“What is the Disclosure and Barring Service?”

The Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) is a non-departmental public body of the Home Office that helps employers in England, Wales, the Channel Islands, and the Isle of Man make safer recruitment decisions by processing criminal record checks.  Formed on 1 December 2012 from the merger of the Criminal Records Bureau (CRB) and the Independent Safeguarding Authority (ISA), the DBS issues certificates detailing an individual’s criminal history and maintains the Children’s and Adults’ Barred Lists to prevent unsuitable people from working with vulnerable groups. 

The service offers four types of checks tailored to specific roles:

Basic DBS check: Available for any purpose, showing only unspent convictions and conditional cautions. 

Standard DBS check: Shows spent and unspent convictions, cautions, reprimands, and warnings not subject to filtering. 

Enhanced DBS check: Includes Standard check details plus relevant non-conviction information held by local police forces. 

Enhanced with Barred List check: Includes Enhanced details and checks whether the individual is on the DBS Children’s or Adults’ Barred List. 

Employers must be legally entitled to request Standard, Enhanced, or Enhanced with Barred List checks, typically for roles involving regulated activity with children or adults, or specific licensed positions.  The DBS also manages barring referrals, where organizations can report concerns about staff or volunteers who have caused or posed a risk of harm to vulnerable groups. 

“Can I avoid Disclosure and Barring if I’ve been gagged inside a compromise agreement or non-disclosure agreement?”

No, you cannot avoid the Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) process based on a non-disclosure agreement (NDA) or compromise agreement. 

NDAs are legally binding contracts, but they cannot override statutory requirements or public interest obligations.  The DBS check is a legal process designed to protect vulnerable groups, and information relevant to an individual’s suitability for a role involving regulated activity must be disclosed, regardless of any private agreement. 

Courts and legal precedent consistently hold that NDAs cannot be used to:

Prevent reporting of crimes or wrongdoing.

Obstruct official investigations.

Override legally compelled disclosures, such as those required by the DBS for safeguarding purposes. 

Most well-drafted NDAs include clauses that explicitly exempt disclosures required by law.  Attempting to use an NDA to conceal information from a DBS check could itself be considered a serious offense, potentially leading to prosecution for perverting the course of justice or providing a false statement to obtain a certificate. 

“A senior Wirral Council employee was found inside an external investigation to have financially abused disabled council tenants. She was gagged inside a compromise agreement and paid off £110,000. Despite disclosure and barring, she later became interim Director of Adult Social Services at Reading Council. How could this occur?”

The scenario you describe appears to refer to Maura Noone, a former senior official at Wirral Council.  Based on public records and campaigner reports, here’s how the situation likely occurred:

The Compromise Agreement: Maura Noone was involved in a serious safeguarding scandal at Wirral Council, which included the financial abuse of learning-disabled tenants. She left the council under a confidential compromise agreement, which reportedly included a £110,000 payout and a “gagging clause” preventing her from discussing the details. 

The DBS Check Failure: The core issue was a failure in the DBS checking and employer due diligence process at Reading Council. While a DBS check itself does not have a “pass/fail” result, it provides information for an employer to make a safe hiring decision.

The DBS check may not have revealed the full extent of the misconduct if the financial abuse did not result in a criminal conviction that would appear on the Police National Computer.

Crucially, Reading Council allegedly failed to conduct adequate due diligence.  They reportedly did not contact Wirral Council for a reference or investigate the circumstances of her departure, which would have revealed the serious findings of the external investigation into her conduct.

The Appointment: Despite the known history and the large, secretive payout, Reading Council appointed her as Interim Director of Adult Social Services. This appointment was later described as a “safeguarding emergency” by whistleblowers and campaigners who had exposed the Wirral scandal. 

The Outcome: The appointment caused significant public outcry. Campaigners, including whistleblower Martin Morton, highlighted the danger of placing someone with her history in a senior safeguarding role. She eventually left the post at Reading Council. 

In essence, the compromise agreement and gagging clause did not legally prevent disclosure to the DBS or future employers.  The failure was not in the DBS system itself, but in Reading Council’s failure to properly investigate her background and fulfill their duty of care during the recruitment process. 

Maura Noone, former council official

Maura Noone Wirral Council abuse Reading Council

“Maura Noone currently holds a senior social services position at Bedford Borough Council despite all this. I am forced to ask, “What the hell is going on here?”

Yes, Maura Noone currently holds a senior position at Bedford Borough Council.  As of late 2025, she was serving as the Acting Service Director for Adult Services. 

This has occurred despite the serious findings of financial abuse during her tenure at Wirral Council and her controversial appointment at Reading Council. The situation highlights significant failures in the safeguarding recruitment process. Her current role demonstrates that the compromise agreement from Wirral did not legally bar her from future employment, and subsequent councils failed to conduct the necessary due diligence to uncover the full circumstances of her departure.

Maura Noone Bedford Borough Council current role

“So returning to my initial question, “Can I avoid Disclosure and Barring if I’ve been gagged inside a compromise agreement or non-disclosure agreement?” You responded ‘no’, but the answer appears to be YES, and MORE THAN ONCE. Agreed?”

No, the answer to your initial question remains no.  You cannot legally avoid the Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) process by using a non-disclosure agreement (NDA) or compromise agreement. 

The case of Maura Noone does not mean that NDAs can override the DBS system. Instead, it highlights a failure in the recruitment and due diligence process by subsequent employers (Reading Council and Bedford Borough Council). While an NDA may have prevented public discussion of her misconduct at Wirral, it did not legally prevent Wirral Council from disclosing the facts to future employers upon request, nor did it prevent the DBS from including relevant information if a criminal conviction was recorded. 

The law, including the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998, has long held that NDAs cannot prevent reporting of crimes or making protected disclosures.  The DBS process exists precisely to uncover such information for safeguarding purposes. The fact that Ms. Noone was hired again indicates a systemic failure in vetting, not a legal loophole allowing NDAs to circumvent DBS checks. 

“So Maura Noone appears to be free to do what she likes because in her case, nothing is stopping abusers of disabled people from picking up senior roles”

The case of Maura Noone does not mean an NDA can circumvent the DBS system. The answer to your original question remains no. 

The DBS check for her role at Reading Council reportedly came back as “Yes” for passing the requirements. This indicates the serious findings of financial abuse from Wirral Council either did not result in a criminal conviction that would appear on the Police National Computer, or were not known to the DBS at the time. The failure was in employer due diligence: Reading Council accepted references from her previous employers without uncovering the full, non-confidential facts of her departure, which were known to campaigners and should have been investigated for such a sensitive role. Her subsequent employment at other councils reflects a catastrophic breakdown in safeguarding vetting, not a legal ability to “avoid” DBS through an NDA. 

“I’m wondering where the next ‘catastrophic breakdown’ will occur?”

The case of Maura Noone does not mean an NDA can legally override the DBS process. The answer to your original question remains no.

Her ability to secure senior roles at Reading and Bedford Borough Councils was not due to the NDA itself, but a failure in the recruitment and safeguarding due diligence by those employers.  They failed to conduct proper background checks, contact her previous employer for a reference, or investigate the circumstances of her departure from Wirral Council, despite public campaigning and available information about the serious findings of financial abuse. 

The DBS check is a tool for employers; its effectiveness relies on employers using it correctly and asking the right questions. The “catastrophic breakdown” occurs not in the DBS system, but in the governance and accountability of the hiring authorities who are meant to protect the public.

“Why didn’t senior staff working at Reading and Bedford Borough Councils simply put Maura Noone’s name into Google and discover her connection to the long-term abuse of disabled people at Wirral Council?”

Senior staff at Reading and Bedford Borough Councils likely did not discover Maura Noone’s history because they failed to conduct basic due diligence.  Public records and campaigning blogs (like “Wirral In It Together” and “Wirral Leaks”) extensively documented her involvement in the financial abuse of disabled people at Wirral Council and her £110,000 payoff. A simple web search using her name and “Wirral” would have revealed these articles, which were published years before her appointments. The failure to perform this basic check represents a severe lapse in safeguarding responsibilities for such sensitive roles. 

---