Child safety checks are like Section 28, says Pullman
12.07.09 | Caroline Horn
Legislation that will require all authors who visit schools to be registered on a national database has been branded "Labour's Section 28" by bestselling author Philip Pullman. Section 28, or clause 28, a controversial piece of Conservative legislation, aimed at preventing the promotion of homosexuality in schools, was scrapped in 2003.
From November 2010, professional and voluntary staff working regularly with children in sectors including education will need to be registered on the Independent Safeguarding Authority (ISA) database.
Pullman said: "This is Labour's Section 28—the implication being that no adult could possibly choose to spend time with children unless they wanted to abuse them. What will it say to children? It'll say that every adult is a potential rapist or murderer, and that they should never trust anyone."
The His Dark Materials author added: "Naturally I shall have nothing to do with any such 'clearance', and in consequence, I suppose, I shall never be allowed into a school again. I shall regret that very much, but I refuse to be complicit in any measure that assumes my guilt before I've done anything wrong. The proposal deserves nothing but contempt."
Trollogy author Steve Barlow branded the legislation "undemocratic", "ineffective" and "in violation of one of the cornerstones of English law—the presumption of innocence until proved otherwise".
Authors will need to register with the ISA through an umbrella organisation and pay a one-off £64 fee. A spokeswoman for the Vetting and Barring Scheme at the Home Office confirmed that specialist children's librarians, and those librarians and authors visiting schools, would need to be registered. Currently, checks are at the discretion of local authorities. Foreign authors visiting UK schools would also have to register, as will booksellers going into schools once a month or more.
Chair of the Children's Writers' and Illustrators' Group of the Society of Authors Celia Rees said: "We have a number of reservations because it is not clear how people will be affected by this, and what the costs and process of application will be. I am sure that, as more people become aware of it, there will be a groundswell of opinion against it."
However, author Gillian Cross backed the new checks. She said: "I understand entirely why people are enraged about the whole child abuse suspicion frenzy, which is particularly hard on men. It is nevertheless true that many children are abused. Theirs is the real suffering, and if checking can help to prevent that, I'm not opposed to it. Though I would be interested to know how often CRB [Criminal Records Bureau] checks have actually prevented known abusers from working with children."
Cross said that the scheme that replaces the current Criminal Records Bureau checks could be better as it is automatically updated rather than being repeated annually.
Comments on this article
By Pat Shepherd
It's just another stealth tax and I think all authors, librarians and booksellers should vote with their feet. Don't do it!10 Jul 09 09:37
By B Reade
I'd be interested to hear whether Gillian Cross, or indeed anyone else, knows of a single occasion where a child was assaulted or abused by a visiting author?10 Jul 09 09:42
By Bert
I'd be very interested to know the ratio between abused children and children that aren't abused. People are panicking - when it does happen, it's horrendous, but child abuse isn't as common as certain organisations would have you think...10 Jul 09 09:48
By Rosanna Bortoli
Talk to a child who's been abused and you'll feel differently. Prevention is far better than cure. The children don't need to know that the visitors have been checked. My concern is that the job's done properly and the children get the protection it's supposed to deliver.10 Jul 09 09:48
By Robert Muchamore
OK, paedo paranoia is way over the top, but I've had a lot of conversations with confused school secretaries and librarians who don't understand the current CRB system and think that this will make arranging school visits easier (provided they get it set up and running properly!).10 Jul 09 09:49
By Kit Berry
I'm with Gillian on this one. Yes, it does seem an erosion of trust and an unnecessary piece of stupid bureacracy. Until you've actually worked with an abused child, or been horrified at a report of someone in a position of trust accessing children through their role. Then of course you appreciate that even though these checks seems ridiculously heavy-handed, there are terrible people out there trying to gain access to children and anything that prevents this from happening has to be done. Of course nobody thinks a visiting author is going to abuse a child - but if any adult with access to children is going to be checked, this must apply to everyone. Regardless of whether they're an author, librarian, scout master or priest.10 Jul 09 09:55
By ross bradshaw
Wait a minute... If writers are going into schools they would not be left on their own with children, they would have staff supervision at all times, If not, any author doing a school visit would, I presume, walk out. So if their visits are always supervised and the author is never alone with children, why do they need to register? Never mind that the biggest danger to any child is their own relatives...10 Jul 09 09:59
By Geraldine Baxter
I'm with Ross - visiting authors (or anyone visiting to give a talk) is not going to be left alone with any child or have the opportunity to abuse them. Surely this should only apply to people who can have individual and sustained contact over a period of time with children.This is the usual over-the-top bureaucracy that catches everyone but the people its designed to stop.10 Jul 09 10:23
By Matthew
Well if you are an author and are planning a visit to schools and need to get CRB clearance, start applying for it now. It can take months and months to get. And let's be realistic this is nothing to do with preventing children being abused by authors on one off visits when as has been said before they shouldn't be left un-supervised with the kids anyway. This is about the schools being able to cover themselves if they do leave a child unsupervised with an author and something goes wrong.10 Jul 09 11:02
By XBox
Oh good grief. Is Pullman the new drama queen or what? Stealth tax blah blah blah. This helps everyone, it's not a big form and anyone working with kids (FT, PT or once a year) needs one. To be frank, I hope he doesn't get CRB clearance cause I don't want Pullman in my schools anyway. Dull boring books with nothing original in them. Give us exciting new authors in our schools not old hacks more relevant to his senior common rooms than a primary school.10 Jul 09 11:10
By adele geras
This is easily the most ridiculous piece of legislation I've heard of in years. I cannot believe it, actually. I've been visiting schools for more than thirty years and have never been alone with any group of children in all that time. MADNESS of a high order. And the problem is that many writers rely on school visits for much of their income and will be forced to comply. Words fail me utterly.10 Jul 09 11:33
By John
Seeing as most abused children are abused by biological relatives, this "we've gotta protect the children, won't someone protect the children" hysteria would be put to better use in the campaign for uncle licenses.10 Jul 09 11:34
By Anne Cassidy
I agree with PP. Does this mean that every single individual who goes into a school has to have such a clearance? If Gordon brown visits a school for a photo opportunity? If Prince Charles pays a call? If an para medic is called in to tend to a child? Do all parents who visit the schools for parents evenings etc have to have one of these?10 Jul 09 11:36
By Suspicious Mr W
Comment removed. By all means take issue with Philip Pullman's comments, or the wider issue of 'safety checks', but please do not resort to personal abuse. Thanks - Philip Jones10 Jul 09 11:57
By downbythebeach
This is ridiculous. And unsettling to see comments like those of Xbox, where Phillip Pulman objects, and is then attacked for being a bad writer. And the argument in favour of as much protection as possible for children is so emotive that it can be used to justify ridiculous things. I don't believe it's a stealth tax either, more political pandering, so as to be seen as taking a firm line on a topic close to every voting heart - but it should only apply to those with unsupervised access at best. Ridiculous, and very unsettling.10 Jul 09 14:39
By Meg Arnold
Well I'm a senior leader in an Inner City High School. You may be surprised at how many parents are highly letigious; malicious allegations by children - particularly teenagers - are too numerous to mention. So CRB checks go to some way to protect visitors as they can prove a clean history - if they have to. There is another issue, however, not so much with celebrity authors but the artists/writers in residence dimension. A smallish track record can get you through the door, the more regular a visitor, the more trusted you are. I had experience of one such visitor who did indeed groom a number of teenagers over a longish period of time. OK, in 23 years it was only one. It was one too many though.10 Jul 09 14:48
By Anne Fine
This is yet another idiotic and offensive sledgehammer to miss a nut. Yesterday at a signing session I had a headmistress semi-hysterical while trying to photograph 3 of her pupils with me at a signing. To all the other children from another school whose elbows, shoulders, etc were getting in the shot she kept shrieking, "I don't KNOW you! I can't photograph you! I don't know you!" She may submit to being treated as a potential paedophile whilst doing a useful job for the community. I certainly shan't.10 Jul 09 15:23
By Joanna De Guia
As a bookseller who frequently takes authors into schools - poor schools where children would not normally have access to creative people - I must confess to a feeling of disappontment on everybody's behalf. There is nothing more inspiring for children than to actually come face-to-face with the real person who wrote the book they get out of the school library. It puts their experience of literature on another level. The authors who come in often do so out of the kindness of their own hearts to try and create and develop a new generation of readers. It is a wonderful opportunity about to be smothered by beaurocracy. Given that most authors on day visits are never left alone with pupils - and would be very upset if they were as they are not teachers - surely there has to be a middle ground where an author on a residency in a school could be asked to complete a check, managed by the school. But most who come in for a day at most are accompanied by a teacher at all times. And why the fee? Shouldn't government be supporting all attempts to improve literacy?10 Jul 09 17:10
By Parent
Next it will be parents who will have to register and go through CRB checks before they can take their child home from maternity ward without supervision! It is getting ridiculous. Again it is another check that will only show that someone has never been caught. It will not show whether someone is a risk or no.10 Jul 09 18:50
By Kelly T
Dear Mr Pullman, Welcome to the world of home educators; soon to be pronounced guilty (until we prove our innocence), by one Graham Badman (probably soon to be Sir Graham)10 Jul 09 19:15
By Clare Murton
Anne Fine, Philip Pullman - wonderful writers much loved in the home educating world - rational points of view here. How many visiting authors have ever been accused or found to have abused a pupil - none I suspect! How many teachers, who are all CRB checked, have abused children - thousands - see http://ahed.pbworks.com/Children-at-Risk-in-Schools for a random selection over the past few years. If Anne or Philip would like to support home educating parents in their current fight against a similar slur on their character - I would love to hear from them at AHEd - (see above link) - we really could use some high profile help. You guys can just stop visiting schools in protest - as tragic as that is - but home educators very often cannot abandon their educational choice without severe harm to their children! This government is thrashing about randomly in order to detract from their own failings and their own abusive employees - we have to put a mirror in front of them and reclaim the presumption of innocence.10 Jul 09 19:16
By SDeuchars
I guess Parent thought that was a joke. However, the parents of up to 80,000 children in this country are indeed in the sights of the government and will have to register if Mr Balls implements the Badman recommendations. What has brought them into the firing line? They have chosen not to delegate the education of their children to a school, so the assumption (for which there is no evidence) is that they may be abusing their children. This proposed system for authors will be an expensive system that will have no effect on protecting children but will give the authorities a fig leaf to make it look as if they are doing something.10 Jul 09 19:23
By Jennifer
CRB checks don't prove that someone isn't molesting children, they only prove that they don't have a criminal record for it. If the "groomer" described in Meg Arnold's comment hadn't been convicted before, or at least suspected, then this new paperwork wouldn't have stopped them either. There is no substitute for listening to (a) children, and (b) your own intuitions about other adults.10 Jul 09 19:33
By Parent
SDeuchars I don't think it is a joke, I am a parent, an author a former teacher and a home educator. I take this threat very seriously.10 Jul 09 19:37
By David Renwick Grant
I agree entirely with Mr Pullman and the others who condemn this idiocy. I have not been to talk at a school for a while but I certainly will not sign up to this nonsense - for which authors would have to pay!!!! 'Smrt fascistom!' as the Yugoslav partisans used to say.10 Jul 09 19:39
By Louisa
I completely agree with Phil Pullman on this. "I refuse to be complicit in any measure that assumes my guilt before I've done anything wrong. The proposal deserves nothing but contempt." is exactly the massage home educating parents are sending to Govt as well. CRB checks only prove that one does not have a conviction not that one isn't a paedophile and are therefore worthless as has already been proved by the number of cases of child abuse being perpetrated by those "inside" the school system.10 Jul 09 19:57
By David R N Livesley - Woodstock Vermont
Authors and illustrators are mostly invited into schools & libraries and do indeed work with children AND teachers/librarians whilst they are there. If I had the desire to abuse any kid would I firstly write a book, pursuade some fool to publish it or spend some dosh on publishing it myself, then try and get into a school in order to be left alone with childtren so I could do what ever perverted things I desired to do? Really the Nanny State has gone to far as sadly there are much easier ways of grooming children for abuse. Yes all visitors to any school should have to be authorised, but to have a scheme thst will simply let me get in easier if I wish to pursue my 'abuse ideals' is madness. When the day finally comes and my potential victim or victims are left with me 'the creative genuius' I can then abuse with a certified permit. Does the legislation mean that if I visit a school as a bookseller every other month I can escape the registration? PLEASE....wake up UK to this misfocused legislation.....11 Jul 09 02:02
By George Criftin
I'm surprised that no one has mentioned the potential of this scheme to greatly assist in the banning of those authors the government ideologically determine to be unsuitable to influence children. State compulsion schooling has always prescribed and proscribed texts, what else is a national curriculum after all? These places are as John Taylor Gatto describes, 'laboratories of behavioural modification' - can't have random subversives mucking up the indoctrination programme. What it most certainly isn't about is preventing paedophile access, as others have observed the situation of visiting authors is supervised. This is what it always is, a splitting and projection of the systems own faults onto its victims. Government these days is increasingly psychopathic. All practising paedophiles are psychopaths. The first children's minister and architect of the insulting Every Child Matters scam was head of Islington council when it was infiltrated with paedophiles, who when eventually outed left with glowing references to abuse children on other countries. In other european countries such as Belgium, paedophiles have been exposed at ministerial level. the system is rotten with them and their enablers. But never mind that, lets point the finger at home educators, visiting authors, anyone but closer to home, and hope no one catches on. We are so conned11 Jul 09 22:40
By OR Melling
Ok, to be honest, what I object to here is the fee. The average author lives on a small wage and they are paid little if anything for school visits. That alone will, sadly, put many of them off reading in schools. I'm less interested in the philosophical arguments such as guilt before innocence etc etc Tempest in a teapot, I think, when what is simply being asked is that if a stranger is entering a classroom he or she be cleared and found not to be on a sex offenders list. As an author, I have visited many schools over the years and yes I have been left alone with children. Like all authors, I do insist that a teacher remain in the classroom - I'm no good at discipline! - but things happen: the teacher needs to go to the loo, sudden emergency with sick child, unexpected call-out of teacher ... You can't be rigid in these situations. Truth to tell, I have already filled out forms to be cleared by the PSNI in Northern Ireland and the Garda Síochána in the Republic of Ireland - *free of charge* - and I didn't think twice about it. I figured it was a natural reaction to the ongoing revelations of endemic sex abuse in our society. I don't know of any author here who has objected.12 Jul 09 22:46
By Mike Mitchell
So Gillian Cross backs the new checks while obviously holding some reservations about the efficacy of such checks? She seems totally confused. She sees the new law as being hard on men, yet in the next thought implies that, well, men will just have to put up with it because children are abused. Yeah, children are abused far more by their parents and close relatives, but I don't think *parents* will be subjected to any checks, no, not even if little Johnny invites his friends around for tea. This new vetting procedure is yet another typically New Labour authoritarian over-the-top exercise in grandstanding for the benefit of tabloid editors to fill their popular rags with more and more salacious and prurient stories, especially any involving children. Their circulation, their very existence depends upon more and more false allegations and suspicions being bandied about that will feed into some kind of manufactured story. I hope Philip Pullman and fellow authors will organise a mass protest against the ISA in this regard. It is an utterly stupid exercise - and, as far as I can tell, the CRB checks will STILL be retained anyway, alongside the ISA! How crazy is that?13 Jul 09 06:50
By Mike Mitchell
Kit Berry: "Of course nobody thinks a visiting author is going to abuse a child" So WHY ON EARTH vet authors then?!! Your statement is like saying no one fears a man-eating shark in their bath but to be sure, let's post a 24 hour watch on the bathroom. Utterly nonsensical and illogical. In fact, logic is a million miles away from the ISA and its promoters. Logic is not involved. What is involved in pure emoting, like the public hysteria over Princess Di or witches in Salem or communists in 1950s America. It is breast-beating to make the government look good.13 Jul 09 08:02
By OR Melling
Jaze, Mike, you're sounding pretty hysterical there yourself.13 Jul 09 08:36
By Paul Blezard
Well said Philip and well added to Adele and Anne. It strikes me that this is indeed an appallingly clumsy piece of legislation, more an act of pre-emptive protection against an imagined foe than the result of a carefully considered risk analysis. Whilst Steve Barlow's emphasis on the 'presumption of innocence' is of course the right one and while understanding the requirements of the teaching profession in the protection of their charges, it seems horribly self-defeating for a another obstacle to be placed in the path of those who give freely of their time and talent to inspire a love of literacy in the younger generations. That they are also expected to pay £64 to provide 'proof of innocence' only adds financial insult to moral injury. This is an absurd, obscene and objectionable initiative and one that should be shelved immediately. Paul Blezard Literary Editor The Lady magazine13 Jul 09 13:26
By Realist
From reading the comments so far you'd think authors were being singled out. They aren't. Anyone who visits a school or works with children regularly has to have this. If they make exceptions for authors they'll have to make exceptions for every other group and then there will be no vetting at all. Why should authors be especially exempt from measures everyone else has to go through? Of course most abuse is perpetrated by relatives. But if a convicted abuser was allowed to work with children in a school or other environment (scouts, guides etc) people would get pretty upset. To prevent that from happening requires a fairly basic de-minimis level of checking and this system provides it. Is it over-bureaucratic and expensive? Yes, almost certainly, like any Government-run IT-centric project: this could be done quicker, better and cheaper than it is being done. But crypto-fascism it ain't.13 Jul 09 13:31
By Tony Brown
Tony Brown, author of "Charlie the Hobby Horse Hero" series of children's audiobooks. I cannot believe the stupidity and irresponsibility of Ministers who allow laws like this to be passed. One thing though to mention is this: Is every fireman going to have to being ISA registered and CRB checked as they are possibly going to come into contact with children so that they can access and/or deal with fires or other H&S measures. What too about other people who visit schools such as:- Volunteers, the Prime Minister, council workmen, Roman Catholic Priests, tradesmen to repair plumbing and electrics, Members of Parliament, Prince Philip, dinner ladies and men, the heirs to the throne of Great Britain, Church leaders, Celebrities, Fund raising helpers, Every policeman, EVERY mother, father, guardian, grandfather, grandmother, The Town Mayor, David Beckham, I take it therefore that EVERYONE mentioned here will be refused entry into a school, college or young offenders prison, Homes for children, Children's hospitals if they don''t hold a ISA registration and are CRB checked. Plus all the photographers, journalists, henchmen that the Members of Parliament take with them when visiting schools for publicity and a photo opportunity. What a pathetic state of affairs when all we really need is more police and more probation officers, more school teachers, more child protection officers, more trading standards officers= etc It's just a case of passing the buck - and of course getting your £64. This could only be thought up by Members of Parliament. Good luck with your campaign. Best wishes Tony Brown (Charlie Hero)16 Jul 09 07:13
By Sue
I agree totally with the comments left by Realist. I am a teacher and a published author, but cannot understand why celebrity authors think that their position in society makes them somehow beyond reproach. If you work regularly in a school, they may be willing to pay the cost of the check for you. As a teacher, I have had to undergo several CRB checks during my career, and have never considered for a moment that they were a slur on my moral character. I have always considered them to be the small price to be paid for the unparalleled privilege of being able to work with children. In my opinion, if the CRB check saves one child from having their life ruined, it is worthwhile. The CRB check has flaws, but rather than complain about it, come up with something better.16 Jul 09 11:53
By Anti-Citizen
As far as I can tell Phillip Pullman is simply exercising his right not to become subject to CRB checks. I get the impression that a minority would see him dragged through the system precisely because he is a celebrity. As far as I know there is no law which requires you to work with children. At least not yet anyway.16 Jul 09 16:30
By DaddyHoggy
Between myself and my wife we've had over the years 12 different CRB checks as no one organisation believes the check from another anyway and like an MOT all they prove is that on "the day of issue" you did not have a CONVICTION for child abuse or similar, they absolutely do not prove you are not an abuser of children and if you think that they do then you are a fool. They are in place only so an organisation can go all Telfon shouldered if you are later caught and convicted of such a crime. I approve of Philip Pullman's stand. I feel sorry for all the home educators out there - I hope you win out in the end. To XBox - if you're going to abuse Philip Pullman do it on another site - this is a grown up debate about the stupidity of this check - not a place for you to vent your spleen about I book which I suspect you haven't even read.16 Jul 09 22:09
By Paul Richmond
Readers (and authors) might be interested in this document published by the DCSF. Not so much an exemption, as a gaping hole in the child safety edifice. http://www.dcsf.gov.uk/14-19/documents/CRB_checks_fact_sheet.doc17 Jul 09 07:51
By Christopher Carrie
The same parallel as with the introduction of Identity Cards ‘If you’ve got nothing to hide, you’ve got nothing to fear’ springs to mind. Children’s safety and wellbeing is paramount and any measure to secure that position stands above any other consideration. Philip Pullman, the best selling author, will be banned from reading his books in schools because he refuses to be vetted for a new anti-paedophile database that he said "assumes my guilt". Mr. Pullman and others should accept; history demonstrates paedophiles don’t necessarily come in the guise of ‘the bogeyman’ or any obvious profile. Witness reports of pop stars, churchmen and youth leaders convicted of paedophillia on predatory worldwide scale. For too long children have been sorely neglected by assumptions and complacency, "Any person who is in a position to exploit relationships with children has to be checked out." This should be accepted as the norm and anyone taking the views of these individuals should rightly be kept out. As a victim of childhood sexual abuse perpetrated by my much celebrated parish priest I believe I have a better knowledge of the reality. Any measure introduced that saves just one victim is worthwhile, indignity should quite rightly not stand in the way of progress when it comes to stamping out generational child sexual abuse. Long overdue well done the Independent Safeguarding Authority (ISA)17 Jul 09 08:29
By David Leibniz
Listening to (most of) the news media and the government (who themselves seem to get their ideas from the media) one gets the impression that the two greatest dangers to our community are posed by paedophiles and terrorists. The statistics prove otherwise. The greatest risk to children and adults alike is, by a long way, that of road accidents. The next greatest risk to children is that of physical abuse by their own parents.21 Jul 09 23:14
By Exactly which fantasy universe, does Philip Pullman think he is living in?
Section 28 made it illegal to intentionally promote homosexuality or publish material with the intention of promoting homosexuality. What on earth does that have to do with background safeguard checks, on people who visit schools regularly, to find out if they are paedophiles? Is he seriously arguing that it should be legal to promote paedophilia? I just do not understand his position, it is so ludicrously unrealistic.13 Dec 09 11:23
