CRB checks for all parents

[KIMItheThreadSlayer]

The world HAS gone mad, Fair enough, DH is a cubs helper and has been checked, and I do think all helpers with children should be checked, but if my friend picks up my child from school one day a week every week, is that going to be seen as needing a CRB check, .....

Parents who regularly drive children for sports or social clubs will have to be vetted or face fines of up to £5,000 under new rules.

Along with parents who host foreign exchange students, they will fall under the scope of the Vetting and Barring Scheme, the Home Office has confirmed.

The measures to stop paedophiles are being introduced from next month in England, Wales and Northern Ireland.

Critics have branded them "insulting" and say they could deter volunteers.

A separate but aligned scheme is being set up in Scotland, to be introduced next year.

Also, anyone barred in any part of the UK will be barred from working with children and vulnerable adults anywhere else.

'Frequent, intensive'

Informal arrangements between parents will not be covered, but anyone taking part in activities involving "frequent" or "intensive" contact with children or vulnerable adults three times in a month, every month, or once overnight, must register, it has emerged.

"The government's Vetting and Barring Scheme is a child of moral panic "

Mark Easton

BBC's home editor

Read Mark's thoughts in full

Q&A: Vetting and barring scheme

Mark Easton

All 300,000 school governors, as well as every doctor, nurse, teacher, dentist and prison officer will also have to sign up.

It is thought that 11.3 million people in England, Wales and Northern Ireland - close to one in four of all adults - may register with the Home Office's Independent Safeguarding Authority [ISA].

According to BBC home affairs editor Mark Easton it is thought out of that 11.3 million, "something will come up", such as a conviction, for about one million.

"Of those million, they reckon 40,000 will be told they are unsuitable to work in those regulated areas," he said.

After November 2010 failure to register could lead to criminal prosecution and fine. The clubs themselves also face a £5,000 penalty for using non-vetted volunteers.

Children's minister Delyth Morgan said: "It is about ensuring that people in a position of trust that work frequently and intensively with children are safe to do so.

"Ultimately safeguarding children is the government's priority."

Shadow home secretary Chris Grayling said: "This new regime has the potential to be a real disaster for activities involving young people.

"We are going to drive away volunteers, we'll see clubs and activities close down and we'll end up with more bored young people on our streets."

Liberal Democrat home affairs spokesman Chris Huhne said the government was "in danger of creating a world in which we think every adult who approaches children means to do them harm".

But John O'Brien, programme director of the Vetting and Barring Scheme, said it would be a "once-only, simple step". He denied it was a "presumption of guilt".

He told the BBC's Today programme: "We want to make sure we have got appropriate safeguards in place so that people with backgrounds we don't want to work with children and vulnerable adults are not entering the workplace."

HAVE YOUR SAY

"Our children need protection but this is going too far"

Fran Banks, Essex

Send us your comments

Bob Reitemeier, chief executive of the Children's Society, said the new safeguards were the result of many years of research into abuse.

"What we have to understand is there's a great amount of learning that has been taking place over the years in looking at how people are abused and we have to apply that learning."

'Soft intelligence'

The scheme was recommended by the Bichard report into the Soham murders of Holly Wells and Jessica Chapman by college caretaker Ian Huntley.

Huntley had been given the job despite previous allegations of sex with under-age girls, which were not passed on.

Two hundred case workers at the ISA's Darlington base will collect information from police, professional bodies and employers, before ruling who is barred.

Ian Huntley

Even those like Huntley, without a criminal record, could be barred if officials are convinced by other "soft intelligence" against them.

Estimates suggest the number of people facing a ban will double to 40,000 once the scheme is up and running.

Those registered will face continuing scrutiny, with existing registrations reconsidered if new evidence is disclosed.

However, Soham report author Sir Michael Bichard suggested the scheme could be revised.

He told the Independent newspaper last month: "If you visit one school in January, and then don't visit that school again, but visit another school in February and another in March, is that frequent or intensive?"

He was speaking after a number of authors, including Philip Pullman and Michael Morpurgo, complained the requirement was "insulting" and pledged to quit school visits.

Mr Pullman described the scheme as "rather dispiriting and sinister".

"It's so ludicrous that it's almost funny," he said.

Registration will cost £64 in England and Wales, but unpaid volunteers will be exempt from the charge.

I knew someone that workrd with a youth group and had a cleared CRB check
This person I know for a fact has looked at child porn.

CRB check is not worth the paper it is written on, this is just another way to tax people, it is not about the safety of children at all

Frankly, if it wasn't for the appalling state of the way rape cases are handled, Huntley would have been banged up years before he got the chance to attack those girls. Huntley had charge after charge, arrest after arrest, for rape, sexual assault, coercion etc but charges were repeatedly dropped because it was the victims' word against his and they were just girls, and some of them might occaisonally have drunk alcohol or worn short skirts. Etc.
Good PSHE is the best protection we can give children: sensible, sympathetic education about the fact that our bodies are our own, adults do not have the right to ask us to keep uncomfortable secrets, etc but there are far too many loons with vested interests who want children kept ignorant about sexuality, so instead we get this sort of crap 'oh, every adult is a potential abuser...'

I agree with you again sixtyfootdoll!

It reminds me of an argument discussion we had once when with some people we met on holiday on this topic: they siad "surely you would want to know that your ds is being coached by someone with a CRB check?" We responded saying we didn't care a fig (or words to that effect ) whether they had a CRB check: it only catches those that have already been convicted and anyway, what was more important was to be involved with what your child was doing - whether directly or indireclty - and also to give your child the skills/confidence/awareness to say that they are not comfortable with something, if they were (extremely) unfortunate enoguh to come acorss the rare incidience of a paedophile in action.

I wonder if it is sometimes a way for an unknown pedophile to get close to children, I mean if you have a bit of paper that says the government think you're safe to work with children what better way to get in to groups where you can watch the object of your perversion then to have a bit of paper saying what a lovely law abiding chap you are.

How does it work if you're an immigrant? Will they be able to check up in my country of birth or will I simply be barred from activities?

I don't have a problem with it at all. It doesn't apply to private arrangements, it's only if lifts are arranged through the sports club (so parents less likely to know each other). If my kid was being given a lift by someone I didn't know very well, yes I would be grateful for a check that they weren't a convicted paedophile! I'd also quite like a check on their driving history as if they were a convicted drink driver or a notorious speeder then I wouldn't want my child in the car.

I don't know why people get so jumpy - I'm CRB cleared because I work with children, it's just a form to fill in, and if it avoids children being exposed to paedophiles then so much the better.

It doesnt stop them being exposed to paedophiles at all though. the ones that have that piece of paper say they havent been caught is all.

I know. But you know what, just because it doesn't remove the risk, just reduces it, doesn't mean that's not worth doing.

Wearing a seatbelt won't save you in every car crash, but it will save your life in some - just because it's not a guarantee doesn't mean it's not worth doing.

The thing is it's not replacing CRBs - it's as well as. Anyone working with children and vunerable poeople or even having access to their records will have to be registered.

It's free for volunteers but employed people will have to pay £64 each. OK it's only a one off fee but I employ 20 part time childcare staff and 6 part time admin staff in my organisation (we don't just provide childcare). Although it is the responsibility of the individual to pay for their registration the reality is that £64 will be a big chunk out of their pay (childcare is not the best paid sector) so our organisation (registered charity) will more than likely pay for them.

I know that the idea behind it is to protect vunerable people (and of course no one will disagree with the principle) but that's nearly £1700 on top of the £53 each we pay for 3 yearly CRBs (best practice to renew every 3 years - first one is free for childcare staff but subsequent ones have to be paid for including an admin fee to the umberella body).

I think that a lot of people will stop or think twice about working or volunteering with children and vunerable pople. I'm also concerend about how small charitable/private organisations will cope will the added expense if their staff would prefer to leave for a different job that pays more money without the assumption that anyone who has contact with kids is a peadophile.

Also, I've been told by the ISA that anyone who has a free check as a volunteer will then have to pay for a further check if they are taken on in a paid role. So is it really about checking people out or is it (cynical hat on here ) a money making exercise?

I think it's just awful. Just awful. It will put me off completely. I'm with those authors, Philip Pullman and the others. It's just a step too far.

It's just another case of "Britains Gone Mad"

Parents these days are already far too paranoid, so let's make them worse shall we.

What ever happened to gut instinct and good old common sense - you know what, it's gone out of the bloody window.

Quite glad I live out of the country at the moment to be honest.

It doesn't apply to private arrangements yet. Wait another decade, you may find that the situation has changed.

I don't really see how this system is dramatically different from what goes on already.

Regular volunteers have to be CRB checked in any organisation that I have been in.

As for school and youth club transportation. A school, say, should not ask for a particular mum to ferry the other kids to their away fixture. They should tell the parent to get their own child there, and let them make private arrangements to carpool. When we needed such an arrangement recently, it was my DD who made the arrangement with her friend.

If a school asks a parent to transport children, then it is not just a CRB issue. The school should really make sure that the car is roadworthy, insured and that the parent has a driving license, and reimburse the petrol. It is easier just to have the parents sort out things amongst themselves.

The CRB system has improved over the years. A few years ago it could take a couple of months to get the paperwork back. When my DS did one this summer, it was less than 2 weeks. One day, they will even be portable.

Look this is the most totalitarian government the UK has ever had. ANd look at the mess - a considerable amount of the anti-social behaviour on the streets is due to the endless surveillance we are subjected to. Being watched all the time, or feeling that you are being watched all the time, is extremely bad for your mental health. ANd they are FUCKING INCOMPETENT with it. They insist on doing more and more spying, then leave all the data on a bus and wonder why identity fraud is on the rise. And they aren't into paying anyone but there mates very much money, so all these checks and forms are going to be processed by semi-literate teens who may well tick the wrong box and mark an innocent person a peedafil and there will be NO REDRESS because oh, it's in The COmputer now and anyway there's no smoke without fire.
ALso, the current government have always been very keen on encouraging emotional incontinence and boasting about the importance of 'feelings' when what they want to induce is witless sentimentalism that stops people using their brains and makes it easy to rouse a shrieking mob of morons when anyone questions bad policy 'Look, this eeeeevil person DOESN'T CARE about ICKLE BABIES'.
The best thing to do if they introduce this is get some hackers to load the system with enough viruses to crash it completely.

one in four adults is bloody scary.

Hadn't thought it would apply to me, but now I'm a school governor guess it will. And I am really skint atm so unless the school pays, I'll have to stand down. Honestly haven't got £64 to throw away and dh's contract is coming to an end so we'll be even more skint.

And the people running CRB are so thick that they were holding up applications from women using Ms as they assumed it meant 'divorced' so wanted to know what the person's other names had been. FFS. Hardly gives me any confidence they won't make even glaring errors.

Fair point SGB.

But have to say though that I was more vetted for a mortgage than I was for an enhanced CRB check.

I think it will stop people volunteering, but not because of filling a form in. Most people have no idea what will be considered "relevant information". If for instance, they may have had transient dealings with social services years ago, or been interviewed (but not charged) in relation to a crime, they may well be anxious that these things (which would not affect their ability to care for children) will come up.

Who pays the £64 anyway? Is it the school etc or is it the individual? I'm certainly not going to pay £64 to help with reading at my child's school! And then if the schools pay it then the children will suffer in the long run as there will be less money for other things...like educating them.

Total waste of time - like someone else mentioned, it only picks out those who have been caught, and therefore it lulls people into a false sense of security, and what's worse is that it can include allegations someone has made or anonymous statements, very unfair if someone has been falsely accused of something...

LEA pays if you're volunteering for a school. Ofsted pays if you're volunteering for a preschool. Someone always pays.

I'm an immigrant, Cory, my first CRB check just took a VERY long time (6 or 7 months, I think). Someone I know was adopted at 6 weeks (so early name change), married a few times, her CRB check also took 7 months or so.

Something which came up on radio the other week was that sometimes an employer will get a letter, from the CRB people, which they are

a) includes allegations, while no charges were made

b) not allowed to disclose to the person being checked, or, apparently, anyone else

How come it was mentioned? A whistle-blower, an employer, who had received such a letter, told the BBC because s/he was appalled that because it was not possible to disclose the letter the person applying for jobs may never get to know what's said 'off the record' about them.

My sister has been giving moral support to someone who had been employed in a school, but through an accusation, was suspended.

That person applies for jobs, but it has taken months for the CRB check to be done (meant to be completed within 60 days?) and as a result, offers have been withdrawn.

Current CRB system seems a shambles, and with the duplication of effort that goes on (one person needing to get several checks) and lack of synchronisation (all police forces should start processing an application in parallel, not passing it from force to force in a long chain, totally pathetic method!) it is no wonder that there are backlogs and worse to come, no doubt.

The person my sister knows found out that because the job offer had been withdrawn, the school had effectively said 'don't care about the check being completed' and it had been put in the bottom of a pile, presumably for sending back to CRB when they got round to it. Only because person was chasing and complaining about slowness of process did someone ring to explain that check had been changed to 'no longer needed' status.

ChookKeeper: are you sure it's not replacing current CRB checks system? Can you provide a link that explains that clearly? I thought the SafeGuarding Authority was going to do away with need for recurring CRB searches (although individual identity checks would still need to be made, which is half the hassle anyway).

Think it is a terrible idea, just another way of getting us all on the database so the government can keep tabs on all of us 'for our own good'. A huge waste of money just when substantial cuts are going to have to be made in public spending.

here you go peanut.