Vetting errors brand job-seekers as criminals
For free real time breaking news alerts sent straight to your inbox sign up to our breaking news emails
Sign up to our free breaking news emails
Sign up to our free breaking news emails
The vetting system at the heart of the Criminal Records Bureau was criticised yesterday after it emerged that nearly 200 people applying for jobs had been wrongly branded as having a criminal record.
The errors, which took place over a 13-month period, arose when details of applicants submitted for checks to the CRB were similar or identical to those with criminal records. In a number of cases, innocent job applicants were also wrongly tarnished after convicts attempted to avoid police records by providing false names.
The bureau has been blighted by a series of errors since it was set up two years ago to provide checks on people wanting to work with children. Earlier this week, it emerged that the CRB, which conducts the checks on behalf of employers and voluntary groups, had cost taxpayers about £140m extra due to bungles surrounding its contractor, Capita.
The most recent incident came to light in response to a written question from Mark Oaten, Home Affairs spokesman for the Liberal Democrat and MP for Winchester. Hazel Blears, the minister for Policing, revealed that 193 people had mistakenly been accused of having criminal history between 1 January 2003 and 29 February 2004, despite having an innocent record. The situation was immediately greeted with vociferous criticism from politicians and unions, who emphasised the importance of a system that was as accurate as it was rapid. Mr Oaten said: "This is another example of the shambolic state of affairs at the CRB. Every single mistake of this kind is extremely serious and it is not acceptable for the Home Office to dismiss this as a minor issue.
"These mistakes can make a massive difference to people's career prospects when they are wrongly labelled as criminals. The number of mistakes being made also raises concern about the safety of children and vulnerable people as there appear to be flaws in the CRB's screening process."
Unions also questioned the efficacy of the system, which collates details of convictions, cautions and intelligence data. "It is vital that stringent checks are made," said a spokeswoman for Unison, the public sector union. "It's equally vital that information is checked stringently before being recorded so people are not tainted by false allegations."
A spokeswoman for the National Union of Teachers added: "The CRB has improved its performance in terms of turning around checks but this is of limited value if they are wrong. A career can be laid bare by inaccuracies of this kind and unfortunately it isn't the first time it's happened. Achieving target times with mistakes is of no value to schools."
Other record-checking blunders that had affected the lives of employees may pave the way for a rush of legal action. A former headteacher received £2,500 from West Midlands police in September 2002 after he was recorded as having been investigated for the indecent assault of his step-daughter. The teacher, who cannot be named for legal reasons, does not have a step-daughter.
He lost his job after his employers were alerted by CRB checks. It later emerged that the teacher was a victim of mistaken identity, sharing an identical name and date of birth to a man with a criminal record.
The Home Office said the cases represented less than 1 per cent of the 2.66 million processed during that time period. The mistakes were rectified as applicants receive the same copy of detailed criminal records that is sent to prospective employers. "We err on the side of caution in these rare cases precisely because it is vital to ensure individuals do not fraudulently claim they have no criminal convictions," it said.