Your browser is no longer supported

For the best possible experience using our website we recommend you upgrade to a newer version or another browser.

Your browser appears to have cookies disabled. For the best experience of this website, please enable cookies in your browser

We'll assume we have your consent to use cookies, for example so you won't need to log in each time you visit our site.
Learn more

Unions raise concerns about vetting scheme

  • 6 Comments
Unions have raised ‘serious concerns’ about a scheme to protect vulnerable adults that begins in a years’ time.

From October 2009, all individuals working or volunteering with vulnerable adults or children will be required to register with the Independent Safeguarding Authority (ISA).

This is a new non-departmental public body created to help prevent unsuitable people from working with vulnerable people and children, and replaces the old POVA (Protection of Vulnerable Adults) list.

Nurses, social workers and teachers, will have to pay £64 to register with the ISA in England and Wales, and £58 in Northern Ireland.

A joint statement from Unison, the RCN, Unite, the National Union of Teachers, the Chartered Society of Physiotherapy (CSP), GMB and Society of Radiographers (SOR), said: ‘We do however have serious concerns about the current proposals for the Independent Safeguarding Authority.

‘The proposals will mean registering everyone working and volunteering with vulnerable adults and children.

‘There is therefore clear need to ensure that we do not duplicate regulation for indivudals or charge low paid workers with the ISA.’

The unions have drawn a set of principles to improve the development of the system before it goes live.

They call for the registration fee to be paid by employers and the barring process to allow accused individuals the right to defend themselves.

  • 6 Comments

Readers' comments (6)

  • Nurses can not afford to pay yet more money in order to practise

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Where on earth did this authority come from?

    I was under the impression that it was the responsibility of the Nursing & Midwifery Council to protect the whole of the general public from unsafe practitioners. It seems to me that their role is gradually being eroded and it also seems that Nursing Unions are standing by and allowing this to happen.

    It isn't good enough for the RCN to try and get a set of principles for the ISA to adopt, they should be opposing the inclusion of nurses in this piece of legisalion and defending the high standards that the nursing and mudwifery profession has set for itself over the years.

    As an active member of the Tax payers Alliance, l will also be interested to find out more about the setting uo of yet another quango, which l am sure will cost the taxpayers millions to set up and run.

    It also raises serious questions about the function of other statutory organisations who have a responsibility for the protection of vulnerable people, whoever they are. Does this mean that social services will no longer be responsible and will this result in cuts to their budgets and workforce!!

    The governent seem more concerned (even obsessed() with setting up authorities, rather than giving the existing machinery the funds to improve, in those areas where improvement is necessary.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Where on earth did this authority come from?

    I was under the impression that it was the responsibility of the Nursing & Midwifery Council to protect the whole of the general public from unsafe practitioners. It seems to me that their role is gradually being eroded and it also seems that Nursing Unions are standing by and allowing this to happen.

    It isn't good enough for the RCN to try and get a set of principles for the ISA to adopt, they should be opposing the inclusion of nurses in this piece of legisalion and defending the high standards that the nursing and mudwifery profession has set for itself over the years.

    As an active member of the Tax payers Alliance, l will also be interested to find out more about the setting uo of yet another quango, which l am sure will cost the taxpayers millions to set up and run.

    It also raises serious questions about the function of other statutory organisations who have a responsibility for the protection of vulnerable people, whoever they are. Does this mean that social services will no longer be responsible and will this result in cuts to their budgets and workforce!!

    The governent seem more concerned (even obsessed() with setting up authorities, rather than giving the existing machinery the funds to improve, in those areas where improvement is necessary.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Tet another stealth tax on nurse. We already have our registration to cover, which surprisingly enough, when it changed to being renewed annually wasn't adjusted to one third of the previous fee,enhanced CRB checks, POVA checks etc. The only check this government and apparently ( if their inability to speak up is anything to go by) our union and governing body will not allow nurses is an enhanced wage cheque.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • will this be transferable???
    otherwise this will mean 1 for nursing, one for teaching and one for scouting- plus any others i've forgotten

    soon we will have no wages left for all the registrations required

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • What are we doing to nursing & midwifery? Or rather what are we doing in Nursing & midwifery - please tell me just what does everyone do with these bits of paper, what do we get for our money. Safeguarding all our clients/patients is paramount - one could argue that all patients/clients are vulnerable when they are sick, in need of NHS care - where's equity?
    CRB - good example - I have one for the school committee, one for the rugby club, one for the full time NHS job I do, one with NHSP - just in case I need to earn extra money to pay for all the union, registration fees etc & now another one.

    Keeping someone in a job I suppose & i suppose with 2 million on the dole that is the only thing that I can think of as positive about this

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

Have your say

You must sign in to make a comment

Please remember that the submission of any material is governed by our Terms and Conditions and by submitting material you confirm your agreement to these Terms and Conditions. Links may be included in your comments but HTML is not permitted.

Related Jobs