roles and areas of work, that have formerly constituted regulated work under the PVG scheme. However, this does not apply to other roles within a hospice setting that do not undertake regulated or protected work. Healthcare Improvement Scotland requires these roles to have enhanced disclosure checks and they should be included in Annex A. Question 15 14. In the spirit of simplifying the process and procedure of disclosures as set out in the proposals, we think that option 2B should be the content of the Level 2 disclosure. This reduces the need to have any additional products. Question 16 15. Option 2 detailed in the proposal document is our preferred option for fees of the Level 2 disclosure. This would help individuals working across different Level 2 roles in their career, saving both money and time. Question 17 16. Our volunteers at Marie Curie are invaluable. Almost 1,800 people in Scotland donate their time, skills and enthusiasm to help us support people living with a terminal illness and their families. We could not deliver our services without them. 17. We believe that charging volunteers for Level 2 disclosures places an unnecessary barrier to volunteering opportunities and any such fees could discourage someone from volunteering. This is particularly relevant in a hospice or palliative care setting, where volunteers will be required to have a Level 2 disclosure. 2
18. We strongly believe that free checks should continue for volunteers who obtain Level 2 disclosures. Question 18 19. We welcome proposals to move to a digital service for Level 2 disclosures. However, we have some concerns over the methods outlined to do so. Currently during the volunteer recruitment process at Marie Curie, a volunteer would meet with a member of staff to complete the application process and submit documentation. Not all our volunteers have access to the internet. This could be due to several issues, including accessibility, geographical location, language and literacy. 20. We recommend that processes continue to allow organisations to continue to assist the application process, where applicable. We further recommend that current processes for online disclosures for organisations are retained, in particular, verification of documentation accepted as point of verification rather than point of submission. Section 3 PVG Scheme Question 20 21. To an extent, we agree with the proposals to replace the regulated work definition in the PVG scheme. In practice, the current definition can be ambiguous and it is open to interpretation and uncertainty. We agree that there should be a clear process to determine which roles are eligible for the PVG membership scheme. We further agree that a list of protected roles would provide more clarity for employers and organisations. 22. However, we also recognise the difficulty in keeping such a list up to date, and any potential gaps in a list taken as definitive, could mean some people do not get the correct level of disclosure and monitoring. There is also potential for duplication or multiple entries on the list for very similar roles. We conclude that a list of example roles would be useful, but it might not be definitive and we recommend that this is further examined. 23. If there is a definitive list of roles published as protected roles, we would like to see a facility to add roles quickly to the list as services change and develop and new role profiles and job descriptions are created. Dissemination of any changes then also needs to be quickly communicated to organisations to ensure they are kept up to date. Question 22 24. At Marie Curie, we have several roles that would require membership of the PVG scheme, including staff working in Hospices and Care at Home Services, and volunteers. 25. Our Hospice staff would be listed within the Adult Hospice section under protected establishments adults. However, this section does not make the distinction between those staff who are working directly with vulnerable adults and those who are not. As proposed in the consultation document, if it will become a criminal offence to undertake any of the protected roles while not being a member of the PVG scheme, this means that all administrative staff and volunteers will need to be a member of the scheme instead of having a Level 2 disclosure. We would like to see further clarification of this before any list is finalised. 3
26. We also note that the sections for children s and adult s hospices are not listed on the list in the same way. We would expect to see common terminology across the hospice sector. 27. In terms of our Nursing Service, our team would be classed as either Care Assistant or Support Workers in a Care at Home Service and we believe this makes sense in the list in Annex B. 28. In terms of our volunteers, our team would be classed as any protected role listed in a volunteer capacity. This makes sense in the list in Annex B. However, this does cause ambiguity/contradiction with those volunteers working in a protected establishment. We would like to see further clarification of this before any list is finalised. Question 23 29. To avoid inappropriate membership, we agree that criteria should be contingent on a person s normal duties, as in the current definition of regulated work. 30. However, there could also be consideration to the percentage of time the person is engaged in protected activity. For example, if their normal role was not considered protected and they interacted with a vulnerable person once as part of their role, it might not be appropriate to become a member of the scheme. However, if they engaged in activity with a vulnerable adult on more than one occasion as part of their role, it might require membership and included in criteria for protected roles. Question 25 31. As previously discussed, administrative staff in hospice settings with no interaction or activity with vulnerable adults may be eligible for Level 2 disclosure. However, further clarification is needed around hospices as a protected area as discussed in Question 22. Questions 27 & 28 32. We agree that the person whose normal activities require them to carry out activities such as caring for someone means they are undertaking protected work and should be members of the PVG scheme. We do not agree that the immediate line manager of that staff should also become a scheme member, unless they are also undertaking a protected role. Question 32 33. We believe that any mandatory PVG membership scheme, should be either 3 or 5 years before renewal is required. This will allow those who have left protected roles to leave the scheme, while also not adding additional yearly membership applications for those continuing in protected roles. Question 34 34. We do not feel that a membership card would add much additional benefit to Marie Curie as an employer. We can see how this may benefit a member of the scheme as they move and change employment. 4
Questions 35 & 36 35. We agree with the proposals to registered body fees. However, we have no preferred option for costs of membership fees. Questions 37 & 38 36. As an employer, we are in favour of being able to interact with Disclosure Scotland online and using an electronic payment method for fees. Question 40 37. We believe that there should be a phasing period for transitional arrangements to the new scheme. Questions 41 & 42 38. Our volunteers at Marie Curie are invaluable. Almost 1,800 people in Scotland donate their time, skills and enthusiasm to help us support people living with a terminal illness and their families. We could not deliver our services without them. 39. We believe that charging volunteers for PVG scheme membership places an unnecessary barrier to volunteering opportunities and any such fees could discourage someone from volunteering. We strongly believe that volunteers should continue to receive free membership to the scheme. 40. We have concerns around the proposals to introduce a public interest test for volunteers to benefit from a reduced or waived fee. The scenario outlined in the proposal document would not be applicable to the hospice setting. Question 43 41. We agree that employees and employers who work or allow an individual to work in protected roles without joining the PVG scheme, or stay in protected roles once membership has expired, should be subject to criminal prosecution. Question 44 42. We do not agree that a person who has not paid a renewal fee and has no registered employers should be automatically removed from the scheme. The person may be between roles, and even in the pre-employment process for another role. A grace-period or reminder system would be more appropriate than automatic removal. Question 45 43. We agree that if a volunteer registers a paying employer on their volunteer membership, they will be subject to paying the full fee and a new membership to the scheme should commence. 5
Section 4 Removing unsuitable people from work with vulnerable groups Question 46 44. We agree with proposals to dispense with the current court referral procedure under section 7 of the 2007 Act. Questions 51 & 52 45. We believe that chaplains and complementary therapists should also be included in the list of organisations that can make a referral to Scottish Ministers under regulatory organisations. We would like further clarification as to whether these roles are contained within the registrar of health professionals. Questions 53-56 46. Disclosure Scotland should have the powers to impose standard conditions. The PVG scheme and disclosure system is a vital part of protecting and safeguarding people and this should be first and foremost during the formal consideration period. We believe that these conditions should be for a period of 6 months. This should be in the case where the organisation interested in an individual, but may not be aware of the nature of the conduct that is being considered. There should also be consideration for temporary or agency members of staff and how information is shared with organisations, such as hospices and care homes. 47. We agree that it should be a criminal offence if an individual and employer/voluntary body fails to comply with standard conditions. Questions 57 & 58 48. We agree with proposals outlined in the consultation document that that the age threshold for the shorter prescribed period for a removal application to be made should be raised to 25 years. Section 6 Additional Policy Questions Question 84 49. We recognise the complexity of issues raised by supported persons making social care arrangements under self-directed support. We believe in transparency and agree that supported persons need to be able to make informed decisions about employing prospective carers. 50. However, we are concerned about providing access to vetting information. Serious consideration would be needed around how any such a proposal could be taken forward to ensure compliance with relevant data protection legislation. 6
Further information Susan Lowes Policy & Public Affairs Manager, Scotland Marie Curie 14 Links Place Edinburgh EH6 7EB Phone: 0131 5613902 Email: susan.lowes@mariecurie.org.uk Follow us on Twitter @MarieCurieSCO 7