The new vetting and barring scheme: far worse than inconvenient

Lately there has been much hoo har about the government’s new scheme for preventing unsuitable people coming into contact with kids. Under rules that go into force next year, millions of adults – including authors who visit schools, and parents who drive kids around for sports clubs – will need to register with the Independent Safeguarding Authority,  and pay £65 for the privelege of being checked over. So far most of the criticism has focused on the scope of the scheme in the potential inconvenience. Yet, in reality, this new initiative is something far more sinister.

Under new laws, adults who come into regular contact with kids will face a £5k fine if they fail to register. Once they register they will either be cleared, or there name will be placed on a list and they will be informed that they have been deemed unsuitable. Should they continue to work with young people they face imprisonment, regardless of the opinions or judgement of those who employ them.

Ending up on the baddies list is, then, potentially life ruining. So you would expect some fairly strict and specific criteria for deeming people unsuitable. Yet looking through the guidance for making barring decisions it appears the opposite is the case. Case workers are instructed to look at past conduct for evidence that somebody poses a risk to kids in the future. When assessing past conduct, case workers are instructed to look not for actions that can be proven beyond reasonable doubt, but to make judgements based on the ‘balance of probabilities’. Meanwhile information on past behaviour can be gleaned not simply from the police and the courts. Rather the body conducting the checks is ‘entitled to recieve information from any source’. It gets worse when one considers the kind of information behaviours that would deem somebody unsuitable, and liable to have their career ended by government fiat.

The specified no-nos include all the ones you would expect such as violence, rape, downloading kiddie porn.Yet it also includes behaviour which is irrelevant but which deviates from social norms. A person may potentially be banned from working with kids if they possess ‘sexually explicit images depicting violence against human beings’, regardless of whether such imagery involves under 18s. In other words people may be thrown out of their jobs for being into BDSM. Amazingly the guide also states – in bold letters no less -  that “The ISA [Independent Safeguarding Authority] cannot and will not use its powers in such a way so as to discriminate against any person on the grounds of their sexual orientation.”

I have to say, I really do not know what the logic is here. Presumably it’s that peadophiles are sexual deviants, sado-masochists are also sexual deviants, therefore sado-masochists might be peado’s (burn burn!). Meanwhile in addition to all that is specified as ‘relevant conduct’ when deeming somebody suitable or otherwise is a little caveat:

“You must look out for instances of behaviour which, although not “relevant conduct” or otherwise in themselves determinative of the potential for risk, give rise to concerns when looked at cumulatively that someone may pose arisk of harm to children or vulnerable adults.”

So there you have it. If it can be show, from any particular source of information, that somebody may or may not have done anything in particular, then a faceless caseworker can exclude them from a vast range of jobs and social activities. It goes without saying that the basic principle of a free society is that the government cannot severely punish or sanction its citizens without due process. The reason that we insist that a man or woman’s guilt is proven is not simply to stop bad things happening to good people (although this is important). It is also to stop government from victimising anybody who it happens to find troublesome. It is incredibly naive to rely upon the unfettered powers that will be excersized through this new scheme being excersized benevolently.