- Conference
- 2011 Health Care Service Group Conference
- Date
- 1 December 2010
- Decision
- Carried
UNISON fully supports the principle of public protection and we value the unique contribution our members play in caring for the most vulnerable in our society. We believe that public protection can best be served when it is risk-based and proportionate.
UNISON reaffirms its policy that professional registration fees should be proportionate and related to earnings. There is a need for consistent standards across all professional registers and for regulators to demonstrate best practice and value for money to ensure registrants do not pay excessive registration fees.
UNISON welcomes the strengthened role of the Council for Healthcare Regulatory Excellence (CHRE); however we acknowledge that regulators will have fund the CHRE in its new role. We believe that these additional costs to regulators must be funded by efficiency savings not by registrants.
We also note with disappointment the government’s decision not to proceed with Office of Health Professions Adjudicator (OHPA) – a strategic organisation whose aim was to streamline fitness to practise processes and provide greater independence in decision making. The OHPA was scrapped before it was able to demonstrate its ability to improve processes across regulators and reduce costs.
The regulation of staff in support roles continues to be a pressing issue across the UK. We believe that Health Care Assistants and staff in other support roles who are directly involved in the delivery of personal and intimate care should be regulated and the union aims to continue its work to develop national standards for these staff in conjunction with stakeholders and members.
UNISON welcomes the thorough review of the Independent Safeguarding Authority Vetting and Barring Scheme (VBS) in England, Wales and Northern Ireland and reaffirms its position that individuals should not pay any registration fee, that the scheme should not duplicate existing regulatory frameworks and that processes should be fair, with a full right of appeal.
We believe that the VBS system should revert to a negative list, as this would be a more proportionate system. It is also essential that employers ensure that their recruitment and staff management policies are consistently applied and monitored to ensure fairness.
UNISON demands urgent action on the unnecessary duplication of criminal record checks. We call on government to take steps to reduce repeat checks and make checks portable across employers which could result in significant savings in both cost and recruitment time.
UNISON welcomes the continued role of the Care Quality Commission in the regulation of health and social care services in England. However, we are disappointed that their inspections will be via a self assessment process. UNISON believes that a system of peer review should be developed within geographical areas. This system has a proven track record within specialities, such as cancer services.
UNISON believes that the NHS staff attitude survey should carry as much weight as patient satisfaction as a barometer of the effectiveness of services. It is essential that the staff survey is not diluted or lost. UNISON notes with concern the sweeping new powers given to Monitor, particularly given its poor track record in regulating Foundation Trusts. Monitor is to become an economic regulator with a remit that includes promoting competition. Given Monitor’s existing blurred role of regulator/advocate, UNISON believes this new role will cause a conflict of interest. Monitor will also oversee providers of adult social care yet it has little or no experience in this sector.
Considering the range of concerns outlined above, Conference calls on the Health Service Group Executive to:
1) oppose any increases in professional registration fees in order to fund the CHRE;
2) call for employers rather than individuals to pay regulatory fees;
3) continue to call for consistency in fees and practice across regulators;
4) continue to work with UNISON’s Professional Registration-Representation Unit to ensure cases are heard quickly and to a consistent standard;
5) encourage regulators to achieve efficiency savings by working more closely together;
6) press for criminal record checks to be portable across employers;
7) continue to develop and maintain a ‘critical friend’ relationship with the CQC and seek urgent talks to explore the development of a peer review system;
8) promote and protect staff surveys as an important tool in assessing services;
9) highlight the potential conflict of interest in Monitor’s extended role and to call for appropriate safeguards to be put in place to ensure that they carry out their remit as a regulator;
10) call for Monitor’s role in overseeing social care providers to be reviewed;
11) develop timely guidance on regulation issues for branches and members.