CRB, ISA, Vetting and Barring and all that.

[VML]

I am just going through the process of proving who I am, so that I can be checked again to see if I am a suitable person to be doing the job I have been doing for over 20 years, in a parish where we came to Mass for the first time when we moved here 40 years ago this week.
I see that the declaration on the diocesan ID form says I must agree to records being kept for 100 years. Yipee- posterity at last!!

I am thanked for applying for the job.
When first asked to undergo the latest check, I resisted, arguing that since the enhanced CRBs my husband and I hold showed that we had no criminal convictions up to the age of 60, 5 years on we did not see the point of being checked again.

We had a visit from the diocesan safeguarding director, who later decided that my husband would not need a new check to continue cutting the grass and doing parish repairs. However I received a letter before Christmas telling me that if I had not changed my mind, he would have to ask me to 'desist from leading Church activities as from 31st January.'

'Leading Church activities' covers a huge area. Was I no longer to lead the Communion antiphon at weekday Mass? The flower team were asked last year to encourage some of the Confirmation group who showed an interest. As it happened the logistics meant that I was the only one who had any young people turn up at all, and we have now abandoned the idea. But when the new year rota came out and the chidren's names had been left off my week in February, I felt like a criminal. I felt physically sick at Mass on my week off in January. I know no one is indispensible, and I did toy with just not turning up on 31st, leaving nothing planned. But I lost my nerve.

My teacher offspring think I am making too much fuss over this but I do not believe I am alone.

I am going through the process because I know I need the parish music more than it needs me.

[JW]

I believe the idea is that anyone in a leadership type role needs to be checked, even where they have no contact with children, because of the danger that they could abuse the 'authority' that this leadership role gives them. Whilst I sympathise with those who feel the requirement for regular CRB checking is an imposition, it is necessary because people can get convicted at any time of their life.

The Church MUST be very careful to have proper procedures in place in order to eventually consign to History the scandals that are still hitting us.

[Southern Comfort]

And it is not just about safeguarding children, but vulnerable adults too. That's why all our ministers of Communion are (or should be) checked as a matter of course.

We are currently in transition between one rather unsatisfactory system and another which should be better. If you are checked once now, you should in theory never need to be checked again as the checking is updated as it goes along, if I understand it correctly. It also means that you won't have to be checked for each individual area of activity, since one check will now do for all.

And it shouldn't cost you anything, as most dioceses do it under the heading of "volunteers", even for people who are employed.

In this part of the world, even those who send out the readers' rota by e-mail have to be checked, although they might never come into contact with anyone physically at all. It's about eliminating risk as far as possible.

Yes, it's a bureaucratic nightmare, but yes, we all need to do this in order to ensure that as far as possible the terrible things that have happened in the past (and are apparently still happening in some places, alas) do not happen again. I sympathise absolutely with those who quite naturally object to being thanked for applying for a job which is (a) not a job, and (b) something they did not apply for and have in fact been doing for many years. It riles me too, but it's a consequence of a lack of imagination on the part of those drawing up the forms. They can be changed, and indeed are changed in some places.

[FrGareth]

I believe the idea is that anyone in a leadership type role needs to be checked, even where they have no contact with children, because of the danger that they could abuse the 'authority' that this leadership role gives them.

Almost, but not quite. I don't have to have my parish caretaker or newsletter editor checked. I did have to have my Saturday Vigil organist checked, even though he sits in the organ loft with no-one, child, vulnerable adult, or otherwise, up there with him - and it was never clear to me why the powers that be included him in their "must be checked" list.

I know it can feel intrusive, VML, but please be assured that it's not personal - it applies to everyone in your position. As a priest, I have already been re-checked once, and probably will be re-checked again when I move on to the ISA scheme. The time required to fill in forms is a pain, but hey - I need to do this to share the Gospel with young people, so I may as well do it with a (weary) smile.

St Paul once said (Rom 9:3) he would gladly be damned if it could win a soul for Christ. If all he had to do was fill in a form so he could draw a young person into the work of the church, you can bet the quill would already be in his hand.

All you need to know (if you really want to) is at http://www.csas.uk.net/.

FrGareth

[contrabordun]

I did have to have my Saturday Vigil organist checked, even though he sits in the organ loft with no-one, child, vulnerable adult, or otherwise, up there with him - and it was never clear to me why the powers that be included him in their "must be checked" list.

It's the same with 'elf'n'safety: the problem arises not because of the legislation but because the people who have to turn it into procedures like to add on a bit more on to show that they're in charge and to protect their own backs.

[VML]

I take all your points, particularly Fr Gareth's.
I know the government messed up first time around with some people having 15 or more CRBs, and people telling us we should be glad to be checked.
I do however believe that it has created a climate of suspicion and mistrust, where people are made to feel uncomfortable dealing with children, young people and vulnerable adults in a way which was once perfectly natural.

I am rather surprised to see that one of the documents listed for proof of ID on my 'Catholic Church Identity Verification Form' is 'Marriage/ Civil Partnership Certificate'. Civil Partnership as it currently stands is dicriminatory against those who have may have a valid reason to benefit from inheritance allowances but are unable to do so because they are blood relatives.

Is this wording simply the Church office being PC?

[lesley wright]

I've just had to send a heap of documents off to the Royal School of Church Music in Salisbury (I'm on the Northumbria Area committee and have responsibility for organising chorister award examinations) because for them my CRB clearance had expired. While I'd be all in favour of the checks if they proved anything useful, all that these documents have proved is that my name is what it is, and I live where I do. How does that safeguard any child or vulnerable adult with whom I may come into contact?

[Southern Comfort]

Lesley, the fact that your CRB clearance has expired should be irrelevant now. Since last October, clearances are supposed to continue indefinitely, if I understand correctly. The check actually does do more than prove who you are and where you live. It says that there are no relevant convictions or cases pending on file. Formerly, that was only true on the date the check was made, which is why it had to be repeated. Now, I am told, it updates itself all the time. (I am going to a Safeguarding workshop next week and will find out more. )

[musicus]

I am going to a Safeguarding workshop next week and will find out more.

I went to one this morning (at MusicLearningLive!) and I'm still slightly confused. But I think it will be simpler in future: once-and-for-all ('cos it is updated, as SC says) and portable (so you won't need more than one for different contexts).

[VML]

'The Individual being referred,'
"The Individual being Referred’s Job or Role,'

Just two examples of the clumsiness and inconsistency of the language in the ISA refferal form.

And I still do not have an answer to why civil partnership is relevant on a Catholic Church form; nor do I understand the 100 years of so called secure storage.

Seeing the latest bit of off the wall thinking about banning skirts as part of school uniform, in case we offend transexual children, I am not comfortable with the Church kow-towing to the government in every tiny detail, however much we are all paying for past transgressions and misguided coverups.

[presbyter]

Seeing the latest bit of off the wall thinking about banning skirts as part of school uniform, in case we offend transexual children

So do I anticipate this item on the agenda in a not-too-distant-future governors' meeting? (and by the way VML - I've recently undergone another check, this time by the LEA, in order to be a school governor)

More seriously, and looking at the topic from the point of view of someone who is indeed barred - let's ask what I see as a question of justice.

Take "Mr A Nonymous". He is a convicted paedophile released from prison under licence. He is a practising Catholic. In prison, he was free to practise his faith through the prison chaplaincy. Now on parole, he finds himself banned from attending any church by his probation officer.

So what rights has Mr A Nonymous got? Since when did the probation service assume the power of excommunication?

[VML]

Regarding that particular situation, Presbyter: The diocesan director of safeguarding who visited us gave us a detailed account of how an offender living in the community who was permitted to attend Mass would be required to be at one particular Mass, sit in a particular seat as directed and be watched carefully for grooming behaviour. He made it clear that such grooming and planning often went on for many years before an actual physical offence, and people had to be watched.
How that information was relevant to us I am not sure, but it seems some dioceses do have strategies in place to deal with the spiritual rights of recovering/ sentenced offenders.

Fr Gareth wonders why the Saturday night organist has to be checked. I am under no illusions: next to dodgy priests come dodgy teachers, especially music teachers, choir leaders and musicians! And I am all of those, (except a priest )

I imagine the probation service has acquired the right of excommunication at the same time as the Equality and Human Rights Commission has taken on the right to foist its loopy notions of equal rights on every area of our lives. Hence, I can only presume, the Church wording of its ID form to include Civil Partnerships alongside Marriage. Hard to believe, if this is the reason. On the other hand, I probably sound totally bigoted even questioning it. There has to be a place in the Church for everyone, and I admit I am probably unaware just how many Catholics actually are in Civil Partnerships.