Rank: Guest
|
Hi folks
I want to set up a Preferred Contractors List covering most if not all trades (refurbishment and maintenance). My working environment is education. Do those firms / companies who wish to apply need to have all of their workforce CRB checked?
The Contractors would not be directly involved or working with children but would be moving amongst them so to speak between buildings and within buildings.
The reason I ask the question is that all the information I have, talks about working with children not working in the vicinity of children.
Thanks in advance for any info.
Rich
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Rich - one of the criteria is "if working in an establishment wholly or mainly for children" - basically any education establishment for the under 18's. More info is to be found on T'internet if you do a search on your preferred search engine "CRB" - you should come up with the Direct Gov website which will guide you.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
I work for a specialist electrical contractors and we carry out a lot of white board installation in schools. All our project staff involved in this sort of work are CRB checked, even though we are often in schools during holiday time. It's a pretty standard requirement for contractors who work frequently in school type environments.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
To further clarify the above point, we also do temporary fencing works at various school sites and apart from the odd job that may be done in the holidays, most are longer term and most schools / prinicpal comtractors ask for CRB checked staff usually to enhanced level.
Not sure why some of the principal contractors don't ask for it mind...
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Of course, the use of the enhanced crb check for people who do not have unsupervised access to children of vulnerable adults is supposedly illegal.
Although frequently used by employers to obtain information about employees.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7548467.stm
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
The short answer is no. The longer answer is that many education establishments still follow a "check all" policy and many contractors also take the "easy" option. HMG review of safeguarding and ISA et al was supposed to re-draw the lines around this subject. As was said at the time, safeguarding is all about a risk assessment. Vetting or CRB check is only one small part of that assessment. By requesting checks for all those who "might contact" there is a risk that too much reliance is placed on that one check and other controls are overlooked.
see this link for the DfES guidance and page 53 et seq deals with contractors working in schools.
https://www.education.go...SafeGuard.Chd%20bkmk.pdf
Most local authorities will have specific guidance on their websites,
p48
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
pete48 has linked to a 2006 publication which carries a lot of good information. Of more interest might be some clarification offered in Feb 2010 by the Department for Education regarding CRB and service engineers/technicians/salespeople. Here it is verbatim:-
Educational Establishments - DFE advised:
The relevant criteria are: that the work takes place in a specified place, that it is frequent or intensive at the same establishment, and working for the purpose of that establishment.
- frequent means once a week or more
- intensive means four times in a month or overnight
- and both now have to be in the same establishment (so if he visits one establishment a week, but each of those only once a month, it is now not Regulated Activity)
Only if the same person works on the machine in the same school, once a week or more often, or 4 times in one month, is he engaging in Regulated Activity and can therefore have a CRB check processed.
Hope that is of some help.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Over-reliance on crb checks is possibly because of the "we checked and he/she was ok" scenario.
The standard disclosure is of little use to employers, which is probably why they tend to go the enhanced route (even though there may well be no justification for it) even though it will probably be illegal (but with no penalty and no possibility of prosecution).
The enhanced disclosure not only includes all previous prosecutions, for all offences, but rumour and innuendo.
Some detail of the enhanced disclosure have, by law, to be kept from the applicant. One supposes this to be mainly to avoid civil litigation.
A very large percentage of offenders have no "previous".
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
I have been asked for a 99 check anyone heard of this one ?
We have also been asked just for supervisor to be enhanced crb checked whilst rest remain unchecked ?
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
JohnMurray wrote:The standard disclosure is of little use to employers, which is probably why they tend to go the enhanced route (even though there may well be no justification for it) even though it will probably be illegal (but with no penalty and no possibility of prosecution).
Not entirely true - The Police Act s.123 says:
– the criminal sanction applicable to those who undertake an illegal CRB check
(2) A person commits an offence if he knowingly makes a false statement for the purpose of obtaining, or enabling another person to obtain, a certificate under this Part.
(3) A person who is guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale, or to both.
Not sure that anyone has ever been prosecuted but there is provision for it.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
I have not managed to trace any prosecution for unlawful use of crb checks.
In spite of the fact that the excessive use of enhanced checks must, in many cases, be dubious.
Someone who only does work at schools in holiday periods should not need any crb check, and certainly not an enhanced one. Still, they're good for those who like angling: as in fishing expeditions.
I know of at least one person who had worked at a hospital for 15 years, then was required to undergo an enhanced check. One conviction for D&D 20 years before meant he was suddenly a risk to vulnerable adults. I'm sure that being a shop-steward for a union had nothing to do with it.
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.