Welcome Guest! The IOSH forums are a free resource to both members and non-members. Login or register to use them

Postings made by forum users are personal opinions. IOSH is not responsible for the content or accuracy of any of the information contained in forum postings. Please carefully consider any advice you receive.

Notification

Icon
Error

Options
Go to last post Go to first unread
Admin  
#1 Posted : 02 September 2002 14:03:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Simon Wright
I'm a local government Health and Safety Officer working on a number of construction projects in schools in the South West. I would be interested if anyone has had any schools requiring construction staff to have been checked by the Criminal Records Bureau (CRB). There has been a lot of publicity about teachers being checked but I'm getting feedback from schools that they may require all contractors' staff to be checked before allowing them onto their school sites. Although the areas of the schools under construction are segregated from the schoolchildren, conversations could still take place through the Heras fencing for example, and lead onto improper or unwanted contact. One Principal Contractor inducts all staff working on their site and issues everyone with a photo ID card with their details printed on it plus gets the person to sign a declaration of what, if any, criminal convictions they have. Am I overreacting to this situation or do other people think that CRB checks will be soon required for everyone working in the vicinity of children?
Admin  
#2 Posted : 02 September 2002 15:22:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Zoe Barnett
I think that the emphasis should always be on the practical controls you describe. For instance, staff should always be encouraged to challenge strangers and a responsible contractor should be more than happy to require his/her staff to wear suitable ID. Supervision of the children should also be reviewed whenever there's construction going on, if only to prevent more mundane safety problems, & this should help to prevent any untoward behaviour.

CRB clearance is better than nothing - but it doesn't prove anything except that a person has not yet been found out.
Admin  
#3 Posted : 02 September 2002 17:33:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Graham Bullough
The potential for contact between contract staff and pupils depends to an extent on the location, nature and duration of the work being done by each individual involved with a contract at each school. Check with the LEA/s of the schools involved to see if they already have any policy regarding the checking of contract staff. I understand that it can take up to 5 or 6 weeks to get a response from the CRB under normal circumstances, never mind during the present backlog of requests for permanent teaching and support staff in schools. This and the potentially large numbers of contract staff who would be involved could cause major delays to contracts as well as being a bureaucratic nightmare.

Therefore, I would tend to go along with the practical measures already raised such as use of ID cards, appropriate briefings for pupils at the schools involved and effective supervision of pupils and contract staff. It could be argued that appropriate briefing and supervision of pupils may reduce the risk from contract staff to roughly the same as that from members of the public talking through the school fence or gate to pupils in the playground. I'm not aware of actual instances of problems which have occurred involving temporary construction staff on schools sites, but that is not to say that such problems do not happen. Therefore, do any other readers of this forum know of such problems?

For all sorts of reasons, let alone the subject of this thread, it's best to keep school activities and construction activities at schools separate as far as is practicable, either by having clearly segregated construction areas or doing construction work during vacations.
Admin  
#4 Posted : 03 September 2002 13:30:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By peter gotch
Simon,

I find the extension of CRB checks to contractor personnel working at a school where they should not be alongside children to be rather disturbing with Human Rights implications.

This is the type of work that many ex-offenders may well be seeking, not least if their eg written communication skills are not good.

Government policy is to help ex-offenders to gain employment. See extract from "Breaking the Circle" in (rather long cut and paste below) unless there is good reason for enquiring into someone's past, eg "work with children" which is defined by reference to the Rehabilitation of Offenders (Exceptions) Order and linked legislation (below)

Working for a contractor in such circumstances SHOULD not be compatible to "work with children" as defined (assuming proper measures are taken to segregate construction work from ongoing school activities)

Hence carrying out checks ostensibly for child protection reasons is directly discriminatory.

Peter


http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/roareview/

Breaking the Circle
A REVIEW OF THE REHABILITATION OF OFFENDERS ACT 1974
· Over a quarter of the working age population has a previous conviction
· The annual cost of crime is £60 billion
· Employment can reduce re-offending by between a third and a half
· But a criminal record can seriously diminish employment opportunities
We must break this circle
The review of the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 (ROA) has looked at ways to ensure that the burden of the requirement to disclose a previous conviction is minimised for the very many ex-offenders who simply want the chance of lawful employment, while maintaining a requirement to disclose where there may be a particular risk of harm. The review has focused specifically on the requirements for disclosure to employers. There is no intention to constrain the use of criminal record information by the police and the courts.

Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 (Exceptions) Order 1975
Any work which is -
(a) work in a regulated position; or

(b) work in a further education institution where the normal duties of that work involve regular contact with persons aged under 18.

"regulated position" means a position which is a regulated position for the purposes of Part II of the Criminal Justice and Court Services Act 2000;

Section 36 of the 2000 Act defines this as
36. - (1) The regulated positions for the purposes of this Part are-
(a) a position whose normal duties include work in an establishment mentioned in subsection (2),
(b) a position whose normal duties include work on day care premises,
(c) a position whose normal duties include caring for, training, supervising or being in sole charge of children,
(d) a position whose normal duties involve unsupervised contact with children under arrangements made by a responsible person,
(e) a position whose normal duties include caring for children under the age of 16 in the course of the children's employment,

(f) a position a substantial part of whose normal duties includes supervising or training children under the age of 16 in the course of the children's employment,
(g) a position mentioned in subsection (6),
(h) a position whose normal duties include supervising or managing an individual in his work in a regulated position.
(2) The establishments referred to in subsection (1)(a) are-

(a) an institution which is exclusively or mainly for the detention of children,
(b) a hospital which is exclusively or mainly for the reception and treatment of children,
(c) a care home, residential care home, nursing home or private hospital which is exclusively or mainly for children,
(d) an educational institution,
(e) a children's home or voluntary home,
(f) a home provided under section 82(5) of the Children Act 1989.

3) For the purposes of this section, work done on any premises is treated as not being done on day care premises to the extent that-
(a) it is done in a part of the premises in which children are not looked after, or
(b) it is done at times when children are not looked after there.
(4) The duties referred to in subsection (1)(c) and (d) do not include (respectively)-
(a) caring for, training, supervising or being in sole charge of children in the course of the children's employment, or
(b) duties involving contact with children in the course of the children's employment.
(5) The reference in subsection (1)(d) to unsupervised contact is to contact in the absence of any responsible person or carer; and in this subsection, "carer" means a person who holds a position such as is mentioned in subsection (1)(c).

(6) The positions mentioned in subsection (1)(g) are-
(a) member of the governing body of an educational institution,
(b) member of a relevant local government body,
(c) director of social services of a local authority,
(d) chief education officer of a local education authority,
(e) charity trustee of a children's charity,
(f) member of the Youth Justice Board for England and Wales,
(g) Children's Commissioner for Wales or deputy Children's Commissioner for Wales,
(h) member, or chief executive, of the Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service.
(i)

Admin  
#5 Posted : 03 September 2002 16:43:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Jerry Sanderson
My understanding of this requirement is that checks are required (in addition to those for school staff)for volunteers and those working in a business that is contracted to provide services to schools/youth clubs or people attending them.What this means in reality is that checks will be required for staff employed by contractors(not just construction contractors)who will have regular contact with children/young people attending the school either on or off the premesis.

Clearly the nature of the work and the level of access to pupils this involves would need to inform any decision that was taken as to whether checks were necessary and what level of check would need to be carried out.

I would disagree with Peters comments that carrying out these checks is disciminatory. As a parent I would want to be sure that anyone working in any capacity at a school was appropriate to be working there.This does not automatically mean that all ex-offenders should be banned from such employment merely those who have committed certain types of offence.If employers use this information to discriminate against ex-offenders this is a problem with the employer not with the system.
Users browsing this topic
Guest
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.