----- Original Message -----
From: Dave Uppington <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Wednesday, July 26, 2000 5:23 PM
Subject: Employee Vetting
>
> An interesting question posed to me today!!!
>
> Employees (potential employees at least) are often routinely 'vetted' or
> 'police-checked' where they will have physical substantial unsupervised
> access to children and/or vulnerable adults.
>
> What about staff who have access to computerised or manual
> information about children, etc, be it 'case files' or whatever, even
> though there is no physical contact required by the job? Clearly they
> should be made aware of their DP responsibilities the same as anyone,
> but in that this is potentially very sensitive information, should they be
> subject to further vetting as well?
>
> This was in the context of both council staff and contractors acting on
> our behalf. I'm not sure what the rules are from the police end - will
they
> check anyone you ask them to - and I guess if the employee / contractor
> consents to the check, there is less of a problem. But can we insist that
> employees given such access consent to a police check? Can we
> refuse to award a contract if the bidder will not agree to it?
>
> Comments welcome.
>
Police vetting arrangements are only available where there is actual
substantial access to children or vulnerable persons. Authorisation for
checks to be conducted on roles/organisations whose staff fall under those
categories has to be agreed at Association of Chief Officer level. Your
described scenario would not fulfill the criteria.
Obtaining the consent to the check from the employee/contractor will not
provide vetting access. It would also be against Section 56 of the DPA 1998
when that section is implemented it would be unwise to proceed in that way.
Ian
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|