Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

News

CRB checks for all parents

193 replies

KIMItheThreadSlayer · 11/09/2009 19:17

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.

OP posts:
LilyBolero · 12/09/2009 18:50

But, if your child was getting a lift from someone you didn't know, organised through a sports club, wouldn't you want to know there was nothing dodgy in their past?

mmrsceptic · 12/09/2009 19:05

just can't believe how differently people on mn are thinking

once it was seen as ridiculous to see a paedophile around every corner

now it is the polar opposite

what has changed? or have you always thought like this? why do you suspect everyone of being a paedophile? why have you ever let your children on school trips or scout trips without thinking about it before? what's made people change their minds?

Goblinchild · 12/09/2009 19:11

You may find that it has the opposite effect, in that the ordinary individual will feel it's too much bother and drop out of helping.
Leaving only the very altruistic to jump through hoops to become helpers, or those with an alternative agenda who wish to be closer to children for less wholesome reasons.
I know that although I'm a teacher with an enhanced CRB, I still have had to apply for further checks to help out at Sunday school and cubs. So when they asked for a CRB again for another role, I thought sod this and didn't bother volunteering.

mmrsceptic · 12/09/2009 19:18

I used to run a huge sports activity for over two hundred children. The numbers were so huge that every parent had to help on every alternate week.

That would collapse under this system. Getting four hundred parents to fill in the right forms, it would be impossible. They would just forget, or the forms would sit in the pile of papers on the kitchen worktop, because someone got a phone call just as they were about to fill it in, or they had to check a date with their spouse, or the OK it would take ages to come through, or their computer wouldn't download them, blah de blah de blah, or it would just be used as an excuse.

Crumbs, when we didn't have enough people we used to rope in the watching parents -- now they could just say, sorry, no certificate.

It's nuts, completely nuts.

prettybird · 12/09/2009 19:27

I'd much rather get to know the parents for myself and trust my own judgement. Or alternatively, get to know the sports club leaders well enough to trust their judgemnt.

That and teach my child to know what appropraite boudaries are.

piscesmoon · 12/09/2009 22:27

'But, if your child was getting a lift from someone you didn't know, organised through a sports club, wouldn't you want to know there was nothing dodgy in their past?

I don't think that I would even offer a lift if I have to prove I wouldn't molest the children-it is very insulting! I would expect the parent to make their own judgement, and if they don't trust me without a piece of paper they shouldn't ask for the lift.
It gives a totally false sense of security-it merely means that the person hasn't been convicted of anything......yet.

Cammelia · 12/09/2009 22:37

This legislation is just another way for this lousy govt to make money out of scare-mongering

abra1d · 12/09/2009 22:39

For God's sake, how can one in four adults in the UK possibly need to prove he/she is not a paedophile?

How can this be sensible or ethical?

Sometimes I really hate what we are doing to our society.

wasthatchild · 12/09/2009 22:46

It took me over 20 years to report the man who abused me. That's 20 years in which he had access to other children and would have been clear on every check going.

piscesmoon · 13/09/2009 06:39

Exactly wasthatschild-he could wave his piece of paper and parents would think he was safe. I think it is much better to use your own judgement. If I needed the car driver to prove their innocence before they gave a lift then it isn't the sort of person I would want giving a lift. I think all this mistrust is very damaging for society.

peanutbutterkid · 13/09/2009 09:13

Thanks ChookKeeper.
This page seems to contradict the one you linked to!! Because it talks about one-off vetting fee and procedure, other people being able to phone up and get the enhanced CRB info without having to pay again, etc.
. So the new service is just a second rate CRB? Which hardly anyone will use because they will be worried about liabilities, and therefore will want/feel the MUST have full and original and most up-to-date CRB?

It's going to be a MESS.
Maybe it will work when it settles down, hopefully.

cory · 13/09/2009 10:43

I think goblinchild has a good point: once the ordinary parents start dropping out because it seems too much hassle, that leaves the ones with an agenda

in our school, you only get asked about school trips a day or two in advance, when they usual stalwarts have found they have a dental appointment or whatever

so not time to rush off then and get yourself checked

I did ask the school once and they never got back to me

mmrsceptic · 13/09/2009 11:07

i just read a comment by a teachers' representative

it said suspicion would surround a helper who stopped because they didn't want to go through the procedure

!!!!!!!!!

that is just appalling

everybody mewing about "it's just a little form" -- where are your guts?

this is unnecessary, useless and will take resources from real child protection

why do you suspect all these people of being paedophiles? what's wrong with you?

prettybird · 13/09/2009 11:39

It is really sad what it does to society too.

It reminds me of an occasion a couple of years ago when dh wanted to have a board meeting for an out of school service that he runs, rather than pay for the let at the school, where they would also be constricted on time. However, they wouldn't then be able to pay ofr the local mobile creche to come.

As the kids of the parents on the board were all a similar age (there would only have been about 5 if they had all come), he suggested that if they couldn't make other arrangements, they could just come and play with ds (we have have a big house and a big garden and I would have been around). With one exepcetion, all the kids had been to birthday parties at our house.

One of the board members tried to claim we couldn't do this as "we weren't CRB checked"

mmrsceptic · 13/09/2009 11:43

mners only say they don't mind because if they do it makes them look daily mail

nannynick · 13/09/2009 11:55

Under the current system, the CRB check is out of date the moment it is issued. Under the new system, the check is continuously updated as far as I can see... so surely that is better.

Also currently parents cannot request a CRB check done on a babysitter, a nanny, or anyone else who comes to their home to care for their children. Under the new system, those types of childcare provider are able to get the check and parents are able to check that the check has been done.

I doubt there will ever be a perfect system. Parents should use their own judgement as to if someone is safe to be around their children.

BethNoire · 13/09/2009 13:10

MMR that is bollcocks, I say i don't mind because I don;t mind.

People feel differently about things and won't always agree with you. get over it.

pussyabcess · 13/09/2009 13:26

there's one, good on you

so why do you think most people are not to be trusted?

BethNoire · 13/09/2009 13:37

Was that to me? I found the theres one confusing.

I don't think most people aren't to be trusted; I personally don't feel that this means that at all.

I don't feel anything is implied each time I have a check, indeed I used to adminsiter CRB for a charity and I never assumed people were guilty, I always expecetd them to come back clear- if any hadn't I'd have been surprised: it was being able to look at the person we were offering our services to (I worked for home start) and say in effect that we have done everything we can to ensure this person we are suggesting you trust is worthy of that; we have taken references, checked police records, they have all come back clear and sound.

We also screened in otehr ways (through interview, observation during training) to detects any strong biases, te,mpers etc.

It'sa clear truth that CRB doesn't pick up anyone who hasn't been caught, but references are a great back up to that and there ahs to be a limit. Sometimes CRB does pick up people applying for positions who sshouldn't have, so it is a step in a procedure rather than anything else.

BethNoire · 13/09/2009 13:38

(If anyone feels the need to point out that by assuming innocence I was putting peopleat risk through naivety etc I should just piont out that I wasnt part of the interview or assessment at that stage; I just pushed apeprwork until later on in my employment when someone else took over that)

pussyabcess · 13/09/2009 13:53

it means you do think people are suspect

of course: or why do you want them checked?

it's not complicated

pussyabcess · 13/09/2009 13:54

there are so many downsides to this system that if you don't think people are suspect, why do you want it?

BethNoire · 13/09/2009 13:57

I have explained my belief, please don't be so aggressive.

The aprt of your ost I queried was the start theres one.... one what>?

person who dares to believe something you don't? fool? Dissenter?

or eprson who ahs made up her own mind on the nformation and experiences she has had herself? Whcih is what I am- not a 'one' but a person.

you don't have to suspect every person of being a Paedophile in order to want to prevent those whoa re out there from having contact with children as best you can. Much like I lock my door but don't assume everyone is a thief.

pussyabcess · 13/09/2009 14:15

excuse me, there's one standing up to my glib and cheeky comment

not one having a different view, not at all, i know there are lots of you

i don't think this is as best you can though, not at all

i think a lot of children will be stuck at home in front of the tv because their athletics/football/scouts/swimming has been cancelled

there will be a lot of people with suspicion hanging around them because they refuse to conform

there will be a lot of people who can't be trusted and still have bits of paper

i think a lot of money will be diverted from better child protection measures

plus it infantilises us all

pussyabcess · 13/09/2009 14:16

don't forget, locking your door has no disadvantages

it's not the same