Actually the Charity Commission for England & Wales say it is the Trustees of Charities who should make decisions and assess risks, especially safeguarding, regardless if whether you are a Registered or Excepted Charity. the latest update was issued in 2019. Whereas it appears here that it is the RAFAC ( bearing in mind that some of the ACMB are Trustees of the GPF) who is concerned about risk to the MOD, who would be responsible for any compensation should a claim arise.
It is then strange that GPF money (ie charitable money) will be used to pay an external firm to mitigate against MOD liability - hardly an appropriate use of charitable money as it derives no benefit for the beneficiaries for something which is perceived to be an RAFAC admin issue. Except that the Civcom exists independent of RAFAC admin.
In my experience none of the Civcom has unsupervised contact with cadets and only the Chairman and Treasurer might be frequent visitors to the Unit. Cadet supervision by a Civcom member really only appeared when the CAC introduced the registered Civcom member.
No-one should actually object to having DBS clearance; I was required to sign a declaration under Safeguarding of Vulnerable Groups Act 2006 in order to be a Trustee. Without that I could not be a Trustee and it makes the Civcom fully responsible, and it is then they who should explore the DBS.
It might appear that the RAFAC has been negligent in ensuring Civcoms are fully acquainted with legal requirements and especially all CCEW guidance, - that is certainly the case since 2011 - but that would have been contrary to the myth that the Air Cadet Council (through the CAC) had overall authority.
I would argue that an extra layer of vetting against financial and child protection misdeeds would count as a benefit.
For the child protection angle, while they might not be unsupervised at the unit itself, their regular presence could make a CivCom member a known and trusted person to a cadet - something which could be leveraged away from the unit.
Besides, other charities don’t have a public fund and have to pay for DBS clearances…
DBS has nothing specific to do with financial control, as Treasurers would have been subject to clearance before now. But even as Excepted Charities, Civcoms are accountable to the Charity Commission, not the RAFAC, despite the practice of completing annual Form 60. Form 60 is an incomplete process anyway, because a lot of Civcoms do not provide details of assets, plus the RAFAC (ie WExOs) never verifies that assets are still in place.
Certainly this suggests that all Civcoms should become registered charities and where all could entertain an independent financial audit - something Civcom Trustees could insist on, acting in the interests of their own charity.
I am advised that DBS checks are actually FREE to Charities; logically the RAFAC has to pay because it is not a Charity, and of course members of the RAFAC are not allowed to be members of a Charity; so does this instruction amount to the RAFAC saying that Civcom are members of the RAFAC? completely ignoring their status as Trustees of independent charities Surely a failure to understand the legal position is leading to a misuse of charitable funds.
What you constantly fail to realise @Aries is that the Civ Com, as a charity have complete control over what they do and what rules they follow. But, if they want to partner with another organisation (ATC) and benefit from it, the other organisation is allowed to set down conditions for association. No one is going to stop the Civ Conm setting their own rules, but if HQAC don’t like them they are free to say that the Civ Conm can no longer operate under the ATC banner, so they lose the training materials, uniform, VA for staff, accommodation, access to defence establishments etc etc
The act of the check might be free, but the processing of the check won’t be. That is what you’re paying for, the admin and the “skills” of the staff actually doing the work of 5000 new requests.
VA is not related to the Civ Comm. Correct
VA is however a benefit of the Sqn Committee running under the parenting of the ATC/RAFAC. . .
The argument being that the Civ Com could turn around and take “the squadron” out of the ATC/RAFAC and therefore not need to follow any RAFAC rules. That woud of course have lots of consequences; loss of premises, loss of staff, loss of cadets etc etc etc
Not sure where you got that from - which ACP? Sure the Secretary of State is required to make rules under the Royal Warrant but those rules as they apply to Civcoms, must be consistent with Charity Law ie the Charity (ies) are separate to any part of the organisation especially one which is funded by the Exchequer. There is nothing which establishes the Civcom as a legal constituent of the organisation; the Civcom is an unincorporated association, whereas the RAFAC is a body within the MOD and there is no stipulated accountability for Civcoms other than that under Charity Law. Tell me differently. It is then in everyone’s interests that Charities should be independent and properly managed and that includes DBS checks and any other for that matter.
NCVO guidance says this:
In terms of safeguarding there is no legal requirement that says ‘all trustees must have [x] level of DBS check’. Instead, the Charity Commission expects criminal record checks to be carried out where the position in question is eligible for such checks. The type of check which should be carried out is dependent on both the charity’s activities and the specific role which the trustee carries out.
So what we appear to have is the RAFAC making it seem that it is a legal requirement, regardless of whether individuals are involved with a regulated activity.
‘but the processing of the check won’t be’ (free) BUT they are free if each charity were to ensure each Trustee had been availed of the free check, and then each Civcom could then confirm to the RAFAC that checks had been made to the satisfaction of the Trustees. This would involve no admin by the RAFAC, the admin being undertaken by each individual Charity. It might be said that all Trustees should have entertained checks following the 2006 legislation because there has always been clear expectations from the CCEW. The RAFAC has not really encouraged Civcoms to follow CCEW guidance, and it appears this is not just those at Squadron level.
None of this escapes the fact of this so called ‘skilled’ admin being paid out of charitable funds, to do something which unpaid non members would do for free. And paying a chunk of money wont make it happen any faster especially if the DBS Office has yet to return to the pre-covid level of operation.
I’m not saying it’s a legal requirement. I’m saying that HQAC have determined that, for them to be willing to enter into a partnership with a charity and run a squadron together, they want the trustees to have a DBS as part of HQACs risk management of partnering. In much the same way they can ask for the same of a limited company that they partner with despite the Companies Act not requiring Directors to hold DBS. Contracts between different entities, even charities, often contain clauses that go beyond the minimum requirements set out in legislation.
As I say the Civ comm can decide they don’t want to agree to these conditions, but they shouldn’t be surprised if HQAC then decide to end their partnership meaning the squadron would no longer be part of the ATC with all the accompanying benefits but would instead be an independent Air Cadet unit
Anyway, we probably won’t convince each other here so I’ll let you get back to the rugby club house
HQ could certainly say that 1234 Sqn CivCom is no longer permitted to act under the banner of 1234 Sqn ATC. But the Squadron wouldn’t become an independent Air Cadet unit. It would suddenly be a Sqn without any form of committee and would have to be be put into special measures or cease to exist.
Likely the Wing Committee would take charge until a new Sqn committee could be put together. Then would begin the legal battle over the charitable funds which the old charity took with them when they were cut loose.
Though, they would be free to rename themselves (“The Haddock Trust” or whatever they fancy) and could make future donations to the new charity of the Sqn they used to support.
Er, yes it will in this case because it bypasses our internal paper shuffles.
And as for this:
Holy crudballs it’s the same anti mask argument in a new setting!
You missed the point in your rant about “separate entity from the MOD” which was if a charity committee wants to benefit from the offering and branding of the RAFAC it ALSO (I.e. In addition to charity law) has to align with whatever rules RAFAC lays down. Otherwise it can go be a run of the mill youth club.
We’re back to “our club our rules” and it’s valid and relevant.
Well, in this case the charities’ activities are centred around youth work, and trustees may come into regular contact with the young people that use the service, so you’ve made the case in favour of DBS for all there.
However, from a business/operational perspective, sometimes the cost-benefit analysis leads to a decision for a potentially avoidable or higher “sunk cost investment” to achieve greater efficiency and consistency, and improved/more reliable operational continuity.
As for removal of admin with your method, it wouldn’t be the case because there would be countless people in multiple chains checking and chasing compliance anyway.
This is a catch up exercise, which requires the fastest “single hit” methodology available for it to be expedited. A short, easy, and swift process that has a cost, can be (and clearly has been) deemed preferable to any free or theoretically cheaper option and I can see why.
Try reading the regs as what you are saying is not correct plus we are talking DBS not power play between two parties trying to achieve the same end game
I really couldn’t care much what the law states is not needed but if a member of the public volunteer to join an organisation which works for/in partnership with children and doesn’t want to be vetted then sorry they can disappear.
if they have a history of abusing kids, violence towards people or even taking money from an organisation to give to their favourite rugby club
I would like to know that before encouraging them to get involved in the sqn.
I’m actually disappointed that I had to send this letter to my chair, appears they didn’t receive directly, but also that it’s been issued but the IBN with the process hasn’t.
