Sir, In contrast to the signatories concerning the Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Bill that vetting means children becomes a “no-go” area (letter, Oct 16), the NSPCC has found that many of the organisations that we work with recognise that such checks have a part to play in keeping children safe.

We agree that checks alone are not enough to protect children. They need to be combined with a range of other safeguarding measures that are now recognised in most organisations.

We have found that the fear of losing volunteers is unfounded. As part of a recent campaign we have been asking for volunteers at our ChildLine service. In just a couple of weeks we heard from more than 1,000 people interested in volunteering — despite the vetting requirements.

MARY MARSH
Director and chief executive NSPCC

Sir, Having retired from full-time teaching this summer, I made inquiries about temporary teaching appointments. For each of the two special schools I visited, with a view to going on their supply list, I had to fill in a Criminal Records Bureau (CRB) form. The agencies also required I be vetted, in spite of my having just ended a 20-year teaching career.

I have since had a letter from one of the special schools explaining that it is not in my interest or theirs to be retained on their list, because of the need to fill in a CRB form between every break in service. Even for my previous school, I have had to fill in the dreaded form once again (together with an application form, medical form, ethnicity declaration — all for a job in an establishment I left only three months ago).

Not only is this bureaucracy gone mad, but there is a cost each time an employee is vetted. Once again we are witnessing a kneejerk response to horrifying — yet statistically rare — events, resulting in sweeping legislation that swamps all it touches.

SUE DEANS
Weymouth, Dorset

Explore Letters

• Feedback