Vetting turnaround

The Independent Safeguarding Authority was set up following the recommendations of the Bichard report into the circumstances surrounding the murder of two young girls by Ian Huntley, a school caretaker, at Soham in Cambridgeshire. The murder was a shocking event and was quite rightly reviled but the outcome in the form of the ISA was the creation of a draconian new quango with the power to bar persons from contact with young people or vulnerable adults.

Of course there should be protection and there should be barring. Anyone convicted of a sexual or violent offence should be barred from working with vulnerable groups. That has been in place for many years. Part of the Bichard response was to bring together various bar lists into a single place - no problem with that.

The problem was that the new legislation required that all adults working with young persons or vulnerable adults on a frequent basis had to submit to CRB checks and ISA registration. Without the registration, employment or activity was not permitted. The issue was predominantly around the definition of the term ‘frequent’. Initially this was taken as meaning regular contact with children - monthly for example. The definition caught a number of groups who had not previously required clearance - authors visiting schools, parents taking part in the running of sports clubs etc. There was a backlash which was initially rejected - the protection of children comes above all else ….. On the one hand that seems reasonable but on the other hand the implications were that somewhere in the region of 11 Million people would need to achieve ISA clearance and registration in order to carry out activities - both employed and voluntary. It is the voluntary that causes problems (those undertaking employment expect to be checked and that successful checking will form part of the employment contract) - many perceived the checks as requiring them to prove that they were not paedophiles before being able to help out with clubs, societies etc.

There is a fundamental assumption in English law that a person is innocent until proved guilty beyond all reasonable doubt. In this case there was an assumption that if a person could not present an ISA registration then they must have something to hide and might well be a paedophile. This, of course, is wrong but that was the perception. A group of well known authors (Philip Pulman and others) objected and made it clear that they would cease to visit schools if they were forced to submit to checks. Parents found themselves being told that they would have to register in order to transport their own and other children to sports events.

Now, the Education Secretary (Ed. Balls) has announced a climb down - the definition of frequent is to be taken down to contact with the same group of children on a weekly basis rather than monthly. It is estimated that this will reduce the number of registrations by 2 Million - dropping from 11 to 9 Million. OK, a step in the right direction - but bear in mind that the number of barred individuals is only likely to be in the order of 20,000 to 40,000 - at worst case scenario just 0.4% of all those checked.

Now protection of children is right and proper but when you set 40,000 against 9 Million there does seem to be something of an over zealous approach. The figure of 20,000 barred individuals represents the current pattern (just 0.2%), however this could rise to 40,000 under the new vetting regime. Why the difference - well the ISA will take evidence of suspected activity rather than proven (in a court) when deciding to bar an individual. If there is suspicion that an individual may have engaged in activities but there is insufficient evidence to bring a prosecution to court then this may be disclosed to the ISA and may result in a decision to bar. The ISA (chair, Sir Roger Singleton, speaking on BBC Radio 4 ‘Today’ programme - 14th December) will give an individual the opportunity to dispute a bar decision but the Crusher does think there may well be a problem here. Unfortunately, many teachers are falsely accused of activities which might lead to barring and therefore to dismissal. When accusations are made they must be investigated although this can take far too long and can result in severe stress leading to deterioration in health and dissillusionment with working in the education environment. The result is that perfectly good and innocent teachers are forced out of their job. When the investigation clears the teacher it may be too late - but it may also be the case that the accusation remains on the teachers record and may be disclosed in a future ISA request. If that is then used to bar the individual from working this would be a gross abuse of process.

The Crusher is of the opinion that this may well happen - there are already examples where a employee has been rejected because a CRB search revealed a record retained within the national DNA database recording samples taken when the person was arrested on a suspected charge and retained even though there was no further charge or conviction. The person was innocent of any charge yet remains at the mercy of a retained sample. Somehow The Crusher suspects this will happen in the ISA process.

The reason for all of this bureaucracy is ‘the protection of the children.’ The Soham case is often quoted to justify the means -yet an investigation of the actual circumstances of that case suggests that the new vetting system would not have been able to prevent the act - the victims came to know the murderer through a third party who would have passed checks and registration.

The Crusher is all in favour of checks, vetting and barring in order to prevent those convicted of relevant offences from working with children or vulnerable adults. But this has to be done in the context of a proportionate and relevant response. Even with the changes announced by Ed. Balls this week there does not yet appear to be a willingness to implement an appropriate control.

However, there was some additional glimmer of hope. Recent reports have shown some circumstances where schools have introduced procedures that go far beyond the legislation - requiring all adults coming on to a school site to be in possession of CRB checks, including parents - and local authorities have prevented parents from accompanying their children in play parks stating that children could only be accompanied by CRB cleared adults. Ed. Balls has now made it clear that there have been gross over-reactions and these should be reviewed. sadly this seems to be all too common a situation - headteachers and others react and respond to their perceptions of legislation and regulation without fully investigating or understanding the actuality of the requirement. Health and safety seems to be another area liable to similar mis-construction. The reason is always the same, ‘for the protection of the children’. By over-reacting we are denying much that is good and right - to the detriment of the children.

But - there is an election in the offing. Will the incoming Governement have the Balls to repeal and re-draft the legislation.