ISA Registration

[Guest lightnix]

Little is changing with this ISA authority, and most of the hype (about driving your friend's kids to school and having to check the bin men) is all the same as the current CRB system - articles like that are just media scaremongering.

With respect: If that's what you think, you haven't been paying much attention. You'll be telling us next, that if we have nothing to hide, then we have nothing to fear :D

 

This system is wide open to abuse. Minor, unproven allegations and even malicious slanders, could wind up blighting people's entire lives and careers; because the mantra is, that it is better to err (i.e. f*ck up) on the side of caution, than risk a single hair on a child's head from coming to harm.

 

In the news today: Watford Borough Council bans parents from supervising their own children in play areas, unless they've had CRB checks. Click... :D

 

Just where are we going with this, ultimately? :D

[paulears]

In panto, I scooped up an unruly child who in the songsheet attempted to walk the hiding panel for the float kit - 12mm MDF held on with just a few screws = purely a visual thing. I was told by a member of the public as I returned him to his mother (Who refused the ushers request to come backstage and get him) that I should be ashamed of myself!

 

I note the new system for individuals 'new' to the system is now not starting until next year.

[Jivemaster]

I had a friend who works for a London based child protection charity and they think that the proportion of offenders against children has never changed -just the reporting and publicity attached.

 

The current statutes and policies are supposedly protecting children, but in a few years time we will have some young people who have been so isolated from all adults that they are incapable of maintaining the normal interpersonal relationships that comprise normal employment that they will be un employable.

[TomHoward]

This system is wide open to abuse. Minor, unproven allegations and even malicious slanders, could wind up blighting people's entire lives and careers; because the mantra is, that it is better to err (i.e. f*ck up) on the side of caution, than risk a single hair on a child's head from coming to harm.

I would say that irrelevant allegations are actually more likely to have an effect on the existing system as opposed to the ISA.

 

This is my understanding of the situation: (And firstly, let me make clear that I am not a voice of authority on this, this is merely my understanding from a brief that I've had on it.)

 

The current system requires a Criminal Records Bureau disclosure, which will detail all previous convictions at that point in time.

 

So, what's the problem with the current system?

 

Firstly, the detailing of all convictions includes the detailing of convictions irrelevant to the position being applied for - so if you are applying for a job working with chlidren, and you have something along the lines of a motoring conviction - let's say for something like driving without insurance at age 17, this is going to show up on your CRB disclosure. Whilst you might argue that this is irrelevant to working with children, it's still going to show up on your CRB disclosure, and if it's the only thing between you and another applicant it might be wrong to deny that it may have an effect on the decision of whom to employ.

 

Secondly, the convictions disclosed are only at that point in time - there's no system in place for notifying employers if a conviction occurs during the period of employment.

 

Thirdly, only convictions show up. You might think this is a good thing, but in the case of Ian Huntley, he had previously been investigated for sexual offences and burglary - this aren't minor allegations and they weren't isolated incidients, but a conviction never resulted from the investigations. But, allegations will not lead to a immediate inclusion on the ISA barred list, and they will not be disclosed to employers - the process is entirely different.

 

Finally, the liability on the decision to employ or not rests with the employer. If there was an employee with an irrelevant conviction to the position disclosed via the CRB, and an organisation made the decision on balance to employ the individual, or overlooked the conviction, in the event of an incident, the organisation would be left open to criticism and liability for taking the employer on. I'm not saying the process of taking an employee with an irrelevant conviction is wrong, but it leaves the organisation open to being sued, and this could make them even more paranoid about the first point - and over-react to irrelevant convictions.

 

So, what's different about the new system?

 

Firstly, the process of disclosure is different - when an employer or organisation applies for vetting of an individual, they won't get a detailed disclosure of specifics back - they'll essentially get a 'yes' or 'no', if the registered individual is included on one of two barring lists - one for the Protection of Children, and one for the Protection of Vunerable Adults. This eliminates the bias towards individuals with irrelevant or minor convictions, the employer won't see the details, just get a decision.

 

Secondly, with regards to new convictions, employers can register as an 'interested party' with an individual with the ISA, and be notified upon any new information or a change of status with regards to an individual.

 

Thirdly, inclusion on the ISA barring lists can result from information other than that which has lead to a conviction - this might seem over the top, but allegations will not automatically result in inclusion on any of these lists, and there will be procedures of appeal with regard to inclusions on these lists where a conviction has not occured. This is the most draconian point of the ISA - and striking the balance here is right. However, with the case of Ian Huntley, which the ISA was set up in response to, these are the kind of allegations and investigations that would result in inclusion on the lists.

 

Finally, the process of taking the decision out the hands of the employer or organisation and into the hands of the 'experts' removes the liability on the part of the organisation in the event of an incident. There won't be a details disclosed to them, so they won't have made a decision on balance, or be open to accusations of poor judgement in the event of a disclosed conviction.

 

Initially the ISA registration and vetting will run in parallel with CRB disclosures, but eventually CRB disclosures will be replaced by the ISA vetting process. You may not like it, but realistically it's little different for the end use than the CRB disclosures that are already in place, and in may ways it is less invasive to the employee.

 

This scare stories of parents needing ISA vetting to drive their friend's children and parents not being allowed to supervise their own children are decisions of the councils and organisations involved, and are little to do with the process of changing from CRB disclosures to ISA vetting. I understand the public frustration with the invasive processes and it's a valid arguement that some of these methods go too far, but don't blame the ISA for them. It's an improved system over an old one, and it's just criticism at an oppourtune time because of the change of authority.

[Guest lightnix]

Thank you, Tom. Nice post :up:

 

But...

 

I don't see how getting a mysterious Yes / No decision will make things any better for those on the receiving end. If anything, a No decision could itself, become a source of suspicion and a "reason" for excluding the recipient from other kinds of social activity, where children might be present - even if the "problem" was a trivial one. Can't be too careful where kids are involved, now can we?

 

If you want it from the Horses mouth, then the ISA website is here.

Employers,... have a duty to refer to the ISA, information about individuals working with children or vulnerable adults where they consider them to have caused harm or pose a risk of harm.

(my bold)

 

I believe there was some PDF guidance, on the barring process and how decisions to bar are made; but it seems to have mysteriously disappeared and been replaced by a statement on the ISA website, which says...

 

The ISA’s Decision Making Process was developed by the Board of the ISA with specialist advice...

 

...The ISA’s Decision-Making Process Guidance is a living document subject to constant review and updating (as one would expect it to be) and that we reserve our right to change or update it without notice or consultation.

So... this taxpayer-funded quango thinks it has the "right" to make things up as it goes along. Anyway, we can see from this week's ACMD debacle, what kind of specialists the Government prefers: Ones who who toe the party line, tell the Government what it wants to hear and publicly endorse its policies

 

There are, however, some guidance notes on how to refer someone to the ISA. Like much of the ISA's content, it all sounds very reasonable on first reading and I although I don't have the time to go through it in fine detail; even a cursory closer look, starts to ring alarm bells.

 

What it basically says (or seems to), is that you should remove someone from "regulated activity" if you suspect them of having caused "harm" or having engaged in "relevant conduct".

 

The concept of "regulated activity" is fairly self-explanatory and includes the bit about what constitutes "frequent" and "intensive" contact with minors.

 

The definition of "harm" is pretty broad ranging. It could be argued (and possibly will be) that anyone who ever smacked a child and made them cry (like my Mum - bless her soul) has caused that child Physical and Emotional / Psychological "harm".

 

But what is "relevant conduct"? :huh:

 

Well, apart from the *ahem* "obvious"...

Relevant conduct is any conduct:

• That endangers a child or vulnerable adult or is likely to endanger a child or vulnerable adult

...

Given the current trend, for ruthlessly prosecuting the most trivial of offences, under anti-terrorist legislation, it won't surprise me if "relevant conduct" comes to include breaking a speed limit by a couple of MPH, smoking tobacco in view of of a child or leaving them on their own for *gasp* more than ten seconds.

 

Anyway... once you've grassed up some hapless sonofab referred somebody to the ISA, they will (according to their own, published guidance notes)...

...acknowledge the referral by return post within three working days of receipt.

Three days??? Are they serious??? Even once the postal strike ends??? Since when, has any Government department EVER answered anything in three days??? :huh:

 

• The ISA will commence the decision making process. Details of this process can be found on the

ISA website [as a living document - remember?] The ISA will review the referral information and evidence

provided and where necessary request information from other sources such as the Police...

 

• Following ISA consideration, if the ISA is ‘minded to bar’ an individual it will write to that individual

seeking representations as to why they should not be barred... The ISA will provide to that individual all the evidence that the ISA has relied on...

In other words: The ISA are Judge & Jury. You're guilty until you prove your innocence and any appeal you have to make, will be to the very people who not only found you guilty; but showed you the evidence that said why...

 

Then there's the issue of the current regime's piss-poor record of data security. How long will it be, until a list of barred individuals is left behind on a train, or in some motorway service station???

 

The ISA will not put paid to the large proportion of abuse (in its many forms) that happens within families. Properly managed, it may prevent another Ian Huntley - but will it ever prevent another Vanessa George? ;)

[TomHoward]

Well, it does have it's benefits in terms of the liability issues and paranoia over small issues that wouldn't constitute a ISA barring but would show up on a CRB disclosure, but whether it's a better solution overall remains to be seen. It really does all hinge on the application of common sense with the criteria for inclusion on the lists, so you can make up your own minds about that one.

 

Granted, that "relevant conduct" definition (or lack of) is pretty broad ranging, but again the application of common sense would be needed here.

 

It seems to me that the real problems of over-protective H&S and a paranoid society aren't really caused by the ISA, it's merely a tool that could be used to enact them. It may not be perfect but the CRB system is flawed in the other direction.

[Guest lightnix]

Well, it does have it's benefits in terms of the liability issues and paranoia over small issues that wouldn't constitute a ISA barring...

But there's no such thing as "paranoia" where child protection is concerned - only "concerns which must be addressed". Enhanced CRB checks already include unproven allegations, which are demonstrably blighting peoples' lives and careers. ISA checks will include the same information and there are no guarantees, that such allegations, or so-called "soft intelligence" - untried in a court - will not be held against you.

 

It really does all hinge on the application of common sense...

But that's already not happening. What makes you think it will suddenly change under the new system?

 

...the real problems of over-protective H&S and a paranoid society aren't really caused by the ISA, it's merely a tool that could be used to enact them...

You're right, but based on the evidence so far: there's no "could be " about it. There's a school of thought, which says that it's impossible to be to careful and to put a single child at any risk at all - no matter how vague, nebulous, imaginary or unproven - is unacceptable. Such risks must be completely removed; even if doing so casts an eternal shadow over the lives of hundreds.

 

And - of course - if you disagree, then it's obviously because you "don't care" or have a "cavalier attitude" to child safety. How can any right-minded person, ever disagree with the idea that children should be protected from "harm"?

[TomHoward]

What makes you think it will suddenly change under the new system?

Nothing makes me think it will change under the new system - just to clarify that I'm not supporting the idea that the ISA will suddenly result in the application of common sense to this issue, neither am I an avid campaigner for the ISA, I'm just highlighting that it does have some benefits over the existing system, which is clearly lacking in some areas, and trying to bring some light to what the key differences actually are - as it seems to be the ISA has been used a scapegoat for a different issue by a lot of the media outlets.

[Guest lightnix]

...it seems to be the ISA has been used a scapegoat for a different issue by a lot of the media outlets.

Sorry if I'm being thick, but you've lost me there. To which different issue are you referring? ;)

[TomHoward]

I just mean I think it's had an unfair representation in the press - when you've got a Jeremy Vine show claiming the ISA is going too far by insisting that people who drive their friend's children to football practice would have to be checked (the issue they'd mis-represented was that people who drive on behalf of the club as opposed to on behalf of the parents would need to be vetted, which would be required under the CRB disclosure scheme anyway) it just seems to be being criticised for problems that aren't it's causing - the paranoia of the councils and local authorities. I've not heard anything objectively informative about it in the media at all.

[Tomo]

There are two fundamental flaws here:

 

1) ECRB, and the new ISA system allow 'unproven allegations' and 'spent' convictions to be taken into account.

This basically means that you can 'fail' ECRB and ISA through malicious hearsay, or to put it another way, someone who doesn't like you can destroy your career forever by making a false statement to the police or ISA, and this will never be tested in court.

The latter means you can 'fail' through having a conviction for a minor offence that you've already 'done the time' for, and are legally presumed to be reformed. The classic example of this is a traffic offence when 17 causing you problems when you're 60.

 

2) The CRB system was fundamentally flawed in the first place, as a new check was required for every employment (so the same individual could be 'check' hundreds of times) but there was no method to update any employer to 'new' information added to the CRB. Thus an individual could be 'cleared' to stay working at their existing employer but unable to take the same job at another venue.

 

The ISA is intended to solve Problem 2, and that is arguably an improvement.

 

However, it has the *more serious* flaws of Problem 1, caused by the use of 'soft intelligence' or 'malicious gossip' as it's more accurately known.

 

On top of that, the definitions were (and remain) far too broad. At present, the best estimates (now accepted by the Home Office), indicate that between 14 and 16 million people will be registered with the ISA.

In 2008, there were approximately 38 million people of working age in the UK, so this scheme will have over 40% of the UK working population on it.

That's rather a large proportion!

 

It would be interesting to look through historical abuse cases and find out how many cases the CRB, ECRB or ISA would actually have prevented.

I suspect that the answer is exactly one.

[paulears]

I see the claims 'r' us people jumping in here. If people lose their ability to work through ISA information maliciously supplied with no evidence, then I'd expect the existing libel and defamation of character legal remedies to be available. People who get injured get massive compensation, based on the potential loss of income throughout their lifetime. If somebody finds out they have been 'blackballed' then it will be interesting to see if they can make a claim. At the moment, it's difficult, but the accident firms have shown there's profit to be made on no win, no fee.

[Guest lightnix]

I see the claims 'r' us people jumping in here...

If somebody finds out they have been 'blackballed' then it will be interesting to see if they can make a claim.

Sadly, I don't think they will :P

 

Ambulance chasers are only interested in open-and-shut cases, where the facts are well-established. If you're run over by a driver, who's then found guilty of driving without due care, then they'll be more than happy to help. But a case, where the allegations have come from a small child, or someone with a mental disability... That's probably going to be a bit beyond them.

 

Even so, these regulations fly in the face of three of our oldest rights: To remain innocent until proven guilty, to face your accusers and be tried by your equals, in a court of law This isn't the first time these rights have been recinded by New Liebour; or where powers they claim will protect the Public, end up being broadened, to enable their prosecution. It's slightly OT: but just next week, our shiny, new, macho Home Secretary will extend The Proceeds of Crime Act, so that you (yes - YOU, if you live in the UK) can have your bank account frozen and property seized, over things like Council Tax arrears.

 

I wonder if these powers will be applied to MPs, who are asked to pay back the millions they tried to steal from the taxpa expenses claimed in error?

 

...Properly managed, it may prevent another Ian Huntley...

Or will it? Not according to one of the officers involved in the case. One of the li(n)es most often used to justify the ISA & VBS, is that Huntley was able to "use his trusted position as school caretaker", to lure his victims inside. That's not true. Yes - he was a caretaker, but at a different school to the one attended by the two girls. They trusted him, because he was the boyfriend of Maxine Carr, whom they trusted. His profession was irrelevant.

 

But he's evil, QED - so what's a little white lie here and there? We have to think of the children.

 

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v631/lightnix/children_think_02_bdr.jpg

[djw1981]

As I understand it, these 'authorities and bureau'only provide information. IOt is the requesting organisation who decide what to do with it. Only if you name is on 'list 99' are you banned from working with young people. Thus it is up to an organisation to decided whether spent convictions count.

[revbobuk]

As I understand it, these 'authorities and bureau'only provide information. IOt is the requesting organisation who decide what to do with it. Only if you name is on 'list 99' are you banned from working with young people. Thus it is up to an organisation to decided whether spent convictions count.

 

That's not what I've been told. Under CRB regulations, volunteers were checked, and a simple sheet sent to the organisation saying 'we know of no reason to prevent this person working as a volunteer.' If the check was positive, alarms went off in several places and using them as a volunteer became difficult, but not impossible.

 

My understanding of ISA is that volunteers will be treated the same as employees, who are currently not able to take up a position until a clear check is received, and that appointing someone with a 'no' becomes much more difficult.