For a while now I have been writing occasionally on here about Criminal Records Bureau (CRB) disclosures, and the sometimes questionable information included on them. My posts about the inclusion of allegations subsequently proved false, and of decades old minor convictions and cautions has generated more comment on this site than anything else I’ve written about.

CRBs have also prompted dozens and dozens of people from all over the country to write to me with their own stories, some of them truly heartbreaking. Teachers, social workers, nurses, all effectively barred from gaining employment or waiting in fear for an employer to ask to see a CRB disclosure they know will make public some false allegation or half-truth from years ago.

Of course we need a system which stops people convicted of certain crimes from having access to vulnerable people. But CRBs in their present form are not that system. They disclose far too much, going way beyond what is relevant and recent. 

Legislation has given the police the task of revealing to the CRB all information that they hold which they consider relevant, and for the CRB to reveal that to potential employers. That police judgement of “relevance” goes way beyond what most people would consider fair, and it can have far-reaching consequences.

In these risk averse times, I don’t blame the police for including everything. I doubt they have the time to make an objective judgement on the millions of people who now need CRBs. The way the law stands means that far too many people need vetting, and it gives them no option but to reveal far too much. The number of CRB checks almost trebled to 3.8m per year in the six years 2003-9. With that many taking place, it’s no wonder the police include everything but the kitchen sink.

And of course, once information about convictions, allegations, cautions or rumours is in the hands of a potential employer, human nature will make an ex-offender or even someone victim to a smear campaign that much less likely to get a job. Research from the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development found that over a third of employers would automatically exclude all ex-offenders from their recruitment process. Not very fair if you stole some sweets in 1964 and have been clean living ever since.

Tonight though I have heard from someone exposing a new type of information being disclosed on CRBs which is perhaps even more unfair and inappropriate, and my sympathy for the police is significantly reduced.

I have seen evidence that some CRB disclosures now contain health information, particularly prior mental health problems, or in the case of young people prior contact with social services even where this contact was because the young person was suspected of being a victim not a perpetrator.

This cannot be right. A person’s health history is a matter for potential employers of course, but it is absolutely not a matter for the CRB. If I had three months off sick last year, my future employer has a right to know. If I was under the care of a psychatrist for some reason many years ago, he absolutely does not, and especially not on a form supposedly about criminal convictions. The linking of criminality to mental ill health is abhorrent, and whoever is disclosing historic mental illness on CRB forms is guilty of the type of discrimination against the mentally unwell that has no place in society. People with mental health prolems already face discrimination and stigma, and this is a public body which makes the situation worse.

I don’t know how commonplace this type of disclosure is, but it is yet another sign that the legislation around CRB disclosures is unfair and not working. I thought that some Lib Dems in government would improve things, and perhaps they will given time, but so far my attempts to let them know about this issue have fallen on deaf ears. Our Home Office Minister Lynne Featherstone has failed to respond to both of my letters about this issue, instead passing them on to the CRB itself claiming that it’s an operational issue.

Lynne, it really isn’t – It’s a policy issue which you have the power to change through legislation and official government guidance. I don’t want to be a mad stalker (it’ll probably end up on my CRB…) so I won’t be writing to you again, but in the unlikely event of you reading this, I urge you to use your influence to order a review of CRB disclosures, because if fairness is hardwired through this government I can think of few better things to maker fairer.

Rick