Chess Scotland

For ease of reference in this paper, “children” is used here to include vulnerable adults (a term with a very all-embracing definition) and “representatives” includes both volunteers and employees, the pecuniary relationship is irrelevant in this area. The essence of the issue is that when CS has registered with a body called the Central Registered Body in Scotland (CRBS) it can initiate searches of criminal records in order to prevent unsuitable people working with children through CS and prevent unsuitable people using CS as a vehicle to access children.

CS has already taken the view that registration with CRBS is the correct step to take. Although there is nothing mandatory in the legislation, all the trends are towards registration and scrutinising criminal records. Of the 7.5K volunteer organisations in Scotland, around 5K are either registered or in the process of registration. CS has initiated but not yet completed the registration process.

(A) CS already has an adequate Child Protection Policy published on its website. It caters for Vulnerable Adults. A further paragraph should be added as follows, “Chess is an international activity and tournaments are organised for children in most countries in the world. CS will, if asked by another national association who are hosting a tournament, confirm that the CS coaches and chaperones have been vetted. Similarly, where coaches and chaperones from another country participate in a tournament in Scotland, CS will seek a statement from the nation concerned that the coaches and chaperones are suitable persons in accordance with the law of that country.”

A search of criminal records (Disclosure) can only be undertaken with the written agreement of the person concerned. (It has been the experience in other voluntary organisations that simply stating on the application form that a criminal record vetting will be undertaken is normally enough to deter unsuitable people.)

CS needs to identify the roles where vetting would be appropriate and the level of Disclosure which would be appropriate to each role. Any one-to-one, trust building, relationship such as coaching and overnight supervision would be clear candidates for vetting at the highest level “Enhanced Disclosure”; however, there are other categories of representatives, e.g. Arbiters, Directors and Council Members to be considered; also, looking to the wider chess community, a decision is required on the potential vetting of Congress Organisers and Club Secretaries.

CS needs to very clear as to the parameters of its direct responsibility. This becomes a potentially difficult issue where non-CS events are being held and staffed by a mixture of CS and non-CS volunteers. The general public and/or the press might not acknowledge any such distinctions if something did go wrong

One important point is that it would be negligent to assume that because a person has already been vetted by another organisation/employer then CS can rely on that Disclosure. The information provided in a Disclosure is filtered and restricted by the police to data relevant to the duties to be undertaken as specified when the search was initiated through CRBS.

Some organisations only undertake vetting as part of the recruitment process and repeat the exercise when a person changes role within the organisation. Others undertake periodic repeated checks as a matter of routine, for example, annually, even where a trusted volunteer of long standing is continuing in the same role as previously. There are no “rules” regulating these questions, they are for decision by CS. Obviously, any policy should be clear, fair and unequivocal.

(E) Nobody should be authorised to undertake chess coaching as a CS Coach unless they have successfully completed a recruitment process. Recruitment should include completion of a written application together with an Enhanced Disclosure obtained by CS through CRBS. Enhanced Disclosure should be obtained in every case, irrespective of whether or not any disclosure has been obtained previously whether by CS or any other organisation. Similarly, CS should recognise the concept of CS Chaperon. A CS Chaperon would be any CS representative responsible for children (i) in travelling to/from chess events and/or (ii) overnight accommodation in relation to a chess event. Responsible, and highly respected, people already provide these services on behalf of CS, this recommendation is simply formalising the status quo and ensuring that disclosure has been seen to be obtained.

(G) Registers of authorised CS Coaches and CS Chaperons (similar in concept to the Arbiters list) should be established and maintained. The CS website should publicise this list of authorised CS Coaches and state explicitly that anyone not on the list but offering chess coaching does not have CS authorisation. Similarly, the list of Chaperons should be published and it should be stated quite specifically that CS will accept responsibility for the well being of children from the point they are delivered into the care of CS Chaperons. For example, where parents operate informal arrangements to get children from their homes to a muster point or points designated by CS on the basis that a CS Chaperon will be present, CS responsibility would only commence from that point onwards.

(I) All existing CS Arbiters and any new applicant arbiter should be vetted to Standard Disclosure level during the application process but should not be vetted at any future date. Obviously CS retains the right to delete any name from the list of Authorised Arbiters. As with CS Coaches and Chaperons, a list of authorised CS Arbiters should be maintained on the CS website. All new and existing CS Arbiters should be treated equally whether or not they are responsible for Junior Events. It should be borne in mind that parents and other adults are free to attend Junior Events and that they retain responsibility for their children.

(K) CS has no responsibility for vetting chess organisers outwith its control such as local Congress organisers and club secretaries. However, if a congress organiser or club secretary who organises junior chess events and either these events are graded through CS or reduced entry fees are offered to CS members, then CS should undertake to vet individuals provided the Congress Organiser of club secretary requests such action in writing to the lead signatory.

There are three options as to enrolment with CRBS. These options are procedural variations reflecting the nature of the organisation structure. Option A is designed for smaller organisations based in one office. Typically, the organisation will have one lead signatory and one additional signatory through whom all disclosure requests and response are channelled. Option B is for larger organisations with more than one office/base. The organisation would nominate additional local signatories in local offices who could initiate and receive disclosure information. Option C is aimed at Personnel Departments where one person is the sole contact point between the organisation and CRBS.

In all three options, the designated signatories are responsible for guaranteeing the identity of the subject of each disclosure request. Identity checking is not a trivial matter. CRBS provide a very useful service of translating the legalese output into understandable English.

Chess Scotland provides an environment that regards the welfare of any child or vulnerable adult as its prime concern. Any exclusion of a person from Chess Scotland activities because of a previous conviction is a serious matter and would only be taken as an exceptional step where the welfare of a child or vulnerable adult was identified as being at risk.

All documents relating to the recruitment of applicant volunteers and employees, including Disclosures obtained through CRBS will be stored in a locked cabinet at the Offices of Chess Scotland. They will be retained during the recruitment process and destroyed by shredding on completion of that process. A record that a disclosure was obtained will be retained but not the content of that Disclosure. The policy will be adopted irrespective of whether the applicant was successful or unsuccessful.

LIST OF RECOMMENDATIONS IN BODY OF REPORT

(B) A draft Policy on the Recruitment of Ex-Offenders is attached.

(D) Explanation of CS role etc. is a routine administrative task left to a later date.

(E) Nobody should be authorised to undertake chess coaching as a CS Coach unless they have successfully completed a recruitment process. Recruitment should include completion of a written application together with an Enhanced Disclosure obtained by CS through CRBS. Enhanced Disclosure should be obtained in every case, irrespective of whether or not any disclosure has been obtained previously whether by CS or any other organisation. Similarly, CS should recognise the concept of CS Chaperon. A CS Chaperon would be any CS representative responsible for children (i) in travelling to/from chess events and/or (ii) overnight accommodation in relation to a chess event. Responsible, and highly respected, people already provide this service on behalf of CS, this recommendation is simply formalising this approach and ensuring that disclosure has been obtained.

(F) In addition to any new applicant coaches/chaperons, all existing coaches/chaperons should be vetted.

(H) Annual, repeat Enhanced Disclosures should be obtained in respect of all authorised CS Coaches and CS Chaperons.

(J) No other CS representative should be subject to vetting.

CHILD PROTECTION

REGISTRATION

ISSUES

MECHANICS OF REGULATING DISCLOSURE REQUESTS

ISSUES

POLICY ON THE REHABILITATION OF OFFENDERS