Chris Waterman looks at the Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups ‘Bichard Bill’ which, having completed its passage through the Lords, had its Second Reading in the Commons on on Monday There can be few pieces of legislation that, in principle at least, have commanded such wide support as the Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Bill. Within Parliament, all three major parties are behind it. Beyond Westminster – which often appears as a parallel universe – there is unanimous support for a Bill which will bring transparency and consistency to a process that recent causes célébres have exposed as in need of urgent attention. What is now only too obvious is how robust the system needs to be. Those intent on gaining access to children and vulnerable adults in order to exploit them seem prepared to go to any lengths to gain access. The major provision of this Bill is to establish an Independent Barring Board (IBB), whose sole purpose will be to establish and maintain two lists – one will include details of those individuals barred from working with children, and a parallel list will contain details of those banned from working with vulnerable adults. These two lists will replace List 99 (section 142 of the Education Act 2002), the POCA (Protection of Children Act 1999), and the POVA list (part 7 of the Care Standards Act 2000), and will rely heavily on the Criminal Record Bureau (CRB) vetting process. The Bill identifies five levels of ‘regulated activity’ with regard to children. These range from close working with children – eg, teaching – to those who have responsibility for supervising such workers, through to those who may employ these staff – eg, governors – or have position of responsibility – eg, children’s commissioner. An establishment which has, as its function, the provision of these regulated activities becomes a ‘regulated activity provider’ – eg, schools and children’s residential homes. The voluntary sector will be included as a regulated activity provider. Individuals who have committed specified behaviours – in respect of children or vulnerable adults – will be automatically included in the respective list. Individuals who pose a threat to either group may also be included. The main work of the IBB, in addition to maintaining the list, will be deciding on those cases where there are not grounds for automatic inclusion on the list, but where there are concerns about the risk of an individual harming a child or vulnerable adult. Getting the legislation on the statute book, while essential, is only the start of the process. Making it work is the real challenge. Responsibility is placed on ‘employers’ – and voluntary sector providers – to ensure that any person they employ has been through the central vetting procedure. This, in turn, will increase the pressure on the police information systems which underpin the CRB system. The intention to give online access to parents and others to the register, in order to check up on potential employees, will also raise expectations that the system will be foolproof. The major burden for implementing the system at the frontline will, of course, fall on schools, which are the major employers of those with access to children. The National College for School Leadership has launched an online training package for school governors to ensure all appointments of school staff are made according to the new procedures. Local authorities need to work with partners, through the Local Safeguarding Children’s Board, to achieve a common understanding at local level of these changes and how the LSCB can support providers, as well as ensuring the information they put in the public domain is risk managed. w l On Tuesday, Ofsted published Safeguarding children: an evaluation of procedures for checking staff appointed by schools. Chris Waterman is general secretary of the Association of Chief Education Officers
