Archive for the ‘Other News’ Category

• If you have a potential member of staff who is already registered on the PVG Scheme for Children, but you need them to be registered for Protected Adults (or vise versa) you will need to ask them to complete the form ‘Existing PVG Scheme Member Application’ and cross the box for ‘Scheme Record’ for Protected Adults.

• This means that they will then be checked, and if not barred, will join the scheme for Protected Adults, and a certificate produced for your records.

 

• If you have a potential member of staff who is already a PVG Scheme member for the correct type of regulated work, e.g. Protected Adults, you will need to ask them to complete the ‘Existing PVG Scheme Member Application’ and cross the box for ‘Scheme Record Update’. The applicant will then be checked to see if there have been any updates since the last certificate was produced.

Please contact us if you require any further help regarding existing PVG Scheme members.

• Email: crb@arcuk.org.uk
• Telephone: 01246 541660

 

The Protection of Freedoms Bill was introduced in February 2011, and is now at Lords Report stage of the legislative process. It is anticipated that the Bill will receive Royal Assent by May 2012.

Further details on the Bill can be accessed via the following weblink:

http://services.parliament.uk/bills/2010-11/protectionoffreedoms.html

This wide ranging Bill also includes provisions that relate to the Vetting and Barring Scheme (VBS) and the Criminal Records Regime (CRR) include such as:

• scrapping registration and continuous monitoring

• scrapping controlled activities

• reducing the scope of regulated activity (activity which people on a barred list cannot do)

• making changes to the criminal records checking process, including the introduction of a new on-line update system of criminal records

• issuing certificates to the applicant only

• improving systems for resolving disputes and representations

• merging the Criminal Records Bureau (CRB) and the Independent Safeguarding Authority (ISA) to form a new single organisation called the Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS)

The Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS)

The Protection of Freedoms Bill includes a measure to merge the Criminal Records Bureau (CRB) and Independent Safeguarding Authority (ISA). They will be replaced by a new Non-Departmental Public Body to be called the Disclosure and Barring Service. The new organisation will provide a combined barring and criminal records disclosure service. It is hoped this new organisation will become operational in November 2012, subject to Parliamentary timetabling.

The New CRB Online Update Service

In February 2011, the Government’s remodelling review of the Criminal Records Regime (CRR) and the Vetting and Barring Scheme (VBS) review delivered a series of recommendations aimed at improving arrangements for the disclosure of criminal records.

One of the proposals recommended is an on-line update service. The new service would allow the organisation, with the individual’s consent, to carry out an on-line status check to establish if further relevant criminal information has been identified since a CRB check was last carried out.

The principle of the update service is to provide a proportionate and fair system that provides information where appropriate, and balances the need to protect and respect individuals’ privacy.

The CRB currently working with the Home Office; the Independent Safeguarding Authority and other Government departments to develop and deliver this new service with a proposed implementation date of early 2013. The opportunity to opt into the new on-line update service will be voluntary and it is anticipated that it will be funded by an annual subscription.

In advance of this, from January 2012 the CRB is conducting a programme of customer engagement events to establish potential volumes, customer behaviour and utilisation of the service and provide information on the details of the new on-line service.

Potential delay in start of Existing Staff checks

Disclosure Scotland has announced that the proposed date of 28th February 2012 for the invitation to existing staff to join the PVG Membership Scheme has been put on hold.

Below is a copy of a letter recently received from Disclosure Scotland for information:

This letter updates my letter of February 2011 in which I advised you of Disclosure Scotland’s intention to accept applications for membership of the Protecting Vulnerable Groups Scheme (“the PVG Scheme”) from the existing regulated workforce (“retrospective checking”) at a date one year, or thereby, after the PVG Scheme go-live which occurred on 28 February 2011.

During this first year of the PVG Scheme, Disclosure Scotland has focused on handling PVG applications from individuals new to regulated work or from staff already in regulated work moving to a different post. We have also processed a small number of PVG applications from existing staff for specific and agreed purposes. This approach has allowed us to manage the volumes of applications being submitted.

As you may know, the IT system which delivers the PVG Scheme has presented Disclosure Scotland with some difficulties which we are still working to resolve. While the system has proven it is capable of handling the current volume of PVG applications Disclosure Scotland receives, it requires testing at the additional volume level that the introduction of retrospective checking will bring. The testing is currently scheduled to take place during January 2012.

Due to that testing I cannot confirm at this point that retrospective checking will begin on 28 February 2012. I apologise for the uncertainty but Disclosure Scotland feels that it would be unwise to commit to that date prior to the testing being completed.

My intention is that, immediately following the analysis of the testing, I will provide information about the outcome on our website (www.disclosurescotland.co.uk).

If the testing is successful, I expect that Disclosure Scotland would be able to introduce retrospective checking very soon thereafter and continuing for the following 3-year period.

If the outcome of the testing is not successful, then I will delay the commencement of the retrospective checking until such times as the IT system is enhanced and able to administer the volumes associated with retrospective checking. There will then be further regular updates on our website until such times as a date for the start of retrospective checking can be given.

I understand that this information may mean that you will require to amend your strategy to introduce your existing staff members into the PVG Scheme, but I hope you understand that I am doing everything possible to ensure that our IT system is robust enough to deliver a service to you.

I apologise for any additional burden this uncertainty will place on your organisation but I hope you can understand the reason why I cannot commit to a start date at this time. I can assure you of the best endeavours of Disclosure Scotland in delivering an early start to retrospective checking.

Thank you for your consideration and tolerance in this matter. If you have any questions on the above information please contact our helpline on 0870 609 6006.

BRIAN GORMAN
Head of Disclosure Services
Disclosure Scotland

 

 

 

The Protection of Freedoms Bill, currently passing through Parliament, includes a proposal which will see the CRB and the Independence Safeguarding Authority (ISA) become a new organisation called the Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) in November 2012, subject to Parliamentary timetabling.

The new organisation will be responsible for the delivery of the disclosure and barring services currently being undertaken by CRB and ISA.

The Bill also includes provision for the reform of these services such as the introduction of a new, portable disclosure service which the DBS will be responsible for.

 

We recently attended a meeting with our CRB and Home Office colleagues regarding the proposed changes to the ISA, CRB and Disclosure process.

Please see the summary of the proposed changes to Disclosures for further details.

Please be aware that once the Protection of Freedoms Bill is passed in early 2012 the Home Office will have the task of putting in place new systems to make the regulations work (they anticipate 2013 completion of this task).

This is where you come in,  we need your views on these proposals.

Question 1: What do you agree with, what do you disagree with; do you think they will work for/against your organisation; do you have any questions?

An important issue we wish to raise are the proposed amendments to the definition of Regulated Activity relating to both children and vulnerable adults. In particular the definition of  the terms “supervision” including “mutual supervision”, “close and constant supervision” and “day to day supervision” and the definition of “health care” and “personal care”. This will make the difference between eligibility for an Enhanced disclosure and potentially no check at all.

Question 2: What defines supervision, health care and personal care to you or within your work environment?

Please send your views or concerns on either or both questions in order that we can pass them on to the Home Office for consideration and possible implementation into the new systems.

Have your say!!

Email your comments to us at: dbscomments@arcuk.org.uk

Proposed changes to Disclosures

As a result of the Vetting & Barring Scheme Remodelling Review and The CRB Review report released on 11th February 2011 the Government will be introducing a number of clauses in the Protection of Freedoms Bill that will result in changes to the Disclosure service in 2013.

Assuming the bill becomes law (planned for early 2012) in its current form, the main changes will be:

• That the Independent Safeguarding Authority (ISA) and the Criminal Records Bureau (CRB) will be merged into a new organisation to be called the Disclosure & Barring Service (DBS).

• The definition of “Regulated Activity” relating to both children and vulnerable adults, as set out in the 2006 Act, will be redefined to reduce the scope of roles that will be required (by law) to have an Enhanced Disclosure

• The regulations identifying what non-conviction “intelligence” the police can release will be tightened and the Secretary of State will have the power to direct these.

• All information on a Disclosure must be revealed to the applicant (this refers to the current provision which allows for the disclosure of certain information to a potential employer which must not be revealed to the applicant i.e. the individual is under surveillance)

• Applicant only Disclosures, in order that the applicant can check that any information revealed is accurate before presenting it to the employer.

• Portability of Disclosures where individual applicants will be able to consent to continual updating of Disclosure information. Employers will then be able to check (online) whether any new information has been added to an applicant’s record since the last Disclosure was issued.
• An age limit will be introduced for Disclosure applications to persons over 16 years of age.

• There will be an independent review body to handle disputes over the disclosability of information on a Disclosure.

 

Definition of Regulated Activity

These are the range of activities or posts to which barring applies. The Secretaries of State for Health and Education have agreed to reduce significantly the range of activities and job roles that are included in this category; this in turn reduces the scope of the overall barring regime.

For example, “regulated activities” will no longer include all posts in schools; work with children will be redefined as mainly unsupervised activities; and the definition of “health care” activities will be redrawn to rule out a large number of posts caught under the previous proposals. Bars will continue to apply to both paid employment and voluntary work.

Safeguarding risks may arise here; for example, if posts are no longer to be included in the definition of “regulated activities”, there is a risk that a barred person can undertake this work. The key will be to ensure that the definition covers those areas of work and access to children and/or vulnerable adults, which are considered to provide the highest element of risk to those groups.

The overall effect is to reduce the scope of work from which barred individuals will be prohibited so that only those whose work (paid or unpaid) involves regular or close contact with children or who provide health or personal care for vulnerable adults who are covered by the scheme. There are a range of posts and activities, which previously fell within the definition of regulated activity. For these the Government proposes that the eligibility to apply for an enhanced level CRB Disclosure will be retained. This is important so that Government can ensure employers and other hiring organisations are able to gain the right type of access to criminality information.

Change the relevancy test the police apply to intelligence and other information, which they hold from “might be relevant” to “reasonably believes to be relevant”.

The current position requires chief police officers to provide any information which they think might be relevant to whether the applicant is suitable for the job role concerned. Such broad disclosure is not proportionate and fair to the applicant, particularly if the inclusion of a single piece of irrelevant information could be the factor, which prevents them getting a job when they are in competition with someone with a ‘clean’ disclosure.

Therefore it has been proposed to strengthen the ‘might be relevant’ test to a test of what the chief police officer reasonably believes to be relevant.

Introduce the scope for the Secretary of State to issue guidance which the police must regard in making decisions about the relevancy of information.

There is evidence that inconsistency exists, across the country, in terms of the decisions chief police officers make about whether a particular piece of information may be relevant for disclosure. Therefore a proposal to introduce a power for the Secretary of State to issue guidance which the police would be obliged to have regarded in making relevancy decisions in order to achieve a much more consistent approach.

Removal of the provision which allows for the disclosure of information to a potential employer even where the police judge that same information should not be disclosed to the individual applying for that role.

Current legislation enables sensitive information to be provided to the registered body/potential employers without it being copied to the applicant (brown envelope). It has been deemed that this arrangement is not sufficiently fair and open, given that the individual has no means to challenge such information. The number of such cases is small (between 200-300 per annum) and the procedure is not used by all police forces in England and Wales. Scotland does not use such a procedure and the Independent Safeguarding Authority (ISA) will not, under current arrangements, use any information that cannot be disclosed to the applicant. Civil liberties organisations cite this procedure as an example of over-zealous disclosure.

The new proposals intend to remove the statutory obligation to disclose information to registered bodies who countersign disclosure applications i.e employers, umbrella registered bodies and other organisations that request an individual to undergo a CRB check. The onus would then fall onto the police to pass such information to a potential employer where they considered that to do so was justified and proportionate. That would help to emphasize the exceptional nature of the circumstances and the need for the police to justify the approach in each individual case on the basis of their operational discretion supported by common law powers.

The disclosure test under the Act would be higher than at current and this is considered appropriate for such an unusual type of disclosure. Basically, where there is clear justification to disclose information about an individual to their employer, the police should be doing that in a timely manner, regardless of whether there is a disclosure application live or not.

Applicant only Disclosure Certificates

Section 113A (4) of Part V the Police Act 1997 states that:

“The Secretary of State must send a copy of a criminal record certificate to the registered person who countersigned the application”

The simultaneous issue of the certificate to an applicant and a registered person (employer) assumes that upon receipt of the certificate an employment decision can be made immediately. However, in most cases the recruitment decision is made by a separate unit/department to that which submitted the application and in many instances a third part (an “Umbrella Body” dealing with applications on behalf of a number of organisations) is involved, thus adding additional delay.

One of the biggest criticisms of the process is that where information exists, particularly information released by a police force, the applicant does not have the chance to review and challenge this information before it is released to an employer. Even where an applicant raises a successful dispute post issue, anecdotal evidence suggests that a culture of suspicion has already been created against an applicant i.e. “no smoke without fire”.

Thus the proposed issue of the certificate to the applicant only, who can then present the certificate to a prospective employer. This would allow the applicant the opportunity to approach a prospective employer and provide background about why a particular record exists and, if appropriate, provide further explanation or context which isn’t apparent directly from the certificate. It would allow the applicant to submit any representations against information released whilst still being in control of the process.

Introduction of Criminal Records Status Checks (CRSC).

The Home Office, in conjunction with the CRB, is developing a scheme which is designed to reduce the number of repeat applications* that an individual needs to make. CRB CRSC certificates will be made more portable by enabling employers to identify where new relevant information has been identified and make it available for employees who have had a previous disclosure certificate. The CRSC will confirm whether or not there has been a relevant update to the details on a previously issued disclosure certificate and, if there has, will advise that a new disclosure certificate is required.

*A repeat application occurs where an employer seeks to recheck an existing employee, say after 3 years, or where an individual who holds an existing disclosure certificate moves job and is required by the new employer to complete a new disclosure application.

The CRSC means that applications for a new disclosure certificate will only be necessary when there will be new information on that certificate.

Approximately 95% of disclosure certificates never change – in these circumstances an employer would know immediately that the disclosure was up to date and neither they nor the individual would need to fill out a new form and wait for the fresh disclosure. They would also avoid the frustration of completing this process when they know the disclosure will be blank. Currently 35% of all disclosure applications are made by customers who have previously submitted a disclosure application in the same year i.e. a repeat application.

For this new service it has been proposed that a subscription fee is to be charged.

Age limits

Section 113A(1) and 113B(1) of the Act state that the Secretary of State “must issue a criminal record certificate to any individual who makes an application in the prescribed manner and form and pays in the prescribed manner and form”’

The Act currently provides no limitations in terms of the age of the applicant and places a duty on the Secretary of State to issue a certificate where a valid application and fee and been submitted.

In the year 2009-2010 just over 5000 applications were issued to individuals aged 15 and under, albeit the majority to those aged 15.

There are obvious civil liberties considerations in carrying out checks on minors. It is difficult to envisage any circumstances where a minor would require a certificate and carrying them out suggests a level of checking that is very hard to justify. Therefore the proposal to amend the Act to limit applicants to those aged 16 and above.

Improving systems for resolving disputes and representations

Section 117 of the Act states that:

“Where an applicant for a certificate under sections 112 to 116 believes that information contained in the certificate is inaccurate s/he may make an application in writing to the Secretary of State for a new certificate”.

Whilst a dispute relating to information from the Police National Computer (PNC) matching decision can be handled by the CRB a dispute about the release of information by a police force is handled by the chief police officer who made the decision to release it. In most cases where a dispute of this nature is made the police will dismiss the dispute or where the dispute is not dismissed there are often only subtle changes to the text made rather than the information being removed.

The Act does not provide for any further opportunity to challenge a force’s decision to dismiss a dispute and in practical terms the next stage of dispute would be by way of judicial review which is both costly and time consuming.

Therefore it has been proposed to introduce an independent review of the dispute – this would be by another chief police officer who would review the information, seek any further representations which had not already been made and take the final decision on whether information should be disclosed

The CRB are currently in the process of devising a facility/service for applicants to contact/correspond directly with the CRB if they have been asked by a prospective employer to have a CRB check for a position applied for that they feel is not appropriate.

Have your say!!

Email your comments about the proposed changes to us at: dbscomments@arcuk.org.uk

The Freedom Bill is due to be published in Spring 2012, following which individuals will be able to apply to have these historical convictions deleted.

The Home Secretary Theresa May announced plans to tackle inequality by treating people as individuals rather than labelling them in groups.

Once the Freedom Bill is in place, the historical convictions will no longer be released as part of a CRB check.

The Home Office has published the first bulletin out of a series of three bulletins which gives updates on the forthcoming bill:

• Download Protection of Freedom Bill Bulletin June 2011

• Download Impact Assessment on proposed changes to the Vetting & Barring Scheme

New revised fees have been in effect since April 2011.

The new fees are as follows:

New Regulations have been laid in Parliament to set out which Police data sources will be searched by the CRB.  An Enhanced CRB check will now focus on a more targeted search method and one that will continue to provide customers with information about convictions, cautions, reprimands and warnings and any non-conviction information held locally by the police.

Applicants’ details will no longer be sent to police forces based solely on their five year address history, where CRB’s matching process has already determined, by interrogating police information systems, that no other information is held about them by the police.  The only exception to this will be where the occupation of the applicant is to be principally home-based, where it will remain important for the police to conduct a greater degree of checking based on the home address of the applicant.

CRB state that the changes will significantly reduce the public perception of unnecessary intrusion into citizens’ private lives, reduce waiting times, improve customer satisfaction and more importantly, they should not increase the risk to the vulnerable.

The Government have the terms of a thorough review of the VBS which will re-examine whether the scheme is the most appropriate mechanism to protect children and vulnerable people and, if so, how many roles should be covered by it.

The review of the criminal records regime, which will run in parallel to the VBS review, will look at the broader issues around the disclosure of criminal records. The review will also examine the balance between civil liberties and public protection in relation to the current use of the Criminal Records Bureau service, and ensure that the systems are proportionate and less burdensome. It will also consider the use of Police intelligence as part of CRB Checks. These review points will then inform the delivery of our service going forward.

Recommendations from both reviews are expected to be available early in the New Year. In the meantime the CRB have announced that they will continue with business as usual and there will be no immediate changes to the current disclosure service.