Independent Safeguarding Authority

The Independent Safeguarding Authority (ISA) was a non-departmental public body for England, Northern Ireland and Wales, that existed until 1 December 2012, when it merged with the Criminal Records Bureau (CRB) to form the Disclosure and Barring Service.On 15 June 2010, the new coalition government Home Secretary Theresa May announced that plans under which all new applicants for jobs working with children and the vulnerable along with those changing posts would have to register with the Independent Safeguarding Authority were being halted and that the Vetting and Barring Scheme would be severely "scaled back".She said that "what we have got to do is actually trust people again [and that the philosophy behind the setting up of the ISA was based upon an assumption that] you were assumed to be guilty, in a sense, until you were proven innocent and told you were able to work with children."The new register would be administered by a central body, which would take the decision, subject to published criteria, to approve or refuse registration on the basis of all the information made available to them by the police and other agencies.The responsibility for judging the relevance of police intelligence in deciding a person’s suitability would lie with the central body"[4] Of note in this recommendation is the use of the double-negative, "no known reason why an individual should not work with these client groups".[5] The results of this exercise were announced by the Rt Hon Ruth Kelly, the Secretary of State of the Department for Education and Skills, on 19 January 2006[6] and were translated into primary legislation, the Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Act 2006,[7] which received royal assent on 8 November 2006.[18] In addition, there are a number of defined "office holders" position, where a prescribed post-holder is deemed as engaging in regulated activity irrespective of their actual contact with vulnerable groups.[1] Once operational the Vetting and Barring Scheme as originally designed would have required all those engaged in regulated or controlled activity to register and have their registration status checked.Those successful in the original application process would have been provided with a unique reference number and employers would have had to verify potential employee's membership before allowing them to commence their duties; via a free online check.The ISA barred lists performed a separate, albeit related, role to that of a CRB disclosure as the ISA decision-making process considered information relating to the potential risk an individual poses to vulnerable groups using sources that go beyond that held by the police; whereas a CRB disclosure may contain details of offences that may not lead to a bar (for example drink driving) but which may be pertinent to a given role (such as driving a school bus).[1] As of March 2009, elements of the Vetting and Barring Scheme had begun to be rolled out in stages, linked to a series of pieces of secondary legislation under the Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Act 2006.[46] From 20 January 2009, barring decisions in England and Wales began to be taken by the ISA, taking responsibility from the Secretary of State[47][48][49] and was extended to Northern Ireland from 13 March 2009.The additional safeguards are:[52] The original intention had been that from 26 July 2010, all new entrants to roles working with vulnerable groups and those switching jobs to a new provider within these sectors would be able to register with the Vetting and Barring Scheme and be assessed by the ISA."[53] Others questioned the usefulness of the scheme, pointing out that it could not have prevented the Soham murders in the first place because the perpetrator, Ian Huntley, knew the victims through his girlfriend, not his job.[citation needed] From 2009 onwards these organizations produced a large amount of documentation in the form of statements, conference resolutions and advice either clarifying or challenging the ISA's own publications.In 2010 the government, partly in response to pressure from those organizations mentioned above, launched a second review of the ISA led by Professor Eileen Munro of the Department of Social Policy, the London School of Economics and Political Science (LSE).[65][66] Specific accusations have been that the government had overseen so many changes and reviews, showing a lack of support for the organization, as the ISA had initially been created as a knee jerk reaction to the Soham murders.[66][67][68] Philip Pullman remains one of the most vociferous critics accusing the government of using the Soham murders as a 'scare story' to scare the British public into accepting such intrusive database.