Neil
I sympathise with you as the amount of such red tape has grown significantly over the last 12 years. But I also sympathise with people in jobs like my own who have to put in place measures to meet the ever increasing red tape that Parliament and their agencies such as the Border Agency lays down.
10 years ago to employ someone all that was needed was a very basic series of checks such as an NI number and a P45 and another form of ID. Since then a whole host of further checks with guidance by the Home Office on both checking Identity and Right to Work with Lists that neverend - List A and List B. Any prospective employer who fails to follow these processes does not have a defence to any illegal working and the costs of fines are enormous.
http://www.ukba.homeoffice.gov.uk/sitecontent/documents/employersandsponsors/preventingillegalworking/currentguidanceandcodes/summary-guidance.pdf?view=Binary Believe it or not an expired passport in itself does not constitute a right to work in the UK nor prove identity.
As part of my job I have to review and change my organisations policy on this and most policies we review remain the same for the normal review period of 2-3 years. Policies on this are changed every other month due to further changes in legislation, legal cases and guidance. Frankly at times I despair when I have just changed it and a few days later ( I kid you not) I have to change it again. I have just changed it for the Rumanian and Bulgarian EU A2 countries right to work. Shortly before that I had to change it to reflect changes to Croatian ID documentation. I know that I will again have to change it in Feb March to reflect changes to Visa and Work Permits from 1st April already when that happens. Passports and right to work are not just about being a UK citizen now.
And as for CRB checks, well again this is something that has also continually changed since the then CRB was brought in around 12 years ago. Before then they were just police checks with no cost no fee nothing and accessed by the local police and the national database. Then CRB checks were brought in. At a large fee for the organisation that won the contract. Since then this has also continually changed. They are in fact now called DBS checks not CRB checks. And there have always been a lot of fallacies about DBS Checks (CRB)
anyway it only lasts for three years at most.
They don't. They only reflect what convictions, cautions, warnings or other information such as vetting and barring information is known on the date the check was made. Many councils and organisations have adopted a 'three year check'. It is actually illegal to make a check without appropriate reason to do so and at the level of the check that is appropriate to the person being checked. So for example a receptionist in a hospital should not have an Enhanced Check if they are not caring for or have responsibility for a vulnerable person such as a patient. The check should only be made when first employing or taking up the role or changing a role that has a different level of DBS check And if after that the check is made again every 3 years for no other reason than that council or organisation thinks that this seems to be a good time period before a further check, that is also potentially illegal if there are no other genuine grounds to carry out a further check. However the view that it only lasts for 3 years has become an urban myth, which whilst it maybe good practice if there is good reason to carry out a renewal check, is something that shouldn't take place under the DBS's own guidance. It does though make more money for the DBS so on the side it isn't actively discouraged. A new development for the DBS is that people can now register, for a fee of course, to allow new employers to check or for annual checks or updates to any offences in the last 12 months can then be made. Strange that, a new service and quelle surprise a further fee. Anyone could think it has moved on from the original outcome of the Huntley case to protect people to instead become a money based service which would be unfortunate wouldn't it?