Eleven million names on school vetting database
Outcry grows as scale of Government's child protection register revealed
Digg
del.icio.us
Facebook
Reddit
Google
Stumble Upon
Fark
Newsvine
YahooBuzz
Bebo
Twitter
Independent Minds
enlarge
Parents who help out on school trips or accept foreign exchange students into their homes will have to register on a government database in order to prove they are not a danger to children.
Within five years, more than 11 million people will be stored by the Independent Safeguarding Authority (ISA) as part of the Vetting and Barring Scheme (VBS), which launches in October and is intended to protect children from paedophiles. By November next year, it will be mandatory for all individuals who work with children to be registered.
MPs who regularly visit schools in their constituencies, parents who allow foreign pupils to stay in their houses as part of school exchange programmes and builders who carry out work on school buildings during term time will all need to register, as the list includes anyone who comes into contact with children in a professional or voluntary capacity. They will have to register with the national database for a one-off fee of £64. Those who have already had a Criminal Records Bureau (CRB) check and are cleared to work with children will still have to sign up and pay.
People who regularly volunteer to work at schools – such as parents helping out on school trips or sports days – will also need to register, although they will not have to pay the fee.
The new rules mean that millions of people who have jobs which involve indirect contact with children will have to be assessed in case they pose a risk. School janitors, cleaners and kitchen staff will have to pay the registration fee, as will electricians, plumbers and joiners if they are regularly employed by schools. Members of the fire, police and ambulance services who tour the country talking to pupils about issues such as road safety and sexual health will need to be vetted, as will members of the armed forces who give frequent careers talks and cadet instructors.
The Home Office estimates that the database will hold the details of 11.3 million people within five years. Even if just half of the participants pay the £64 fee in this time, the Government will have raised about £360m in revenue.
The scheme is being managed by the ISA, which was set up after the 2002 murders of Jessica Chapman and Holly Wells by Ian Huntley, a college caretaker.
The VBS has already provoked anger among people who are accustomed to visiting schools on a regular basis. Yesterday, The Independent reported that a group of respected British children's authors and illustrators intended to stop visiting schools in protest at the scheme. Philip Pullman, Anne Fine, Anthony Horowitz, Michael Morpurgo and Quentin Blake all said they objected to being registered on the database. Mr Pullman described the policy as "corrosive and poisonous to every kind of healthy social interaction", while Mr Horowitz said the £64 registration fee had "a nasty feeling of a stealth tax about it".
David Lyscom, chief executive of the Independent Schools Council, which represents 1,280 schools and more than 500,000 children across the UK, said the VBS was a "knee-jerk reaction" to the issue of child protection which was "full of unintended consequences".
He said it had been mishandled in the same way as ContactPoint, the government database which holds information on every child in England under the age of 18. ContactPoint was set up following Lord Laming's inquiry into the death of Victoria Climbié, who was murdered by her guardians in 2000. "Our view is that this is another example of the Government identifying a problem of limited size and producing a global solution to deal with it, using a sledgehammer to crack a nut," he said.
A Home Office spokesman said: "The UK already has one of the most advanced systems in the world for carrying out checks on all those who work in positions of trust with children and vulnerable adults. From October this year, the new VBS will ensure these regulations are even more rigorous."
£360m
The amount the Government will raise if half the 11.3 million people who will be on the database in five years pay the £64 fee.
View all comments that have been posted about this article.
Offensive or abusive comments will be removed and your IP logged and may be used to prevent further submission. In submitting a comment to the site, you agree to be bound by the Independent Minds Terms of Service.
- Print Article
- Email Article
-
Click here for copyright permissions
Copyright 2009 Independent News and Media Limited
Comments
Just another example of the over zealous paranoia that has been generated in the UK, USA and Europe by a few bad minded people and a host of publicity seeking politico's designing new ways to extort more and more from the population ....We might just as well say goodbye to the Scout/Guide movement, Boys Brigade, Army Cadets, School visits to places of interest....being a child in the UK was once an exciting period in life ....now its about as exciting as watching paint dry
Thanks Messers Brown Blair and all the other associated idiots dreaming up newer threats that arent anywhere near reality, I suppose you have to justify your exsistence somehow
Don't you understand the importance of encouraging panic and hysteria over rare crimes so as to justify a huge fascist database of the entire population and complete control over everyone?
Are you really so stupid as to believe that a sensible, balanced, mature approach to risk is possible in Labour's nu-Britain? Of course it isn't.
We have all been infantilised into believing that all risk must be eliminated and that security is more important than freedom.
Welcome to Labour's fascist nu-Britain!
My daughter's school annually runs event to enrich the curriculum. Lectures, fun days, off timetable extravaganza's which annually involve hundreds of contributors, all of whom are supervised by and known to staff. The erudite professor who addresses the sixth form, the author, the poet, the industry links guests, the enterprise helpers, the finance advisors... hundreds of people who gift their time to the benefit of the school and the children.
This government is barking!
Ian Huntley passed his police checks and now years on his impact is still damaging children's lives thanks to witless bureacrats who think they can legislate out the liar, the theif and the child abuser. These people will get around the system with ease as they always do. This will have no effect whatsoever on those who it is intended to prevent from having access, it will just damage schools and children's life experiences which is after all, what this government does best.
A serious point, if childrens safety is the prime mover-- extended families,? people next door--the list is endless.
It says much about the society that Britain has become; paranoid, sinister, and untrusting.
The interaction between kids and adults has therefore become officialised, it can no longer be casual as in a civilised society. This is not a civilised society, because there is no trust.
Nobody is seen to be trustworthy anymore unless they have been 'passed' as safe. Vile.
The problem with this database is that it will be an on-going commitment to keep it maintained and the ISA are duty bound to consider all information it receives - whether corroborated or not - from any and all sources - disgruntled ex partners, former employers, trouble makers perhaps?? - without due legal process - e.g. rules of hearsay, corroboration etc.
From the government's own Q&A
Q54. Can anyone make referrals?
Yes. the ISA is duty bound to consider all information it receives, regardless of
the source. However, we would encourage members of the public, if they have
concerns, to first contact the appropriate statutory agency, e.g. the police or Local
Authority.
Q51. How will the ISA deal with false or malicious allegations?
Staff and board members at the ISA have a wide range of expertise, including
allegations management.
The ISA will scrutinise any information it receives and will only bar a person if its
own criteria for barring are satisfied.
Oh - everyone should feel safe - the ISA have 'allegations management' whatever that is!
Many volunteers - e.g. after school music, arts, dramatic, sports helpers - may decide they don't want to be 'databased' in this way, and as a result many children's lives may be further impoverished by not having access to the same services we had as children. The only question to be answered is: Is stranger abuse of children on the increase over the last 50 years or not? if not these rules are not needed...
(if we're not too busy thinking about ourselves and expecting everyone else to take care of them, that is !)
I only hope that when the next election rolls around, assuming Brown doesn't change to law to stop it, that the new government stops all this knee-jerk reaction to protect the children during what should be the best years in their lives.
Does it mean that by being a steward of events and fesitivals I will need to be registared or because i work with vunerable adults, etc. This government needs to be stopped and all the represive laws be dumped from the statute books, this is just one of the pointless laws that have been brought in by the government. I wonder which cabinet member thought the idea up in the first place.
b) When off the school premises e.g. walking to and from school, children have to rely on their own good common sense and the defence mechanisms taught by their parents. Why should it be any different at school?
c) If the government want people to register, it is UNFAIR that they make those people pay to prove their innocence. More stealth tax.
d) The government's track record of keeping people's data safe is not good. Is there a possibility that paedophiles will hack into the system and give themselves "clean" records, or produce false ones with assumed names? Certificate therefore worthless.
e) if teachers think that someone appearing at their school waving this certificate is not a threat, then they are not doing their job properly. Certificate therefore worthless.
The General public think otherwise - we have the most backward totalitarian regime for children ever devised (not based on facts but on presumption of guilt). The DCSF has had a number of 'name changes' over the years and is rapidly expanding it's remit into family life. It has had an awful record of missing children's records and shown naivety in basic IT skills which are then implemented at HUGE cost to the nation and then dropped. The cost of all this inspection and checking has been already been discredited many times and yet Parliament seems out of tune with public opinion. We have had enough! Now is the time for Secretary's of state to pack their bags and be off because we DO NOT TRUST THEM.
Firstly on this issue, why isn't there just a simple way to search for whether a person's name is on a sex protection register!!!??? Why is a new database needed at all? There is no logic whatsoever.
Secondly, why is Britain such a scared, miserable place? People in most other countries aren't so miserable. Smiles are pretty damn rare in the UK. Legislating against every potential risk in life will not make the smiles come any quicker! Further social dislocation will lead to further social breakdown
Seems Anthony Horowitz's idea of the "stealth tax" is probably the driving force here, whilst the children in Schools are going to miss out on an awful lot of good talks next year.
Wait until the Government decide they have to update the database yearly and expect further payments from all who have had to register.
In the same way, some children will suffer because we're not all monitored 24/7. There have been some high-profile cases, but when you consider how many, compared to the number involved in road accidents, it is actually quite low. It is the price to be paid for allowing the vast majority of us to make our own decisions without government interference. We also know that no matter how draconian the rules, the casualty rate will never be zero, so, as in the road case, there's a rate considered acceptable for the freedom it grants. There are occasional adjustments - another example being airport security - as bad things come to light and then recede in the public memory, but on average we put up with it. The acceptability of the price also depends on whether you are the one unlucky enough to have to pay it on behalf of everyone else.
The "if it saves even one child" argument is fallacious. Over-zealous government officials with too much power have the capacity to destroy families just as much as the parents, and there are plenty of cases of that on record where that has happened.
Benjamin Franklin had it right:
"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."
Out of 11,000,000 people or approximately a fifth of the whole UK population who will have been vetted and assessed as "safe" on this database, it would seem statistically likely that some will either have already harmed children or will have the ability to do so at some time in the future.
This is surely a case for responsible parenting, we assess whether or not our children are being placed in harms way, and we trust or mistrust teachers, guide and scout leaders, and all of the other people who interact with our children purely on the basis of what we think of them and what our children and acquaintances tell us about them.
higher security within schools, child line, neighbourhood watch, ...........
What was the point of all these things if they don't work ?
To me, you have to improve the existing way's of identifying paedophiles and child
killiers.
That means taking a real interest.
I can just imagine the assessment questionnaire...
1. Are you a Catholic priest?
2. Do you live alone, or with your elderly parents?
3. Do you spend an unusual amount of time on the internet?
4. Are you single? (If 'Yes', 4a. what was the duration of you most recent stable relationship?)
5. Were you abused by an adult when you were young?
6. Did you have a happy childhood?
7. Do you fantasize about dominating and controlling others?
8. Do you have a high sex drive?
etc.
And then some fluffy-cardiganed, fluffy-brained social worker with an A-level in psychology goes through the answers and ticks one of two boxes: 'Safe with Kids' or 'Potential paedo'.
Child abuse is a serious subject, of course, and one shouldn't make light of it. But, I mean, puur-lease! How on Earth are they going to make this thing work?! Social workers and child elfare officers already have a very poor track record, given Baby P and other recent tragedies. Do we honestly think that they *won't* make a complete dog's dinner of this too? It's a complete farce!
And don't ask about the appeal process if someone is barred.
But no politician will dare reverse the legislation. One child killed or assaulted by someone who *might* have been barred and their career would be over. The Great British Public has no conception of "social goods" and the red tops would encourage them to cry "you can't put a price on the life of a child....". Stupid when a price has to be put on a life every time there is a cost-benefit assessment for a new road, street lighting, etc etc
11 mil schools. mama mia mew mew You have so many schools How many students you you have and teachesr ED Balls is right He is going nuts with schools £360m What is this % years?? we will be dead by then
The amount the Government will raise if half the 11.3 million people who will be on the database in five years pay the £64 fee.
I thank you
Firozali A. Mulla
No it is not, that is the propaganda. It is designed to bar *anyone* who is 'unsuitable' to 'work' with minors, 'unsuitable' not being defined in law, but to be decided by a QUANGO.
That list is a very long one.
Dr Nigel Leigh Oldfield.
I am absolutely appalled by yet another presumption of guilt of the majority of the population. The Westminster Government, under New Labour, basically believes that we're all latent yobs, paedophiles and/or hooligans and must be monitored, registered and watched at every moment of every day. at what point will somebody from the Civil Service actually step back, actually think about what's being proposed, and have the guts to say that this 'Vetting and Barring Scheme' will dissuade many decent adults from any kind of interaction with schoolkids? whatever happened to education, education, education....?
She makes it clear in her paperwork with schools that she is not some sort of replacement teacher and she expects to be accompanied all the time. A couple of times in the past teachers (probably under work-load pressure) have left her alone with a class.
She very definitely doesn't want this system if it encourages teachers to think it's ok to leave visiting authors alone with kids, now they are vetted.
The consequence will be delays of months before individuals are checked and registered, and organizations will be faced with either evading the law or barring those who want to do jobs or voluntary activities that bring them, even incidentally and in totally public situations, into contact with children. Not to mention the nightmare of people not being able to take up some jobs until the whole cumbersome procedure has run its course, and the inevitability that laptops or memory sticks containing the data will be stolen from offices or cars and left on trains.
And perhaps one step more along the road towards a time when they'll bring in legislation against "dishonouring and deriding the institutions of the nation", so that commenting in forums like this might well lead - at the least! - to an admonitory visit from some official, and when, like the Stasi in the old "GDR", they'll be employing snoopers to keep an eye on their neighbours and report back ....
Just a final comment about the contributions of the aptly named (the arguments that s/he trots out are precisely those that kill the spirit of human societies!) sjkillman above. You prate on about "innocent children". Can you seriously not remember what childhood was like? Most kids face more anguish, stress and actual danger from their own age group, not from adults. Children are just like the rest of us - good, bad, compassionate, brutal, trustworthy, depraved. So do we go on to register children who might have contact with other children and put them at risk? The reductio ad absurdum puts the whole nasty business of this legislation in proper context ...
The certificates are often late in returning.
This isn't so much of a problem to teachers, because they are in continous employment, but many staff, such as cleaners or cooks, are contract workers, and have to re-present their certificates regularly. When the certificate is late, they get laid-off.
Is this really necessary?
The problem was that the vetting system wasn't working, not that it needed to be more broadlt and more frequently applied.
The problem with Ian Huntley was that the system had destroyed the data about him. With others, the data that already exists isn't registered, or doesn't come up on the search.
The Criminal Records Service (privatised to Capita) was falsely accusing 1000 people a month of having criminal records, unfairly barring them from jobs.
Re-vetting every 3 months must be generating some fantasitic business for the CRS.
I was one of those agency workers laid off because my 'new' check hadn't come through or was considered 'out of date'.
I was made unemployed and am still unemployed eight months later, because my job had been given to someone else. This is another terrible aspect of these checks; that agency/ contract workers can be dismissed without any notice, despite having been doing the job for several months previously. Many Councils are acting blindly without using any discretion or common sense.