2.1 Before the Bureau was set up, employers' ability to carry out checks on potential employees was limited and dependent on the sector in which they worked. Checking of criminal records was slow and inconsistent. Where information was available, each potential source had to be approached separately:
■ Local police forces provided increasing numbers of free checks each year, primarily on those working with children, reaching just under one million in the last year before the Bureau began to operate. These checks could take months to be produced, due to increasing volumes and because the service had to be managed within forces' existing budgets;
■ Employers of teachers could consult a list12 maintained by the Department for Education and Skills, of individuals barred from working in educational establishments;
■The Department of Health held a list of people identified as unsuitable for working with children because of misconduct.
2.2 In addition, in some cases, potential employees might have been asked to pay £10 for a Subject Access check through their local police stations. These checks give details of conviction information held against a person's name on the Police National Computer, and reflect a person's rights under the Data Protection Act to review personal data and to have it corrected if wrong.
2.3 Checks on those working with the elderly, sick or disabled were not readily available. Organisations reliant on volunteers also had particular difficulties in obtaining information, and some developed their own processes. For example, The Scout Association used a Press Cuttings Service to develop a database of unsuitable people against which volunteers could be checked. They also had direct access to the Department for Education and Skill's list and occasionally, could submit names of volunteers for checking against the Department of Health's list.
_________________________________________________________________________
12 Known as List 99.