What do do about members group refusing to follow nat policy

[JohnW]

I find it strange that there has been no mention of Criminal Records Bureau (CRB) checks................

That's another of my concerns Keith.

[gaz]

....With regard to CRB checks, these are only necessary if an event or group is organised specifically for children.

As Karen said, CRB checks are mentioned in the current Child Participation Policy.

4. Activities specifically run for and promoted to children

Children’s activities where the activity provider takes a duty of care over minors as part of its activities clearly fall within the scope of the Children’s Act and the organiser/leader should be accredited by a governing body (CTC or ANO), receive child protection awareness training and have a criminal records check.

...

The activity provider and any volunteers assisting should make themselves fully aware of the provisions of “Policy and Procedures for the Protection of Children and Vulnerable Adults”. Its provisions are not repeated here.

5. Participation by children in general cycling activities.

This includes most common activity provided by local groups, in particular any regular weekly or monthly programme.

......

However it must be recognised by activity providers, participants and their parents that these rides are public events for all ages and the duty of care that can be provided by the activity provider is only at a level of good practice for all ages. Child protection procedures are therefore only advisory and represent good practice. Leaders and organisers of rides which have regular child participation even if accompanied by parents are encouraged to familiarise themselves with “Policy and Procedures for the Protection of Children and Vulnerable Adults”

The activity provider must still have procedures for complaints and concerns to be raised by minors or their parents.

My uninformed interpretation would be that Club Officers involved with running a "Juniors Section" would be required to have CRB checks, Club Officers involved with other sections or groups would not, even a "Family Section".

National Guidelines are not much use, if out of date and do not reflect the current legal position that has partly been caused by the conversion to a charity.

I cannot dispute that the existing policies require review, Joolz has said that review is already in progress.

So far as the need for CRB checks is concerned the requirements for checks are the same for clubs as they are for charities and arise from an organisation working with children, not from the status of the organisation undertaking the work.

[thirdcrank]

John W

If I can allay some of your very understandable fears, I think it's correct to say that if something went sour and there was a subsequent review, volunteers would not be in any sort of trouble for not having CRB checks. My understanding is that it is the responsibility of an organisation to identify the need for CRB checks for its employees and volunteers and to arrange for them to have them. In fact, if a volunteer changes organisation but continues in the same role, even at the same location, then the new organisation has to obtain a further check. (As a personal example, several years ago I was a volunteer in a local school helping with reading. I had an enhanced CRB check done about me by that organisation. Eventually, I found it easier just to volunteer direct to the school and they organised a new check.)

So, unless the CTC tells you personally you need a CRB check and arranges for it ito be done, any procedural shortcomings are not yours. I suspect that something like this would only emerge as an issue if a volunteer were to be accused or suspected of misbehaviour involving a child or if a volunteer were to be unexpectedly identified as somebody with relevant convictions.

Having said all that, this is a topical area and I see legislative changes are in the pipeline intended to reduce the alleged burden of bureacracy while maintaining and hopefully improving the protection of children.

[gaz]

...So, unless the CTC tells you personally you need a CRB check and arranges for it ito be done, any procedural shortcomings are not yours...

I think the question is at what level in the CTC does the responsibility rest for identifying who requries a CRB check and has this been deemed to be part of the Welfare Officer's role?

e.g. If a DA has a "Junior Section" is the Welfare Officer requried to advise National Office and obtain self declaration forms from the relevant Officers to start the CRB check process rolling.

[thirdcrank]

I'm drifting further off my area of limited knowledge, but I'm pretty sure that to avoid buck passing and all the rest, there has to be somebody in an organisation personally designated to deal with this. In an organisation with different branches, people can be personally designated to act locally, but they still have to be properly appointed. Part of the reason is that the CRB will not deal with the person who is the subject of the check, only the person designated to take responsibility. So, taking that a stage further, if some conscientious, law-abiding CTC welfare officer were to take it on themselves to apply for CRB checks for some volunteers, they would be referred to the designated person within the CTC because they would not have the authority to do the checks. In short, welfare officers could be appointed to do this on a personal basis, but not through a blanket authorisation.

For anybody who doesn't know, these CRB checks involve the completion of quite a detailed questionnaire, and supporting identification documentation has to be checked, by the applicant organisation.. (As an aside, without fingerprints or DNA, nothing is certain, but this is the nearest they could get without a lot of inky fingers.)

[Edwards]

Standard Disclosures

These are available for:

•Paid staff or volunteers who have regular contact with children (under 18’s) or vulnerable adults
•Management committee members of organisations that work with children or vulnerable adults, whether they are in contact with them or not.

The Standard Disclosure includes:

•All convictions, spent and unspentDetails of cautions, reprimands or warnings held on the Police National Register
•All the information needed to tell whether an individual is disqualified from working with children under the Criminal Justice and Court Services Act 2000.


I have copied the above from the Govt web site shown below.

So what is the definition of regular? Is it once a week taking responsibility for a CTC ride (if you have a consent form you are taking responsibility for the child according to the Scouts)?
I trust the Scouts more than the CTC in this matter as at least they get the age correct.


The page

[gaz]

Scout activities are provided specifically for children. Where CTC activities are provided specifically for children CTC policy states the Officers involved should be CRB checked.

I would presume that CTC took legal advice before formulating it's current policy and that the review will reflect changes in both the law and best practice in establishing CTC's future policy.

Hopefully the new policy will be communicated quickly and clearly to those who need to know and the volunteers on the ground will implement it correctly.

[Edwards]

I would presume that CTC took legal advice before formulating it's current policy and that the review will reflect changes in both the law and best practice in establishing CTC's future policy.

If they did then the advice was wrong the age has been 18 since 2002 no other ages are mentioned Why the error?

Scout activities are provided specifically for children. Where CTC activities are provided specifically for children CTC policy states the Officers involved should be CRB checked.

The page I linked to does not say anything about specific but states regular contact. Swimming clubs amongst others have sorted this out before now so why has it taken this long?

In relation to the original question then the answer has to be that the guidelines are incorrect and ride leaders should be very cautious until this is sorted.

[Karen Sutton]

...So, unless the CTC tells you personally you need a CRB check and arranges for it ito be done, any procedural shortcomings are not yours...

I think the question is at what level in the CTC does the responsibility rest for identifying who requries a CRB check and has this been deemed to be part of the Welfare Officer's role?

Exactly. Perhaps this question could be directed at the member of CTC staff who stated that Child Protection issues were part of the Welfare Officer's remit? JohnW, as you were the forummer who received this information could you go back to your source and ask for clarification on this?

[JohnW]

I've put the matter to one of our councillors, and I know that he has raised the question at high level - and that there is some concern.

I understand that the matter will be discussed and resolved in the next few weeks. No doubt we shall all receive full details when that is completed.

I don't know anything more at the moment.

[gaz]

If they did then the advice was wrong the age has been 18 since 2002 no other ages are mentioned Why the error?

I can't understand why a CTC Officer has been unable to locate the Child Participation Policy when replying to JohnW, but the policy itself is clear in requiring parental consent in respect of all under 18s participating in CTC events. Hopefully the Officer concerned will receive some urgently needed guidance.

The page I linked to does not say anything about specific but states regular contact. Swimming clubs amongst others have sorted this out before now so why has it taken this long?

The page you linked also says:-

What does ‘working with children’ mean?

The definition of working with children is based on the concept of the ‘regulated position’ contained in the Criminal Justice and Court Services Act 2000. If a job (paid or unpaid) falls within one of the categories of regulated position then it is classed as working with children. Regulated positions include:

•Any employment in schools, childrens’ homes, day care premises where children are present Caring for, training, supervising or being in sole charge of children Unsupervised contact with children
•Other positions which give the kind of access or influence which could put children at risk if held by a disqualified person (eg management committee members)
Organisations are likely to fall into the definition of working with children include those which:

•Run youth clubs Organise or arrange facilities or activities for children Offer counselling to children Run out of school play clubs
•Run play groups

So CTC policy says that those involved in running "youth" activities require CRB checks because the activities are specifically aimed at children and regular contact with children will be expected. If the activity may be attended by all ages inclucing under 18s, but is not specifically intended for children, then parental consent is required for U18s. Part of the parental consent process is making parents aware that there is only a general duty of care as applicable to all ages. Doubtless this leaves grey areas for the CTC ("Family Sections" spring to mind where regular attendance by children could be expected although the activity is for all ages) just like it does in all other employments and activities.

[drossall]

So what is the definition of regular?

I believe that checks are available (and expected) for those who work with children (or vulnerable adults) regularly, intensively, or at night. Regularly has been taken to mean at least monthly, but is moving to somewhat more frequently. Intensively means an event lasting a few days or a week (e.g. a multi-day training session). At night is obvious.

In spite of the link provided by Edwards, I have not come across the use of a standard disclosure for youth work; an enhanced one would be normal. A standard disclosure might be used for those working with charity funds, for example. There was, I think, some change in 2009 but, even before then, my Scouting disclosures were enhanced.

[JohnW]

...............Perhaps this question could be directed at the member of CTC staff who stated that Child Protection issues were part of the Welfare Officer's remit? JohnW, as you were the forummer who received this information could you go back to your source and ask for clarification on this.............................

It's a while since this matter raised itself. A lot has happened since then. I did raise the matter with one of our district Councillors and he has raised the matter at the highest level..........ok, Council.

Our Councillor has been accessible and kept me, and our section and our DA fully informed. For me to go into all that he's told me and all that I know would possibly make the the longest post that the Forum has ever had. And then there's all that I don't know to tell beyond that.

To cut what would be a very long story short - and this is as I understand it - and with the caveat that final proclamations and utterences haven't been made and full and final policy resolved, printed and published - I repeat "as I understand it" the welfare officer's role seems to be going to include Child Protection and Protection of Vulnerable Adults. On the basis that the rules haven't been finalised or advised in final form to the sections/DAs (I believe the politically correct term is "Member Group") I accepted the nomination for "Welfare Officer" on the basis that it included all the the other aspects of the role (when eventually the full and final proclamation is know)but not including the Child and Vulnerable Adult matters.

I won't report on the discussion, but this was accepted at our section AGM, and at the DA AGM another brave soul agreed to take on the "Child and Vulnerable Adult" role.

As I've said, I'm not going to go into detail here - it's not the place - but I did take some advice and I really wonder whether Council has really got to grips with the implications on the voluntary, probably untrained and inexperienced, committee member who fulfils this role.

Our Councillor listened and explained in informal discussion with me - I can't fault him at all - but Council has not formally cosulted - certainly our member groups.

One problem has been that the Welfare Officer's role is compulsory, and we should have had full details in time to discuss and be fully informed in time for the current round of AGMs.

In my mind, looking after and protecting our children (however that may eventually be defined) and vulnerable adults is a matter of common sense, right mindedness, decency, knowledge of what to do in a minor crisis.......all those things that we, as decent right-minded adults, take for granted and have done all our adult lives..........but you see, we also have the law and clever lawyers...............

[thirdcrank]

So, in the context of the thread title, you seem to be suggesting that there's not really a "nat policy" to follow.

[rootes]

times must have change quite quickly. I'm mid 30's now when I was at Secondary school as a 5th year (15/16yrs old) we were allowed to go mountain biking on our 1/2day sports session and take 4th and 3rd years with us - all without teachers..

as for the OPs issue - I would get your lad to join another club perhaps a decent local road club / mountain bike club.