CRB checks (now Disclosure and Barring Service)

[34D]

From thread http://www.railforums.co.uk/showthread.php?p=1346735#post1346735

As you appear to be (in part) aware, the former CRB system is changing. The Disclosure and Barring Service data records include "soft information" which goes beyond criminal convictions while the disclosure procedures will relate the information held to the nature of the inquiry being made.
It might take time for the new procedures to become clearer in some areas, I certainly couldn't advise "just accepting whatever they charge me with" and expecting the outcome never to be revealled thereafter.

Does anyone have more information as to the types of 'soft information' that might be included in future disclosures?

I assume that one possibility would be non-recordable offences (ie byelaw prosecutions) which is of interest to this thread.

As someone who holds Enhanced CRB disclosures in respect of different things that I do, I am also interested on other wider implications.

 

[DaveNewcastle]

"Soft information" may include allegations about a subject which were unproven, a Police caution, or maybe that a subject has been involved in an incident without any allegations.

On the other hand, such "soft information" would not normally be 'disclosed' to an organisation; and, the organisation will not have the authority to have the records searched for activities which are not relevant to the subject's role. Consequently, it might arise that a check for a subject in a safeguarding role may not reveal a prosecution for a financial offence, or (as it has been suggested) a check for a person in a money handling role may not reveal a prosecution for murder (I expect that murder is not in fact, likely to become invisible, as one of the triggers for the changes was the 'Soham murders'). "Soft information" would not be revealled during a standard or enhanced check, unless the circumstances of that information were very specifically relevant to the subject's role, and this is achieved by a new filtering system which seeks to relate a subject's records more closely with the organisation's activities. For example, I would expect that "soft information" which revealled that a person who has repeatedly been found at a place where and when alcohol was being sold to youths may raise an alert if their employer made a check in the course of applying for a Personal Licence for the subject to sell alcohol. "Soft information" is not to be copied or logged.

This "soft information" is not new with the creation of the DBS, and would formerly have been communicated by local Police if they considered that it 'may be relevant' through what was known as the "brown envelope". It is the higher threashold of 'likely to be relevant' and the standardisation of the procedure that is new. Other, non criminal, information which may be held by DBS includes notification from a Local Authority's Social Services Department of a known risk to children or vulnerable adults, and any relevant Professional Register from which a person may have been struck-off.

The standards for 'relevancy' of data released in response to a search have been raised, and the issue of certificates to organisations has ceased. The new system is still being rolled out this Winter, but soon there will be complete 'portability' of checks using a two-party access code (one for the subject and one for the organisation) and any relevant updates will be notified to an organisation routinely (rather than being expected to 'renew' old CRB checks).

The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 was introduced to, among other objectives, ensure that checks are more proportionate, seeking to ensure that people are enabled to work in a broader range of activities. It is hoped to avoid unnecessary exclusions by subjecting local Police information to this more rigourous test of relevance and ensuring that information will only be disclosed if it is reasonable to believe that it would be relevant to the organisation requesting the search. Most minor offences will fail this test.
As the Certificate is now only given to the Subject, they will also have the means to challenge the disclosure of information if they believe it is irrelevant.

The list of individuals previously known as the "list 99" which referred to people who are barred from working with children or vulnerable adults will soon be integrated into the system so that only relevant checks will reveal a reason to bar a subject; these will be known as an Enhanced and Barring List Check . A person may appear on this list if they had been guilty of abusive behaviour or an offence resulting in imprisonment for 30 months or longer. For example, as subject seeking work (incl. voluntary) with children will qualify for a Barred List check if they will perform certain duties and with specified types of access without supervision, even including regular moderation of electronic communications likely to be accessed by children and regular driving of vehicles used only for carrying children. The 'Barred List' will not be checked during a 'Standard search' and an entry cannot be used to prevent work with groups of persons other than those in the Offence.

The Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) follows the merger of the Criminal Records Bureau (CRB) and the Independent Safeguarding Authority (ISA). These changes do not affect the Baseline Personnel Security Standard (BPSS) used to vet employees and contractors by Government and certain sensitive industries, nor the more stringent and Security Check (SC) procedures used where national security is involved nor to the very rigourous Developed Vetting (DV) during the course of which a wide range of personal information is considered.


For more information, see [England & Wales] :

Disclosure & Barring Service - Disclosures F A Q s

Disclosure & Barring Service - Referrals F A Q s

Disclosure & Barring Service - Publications list

or [Scotland] :
Disclosure Scotland

 

[30907]

That's very thorough, Dave, and useful.

I think I am right that the correct Safeguarding response of an employer/voluntary organisation to a "blemished" disclosure is to carry out a risk assessment regarding the information received, not to reject the person out of hand.

Meaning that the sort of fares disputes we read about on these Forums are unlikely to be relevant (unless repeat offences).

 

[DaveNewcastle]

Yes, there are 2 stages to that process.
First, the DBS will consider the relevance of an entry in the person's history and whether it would be proportionate to have it disclosed, having regard to the offence and to the role the subject will be engaged in.
Secondly, the employer will have a Policy for checking staff (or volunteers), for reporting any incidents that occur, and for assessing any disclosures made in relation to the actual activities the person will be undertaking; this will include any arrangements for supervision or for any periods of being with vulnerable people unattended.

Only where an assessment demonstrates that an appointment would carry a risk of putting vulnerable people at risk should the position be refused or re-defined. One-off offences such as drink-driving, shoplifting or tickeless train travel should not be disclosed unless they are specifically relevant to the prospective subject's duties. And those offences which the DBS does consider will be relevant should then be assessed by the employer (or other responsible person) for any risk that may be posed to the people in its care.

It is hoped that the new system will see an end to the unnecessary 'CRB checks' by employers, some of whom do not even have any responsibilities for children or vulnerable adults.

 

[Flamingo]

I've often wondered, can any employer ask for a check, or is it only certain jobs? Also where does the Rehabilitation of Offenders (where a caution - conviction is considered "spent") fit into all this?

 

[DaveNewcastle]

It is generally thought that many more employers were using the CRB checks inappropriately. Those who have a duty of care to children or vulnerable adults are now called a "Regulated Activity Provider" (RAP). These activities include 6 categories of activity in relation to adults.
The sixth category may be relevant to work on the Railways: "Conveying adults who need it because of their age, illness or disability to, from or between places where they receive healthcare, personal care or social work. This does not apply to friends, family or taxi drivers".
And in relation to children, may be covered by "care for or supervise children".

In future, only those employers whose staff and unsupervised volunteers will be engaged in these duties should be requesting a check.

The "Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974" creates the concept of 'spent convictions', though there are 3 important exceptions:
- a custodial sentence of over 30 months will never become 'spent';
- a conviction for a 'safeguarding' offence will never become 'spent';
- five categories of activity with vulnerable persons will require convictions to be disclosed even if they are 'spent' and these include activities which provide access to people with disabilities, with mental illness, recovering from alcohol or drug addiction, and those over 65.
This won't apply to most public-facing work but could, perhaps, be said to apply to on-board rail crews. I would be interested to hear the view of a Railway HR professional.

Consequently, an employer whose front-line staff will have some unsupervised access to, and some responsibility for, such people may still have 'spent' convictions disclosed. The decision to employ will then be based on a rational and balanced assessment of any risk.

 

[Flamingo]

Thanks for that. It seems that more and more employers are asking for checks these days, and I was wondering if it was the case of you could refuse, but they would not take you on if you did refuse, a sort of catch 22.

 

[34D]

Thanks for that. It seems that more and more employers are asking for checks these days, and I was wondering if it was the case of you could refuse, but they would not take you on if you did refuse, a sort of catch 22.

Quite. I am Manager of a bus company, and we have had it taken to extremes.

We run a registered service (predominently for schoolchildren, but available to anybody) which halfway through its journey calls at a High School. The high school have threatened to refuse us access (to this registered stop) unless we show a copy of an Enhanced disclosure.

Sadly the same council and high school are also customers of our coach company, so we can't rock the boat.

I'm following this thread with interest, and thank all contributing parties.

 

[Flamingo]

If it is not a dedicated school bus, how can they do that?

What am I saying, the child protection mafia can do anything as it's all about "protecting the children", and if anyone disagrees they must be a pervert.

 

[34D]

If it is not a dedicated school bus, how can they do that?

What am I saying, the child protection mafia can do anything as it's all about "protecting the children", and if anyone disagrees they must be a pervert.

Quite, yes. The reality for us is they can do what the heck they want. Though to give them their due, they are good at responding to reports of naughty pupils.

 

[Zoe]

"Soft information" may include allegations about a subject which were unproven, a Police caution, or maybe that a subject has been involved in an incident without any allegations.

Wouldn't all cautions held on the Police National Computer show up on a standard check? That's how it was for the CRB check and I haven't seen anything stating that this has now changed.

 

[DaveNewcastle]

Wouldn't all cautions held on the Police National Computer show up on a standard check? That's how it was for the CRB check and I haven't seen anything stating that this has now changed.

There are several "filters" and tests of relevance and proportionality which any item of information must pass before it is disclosed. If the information fails any one of the "filters" (tests referred to as "Method Products"), then the informaion is not disclosed.

There is a detailled description of the procedures in England & Wales to be found in the Home Office document to which I linked above as Disclosures F A Q s.

I'll quote just two sections from that document

Proportionality

Police must also consider whether it is proportionate to consider disclosure of information – this is part of the „relevant‘ and „ought to be disclosed‘ requirements we covered earlier.
Firstly, the information must have passed all of the other tests: if it does not pass the test at Box3 OR Box4 (or Box5, if it relates to a 3rd Party) it cannot be proportionate to disclose and so cannot be disclosed at all. However, just because information passes all of the other tests, it does not automatically mean that it would be proportionate to disclose it.

Police must consider other factors, such as how long ago an incident occurred; how old the applicant was at the time of the incident; the conduct of the applicant since the incident (if known); whether the information is relatively trivial and not really evidence of a risk at all.

Finally, the Chief Officer must establish whether or not they believe that the impact of disclosure on the private life of those concerned outweighs the potential risk to the vulnerable group from making no disclosure. In every case they must consider whether there is likely to be an interference with a person‟s private life and, if so, whether that interference can be justified.

It appears to me significant that the reference to disclosing cautions is in the section "Relevance", which is a consideration which I had attempted to explain above :-

Relevance

Relevance of information is considered against specific job roles (Primary School Teacher; Scout Master etc.)
The Chief Officer can consider the disclosure of any information which they reasonably believe to be relevant to the application and, in their opinion, ought to be disclosed. Police must satisfy themselves that it is reasonable to believe that the information is relevant to considerations of the risk that the applicant may pose to whichever vulnerable group the applicant will be in relevant contact when undertaking their role.

. . . .

―"Enhanced Disclosures show spent and unspent convictions and cautions. The police may also provide details of acquittals or other non-conviction information held on local police records, which are relevant to the job or voluntary position being sought. The test is one of relevance."

 

[Zoe]

There are several "filters" and tests of relevance and proportionality which any item of information must pass before it is disclosed. If the information fails any one of the "filters" (tests referred to as "Method Products"), then the informaion is not disclosed.

This would relate seem to relate the "soft intelligence" though that you referred to above and not to cautions which along with convictions would usually automatically be disclosed.

The document you linked to confirms this.

An Enhanced Disclosure and Barring Service check (EDBS) can include Convictions,
Cautions, Warnings and Reprimands (all of which are, usually, disclosed automatically as per
the legislation).

--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

It appears to me significant that the reference to disclosing cautions is in the section "Relevance", which is a consideration which I had attempted to explain above :-

I believe it is saying that an enhanced disclosure will show cautions/convictions and that additional information can also be disclosed and it is this information which is subject to a relevance test. As I said above, earlier in the document it says that all convictions/cautions will usually be disclosed automatically.

 

[DaveNewcastle]

Yes, in an Enhanced check.
Your earlier question inquired into to a Standard Check.
As you already know, the information available for consideration for disclosure differs between the 'Standard' and 'Enhanced' checks.

 

[Flamingo]

Is the presence of anything an automatic bar for employment, or is it up to the employer to make their own decision?

 

[Zoe]

As you already know, the information available for consideration for disclosure differs between the 'Standard' and 'Enhanced' checks.

The difference was that a standard check CRB would show all convictions/cautions held on the Police National Computer and an enhanced check would show this plus additional relevant information. The document you linked to does not say anything about a standard check. If it is indeed the case that standard checks have changed and now only show cautions/convictions when relevant (and I'm not saying that have not) then I would hope the DBS will make this clear. I've had a quick look online and have seen contradictory information on DBS checks so I would hope the DBS will clarify exactly what is disclosed.

 

[OwlMan]

Although a recent Court of Appeal case may lead to further changes

http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/NR/rdon...tchiefconstablemanchesterjudgment29012013.pdf

 

[island]

What am I saying, the child protection mafia can do anything as it's all about "protecting the children", and if anyone disagrees they must be a pervert.

Quite. A school late last year was reported to have refused admission to parents for the nativity play unless they were vetted.

Same rubbish applies to aviation security.

Is the presence of anything an automatic bar for employment, or is it up to the employer to make their own decision?

In theory the latter, in practice the former.

 

[island]

Can byelaw offences ever be disclosed on an enhanced DBS check?

 

[tony_mac]

Ever? Yes - if the police think it is relevant.
http://www.nacro.org.uk/what-we-do/resettlement-advice-service/advice/frequently-asked-questions/criminal-records-and-dbs-crb-checks,1616,NAP.html#3

It is also possible that a byelaw offence could be mistakenly recorded on the PNC.

 

[zoneking]

It only costs £10 to see what information the PNC has (if at all) about yourself. You cannot use this information for employment purposes - they still have to do a DBS check.

 

[Daniel84]

What sort of check would a TOC do on a potential employee? Would that just be the basic one as I assume the new standard and enhanced versions are only for people working with vulnerable people or in certain roles?

The DBS checks and rehabilitation of offenders act do not seem to match up, for example if you were convicted of an offence and fined 8 years ago and were asked if you had any convictions on an application form you would correctly answer no as the conviction you have is spent after 5 years under the rehabilitation of offenders act. Should the employer then ask for a standard disclosure, which would show convictions under 11 years old and discover there were convictions, which are spent but have not been filtered and disclosed. What would then happen? Surely unless the job was one of the ones which require enhanced checks, the employer could not use a spent conviction against a potential employee?

 

[tony_mac]

Surely unless the job was one of the ones which require enhanced checks, the employer could not use a spent conviction against a potential employee?

From what I can see, if they are entitled to ask for even a standard disclosure, then they are also entitled to ask about spent convictions.

Standard checks – To be eligible for a standard level DBS check the position must be included in the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act (ROA) 1974 (Exceptions) Order 1975.

https://whitehall-admin.production.alphagov.co.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/152795/eligibility-guidance.pdf

(BTW, surely this thread has little to do with fares, tickets, or routeing....)

 

[Daniel84]

From what I can see, if they are entitled to ask for even a standard disclosure, then they are also entitled to ask about spent convictions.


https://whitehall-admin.production....ent_data/file/152795/eligibility-guidance.pdf

(BTW, surely this thread has little to do with fares, tickets, or routeing....)

Yes, that is my understanding. It would seem that most jobs would just require the basic check, although a lot of the duties on that list could be open to interpretation.

I also agree that this thread has little relation to fares, tickets or routeing.

 

[swt_passenger]

(BTW, surely this thread has little to do with fares, tickets, or routeing....)

Well there is a connection, if only that a wide range of different people seem to want to know which ticketing rules they can ignore without it affecting their employment prospects...

 

[Captain Chaos]

TOC's only do a Basic Check. They check for any unspent convictions. We are not exempt (is that right?) from RoOA and so there is no need to disclose spent convictions and police cautions etc. You can get a Basic Check done through Disclosure Scotland I believe.