One of the most criticised pieces of recent legislation is being implemented in Darlington. Steve Pratt goes inside the Independent Safeguarding Authority’s offices to find out about the new vetting and barring procedure.

ADRIAN McALLISTER was having a quiet drink in a pub when, as he puts it: “I had a right battering from a friend”. What he does for a living impinged on his private life as this pal told him: “It’s really got my blood boiling this has, it’s outrageous.”

He went into conciliatory mode to ease this friend’s fears. “We talked it through and he said, ‘oh right, so I don’t have to if I’m picking kids up from school and that. The Daily Mail said I do,” he recalls.

As chief executive of the Independent Safeguarding Authority (ISA), McAllister found himself in the firing line over the introduction of vetting and barring procedures to help prevent unsuitable people from working with children and vulnerable adults.

As the latest phase of the ISA’s work went live this week, the legislation now covers areas within the health service, prison service and the police.

Reaction from the public and the media to the scheme being implemented by the Darlington- based ISA was, McAllister points out, often misinformed. It has led to a review of some details of the scheme but the core aim remains the same.

“That’s the sad thing. It was something that was, I think, pretty well universally supported and, when people get to understand it, probably will still have a fair degree of support. Not everybody will support vetting, it’s not everybody’s cup of tea, is it?”

He and some 200 staff are implementing legislation that allows the vetting – and barring – of those wanting to work or volunteer with vulnerable people, both young and old.

The decision to establish the ISA in Darlington was a natural progression from work concerning the protection of children and vulnerable adults carried out by the Department of Children, Schools and Families, in Mowden Hall. Staff there had the experience and expertise to carry over to the new ISA. Setting it up outside London and bringing employment to the area was also a factor.

“The vast majority of staff are case workers, trained in making the type of decisions that will probably come up.

“They need to assimilate quite complex information from different sources. They need to be able to make fine and consistent judgement calls. They also need a degree of resilience because some of the material we’re dealing with is not pleasant.

“We’re very aware of that and do provide facilities for staff to take counselling. If you’re reading that day in, day out it can have an impact.”

He came to the ISA after 22 years as a police officer, latterly as acting chief constable in Lancashire. Involvement with Criminal Records Bureau and the disclosure process gave him some background in the type of work done by the ISA.

“Of course what happened during the media discussion around all of this is that there are quite a lot of misconceptions and inaccuracies being reported,” says McAllister.

“Not least is the fundamental one which upset people more than anything else – that this would impact on private, family-type arrangements, ie if you’re picking up your neighbours’ children from school you’re going to have to get registered with the vetting and barring scheme. That’s not the case. This scheme is not, and never was, intended to impact at all on people’s private family arrangements.

What it is designed to affect are those relationships which are done formally through an organisation that you and I, essentially, would call work, whether it’s voluntary or paid.”

ONE major concern voiced during the recent public debate was whether those associated with groups involving children, such as choirs, would have to register.

This is one area being reviewed by ISA chairman Sir Roger Singleton – the definition of frequent and intensive. In effect, he’s looking at whether the line has been drawn in the right place.

Others questioned how only a couple of hundred staff would be able to process the 11.3 million people eligible for registering.

The answer is that most will get registered very quickly because there won’t be any information on them. Only a small percentage will need to be investigated.

“So we’ll be doing the work in respect of those people who essentially have got a conviction, a caution or other police information about them. Or where information has come from other sources, perhaps a disciplinary process where they work or have worked in the past. Once we get to the position where they might be barred we will always share any information we’ve got with them in order that they can make representations,” he added.

“Someone actually said people wouldn’t know when they were barred which is, quite frankly, rubbish.

“It’s an open process and they can make any comments they wish on our decision to bar them. Some people expect to be barred because of what they’ve done. There are some auto-bar cases. Others are quite robust in defence of themselves and argue very strongly that things didn’t happen or there’s a context and that’s why that happened.

THE way criticism of the ISA developed was unexpected. “I was surprised how it escalated so quickly into a full-blooded attack on the scheme and the whole philosophy of safeguarding, and if vetting was a good thing.

“Hopefully over the coming months there is an opportunity for it to calm down and for people to reflect that the scheme’s not going to work like that and perhaps come to a more informed decision.”

The whole question of whether a vetting and barring procedure was needed was raised.

McAllister rejects the idea of the state trying to manage everything and take all risk out of people’s lives.

He added: “This scheme responds to some very real risks that the most vulnerable people in society are exposed to. We’re talking relatively small numbers who are barred at the end of all the ISA processes.

“There are other safeguarding processes sitting alongside. Nevertheless, there are some people, quite frankly, that you and I wouldn’t want teaching our children or looking after our elderly relations in a care home.”

There are limitations as other countries operate different, or perhaps no, vetting schemes.

McAllister acknowledges this limits the scheme as the ISA can only make decisions on information provided. “We have to accept this scheme can never close off all of the potential risks of our safeguarding and that’s just a fact of life,” he says.

“What we can do over time is steadily close off more and more of that risk by better and more robust exchange of information.”