News

The Criminal Records Bureau is failing to protect the public.

This is the succinct summary of a report, The Anatomy of a Systems Failure, published on 30 April by Liberal Democrat social care spokesperson Paul Burstow.

His analysis of the workings of the CRB reveals that, in its first year, it managed only 1.4 million of the forecast 3.3 million disclosures on criminal records. The unexpected demand for a paper-based application route, on top of significant changes to the capabilities of the IT system, also led to an increase in the cost of producing a disclosure.

This "incompetent implementation", as described by Burstow, includes an estimated loss of £100m in revenue from the postponed introduction of basic disclosures over the next three years. As a result, costs will have to be spread over fewer standard and enhanced disclosures, which are more expensive to administer.

Burstow predicts that, to pay for these blunders, everyone - from care homes to child minders - may face a £35 charge for disclosure checks - possibly as early as this summer.

Burstow is appalled that these individuals and organisations should have to pay for the CRB's failures. He says the checks should be linked to the retail prices index and that the Home Office should "strike a deal with HM Treasury".

Despite his failed attempts to force Home Office minister Hilary Benn to admit to parliament that rumours of the new £35 charge are true, Burstow says "he will continue to try to tease the answer out of him" with further questions.

In the meantime, he wants the government to consider his report's recommendations to solve the CRB's problems. These include asking the Home Office to revise the CRB's demand forecasts, financial estimates and business plan, and to set a clear timetable for introducing checks on those who work with vulnerable adults.

Benn told MPs at the end of April that the CRB business plan for 2003-4 would be published later this month and would include performance targets. But he could not confirm whether it would also include a recasting of the financial and demand forecasts.

Burstow's report also urges the Home Office to work with the voluntary sector to determine the best way to establish a network of regional umbrella-registered bodies with "sufficient funding to enable them to develop sound databases and processes to ensure local voluntary and community organisations have equal access across the country". There has been concern that voluntary organisations have often struggled to find affordable umbrella-registered bodies to countersign their applications for police checks.

"Regional bodies will be able to achieve better economies of scale," says Burstow. "The administration charges for checks for voluntary organisations will be lower than the umbrella bodies."

Burstow also recognises the potential insurance liability implications for regional and umbrella-registered bodies implementing the Carter Inquiry recommendations. In its report into the running of the CRB published in February, the independent inquiry, set up by the government, recommended that the bodies should validate applicants' identities.

Burstow says: "Because of the Carter recommendations, if the regional bodies or umbrella-registered bodies get their checking wrong there will be grounds for legal action against them. I recommend that the Home Office should look at the implications and engage in a dialogue with the insurance industry."

He is concerned that insurance companies will take a "blanket view" on any increased liability for the bodies. "I don't want them to automatically give an X per cent increase for these organisations. I believe there will need to be a form of risk assessment put in place, so if you are more proactive as a body in ensuring that checks are as comprehensive as possible you should be rewarded with lower insurance premiums. Conversely the bad ones should be penalised with higher insurance premiums."

In response to these concerns, again raised in parliament by Burstow, Benn invited the voluntary sector "to provide his department with further information". He promised that, when this information was received, the Home Office would "examine the matter with the Association of British Insurers".


James Georgalakis, spokesperson at the National Council for Voluntary Organisations (NCVO), says the first step should be to convince the government to accept that there is a problem. "The government has asked us to provide evidence of increased liability," he says. "But at the moment we can't provide this as we have no data available. It's something we will have to keep a close eye on, but we have informed the government that it should also ask for information from its own insurance cover working group, set up by its Active Community Unit."

Andy Forster, information officer at Volunteer Development England, adds that it is difficult to judge the effect on insurance liability until the shape of the new CRB is known. "Increased liability will have a disproportionate impact on the voluntary sector because we don't have the sort of money other sectors have."

Forster and Georgalakis both support Burstow's calls for the creation of regional umbrellas.

"We definitely need to see some sort of regional model to provide the sector with a template of consistency," says Forster. "There should be no concerns regarding funding if the government is committed to an active citizenship agenda."

Georgalakis says Burstow's recommendations follow a lot of the work previously carried out by the NCVO. "The CRB has failed to respond to the needs of its consumers, including voluntary organisations," he says.

Forster and Georgalakis also share Burstow's fear of higher fees for disclosures. Georgalakis is resigned to seeing a rise while Forster predicts a "financial sledgehammer to fall".

Forster, however, believes that, despite "the creation of the CRB being a bad piece of legislation which dealt with serious issues badly", the voluntary sector must recognise that it has caused some of the bureau's failings.

"I don't think our sector has been using the CRB well at all, with 80 per cent of the checks asked for being enhanced," he says. "This slows the entire system. There are too many in the voluntary sector who believe that Doris who works in the caf' needs to be checked because one day someone saw her walk past or beside a child. We have been guilty of fostering a moral panic in this country. The simple point here is that there is no need to check most of these volunteers. We need much more clarity in our applications."

Forster believes the CRB needs a department that will check what he calls bona fide applications. "It would need to have an educative role as well as tell organisations that they don't need to check this person or that person. It would accept applications as they came in and it would filter them. It would be encouraged to inform organisations to go away and think again if they think that the application they have just put in should be under the enhanced banner.

"In essence, the CRB must be given a broader role. It cannot just be used as a letter box."

Burstow agrees that "there is an argument for a degree of discernment within the CRB". He adds: "The checks should not be seen as a sausage factory, where everything is processed."

As for his report, Burstow hopes it is only the beginning. "People feel it has been a positive and helpful exercise. But it is not over yet. A real step change at the CRB is needed. A lot of frail and vulnerable people are entitled to better. What is happening at the moment is unacceptable."

- Report from stokoer@parliament.uk