Author Vetting (UK)
The UK Vetting and Barring Scheme has come under heavy criticism since it was announced earlier this year – not least of all from Philip Pullman (who threatened to never visit schools again). Ed Balls, UK Children’s Secretary, announced today that he was revising the scheme:
Adults will have to be vetted only if they come into contact with the same group of children once a week or more, rather than once a month as at present. (This means that two million parents and others – including authors – who help with school outings or other occasional voluntary activities will no longer have to be vetted.)
More from the BBC, Times UK and the Bookseller on the official announcement.
Interestingly – not everyone is as convinced about the ruling (I would have to agree). Barry Hutchison covered the topic as a working/school visiting/real life and breathing author:
Kids are naturally trusting, and when a teacher introduces them to a new person they have no reason not to trust them… …No scheme is foolproof, but one that works even 75% of the time is better than no scheme at all, surely?
If the original version of the Vetting and Barring scheme prevented even one child from being hurt or taken advantage of in some way, then in my mind it would have been worth it.
7 Comments »
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URL
Whatever about the vetting scheme itself ( I just wish they weren’t asking folks to pay to be included. Really – that’s simply crass) I do wish Philip Pullman hadn’t made the parallel beween it and section 28, which was ( as far as I can recall) an execrable attempt to ban the (as they put it) ‘promotion of homosexuality in schools’ There’s no real connection between the two pieces of legislation as one was an outright attempt at discrimination and the other a ham-fisted attempt to protect kids. (apologies if I’ve misremembered section 28)
The “even one child…” argument is ludicrous. There’s literally no limit to what you can justify if that’s your standard.
Thanks for the mention, David.
emordino, I wasn’t for one second suggesting that the safety of one hypothetical child could be used as a blanket excuse for anything. I wouldn’t, for example, suggest it was OK to behead a substantial number of monkeys in the hope it might possibly protect a child, but I think it’s reason enough to justify filling in a form and spending sixty quid.
Also bear in mind, I am only looking at this from the author’s point of view, and that sixty quid would be absorbed by those schools paying for me to come in, so the only inconvenience to me would be the completing of the application form. Does the potential safety of that hypothetical child justify that amount of time and effort from me? I think so, yes.
@Celine – You’re right on what Section 28 was – and I’d assume it’s use in relation to the arguement was really to garner attention more than anything.
@Eli – Not sure why the ‘even one child’ argument is ludicrous – at least in relation to vetting visitors to classrooms.
@Barry – Very welcome. (And I reckon those monkeys have it coming) Is there a body in the UK to organise author visits? (Like the Writers In Schools in Ireland and Scottish Book Trust)
Not for England that I know of, David. SBT do a grand job here in Scotland though.
I know Dave, I know and I’m certain PP’s intentions were the best but homosexuals are far too often pulled into discussions of paedophilia as if there was some bloody correlation between the two. It’s galling and scratched a nerve with me. The right to be openly homosexual or freedom to support that right has nothing to do with this argument and should no have been brought next nigh nor near it I think.
Re the payment, I seriously do not think that anyone should have to pay for proof that they’ve never been convicted of a crime. And it most certainly should not be considered ok that the hard pressed schools or library systems would absorb the price. It’s a simple thing, surely, for people to be certified by thier local police station (in fact I think it’s probably already the case in several situations where a cert from the police station will suffice) I would have no problem with doing this. I already did so to become a qualified childcare professional – it made sense to me then and it makes sense to me now, that the those in charge of children’s care should provide credentials.
Celine,
I couldn’t agree more on your first point. Too often – particularly in the tabloid press – there appears to be some implied automatic link between someone being gay and them being a danger to children. I remember seeing an article on the front of a tabloid a few years ago, in which the ‘journalist’ was suggesting we should all be outraged that a lesbian woman was able to adopt her dead sister’s baby despite the father wanting custody himself.
The father was a drug addict who hadn’t seen the child since it was born. The sister was a teacher who had been involved with the child its whole life. The only reason the newspaper was so appalled by the case was that the sister was gay.
As for the issue of paying for the CRB check, I actually raised objections to it myself initially, until a conversation with another author changed my mind.
Because I’m making money by visiting schools and running workshops, I don’t think it’s unfair that I have to pay a fee to get myself ‘licensed’ to do so.
All businesses have costs and expenses, and mine are actually pretty few and far between. If I visit 30 schools in a year, it works out at about £2 per school I’m paying for the CRB check. If you spread the cost over two years, it’s £1 per school, etc, etc. Hardly breaking the bank, and I’m not going to raise my current price by a quid to cover it, but essentially it’s still the schools paying the fee for me.