As of November 2010, writers who go into schools to talk to classes, do workshops and so forth, will have to be registered on a national database and to pay £64 for the privilege. New legislation will require it, a form of vetting to protect children. Before going any further, I declare an interest since I'm married to someone who does a lot of gigs of this kind. Many writers are objecting to the requirement and with good reason. However, one of the reasons being put forward against it is not, in my view, persuasive. As reported in The Bookseller, Philip Pullman objects on the grounds that the new legislation implies that 'every adult is a potential rapist or murderer'. He's quoted as saying that he won't be complicit with a measure that assumes his guilt before he's done anything wrong.
I don't think Philip's argument is a good one. It is like saying that requiring people to take a driving test presumes that they are reckless or incompetent drivers. It doesn't. It tests them to see what sort of drivers they are. The real question mark against this requirement arises not from the desire to safeguard children, which is perfectly legitimate, but because it's a redundant form of vetting. Writers visiting schools are virtually always there in the presence of teachers, and where they aren't they should be. That - supervision of school visits - is already in place and could be tightened. Schools, after all, are in loco parentis. The new measure is an unnecessary bureaucratic intrusion.
