YouthNet blog
An insight into youth issues, volunteering trends, charity life and more from the UK charity YouthNet
All | Events | Youth | Technology | Volunteering | YouthNet | Charity World
Wednesday Oct 25, 2006
The cost of safeguarding
A slightly surprising group of people, ranging from former OFSTED chief Chris Woodhead to children’s TV presenter Johnny Ball, have written a letter to the Times to protest against the Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Bill.
The Bill provides for a central vetting process built on the Criminal Records Bureau (CRB), with a new independent statutory Board which will take decisions on including someone on the barred list where evidence suggests that they present a risk of harm to children or vulnerable adults.
The worry for The Times letter signatories is that while it will do little to protect children, it will be another layer of bureaucracy to deter volunteers. In The Guardian, Marcel Berlins takes up the argument.
If the bill becomes law, I predict that the flow of good-hearted adult volunteers deciding to withdraw their time and effort will become a torrent - not because they have anything shameful or criminal to hide, but because getting vetted is an imposition too far, and an insult to those who, for years, have been gladly trying to improve the quality of children's lives. The result will be fewer sports, fewer youth groups, fewer outings, less tuition in things such as art and drama - all of which depend on a constant supply of eager volunteers.
It’s not entirely clear how the vetting process will differ from the current CRB checks. But the new body that the Bill seeks to create, the Independent Barring Board (IBB), certainly sounds like something George Orwell might have created. And there will be a new duty on organisations must report people to the IBB if they fail the “harm test” – i.e. that they might harm vulnerable children or adults.
Quite what the appeals process will be, I’m not sure. Could someone (volunteer or employee) be accused of some malpractice and reported to the IBB without their knowledge or the right to appeal? At least the CRB checks deal with actual convictions.
Naturally the children’s charities are in favour (the NSPCC calls it “significant step forward in ensuring that children are protected from people who may pose a risk to them”) but is legislation of this sort really the best way to deal with risk?
Posted by Tom Green ( 9:03 AM ) Link to this post Comments[0]