Crew Vetting as a Universal Standard?

If the desired outcome is an industry that is safer for crew members with reduced risks of recent tragedies being repeated, are mandatory criminal & background checks for all crew members the answer? 

Lessons from The Aubry laws

A slight digression (and an imperfect, oversimplified summary).  At the start of the millenium, France had an unemployment problem and the Government had a plan to solve it.

The theory went: 

• Too many people worked more than 35 hours
• There were people with no jobs
• Make a rule that makes it more expensive to work overtime
• Someone else will need to be employed to "mop up" the hours
• Therefore unemployment will fall

Reality: 

• Most of those people who worked more than 35 hours were self employed or in small businesses
• Employing people is expensive and they are tricky to lay off in leaner times so it's safer not to take them on in the first place
• The business couldn't afford the extra training, overheads, pensions etc. Businesses closed. Unemployment went up.

My point?  The obvious answer isn't necessarily the best one.

First, a bit of context

The maritime industry, and yachting in particular, relies heavily on trust-based hiring and personal references. There are no universal or mandated standards of background checks or vetting. Recent incidents have very sadly, put this squarely in the spotlight 🔦

Whilst there are huge practical hurdles, I fully support the call for crew vetting to be debated and given attention at an international level. The industry and our crew need and deserve better, but any scheme needs to be understood and implemented correctly. Otherwise this can be more risky to all crew than having no checks.

Thoughts on Mandatory Criminal Background Checks

1️⃣ Getting a criminal background check in some jurisdictions is not possible (although not the key jurisdictions from which we pull a lot of talent). In others its laborious, involves wet ink finger prints and will take 6 - 7 weeks (I'm looking at you, South Africa) [edit, thanks to Wiss - FCRA compliant record check providers can do these much quicker, between 1-5 days]. With the pace at which the industry moves and recruits, this might mean that some of these crew can't get jobs, and yachts will take on a crew member that looks "safer" on paper.

So - does this point to criminal record checks being "reusable" and if so, how long for? When do they stop being relevant? How can something like this be overseen and administered? 

2️⃣ It’s not as simple as having a “clear” criminal record:

❓ Is someone with an endorsement for a driving offence “clear” or not? Where do we draw the line: forgetting to renew your insurance is ok, but driving under the influence isn’t?

❓ Is the now 50 year old who was convicted at 16 years old for driving recklessly and killing a friend, but has since had a clean record, more or less risky than a 20 year old with a “clear” criminal record?

❓ What about actions and behaviours, such as cannabis possession, that constitute a criminal offence in one jurisdiction but not in others?

3️⃣  A background check that has no entries does not mean that the crew member is “safe”.  Accepting the check for what it is = fine. Implying anything further than this can be more dangerous than having no checks at all.

Maybe we can draw some analogies with seafarer medical certificates here. Over many years the industry has developed a framework for what medical tests need to be undertaken, and the circumstances in which these tests can be considered equivalent across jurisdictions. These tests and certificates don't guarantee anything, and you'd never imply from an ENG1 that the Captain doesn't have any underlying issues, is in full wonderful health and won't get sick.

The ENG1 only forms part of a framework for mitigating risks with diverse safeguards: medical training onboard, medical support ashore, healthy food, gym memberships (indulge me here...!). I think criminal record checks need to be treated in a similar way.

4️⃣ The industry is multi-jurisdictional. How can we ensure that the person presenting a "clean" criminal record has undertaken checks in all the right jurisdictions? 

Any meaningful interpretation of criminal background checks will be complex as the following will need to be understood in each of the jurisdictions in which checks are undertaken: 

❓what behaviours would justify a criminal conviction in the jurisdiction?

❓what checks are you entitled to get, and what does local law allow to be disclosed on the check you're getting?

❓what are the rules about which convictions are "spent" (ie you have a conviction, but it isn't disclosed) and after how long?

Maybe all this complexity points to the need for some sort of oversight, assurance, administration. But by who, and by whose standards? How are they regulated? Is this a private sector or a public authority mandate?  

5️⃣ We need action at an international level but with jurisdictional implementation (like STCW/MLC) otherwise we will struggle to give the scheme a basis in law because...

6️⃣ In the UK (and probably other GDPR based jurisdictions), the only way a "comprehensive register of criminal convictions" can be maintained is under the control of an official authority. As context to what a "comprehensive register" is, the ICO (the UK DP regulator) shares this example on their website:

"A company holds a list of individuals with criminal convictions who work in their industry sector because it considers those individuals should not be employed. The company offers access to this ‘blocklist’ to other companies in the same industry. The list is considered to be a ‘comprehensive register of criminal convictions’. However the company does not have the official authority based in law to keep it. This processing therefore breaches Article 10."

So, should we encourage criminal background checks? 

If the outcome we are seeking is to weed out is unsavoury behaviours and actions, then its a resounding Yes. But it's all about the role that crew vetting (in a wide sense) plays in the complex puzzle of outcomes based risk mitigation.

The industry still treats criminal background checks as the gold standard, despite the fact they only confirm the absence of recorded and disclosable convictions in the jurisdiction requested.  Whilst no vetting process can completely eliminate risk, proper, enhanced vetting goes a long way toward mitigation through assessments of behavioral issues, financial vulnerabilities, misconduct, reputational concerns. (if you're interested, I've written another blog on this which is available on this section of the website)

As important as vetting is the culture onboard, psychological safety to know that you can report bad behaviour, that something will be done about it, that you won’t lose your job, that your job prospects won’t be harmed by that short stint onboard.

We can't design an infallible system now. But, we can take steps. Certification checks and vetting becoming the norm, proper verification of references, and a broader review and analysis of other risk factors. More soft skills training and regular education. Ongoing support systems in place for leaders onboard.

With thanks and credit to Ben Taylor, Caroline Blatter, Wiss Abdullah and Joanna Drysdale for contributing so eloquently to our discussions and giving me real food for thought. You might recognise a sentence or two....

‍