Rob Shorrock

The Information Commissioner will soon publish a decision-notice that upholds the right of local authorities to make secret payments to senior staff if all parties agree to confidentiality when they enter into discussions. This follows a Freedom of Information complaint I made to the Commissioner about South Kesteven District Council following the termination of the former Chief Executives contract. I had requested information, among other things, about how much had been spent on paying him off. SKDC refused both my request and an appeal, arguing this was personal and confidential information. And to cut a long story short, the Information Commissioner has agreed with them

It appears from this decision that senior officers and elected officials are able to discuss and make decisions, using tax payers money under the cloak of confidentiality, and pay sums of money to senior officers of the council, and no public scrutiny is permissible of these decisions or clear publication necessary of the sums of money spent - just in case this breaches the confidentiality agreement and the right to privacy of the senior officer.

A bizarre and perverse set of affairs

Not only do these current arrangements lack fidelity and efficacy but place public authorities at risk of improper and possibly unlawful decision-making. Where is the accountability mechanism, when local councillors involved in remuneration panels are essentially threatened that any breach of the confidential nature of the agreement could leave the council at risk?

I have passed this onto John Healey at the DCLG. He made some interesting comments about this issue in June this year and launched a consultation to amend the local government finance regulations. Hopefully, he will take note of this.

 Josie Appleton in Spiked argues that the creation of the ISA is ‘irrational’ and has dwindling support from those who advocated the idea in the first place. Putting aside the technocratic arguments about design and management, Josie speaks for many people who believe that the ISA is simply a step too far in regulating adults who have contact with children in a public space.

There is no doubt there are problems with the way the ISA will work and I have a lot of disquiet over assumptions and values that the ISA is built upon. However, for those of us working in early years there is a well established practice of ensuring that all staff are CRB checked. The reason isn’t just about regulation but also because parents expect it. It is this conception, or perception, that staff will be properly checked that drives the market in ensuring that staff and volunteers are properly checked. Interestingly, it also key to how parents choose childcare services.

Generally, the media has tried to make out that the ISA will be regulating informal arrangements between parents. The case of the sports club car lift is often sited as an example of an innocuous activity that will have to be regulated and parents involved in doing this will have to be vetted. However, there are few clubs that make these arrangements anyway and any club that uses volunteers to drive would probably insist already on more important checks relating to their duty of care and health and safety responsibilities. And, of course,  private arrangements are private arrangements and not matters for the ISA.

It is also argued that the ISA requirements to register and vet volunteers will put people off volunteering. I am not so sure. It is already the case that is you want to volunteer to work in schools, or with any children’s charity, for example, you have to be CRB checked. There is no real evidence that this has put people off volunteering, but there is real frustration in how long CRB checks take. The ISA scheme entails one free registration and is completely portable between employers and organizations. Conversely, the CRB check had to be done every time someone moved between employers or organizations.

Josie is right, however, in pointing out that this is a problem of our own making. We expect people who work with our kids to have been checked – whatever that means – because we have a sense of misplaced dread about what could happen to them, but also because we want to diffuse responsibility. If I hand my child over to another adult I do it on the basis that they will look after them. If they hold some symbol of authority more the better and the more the responsibility is diffused.

There is an argument, with a degree of merit, that the creation of the ISA will make parents less vigilant about who they hand their children over too because they have been vetted and cleared by the state. Possibly, but the exercise is always fundamentally subjective until there is an issue and then, of course, questions about vetting, clearance and appropriateness rip to the fore.

 This all leads to a set of  key questions: do we vet adults who work with children, or not? And if so, is it irrational to come up with a system that attempts to develop something that is consistent and accountable? Finally, if we commonly believe the vast majority of adults are absolutely no threat to children then is universal vetting appropriate when targeted vetting may be a better use of resources?