From The Guardian:
As of next month, the ISA (Independent Safeguarding Authority) will start to vet all individuals who work, as professionals or volunteers, with vulnerable people – mostly children but also some adults, the infirm or mentally ill.
Applicants will be assessed using data gathered by the Criminal Records Bureau (CRB), including relevant criminal convictions, cautions, police intelligence and other appropriate sources.
However, there are five pretty clear reasons why this approach will not be an effective tool against paedophilia:
- it diverts resources and time away from efforts that can make real inroads to reducing paedophile assaults
- the form may act as a 'trigger' for individuals by putting the thought of such an assault into their minds
- friends and family are the most regular perpetrators and this form does not combat that risk
- people have to fill in a CBR for every separate school they visit which will turn away genuine volunteers
- people aren't born as paedophiles so there is no way of knowing in advance who may be a risk. CBR will therefore lead to complacency that enough is being done.
This Criminal Records Bureau form is being suggested with the best will in the world but I agree with Caron's excellent piece, it won't solve the problem. It won't even come close.
9 comments:
Thus we must be thankful for devolution, although Caron doesn't seem too impressed by the thought of the SNP alternative.
I must disagree Jeff.
First of all, this doesn't even apply in Scotland. We've had a system of Disclosure in place for many years. Certainly when everyone was harping on in the English media about Brown's voluntary work in his constituency, and sarcastically asking if he'd been vetted under these rules, I was nearly blue in the face explaining that the changes he'd brought in wouldn't have an affect, as Scotland has a separate system.
As for your five points...
1) Diverting of resources; No! We've always had background checks before folk can work with vulnerable people. How does it divert resources and time away from reducing paedophilic assaults? Surely prevention is better than cure(!)?
2) I can't take this one seriously. I don't see what on the form would 'trigger' such ideas.
3) Is true, but an illogical point to the piece; it won't stop things happening between family and friends in their own homes, no. No one's suggesting that. I don't get the relevance.
4) I will agree with this point; the number of disclosures I've had over the year does verge on the ridiculous sometimes.. If I've got an enhanced Disclosure to work with vulnerable children in one group, why not another? I can understand where they're coming from - I might be OK to work with children, but no one's checked that I might abuse pensioners... So I can see why they say things can't be automatically applied or assumed, but still, more common sense needs to be applied here. More vague Disclosures have to be given I think - like if I can work with my Scout Group, why do I need a separate form for my Youth Project? That's stupid.
5) Again, your first sentence doesn't match the second. Have you been practising for being a politician and hoping that by saying something convincingly enough about an emotive subject, that folk won't question you? Haha! Of course if someone's ever been caught, or given hints that they might do something like that, then there's no way of telling, of course not. But how will that lead to complacency? I would not suggest that our Police are sitting on their laurels on crimes of such nature.
I have to admit, I don't know what the SNP alternative is. And there probably is no golden bullet solution so if that's what I'm holding out for I guess I'm only going to be disappointed.
Thanks Grogipher, I didn't actually realise that and just assumed it was UK-wide. I guess I just can't let go of pre-99 ;)
The 'trigger' thing could sound far-fetched to be fair. But there was a chap on the radio who is an expert in paedohpilia (I could have worded that better) but he suggested that was a real possibility so I took his word for it.
Apart from that, a very fair and thorough fisking.
Tom Harris has some fine chat on it and he's probably right to take a parent's view more seriously than a non-parent's. And of the two, I am very happy to be in the latter category for now!
The bill to create the Scottish equivalent has already been passed (with full SNP support, as I recall):
http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/business/bills/73-ProtVulGro/index.htm
And the SNP Government are going right ahead with introducing it in its entirity in 2010:
http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/People/Young-People/children-families/pvglegislation
This will hugely extend the opperation of the current limited scheme, so that, for instance, it can use unproven allegations and gossip as a reason to ban someone. It is almost identical to the English system, from which its been copied, though possibly a little wider in the scope of the activities it covers. Certainly, it's going to mean that full vetting by the State will be required for almost all volunteering which might potentially involve some occasional contact with a child.
Because all volunteers are a bit suspicious, aren't they?
Thanks, Ferret, for confirming what I thought already about the legislation being not so different north and south of the border.
Grogipher, when the NSPCC says that it has concerns about this system, as well as Esther Rantzen who can be counted as an expert in the field given her long association with Childline, then I think we have to listen.
Plus there were 1600 mistakes last year in the present system so with 200 people looking after 11 million checks things can only get worse.
I think the system we have at present is sufficient.
It already takes for too long to get a disclosure sometimes, this would be an administrative nightmare and would adversely impact on the voluntary sector.
We can't operate on the basis that you can remove risk because you can't. The risk will always be there. Yes we can and should do background checks on people who are employed around children and vulnerable adults, but we should also ensure that working practices both for paid employees and volunteers do not expose a child or vulnerable adult to exploitation or abuse.
"Grogipher, when the NSPCC says that it has concerns about this system, as well as Esther Rantzen who can be counted as an expert in the field given her long association with Childline, then I think we have to listen."
Do 'we' need to listen?
A charity that doesn't operate in Scotland, commenting on laws that don't apply in Scotland. I really fail to see the significance, if I'm honest?
Post a Comment