Garda vetting disclosure

redcatstar

Hi
About 40years ago at 19 I was in court on possession of hash, I got a fine
Would this come up in garda vetting as I got email saying a disclosure was made to the public body that I wanted to do voluntary work
Only other thing was I didn't mention I lived in England 36 yrs ago
Any help pls or how do I find out what it is pls

shmeee

redcatstar wrote: »

Hi
About 40years ago at 19 I was in court on possession of hash, I got a fine
Would this come up in garda vetting as I got email saying a disclosure was made to the public body that I wanted to do voluntary work
Only other thing was I didn't mention I lived in England 36 yrs ago
Any help pls or how do I find out what it is pls

That question comes up over and over again.

The word "disclosure" does not mean you failed vetting. It means information was sent to to the party requesting the vetting. So it's not a bad thing like everyone thinks!

You'll be fine.

redcatstar

shmeee wrote: »

That question comes up over and over again.

The word "disclosure" does not mean you failed vetting. It means information was sent to to the party requesting the vetting. So it's not a bad thing like everyone thinks!

You'll be fine.

So what would disclosure be pls

shmeee

redcatstar wrote: »

So what would disclosure be pls

Information released. As per what the employer needs to know about you.

I've got that email about 4/5 times and passed vetting each time.

Bikerman2019

A particular part of vetting is if something is relevant. If you work with children, a conviction for no car tax is not relevant and may not be disclosed about you. Add in the passage of time and it may be / will be not disclosed. You are also given an opportunity to put forward an argument as to explain yourself before any disclosure is made. They are fair.

I would not worry about it.

Lenar3556

shmeee wrote: »

Information released. As per what the employer needs to know about you.

I've got that email about 4/5 times and passed vetting each time.

It may well be a ‘NIL’ disclosure. I.e nothing to report.

Lenar3556

Bikerman2019 wrote: »

A particular part of vetting is if something is relevant. If you work with children, a conviction for no car tax is not relevant and may not be disclosed about you. Add in the passage of time and it may be / will be not disclosed. You are also given an opportunity to put forward an argument as to explain yourself before any disclosure is made. They are fair.

I would not worry about it.

I have seen convictions, including minor motoring ones disclosed in cases where they would be of very little relevance to the role proposed. It is ultimately up to the employer to make a determination as to the significance and impact of a positive disclosure from a Garda vetting process.

The opportunity to put forward arguments for non-disclosure only arrises in the case of ‘specified information’. This is typically ‘soft’ information which the Garda hold which would give rise to a serious question over your suitability to become involved in the proposed role. In the case of relevant court convictions they are disclosed automatically.

Note - a singular minor offence, more than 7 years old is typically disregarded. There is an FAQ outlining the details if you search on google.

Bikerman2019

Lenar3556 wrote: »

I have seen convictions, including minor motoring ones disclosed in cases where they would be of very little relevance to the role proposed. It is ultimately up to the employer to make a determination as to the significance and impact of a positive disclosure from a Garda vetting process.

The opportunity to put forward arguments for non-disclosure only arrises in the case of ‘specified information’. This is typically ‘soft’ information which the Garda hold which would give rise to a serious question over your suitability to become involved in the proposed role. In the case of relevant court convictions they are disclosed automatically.

Note - a singular minor offence, more than 7 years old is typically disregarded. There is an FAQ outlining the details if you search on google.

In your example 7 years ago, it's reasonably recent, But the op is a lot longer.

Notmything

redcatstar wrote: »

Only other thing was I didn't mention I lived in England 36 yrs ago

As others have said "disclosure" just means the prospective employer just received the results from your vetting.

However, as someone who gets people on a regular basis the above part is the bit that troubles me, and highlights a flaw with the vetting process.

Bikerman2019

Notmything wrote: »

As others have said "disclosure" just means the prospective employer just received the results from your vetting.

However, as someone who gets people on a regular basis the above part is the bit that troubles me, and highlights a flaw with the vetting process.

You are quite correct. I know another person who spent a year in the US working around 2010. It was noticed and we had to apply for FBI vetting to clarksberg in the USA. It got lost so had to do it again but this time via tracked FEDEX. It came back fine as expected but TUSLA were jumping up and down.

While this was going on, multiple work colleagues of the person had huge gaps in their vettings as they were from Africa, Romania etc etc. Not a word said about it. Your concern about the vetting service having flaws? You dont know half of it. The nigerian jack the ripper can get away with working in Ireland.


I do stand over everything I said previously, the vetting office in Tipp were/are very reasonable.

Lenar3556

Bikerman2019 wrote: »

You are quite correct. I know another person who spent a year in the US working around 2010. It was noticed and we had to apply for FBI vetting to clarksberg in the USA. It got lost so had to do it again but this time via tracked FEDEX. It came back fine as expected but TUSLA were jumping up and down.

While this was going on, multiple work colleagues of the person had huge gaps in their vettings as they were from Africa, Romania etc etc. Not a word said about it. Your concern about the vetting service having flaws? You dont know half of it. The nigerian jack the ripper can get away with working in Ireland.


I do stand over everything I said previously, the vetting office in Tipp were/are very reasonable.

The Garda have no role in vetting outside of Ireland, or for the most part in identifying that any such requirement exists in a given case.

The examples you provide indicate significant shortcomings on the employers side. If you take a childcare service as an example, what you describe would be most unusual, and the registered provider of such a centre would be in significant contravention of several pieces of legislation by having such persons employed without complete vetting.

The vetting process is quite effective, but the ultimate responsibility rests with employers and operators of relevant organisations to ensure it is operated correctly.

Bikerman2019

Lenar3556 wrote: »

The Garda have no role in vetting outside of Ireland, or for the most part in identifying that any such requirement exists in a given case.

The examples you provide indicate significant shortcomings on the employers side. If you take a childcare service as an example, what you describe would be most unusual, and the registered provider of such a centre would be in significant contravention of several pieces of legislation by having such persons employed without complete vetting.

The vetting process is quite effective, but the ultimate responsibility rests with employers and operators of relevant organisations to ensure it is operated correctly.

Indeed, that is correct, but the person kept getting asked where their US vetting was, so handed in the FEDEX receipt for their file. And the application was made where FEDEX collected the application for shipping FROM the childcare service. Tusla were not happy as they wanted it now. But as pointed out above, there were multiple staff who had big gaps in their vetting as the countries they came from either did not or could not provide any vetting history to the staff. Tusla didn't say anything to them. So your suggestion that the employers and operators had the responsibility to sort it out, how? Tusla are the overseers of this and they had to accept it.

However, I have direct dealing with the vetting office and am happy to admit, they were very fair and reasonable.

Notmything

Lenar3556 wrote: »

The Garda have no role in vetting outside of Ireland, or for the most part in identifying that any such requirement exists in a given case.

The examples you provide indicate significant shortcomings on the employers side. If you take a childcare service as an example, what you describe would be most unusual, and the registered provider of such a centre would be in significant contravention of several pieces of legislation by having such persons employed without complete vetting.

The vetting process is quite effective, but the ultimate responsibility rests with employers and operators of relevant organisations to ensure it is operated correctly.

Don't think anyone is suggesting that gardai vett outside the country. More that there is a vulnerability there that can be exploited.

Bikerman2019

Notmything wrote: »

Don't think anyone is suggesting that gardai very outside the country. More that there is a vulnerability there that can be exploited.

Absolutely. Wide open to abuse. When you see it with your own two eyes you realise you can run a coach and 4 horses through the regs. However, you still have to try.....

Lenar3556

Bikerman2019 wrote: »

Indeed, that is correct, but the person kept getting asked where their US vetting was, so handed in the FEDEX receipt for their file. And the application was made where FEDEX collected the application for shipping FROM the childcare service. Tusla were not happy as they wanted it now. But as pointed out above, there were multiple staff who had big gaps in their vetting as the countries they came from either did not or could not provide any vetting history to the staff. Tusla didn't say anything to them. So your suggestion that the employers and operators had the responsibility to sort it out, how? Tusla are the overseers of this and they had to accept it.

However, I have direct dealing with the vetting office and am happy to admit, they were very fair and reasonable.

The obtaining of overseas police clearance is the responsibility of the employee - the employer should not take them on, and no such person should be on the premises until these have been received and validated by the employer. It can be a lengthy process, but is mandatory.

That would be very much bread and butter stuff in childcare and nationally there is high compliance.

I wasn’t aware of countries not having mechanisms for police vetting. Romania certainly does.

Tusla’s role in this matter is in the inspection and regulatory enforcement of the legislation and regulations. If what you describe comes to light in the course of an inspection, the service will be deemed to be non-compliant with the regulations. This is published for all to see, and immediate steps are required to correct the situation. If not, the service’s registration is at risk and it may be forced to close. Childcare is actually a very heavily regulated industry.

Lenar3556

Notmything wrote: »

Don't think anyone is suggesting that gardai very outside the country. More that there is a vulnerability there that can be exploited.

Well I suppose all vetting processes have weaknesses and limitations, but I don’t see a particular vulnerability liable to be exploited?

There was a suggestion earlier in the thread that employees born outside of Ireland (or who lived outside of Ireland for periods) were somewhat exempt from a requirement for detailed vetting of their history and that is not the case.

But the requirement rests with the employer to validate much of these, and there could potentially lie a weakness.

Even in the case of an Irish person convicted of serious offences, the decision to employ them lies with the employer (or registered provider of a childcare service). The Garda role is simply to report the facts or other specified information under the terms provided in the Garda Vetting Bureau Act. There isn’t a definitive pass/fail type outcome

Bikerman2019

It is not just childcare. Social care has a large element of international people and if they come from less developed countries, it can be near impossible to get a history for them. I used Romania as an example, but think settled retrained refugees, students etc etc. It was definately an issue in Nigeria/congo

Notmything

Lenar3556 wrote: »

Well I suppose all vetting processes have weaknesses and limitations, but I don’t see a particular vulnerability liable to be exploited?

There was a suggestion earlier in the thread that employees born outside of Ireland (or who lived outside of Ireland for periods) were somewhat exempt from a requirement for detailed vetting of their history and that is not the case.

But the requirement rests with the employer to validate much of these, and there could potentially lie a weakness.

Even in the case of an Irish person convicted of serious offences, the decision to employ them lies with the employer (or registered provider of a childcare service). The Garda role is simply to report the facts or other specified information under the terms provided in the Garda Vetting Bureau Act. There isn’t a definitive pass/fail type outcome

Personally, I'm aware of people working in social care who "omitted" the fact they lived abroad on the vetting application and admitted such. These would be people born here, not non nationals who have come here. It's 'too much hassle' chasing police clearances. And the employer would be aware of this. I've also worked in places where individuals were allowed on the floor before their vetting was completed.

But think we're well off topic now as regards the op's inquiry.