Consultation response on proposal to remove the statutory requirement for a full employment history when appointing health and care volunteers
Updated 18 December 2023
© Crown copyright 2023
This publication is licensed under the terms of the Open Government Licence v3.0 except where otherwise stated. To view this licence, visit nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/version/3 or write to the Information Policy Team, The National Archives, Kew, London TW9 4DU, or email: psi@nationalarchives.gov.uk.
Where we have identified any third party copyright information you will need to obtain permission from the copyright holders concerned.
This publication is available at https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/pre-employment-checks-for-health-and-care-volunteers/outcome/consultation-response-on-proposal-to-remove-the-statutory-requirement-for-a-full-employment-history-when-appointing-health-and-care-volunteers
Executive summary
The Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC) consulted on proposed changes to the Health and Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014 (‘the 2014 regulations’) that would remove the requirement as set out in schedule 3 to the 2014 regulations to obtain a full employment history with respect to volunteers. It sought views on whether, without obtaining a full employment history, the other pre-employment information required to ensure the suitability of candidates with respect to volunteers, including the other information set out at schedule 3 to the 2014 regulations, is sufficient to ensure the suitability of volunteer candidates.
The department received 160 responses to the consultation from individuals and organisations, such as volunteer service managers, charity and voluntary sector organisations and health and social care employers. The department also conducted a focused discussion group with one disability action group on the consultation proposal at their request as part of a reasonable adjustment to allow their members to contribute views.
This document presents a summary of the views that were expressed in response to the consultation.
The government plans to take forward the proposal consulted on, which will be made through a statutory instrument via the negative procedure in Parliament. The territorial application of this instrument (that is, where the instrument produces a practical effect) is England.
The instrument will amend regulation 19 of the 2014 regulations to remove the requirement for appointing service providers to make available a full employment history from volunteers to the Care Quality Commission (CQC) as part of the pre-employment check processes set out in schedule 3 to the 2014 regulations. This in turn will remove the requirement for appointing service providers to obtain this information from volunteer applicants, which will streamline volunteer appointment processes, remove barriers for applicants, and reduce unnecessary administrative barriers for service providers. Appointing service providers will still be able to collect a full employment history should they deem it appropriate when appointing a volunteer to a given role. However, it will no longer be a statutory requirement. Other checks required by the 2014 regulations (for the full list see the next section below, ‘Background’) and other relevant legislation, including, but not limited to, Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) checks and ID checks, will remain a statutory requirement.
Organisations appointing staff and volunteers involved in regulated activities in health and social care will continue to have a statutory duty under regulation 19 of the 2014 regulations (fit and proper persons employed) to ensure that recruitment processes are established and operated effectively to make certain that persons employed for the purposes of regulated activity are of good character and have the qualifications, competence, skills and experience which are necessary for the work to be performed by them.
The requirement to obtain full employment history as set out in regulation 19 and schedule 3 to the 2014 regulations will continue to apply with respect to the appointment of volunteers where the following regulations of the 2014 regulations apply:
- regulation 4 (sets out information requirements with respect to the service provider where the service provider is an individual or partnership)
- regulation 6 (relates to requirements for service providers where an individual is employed as a director, manager or secretary of the body, and responsible for supervising the management of the carrying on of the regulated activity by a service provider, where the service provider is body other than a partnership)
- regulation 7 (information requirements relating to a registered manager in respect of a regulated activity)
- on the basis that those roles hold a level of responsibility where full employment history is necessary for ensuring suitability and appropriateness of the role
- additionally, regulation 5 (which relates to requirements for service providers appointing an individual as a director of the service provider or a person appointed to perform the function of, or functions equivalent or similar to the functions of, a director, where the service provider is a body other than a partnership) is already covered by regulation 19(6)
As such, those roles where the service provider, partner or director of a regulated activity is a volunteer are not within the scope of this change. The requirement for a full employment history remains in place for paid employed staff as set out in the 2014 regulations.
Employment history and other checks remain an important part of informing decisions for appointments in the NHS and social care but in the case of volunteers they should be utilised in a proportionate way that does not deter people from volunteering or create unnecessary and burdensome administration for recruiting organisations. By removing the requirement for a full employment history for volunteers from legislation, we are enabling recruiting organisations to apply a flexible and balanced approach that can be tailored to individual positions. However, they will still be able to request employment history where they consider this is necessary, and this will be strongly encouraged in guidance to appointing service providers that will be issued alongside the amendment.
The amendment to regulation 19 is being made for 2 main reasons.
1) To remove the need for individuals applying to become volunteers to submit excessive amounts of unnecessary information that is not pertinent to the role for which they are applying, as feedback from appointing service providers is that this puts people off from applying. In addition, it removes barriers to volunteering for groups who may be disadvantaged by being required to provide a full employment history, such as older people with a long career history or those who are young or have recently moved to the country and may have no previous employment history. This change will also bring health and care volunteering pre-employment checks closer into alignment with volunteering requirements in other similar sectors.
2) To reduce unnecessary administrative burden for the appointing service providers who tell us that a full employment history is not helpful in making appointment decisions concerning volunteers. By not having to do this, appointing providers will have more time to focus on other more effective safeguarding measures, including review of the other information listed in schedule 3, alongside thorough inductions, training, monitoring of applicants and patient feedback surveys.
Next steps
We will continue to work with NHS England (NHSE), NHS Employers, CQC, Skills for Care, and key social care organisations following the introduction of the increased flexibility that the change will provide. We will work with NHS Employers to ensure this change is reflected in the NHS Employment Standards and work with Skills for Care to amend relevant social care guidance as appropriate. We will work with these organisations and key stakeholders to produce guidance to support health and care organisations involved in the appointment of volunteers in implementing this change, and to ensure that volunteer recruitment processes remain robust, safe and effective.
Background
The 2014 regulations require providers to obtain certain information from staff that they must make available to CQC if CQC request this information. Prior to the changes that will be made by this instrument, regulation 19 (fit and proper persons employed) of the 2014 regulations read with paragraph 7 of schedule 3 (‘Information required in respect of persons employed or appointed for the purposes of a regulated activity’) to the 2014 regulations stated that appointing service providers are required to obtain “A full employment history, together with a satisfactory written explanation of any gaps in employment.” This requirement extends to volunteers as well as paid employed staff.
The requirement to obtain a full employment history for volunteers constitutes one of a number of pre-employment checks required by the 2014 regulations. Schedule 3 to the 2014 regulations lists the information appointing service providers are required to make available to the CQC in respect of persons employed or appointed for the purposes of carrying on, or managing the carrying on of, a regulated activity. The required information includes:
- proof of identity including a recent photograph
- a copy of a criminal record certificate
- where required, a copy of an enhanced criminal record certificate together with, where applicable, suitability information relating to children or vulnerable adults
- satisfactory evidence of conduct in previous employment concerned with the provision of services relating to either:
- health or social care
- children or vulnerable adults
- where a person has been previously employed in a position whose duties involved work with children or vulnerable adults, satisfactory verification, so far as reasonably practicable, of the reason why the person’s employment in that position ended
- in so far as it is reasonably practicable to obtain, satisfactory documentary evidence of any qualification relevant to the duties for which the person is appointed to perform
- a full employment history, together with a satisfactory written explanation of any gaps in employment
- satisfactory information about any physical or mental health conditions which are relevant to the person’s capability, after reasonable adjustments are made, to properly perform tasks which are intrinsic to their appointment for the purposes of the regulated activity
The regulations were put in place for the purpose of ensuring the suitability of staff involved in regulated activities. However, the way the regulations were written adopts a ‘one size fits all’ approach to staff pre-employment checks and groups volunteers in with paid, employed staff defining ‘employment’ as including those giving their time in a voluntary capacity. Consideration was not afforded to how volunteer employment processes may need to differ from those of paid, employed staff. The inclusion of volunteers in the statutory requirement for a full employment history has driven some appointing service providers to take an overly risk averse approach, instead of utilising other available guidance that explains what assurances should reasonably be obtained when appointing volunteers.
The requirement for a full employment history will remain in place for all other staff who are not volunteers and fall within the definition of ‘employment’ in the 2014 regulations.
Consultation process and overview
The consultation ran from 19 September to 18 November 2023.
The department received 160 consultation responses from both individuals and on behalf of organisations. Responses were submitted online. The department also undertook a focused discussion on the consultation with one disability action stakeholder group by way of reasonable adjustment to allow their members to contribute views to the policy proposal, at the request of the group. The outcomes of this discussion were considered alongside the thematic analysis of the consultation responses.
Consultees were asked to respond to a total of 16 consultation questions, which are considered in detail in the sections below. The questions provided the opportunity for respondents to give a justification for their answer or provide additional information in a free text box. All free text responses were read by DHSC officials and grouped into discrete themes to give an indication of respondents’ views on the questions.
A detailed breakdown of how respondents identified themselves can be seen below.
The table below shows responses by type.
| Category | Number of respondents | Percentage |
|---|---|---|
| Individuals sharing personal views | 61 | 38% |
| Individuals sharing professional views | 64 | 40% |
| Responding on behalf of an organisation | 35 | 22% |
| Total | 160 | 100% |
The table below shows responses by type of professional.
| Category | Number of respondents |
|---|---|
| Allied health professional | <5 |
| Chief executive | <5 |
| Clinical professional | <5 |
| Community organiser | <5 |
| Director of domiciliary care service | <5 |
| Education professional | <5 |
| Head of quality and improvement | <5 |
| HR professional | 7 |
| Local council sensory service visual impairment specialist | <5 |
| Macmillan benefits caseworker and project manager | <5 |
| Medical professional | <5 |
| Other type of volunteer manager or co-ordinator | 8 |
| Residential care manager | <5 |
| Volunteer | <5 |
| Volunteer service manager | 28 |
| Workforce volunteering programme manager (strategic role) | <5 |
The table below shows responses by geographical area.
| Category | Number of respondents | Percentage |
|---|---|---|
| England | 117 | 94% |
| Scotland | 5 | <5% |
| Wales | <5 | <5% |
| Northern Ireland | 0 | 0% |
| Outside the UK | <5 | <5% |
| Prefer not to say | <5 | <5% |
| Total | 125 | 100% |
The remaining sections of this document reflect the sections of consultation and are presented in the order of the questions as they were asked in the consultation. In each section we have provided background to the questions, set out response data and given a summary of comments made by respondents. Where questions in the consultation were grouped into sections according to themes, the same approach has been taken in this response document and similar questions reflecting on the same theme have been grouped for response following analysis.
A number of responses to questions included comments that did not directly relate to the question being asked. In these instances we have considered these points under the most relevant question.
Percentages in this analysis have been rounded to the nearest whole number and therefore the row totals in any given table will not necessarily add up to 100%. Respondent numbers with less than 5 were suppressed to protect anonymity. Where this is insufficient, the second lowest number has also been suppressed.
How volunteers come in scope of the proposal
Definition of employment
Under the 2014 regulations, reference to those ‘employed’ includes those appointed as volunteers. This is because the definition of ‘employed’ in the 2014 regulations is very broad in scope and includes employment “under arrangements for persons to provide their services voluntarily” (see regulations 2(1) and 2(2) of the 2014 regulations).
Regulation 19 of the 2014 regulations (fit and proper persons employed) requires that the information specified in schedule 3 must be made available in relation to each person employed for the purposes of carrying on a regulated activity. This requirement therefore also applies in relation to those appointed as volunteers for the purposes of carrying on a regulated activity.
Regulated activities
Regulated activity is a term common to both the regulation of care services as prescribed in schedule 1 to the 2014 regulations and to the process of barring people from certain types of work under the Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Act 2006. The term means different things in 2 different contexts. Regulated activity in this context refers to the regulation of care services and includes - for example, the provision of care for persons who, by reason of old age, illness or disability, are unable to provide it for themselves, and which is provided in a place where those persons are residing at the time the care is provided. The 2014 regulations state that an activity which is ancillary to, or is carried on wholly or mainly in relation to, a regulated activity shall be treated as part of that activity. Therefore, many volunteering roles will provide the kind of support that would be considered part of a ‘regulated activity’ such as feeding a service user, making a service user comfortable in a discharge lounge, providing basic first aid in the event of an emergency, or helping a service user settle in at home following discharge from hospital.
The government proposed to remove the requirement for a full employment history where a person is employed “under arrangements for persons to provide their services voluntarily” and the following questions sought views as to whether by stating that the requirement does not apply with respect to those employed “under arrangements for persons to provide their services voluntarily” the right groups of people would be covered.
It is important to note that the requirement to provide a full employment history as set out in schedule 3 to the 2014 regulations will continue to apply with respect to service providers, directors and registered managers (as set out in regulations 4, 6 and 7 of the 2014 regulations; regulation 5 is already covered by regulation 19(6)) where those individuals are volunteers, on the basis that those roles hold a level of responsibility where full employment history is necessary for ensuring suitability and appropriateness of the role. As such, those roles where the service provider, partner or director of a regulated activity is a volunteer are not within the scope of this change.
Question
Do you think there are roles not covered by the term ‘volunteer’ that should be considered under the proposed regulatory change?
There were 155 responses to this question, which are shown in the table below.
| Category | Number | Percentage |
|---|---|---|
| Yes | 23 | 15% |
| No | 81 | 52% |
| Don’t know | 51 | 33% |
| Total | 155 | 100% |
Question
Some volunteer roles will be exempt from the proposed regulatory change. Where a service provider, partner, director or a registered manager of a regulated activity is also a volunteer, appointing providers will still be required to obtain a full employment history from these individuals.
Other than the examples listed above (in regulations 4, 5, 6 and 7), do you think there are roles covered by the term ‘volunteer’ that should be exempt from the proposed regulatory change?
There were 157 responses to this question, which are shown in the table below.
| Category | Number | Percentage |
|---|---|---|
| Yes | 30 | 19% |
| No | 97 | 62% |
| Don’t know | 30 | 19% |
| Total | 157 | 100% |
Analysis
These 2 questions were intended to gather views on whether the proposed scope of the proposals (that is, those employed “under arrangements for persons to provide their services voluntarily”) captures the right groups of people to whom this change should apply. In response to the question ‘Do you think there are roles not covered by the term “volunteer” that should be considered under the proposed regulatory change?’, just over half of respondents agreed that there were no other volunteer roles that should come in scope for the proposal, with just under a third responding that they did not know whether there should be other roles in scope. Fourteen per cent of respondents thought that there should be other roles in scope for the proposed change that would not be covered in the definition of volunteer set out in the regulations. Of those 14% that answered yes, the most frequently cited roles respondents felt should come in scope were assistants, non-executive director patient panels, NHS governors, participation/engagement roles and students or those undertaking work experience.
In response to the question ‘Do you think there are roles covered by the term “volunteer” that should be exempt from the proposed regulatory change?’, the large majority of respondents (61%) answered ‘no’ (that is, there are no other roles that should be exempted from the proposed changes), with 19% stating that they did not know whether any further types of volunteer role should be exempted from the changes and 19% answering ‘yes’ (that is, that there are other types of volunteer roles that should be exempt from the proposed change). Of those 19% who answered yes, the other volunteer roles they felt should be exempted from the proposed change were those involved with vulnerable and/or young people and roles that require an enhanced DBS check.
Government response
Most respondents agree that the definitions of volunteer that come in scope for the proposed change broadly capture the right groups of people. Roles such as assistants, students or those on work experience, and patient panels would also come in scope for the proposed change if they are providing their services voluntarily and should they be involved in the carrying on of regulated activity.
While we recognise that a small number of respondents suggest there are certain volunteer roles that should be exempt from the proposed change, as set out in regulation 19 of the 2014 regulations (fit and proper persons employed), recruitment practices must be established and operated effectively to ensure that persons employed (including volunteers) are of good character and have the qualifications, skills, competence and experience necessary to undertake the role for which they are employed.
As such, should there be volunteer roles where appointing service providers deem it appropriate to obtain a full employment history as part of their volunteer pre-employment checks, they will be encouraged to do so, though it will no longer be a legal requirement.
Required pre-employment check information for volunteers
The following questions sought to understand to what degree the need to obtain a full employment history is a necessary inclusion in the pre-employment information (listed above in the ‘Background’ section) and to what extent obtaining a full employment history might impact a decision to appoint a volunteer.
The questions also sought views on the extent to which a full employment history may present a deterrent for prospective volunteers and/or may slow down the volunteer appointment process for appointing service providers.
Question
To what extent do you agree or disagree that obtaining a full employment history from a prospective volunteer poses challenges to the appointment process? (For example, will it affect the onboarding process or admin involved?)
There were 160 responses to this question, which are shown in the table below.
| Category | Number | Percentage |
|---|---|---|
| Strongly agree | 46 | 28% |
| Agree | 44 | 28% |
| Neither agree nor disagree | 16 | 10% |
| Disagree | 17 | 11% |
| Strongly disagree | 35 | 22% |
| Don’t know | <5 | <5% |
| Total | 160 | 100% |
Question
To what extent do you agree or disagree that the information provided in a full employment history is necessary to inform decisions when appointing a person to a volunteering role?
There were 160 responses to this question, which are shown in the table below.
| Category | Number | Percentage |
|---|---|---|
| Strongly agree | 51 | 32% |
| Agree | 21 | 13% |
| Neither agree nor disagree | 12 | 8% |
| Disagree | 42 | 26% |
| Strongly disagree | 33 | 21% |
| Don’t know | <5 | <5% |
| Total | 160 | 100% |
Question
If you are involved in the appointment process for volunteers, please provide examples of how you use this information to help inform your decision to appoint a volunteer.
No answers were provided in response to this question.
Analysis
This group of questions was intended to assess whether respondents viewed the full employment history as a challenging aspect of the pre-employment check process, a necessary aspect of the process, and to understand how it is used to inform employment decisions when appointing volunteers.
In response to the question ‘To what extent do you agree or disagree that obtaining a full employment history from a prospective volunteer poses challenges to the appointment process?’, just over half (56%) of respondents agreed that the full employment history poses a challenge to the appointment process, with 33% disagreeing it poses a challenge. Thematic analysis of respondents’ comments showed that the 3 most frequently cited reasons why the full employment history poses a challenge to the appointment process were given as being:
- some applicants are (legitimately) unable to provide (a full employment history) and this presents a deterrent to application (28%)
- it slows down the appointment process or is an unnecessary administrative burden (18%)
- lack of relevance to role (11%)
In response to the question ‘To what extent do you agree or disagree that the information provided in a full employment history is necessary to inform decisions when appointing a person to a volunteering role?’, respondent views were mixed, with 45% agreeing it is a necessary part of the employment check process, and 47% disagreeing that it is necessary.
For the question ‘If you are involved in the appointment process for volunteers, please provide examples of how you use this information to help inform your decision to appoint a volunteer’, no information was given in response to this question from any respondent. However, some relevant answers to this question were given in response to other questions in the consultation and included that the full employment history is useful for skills matching candidates to roles, for ascertaining employment patterns and to help appointing service providers gain a fuller picture of an applicant. Additionally, it was suggested that it should form part of the checks and balances carried out during the appointment process.
Government response
The responses to these questions demonstrate an appetite to amend the existing legislative requirement to obtain a full employment history for volunteers and a considerable number find it poses a challenge to the appointment process.
While we recognise that some view the full employment history as a necessary element of the volunteer pre-employment process, we received little compelling insight into how the full employment history is used by appointing service providers to inform decisions about the appointment of volunteers.
We view the remaining checks required in the 2014 regulations, other relevant legislation and checks required in guidance as part of best practice recruitment processes to be sufficient to ensure suitability of candidates. Removing the statutory requirement for a full employment history for volunteers will allow appointing service providers the flexibility to assess whether it is appropriate to ascertaining the volunteer’s suitability for the role in question.
How removal of full history may impact applications
Question
If the requirement to provide a full employment history were removed, do you think this would affect the number of applicants for volunteer roles?
There were 160 responses to this question, which are shown in the table below.
| Category | Number | Percentage |
|---|---|---|
| Yes | 87 | 54% |
| No | 44 | 28% |
| Don’t know | 29 | 18% |
| Total | 160 | 100% |
Question
How do you think this would affect the number of applicants for volunteer roles?
There were 88 responses to this question, which are shown in the table below.
| Category | Number | Percentage |
|---|---|---|
| It would significantly increase number | 37 | 42% |
| It would slightly increase number | 44 | 50% |
| It would slightly decrease number | <5 | <5% |
| It would significantly decrease number | <5 | <5% |
| Don’t know | 6 | 7% |
| Total | 88 | 100% |
Question
If the requirement to provide a full employment history were removed, do you think this would affect the quality of applicants for volunteer roles?
There were 160 responses to this question, which are shown in the table below.
| Category | Number | Percentage |
|---|---|---|
| Yes | 75 | 47% |
| No | 67 | 42% |
| Don’t know | 18 | 11% |
| Total | 160 | 100% |
Question
How do you think this would affect the quality of applicants for volunteer roles?
There were 77 responses to this question, which are shown in the table below.
| Category | Number | Percentage |
|---|---|---|
| It would significantly improve quality | 6 | 8% |
| It would slightly improve quality | 11 | 14% |
| It would slightly decrease quality | 18 | 23% |
| It would significantly decrease quality | 40 | 52% |
| Don’t know | <5 | <5% |
| Total | 77 | 100% |
Question
If the requirement to provide a full employment history were removed, do you think this would affect the diversity of applicants for volunteer roles?
There were 160 responses to this question, which are shown in the table below.
| Category | Number | Percentage |
|---|---|---|
| Yes | 68 | 43% |
| No | 65 | 41% |
| Don’t know | 27 | 17% |
| Total | 160 | 100% |
Question
How do you think this would affect the diversity of applicants for volunteer roles?
There were 68 responses to this question, which are shown in the table below.
| Category | Number | Percentage |
|---|---|---|
| It would significantly improve diversity | 27 | 40% |
| It would slightly improve diversity | 35 | 51% |
| It would slightly worsen diversity | <5 | <5% |
| It would significantly worsen diversity | <5 | <5% |
| Don’t know | <5 | <5% |
| Total | 68 | 100% |
Analysis
The above set of questions explored how respondents think the removal of the requirement for a full employment history may impact volunteer applications with respect to the number, quality and diversity of applicants. Overall, around half of respondents think removal of the requirement for a full employment history will have no impact on volunteer applications. Of those who do think there will be an impact, the large majority (92%) believe it may increase volunteer application numbers and 91% think it may increase the diversity of applicants to health and care volunteer roles. However, three-quarters (75%) also think the quality of applicants may be adversely impacted by this change. The majority of these respondents perceived it would weaken safeguarding measures.
Government response
It is important that applications to health and care volunteering roles are from a diverse range of backgrounds so that our volunteer base reflects the communities which it so helpfully supports. Removal of the requirement for a full employment history may increase access to volunteering opportunities for a wider range of people - for example, from different age groups.
The government’s view is that by allowing appointing service providers greater flexibility in developing their volunteer appointment processes, unfair barriers for individuals who may, for legitimate reasons, be unable to provide a full employment history are removed. Furthermore, appointing service providers will be freed up to focus on other appropriate background checks and processes which will ensure the quality of applicants who are appointed to volunteer roles in health and social care remains high and the safety of staff, service users and the public is assured.
Other recruitment processes to ensure suitability of volunteer candidates
Volunteer roles often do not require candidates to have previous relevant work experience. However, currently, the information appointing service providers are required to obtain from prospective candidates is the same for paid employed staff as it is for volunteers.
Organisations appointing staff and volunteers involved in regulated activities in health and social care continue to have a statutory duty under regulation 19 of the 2014 regulations (fit and proper persons employed) to ensure that recruitment processes are established and operated effectively to make certain that persons employed for the purposes of regulated activity are of good character and have the qualifications, competence, skills and experience which are necessary for the work to be performed by them. We are aware that appointing service providers use a range of other non-statutory practices and processes to ensure the suitability of prospective volunteer candidates. These include face-to-face interviewing, obtaining references (beyond those required by the 2014 regulations) and/or face-to-face initial training.
Question
Other than those listed in schedule 3 to the 2014 regulations, are there other pieces of information or processes not related to employment history you think should be added to volunteer pre-employment checks if full employment history were to be removed?
There were 160 responses to this question, which are shown in the table below.
| Category | Number | Percentage |
|---|---|---|
| Yes | 39 | 24% |
| No | 85 | 53% |
| Don’t know | 36 | 23% |
| Total | 160 | 100% |
Question
Beyond schedule 3 to the 2014 regulations, if the statutory requirement for full employment history were to be removed, is there information relating specifically to an individual’s employment, volunteering or training history that it should still be necessary to obtain for the purposes of assessing candidate suitability?
There were 158 responses to this question, which are shown in the table below.
| Category | Number | Percentage |
|---|---|---|
| Yes | 115 | 73% |
| No | 26 | 16% |
| Don’t know | 17 | 11% |
| Total | 158 | 100% |
Question
Do you think there are other requirements within health and care volunteer application processes which have little or no bearing on assessing the suitability of a candidate, or hinder the appointment process?
There were 160 responses to this question, which are shown in the table below.
| Category | Number | Percentage |
|---|---|---|
| Yes | 27 | 17% |
| No | 101 | 63% |
| Don’t know | 30 | 19% |
| No answer given | <5 | <5% |
| Total | 160 | 100% |
Question
Do you foresee any potential challenges or issues arising from exempting volunteers from providing a full employment history for pre-employment checks?
There were 160 responses to this question, which are shown in the table below.
| Category | Number | Percentage |
|---|---|---|
| Yes | 73 | 46% |
| No | 78 | 49% |
| Don’t know | 9 | 6% |
| Total | 160 | 100% |
Analysis
The above set of questions focused on the existing pre-employment check information required for volunteers to explore whether there are pieces of information that are not relevant to volunteer appointment decisions and whether there are other pieces of information not currently within the 2014 regulations that would be more useful to obtain when appointing volunteers. Respondents were also asked their views on potential challenges arising from the removal of the full employment history requirement.
In response to the question ‘Other than those listed in schedule 3 to the 2014 regulations, are there other pieces of information or processes not related to employment history you think should be added to volunteer pre-employment checks if full employment history were to be removed?’, just over half of respondents (53%) do not think there are any other pieces of necessary information in addition to those set out in the 2014 regulations. Just under one-quarter of respondents (24%) think there are other pieces of non-employment or training related information that would be useful to obtain from volunteers. Of those 24%, the most frequently cited answer was that volunteers should be asked to provide information about previous names.
In response to the question ‘Beyond schedule 3 to the 2014 regulations, if the statutory requirement for full employment history were to be removed, is there information relating specifically to an individual’s employment, volunteering or training history that it should still be necessary to obtain for the purposes of assessing candidate suitability?’, just under three-quarters of respondents (73%) think that there are other such pieces of information. Of those 73% the most frequently cited pieces of additional information that respondents think would be useful to obtain are:
- partial employment history
- volunteering history
- training history
- evidence of dismissal from previous roles
In response to the question ‘Do you think there are other requirements within health and care volunteer application processes which have little or no bearing on assessing the suitability of a candidate, or hinder the appointment process?’, just under two-thirds of respondents (63%) think that there are no other pieces of information or processes that are part of these checks that bear little or no relevance. Only 17% think that there are other parts of the pre-employment check process required by the regulations that bear little or no relevance to appointment decisions and processes. Of those 17% the most frequently cited pieces of information or processes that bear little or no relevance are:
- occupational health checks
- the requirement to have multiple DBS checks for multiple roles (rather than a single DBS check covering all roles)
- references
- site-specific training
Finally, responses to the question ‘Do you foresee any potential challenges or issues arising from exempting volunteers from providing a full employment history for pre-employment checks?’ were mixed. Forty six per cent responded that yes, challenges would potentially arise, and 49% responded that they foresaw no challenges arising from this change. Of those 46% who responded ‘yes’, the principal areas of challenge respondents think may arise as a result of the removal of the full employment history are:
- reduction in safeguarding as a result of a reduction in information levels
- it would become easier to hide dubious employment history
Responses from a number of respondents who responded ‘yes’ also highlight the need for clear communication to appointing service providers of the need for recruitment processes to be thorough and to focus on conducting the checks and balances required to ensure that a candidate is suitable for a role. They should also be clearly advised that if they still wish to request employment history from prospective volunteer candidates, they are free to do so.
Government response
The government is assured that most respondents think that the other volunteer pre-employment checks required in the 2014 regulations are effective and sufficient for the processes of appointing volunteers and for making decisions about volunteer applicants.
The government also notes that a significant number of respondents suggested additional pieces of information that would be useful to obtain from volunteers which are not currently set out within the 2014 regulations. These include face-to-face interviewing, volunteer specific training and evidence of name changes. Further changes to regulation 19 of the 2014 regulations are outside the scope of this amendment. However, these suggestions could be helpful to informing later regulatory decisions and helping to shape good practice in recruitment processes for service providers involved in the appointment of volunteers.
We acknowledge that respondent views are evenly split on whether challenges are likely to arise from making the proposed amendment. It is of paramount importance that the safeguarding of patients and members of the public is carefully considered when making decisions about the appointment of suitable volunteer applicants.
It is our view that the remaining checks set out in schedule 3 to the 2014 regulations, and the legislative requirement under regulation 19 of the 2014 regulations for appointing service providers to develop and operate recruitment practices that ensure volunteers are of good character and suitable for the role, are sufficient to protect staff, patients and the public. Removal of the requirement for a full employment history will allow appointing service providers more time to focus on other pre-employment checks and processes that will ensure the quality of applicants who are appointed to volunteer roles in health and social care remains high and the safety of staff, service users and the public is assured.
As part of the government’s next steps, we will work with relevant organisations to develop thorough guidance for appointing service providers to support them with navigating the change to the statutory requirements. We acknowledge that there will be some initial implementation work - for example, updates to local policies and processes. However, the benefit of a more streamlined volunteer appointment process will reduce administrative burdens in the longer term. We will also issue communications to ensure that appointing service providers understand which regulatory requirements and statutory guidance remain in place when appointing heath and care volunteers involved in regulated activities.
The government plans to review the impact of the amendment within 2 years of the new regulations coming into effect. This is to ensure that no unforeseen consequences of this change have occurred and that the change has achieved the desired policy intentions.
Ensuring the safety of service users, staff and the public
Regulation 19 of the 2014 regulations requires that recruitment practices must be established and operated effectively to ensure that persons employed are of good character, are qualified and are able to perform the tasks relevant to the role.
Obtaining pre-employment check information detailed in schedule 3 to the 2014 regulations is one part of the process undertaken by appointing service providers to ascertain if a person is a suitable candidate for the role in question, and to help ensure the safety of staff, service users and the public when appointing a person involved in regulated activities in a health and care setting.
In responding to the next question, respondents were reminded that, in addition to the pre-employment information required by the 2014 regulations appointing service providers use a broader suite of checks and processes to safeguard staff, service users and the public when appointing paid employees and volunteers.
Other checks relevant and proportionate to the role, such as information concerning previous health and care experience, or employer or character references, must also be obtained, and there may be other helpful practices undertaken by appointing service providers that help to assess the suitability of and build trust in candidates that are not required by the 2014 regulations.
Question
Do you agree or disagree that, if full employment history was removed, the other pre-employment information required by schedule 3 to the 2014 regulations is sufficient to ensure the reasonable safeguarding of patients, staff and the public when appointing a volunteer?
There were 160 responses to this question, which are shown in the table below.
| Category | Number | Percentage |
|---|---|---|
| Agree | 74 | 46% |
| Disagree | 65 | 41% |
| Don’t know | 21 | 13% |
| Total | 160 | 100% |
Analysis
The above question asked respondents whether the remaining checks set out in schedule 3 to the 2014 regulations are sufficient to ensure the reasonable safeguarding of patients, staff and the public should the requirement for a full employment history be removed. Responses to this question were mixed, with just under half of all respondents agreeing the remaining checks are sufficient, and 41% disagreeing that the remaining checks are sufficient. For those who disagreed that the remaining checks are sufficient, the main reason for giving this answer was that full employment history is seen as forming a vital part of due diligence when appointing an individual to a role. Of those 46% who agreed the remaining checks are sufficient, the reasons they cited included:
- lack of relevance to role
- that the appointment process should be supported by other existing robust application and interviewing processes
- that only a proportionate/adequate employment history should be sought as determined by the employing organisation’s assessment of the role in question
Government response
The safety of staff, service users and the public is, and will remain, of paramount importance in the selection and appointment of all volunteers in health and care. A full employment history does not provide safeguarding for those who volunteers come into contact with, and there are other checks in place in the 2014 regulations which contribute to more effectively meeting safeguarding risks such as DBS checks, references and ID checks.
It is our view that the requirement set out in paragraph (1), (2) and (3) of regulation 19 of the 2014 regulations, as well as information and checks required by schedule 3 to the 2014 regulations, are sufficient to ensure the suitability of volunteer candidates and mitigate any risk that may arise from the removal of the requirement for a full employment history.
In their responses to multiple questions in the consultation, some respondents cited that there are other parts of the pre-employment check process (not set out in regulations) that are vital for an appointing service provider to ensure that an applicant is suitable for a role, and that the checks required by schedule 3 to the 2014 regulations should, with respect to good recruitment practices and safeguarding of staff, service users and the public, form only one part of the full employment check process. Respondents suggested face-to-face interviews, monitoring of new volunteers, collecting robust feedback and adequate preparation and training of candidates as also constituting important parts of the pre-employment check process. These are especially useful suggestions and the government notes that a number of appointing service providers already perform these tasks. Naturally, these tasks require time and resources from the appointing service provider. Therefore, the removal of the statutory requirement for a full employment history will allow appointing service providers greater flexibility to focus on other checks and processes, such as those suggested, as appropriate and proportionate to the role.
Conclusions and next steps
The government is grateful to those who responded to this consultation and for taking the time to provide wide-ranging and insightful comments on the proposal.
After careful consideration of the responses received, as well as the other regulatory requirements that will remain in place to ensure the suitability of volunteer applicants and further engagement with stakeholders, the government plans to make the proposed amendment to schedule 3 of the Health and Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. The changes will be made via a statutory instrument under the negative procedure.
Following the introduction of the amendment, we will work with NHS Employers to ensure this change is reflected in the NHS Employment Standards and work with Skills for Care to amend relevant social care guidance as appropriate. We will work with these organisations and other key stakeholders to produce guidance to support health and care organisations involved in the appointment of volunteers with implementing this change, and to ensure that volunteer recruitment processes remain robust, safe and effective. It is also important to note that appointing service providers will still be able to obtain a full employment history from an applicant for a volunteer role if they consider it necessary. However, it will no longer be a statutory requirement.
The government also plans to review the impact of the amendment within 2 years of the new regulations coming into effect to ascertain if any unforeseen consequences have occurred and to determine if the change has achieved the desired policy intentions. We will conduct this review through further engagement with health and social care stakeholders and interrogating available volunteer data in health and social care.
Public sector equality duty
The matters considered in this consultation do not raise any significant issues in relation to the public sector equality duty under section 149(1) of the Equality Act 2010. It is anticipated that any impact will be minimal and, if any, will likely be a positive impact for certain groups of individuals.
It is also anticipated that the matters considered in this consultation will not adversely impact on the duty to eliminate unlawful discrimination under the Equality Act. The current requirement to obtain a full employment history for volunteers may contribute to discrimination against people with certain protected characteristics - for example, age - where it may be unfeasible for a person to recall details of an employment history that may span many decades, or conversely for a younger individual, who may not yet have an employment history, to provide. Removal of this requirement may therefore increase access to volunteering opportunities for a wider range of people from different age groups.
It is anticipated that the matters considered in this consultation will not produce an adverse impact on the duty to advance equality of opportunity or foster good relations between different groups. This is because any change to the 2014 regulations to exempt volunteers from providing a full employment history would potentially open up volunteering opportunities to a wider group of individuals who may otherwise not be able to provide a full employment history. This could in turn contribute to positive, but likely not significant, impacts on diversity in volunteering. Increasing access to volunteering opportunities may also assist individuals with particular protected characteristics to secure paid employment through gaining experience in health and social care settings.
The matters concerned in this consultation could have a positive effect on patient groups with particular protected characteristics. An increase in volunteers providing regulated activities could have a beneficial impact on patients receiving care - for example, older people or people who have disabilities.
The government recognises the possibility that the removal of the requirement to obtain a full employment history may mean a decrease in the level of information available to employers to inform their decision making about a volunteer’s suitability. This could present a risk to patients, particularly those that are vulnerable. However, the government believes that this risk is adequately mitigated by the other requirements set out in schedule 3 to the 2014 regulations. These include, but are not limited to, the requirement for DBS checks to be in place, and the requirement for appointing service providers to seek evidence of satisfactory conduct in any previous work relating to health or social care, children or vulnerable adults. The government also believes that retaining the current requirement for a full employment history would be disproportionate compared with the potential gains described in this document which will ultimately benefit service users.
The planned review in 2 years’ time will provide further evidence on this risk.