The good news for people who want to work with children and vulnerable adults is that a new vetting, barring and registration scheme will begin in October 2009, the new Independent Safeguarding Authority (ISA) has announced. The scheme will keep a list of people who are barred from working or volunteering with children and vulnerable adults.
The downside is that there is a £64 fee that will include the existing £36 fee for clearance from the Criminal Record Bureau (CRB). The advantage of the new system is that applicants will only have to pay once and will not need new clearance when changing jobs or places of work. For volunteers and the organisations taking them on, the process will be free.
However, a volunteer with ISA clearance who later begins paid employment, will be required to pay. The CRB will be responsible for gathering information on applicants and passing it on to the ISA which will then decide whether a person should be barred from working with children or vulnerable adults.
The ISA assessments will include so-called ‘soft information’ that includes details of allegations made against applicants, even if proved false. It will also include details of disciplinary procedures in former employment.
The chief executive of the ISA claims that the new system will not allow every detail about a person’s life to be passed to the ISA. However, if someone is found not guilty in court, or a case were to be discontinued, there can be many complicated reasons, including the vulnerability of a witness for example, so that decisions about what information to pass to the ISA 'will be taken very seriously and will be appropriate, proportionate, carefully considered and consistent.'
How reassuring.
Ian Huntley's history was not apparent to those who employed him as a school caretaker partly because people made mistakes, partly because he lied.
When people make decisions, albeit careful, appropriate, proportionate etc., they may still make mistakes. Some of those mistakes may be of fact. Indeed, it is disconcerting to think that this administrative body should be administering judicial decisions affecting a person's future on the basis of 'soft information' --- unattributable allegations, hearsay, gossip --- the sort of thing a court would dismiss as unreliable evidence.
Evidentiary rules may be strict: but they offer valuable protection against malicious, mischievous or downright false allegation.
It is claimed that as well as extending the scope of the present vetting and barring arrangements to a much wider category of people, the new scheme will constantly be updated. Thus the ISA will monitor reports made to it so that in the case of a person receiving a conviction that could make him or her unsuitable to work with children or vulnerable adults, the authority would decide whether to put an entry on the list and whether to inform the employer.
People will have to register only once, unlike in the current system in which multiple CRB clearances may be necessary to cover every workplace, paid or voluntary. Once a person is registered with the scheme it is claimed that the monitoring will be consistent and continuous.
This ongoing nature of assessment requires that employers will need to inform the ISA of their concerns about staff who have been dismissed for 'inappropriate behaviour'. It is interesting to speculate whether employers should contact the ISA about staff they have dismissed, or positions that they have constructively made redundant, on different pretexts to avoid implying concerns about 'inappropriate behaviour' as the cause in order to avoid litigation.
After all, an employer may need to be extremely careful about dismissing somebody on the basis of the sort of 'soft information' the ISA may consider appropriate to bar a person from registration. This situation seems a trifle absurd.
At present, the plan is to phase in the scheme over the next three years. The Home Office will not be drawn on its assessment of the phasing in period, and some charities are suggesting it might take ten years. Some 11.3 million people in England, Wales and Northern Ireland will need to be registered.
Previous history is not too encouraging. When Criminal Records Bureau checks were first introduced to check the criminal backgrounds of everyone working with children or vulnerable adults in schools, voluntary organisations or professional bodies, the scheme was launched six months late because of IT difficulties. An emergency rescue plan was introduced that used computer operators in India to input details of 35,000 people. Although those problems are history, it still takes far too long to process checks - especially in London, which accounts for 15 per cent of them.
The present system requires an employer recruiting someone to work with children or vulnerable adults to apply to the Criminal Records Bureau for a 'disclosure' showing a candidate's current and spent convictions, cautions, reprimands and any warnings held on the Police National Computer.
An 'enhanced disclosure' also includes 'any relevant and proportionate information held by the local police forces'. This information enables the employer to decide whether the candidate is suitable.
The ISA, offspring of the Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Act 2006, goes further: it seeks to bar unsuitable people. Registration of people already working with vulnerable people will start with those whose CRB clearance dates back furthest. Once the system is fully operational, employers will be allowed to take on only registered people. They will still be able to apply for enhanced disclosures.
Is it a good thing or an over reaction to a problem highlighted by the Huntley case? Is this yet another layer of quasi-judicial organisations, albeit accountable to Parliament (it has to report annually)? It is supposed to be self financing, the theory being that fee income will pay for the premises, equipment, maintenance, 250 staff, Board of distinguished worthies etc. Let us know your thoughts.
No comments:
Post a Comment