The irresistible attraction of babies and toddlers has created an industry unlike any other – unsupervised access to the irreplaceable.

Britain’s labour force over the last two decades has seen a marked increase in the number of jobs performed by women. In 1981, men filled 3.2 million more jobs than women. Now the numbers are almost equal, with men performing 12.8 million jobs and women 12.7 million, although almost half of these are part time.

The desire is now for a better lifestyle; bigger house; faster car; superior holiday, and always, the finest start in life for their children. This has brought about a change of work ethic and, in turn, cascaded into the care and guardianship of their children.

Nannies and maternity nurses have become a much sought-after resource with some of the more experienced earning over £600 per week, plus car, mobile with all tax and national insurance contributions paid. Inevitably, this lucrative marketplace has developed into a magnet for those less than qualified to actually perform the work and, more alarmingly, the setting-up of inadequate agencies only too willing to consign those same applicants to believing parents - for a hefty fee.

So who can you really trust?

Thankfully, the majority agencies are beyond reproach, fastidiously correct in order to protect their personal and corporate reputations. However, there are those for whom a London address is simply that – an address. Splendidly disguised as brilliant, boasting an elegant array of applicants with high-profile clients. Many a desperate parent has been intoxicated by the postcode and simply accepts as true what is offered. Nanny agencies are not registered per se and the only ‘authorities’ that can offer qualified advice on particular organisations are Best Bear, PANN or a strategic vetting body dealing with such companies having direct, exclusive access to their structure and any safeguards in place.

Again, a deception is performed by a proficient trickster; a con artist; a believable, fantastic person apparently willing to immerse herself in the beastly tedium of cleaning and changing nappies. These persons are in sole charge of the house, every object therein and, of course, the helpless.

Responses from personal advertisements in publications offer little or no protection from such people. At least with an agency there is some form of recourse with regard to contracts and insurance provisions, but professional assistance also offers so much more in relation to remedy, refund and litigation.

Since the inception of the Criminal Records Bureau, more and more agencies are discovering that approximately 1 in 10 nannies have a criminal conviction of some kind. What is most disturbing is that they will normally sign documentation to state they do NOT possess a record. This may be out of ignorance in relation to spent convictions or is it, perhaps, more in hope that the agency or parent will rely on that alone.

How will you ever know?

You are still able to obtain information from the police under the public assess route using the Data Protection Act 1998 legislation – a ‘police check’. However, this is not acceptable for certain employment purposes, as it does not cover legislation under the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 (Exceptions Order) or Part V of the Police Act 1997.

This check will not show any spent convictions, such as, cautions for drugs, theft or prison sentences over a certain period of time. Therefore, an employer would not be able to assess a ‘pattern’ or, perhaps, an undisclosed vigorous lifestyle! Should a prospective employee possess an unspent conviction, particularly for one of dishonesty, many employers are unaware that this will impinge upon their household insurance. If a person is working on a premises and all legal avenues were open to the employer to verify, then an insurance company may not compensate for any loss incurred as it is incumbent upon that employer (or agency) to have confirmed with supporting documentation, any criminal history. Furthermore, should an employee properly reveal an unspent conviction, the employer must disclose that fact to their insurer which will, undoubtedly, affect annual premiums.

These Acts were revised in the year 2000 and cover areas of access never before allowed to organisations employing or introducing persons in positions of trust. The most important aspect of the Disclosure process is the protection of children and vulnerable adults where only an Enhanced Disclosure will suffice.

Unfortunately individuals cannot obtain a Disclosure without going to a Registered Body who also receives a copy of the Disclosure - a large, watermarked ‘certificate–style’ form illustrating every aspect of a criminal past. It should take no longer than 4 weeks to receive a Disclosure and, at present, the cost should be no more than £48.00. Quality Registered Bodies will be able to provide documentary ‘proof of progress’ for each applicant thus negating a mere ‘assurance’ from the individual. If they don’t have a reference number, it would be fair to say they are not completing the task.

An Enhanced Disclosure provides details of a person’s criminal record including convictions (spent and unspent) cautions, reprimands and any warnings held on the police national computer. It also contains details from lists held by the Department of Health, the Department for Skills and Education, other information from local police forces and the Chief officer of police in a particular area. In exceptional circumstances, confidential information may be sent under separate cover which is not revealed to the applicant.

This provides improved assurance that the candidate is safe to be placed in the position offered, with the Disclosure complementing a complete work and qualifications history. Using this route, the eventual employer is able to make a fully informed decision as to suitable employment. These three entities should be immediately available for inspection and, if not, one must question why. Naturally, there is a financial obligation imposed upon the individual in obtaining a Disclosure and, again, agencies administering constructive recruitment management systems will compensate for this additional outlay.

One can never anticipate the sudden change of circumstances or behaviour in a person. Social arrangements, medical instability or, maybe, discontented with their existing impression of life can all pay a part in an altered disposition. However, from the outset, a very simple signature on a form is all that is required and, for that, there can be no excuse.

It’s not a question of science, it’s sense. It’s not a question of intelligence, it’s knowledge. It’s not a question of trust – anymore.

Alexandra James

Copyright Civil & Corporate Security 1/4/04

www.civilandcorporate.co.uk