We know this process needs to be improved

Tuesday 25th May 2010, 3:00PM BST.

From Ian Le Marquand, Minister for Home Affairs.
I WAS interested to read your comment (JEP, 19 May) on Mrs Knight’s criticisms of the bureaucracy surrounding Criminal Record Bureau checks in Jersey. You will be pleased to know that the same concerns have prompted my department to look at how the Jersey process can be improved.

The tragic murders of two little girls by a school caretaker in 2002 resulted in Sir Michael Bichard recommending a new UK system which would promote the sharing of information. A major advantage of the registration system is that it allows on-line checking; subsequent appointments may, therefore, not need new CRB checks and the duplication of effort to which you refer may be reduced.

Jersey will soon have direct access to CRB checks – the first stage in improving safeguarding locally. The next stage is to consider extending the new UK registration scheme to the Island. My department is preparing a public consultation in order to get feedback from islanders on the idea of improving vetting locally in this way. Can I take this opportunity to encourage your readers to respond, so that I am aware of their views when making future decisions?

1
hello

May 25, 2010 at 6:41 pm

On the very day that the UK government announces that it is cutting back on the surveillance of society (legislation re CCTV, reducing the DNA database), Jersey decides it should be “extending the UK registration scheme to the Island”. We’re supposed to be reducing public expenditure. That’s REDUCING! Every time you introduce new laws, rules and procedures, you increase the bureaucracy (cycle helmets for under 18s, extended seatbelt requirements, no smoking in public places) It all takes legislation and policing and that means costs. Get rid of CRB checks. They are a waste of time.

Report abuse
2
Mac

May 26, 2010 at 2:10 pm

The implementation of the UK criminal records check following the Soham murders was nothing short of shambolic, Mr Le Marquand, and you know it. What the UK has is worse than useless, because it purports to be a workable system, but is not. There are, at last estimate, about 12 million Britons – one adult in four – on the register, many of them for the most tangential of reasons (the last insanity was that anyone creating a website to be used by children and young people was required to go through vetting, regardless of whether they had any contact with the users or not).

A database of that size is of no use whatsoever, because you can guarantee it will be riddled with errors and out-of-date reporting. For that reason the paedophiles grin and ignore it because they can be pretty certain it won’t catch them.

But even given that Jersey does go in with the UK and starts using CRB data, there will be no benefit. Knowing who the offenders are is only the first half of the story, and Jersey’s track record at failing to bring them to justice speaks for itself.

Report abuse
3
Jerry

May 26, 2010 at 5:40 pm

With all due respect to ‘hello’ (1), most would probably disagree with the idea of totally abandoning any form of criminal records check for those applying to work with children – or for certain other high-risk occupations.

As Mac (2) quite reasonably points out, however, it is pointless to apply the system to so many people, merely because of a tangential connection between their work, and children. What next – registration for shop assistants and waiters, because children sometimes go into shops and restaurants? It is never going to be possible to have a system which totally guarantees protection from predators – the law of diminishing returns inevitably comes into play – so it is important to keep a sense of proportion and to remain aware of value for money.

What is surely required instead, is to streamline the system: As an example, my own daughter-in-law in the UK, in spite of having five years’ continuous experience as an A&E nurse, was kept waiting for 9 months when she simply applied for another similar post in a different part of the country. Although she eventually received a small amount of compensation from the CRO, it didn’t go near to balancing the financial loss she suffered, not to mention the stress.

If the job applicant in this situation was able to request a date-stamped ‘certificate of no criminal record’, valid for, say, 12 months or for as long as they were in post (whichever was the longer), then perhaps some of the delay and cost arising from multi-agency requests for (essentially) the same information might be reduced.

Report abuse
4
Mac

May 27, 2010 at 3:45 pm

@Jerry: I might be in a minority, because there is an argument that says that if you take away all the safety fences, people are a great deal more cautious about where they walk…

No system is adequate protection. The bigger and more so-say comprehensive the system is, the more people will rely on it in the face of evidence that tells the true story.

Report abuse
5
Jerry

May 27, 2010 at 8:47 pm

4 Mac – I fully understand the ‘risk management’ argument you refer to, and in certain situations, would fully subscribe to it: For example, improvements in car manufacture, making vehicles less likely to crumple in an accident, do have a tendency to encourage the drivers of those cars to take more risks; and people who get involved in inherently dangerous sports tend to compensate by behaving in a very safety-conscious way.

The argument, however, has one obvious limitation, in that it relates to behaviour which is chosen. Such a risk calculation cannot reasonably be applied to situations where there is no effective choice, such as a baby going to nursery or a child going to school. In such cases, government has a duty of care, as regulator, to do everything in its power to ensure public safety and confidence.

I’m not sure what ‘evidence’ you’re thinking of, however, when you go on to say, “The bigger and more so-say comprehensive the system is, the more people will rely on it in the face of evidence that tells the true story”. What evidence of a tendency to commit crime could be more relied-on to tell the true story, than a CR check?

Report abuse