Vetting and Barring to be scaled back

[onimolap]

An official announcement is expected soon, but BBC is already reporting that the scheme is to be scaled back: see here.

The main changes seem to be that it will cover those with monthly (not weekly) access to the vulnerable, and that check results will be sent to the individuals before the applying organisation, so there is a chance to correct errors before thay are promulgated to third parties.

Does this seem more proportionate?

I though so, but how does it (now) and will it (under these modifications) handle information the police may have on an individual but which was not ever used to arrest or whatever (dropped complaints, other suspicious circumstances).

Or is that sort of thing, no matter how extensive, never included?

I welcome the scaling back but still remain unconvinced that the VBS is required at all and that its nothing more than another layer of bureaucracy lulling idiots into a false sense of security.

Two main questions which spring to mind are:

• Will applicants still require a CRB check in addition to VBS as originally proposed?

• Will VBS still use unfounded/unproven allegations in their scoring of applicants?

To me it just sends out all the wrong signals. That peados lurk on every street corner waiting to whisk off our kids. And the only way to protect them is to give up our privacy to the state.

The irony is that the VBS system would not have prevented Ian Huntley from murdering Jessica & Holly.

Nick Clegg is to be on BBC Breakfast this morning (Friday) to talk about this. They didn't say what time.

They have just had on someone from a campaigning organisation (Children's Action), saying that parents want their children safe so checks must be kept, and this is the author (convicted of sex offences) to whom he referred.

Clegg on now

I've just seen this article on BBC News website: here

I totally welcome portability of checks and scaling back for supervised volunteers. Its absolute madness to require one per job regardless of time.

In the last year my DP has had to have 3 CRB checks. One for her volunteer work & two for jobs. The last two were about 6 weeks apart. She's not even doing any work where she will be ever left alone with kids. Most days she'd be nowhere near a child and the most realistic scenario is that she'd be supervised. She would never be left unsupervised.

And finally some common sense in merging the VBS together with the CRB. Having both and requiring 2 checks as per the original proposals was completely barmy and just govt bureaucracy gone mad.

So it certainly looks like common sense has prevailed. Can only pray the coalition see sense with their stupid plan to charge parents to use the CSA.

i personally thought the vb scheme seemed like a good idea - cannot see the big deal in people complaining about having the checks if they work with children.

definitely a backwards step imo

Astra The "big deal" was not with the principle of checking but how they were proposing to do it.

Whereas CRB checks are based upon criminal records, the VBS was going to score you based on soft data.

So say you were a teacher who disciplined an unruly child and said child accused you of touching them inappropriately. The police come and its totally obvious its sour grapes and no action is taken. Well under the original VBS scheme the incident would have been recorded and scored against you.

So can you imagine said teacher going to his/her next job....oooh VBS shows there's an allegation of possible child abuse.....as their employer dare you disregard it? So there's a good chance that a totally innocent teacher's career is utterly ruined by a single baseless accusation.

Also other data (and lord knows where they'd even get this data from!) such as sexual preferences, number of partners, family history was all taken into account. Like to watch porn at home with your hubby? Better not let the government know as it would count against you.

And don't forget that the VBS system wasn't replacing CRB, it was in addition. So now to work with kids you'd have had not one but two systems to pass.

Lastly by the Labour government's own estimates, 11m would have had to be checked. That's a staggering number. Even if we assume a 99% accuracy rate (and thats a generous rate for goverment run projects!), that's 100,000 people who will be incorrectly flagged as a threat.

Still think its a backward step?

Apologies - in my post of 07:17:11 I misattributed comments to Children's Action. The pundit was actually a former policeman, Mark Williams Thomas.

Barnados are welcoming the proposals.

Not good. The VBA was what a lot of parents and professionals actually wanted - access to up-to-date information about a potential contact.

The major criticism of the CRB check was that it was only as good as the day it was run. The VBA could be updated with any offences committed.

The parent volunteers in my local infant school run the library (a room not even inside the main school buildings), oversee reading and help supervise swimming lessons, all of which could bring them into close personal contact alone with a child.

Niceguy, where did you get that information about the vetting and barring scheme taking into account things like false allegations, and all sorts of personal info like sexual preferences, number of partners etc.?

I am personally getting pretty confused about the whole thing. I am an administratively challenged childminder.
I have been CRB checked of course (several times, because i worked with children before i became a childminder) and atm I am at a loss what to do! It changes all the time; when I tried to register for it a year (or two) ago, they wouldn't let me because it wasn't certain yet/anymore if I had to...
It does my head in. Do I need to register for vetting and barring now, later, at all, or will the whole thing be replaced by a combined check and when do I register for that? Does my husband need to register? How much will it cost? At what point am I breaking the law by not (yet) registering??

I read it a long time ago. IIRC it was a link to the actual guidelines buried deep in the ISA website as a PDF. Can't find it now but I did find the following on The Register here

The relevant bit is near the bottom:

"The case worker will examine... 'predisposing factors', such as 'those factors relating to an individual?s interests or drives'; 'cognitive factors', such as 'strong anti-social beliefs'; and 'behavioural factors', including 'using substances or sex to cope with stress or impulsive, chaotic or unstable lifestyle. Drug use, sex life, favourite films"

So want to be a childminder but have had a few sexual partners and prefer Pulp Fiction to Love Actually? Hmmm, black mark time!

I have been trying to find out from the ISA website what might be considered. There is a comprehensive list of convictions that would lead to "auto barring" (nothing surprising or contentious there), and there are references to other "relevant information", but I cannot find out what that information might be.

I'll keep looking, and post if I find.

There's some information here (sorry, pages long document). It's not the clearest document I've ever come across, but it does say that allegations can be included as reasons for referral, (so depending on timelines, a false allegation could feature), and certain types of pornographic materials are also mentioned (not just that including children).

This is all tempered by the need to demonstrate that the issues present the potential to harm the vulnerable. But I think it's reasonable to expect the ones mentioned in the guidelines would trigger referrals every time.