Criminal levels of Bureaucracy

**The Home Office have announced changes that are to impact applications for a new criminal records check. There seem to be two major changes which I feel might be up for debate. Firstly, a considerable number of job applicants will no longer have to disclose some of their criminal past to employers. Secondly-and perhaps more positively- applications for a new criminal records check will no longer be necessarily required again when an employee starts a new job. **

It is interesting how the BBC push the angle of the criminal past and Sky News emphasize the less rigorous application system. There are clearly two shades towards how we can perceive this. I can’t help but feel that this new leniency embedded in these latest changes point towards the ‘softness’ of British culture.

There is sense that these changes pander to a nanny-like state of culture. The changes in question have been greatly impacted by the case of an unnamed job applicant’s predicament after he was obliged to disclose his police cautions gained when he was eleven – the job in question was part-time at a football club. Now this individual case may seem a particular example of an unnecessary “intrusion into people’s lives” as Lord Taylor of Holbeach, Minister for Criminal Information puts it.

Is it really though? I take the point that at eleven years old your maturity is hardly at its best and we are all prone to mistakes. However, if I take the example of a situation of employment where an employer faces a decision between two perfectly qualified candidates, except that one has traces of a criminal past and the other does not…well then surely that should, at the very least, always be taken into account?

I admit this ‘tough-love’ approach is tenuous…I certainly didn’t expect to be channelling Thatcher! It boils down to a question of fairness. Life already isn’t fair – why make it even less so? I suppose it comes down to how far you swing left or right. I certainly don’t want to suggest that small or one-time offenders should be black-listed for every opportunity that comes their way but when it comes down to a working role then honesty, for me, seems the best policy. In some cases a small offence in the past may not even sway an employer entirely away if they have previously proven their assets.

Nevertheless, the changes do allow for amendments to the very meticulous process of applying for a Criminal Records Bureau (CRB) check. The changes are pioneered under the recently developed Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) which replaces the CRB and Independent Safeguarding Authority (ISA).

My own past experience of the application system meant I had to fill out the exact form and apply twice for two separate but very similar positions. The new changes mean applicants only have to apply once and can use a new online service to check whether their document can still be accepted. I welcome this system because it centralises applications that avoid unnecessary form-filling. The concern of security is an issue of course because there will be sensitive details available online so there must be a sense of caution regarding the rights of accessibility. Either way I won’t be surprised if this could be met with some public scepticism.

Fortunately, the emphasis of the ethos behind the changes seems to be very much centred on the continued importance of child and vulnerable adult safe-guarding. Hopefully the emphasis on a paper-free and expense-free online system will further encourage even more volunteers to apply for these consistently required positions of care and responsibility. But I don’t like the idea of censoring information regarding the criminal reprimands a person has received – no matter how small.