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.

At the moment some groups (thinking football sides specifically) are struggling to run activities (take kids to away matches) at all, because they need 2 adults per vehicle each event, giving lifts. So having CRB on lift givers, to enable only one adult in each car, may make it easier (if more expensive) for those groups to continue.

With cellphones to call for rescue in case of breakdown, they really shouldn't need extra adult per vehicle.

i would never be alone with someone elses child, ever. not for them, but for my own protection. i value my own reputation far far too much for some spoilt brat to say things abou tme. and i fear, that with all this madness, thats exactly what we are creating, generations of spoilt brats who think the world revolves around them.
take swimming for example. parents havet o help kids wth changing. what that means, si that parents have to ensure the kids dont spend forty minutes in changing rooms , but get in and out reasonable quickly in order for lessons to take place. other than reception age children in perhaps the first term, none of these kids, (not including sn) should need any help with changing clothes.
similarly, if driving kids somewhere, its more important, in my book at least, to check the person driving, actually is capable of driving a car, with at least four excited kids in the back. i know plenty of men who just cant do that. they are excellent drivers, but need either silence, or music on and with excited kids, you cant have that. what good is a crb check, if the driver cant control the car?

I have long mistrusted the whole CRB notion, since having a piece of paper saying you haven't been convicted of a crime seems to take disproportionate pride of place when assessing someone's suitability for a role. "He's been CRB-checked" has become shorthand for "He is honest, reliable and trustworthy." Which is rubbish, of course. This new ISA will assume the same value.

I also dislike the notion of setting up the "the largest system of its kind in the world" (the govt's own proud boast), a pointlessly overweight behemoth that is hard to imagine not toppling under the weight of all those football coaches and care home workers and Scout leaders and lollipop ladies, all supposedly "constantly monitored". Constantly monitored my arse.

Welcome to the database state.

Its both a sad and ill conceived piece of leglislation which has only succeeded in annoying many people regardless of their political persuation. Even Esther Rantzen and the NSPCC are critics of this half baked scheme.

And Capita will not doubt be maintaining the database. Given the Government's whole shambolic record of maintaining such things I have no confidence in it whatsoever.

I support the need for a single piece of documentation saying that you have been police checked. At the moment, people need a separate CRB for each job or voluntary position that they do.

I do have great problems with the soft information. eg. mental health problems, involvement with social services, unproven allegations could all find their way onto a check.

I also think that widening the range of positions that require a CRB to 1/4 of the jobs in the UK is ridiculous, and does nothing to aid the rehabilitation of offenders. After all, in these times if you want to be a hospital porter, HR is going to choose the candidate with a clear check, not the one who was caught shop lifting when he was 16. The notion of spent convictions or cautions is now gone.

Madsometimes "The notion of spent convictions or cautions is now gone" - that is so true.

Just a few months ago I had to help out a student classroom assistant who was thrown off her placement by the headteacher because her CRB showed that she had been cautioned for stealing when she was 16. She's in her 40s now, but of course nicking a packet of cakes for a dare when you are 16 makes you completely unsuitable to work with children .

really good post Attila

yes mad -- you are right about spent convictions

dreadful

It also continues to perpetuate the notion that children are at risk from some bad person trying to get snatched access to them.
Most children are abused by someone known to and trusted by their family.
So the nice woman who picks children up for gym practice, and the nice guys who give DS1 a lift to cricket matches, will need to be checked and have to prove their innocence.And may decide they can't be arsed and resent being queried. If they decide not to bother then people will rely more and more on friends of the extended family - who are the biggest threat in the first place
Neither of my two abusers would have had any problem getting a CRB check.

It makes people look suspiciously at those outside the home and makes them feel a false sense of security.
Bloody expensive waste of time.

Those in favour - how will you feel if someone makes a false allegation of abuse against you, which then stays on your record forever and stops you getting a job or being accepted as a volunteer? Will you still be in favour?

Any system which gives weight to hearsay, rumour and gossip, is a pretty poor one.

I agree with Goblin - at the moment it doesn't apply to private arrangements, but in a decade or so, the lack of logic of this will be noticed and therefore the scene will be extended. Then it will be noticed that children are still being abused, so what further measures have to be taken?

I am shocked that there is no such thing as spent convictions anymore. How ridiculous that something you did as an idiot teenager can come back and bite you in the arse twenty years later. Dreadful

There must still be some former Stasi people knocking around in Germany. I'm sure they'd be excellent people to run the new system. They relied on denunciations and gossip, too.

As a social worker working with adults who were sexually abused as children I think it is a step forward in protecting children. Whilst sadly most children abused are abused by a family member, it is also not uncommon for a close adult involved in activities like those cited in the article.
Sadly it is the world we live in. People complaining of nanny state have obviously never met anyone damaged by child sexual abuse. It has a dramatic and life long effect.

Ingtersting the differenet perspecitves: we are good friends with a social worker whose job is also to work with "survivors of child abuse" who doesn't think that this is appropraite.

She is always going on about when will people realise that most abuse happens in the home and that legislation like this lulls people into a false sense of security.

My friends who are GPs say the same thing

"People complaining of nanny state have obviously never met anyone damaged by child sexual abuse"

What a ridiculous assumption.

"What about all the parent helpers who go on school trips as a one off? Every school is grateful if a few parents will go with Reception and Yr 1 and 2 kids to help out."

They need to be CRB checked. They do in our school anyway

This is totally fine by me. and for those who have sleepovers.

So no-one is worried that an unproven allegation of abuse will remain on their file and stop them from getting a job or a volunteer position?

It only ever happens to someone else, doesn't it?

It is a wonderful charter for the paedophile who hasn't a conviction-they can wave a CRB certificate and everyone thinks they are clear-rather than clever enough not to be found out.It is much better to trust your own judgement.
I can see it wouldn't take long for a 5yr old to be invited to tea with a friend and the mother is asking to see her CRB!!

i'm concerned enough to never apply

i have no convictions, arrests, allegations against me, nothing, but I've lived abroad for some years, soon to come home

one of the countries i've lived in has a meaningless police force

so far as I can see, this means a check is impossible: and I could be turned down

now who wants to tell people they've been turned down? with this culture of suspicion, people might not believe you

better to never apply, and my goodness i have done some volunteering in my time as a mother and helped out a lot of children

pisces i can see that happening too, sooner than we think, esp for sleepovers

i mean, people might not believe the reason why you've been turned down

in fact, reading my post back, I can almost hear people thinking "hmm what's she got to hide"

If you read my post, I do say that most abuse is done by family members or friends of the family. I am NOT saying it will stop all abuse but surely any step to reduce risk is a good step.
As parents, we all want our children safe.
And CRB checks are used now, and don't stop abusers without convictions getting jobs but again, its all part of the bigger picture. We will never stop abuse altogether though, sadly.

moopy

this is going to cost a fortune
all money that could be better spent on training social workers
employing more social workers
targetting higher risk children

of those, and of this ridiculous scheme, which do you think is more likely to prevent abuse?

We were accused wrongly of harming our son when, after a traffic accident on public transport, the doctors we called out to see our beautiful boy failed to diagnose a greenstick fracture. I foolishly threatened legal action against the visiting GPs who had told me i was fussing and that 'babies do cry' and that he had colic.

The next thing we knew, a case was being put together against us - by a so called expert (I won't name him as I'm not permitted to, but one of the 'experts' who wrote with Roy Meadows about Munchausen by proxy/factititous illness)who admitted when we got to court to serious errors such as not reading my son's medical records prior to reaching a decision, despite no risk indicators or any previous concerns of any sort about us as parents, ignoring the observations and recommendations of social workers and his own hospital paediatricians and basing his initial damning report on one very sympathetic A4 letter of referral by a hospital paediatrician, written only because of my son's age, the non-diagnosis by visiting GPs and because a referral had been requested by the GPs who started the monster that is the child protection machine in motion.

Subsequently after two years of hell, which is how long it took to get the case heard in full, we were cleared and not required to submit to any intervention whatever from social services or any other agency.

It took us some time to get our lives back in order, but we were determined that we would give our wonderful kids a great, normal life no matter what. They are now at an age where they were starting to attend Rainbows/Beavers etc, and our area is very short of parent helpers. We were told we must take turns providing lifts and help on trips, however, I was not prepared to return to the state of semi-permanent shame and fear of judgement that this would have meant, prior to being told that we can't help anyway.Our children therefore have had to leave their groups, which is of course, deeply unfair.

It is bad enough that I can't go into my children's school as a parent helper and listen to readers etc like every other normal parent; this just makes me feel that our kids lives will inevitably be affected for the worse, and we will never be allowed to be normal parents, even though we never did anything wrong.

Because of our situation, I would never be alone with someone else's child, or have a schoolfriend of the kids over for sleep overs whose parents were not close enough to be told the full situation, as I feel all parents have the right to make an informed decision about such important matters. But, and this is the important but, I get to make a choice about who I invite and thus who I share the information with.

Parents like us may be a minority, but we exist - more of us than you may wish to believe - so please spare a thought for us - we have lived through a horrible enough experience without being made to feel judged for the rest of our lives. This idea will make matters even worse.

I don't know what the answer is, we are all hard wired to do all we can to protect our kids, but it seems we are on the way to micro-chipping and constantly tracking our kids via CCTV. Normality has to allowed to come back in somewhere.

This thread is so like a DM column. I especially liked PM's paedophiles charter.

In fact, so many threads on MN seem to end up like DM columns. !

On that fitting epiphany, I take a break

moobell what a terrible thing to happen

and the insult to injury, how awful that they can't do their activities because of this

'So no-one is worried that an unproven allegation of abuse will remain on their file and stop them from getting a job or a volunteer position?'

I am. I wasn't entirely joking when I mentioned the Stasi. That's what happened in East Germany: people snooped on their neighbours and informed. Careers and relationships were broken. Just as Moobell describes.

If I am asked to fill in an enhanced disclosure I will regrettably be resigning from my volunteer jobs at a local primary school and sports club. I've been helping out at the school for five years and will miss it terribly but there is a principle here.

You know moobell, as a Rainbow leader if you had said you simply couldn't do it but couldn't explain why- I'd have been OK.The 'all parents MUST' rule is there IME (I never used it) to catch the majority, there's always flexiblity for special cases (for example whilst I am happy to help at Cubs I doubt they;d want me to as it wuld mean taking along an active toddler and two autistic kids!)

I don't know how I feel about unproven allegations. I don't think they shoudl appear on a check, I do thnk a note should be made somewhere- because such things can be the factor between follwoing up a subsequent allegation and not; however that should be a police file that is not taken into account with checks.

Abra1d is that just the new system,or generally? I know that I couldn't help at school without having had a CRB check so not sure if it'sthe updated or anything at all that you object to.