More garda vetting regulation woes

ScouseMouse

So, it appears there has been a change in the law regarding child protection and garda vetting for childcare workers.

The wife, in her 40's has been working with children for maybe, 25 years, and probably been vetted 5 or 6 times. As there is no central register, every time there is a change of employer or similar, she has to apply again.

Yesterday her job was taken over and under TUPE regulations, she is still there but employed by someone else. While she has multiple garda vetting approvals, she has just been told that, as she worked in the united states SIXTEEN years ago, she now needs to get another vetting from there! I am half expecting them to also ask for more vetting from Ireland as its technically a new employer.

Early Childcare Ireland have a link on their website showing two forms, one an application form for vetting / police cert, and another for finger prints. It appears she needs to go and get finger prints taken and send them off to the FBI. This vetting stuff is seriously getting our of hand.

I just went to Tallaght Garda Station to enquire about getting finger prints taken, but the queue was about 10 people with nobody at the counter so I walked out.

Does anybody know if this requirement is correct, surely it is waaay over the top now. Child protection is important but it is getting ridiculous. Sorry if it came across as a rant.

Thanks everyone

Mrs OBumble

Yes, I've also been told that that from the next vetting onwards, anyone who spends more than 6 months out of Ireland needs to get police clearance from every place where they've lived. It's easy enough for me - but some other volunteers come from places where there is no functioning government, others have travelled a lot and perhaps not lived for long in any one place, etc.

ScouseMouse

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

Yes, I've also been told that that from the next vetting onwards, anyone who spends more than 6 months out of Ireland needs to get police clearance from every place where they've lived. It's easy enough for me - but some other volunteers come from places where there is no functioning government, others have travelled a lot and perhaps not lived for long in any one place, etc.

Indeed. I just rang tallaght Station and they will do the fingerprints - for 60 euro. My wife works with multiple nationalities and as you say, trying to get a cert from some countries will be impossible. I wonder who comes up with this. You said from NEXT vetting, so will she be OK do you think?

Vetch

A colleague of mine, who lived abroad for more than six months, was vetted lately without having the police clearance cert. From what she said, the Vetting Bureau just let it through.

ScouseMouse

Vetch wrote: »

A colleague of mine, who lived abroad for more than six months, was vetted lately without having the police clearance cert. From what she said, the Vetting Bureau just let it through.

As I understand, the inspectors from Tusla review the files for all staff in childcare settings. If they are not in order, the company directors are in the firing line. so I don't think it has anything to do with the vetting bureau. They will issue the cert for the time in Ireland, it's the FBI that do the US cert. If it is missing and spotted, the childcare provider can be done for not having properly vetted staff.

I am not sure which ministers are responsible for this, but going to get onto the childrens minister Katherine Zappone tomorrow. She is familiar with this creche (not that they are doing anything wrong), and is also the TD from my wifes area. Somebody needs to see how overly regulated this is becoming.

One of my wifes colleagues is from somewhere in Africa. The wife says she is great, but depending on what country she is from, she may not be able to get this paperwork required. I am dismayed at how all these legal requirements are developing.

Vetch

ScouseMouse wrote: »

As I understand, the inspectors from Tusla review the files for all staff in childcare settings. If they are not in order, the company directors are in the firing line. so I don't think it has anything to do with the vetting bureau. They will issue the cert for the time in Ireland, it's the FBI that do the US cert. If it is missing and spotted, the childcare provider can be done for not having properly vetted staff.

I am not sure which ministers are responsible for this, but going to get onto the childrens minister Katherine Zappone tomorrow. She is familiar with this creche (not that they are doing anything wrong), and is also the TD from my wifes area. Somebody needs to see how overly regulated this is becoming.

One of my wifes colleagues is from somewhere in Africa. The wife says she is great, but depending on what country she is from, she may not be able to get this paperwork required. I am dismayed at how all these legal requirements are developing.

I don't know about Tusla but the Gardai also audit vetting practices. Ultimately though, lack of the police cert is an issue for the Vetting Bureau as it should form part of the paperwork that is presented to the Vetting Bureau before they issue a vetting disclosure. The Vetting Bureau is supposed to vet in accordance with the legislation. I'm pretty sure there are procedures in place where clearance can't be acquired due to difficulties in a country where a vetting subject resided.

clairewithani

Wow. Awful that people's backgrounds have to be completely checked. To safeguard children and vulnerable people.

Vetch

clairewithani wrote: »

Wow. Awful that people's backgrounds have to be completely checked. To safeguard children and vulnerable people.

Agree with you. If someone has lived for long periods abroad it's only right that clearance be obtained from those countries. There just seems to be gaps in the practices at the moment though. Also, depending on a person's job(s) they can be vetted multiple times over a very short period. For instance, if an SNA covers five schools in one year they have to be vetted for each school. So it's really the employment rather than the person that's vetted.

Loveinapril

ScouseMouse wrote: »

she has just been told that, as she worked in the united states SIXTEEN years ago, she now needs to get another vetting from there!

She could have a conviction from her time there though. I get your frustrations but working with vulnerable people brings a certain type of responsibility. I am glad that we have such protocols. I work in social care and due to different professional, training and volunteering roles I sometimes have to go through vetting three/ four times a year. It is a hassle but at least I know that the people I work with are moderately safe due to checks.

ScouseMouse

clairewithani wrote: »

Wow. Awful that people's backgrounds have to be completely checked. To safeguard children and vulnerable people.

Is that an attempt at sarcasm? I thought this was legal discussion not after hours.

Vetting is important, but the wife has been vetted about 6 times now. Now this week, as her job was technically taken over, she has to be vetted again. TWICE! She is in the same room, with the same kids, with the same staff, just a new boss.

She is in her 40s, she worked in the states for about 2 years around 2009. Now with this rules change, she now has to get irish vetting again, along with FBI vetting for the period 2009 to 2011. Then the gardai quoted me 60 euro today for taking her fingerprints.

The vetting is not an issue, it is important, but the new rules again, are making it way over the top and possibly impossible for some people to even get. As Mrs O'Bumble said above, some countries do not even have a functioning government so getting this will be impossible.

Carawaystick

And yet the people who knew about Bill Kenelley get away with no vetting

ScouseMouse

Loveinapril wrote: »

She could have a conviction from her time there though. I get your frustrations but working with vulnerable people brings a certain type of responsibility. I am glad that we have such protocols. I work in social care and due to different professional, training and volunteering roles I sometimes have to go through vetting three/ four times a year. It is a hassle but at least I know that the people I work with are moderately safe due to checks.

That's a very fair comment, but do you work with non-nationals? Do any come from unstable countries? How are they to provide this paperwork. Do you believe it is reasonable to go thought vetting 3 or 4 times a year? Come on? There has to be a better way, like a central register.

Gatling

Don't see the big issue being honest ,if someone can't provide a full history disclosure especially when children and vaunerable people are been cared for ,then they should not be employed in the sector ,
It's not over regulated at all it's actually showing the some services are not operating under complete legal requirements ,
And to add ive been vetted 3 times in less than 7 months ,
Why should some people be fully vetted under law while someone else cannot but they get pass but if i can't provide a full back round i can't be employed in the sector

ScouseMouse

Gatling wrote: »

Don't see the big issue being honest ,if someone can't provide a full history disclosure especially when children and vaunerable people are been cared for ,then they should not be employed in the sector ,
It's not over regulated at all it's actually showing the some services are not operating under complete legal requirements ,
And to add ive been vetted 3 times in less than 7 months ,
Why should some people be fully vetted under law while someone else cannot but they get pass but if i can't provide a full back round i can't be employed in the sector

Do you think being vetted 3 times in seven months is reasonable?

Mrs OBumble

Loveinapril wrote: »

at least I know that the people I work with are moderately safe due to checks.

Except that checks only play a small role in keeping people safe. All they show is that a person has not been caught before. They didn't help Grace, the people in Aras Attracta, the kids in the creche on the telly not so long ago.

Policies, procedures and audits to check they are being followed play a far greater role in keeping people safe.

Gatling

ScouseMouse wrote: »

Do you think being vetted 3 times in seven months is reasonable?

Not really but I'd rather be safe knowing I'm completely covered for my position ,I repeatedly get asked by parents if I'm Garda vetted unlike my female collogues who I've yet to hear anyone ask if they are vetted ,

Indricotherium

ScouseMouse wrote: »

Do you think being vetted 3 times in seven months is reasonable?

Yes.

If a cert were issued with a validity period, it would create a situation where a predator could move from job to job after being identified, until the certificate expired.

You'd be relying on word of mouth to stop them getting another job with access to children or vulnerable people.

Peregrinus

Indricotherium wrote: »

Yes.

If a cert were issued with a validity period, it would create a situation where a predator could move from job to job after being identified, until the certificate expired.

You'd be relying on word of mouth to stop them getting another job with access to children or vulnerable people.

But Scousemouse has a point. The reasons why his spouse is required to renew her vetting are not connected with any factor which might suggest that she presents a risk. If she has to be re-vetted because the business she is in has been bought, we must conclude that she wouldn't have had to renew it if it hadn't been bought. Yes the sale of the business is something quite independent of whether she poses a risk to children, or whether her vetting has become unreliable for some reason. If she were a dodgy character (which I'm sure she's not), or her vetting were dodgy, and the business didn't happen to be sold, she could carry on with her dodgy practice on the basis of her dodgy vetting, potentially for years and years.

I think there probably is an argument for rationalisation and centralisation, and some order and system around keeping vetting up to date. It should be possible, say, to have a thorough vetting first off, and then to get it renewed annually, or bi-annually, through a process which mainly looks at events since the last renewal. Maybe at less frequent intervals (every five years?) you could require a process which double-checks the entire vetting.

Indricotherium

Peregrinus wrote: »

It should be possible, say, to have a thorough vetting first off, and then to get it renewed annually, or bi-annually, through a process which mainly looks at events since the last renewal. Maybe at less frequent intervals (every five years?) you could require a process which double-checks the entire vetting.

That would be ideal but relies on organised and vigilant record keeping from tusla.

twiglet24

The requirement for fingerprints/vetting from other countries is not new, unfortunately. I worked in a crèche up until a few years ago, and we were all recquired to get clearance from any country in which we had ever lived. In my case that meant the UK, Canada, the U.S and Ireland. Since the garda vetting couldn’t access the databases from other countries, we had to organize those ourselves. It wasn’t too bad for me, but others had lived/worked in more “exotic “ countries for a time, and it was extremely difficult for them.
In theory they would’ve had to go through this each time they changed jobs, so a system where they only had to be rechecked for the period since the last vetting would make much more sense!

ScouseMouse

twiglet24 wrote: »

The requirement for fingerprints/vetting from other countries is not new, unfortunately. I worked in a crèche up until a few years ago, and we were all recquired to get clearance from any country in which we had ever lived. In my case that meant the UK, Canada, the U.S and Ireland. Since the garda vetting couldn’t access the databases from other countries, we had to organize those ourselves. It wasn’t too bad for me, but others had lived/worked in more “exotic “ countries for a time, and it was extremely difficult for them.
In theory they would’ve had to go through this each time they changed jobs, so a system where they only had to be rechecked for the period since the last vetting would make much more sense!

Indeed. As it stands, it is very inefficient. It needs to be streamlined, as it is currently very time consuming and the issue of unstable countries will cause problems for many people.

amen

Indricotherium wrote: »

Yes.

If a cert were issued with a validity period, it would create a situation where a predator could move from job to job after being identified, until the certificate expired.

You'd be relying on word of mouth to stop them getting another job with access to children or vulnerable people.

That's not technically true. Once vetted everyone should be issued a vetting ID Card which lasts for 3-5 years.

As you move jobs or volunteer organisations your new employer/organisation must register your ID with a central vetting office. That way if you are suspected of something your new employer/organisation can be informed immediately.

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

ouxbbkqtswdfaw

Vetting is a waste of time. It doesn't prove anything.

Indricotherium

amen wrote: »

That's not technically true. Once vetted everyone should be issued a vetting ID Card which lasts for 3-5 years.

As you move jobs or volunteer organisations your new employer/organisation must register your ID with a central vetting office. .

That seems almost identical to the current regime with the addition of more bureaucracy in the form of producing and maintaining id cards.

ouxbbkqtswdfaw

A determined paedophile will get past the most stringent vetting laws.

Mrs OBumble

Indricotherium wrote: »

That seems almost identical to the current regime with the addition of more bureaucracy in the form of producing and maintaining id cards.

No, it is NOTHING like the current regime.

Under the current regime, people have to be vetted separately by each organisation they are involved with. If there's some minor change (eg the business sale in the OP's wife's case), they have to go through the whole process again.

If I have been vetted from the period 20 years ago when I lived in XYZ-land, and nothing comes up - then it is extremely unlikely that another vetting from XYZ-land in a few months months will show anything different.

Vetch

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

No, it is NOTHING like the current regime.

Under the current regime, people have to be vetted separately by each organisation they are involved with. If there's some minor change (eg the business sale in the OP's wife's case), they have to go through the whole process again.

If I have been vetted from the period 20 years ago when I lived in XYZ-land, and nothing comes up - then it is extremely unlikely that another vetting from XYZ-land in a few months months will show anything different.

I don't disagree with the suggestion to have some sort of ID card but I'd imagine that part of the rationale for vetting by each relevant organisation is not that something new will show up from 20 years ago but that each relevant organisation has to decide if a conviction is relevant to the job applied for. For example, in my desk-bound job a conviction for dangerous driving wouldn't put anyone at risk but if I applied for a job as a school bus driver that would be a different matter. I think the current vetting regime is an unsophisticated way of vetting though.

ouxbbkqtswdfaw

Vetch wrote:

I don't disagree with the suggestion to have some sort of ID card but I'd imagine that part of the rationale for vetting by each relevant organisation is not that something new will show up from 20 years ago but that each relevant organisation has to decide if a conviction is relevant to the job applied for. For example, in my desk-bound job a conviction for dangerous driving wouldn't put anyone at risk but if I applied for a job as a school bus driver that would be a different matter. I think the current vetting regime is an unsophisticated way of vetting though.

Why would a conviction for dangerous driving prevent you from being a school bus driver? Surely such a conviction will teach you to be a careful driver? Why be forever condemned for a past mistake?

Peregrinus

sgo31a2q94jlfv wrote: »

Why would a conviction for dangerous driving prevent you from being a school bus driver? Surely such a conviction will teach you to be a careful driver? Why be forever condemned for a past mistake?

The opposite is the case. Having past convictions for motoring offences is an indicator of greater likelihood of being convicted of motoring offences in the future. If convictions do improve your driving over what it used to be (which is unknown) on the whole they don't seem to improve to to the point where it's up to the community average standard.

Peregrinus

Vetch wrote: »

I don't disagree with the suggestion to have some sort of ID card but I'd imagine that part of the rationale for vetting by each relevant organisation is not that something new will show up from 20 years ago but that each relevant organisation has to decide if a conviction is relevant to the job applied for. For example, in my desk-bound job a conviction for dangerous driving wouldn't put anyone at risk but if I applied for a job as a school bus driver that would be a different matter. I think the current vetting regime is an unsophisticated way of vetting though.

What Vetch said. A vetting regime is not a simple binary, through which you are either cleared or not cleared, and that's an end to it. A vetting regime identifies issues which may be relevant (in this case, to your suitability for working with children) but whether the issues are relevant in relation to a particular role or position and, if they are relevant, whether they justify excluding you entirely or some less drastic measure. So your new or intended employer/manager needs to see your vetting report and to make judgments about what's in it.

What it should be possible to centralise/streamline, however, is the preparation and maintenance of a vetting record. As Mrs O'Bumble says, if you have already got an FBI report in relation to your stint in the US ten years ago, it should be kept on file somewhere so that it can be included in future vetting reports; you shouldn't have to go back to the FBI again (unless, of course, you have spent more time in the US since you last got an FBI report). Basically, when you need to get an up-to-date report, you should only have to do legwork to get new information in relation to the period since your last report.

But note that there are obvious privacy and data protection issues with a state agency maintaining a permanent file on you compiling and retaining forever a lot of potentially embarrassing or harmful information about you. These issues can no doubt be managed, but they are not trivial.

hullaballoo

sgo31a2q94jlfv wrote: »

Vetting is a waste of time. It doesn't prove anything.

sgo31a2q94jlfv wrote: »

A determined paedophile will get past the most stringent vetting laws.

sgo31a2q94jlfv wrote: »

Why would a conviction for dangerous driving prevent you from being a school bus driver? Surely such a conviction will teach you to be a careful driver? Why be forever condemned for a past mistake?

Moderator: Please read the forum charter before posting here again. This is a forum for discussion of the law, not off-the-wall statements such as the above-quoted.

Markcheese

Is there a legal reason why there isn't a database for the vetting agency? that they can cross check ect...
It seems the current system is really dependent on the applicant giving the correct information,ie. The people you need to weed out won't give all the correct info..

ScouseMouse

So, we are trying to get an appointment to go for fingerprints. At tallaght station, there is regularly a queue to even talk to someone, we are not going down there to sit for ages for nothing.

Somebody had a chat with somebody else, and it was suggested that, in a case like somebody in Australia 25 years ago, it would be easier to erase this from their CV due to the problems it would cause. That is an idea of course, and completely not relevant to my wife.

So now we have a suggestion of lying on a CV due to the issues with inefficient, over regulation.

Something needs to be done here, definitely. For an honest, lawabiding childcare worker to think of that, the system is broken.

Indricotherium

ScouseMouse wrote: »

So, we are trying to get an appointment to go for fingerprints. At tallaght station, there is regularly a queue to even talk to someone, we are not going down there to sit for ages for nothing.

You're queuing to get your fingerprints taken, not for nothing.

Vetch

Markcheese wrote: »

Is there a legal reason why there isn't a database for the vetting agency? that they can cross check ect...
It seems the current system is really dependent on the applicant giving the correct information,ie. The people you need to weed out won't give all the correct info..

Do you mean nationally or internationally? Afaik the vetting bureau checks the information given on the application against Pulse. That's for Republic of Ireland. I assume they have a relationship with the PSNI as NI addresses are also checked. Internationally, there is certification available from most countries but applicants have to be truthful about where they've lived. I don't know to what extent the vetting bureau can interrogate information relating to foreign countries. Data Protection should kick in unless it's superseded by legislation that allows information sharing. I don't know about the latter.

Vetch

ScouseMouse wrote: »

So, we are trying to get an appointment to go for fingerprints. At tallaght station, there is regularly a queue to even talk to someone, we are not going down there to sit for ages for nothing.

Somebody had a chat with somebody else, and it was suggested that, in a case like somebody in Australia 25 years ago, it would be easier to erase this from their CV due to the problems it would cause. That is an idea of course, and completely not relevant to my wife.

So now we have a suggestion of lying on a CV due to the issues with inefficient, over regulation.

Something needs to be done here, definitely. For an honest, lawabiding childcare worker to think of that, the system is broken.

May I ask what reforms you would like to see to remedy the issues you've outlined in this thread? Genuinely interested.

the14thwarrior

i had to get garda vetted, and needed FBI clearance. FBI clearance had a six month waiting list, and they are VERY specific on what they need. they sent me the form (i think you can download it) on what they need - a ton of prints, all to be fitted in a box, and then you send it off etc. you can't just get 10 fingerprints done. good luck!!

also most places won't accept an FBI agency, who will do it quicker and who are registered but don't waste your money. also, a lot of them won't do it anyway from someone living abroad.

ScouseMouse

Indricotherium wrote: »

You're queuing to get your fingerprints taken, not for nothing.

Fair point. But Tallaght station is grossly understaffed and you can easily sit there waiting for an hour. Some enquiries cause the desk officer to go in the back and you are left sitting there looking at gardai coming and going - including behind the counter, looking at you, looking at them, and it appears nobody is dealing with the public.

Vetch wrote: »

May I ask what reforms you would like to see to remedy the issues you've outlined in this thread? Genuinely interested.

A bit of common sense would be useful. Maybe a central register that can be referred to once it is done? Maybe a card that has to be renewed every two years, that on renewal - only checks the last two years? (as the previous period was already checked?) Maybe even not requiring someone with verifiable experience going back years, who is known to the gardai (in a good way), wouldn't have to get historic vetting? Simple stuff really!

the14thwarrior wrote: »

i had to get garda vetted, and needed FBI clearance. FBI clearance had a six month waiting list, and they are VERY specific on what they need. they sent me the form (i think you can download it) on what they need - a ton of prints, all to be fitted in a box, and then you send it off etc. you can't just get 10 fingerprints done. good luck!!

also most places won't accept an FBI agency, who will do it quicker and who are registered but don't waste your money. also, a lot of them won't do it anyway from someone living abroad.

This is the relevant link. USA and FBI is near the bottom.
https://www.earlychildhoodireland.ie/work/operating-childcare-service/garda-vetting/frequently-asked-questions/lived-overseas/

Gatling

ScouseMouse wrote: »

A bit of common sense .

Maybe even not requiring someone with verifiable experience going back years, who is known to the gardai (in a good way), wouldn't have to get historic vetting? Simple stuff really!

That's a seriously bad idea ,

Define someone known to the guards in a good way ,

It's taken a long time to get proper regulation and proper background checks out in place your talking about essentially a two tier system of vetting for some and no vetting for others ,

And wiping CV's if a person feels they have to hide stuff from employers and vetting then sorry they should rethink their chosen profession for something that doesn't need proper and full background checks ,
It's called children first for a reason

ouxbbkqtswdfaw

hullaballoo wrote:

Moderator: Please read the forum charter before posting here again. This is a forum for discussion of the law, not off-the-wall statements such as the above-quoted.

OK Moderator, thanks

joey100

That's a policy position that early childhood Ireland have taken with regards vetting reports/police clearance from other countries. This is not legally required but they are within their rights to look for it. They have taken a few positions recently that wouldn't be entirely inline with other organisations but that's their own decision.

The National Vetting Bureau themselves don't look for the information, it will stay with the organisation looking for it and in previous training sessions the National Vetting Bureau have said a lot of them aren't worth the paper they are wrote on.

For people saying there should be a card that you bring from job to job to say you are vetted, this would be a really bad thing. At the moment it's up to the employer to decide to offer you a job if your disclosure comes back with a criminal record, individual employers can decide. So if your applying to work in a hospital and you have been charged with traffic offences these wouldn't make a difference, and shouldn't. If we go down the route of a card that would mean someone would need to make an overall decision, more than likely the National Vetting Bureau. And could mean that anyone with a criminal offence won't receive a card saying they have been 'cleared'. The system at the moment is good, turn around of applications is down to around 7-10 working days and is a lot more stringent than it used to be.

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.