And the winner is...

John Wightman

Er, I work for a charity and they're already free for us.

http://www.crb.gov.uk/default.aspx?page=2227

Tom

Thanks for that link, John. It says:

The CRB will issue a Disclosure "free of charge" if the person for whom a Disclosure is required satisfies the following criteria:

" A volunteer can be defined as a person who is engaged in any activity which involves spending time, unpaid (except for travelling and other approved out-of-pocket expenses), doing something which aims to benefit some third party other than or in addition to a close relative.".

So how does the status quo, as set out by the CRB, differ from the proposal you've awarded the champagne for?

Scary

It's good to know the Spectator is still employing socialists.

The CRB is a classic unnecessary extension of state power. The legislation creating it was a knee jerk reaction to the very sad Soham murder but (like the dangerous dogs act of firearm restrictions) it is very unlikely that it has saved a single life.

Worse, it is an intrusion of privacy as it is abused by many employers (particularly councils) who, sometimes out of mere curiosity and sometimes as a way of circumventing the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act, ask for a CRB check for staff who have little or no contact with children.

Like ID cards and 42 days detention, it is more about Government looking as though it is doing something rather than actually protecting people. Unfortunately, real people continue to get hurt not just despite but actually as a result of this posturing.

The proper Conservative thing to do with this legislation is simply to repeal it. Making it 'free' just perpetuates the tax and the bureaucracy and transfers the burden elsewhere.

Marcus Cotswell

Hehe, amateur policy-making, you gotta laugh.

Honestly, reading this blog sometimes you'd think we were in the presence of the country's leading political thinkers when it's mostly just a bunch of kids with lots of half-baked opinions and an internet connection.

Still, it makes me laugh, I s'pose ...

James Forsyth

Tom, The way it differs is that it would be free for non-profits that pay people for their work--eg supplementary schools etc.

John

Scary,

I'd agree that in practice CRB checks can be counter-productive (apart from the abuses you cite, many volunteers with a minor juvenile misdemeanour registered against them simply stay away). But I don't think you can argue against the theory that it's a good idea for those who work with children to be screened (and indeed, those who take, for example, volunteer treasurer positions should not have a history of financial crime).

No, it's not perfect. Yes, it's only going to show up offenders who are caught. But it's still a useful and necessary tool.

For what it's worth, I reckon the number of volunteers with a sinister motive is minuscule, but charities have to protect themselves (and their reputations) against possible scandal - it's not hard to imagine the headlines, even if the worst doesn't happen - "Convicted paedophile is Scout leader" or "Convicted fraudster organises fundraising dinner".

Sad, but true.

HJ

CRB checks may be unnecessary and probably ineffective, but as John Wightman points out above, they are already completely free for people such as voluntary sports coaches.

I should know - I coach junior rowing and it didn't cost me a penny for my CRB check.

However, to is somewhat naughty of the CRB to have an 0870 telephone number (effectively a stealth tax)

Tom

Well, if the staff are salaried, why restrict it to non-profits? Why not give teachers in ordinary schools free CRB checks - they need them just as much as staff in supplementary schools? Why not social care staff in the public, private and voluntary sectors - after all, their pay is more or less the same, and their work is more or less identical?

I don't see the logic of limiting the proposal to voluntary sector and non-profit organisations, unless the idea is to cover unpaid volunteers. That was the clear implication of Mark's original proposal, which cited scout branches and junior football clubs, both of which will be reliant on CRB-checked unpaid volunteers.

As it is, you're proposing to exempt some paid staff who work with children and vulnerable adults, while continuing to charge other paid staff who work with children and vulnerable adults. What's the relevant distinction here?

Incidentally, I first read Mark's proposal as, simply, "Make all CRB checks free". I think there's a really powerful case for that, although it would surely be very expensive. But it's not what he said.

John Wightman

OK, I can see the distinction now. But if an organisation is paying pay the worker for their time and services, then the £30 CRB fee would represent only a tiny extra outlay. In practice, it would be the biggest charities that would benefit.

I hate to deprive Mark of his champagne, but doesn't that policy suggestion therefore represent a rather low impact for the third sector? And shouldn't it therefore rank rather lower on the priorities of an incoming Conservative government? And therefore shouldn't the champagne go elsewhere?

(Sorry Mark!)

Nicholas

"it's mostly just a bunch of kids with lots of half-baked opinions"

Pretty much mirrors Brown's cabinet then. Now I'm laughing, Marcus, but not in a smug, supercilious way.

Tom

Quick factual point to Scary, by the way: the legislation which set up the CRB wasn't a knee-jerk response to Soham, because it was the Police Act 1997, passed several years before Soham. Scary is probably thinking of the Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Act 2006, which did contain some responses to the Soham case, but which didn't set up the CRB, because it already existed. If you want to make the government look as if they are guilty of knee-jerk responses to tragic events, it helps to check your chronology.

John

Marcus Cotswell, unlike most of the posters here you are a classic example of the smarmy little kids you are talking about - and a pompous nonentity to boot.

Socialist, eh? What nonsense. Just because Socialists have wet dreams about increased state powers, it doesn't follow that all government fascists are 'Socialists'. Back to Logic 101.

Tom

One other quick point for Scary: the Police Act 1997, which set up the CRB, was passed under a Conservative government. But, you know, socialists at the Spectator, and all that.

James Forsyth

Tom and John W, The point is lots of these non-profits have very small turnover so £36 for checks for a rotating staff adds up. JGF

Nicholas

The Police Act of 1997 also permits the police to break into property and plant surveillance devices as a police decision not dependent upon judicial or other independent warrant. The chief constable of the force involved approves the decisions, and is allowed to make such authorisations if he believes it will help fight serious crime. This action can be taken without the owner/occupier of the property being under suspicion of committing an offence. The main safeguard is oversight of the legislation by a group of commissioners who deal with complaints, but the decisions are taken without requiring a warrant. The use of these powers can of course extend to the examination of privately owned documents, etc., including the breaking open of safes, locked drawers, etc.

Also take a look at ACPO's Statement of Purpose, Objectives and Code of Ethics, none of which address the issues of politicisation, public political lobbying or provide a mandate for the ACPO influencing or urging of new legislation. The ACPO "mission creep" in the last 11 years has been facilitated by New Labour's approach to crime and justice, which has blurred the ethical, legal and public interest boundaries of police and state.

http://www.acpo.police.uk/

As a private company ACPO are not bound by the requirements of the FOI Act. Their status as a private company also raises an interesting question about their increasing role in government.

Also here for issues about police autonomy and lack of accountability/authority for changing the procedures for CRB checks:

http://thejournal.parker-joseph.co.uk/blog/_archives/2008/3/3/3556522.html

Here for evidence of the manipulation of Home Office statistics for political purposes:-

http://inspectorgadget.wordpress.com/

mckenzie

It was a good suggestion, and it is relevant to many people I am sure, but what a crock of shit for it to be the best idea that we can come up with.
With all the problems going on at the moment, and thinking of people like O.A.P's who will be slaughtered this winter with gas and electricity prices going through the roof.
I agree with Marcus. This is supposed to be a political magazine read by intelligent people, people who should come up with dam better ideas than this. Pathetic!

Ben Elford

What an abysmal suggestion, to fan the flames of pointless state interference without achieving any quantifiable reduction in crime or in criminal opportunity.
If this is regarded as a significant measure for the next Conservative government to implement, I despair.

Mark Heenan

Oh dear, looks like I've stirred up a hornet's nest...

The idea actually came from canvassing I did last year for the borough council elections. A woman I called on said "if there's one small thing you could do for me it would be free CRB checks for 3rd sector organisations" so obviously not everyone is fully satisfied that deserving causes are exempt.

As for the champers, save yourself the postage - I'm not a big bubbly fan anyway.