An avalanche of unnecessary vetting set off by moral panic

The clamour for the public to be protected from the predations of a tiny number of dangerous individuals has spawned a monster. The Criminal Records Bureau, set up this April, is a state-controlled computer-vetting system for checking the backgrounds of people before they are employed.

It has become famous because of the backlog of teachers waiting for clearance to take up new posts, but over the next few years it will assume a huge significance in the jobs market. The bureau estimates that by 2005 it will be running 11.6 million checks a year, which represents 40 per cent of the working population.

This is far more than can be justified. Even the checks on teachers are unnecessary, as Estelle Morris, the Secretary of State for Education, has belatedly admitted. Headteachers ought to be able to exercise normal vigilance when hiring new staff. Where people have care of children in a residential setting, of course, there is a need for a full vetting system – in addition to the normal business of taking references. Cases of paedophile teachers harming children are extremely rare; abuse in children's homes, on the other hand, has been a persistent problem.

There are other small groups, in both public and private sectors, for which checks against criminal records are sensible. The vetting of 40,000 minicab drivers in London will be, for example, a sensible precaution against attacks on women – provided it is limited to relevant offences.

But there are dangers of spreading the net too wide. These amount to more than a concern with abstract civil liberties, although the implications of rendering a large minority of the population effectively unemployable have not been thought through. Many of the crimes recorded by the bureau – minor drugs offences, for example – may have nothing to do with someone's suitability for a particular job, but could be used by prejudiced employers to select applicants.

Then there is the danger of the false sense of security promoted by such a system. The paradox is that the Government, in its attempt to satisfy public demand for absolute protection – often an overreaction to highly unusual events such as the Soham murders – has set up a system that could be less safe than the status quo. Employers will be tempted to regard computer clearance as all they need to do, rather than applying human intelligence.

The bureau ought to be strictly limited in its scope, so that it focuses on the few jobs that matter and forces employers to retain responsibility for hiring people for the rest.