You may or may not have been aware, but the government announced plans this year to introduce a ‘vetting’ scheme, where all adults who had regular contact with children would have to undergo a criminal records check, to help ensure they weren’t a danger to the kids they were working with.
A lot of people were unhappy about this, with some children’s authors even announcing they would stop visiting schools all together, rather than go through the vetting process. Many of them acted as if the entire scheme had been set up solely to annoy authors, and it seemed they believed we should have some sort of immunity from being checked.
In the last few days, it has been announced that the scheme is to be watered down. Rather than applying to adults who potentially work with the same groups of children on a monthly basis, only those who work with the same group at least once a week need to be vetted.
This means that authors visiting schools do not need to be vetted, and this is being hailed as a ‘victory for common sense’ by some of those same authors who were protesting about the scheme.
But is it, though?
Like most people, I’m not a fan of needless bureaucracy, and I don’t relish the idea of forking out a fee so I can get a slip of paper telling me I’m not a danger to children. But I – along with many other authors I have spoken with on the subject – believed the vetting scheme was a good idea.
The big-name authors who were against the scheme argued that they have been visiting schools for years and have never been left alone with children in all that time. Well, I’ve been visiting schools for about six months and I have been left alone with children. Twice. I can’t believe for one second that I am the only author to have had this happen to them?
More importantly than that, though, when a school introduces someone to their pupils they are making the implication that the person they are introducing can be trusted. We warn our children not to talk to strangers, but once someone is in the classroom interacting with the children, they stop being a stranger.
Suddenly it becomes OK to talk to that person in the street. Suddenly there’s no danger in walking several hundred yards along a quiet street with that person after you bump into them in the library. Suddenly it’s fine to add that adult on Facebook or Bebo, to email them your home address so they can send you a signed copy of their latest book.
All those things above have happened to me. During one school visit I did, a six-year-old girl gave me detailed, step-by-step instructions on how to find her house, in the hope that I would go and talk to her four-year-old brother about Ben 10. Another author I know had a boy strike up a conversation with him in a public toilet, a few weeks after that author visited the boy’s school.
Kids are naturally trusting, and when a teacher introduces them to a new person they have no reason not to trust them. As a parent, I want to know that – where possible – any adult being introduced to my children as a ‘person of trust’ has undergone at least some basic background checks.
I laughed when I read a comment from one author that the vetting scheme should be abandoned because it couldn’t possibly catch out every dangerous person. Surely that’s like saying cars should be built without brakes because sometimes brakes don’t work? 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. Now, though, with this revised, watered down version, we’ll never get a chance to find out.