ECF Safeguarding Children Policy

[Michael Flatt]

Those Clubs and Associations that sign up to the ECF Insurance Policy are required to adopt the ECF Safeguarding Policy[1]. That, in itself ,is no bad thing but the ECF Safeguarding Policy Appendix 1 needs to be clearer about which posts require DBS and those for which it is not mandatory.

"Persons travelling abroad as designated officials with ECF teams which include junior players" absolutely need DBS - no argument.

"Arbiters who perform their duties at junior congresses" would not be eligible for DBS for that particular role since the level of unsupervised contact with children is below the threshold where DBS can be legally demanded. Individuals who are Arbiters may have previously obtained DBS for a different role (eg. as a professional teacher, after school club superviser and similar) but it cannot be demanded simply for being an Arbiter at Junior events and should be removed from the list.

Although individuals or organisations might think that they should demand DBS "just to be sure", the ECF Safeguarding document should make it clear that, in fact, it is illegal to demand DBS for a role which does not meet the DBS eligibility criteria.

DBS check eligibility
Access to the DBS checking service is only available to registered employers who are entitled by law to ask an individual to reveal their full criminal history (other than protected cautions and convictions), including spent convictions - also known as asking ‘an exempted question’.

[1] ECF Safeguarding Policy: http://www.englishchess.org.uk/safeguar ... en-policy/
[2] About DBS: https://www.gov.uk/government/organisat ... vice/about
[3] DBS Home page: https://www.gov.uk/government/organisat ... ng-service

[John Swain]

Interesting, informative and important observations. It might be worth copying this to the ECF officially under the "Ask the Director" function.

[Paul McKeown]

it cannot be demanded simply for being an Arbiter at Junior events and should be removed from the list.

Are you sure about that? An arbiter at a junior only event has unsupervised access to minors. I would suggest that properly qualified legal advice should be sought before such a decision were to be made.

[Michael Flatt]

it cannot be demanded simply for being an Arbiter at Junior events and should be removed from the list.

Are you sure about that? An arbiter at a junior only event has unsupervised access to minors. I would suggest that properly qualified legal advice should be sought before such a decision were to be made.

Safeguarding is not specifically the role of the Arbiter. It is the Organisers responsibility to do the risk assessment and he may choose to have one or more adults with DBS supervising the event in those instances where parents are excluded from the playing hall.

Previously the ECF demanded CRB clearance for all Arbiters but when the law was clarified and DBS introduced the requirement for Arbiters to be CRB checked had to be removed. The ECF cannot introduce DBS as a necessary requirement of any Arbiter.

The ECF should take into account that the ECF Safeguarding Policy is intended to apply to all chess events not just those organised by ECF staff.

The ECF document should identify those specific roles where DBS is mandatory.

[Kevin Thurlow]

I did ask ECF about "The Prevent Policy" and whether they would attempt to enforce it. "Prevent" is aimed at stopping radicalisation of children and teachers are expected to report if they think the pupils will become terrorists, instead of just terrible. Some teachers are unhappy with "Prevent" - you have to be brave to accuse someone of maybe being a terrorist. You might be accused of being racist. ECF seemed unclear if they were going to adopt "Prevent", but gave the impression they didn't think it would be a problem if they did.

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/s ... ice-v6.pdf

[Gary Kenworthy]

I think it does need to be made clearer.
Arbiters have often taken children abroad. But that is a role change from also being an arbiter. Or any role change - it has to be distinct, assessed and clear.
True, you are non compliant if you force a DBS when not required.(if your role does not change).

Kevin's point is a real must also to make clear. It affects teachers and parents and it is already going too far in some schools in severe misunderstandings and inconsistency. For chess roles, it also needs clear guidance.

Important posts. - rgds GK

[Paul McKeown]

Safeguarding is not specifically the role of the Arbiter.

Agreed.

It is the Organisers responsibility to do the risk assessment

Agreed.

and he may choose to have one or more adults with DBS supervising the event in those instances where parents are excluded from the playing hall.

Loading extra cost on the organiser. For each arbiter, find a DBS cleared chaperone. Wonderful.

Previously the ECF demanded CRB clearance for all Arbiters but when the law was clarified and DBS introduced the requirement for Arbiters to be CRB checked had to be removed. The ECF cannot introduce DBS as a necessary requirement of any Arbiter.

The ECF can create a category of arbiter, "Arbiter cleared for working in junior events". It can then require DBS clearance for this category of arbiter.

The ECF should take into account that the ECF Safeguarding Policy is intended to apply to all chess events not just those organised by ECF staff.

There are specific safeguarding requirements for junior events. They should be clearly identified. It is not acceptable to ignore the requirements for safeguarding for junior events because they don't apply to adult only events. Furthermore those safeguarding requirements should also apply to events in which both adults and unaccompanied minors are participating.

The ECF document should identify those specific roles where DBS is mandatory.

If the role ever involves unsupervised interaction with children, then the DBS is mandatory. If the ECF doesn't think this is the case, then one day, its directors will find themselves in deep trouble. The penalties for getting this wrong are severe.

[Paul McKeown]

it cannot be demanded simply for being an Arbiter at Junior events and should be removed from the list.

Are you sure about that? An arbiter at a junior only event has unsupervised access to minors. I would suggest that properly qualified legal advice should be sought before such a decision were to be made.

I would also say that your second post does not actually address my point. An arbiter at a junior only event has unsupervised access to minors. Such a role requires clearance. Unless you really want to propose the ludicrous offloading of responsibility to the organisers of junior events, so that they provide a DBS cleared supervisor for each arbiter.

If the ECF cannot provide DBS cleared arbiters to junior events, then the junior events will cease to have arbiters, as the organisers cannot take the risk.

[Michael Flatt]

Arbiters are awarded their title for their knowledge of the FIDE Laws of Chess and for their abilities to supervise competitions under those rules.
Child Safeguarding is an entirely separate issue and should be considered separately.
It is not appropriate to create and publish separate lists of Arbiters distinguishing between those who possess DBS and those who do not.

Appendix 1 of the ECF safeguarding Policy fails to identify specific posts or roles within the ECF organisation where DBS is mandatory, instead it lists a number of roles where the ECF consider DBS might be desirable. That is inadequate and causes unnecessary confusion.

To demand that those taking out ECF Insurance adopt ECF Safeguarding Policy puts clubs and associations in a difficult position because the ECF Policy document is so unclear about DBS in specific roles.

[Paul McKeown]

Arbiters are awarded their title for their knowledge of the FIDE Laws of Chess and for their abilities to supervise competitions under those rules.

This is true, in as far as it goes. However, they must also carry out their work under the laws of the land.

It is not appropriate to create and publish separate lists of Arbiters distinguishing between those who possess DBS and those who do not.

It is certainly true that to publish separate lists of Arbiters, those with and without clearance, would defeat the purpose of some of the changes to safeguarding law, to prevent unwarranted intrusion, such as may sometimes have been caused by DBS trawling.

Child Safeguarding is an entirely separate issue and should be considered separately.

The law asks that an employer considers whether a role meets a requirement for DBS clearance. In that sense it is not a separate issue.

Anyone who for professional reasons has regular unsupervised access to children must be cleared (actually it is more complicated than that, as we are both aware, which is why qualified legal advice is of the essence). If the role of arbiter entails unsupervised access to children, then the arbiter must be cleared. If arbiters are not cleared, then junior event organisers must provide staff with DBS clearance to supervise the arbiters. This passes a burden of legal responsibility from a national organisation well resourced to cope with that burden to much smaller organisations which are necessarily less well resourced to cope with that burden.

It would make sense for the ECF to take qualified legal advice, then to publish clear guidance based on that legal advice.

If the ECF ended up diverging significantly from the practise of other sporting bodies (e.g. the Football Association), then one should take that as a signal that it is likely to be in error.

[Nick Grey]

This my well be why many clubs have not signed up especially where we have no juniors.

[Michael Farthing]

Well also one of the best insurances against being sued is not to have any insurance.
Why would anyone risk the cost of suing you if they knew in advance that you couldn't possibly pay up even if found liable?

[Michael Flatt]

It occurs to me that in specifying that all clubs and associations who take out ECF Public Liability Insurance must adopt the ECF Safeguarding Policy as their own aren't the ECF implicitly accepting the Safeguarding responsibilities of all those bodies?

[Kevin Thurlow]

"It occurs to me that in specifying that all clubs and associations who take out ECF Public Liability Insurance must adopt the ECF Safeguarding Policy as their own aren't the ECF implicitly accepting the Safeguarding responsibilities of all those bodies?"

That would make a good argument.

One person suggested that clubs might ban juniors to avoid the Safeguarding paperwork!

[Mick Norris]

"It occurs to me that in specifying that all clubs and associations who take out ECF Public Liability Insurance must adopt the ECF Safeguarding Policy as their own aren't the ECF implicitly accepting the Safeguarding responsibilities of all those bodies?"

That would make a good argument.

One person suggested that clubs might ban juniors to avoid the Safeguarding paperwork!

Indeed, missing the point completely - there are vulnerable adults playing chess too