THOUSANDS of children and the elderly are being put at risk because of failings in identity checks on teachers, care workers and professionals working with vulnerable people.

The failure could allow known sex offenders to obtain jobs working with children by using an assumed identity.

A spot check by the Criminal Records Bureau on organisations processing applications has found that more than a third were failing accurately to confirm applicants’ identities.

The spot check on organisations classed as registered bodies with the bureau uncovered a fundamental flaw in the system for issuing criminal records checks. When the organisation was set up it was assumed that the bodies would carry out full and proper identity checks on applicants before sending on their application form to the bureau, but no mechanism was set up for ensuring that they do.

It highlights a problem uncovered after the trial of Ian Huntley, the man convicted of murdering Holly Wells and Jessica Chapman at Soham, Cambridgeshire, in 2002. An investigation into child protection procedures after Huntley’s conviction found that declarations that checks had been verified were not accurate.

The bureau carried out the checks on a representative sample of 205 organisations that initially deal with applications and verify an identities against written evidence such as passports and birth certificates. It found that more than one third were not complying with rules laid down by the bureau.

It said: “Crucially 34 per cent were assessed as posing a risk to the integrity of the disclosure service, primarily because of their identity-checking procedures. This level of performance, if left unchecked, poses a serious risk to the protection of children/vulnerable adults. If the disclosure applications are accepted by the Criminal Records Bureau without the registered body undertaking rigorous identity checks, there would be scope for a person with a criminal record to circumvent the system to obtain a ‘clean’ disclosure by passing off as another person.”

The Government was first alerted to the problems in February 2003 when a Home Office review discovered that registered bodies, organisations dealing with applications before they are sent to the bureau, were “often not checking identities properly”.

Although some failings in the application form, such as missing out a person’s middle name, are picked up by the bureau, it relies on the registered body to carry out full checks on applicants who need a background check before taking up a job working with children or vulnerable people. Among documents that should be checked are passports, driving licences, bank statements, utility bills and birth certificates.

Under the law, registered bodies, which can include schools and major employers, channel applications for checks to the bureau. In addition to the failures in carrying out proper checks on the identity of applicants, they are also submitting hundreds of thousands of application forms that are wrongly filled in.

An estimated 464,000 applications are returned by the bureau because of errors and omissions. It is estimated that the bureau will have carried out 2.4 million criminal record checks in 2005-06. Ministers issued a consultation document aimed at improving standards at registered bodies in 2003, but the regulations were not introduced. They have now issued another consultation document aimed at tackling failings among registered bodies.

A Home Office spokeswoman said: “The Criminal Records Bureau relies on the registered body to make sure the information given to them is accurate. The bureau has checks in the process but they rely on the registered body to make sure they check people’s identity.”

Mark Oaten, Liberal Democrat Home Affairs spokesman, said: “The Criminal Records Bureau has been a terrible mess from start to finish. This is further evidence that the system for vetting is not working.”

Explore UK News

• Crime News

• Education News

• Health News

• Scotland News

Times Recommends

• Please help: maimed children of war want their lives back
• Unlocking the cruellest prison
• Prince Charles named in £81m court battle