Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-4rdpn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T20:47:46.078Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Preventing Unsuitable Individuals from Working with Children: Vetting and Barring Policy and Devolution

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  13 May 2013

Connie Smith*
Affiliation:
University of Edinburgh/NSPCC Child Protection Research Centre E-mail: Connie.Smith@ed.ac.uk

Abstract

Arrangements for protecting children in organisations, such as using criminal records, in staff recruitment (vetting), and barring certain individuals from certain posts, have undergone significant expansion in the United Kingdom since the turn of the millennium. This has happened concurrently with the devolving of political powers to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. The purpose of this article is to explore aspects of the possibilities of, and limits to, devolution by refracting it through the lens of vetting and barring policy in England and Scotland from 1997 to 2010. The conclusion is that devolution has enabled differences to emerge within aspects of these policies between Scotland and England, but has had negligible impact on the overall policy agenda of risk management and preventive governance.

Type
Articles
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2013 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Adams, J. and Schmuecker, K. (2005) Devolution in Practice 2006: Public Policy Differences within the UK, London: IPPR.Google Scholar
Bichard, M., Sir, (2004) The Bichard Inquiry Report, London: House of Commons.Google Scholar
Birrell, D. (2009) The Impact of Devolution on Social Policy, Bristol: The Polity Press.Google Scholar
Birrell, D. (2010) ‘Devolution and approaches to social policy’, in Lodge, G., Schumueker, K. and Jeffrey, C. (eds.), Devolution in Practice 2010, London: IPPR.Google Scholar
Corby, B. (2000) Child Abuse, Buckingham: Open University Press.Google Scholar
Corby, B., Doig, A. and Roberts, V. (2001) Public Inquiries into Residential Abuse of Children, London: Jessica Kingsley.Google Scholar
Croall, H. (2006) ‘Criminal justice in post-devolutionary Scotland’, Critical Social Policy, 26, 3, 587607.Google Scholar
Cullen, The Hon Lord (1996) The Public Inquiry into the Shootings at Dunblane Primary School on 13 March 1996, London: The Scottish Office.Google Scholar
Department for Education and Schools, Department of Health and Home Office (2011) Vetting and Barring Scheme Remodelling Review – Report and Recommendations, London: Department for Education and Schools, Department of Health, Home Office.Google Scholar
Department for Education and Skills (2005) The Protection of Children Act 1999: A Practical Guide to the Act for all Organisations Working with Children, London: Department for Education and Skills.Google Scholar
Department of Health Social Services and Public Safety (March 2009) Choosing to Protect: A Guide to Using the Protection of Children Northern Ireland [POC NI] Service, Belfast: Department of Health Social Services and Public Safety.Google Scholar
Gray, A.M. and Birrell, D. (2011) ‘Coalition Government in Northern Ireland: social policy and the lowest common denomiator thesis’, Social Policy and Society, 11, 1, 1525.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Greer, S. (ed.) (2009) Devolution and Social Citizenship in the UK, Bristol: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Greer, S. (2010) ‘Devolution and health: structure, process and outcomes since 1998’, in Lodge, G., Schumueker, K. and Jeffrey, C. (eds.), Devolution in Practice 2010, London: IPPR.Google Scholar
Harvie-Clark, S. and Berry, K. (2006) Protection of Vulnerable Groups (Scotland) Bill: Key Issues, Spice Briefing, Edinburgh: The Scottish Parliament.Google Scholar
Independent Safeguarding Authority (2009) ISA Referral Guidance, Darlington: Independent Safeguarding Authority.Google Scholar
Jeffrey, C., Lodge, G. and Schmuecker, K. (2010) ‘The devolution paradox’, in Lodge, G., Schumueker, K. and Jeffrey, C. (eds.), Devolution in Practice 2010, London: IPPR.Google Scholar
Keating, M. (2005a) The Government of Scotland: Public Policy Making after Devolution, Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Keating, M. (2005b) ‘Policy convergence and divergences in Scotland under devolution’, Regional Studies, 39, 4, 453–63.Google Scholar
Keating, M. (2010) The Government of Scotland, Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Keating, M., Cairney, P. and Hepburn, E. (2012) ‘Policy convergence, transfer and learning in the UK under devolution’, Regional and Federal Studies, 22, 3, 289307.Google Scholar
Keating, M., Stevenson, L., Cairney, P. and Taylor, K. (2003) ‘Does devolution make a difference? Legislative output and policy divergence in Scotland’, Journal of Legislative Studies, 9, 3, 110–39.Google Scholar
Kemshall, H. (2008) Understanding the Community Management of High Risk Offenders, Maidenhead: Open University Press.Google Scholar
Lodge, G., Schmuecker, K. and Jeffrey, C. (eds.) (2010) Devolution in Practice, IPPR: London.Google Scholar
Marshall, K., Jamieson, C. and Finlayson, A. F. (1999) Edinburgh's Children: The Report of the Edinburgh Inquiry into Abuse and Protection of Children in Care, Edinburgh: Edinburgh Inquiry.Google Scholar
Matravers, A. and University of Cambridge Institute of Criminology (2003) Sex Offenders in the Community: Managing and Reducing the Risks, Cullompton: Willan in association with the Institute of Criminology, University of Cambridge.Google Scholar
McAlinden, A.-M. (2006) ‘Managing risk: from regulation to the reintegration of sexual offenders’, Criminology and Criminal Justice, 6, 2, 197218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McAlinden, A.-M. (2007) The Shaming of Sexual Offenders: Risk, Retribution and Reintegration, Oxford: Hart.Google Scholar
McAlinden, A.-M. (2010) ‘Vetting sexual offenders: state over-extentsion, the punishment deficit and the failure to manage risk’, Social and Legal Studies, 19, 1, 2548.Google Scholar
McAra, L. (2006) ‘Welfare in crisis? Key developments in Scottish youth justice’, in Muncie, J. and Goldson, B., Comparative Youth Justice, London: Sage.Google Scholar
McGarvey, N. and Cairney, P. (2008) Scottish Politics: An Introduction, Basingstoke: Palgrave.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Muncie, J. and Goldson, B. (eds.) (2006) Comparative Youth Justice, London: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O'Malley, P. (2010) Crime and Risk, Los Angeles: Sage.Google Scholar
Parton, N. (2006) Safeguarding Childhood: Early Intervention and Surveillance in a Late Modern Society, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Parton, N. (2012) ‘The Munro review of child protection: an appraisal’, Children and Society, 26, 2, 150–62.Google Scholar
Radford, L., Corral, S., Bradley, C., Fisher, H., Bassett, C., Howat, N. and Collinshaw, S. (2011) Child Abuse and Neglect in the UK Today, London: NSPCC.Google Scholar
Scott, G. and Mooney, G. (2009) ‘Poverty and social justice in the devolved Scotland: neoliberalism meets social democracy’, Social Policy and Society, 8, 3, 379–89.Google Scholar
Scottish Executive Education Department (2000) Protecting Children – Securing Their Safety: A Pre-legislative Consultation Paper on the Establishment of an Index of Adults Unsuitable to Work with Children, Edinburgh: Scottish Executive.Google Scholar
Scottish Executive Education Department (2004) Protection of Children (Scotland) Act 2003 Procedural Note: Determination Process, Edinburgh: Scottish Executive.Google Scholar
Scottish Government (2010a) National Guidance for Child Protection in Scotland – Draft for Public Consultation, Edinburgh: Scottish Government.Google Scholar
Scottish Government (2010b) Protecting Vulnerable Groups Scheme Guidance for Individuals, Organisation and Personal Employers, Edinburgh: Scottish Government.Google Scholar
Scottish Government (2011) Protecting Vulnerable Groups Scheme, Edinburgh: Scottish Government.Google Scholar
Scottish Parliament (2007) Official Report, 8 March, Edinburgh: Scottish Parliament.Google Scholar
Scottish Parliament Education Committee (2006) Stage 1: Report on Protection of Vulnerable Groups (Scotland) Bill, Edinburgh: The Scottish Parliament.Google Scholar
Scottish Parliament Education Culture and Sport Committee (2002) Stage 1: Report on the Protection of Children (Scotland) Bill, Edinburgh: Stationery Office.Google Scholar
Smith, C. (2010) Vetting and Barring: Policy and Legislation in England and Wales, Edinburgh: CLiCPGoogle Scholar
Stafford, A., Parton, N., Vincent, S. and Smith, C. (2011) Child Protection Systems in the United Kingdom: A Comparative Analysis, London: Jessica Kingsley.Google Scholar
Stafford, A., Vincent, S. and Parton, N. (2010) Child Protection Reform across the UK, Edinburgh: Dunedin.Google Scholar
Thomas, T. (2005) Sex Crime: Sex Offending and Society, Cullompton: Willan Publishing.Google Scholar
Tisdall, E. K. M. and Hill, M. (2011) ‘Policy change under devolution: the prism of children's policy’, Social Policy and Society, 10, 1, 2940.Google Scholar
Trench, A. (2007) Devolution and Power in the United Kingdom, Manchester: Manchester University Press.Google Scholar
Utting, S. W., Baines, C., Stuart, M., Rowlands, J. and Vialva, R. (1997) People Like Us: The Report of the Review of the Safeguards for Children Living Away from Home, London: Department of Health and Welsh Office.Google Scholar
Vetting and Barring Scheme Communications Team (2009) Vetting and Barring Scheme (VBS) Update, Darlington: Independent Safeguarding Authority.Google Scholar
Wacquant, L. (2009) Punishing the Poor: The Neoliberal Government of Social Insecurity, Durham NC: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
Warner, N. (1992) Choosing with Care the Report of the Committee of Inquiry into the Selection, Development and Management of Staff in Children's Homes, London: HMSO.Google Scholar
Waterhouse, R. (2000) Lost in Care: Report of the Tribunal of Inquiry into the Abuse of Children in Care in the Former County Council Areas of Gwynedd and Clwyd since 1974, London: The Stationery Office.Google Scholar