SoA sees 'chink of light' in vetting scheme
22.09.09 | Alison Flood
The Society of Authors has said that a "chink of light" has appeared in the ongoing row over the controversial new legislation which will require authors who regularly visit schools to be registered on a national database. Following a meeting with the Department for Children, Schools and Families (DCSF) it has emerged that "old hand" authors could put off registering until 2015.
A delegation from the Society of Authors including bestselling children's writer Celia Rees went into the DCSF last week to discuss the issue. A number of authors have objected to the legislation, which requires professional and voluntary staff working regularly with children to be registered on the Independent Safeguarding Authority (ISA) database from next year.
According to the SoA the DCSF conceded that those authors who visit schools frequently could be regarded like staff and would therefore not have to register in the first wave. SoA general secretary Mark Le Fanu said: "They didn’t change their position but they did say that those who have been giving talks in schools frequently would probably be regarded like staff, and would therefore not have to register immediately but could register between 2011 and 2015." He added: "That’s the window during which existing staff have to register—they’re phasing it in so that schools are not overwhelmed."
Le Fanu added: "Now the worry is that schools will work on the basis that if you’re not ISA cleared they are exposed so they won’t engage you. We are hoping that part of the guidelines will be expanded to make clear that authors won’t necessarily need to be registered."
The new legislation has now come under wider scrutiny after objections were made by other organisations that regularly work with children. The SoA visit came on the same day that schools minister Ed Balls asked ISA chairman Sir Roger Singleton to review the Vetting and Barring Scheme. "I don’t sense the government has any appetite for completely abandoning the scheme but it does want me to look particularly at the circumstances in which people are required to be registered, how frequently they have contact with children, and for how long," Singleton told Radio 4's "Today" programme last week. He has been asked by Balls to report by the beginning of December about whether any adjustments to the scheme need to be made.
Le Fanu paid tribute to authors including Philip Pullman and Anne Fine, who both described the scheme – set up in response to the 2002 Soham murders and requiring the 11.3m people who work with children to register on a national database for a £64 fee from next July – as "demeaning" and said they wouldn’t appear in schools again because of it.
"I think authors can take a lot of credit for waking everyone up to the issue," he said. "Philip and Anne did a great service."
The meeting with the DCSF, however, wasn’t "to bust up the minister", Le Fanu said, instead, "we were like sherpas at the summit, trying to get a few practical details having made our objections clear".
Comments on this article
By Anne Fine
I worry, given the quoting of the word 'demeaning' that it will be assumed that Philip's and my main objection to the new ISA scheme is based on pride. In fact, it is based on principle. When over eleven million people are deemed to need a police check to continue doing what they have happily and successfully done for years, the government should recognise something has gone very wrong. This is a sledgehammer to miss a nut.22 Sep 09 10:27
By adele geras
Credit indeed to Philip and Anne for highlighting this issue. We still need to know, though, what FREQUENT means. I go in to different schools maybe three or four times a month.What I mean is:: a different school on each of these occasions. Is that RARELY for the individual school? Or FREQUENTLY as far as I'm concerned....it still needs clarifying I reckon. And I am also, I should emphasize, NEVER EVER alone with a class of children. In 33 years of going about I have never been one to one with any child for any time whatseover...go figure!22 Sep 09 10:36
By Barry Hutchison
I appreciate your point, Anne, but completely disagree. I've only been doing school visits for a few months, and am never left on my own with children, but I've lost count of the number who have come to speak to me on the street afterwards, or emailed me, or added me on Facebook. When their teacher introduces me in a class I become a figure of trust in the eyes of those children. I am no longer a stranger to them, and suddenly all that advice about never talking to strangers fails to apply. As a parent, if a school introduces someone to my son with the implication that he or she can be trusted, I want to know the school has at least made reasonable efforts to confirm the person can be. This scheme isn't perfect, but until someone suggests something more effective, I am more than happy to be vetted, and many other children's authors I have spoken to feel exactly the same way.22 Sep 09 10:38
By Tommy Donbavand
I agree with Barry (above). I was in the gents' toilets in my local supermarket at the weekend when a voice piped up: "Hello, Tommy Donbavand." Standing at the next urinal was a young boy whose school I had visited recently - and because he had sat through an hour-long workshop and read a couple of my books, he now felt he knew me well enough to strike up a conversation in a public toilet. Sadly, we can all imagine what might have happened in other, more sinister circumstances. A visit to a school IS NOT the end of a child's relationship with an author. Yes - I'm always accompanied on school premises but, with email and modern social networking tools, readers are frequently in touch with their favourite writers and - as mentioned above - this also happens in real life. Authors MUST be checked prior to school visits because of the trust children place in them as a result of the event. If anyone visits my son's school to work with him - even for a single lesson - I want to know they don't have any prior convictions for abusive behaviour. I work with other people's children, and know they would expect the same checks to be made of me. Therefore, I will apply for the ISA's vetting procedure as soon as it is available. As Barry says, the scheme isn't perfect - but children must be protected at all costs. Denying them a visit from their favourite author because that person doesn't agree with being vetted is a disappointing reaction.22 Sep 09 11:01
By Emma
Surely a national database isn't neccessary when most people targeted by this scheme already have the government required Criminal Records Bureau check. Also, though they are likely to run into visitors in other environments, they are just as likely to run into someone who has prior convictions in abusive behaviour. The problem is they are taking things too far. If I continue to pick up my brother and friends in a rota with other parents then all of us could be subject to the vetting and barring scheme even though this is something I've done for years without needing a CRB22 Sep 09 15:38
By Alex Milway
I think it's all or nothing on this one. We're just another profession, deserving no less vetting than any other. All or nothing, I feel. And just wondering, how does the vetting process affect international authors on book tours?22 Sep 09 17:13
By Barry Hutchison
I must admit, Alex, I've wondered the same thing myself about how it will affect international authors. I suppose it comes down to the definition of 'regular contact'. I'd imagine the international author on tour is likely to be doing larger events outwith schools, where children can be bussed en masse to meet him or her, before the author moves on to the next town or city. I can understand why parents doing school runs are annoyed at the prospect of getting vetted, but how would those parents feel if they discovered someone who had been driving their children to school had a past conviction for crimes against children, or something almost as serious? Would they continue to let their child be taken to school by that person? I doubt it. Also, Emma, of course children are as likely to run into someone with a conviction for abusive behaviour as they are to run into an author they've met. The difference being the person with the conviction won't have been introduced as someone it is "safe" to talk to, and that's precisely why vetting is so important.23 Sep 09 09:13
By Heaven House Arts
A good and necessary ruling. Add an enhanced disclosure for good measure. Association with visiting Authors and the Soham tragedy is worrying, especially amongst suggestion of heritage associations, possibly only a random feature in similarity. Consideration of inappropriate methods for achievement of inspiration are renowned throughout the Arts and children also have to be protected from unscrupulous and opportunist 'author'.30 Sep 09 12:58
