The government doesn't require criminal checks for foreigners who work in hospitals or schools or who are employed as 'carers' of vulnerable children and the elderly.Can this really be true? That our own government imposes one law for its own people and one for others? That in effect it discriminates against its own people? It is surely madness that if you are a British citizen and wish to be a teaching assisant you have to go through all sorts of checks which are waived if you happen to come from Brazil or the Philippines.
Thursday, May 08, 2008
More on Criminal Records Checks
A commenter called Zut Alors has just left this in the previous comment thread...
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
31 comments:
Iain, what checks are required before people from Brazil or the Philippines are permitted to work in this country in the first place? Do these checks place British workers at an advantage or a disadvantage?
Doesn't surprise me in the slightest - allegedly some(and possibly the majority for all I know) foreign lorry/car drivers have effectively been immune from speed camera fines ever since these were set up as administratively it's expensive and next to impossible to find out the registration details and then collect the fine in some parts of eastern europe so nobody bothers - so next time you're going down the M25 and a "Polish" lorry speeds past you and through a speed camera you know why to coin a phrase "they ain't bothered !"
I do some work advising a group of eastern European EU nationals and I know they require a CRB check when applying for certain jobs. This check would not normally extend to their country of origin, but it is not strictly fair to say they have no checks (even if the checks can be largely meaningless)
I was vaguely aware of this from a story a couple of years ago [but not about airport staff] where they were discussing the length of time it was taking to get CRB checks on British staff working in schools.
As an addendum it mentioned that it would be years before there was an EU-Wide database of criminal records.
But if you will have EU legislation which we can't influence giving the EU citizen open borders rights of travel, then this is what you can expect.
Still, I would have thought the Tories were all in favour of the free movement of goods, capital and people, unhindered by that pesky 'red-tape' that they state hinders the small businessman so much...
Welcome to globalisation, folks...
From the Criminal Records Bureau website: "The CRB cannot currently access overseas criminal records or other relevant information as part of its Disclosure service. If you are recruiting people from overseas and wish to check their overseas criminal record, a CRB Check may not provide a complete picture of their criminal record that may or may not exist." and on another page
"The CRB can only access criminal records, convictions, cautions, reprimands and warnings held on the Police National Computer" (PNC).
As I understood this one, the CRB check was done in the UK but not applied in the home country.
That brings us back to "which foreign governments do you trust". That problem should be surmountable, and on the basis of being safe not sorry.
Wouldn't be surprised to learn that it is UNLAWFUL to do CRB checks on EU nationals.
And whats the point of checks on foreign nationals, who can use false names and ID's to get round such checks, making a mockery of the whole process.
If unchecked aliens can work at government departments, that workers at Heathrow are not subject to security checks what is the point, other than to oppress UK nationals.
British jobs for British people.
We all know what the last refuge of a rogue and scoundrel is, patriotism
I used to work at Disclosure Scotland (the Scottish equivalent of the CRB). My understanding is thus:
The CRB / Disclosure Scotland can only check UK criminal records information. A UK criminal record check on someone who has just arrived in the UK will be clean even if they have a horrendous criminal record in their home country.
To counter this we could of course have a EU-wide criminal records database...
Criminal record checks, however, are just a subset of the wider vetting / security clearance process. If you want to get a higher level of clearance: SC, CTC, DV then I believe you need to have been resident in the UK for at least 3 years.
No it's not true, they're subject to the same CRB checks as anyone else.
I'm kinda surprised at you, Iain...
So, let's get this right. You have a record as long as a ... from - wherever. You move to the UK, and apply for a CRB check on day you get here.
It says "Your UK record is clean" and we conclude "Welcome aboard, sir, glad to have you as the new swimming instructor". And this is supposed to help race relations?
I work as a chauffeur, and have to have a CRB check every 3 years, about £40 and seven weeks minimum to get results, a medical every 2 years (£95 for a GP to tick boxes) and they are imminently about to introduce an NVQ, "to learn how to say good morning and open doors" which at £600 will become a mandatory requirement.
No wonder they need immigrants to fill jobs, as they make it ever more difficult for British workers to get British jobs.
Criminal Record checks only check UK databases.
Do we have any data sharing agreements with foreign governments?
Good, as soon as "foreigner" is mentioned, then we have the usual brain dead commenting.
These CRB checks only reflect badly on a society that considers everyone being a pedophile by default.
The brainwashing is so complete that it is now a good idea because foreigners are involved, regardless of the fact that it makes f.. all difference in reality, apart from complicating things for everybody.
I noticed this spat between Mike smithson and Rennard versus Sam Coates at Times online.
http://timesonline.typepad.com/politics/2008/05/do-the-lib-dems.html
I was wondering if you had any info from on the ground Iain?
The Lib Dem comments make it sound as if we aren't doing much. Although another commenter on Mike's blog said we were on our third leaflet- and that was days ago.
Who knows?
Our record at byelections is not too hot.
To add to the above
The London Congestion charge cannot be applied to foreign registered vehicles.
I'm also informed that if you tell TV licence inspectors who turn up on your doorstep that no one in the house speaks English, they go on their merry way to find English single mums who havn't coughed up £139.50 for this year's full-time course of multi-cultural re-education.
I used to work in sport advising clubs on CRB checks and welfare issues. The points made above on this thread about the limitations of a CRB check are right - it is a search of the UK police computer. Crimes committed overseas (by those from overseas, or by British people on holiday) will not be picked up. Similarly, crimes committed in this country which are not caught will not be picked up. (That said, this sytem is a lot better than the old "self-certification" method were people just signed a form to say they had no crimes to declare.)
The message I always gave to clubs recruiting volunteers was that the CRB check was just one form of defence. Best practice would say that someone who has suddenly arrived at your club should not be left alone with vulnerable adults/juniors until you are happy that they are competent both at coaching and maintaining proper levels of personal conduct.
So Iain, your correspondent's point is wrong, although I'm sure a career at the Daily Express awaits.
Besides are there not plans to link the EU's police databases? Is this something in the Lisbon Treaty by any chance?
11:22- You would think the Tories would be in favour of free movement of people? Why would you think that? Do you understand Conservatism at all?
We need a party that will promise to dump the EU and bring back the death penalty. That party would get in by a landslide.
By dumping the EU, I mean dumping it, not clinging on to some thread of special relations. Norway and Switzerland had the patriotism and independence of spirit not to join up, but to have a trading agreement with them. This,in effect, means the EU is governing their trade anyway. They have to follow every single controlling, moonbat rule and regulation that chunters out of the EU's backside. And these must be obeyed. So in effect, the EU has domain over people who voted to stay out.
The only way to salvation of the nation state of Britain is to dump them decisively. As we buy more from them than they sell, they can dance to our tune. We don't have to dance to theirs.
Zut Alors is talking complete b****cks.
The CRB checks apply to ANYONE who works with children or vulnerable adults, regardless of nationality. And you have to be rechecked regularly, again regardless of nationality.
However, the CRB only turns up convictions in the UK. So if a foreign national with convictions for child abuse managed to get into the UK, the CRB checks would not reveal this. Similarly, CRB checks will not reveal that a UK national has received convictions abroad. An enhanced check (which is what should normally be used) MAY reveal this information if it is known to the local police.
Of course, employers are told that they should not rely on CRB checks alone as they can never be 100% reliable, even for UK nationals. Particular care should be taken when employing non-UK nationals or people who have spent a significant amount of time living out of the country.
As someone who has spent over 30 years working with children in the voluntary sector, I have to say that I see a lot of rubbish written about CRB checks. It is a necessary safeguard but it is not, and can never be, sufficient on its own.
For those wishing to work with children, it means there is one more form to complete and they have to provide evidence of identity. Employers simply have to send off the form with the necessary fee (no fee for voluntary organisations) and wait for the response. Not exactly a huge workload - roughly akin to getting an additional reference.
In connection with a newish regulatory regime in a consultation document I questioned whether overseas criminal records of applicants would be sought - resounding silence.
Possibly depends on specific legislation.
I know that a Government agency will on occasion seek Interpol confirmation for certain immigrants living in the UK and in two instances asked individuals to obtain one themselves Being a US citizen they were able, I think at State level, to produce one very rapidly - for a fee of course!. Another was provided from Pakistan orIndia.
My belief is that it is a wide spread and significant problem - over to Mr Davis and/or Mr Herbert
http://www.crb.gov.uk/default.aspx?page=2243
Peter Harrison: so the CRB check is necessary because we are ALL potential abusers of children &c but even after we are checked we are STILL all potential abusers because the check may not have been thorough enough. Certainly keeps us on our toes!
Perhaps when half the population is working for the Stasi we shall have a watertight system.
The end of presumption of innocence?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/7389547.stm
No, we are not all potential abusers of children. The problem is that child abusers are VERY plausible. They are also good with children (when they aren't abusing them, obviously). That's how they get the opportunity. And they are likely to try and find jobs working with children.
TV dramas tend to depict paedophiles as odd. They aren't. They appear to be perfectly normal. There are no telltale signs.
Are you seriously suggesting that we should allow convicted paedophiles to work with children? If we didn't bother checking people, that is exactly what would happen.
But no, CRB checks can never be perfect. If a convicted child abuser changes identity and does a good enough job of covering their tracks, the CRB will not be able to connect them to their criminal record.
That doesn't mean we regard all our volunteers as potential abusers of children. It DOES mean the we don't just rely on CRB checks - we also take references. It als means that we try to make sure that they don't get put into situations where they can face false accusations. This also has the advantage of avoiding situations where they can abuse children. Both considerations are equally important - I don't want any of my volunteers to go through the trauma of a false accusation any more than I want any of our children to be abused.
If you are so anti the CRB, I have to ask what you would say if you found that a convicted paedophile had been employed by a local school? I hope you would be horrified and say that it shouldn't be allowed to happen. How do you propose stopping it without the CRB or similar?
By the way, many occupations have faced this kind of check for many years, long before the current CRB came into existence.
"We need a party that will promise to dump the EU and bring back the death penalty. That party would get in by a landslide".
How amazingly deluded.
Remind me what checks were done under the last Conservative government.
Even the police .......
http://www.highland-news.co.uk/news/fullstory.php/aid/3695/Lying_cop_let_off_by_court.html]Lying cop let off by court
You need to see this as a branch of the widespread British overseas aid effort. In this instance it aids foreign criminals in not having to bribe the officials of their home country to change the relevant records.
"Remind me what checks were done under the last Conservative government."
It was called "List99". You filled in a form, sent it off to Mowden Hall (near Darlington), and got back a result a week or two later.
Unlike the CRB check, it was only allowed for those with "substantial access to children".
Unlike the CRB check, IME it worked.
New Labour, as ever, replaced a simple system that worked with an expensive computer-based one that doesn't work.
It doesn't work because the checks were cut back to make the system affordable, guess what, it massively overran budget and time.
The only way it was in the same time zone as the original budget was to make the checks almost useless.
This is also the reason why you need a new one for every activity, there's no portability. This arrangement (much more money for Capita) was a straight gimme to keep the initial cost of the system manageable.
Basically, jam tomorrow if you keep the cost "down" (e.g. less than about three times the original estimate !) now.
It is classic Labour. It looks impressive, it has fancy paperwork, it is supposed to make children safer. Only one problem ; it's naff all use !
Anonymous 4.22 said...
"Remind me what checks were done under the last Conservative government."
Anonymous 7.02 replied
"It was called "List99". You filled in a form, sent it off to Mowden Hall (near Darlington), and got back a result a week or two later."
Anon 4.22 again - List 99 still exists. It is simply a list of people who have been barred from working with children in an educational environment. The reason that the old system was then so quick was that all it involved was someone looking at list list to see if the applicant's name was on it. That would have taken about 2 minutes.
Unfortunately there are only about 4,000 people on List 99. Many thousands of people who would be totally unsuitable to work in a high-security job or with vulnerable children or old people are not on that list. For example many convicted paedophiles are on the sex offenders register but not on List 99. Use of List 99 alone is considered to be just a preliminary check.
The CRB has access to the Police National Computer and checks directly whether the applicant has a criminal record and it is often necessary to ask the police to dig out details of any previous involvement with them (cautions, warnings, etc.). All of this takes time if it is to be done properly.
Anonymous @ 4.22 (and anonymous at 7.02) - whilst the CRB didn't start operating until 2002, it was established under the Police Act 1997, one of the last Acts passed by the Major government. It replaced a system of limited use and which was only open to certain organisations (List 99) with one that is far more effective and used more widely. I am aware, through my own involvement in youth work, of a number of cases where convicted child abusers have been prevented from taking up positions working with children by CRB checks. In the absence of such checks, they would almost certainly have been appointed.
Anon7:02 writes:
Yes, List99 was more limited. However, it had the major advantage that (i) it was run competently and (ii) it worked.
The CRB check does not work reliably for various reasons, the primary one of which is that it does not check that the person actually exists.
This check was dropped to cover up the massive overrun costs of the initial project (the other symptom of this is the endless requirement for multiple CRBs).
So if Iain Dale of 30 The Crescent is typed in by Crapitas minimum wage people as "Ian Dale of 30 The Crescent", as it probably will be IME, then it will come up as clear - because no such person exists - irrespective of what "Iain Dale" has done.
I have seen forms returned with names that are so obviously wrong that they can't have been checked (Iain Dalezzq level of error). I had to ask for blanks THREE times before they were printed with the organisations name correctly spelt. One person had to be submitted FOUR times before the form was returned with his name spelt right. I know people who have admitted to a criminal record which has not come up due to a tiny error on the form (note , ALL these errors were Crapitas)
We, of course, bothered to check ours. Most LA HR people won't, because they are lazy, they'll just file the form. Often they don't bother to do the checks anyway (ref Paul Reeve for example).
Then there's the smear approach to reporting information, which in some areas makes people almost unemployable.
I don't disagree with Peter Harrison that it is used far more widely, but it is unsafe and unreliable.
Its main purpose is to give bureaucracies someone else to blame when the inevitable disasters occur.
Post a Comment