Disclosure and Barring Service

Jess Phillips Excerpts

Monday 19th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Jess Phillips)]

I thank the hon. Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Vikki Slade) very much for securing this debate on an important issue. I am grateful to her and to all others who have contributed this evening. A good amount of ground has been covered, even in the relatively short time available, so I will respond to the various points that have been made.

First, I ask for the House’s indulgence as I set out some of the factual background of the Disclosure and Barring Service. The wider disclosure and barring regime is there to protect children and vulnerable adults through the disclosure of relevant criminal records, helping employers to make informed recruitment decisions about the suitability of an individual to work with those groups. It does so through criminal record checks, with the standard, enhanced and enhanced with barred lists levels. Increasing criminal record information is disclosed at each level. The roles and activities that are eligible for the higher-level criminal records check are set out in legislation owned by the Home Office and the Ministry of Justice. During the last reported year, the DBS issued a total of 7.2 million certificates.

The regime also allows for barring by the DBS of those who are considered to pose a risk, as has been covered. If someone is barred, they cannot work in what is defined as regulated activity in our legislation. As has been identified, regulated activity and institutions that are regulated are two different things—I make that completely clear. Examples of regulated activity include teaching, supervising children and providing health and personal care to children and adults. It does not matter whether it is voluntary or otherwise. Through the relevant arrangements, the DBS ensures that those it has barred cannot work in those roles and have access to vulnerable groups. The DBS’s most recent annual report states that 104,000 individuals are on its children and adults barred lists. I should note that the disclosure and barring regime is not, as has been pointed out, a vetting regime.

The disclosure and barring regime focuses on providing employers with information on people, whether that is criminal records, relevant police information or barred list status. This can support robust suitability decisions while allowing ex-offenders to get back into work and employment. As Parliament and the public would expect, the regime is kept under review to ensure that it is effectively delivering on its key objectives, and I am always keen to hear suggestions, especially those, as laid out by the hon. Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole, that are based in real life—IRL, as my children would say—with regard to our constituents.

We are bringing in changes to respond to the DBS-related recommendations from the independent inquiry into child sexual abuse. First, a measure in the Crime and Policing Bill will prevent those on the barred list from working closely with children, even in supervised roles working alongside somebody with a DBS certificate. Currently, if a role involving teaching, instructing or supervising children is supervised by another member of staff, it is not considered to be “regulated activity” under the legislation. This means that an employer can ask only for an enhanced DBS check, which does not include a check of the barred list. That creates a risk that a barred-list individual could work as a volunteer in a school, or as an employee in a youth club or other setting, if supervised. We agree with the inquiry that the risk is too high, and we are changing the law accordingly.

Secondly, we are enabling self-employed or personal employees to access higher-level DBS checks if they work with children or vulnerable adults. The relevant provision will come into force on Wednesday—completely coincidentally! Before we made that change, people such as private tutors or paid personal carers could only access a basic DBS check, while their counterparts in settings such as schools or care homes would be expected to obtain the highest level of DBS check.

[Tessa Munt]

Should DBS checks not have a start date and a finish date, so that people who are not particularly worldly are clear about the beginning and the end, and understand that when the end date comes, a new check will be needed?

[Jess Phillips]

I will come on to that when I pick up some of the issues of portability from one person to another. However, from Wednesday those hiring personal carers, or families engaging private tutors, will have access to the same high level of check, with the same level of information, including information about whether a person is barred by the DBS.

Thirdly, we have enabled the disclosure of an individual’s barred-list status on the international child protection certificate.

[Vikki Slade]

Will people have to go through some of the umbrella agencies, which can charge a lot of money? Will there be a cost differential for those individuals?

[Jess Phillips]

That is a very good question. There does seem to be a bit of a discrepancy. I know that when the hon. Lady was looking through different regulated systems to get people checked in her own area, they were found wanting. Individuals, families or those who want to employ a tutor or a carer on a self-employed basis, whether or not that involves direct payments, will have access to the enhanced check.

I pay tribute to Richard and the campaign of his brilliant wife Louise: she is absolutely on the money. The right to ask is a fundamental part of the system, and from Wednesday—give me 48 hours—parents will have that power. If I were sending my child to a tutor—which I have done, like many other people across the country—I would be able to ask whether that tutor had had an enhanced check. It may not be possible to access all the information, but it will be possible to question and scrutinise employers as well, to ensure that that is done. Parents will have that power.

As I have said, we understand that child protection is international. The ICPC, issued by the ACRO Criminal Records Office, is used for individuals who intend to work with children overseas. We changed the relevant legislation on 18 December, reducing the risk that an overseas employer could unknowingly hire a barred person to work with children and thereby meeting the third of the inquiry’s recommendations relating to the disclosure of criminal records.

Overall, our approach is underpinned by an unwavering commitment to safeguarding through the proportionate disclosure of criminal records and other relevant information. It is of course important that we listen to, and when necessary act on, any concerns raised by individuals, including Members of Parliament, and the sectors that interact with the regime.

[Tessa Munt]

The Minister refers to the fact that the DBS would be able to check whether somebody who was going to work abroad had a problem with their clearance. Will that work in reverse? For example, if someone is trying to employ an au pair from another country—I do not know if people can even do that any more—could the au pair be checked before they came in and worked with children?

[Jess Phillips]

I will get back to the hon. Lady on the specifics of that. This is about people who are barred from working with children, and ensuring that we have enhanced international knowledge sharing. In the cases raised by the hon. Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole, the fact that it was not known that somebody had all those issues was a real failure in the system.

I want to give some attention to the requirements that the hon. Lady calls for. The Disclosure and Barring Service does one thing. It is not the regulator, and it does not regulate services; it ensures that employers have the right information. The regulation of activities sits with the relevant Departments and institutions. The rules in residential settings are different from those in the Department for Education. We need to make sure that we do not introduce regulation that means that no one can ever start any sort of group—that is certainly something we have been mindful of in our work on the duty to report cases of sexual abuse among children. However, we need to have safeguards in place. The regulation of requirements sits with the relevant individual bodies; it is not for the DBS to say what the requirements should be. However, I am absolutely open to having conversations about what should and should not be regulated when it comes to safeguarding.

I go back to where I started: regulated activity. The hon. Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole asks for clarity in the guidance. Regulated activity is activity that involves someone working with children and vulnerable adults. Frankly, I find it quite hard to imagine that the vast majority of the cases that she has raised would not fall under the scope of regulated activity, but I will absolutely take her point away.

Before I finish, I want to pay tribute to Lauren, whose heartbreaking case was mentioned. I speak as somebody who knows what drug addiction can do, and what it costs families. I do not know the full details, but in Lauren’s case, I would consider the activity to have been regulated activity. If someone is teaching children, they are undertaking regulated activity, and parents will have the right to ask whether enhanced checks have been undertaken.

[Tessa Munt]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[Jess Phillips]

I do not think I can take any more interventions, because my time will run out. I am more than happy to meet the hon. Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole, and to work with her to make sure that we get the DBS to be the best it can be, within all the regulatory frameworks that are needed.

[Tessa Munt]

rose—

[Jess Phillips]

I will give way.

[Tessa Munt]

Madam Deputy Speaker, can you confirm that we can witter on until 10 o’clock? I believe that we are not limited.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Just to provide clarity, the Minister can indeed continue until 10 pm, but she does not have to.

[Jess Phillips]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. When I woke up this morning, I did not think that this debate would start until 10 pm, so any more time is a bonus. I apologise. The last time I replied in an Adjournment debate, I ran wildly over time, and somebody had to shut me up. I did not want anyone to be put in that position again.

The portability of checks was raised. I think people do not understand quite how many DBS checks are done a year—7.3 million. It gives me some comfort that quite a lot of the workforce in our country are undertaking checks. Incidentally, we do not have to undergo checks as Members of Parliament.

[Vikki Slade]

There are 7.2 million checks done a year, and I am sure that means multiple checks for individuals. I used to foster, and I obviously had very enhanced DBS checks for my fostering, but I then had to get a separate DBS check to undertake my work as a school governor. Frankly, that seems crazy. As a foster carer, I was being checked in far more detail. We could reduce the burden on the DBS by having a system of single portable checks, because I do not think that 7.2 million people a year are having checks.

[Jess Phillips]

We recognise that people may want to use their existing DBS check when moving from one role to another, where the new role requires a check. That is exactly the point that the hon. Lady raised. It is possible for employers to accept an existing criminal record certificate, but it must be for the same type of check in the same workforce—in the instance she has given, that would be working with children—such as enhanced with barred lists checks for the children’s workforce. This is to ensure that the appropriate level of information is available. We do not want a random DBS to have been done, and for someone to just say, “Look, I’ve got a DBS”. Over the years, I too have had more DBS checks than I can count.

On the delays, the DBS has a key performance indicator of getting 80% turnaround within 14 days, and it currently reaches 75%. It has been progressively working on that and ensuring that things are done more quickly. The enhanced check relies on police forces undertaking the work, and seven months seems like a very long time, but there can be a variety of reasons why delays may arise. However, the vast majority of checks are done within 14 days. My son had an enhanced DBS the other day, and it came back in three days. I do not think the DBS knew that he was my son.

[Tessa Munt]

I thank the Minister greatly for giving way. I want to pick up again the point I made about whether these checks will have a clear end date on them. I also have a second question, if I am allowed to ask it. I do not expect an answer now, but it would be nice to have an answer—one of the problems one finds constantly with police forces is that they are required to do checks, but they have no ability to recover the full costs through the charging system. Such a number of checks—7.2 million—will be very expensive. Do we know the cost of a single DBS check?

[Jess Phillips]

We absolutely understand that. Just to be clear, police forces are paid through the DBS system to undertake the checks. The resources are given by the DBS system to police forces to undertake that work. I will ensure that the hon. Member receives the exact cost, but it comes under the costs of the DBS.

On the issue of exactly how long a DBS check lasts, there is no one simple answer, but we should encourage more people to be part of the updating system and the checking system. This system has been heavily scrutinised over the years, and it deserves that level of scrutiny, but I have seen a real effort to make sure that it is the best and the fairest that it can be, but we are always here to work for any possible improvements.

Question put and agreed to.