Vetting agency must foster responsibility

The witchhunt that followed the death of Baby Peter destroyed many people’s careers, undermined the morale of more than one profession and dramatically raised the referral rates for children into care.
The fickle finger of public opinion points in different directions to apportion blame. After the terrible murders in Soham by Ian Huntley, public opinion called for a much tougher system of vetting people who might work with children.

All political parties enthusiastically supported the Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Act and a new vetting and barring regime was established, which, had it fully started operating, would have vetted 11.3 million adults for suitability to work with children and vulnerable adults.

Before the new scheme took hold, the fickle finger turned, amid public horror that so many people’s names would be kept on computer records. The coalition government called a halt to the scheme, and the new Independent Safeguarding Authority has been treading water since then.

Now a fresh bill is passing through parliament, which will create a much slimmer system. The Protection of Freedoms Bill has not attracted much attention, but it represents a significant change in focus. Fewer people will need a certificate to show whether they have a criminal record before beginning work.

Criminal Records Certificates will become portable, so employees will not have to re-apply every time they change jobs. Some convictions will no longer appear on the certificates or will be expunged from the records sooner. Under-16-year-olds will no longer have to apply. The Criminal Records Bureau and the Independent Safeguarding Authority will merge into a new agency, the Disclosure and Barring Service.

This is all good stuff. The creation of a monolithic checking process has not kept children or adults safer. A constant focus on the risk of abuse contributed to the feeling among many adults that they could not offer to help a lost child for fear of being accused of something nasty. Some people were put off volunteering. Employers relied unduly on these external checks, which could never be watertight. Even if the vetting and barring system had been in place at the time of Soham, it would not have detected Ian Huntley.

Employers need to apply their own judgment about applicants, and not rely solely on computer records. Families need to recognise that there is no such thing as complete safety from abuse. Children need to be helped to take more responsibility for their own safety.

We all need to keep risks in proportion. The risk-averse culture of our nation that has resulted in children no longer playing outside has not made us safer. On the contrary, it creates children who do not learn how to keep themselves safe. Similarly, if a national agency implies that it can guarantee to weed out unsavoury sorts, then employers do not accept their own responsibilities.

The new agency is unfortunately named. The title of "Disclosure and Barring Service" hardly rolls off the tongue and it suggests the agency will concentrate on the negative (though necessary) aspects of the work – disclosing previous criminal information about individuals and making decisions to bar some people.

But it will really be about making life safer for children and vulnerable adults, and I hope it will take on a more positive, forward-looking role, helping employers to develop safer recruitment practice.

Organisations need to set out what they are really for, and they need a name that captures it.

But what about that fickle finger of public opinion? There will be another case of child abuse, for certain. If it transpires that someone, somewhere, had harboured doubts about the offender, then the new streamlined system may be blamed. There is no safe answer in the world of safeguarding.

Sir Paul Ennals is chair of the Children’s Workforce Development Council