Just say no ...responsibility

Ruth Kelly has announced that politicians will no longer decide whether individual sex offenders, or those cautioned for offences which come within the remit of the Sex Offenders Register and List 99 (and yes it appears there was a flake in that), can or cannot teach in our schools.

Instead some faceless bureaucrats will be employed to do the job. This is probably a good thing UP TO A POINT...

And that point is where we draw the line over what is acceptable behaviour with respect to children. And THAT should not be affected by who is making the 'decisions' - in fact, without wishing to sound too Daily Mail-esque, we have all been led to believe that there are few if any decisions to make. This is not something where we should feel the need for leeway. Paedophiles, we are told, are, by the nature of their position and predilections, devious. Our leeway is their highway to heaven - and potentially some child's highway to hell. This is not hyperbole as one can see from a brief perusal of the NSPCC statement on the Soham case

And although William Gibson one of teachers concerned, denies being a paedophile he would still have fallen foul of the recent Sexual Offences Act 2003 which would have put him you know where - beyond the pail and on List 99. Or at least that would be where we would all have assumed he would be.

On the one hand it is shocking that the crazed centralisation of our government over the last 20 years has led us to have ministers deciding which sex offenders get to work in schools - that is madness - as well as, let us say, being open to abuse - given the way most ministers take decisions. A point discussed in more generic terms last week by Steve Richards in the Independent in a well-argued piece entitleddon't want the blame for every fault, they need to revive local responsibility But on another it is, as John Reid said yesterday in one of his occasional bids to be taken seriously as a populist politician and potential leader of the Labour party, more a case of people wanting to be able to believe that an issue is resolved.

People do not want grey areas - they do not want a government response which amounts to: 'Well its not really our fault and in any case its better than it was, but don't for a moment think we havn't got to the heart of the matter - and our conclusion is that if this ever happens again in future it won't be our fault'.

This is simply shifting responsibility when what people actually want is a definitive statement that sex offenders or those cautioned for sexual offences will not be able to work in schools.

Mutterings about the need for legal change and ridiculous efforts to blame past ministers or human rights legislation are just responsibility-avoidance strategies.

It is ironic that a government once famed for its uncompromising comunications and rebuttal ability cannot make one simple statement. The fact that it cannot is not a feature of the absence of a Mr A. Campbell but rather it is because the department responsible feels unable to confirm that it can deliver on such an assertion.

One might almost think that the civil servants in the Dept for Education and Skills are intentionally undermining an unpopular minister who has shown litte respect for their abilities or advice except when looking for someone to blame. However given her dangerous ideological predilections and unsettling ability to place policy before the devilish detail that influences the daily lives of the citizens who elected her, maybe this time the faceless bureaucrats are on the side of the angels.