« Previous | Contents | Next »
Listen
Chapter 6: Referrals from courts and organisations
6.1 Referrals
Proposal 24: referrals of new incidents |
|---|
As now, employers, regulatory bodies and courts will be able to make referrals to the Central Barring Unit in respect of those posing a risk to children. The legislation will extend this regime to those posing a risk to vulnerable adults. |
Proposal 25: retrospective referrals of incidents |
|---|
Any employer may make a referral about an incident which occurred before commencement of the new scheme to the Central Barring Unit at any time, subject to the appropriate tests being met. There will be no obligation to do so. |
The consultation document asked whether respondents agree with the proposals for who can make a referral? and Should parents and personal employers be able to make a referral?
Responses to these questions were, on the whole, fairly short comments relating to proposal 24. Of the 152 consultees commenting here, 98 voiced their agreement with proposal 24 on the referral of new incidents, while 120 agreed that parents and personal employers should be able to make a referral. Three consultees felt this could be extended to include family, carers and friends and 1 consultee asked that voluntary organisations be included.
Thirty-one consultees felt that parents or personal employers should make referrals through a registered body or other intermediary. Fourteen consultees felt that these bodies should investigate, or present for investigation, any information provided by parents or personal employers before making a referral.
"Referrals should have to come from registered bodies and parents and other individuals should make referrals through an umbrella body which is registered. This will allow professionals in the field to first look at any allegations and ensure that no individual is making an allegation and attempting to refer someone for malicious purposes."
(Education)
Only 4 consultees felt referrals should be restricted to employers or registered bodies. Three consultees commented that parents or personal employers should have direct access to make referrals. Seven consultees felt that anyone with relevant information should be able to make a referral and 4 asked that the general public be made aware of how to make a referral.
However, the possibility of malicious referrals, and the need to safeguard against these, was commented on by 28 consultees. Twenty consultees felt referrals should only be accepted from parents or personal employers where there was factual evidence and asked for guidelines on what sort of information should be produced in support of referrals.
6.2 Retrospective referrals
While 13 consultees agreed with proposal 25 that retrospective referrals should be possible but not obligatory, 11 felt that any relevant incidents must be referred in the interests of safety.
Seven consultees felt that retrospective referrals should only be allowed where there was supporting information or where the individual was available to answer any allegations.
"We would be very concerned at the possibility of an employer - whether large or individual - making a retrospective referral about an 'incident' where there is no concrete, independent evidence to confirm the 'incident' and where the individual concerned is not allowed to put his/her case."
(Education)
Some respondents participating in the focus groups also noted concerns over retrospective checking and that systems for recording information in recent years have improved but that some information sources might be inaccurate.
In summary,
There was broad agreement for a wide range of employers, regulatory bodies and courts to make referrals to the Central Barring Unit for those individuals posing a risk to both children and/or adults at risk. There was also agreement that parents and personal employers should be able to make referrals, although it was felt this should be through an intermediary body that could investigate the referral.
Where there was any comment on retrospective referrals, this was largely in favour of supporting information being provided.
« Previous | Contents | Next »