The Government's vetting and barring scheme has made slow progress. First it was due to be introduced in 2008, then this was postponed to 2009, and now it is set to be compulsory by July 2010.
In the light of this timetable, it seems surprising that any media outcry only recently kicked in. It started in July, when several high-profile children's authors, including Philip Pullman, Michael Morpurgo and Anne Fine, said they were not prepared to pay £64 to prove that they were not paedophiles.
Their objection to the scheme was vociferously supported by others, such as children's psychologist Dr Tanya Byron, who was quoted as saying the scheme would fuel a culture of 'paranoia' around children.
But the NSPCC, while being reported in The Telegraph as being negative about the scheme, says that it, in fact, supports its introduction and recognises the Government's commitment to enhancing the safety of children.
'All parents want their children to be safe when in the care of another body such as a school or a voluntary group,' says an NSPCC spokesperson. 'The current system of criminal record checks is inadequate and can only ever catch those who have already offended.'
The National Day Nurseries Association agrees. 'As part of wider child protection, the scheme should enhance the safety of children further,' says Claire Schofield, director of policy, membership and communications. 'CRB checks will only show any convictions at that moment in time, while the new scheme will provide a system of ongoing monitoring.'
Registration expense
Huge doubts and questions remain, however. At Unison, national officer for children's services Ben Thomas says that the principal concern is around the cost of registration and the fact that this will be the responsibility of the individual registering.
Unison has formed a coalition with other unions, including UNITE and NASUWT, to present its own principles for safe and effective public protection and to underline its concerns over the vetting and barring scheme.
Mr Thomas says, 'Registration is a tax on low-paid workers. Those who will not have support from employers are likely to be those who are on the minimum wage and least able to pay.
'In the nursery, the scheme means that everyone who works on the premises will have to be registered. That means that a cleaner, for example, will have to pay it. They may not be in a position to do so. Ultimately this will have an effect on the overall service a nursery offers.'
Mr Thomas questions whether the scheme will be effective in its aims. 'The children's workforce is 98 per cent female. This scheme will place a £10m burden on that sector. It is not a proportionate response. It would not have prevented Vanessa George (the Plymouth nursery worker charged with sexual offences against children) from working in a nursery.'
He also fears that the scheme could ultimately be detrimental to child protection. 'There will be a perception that workers are safe just because they are registered, and it could stop people being more aware and pro-active in this area.'
A key plank of the principles that the coalition has put to the Independent Safeguarding Authority, the body set up to run the scheme, is that individuals should not have to pay twice for public protection. It believes that all set-up and running costs should be met by employers and/or governments.
'If applied, the registration fee will have a disproportionate impact on low-paid women and those working part-time,' says Mr Thomas.
The NDNA also raises the issue of the cost of registration to its members. 'Many members are telling us this is a concern,' says Claire Schofield. 'Many already earn low wages and it may seem a real expense. Some have told us they are finding a balance by offering to pay for staff, but stating within contracts of employment that this money will be deducted from a final salary if the employee leaves within a period of time, such as 12 months, or they will share the cost with staff.'
Call for guidance
Dissatisfaction around the scheme also centres on the way it is being introduced.
At the Recruitment and Employment Confederation (REC), Judith Ivers, chair of the REC's childcare sector group, says that it needs to fully understand what will be expected.
'It is vital for childcare recruitment businesses to be compliant at all times with all relevant regulation,' she says. 'We are all committed to the highest standards and we would want to make sure that this scheme is implemented in a fair and correct manner. For this, we need to ensure that recruitment businesses who supply staff to the affected sectors know exactly what is expected of them.'
The REC is seeking clarification on three key areas:
- when the DCSF will be releasing general guidance
- specific guidance for the recruitment industry as well as for specific sectors, such as nursing and social care
- the duty on recruiters to refer information of concern if they have merely introduced work-seekers to private individuals, and the safeguarding issues surrounding this.
Anne Fairweather, head of public policy at REC, also stresses the need for guidance. She says, 'With the launch imminent, there is still not guidance for agencies, which could put at risk the placements of hundreds of thousands of key frontline staff. Unless there is clear direction on these matters, there is a danger that the ISA will be overwhelmed with information.'
Employers' position
At Busy Bears Children's Day Nursery in Durham, manager and proprietor Emma Graham says she has always felt there needed to be an improved regulatory authority for checking practitioners. But she thinks there should be more clarification on what sort of information must be disclosed.
'I have considered the complications about what I would report and am looking for more guidance - on whether you would perhaps disclose a verbal warning on record for a staff member's behaviour, for example? This area is still grey,' she says.
'I also wonder how much paper work is involved for the manager? And what would be the time constraints? Could there then be the possibility of being investigated for unfair dismissal if the ISA decides there wasn't enough in its view to warrant a "mark" on their record, if in the manager's view it warranted a dismissal?'
Ms Graham says she is also confused about how the human resources side will be managed - 'with so many legal battles already, with regard to unfair dismissal'.
She adds, 'It has also crossed my mind, if, say a false allegation was made, how rigorous would the process be in investigating a claim? It would be devastating for someone committed to childcare to be falsely "marked" by the scheme. But I'm sure there will be the appropriate systems in place.'
Despite these questions and concerns, Ms Graham believes that knowledge across the sector is good and there is a wider hope that the system will reach a level of transparency that will help it to succeed in its task of filtering out unsuitable individuals.
To help daycare providers get to grips with the vetting and barring scheme, the NDNA has produced a factsheet with questions and answers. 'It is crucial that nursery managers, staff and owners familiarise themselves with the scheme,' says Claire Schofield. 'It is also important that settings understand their own obligations when it comes to reporting any occurrences of concern and checking ISA status of individual employees and recruits.'
The NSPCC says it has always emphasised that this new scheme must be introduced carefully, in a way that does not have inadvertent ill effects for children, weaken community relationships or give parents a false sense of security.
It says, 'The Government must now provide clearer and more detailed information about the scheme and how it will work in practice.'
Further information
- www.ndna.org.uk
- www.rec.uk.com
- www.unison.org.uk.
