Agenda and minutes

Apologies were received from Councillor Cereste and Councillor Walsh as substitute Member.

Councillor Thacker was in attendance as a nominated substitute.

At this point Members must declare whether they have a disclosable pecuniary interest, or other interest, in any of the items on the agenda, unless it is already entered in the register of members’ interests or is a “pending notification “ that has been disclosed to the Solicitor to the Council.

Members must also declare if they are subject to their party group whip in relation to any items under consideration.

There were no declarations of interest.

The minutes of the meeting held on 22 November 2012 were agreed as a true and accurate record.

The minutes of the meeting held on 7 December 2012 were agreed as a true and accurate record subject to the inclusion of the following wording:

     “The Committee wished for it to be noted that it had requested an overview explanation from the Chief Executives Office in relation to the recruitment process which had been undertaken for the post of Head of Strategic Client Services. The Committee was satisfied with the information it had received”. 

          The Committee received a report from the Senior HR Consultant outlining a number of updates to employee policies and procedures.  The report was submitted for consideration following a referral from the Joint Consultative Forum held on 10 January 2013.

          The Committee was requested to agree the following employment policies:

i)    Revision to the Criminal Records Bureau Policy;

ii)                          Revision to the Access to HR Files Policy; and

iii)  Change to notice period for qualified social workers in Children’s Services.

          The Committee was also advised that the Criminal Records Bureau (CRB) and the Independent Safeguarding Authority (ISA) had been amalgamated to form the Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS).

          The Acting Head of HR and Senior HR Consultant responded to comments and questions raised by Members regarding the changes to the CRB Policy, now known as the DBS Policy.  In summary, responses included:

·         The availability of online DBS checks had speeded up the application process, which had resulted in a definite improvement of the system;

·         The current portability rules for DBS would remain the same as for CRB checks. However, the portability rules were due to be reviewed by the Government by spring 2013;

·         The wording with regards to the DBS policy, which referred to an individual that had been dismissed or would cease to be employed if the Council believed they had harmed or posed a risk of harm towards children or vulnerable adults was developed using the DBS guidance;

·         There was a risk assessment process in place to investigate all the evidence regarding referrals to the DBS, in respect of PCC employees, followed by high level discussions, which would involve Senior Officers before a decision was taken over the appropriate action required;

·         Cases of ‘soft information’ would be flagged up at the DBS checking stage. Soft information was information which could only be released by the Chief Police Officer, which would highlight if an individual was under investigation;

·         It was rare for the Chief Police Officer to contact PCC in order to provide notification of ‘soft information’ regarding a potential candidate for employment.  Any information released by the Chief Police Officer would have to be kept strictly confidential and not shared with the individual.  The police would expect an organisation to consider the information and take any necessary action without releasing the information.

·         The trade unions had been consulted over the changes in the DBS policy;

·         DBS checks were conducted by Serco.  If there was a trace this would be followed by a high level management risk assessment and sign off by Senior Managers; 

·         There was an escalation process in place in order to refer incidents where a DBS concern had been highlighted which required more information to allow a decision to be made.  If necessary, the case could be directed to a panel made up of the respective Head of Service, the senior manager, HR and legal if required for a final overall decision to be made; and

·         It was important for Members to note that in November 2012,  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6.