Agenda item 5 is the linked issue of disclosures. There is a SPICe paper on the issues, which we requested in November, and information from the Scottish Executive, which we requested at the meeting in February.
I have a comment. I wondered whether it would be better to make it after we had discussed the issues with John Harris, but I will just kick off.
I think that it dates from some time ago; I have seen it before.
I thought that we had seen the paper before. That is reassuring, because I think that the situation has moved on since that paper was produced.
It is disappointing that only six organisations responded; I cannot find a list of the organisations that were contacted. Does the fact that so many other organisations did not respond mean that things are bedding down? If there was an awful lot of anxiety out there, I expect that the organisations would have taken the opportunity to tell us about it. I wonder whether the apathy is indicative of the fact that, as Ken Macintosh suggested, things are bedding down.
It is important to remember that, as ministers and officials have stressed from time to time, the guidance cannot go against the law; the Protection of Children (Scotland) Act 2003 that we passed is the starting point. That has certainly caused the Executive difficulty in relation to supervision.
The point about volunteers is well made in the limited responses that we received and in the October research. It is not necessarily the case that volunteers have problems in volunteering; the potential difficulty is the administrative bureaucracy. It might be helpful for us to pick up in our on-going assessment a number of themes that are emerging. Bureaucracy is one such theme; we have also identified the supervision issue.
To be fair, the Executive and a number of major youth organisations have said repeatedly that there is a need to have good arrangements in place—most of those organisations appear to do so.
The disclosure checks have an impact on areas of local government other than the one that is under discussion. In particular, they have an impact on the direct payment initiative, under which a person can chose their own carer. However, in many cases vulnerable adults are choosing the carer and local authorities are vetting the appointments and waiting for guidance on the procedure. That is being pursued by the Health Department, rather than the Education Department, in a parallel operation; although it is not being covered by our committee, the situation is very similar.
The administration of the Protection of Children (Scotland) Act 2003 will have to be reviewed more generally at some point, but it is clear that we will require experience of its operation before we can say anything about it.
Thank you, on behalf of my colleagues and myself, for the invitation to speak to the committee. I am grateful to have the opportunity to provide information to the committee. Before I give you a brief background, it is important that we acknowledge that child abuse is an evil that has existed for a very long time and is prevalent in all cultures. Scotland is not alone in having to face the problem.
I would like to ask about the need for the central registered body in Scotland. At first glance, one might suppose that its role would be played by Disclosure Scotland. Why has it been set up as a separate body? Is it because you act as advocates for the voluntary groups in their dealings with Disclosure Scotland?
You might recall that the legislative framework for the area that we are discussing, which was set out in the Police Act 1997, was being enacted when Lord Cullen's report on the Dunblane shooting was published. As a result of the judicial inquiry relating to the activities of Thomas Hamilton, Lord Cullen suggested a number of systems, among which was a national accreditation system for clubs and voluntary groups that are attended by children and young people. The main purpose of the system was to ensure that adequate checks would be made on the suitability of leaders. I am not entirely familiar with what happened in the intervening years between 1997 and 2001, but my understanding is that representations were made on behalf of volunteer-engaging organisations to ensure that those organisations had a method through which they could obtain free access to the checking system.
I imagine that, because your roles are so different, you would rule out the prospect of a merger with Disclosure Scotland; that is probably not even a possibility, as it would not be practicable.
Disclosure Scotland is a public-private partnership between the Scottish Executive and the private sector partner, which is British Telecommunications plc. I am sure that colleagues at Disclosure Scotland would not welcome my saying this, but its role is to be the author and the provider of the criminal history information and to produce it quickly and accurately. I see our role as being far wider and more broadly based—we must foster the development of an understanding of the need to have sound systems of protection.
I want to get a better picture. How many of the applications for disclosure go through the CRBS rather than other organisations? How many applications go through local authorities and how many go through other intermediary bodies? In how many cases are direct approaches made?
It is very difficult to answer that, because I do not know the overall composition of Disclosure Scotland's activities. At the moment, we undertake disclosure applications for about 3,500 organisations. I suspect that we are a significant customer of Disclosure Scotland.
Does that figure represent a cumulative total for the past few years?
Yes. It is correct as of this week. Since 29 April 2002, more and more organisations have gradually enrolled as they have been assisted to use the scheme. Of course, since the passing of the Protection of Children (Scotland) Act 2003, what used to be a non-mandatory scheme has become mandatory for organisations in which volunteers or paid staff are working for children and young people.
Can you give us a rough idea of the sorts of organisations that use the CRBS?
We probably act on behalf of three main constituencies. First, we act for the large United Kingdom organisations that are virtually incorporated companies in their own right, such as Marie Curie Cancer Care or the Women's Royal Voluntary Service. Many such organisations are based in England or Wales but have large bodies of volunteers who work in Scotland, so they use us to organise disclosure checking for their staff in Scotland. Secondly, we act for the larger Scotland-based organisations, which are well known to members of the committee. The third group, which is by and large the most numerous, consists of very small groups such as pre-school playgroups, nurseries and a variety of small organisations that work with children, with children and adults or just with adults. There is a broad mix of such organisations, which request an average of about 12 disclosures per annum.
The issue arose—although things have moved on—partly because of the delays in the system. Disclosure Scotland has dramatically improved its procedures, but I note from the Executive's update on child protection work that although the time taken by Disclosure Scotland to turn round an application is between 2.5 and 5.5 days,
The delay issue is interesting. Delays happen at various stages in the process. We keep a close eye on the time that it takes our enrolled organisations to forward forms to us. We conducted an analysis of the situation in the six months to the end of March and found that on average it was taking 40 days from the day on which the applicant signed the disclosure application for us to receive the form. One disclosure application—this was some time ago, I am pleased to say—took between 180 and 190 days to get to us after being signed by the applicant. That is a gross example.
Where are the forms during that time?
Reference has been made to the scale of the process and the involvement of local authorities. I do not think that many people had a comprehensive understanding of the extent to which volunteers are actively engaged with children, young people and vulnerable adults. The voluntary sector is huge and makes a substantial contribution to work with children and young people, but people perceived the voluntary sector as the one that they recognised through, for example, the representative bodies, and perhaps did not have on their radar screens a clear sight of the number of smaller groups that actively and substantially contribute to young people and vulnerable adults in the community but are not necessarily part of a recognised affiliation or networking body. We deal with disclosure applications from all those groups. The scheme is generic and does not distinguish between a small group that is run by a group of parents and a large organisation such as the Scout Association.
I appreciate that, but I do not understand where the delay occurs. When somebody gets an application form, the next thing that they do is send it to the central registered body—
No, not always. One reason why organisations have had to take considerable time in putting procedures in place is that some organisations have governance arrangements that require them to feed their application forms through a central headquarters. An example that illustrates the point is the Church of Scotland. Application forms from the church's network of organisations that are distributed throughout the country must go through the church's child protection unit in Edinburgh before they come to us. Another example is the Scout Association, which routes its application forms through its headquarters in England before it sends them to us. There are all sorts of reasons why delays might occur. In a sense, the smaller groups are probably the most efficient because they are keen to get the form to us as soon as possible and we have encouraged them to do that.
How quickly does the CRBS turn round the applications?
At the moment, we are dealing with disclosure applications that we received on 17 March.
So that is about one month.
When will those applications be finished?
That is unpredictable. The length of time that an application takes to be processed depends on the checks that need to be carried out by Disclosure Scotland. However, our aim is to have a process whereby we can return the form to the organisation within three weeks of receiving it.
I want to clarify what you said. Will the aim be to have the form processed by Disclosure Scotland and returned to the organisation within three weeks?
Yes. That is what we will aim for.
Does the process take about four weeks at the moment?
Yes. At the moment, delays happen because of a combination of a variety of circumstances. Around one quarter of the forms that we receive are defective in some way. Each form—we received circa 51,000 in the year to 31 March 2005—must be individually invigilated to ensure that it can be forwarded to Disclosure Scotland. Defective forms, such as those that have been wrongly filled in by the applicant or those that omit information that is required, tend to be picked up by the two-stage checking process that we engage in to ensure that we send only accurate forms to Disclosure Scotland. Only a limited number of forms are returned to us by Disclosure Scotland due to inaccuracy that has not been picked up by our quality-control checks. However, we need to return any defective forms to the organisations for correction because, for obvious reasons, we cannot amend the content of forms. That can build in a delay before we can send the form to Disclosure Scotland.
Do those 16 members of staff only check forms?
The same people enrol organisations, check lead and additional signatories and provide advice, guidance and support to organisations. We also receive an average of 150 telephone inquiries about the disclosure process each working day.
According to our information, the central registered body has 22 staff in all.
That is correct.
For the avoidance of doubt, I want to clarify what is involved in processing an application form from, for example, a scout group. After the application form is completed locally, it is sent to the Scout Association's central office, which sends the form to the central registered body, which sends it to Disclosure Scotland, which must then return the form to the central registered body, which returns it to the central office, which returns it to the local scout group.
That organisation just provides an illustration. It may have one of the longer chains. As far as we could, we did not insist on an approach that various organisations should adopt—they elected their approaches. All that we need to fulfil our responsibilities is a clear point of contact with them, because in addition, we have an obligation under the Police Act 1997 to ensure that all the organisations for which we act comply with the ministerial code of practice.
My question is about the scale of what you are dealing with and about your resources. You made the point that the number of volunteers who work with children has probably been underestimated. The research that we have been given shows that 48 per cent of adult volunteers in Scotland are directly involved in helping children. That research also says that 1.76 million adults volunteer, which means that about 800,000 adult volunteers work with children. With 22 people, how will your organisation deal with the retrospective checks that will be required for those 800,000 adults and the Police Act 1997's requirement for you to ensure compliance with the code of practice?
Quite simply, we will not. We are staffed to deal with the volume of activity that would exist if the impact of the Protection of Children (Scotland) Act 2003 were disregarded. Independent evaluation of our statistics shows that the number of disclosure applications that are received is growing at a median rate of 1,000 each month. If 10,000 applications were received in a hypothetical year, by the end of subsequent years, the figures would be about 20,000, 30,000 and 40,000.
Have you discussed the implications of the situation with the Executive? Retrospective checks have not started yet.
The checks have not started. Naturally, we have had discussions with the Executive for many months. The Executive asked us to submit a further bid for short-term funding until further thought can be given to the position overall. That bid has been submitted and we await the outcome of the Executive's deliberations about it.
Once we know when retrospective checks are to start and what the timeframe and volumes will be, how long will you need to gear up for retrospective checks? Have you estimated the number of staff whom you will eventually need to deal with retrospective checks?
I will deal with the non-retrospective element first. We know for a fact that recruiting, appointing and training appropriate staff for the activity inevitably takes at least two to three months. Even if we appointed someone today, it would probably be June or July before that individual could operate. That applies whether or not retrospective checks are in place. There is a lead time that has to be taken into account.
What are the implications of retrospection?
The implications of retrospection could be substantial, as we could be talking about up to 250,000 disclosure applications a year.
That is nearly five times as many as 51,000. Is 51,000 an annual figure?
Yes.
So, that is nearly five times as many applications as are received at present.
Let us be clear about the retrospection issue. The increase in applications could be construed as a one-off hit, after which point the normal rate should reach a plateau. However, in that initial phase, with the introduction of retrospection, a substantial number of additional staff could be required.
And the plateau will then be higher than it is at the moment.
We expect that the plateau will be at about 140,000, 150,000 or 160,000 applications. That is what we are currently advised without taking account of what may happen as a result of the protection of vulnerable adults scheme or—the other thing that we have to keep in mind—any further recommendations that emerge from the activities of the Bichard committee.
There are concerns about very small organisations, which you have talked about. Other organisations are trying to build disclosure checks into their corporate planning, knowing that they are coming, to ensure that there is a phased introduction. To what extent have you been able to facilitate that idea of organisations having those checks done in a phased way, as they know that the checks will soon be necessary, if they can get voluntary agreement from their members of staff? Is that a reasonable way of trying to manage the process?
The Protection of Children (Scotland) Act 2003 has obvious implications for paid members of staff in relation to reporting to ministers any activity that, in the view of the organisation, harms a child or places a child at risk of harm. There are even a number of employment law issues for organisations in relation to that.
I am interested in the issue that Ken Macintosh raised about the delays in getting disclosure applications to Disclosure Scotland. Is there any evidence that organisations are becoming more experienced in what is required and that, over time, the large organisations may be able to check their own applicants' disclosure forms because they have gained experience in the system?
Yes and no. One would hope that, particularly in organisations with a managerial structure—a controlling mind, in a sense—and an understanding of the issues, a critical mass of information will ultimately develop that will enable them to do what you describe. However, those large organisations are a small proportion of the total number of groups that the legislation potentially affects.
In that case, the learning process will be difficult for the majority of organisations with which you deal. Do other sources of support need to be put in place, particularly as the 2003 act comes into force? Is there a role for better guidance for local authorities to be able to support people, for example?
Creating a structure that recognises the importance of what volunteers do and how often they are involved in voluntary work must be considered. That means that there should be a co-ordinated response that makes use of volunteer centres, councils for voluntary service and the wider network of bodies that exists. However, there is a group of organisations that will always remain unrecognised or unaffiliated and support must also be given to them, which will be the most difficult task to achieve.
I have a couple of additional questions. Are there any registration fees or costs for bodies that come to you for assistance?
Disclosure and registration costs are zero. Any costs that occur are for specific one-off training and are charged so that we can cover our costs, but the cost of the disclosure process for organisations that are enrolled with us is zero.
My second question relates to the extra administration costs for voluntary bodies, to cover training and the extra bureaucracy that goes with it. You may not be able to answer the question now, but have you been able to assess the extent of those additional costs or the needs of organisations in that regard?
Various organisations have asserted various costs at varying levels up to several tens of thousands of pounds. We have no way of knowing whether that is the case or not. At various times over the past three years, we have suggested to the Executive and to Disclosure Scotland that we need to enable organisations to reduce those costs by introducing a variety of different methods other than the paper-based form for getting into the scheme.
Could you elaborate slightly? How would that happen?
At the moment, lead signatories and organisations have to come to us or to one of our trusted partners to be registered. We have worked with the Post Office for the past 18 months to develop a scheme that can be put into place relatively quickly to enable organisations' lead signatories and organisations themselves to get into the scheme at around 120 to 130 post offices throughout the country.
So there would be certification of some sort by the post officer.
Yes. If you are familiar with the process of obtaining a photographic driver's licence or a passport over the counter, you will understand how it will work if you want your credentials checked. That is exactly what would happen, and that would obviously have a profound foreshortening effect. We would like to extend that to additional signatories and indeed to volunteers who submit Disclosure Scotland applications for credential checks.
Has the Executive approved that yet, or is it a project that has yet to be approved?
It has yet to be approved. Of course, we would also need the consent of Disclosure Scotland, which would have to be satisfied that the approach adopted and the checks that were being conducted were satisfactory.
That was the other question that I was going to ask—about the means of making the process work more smoothly and cutting the bureaucracy attached to it. That is welcome.
Could I clarify that point about costs? There are no costs for anybody applying through CRBS or Disclosure Scotland, but am I right in thinking that other bodies do charge?
Yes, there are other bodies that act as umbrella organisations and which charge.
Local authorities do that. Are there any others?
There are a number of private organisations that do that.
The charges vary. Am I right in thinking that Disclosure Scotland itself does not charge?
It makes only the basic charge for the disclosure certificate, which is £13.60 at the moment.
If people go through CRBS, you cover that cost, do you not?
Yes.
So there is an incentive for people to go through CRBS, because you pay the £13 cost. If they go through another body, they do not have that incentive.
No.
Thank you very much indeed, Mr Harris. We are grateful for your useful input, which has added immeasurably to our knowledge of how the process works.
I agree, but I would also like to find out from Disclosure Scotland, or possibly from the minister, what proportion of applications is going through CRBS compared to other routes. There are obviously capacity problems with CRBS, but if most applications are not going through CRBS, we need to know where they are going and what the issues are.
We can do that. What we are writing is becoming a dossier rather than a letter, and it is important that we make progress on the issue.
Meeting suspended.
On resuming—
Previous
Child ProtectionNext
School Transport