CRB and Vetting and Barring review and changes

CRB and Vetting and Barring

review and changes

Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg said:

"Our reviews concluded that the systems were not proportionate and needed to be less bureaucratic. They will now be scaled back to sensible levels whilst at the same time protecting vulnerable people."

The review has suggested a number of changes, I have attached a copy of the full email update from the ISA at the end of this document and the full details of the review can be found at

http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/publications/crime/vbs-report?view=Binary

Below I have copied in points taken from ISA email update and websites. Below that in italics I have briefly summarised how I believe this could affect The Light Project and similar organisations.

The Agencies

The Criminal Records Bureau (CRB) and Independent Safeguarding Authority (ISA) should be merged and a single Non-Departmental Public Body or Agency created to provide a barring and criminal records disclosure service.

Services relating to criminal records disclosure and barring provisions should be self-financing. We recommend the Government consults on raising the cost of the criminal records disclosure fee to cover the costs incurred.

I believe this will mean CRBs will get more expensive and that possibly volunteers will no longer be able to get CRBs for free.

The Proposed Registration scheme

Registration should be scrapped - there should be no requirement for people to register with the scheme and there will be no ongoing monitoring.

This u-turn from previous plans will hopefully reduce the administration and complexity of getting checked.

But by being a less intensive scheme, the risk of people being convicted of a crime and not being instantly removed from all work could increase.

The CRB itself

Criminal records disclosures should continue to be available to employers and voluntary bodies but should be revised to become portable through the introduction of a system which allows for continuous updating.

This is great news, if CRBs become portable and is continuously updated this would make our work so much simpler and the appointment process quicker.

Also the website states

we propose to develop and introduce the concept of updated criminal records disclosures as a premium service at an extra cost available to organisations using individuals in both regulated activity and other vulnerable group roles. This service would save employers and voluntary bodies the burden of undertaking repeated criminal records checks as:

• Checks on whether any new information is available, following a previous criminal records check would be given online in real time;

• New disclosures would only be needed if information had changed;

• An annual subscription fee would finance the operation of the system

without the need for any other Government funding

This seems like a great service but please note the talk of “extra cost” and “annual subscriptions”. This cost however may end up being less then the current cost of doing repeated CRBs. I am curious to see how similar this online real time check option will be to the original vetting proposal that included possibilities for checking for updates.

Who needs to be checked?

We will seek amendment to the Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Act 2006, which provides the framework for the VBS, and redefine the scope of the scheme (i.e. reduce the range of posts that fall within 'regulated activity' and scrape 'controlled activity' altogether) so that only essential posts (from a public protection perspective) will fall within its requirements. A smaller (and more proportionate) group of roles will now be defined as regulated activities. The concept of 'controlled activity', where an individual had some contact with children and vulnerable adults, but not as intense, frequent or regular as that deemed a regulated activity, will be scrapped under these amendments.

Regulated activities

The review consistently makes use of the phrase “only those who may have regular or close contact” as defining those needing to be checked. The review does not make clear what it will define as regular or close.

Currently the definition of regulated activity includes.

Regulated activity

This is defined as:

• Any activity of a specified nature carried out frequently that involves contact with children or vulnerable adults

• Any activity allowing contact with children or vulnerable adults that is in a specified place frequently or intensively

A previous ISA fact sheet specifically defined

‘Regulated activity’ is when the activity is frequent

(once a month or more) or ‘intensive’ (takes place

on three or more days in a 30-day period).

(Regulated and controlled activities Fact Sheet No 3 October 2007)

I have not yet found an equivalent clear definition for what the review classes as regular or close. Therefore I would suggest we continue to work with the older definition until we have an update.

If a future definition was to be loosened significantly we may wish to keep our own standards higher then the legal minimum. For example if a future definition of regular was to say once a week we may still wish to have a CRB for someone who is on a rota and volunteers every month (For example in the Light Project at Night Church). It is encouraging to see that the VBS report suggests and supports that groups may wish to voluntarily check more then the minimum required.

continue to make a criminal records ‘disclosure service’ available to those who are required or want (voluntarily) to check the backgrounds

The controlled activities

This group of people is being removed from the legal minimum of who must legally be checked and below I have quoted at length a portion of the review explaining what this could mean

The following are examples of roles where the law would have required registration with the Vetting & Barring Scheme, but where the new arrangements will let organisations decide whether and how to check, as either the individual’s role does not require them to interact with vulnerable groups for a sustained length of time, or they do so under supervision:

• Cleaner in an old people’s care home

• Sunday school helper

• Medicines counter assistant

• Volunteer parent literacy helper

• Maintenance worker in a children’s hospital

We are aware that removing barring arrangements from some activities could give rise to an increase in safeguarding risks. Some people who may previously have been barred, or may now be barred from the reduced and redefined range of regulated activities, may be able to gain posts in other areas where they are able to work less closely with children or vulnerable adults. It will be up to employers to weigh up the risks involved.

Personally I am worried that one of the suggested people that may not need to be checked is “Sunday School Helper”. I believe they are only on this list because the review thinks that a helper would always be under supervision. In my experience however I have known many volunteers with the title of “Sunday School Helper” be left alone and even if they are not left alone they still have opportunities to build up significant relationships with child and young people. Therefore they should be checked. I fear Churches will simple read the title in the list of those who do not legally need to be checked and go “brilliant we don’t have to CRB our childs workers any more.” The review shift responsibility to employers to decided who needs to be checked and it makes provision for this with the final sentence of

It will be up to employers to weigh up the risks involved.

Barring scheme

Below I have collected together lots of the information about the barring scheme. From my limited understanding of it application in the work place I believe this will prove to be an important part of safeguarding child and young people. I have not read any significant changes from previous ISA plans but again we have the vague definition of “regular or close contact”. Please not it is a legal offence to knowingly employ a barred individual.

A state body should continue to provide a barring function to help employers protect those at risk from people who seek to do them harm via work or volunteering roles. The new barring regime should cover only those who may have regular or close contact with vulnerable groups. Barring should continue to apply to both paid and unpaid roles. Automatic barring should apply for those serious offences which provide a clear and direct indication of risk. The information used by the state barring body (currently the ISA) to make a barring decision should be serious in nature. The new regime should retain current arrangements for referrals to the state barring body (currently the ISA) by employers and certain regulatory bodies, in circumstances where individuals have demonstrated a risk of harm to children or vulnerable adults. The current appeals arrangements should be retained. The state barring body should be given a power to vary review periods in appropriate circumstances. The new system will retain two offences; it will continue to be an offence for a barred person to work with vulnerable groups in regulated activity roles. It will also be an offence for an employer or voluntary organisation knowingly to employ a barred person in a regulated activity role.

Finally

Finally, the Government should raise awareness of safeguarding issues and should widely promote the part everyone has to play in ensuring proper safeguarding amongst employers, volunteer organisations, families and the wider community.

Be interesting to see if this means anything in reality. Will we see any more training options or publicity campaigns? Or is this just an attempt to reassure us all the reduced scale of the VBS scheme does not mean the government does see safeguarding as important.

P.S. Where could this go?

The changes proposed may suggest a possible future development. Specifically I believe if CRBs become portable people may start to be issued with a license to work with child, young people and vulnerable adults. Licenses that cost money and maybe in future will require applicants to complete a theory test? Or maybe completion of a universal safeguarding course? Who knows what will happen, maybe this could create a simpler safer system.