Posted By peter gotch
Hi All,

Slightly surprised by the burn out of discussion on Criminal Records Bureau checks relating to school construction projects, possibly result of title of thread, whose relevance goes beyond.

Extracts below.

Whilst sympathising with Jerry’s position as a parent, the reality is that cases of abuse of school children by school staff have been very rare.

Taking Jerry’s argument to its logical conclusion, we would need to do CRB checks on staff working in the local sweetie shop – these staff would have far more opportunity to develop a dangerous relationship with a school child than the brickies labourer working for a limited duration at a school under contractor supervision, and generally in a fenced off area.

By putting in place a deterrent to a former criminal applying for a job in pursuance of child safety considerations, the risk is that they are more likely to reoffend.

This risk has the potential to include abuse and/or violence, not only against children, but also against others.

I suggest that insisting on CRB checks for school construction project operatives means that the total societal risk is significantly higher than if the principles of “Breaking the Circle” are applied – ie we avoid erecting any unnecessary barriers to the rehabilitation of offenders.

When thinking about how to protect those in the working environment it is unwise to ignore the holistic situation.

Peter

posted by Simon Wright on Monday, 02 September 2002 at 14:03
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?
'Re: CRB checks for school construction projects.' posted by peter gotch on Tuesday, 03 September 2002 at 13:30 in response to 'CRB checks for school construction projects.'.
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)
'Re: CRB checks for school construction projects.' posted by Jerry Sanderson on Tuesday, 03 September 2002 at 16:43 in response to 'CRB checks for school construction projects.'.
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.