When the Conservative opposition started ranting on about civil liberties a few years ago, many on the left were surprised. After all, the Conservatives are traditionally the party beloved by the "hanging's too good for them" brigade. Whilst Labour's reaction to 9/11 and the 7 July bombings was to curtail all kinds of civil liberties (extending the amount of time you can arrest someone without charge, limiting opportunities for peaceful protest, the planned introduction of compulsory ID cards), it seemed a little bizarre that the big bad Tories were the ones sticking up for civil liberties. Was it possible that, for once, the Conservative policy was actually adopting policies aimed at increasing freedom in a real and meaningful way, rather than just increasing the freedom of rich people to make even more money?
Obviously, the answer is no. David Cameron's political views are not based on deeply-believed moral values. They're based on pragmatism. How else do you explain the fact that he voted to keep Section 28 in 2003, then voted in favour of the Civil Partnership Bill in 2004? Cameron always knows which way the wind is blowing, and in 2005 he knew that the vast majority of the British public did not want ID cards. Whilst in government, the Conservatives have now made it clear what they really mean when they talk about civil liberties: the right of middle class people to go about their business with minimal state involvement.
One story which broke this weekend exemplifies this mindset. The Daily Telegraph revealed that the Tory government will be relaxing laws which state that all adults working with children should have CRB checks. You can find the details here. My position on this move isn't just the viewpoint of some knee-jerk reactionary. I work for a charity that employs hundreds of volunteers to work with children and I know what can go wrong when people working with children are not CRB checked. So did the Labour government and that's why they introduced the Vetting and Barring Scheme after school caretaker Ian Huntley murdered two schoolgirls.
From the viewpoint of many adults, having to wait for a CRB check is a pain in the arse, so reducing the amount of people who need to have a CRB check is potentially a vote winner. On "The One Show" just a few weeks ago, a self-righteous middle class woman who works in a cathedral was spouting outrageously about how she shouldn't have to have a CRB check because it's an invasion of her privacy. Wrong. CRB checks are not an invasion of privacy. Anyone who employs you, in a paid capacity or in a voluntary capacity, is responsible for the safety of any children or vulnerable adults you come into contact with during your work. It is their duty to check that you do not pose any risk, and this is the purpose of the CRB check.
The Home Secretary Theresa May believes that the current system risks discouraging volunteers who want to work with children, but I certainly would not want any child of mine coming into contact with volunteers who have not been CRB checked. Volunteers who have a criminal record will not automatically be excluded from working with children. You can still work with children if you've had convictions for shoplifting or cannabis possession as a teenager, for example. You won't be stopped from working with children if you had a drunken punch-up with a mate twenty years ago. The point of the CRB check is to ensure that nothing serious and relevant goes unnoticed.
So what is the point of this move? It will make the lives of some middle class voters a little easier, and it will also help to push David Cameron's "Big Society" initiative by speeding up the volunteer selection process (although it will not undo the damage that the widespread public sector cuts have already done to the voluntary sector). It will also put the safety of our children at risk.
What else have the Conservatives done for civil liberties? Well first of all, they've scrapped ID cards, which might have something to do with the fact that the scheme would have cost billions to introduce. I was always against the introduction of ID cards, but suddenly the threat of having to carry another card around in my purse doesn't seem so worrisome when faced with the constant threat of imminent redundancy caused by public sector cuts. They've also scrapped the Contact Point database, which would have allowed professionals working with children to check which other professionals are working with those children for information sharing purposes. This will make it more difficult for professionals to update each other on the children they're working with, potentially putting those children at risk.
The coalition deal between the Conservatives and the Lib Dems in May 2010 also promised "a restoration of rights to non-violent protest." We've all seen how that's working out so far.
So, in a shockingly predictable manner, it turns out that the Conservative interest in civil liberties was just a ploy to grab middle class votes all along. Even if it means putting children at risk. Then again, the kids who work with voluntary agencies tend to be working class kids. And who cares about them, right?
No comments:
Post a Comment