Ted writes:
‘Could you tell me if children’s entertainers need a CRB criminal record check in the UK? If so, which one and how to go about it. Also, where can I get public liability cover cheaply?’
The CRB has now changed to be called a DBS check (Disclosure and Barring).
Although a magicians CRB check or DBS check is not required by law for self employed performers, local authorities and some schools do insist that magicians show them the relevant certification before they are allowed to entertain children.
This can pose a problem. The law says that it’s not required and it could be an offense to apply for one, whilst many clients insist that magicians have the checks..
From the .gov guidance:
Eligibility is based upon the nature of the duties for the specific position. To be eligible for a DBS check a position must be:
• Listed in the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act (ROA) 1974 (Exceptions) Order 1975 – this entitles the position to a Standard level check; and if
• Prescribed in The Police Act 1997 (Criminal Records) Regulations entitles the position to an Enhanced level check.
Eligibility can also exist if the role involves regularly caring for, training, supervising or being solely in charge of persons under 18 and or vulnerable adults (within the meaning of section 59 of the Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Act 2006).
From the information you have given the role of a children’s entertainer is not listed in the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act (ROA) 1974 and is not Prescribed in The Police Act 1997. The role of a children’s entertainer does not appear to involve regularly caring for, training, supervising or being solely in charge of persons under 18 and or vulnerable adults. Therefore, eligibility does not appear to exist.
Furthermore, as you are self-employed current legislation does not allow the self-employed or individuals to apply for a Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) check on themselves. This is because they cannot ask an exempted question of themselves. Only recruiting organizations can ask the exempted question so they can assess an applicant’s suitability for a role as defined in the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 (Exceptions) Order 1975.
For your information as the parents are present, then they are responsible for the children not yourself removing eligibility where it states does the role involve regularly caring for, training, supervising or being solely in charge of persons under 18 and or vulnerable adults.
Please note the submission of DBS checks for ineligible positions would be considered unlawful under the terms of the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974. Under Part V of the Police Act 1997 an application for a DBS check must be accompanied by a statement by the registered person that the certificate is required for the purpose of asking an exempted question.
If an individual knowingly asks for a DBS check for a post which is not included in the Exceptions Order 1975 to the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 (ROA), they would be in breach of Part V, section 123 of the Police Act, in that they are committing an offense by knowingly making a false statement for the purpose of obtaining or enabling another person to obtain a certificate under this part.
For more information on eligibility guidance, please follow the attached link:
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/dbs-check-eligible-positions-guidance
With reference to liability cover, I personally recommend you check out joining Equity. Equity deal solely with performers so they are very knowledgeable with reference to all aspects of performing arts and the legalities. Also, they are recognized worldwide, and once you join they are only a phone call away, should you want any advice. The cost of Equity membership is tiered to your income as a performer, so it’s a great way to get public liability insurance cheaply and all the other benefits and cover that the union has to offer.
Entertainers dont need CRB checks. telling entertainers that they need them is wrong and CRB/DBS will confirm that. there willing to send out information if you ask. when schools and local authorities ask its because they dont know themselves, but when you ask them to check with the DBS they learn.
well said … so true however…… my story is this , local council will not touch you unless you have an enhanced disclosure. as a sole trader it is only possible to obtain basic disclosure.
Good comment. Ted actually asked IF they are needed. Not required by law, but many clients think every children’s entertainer should definitely have one.
What we ‘think’ doesn’t matter, this is written in law so we can’t just decide we want one. We have to be legally entitled or we’re breaking the law.
On your other point, many people think these checks are counter productive and are dangerous in themselves. This is a good article on the matter. http://www.spiked-online.com/site/article/5382/
Schools ALWAYS insist on CRB/Disclosure and PL. Insurance. An Entertainer will NOT get past reception without them. One even asked for a “Method Statement!!”
But that’s not true. vigilance is more important. If the DBS say we shouldn’t have one and they are the professionals, then we should listen to them. For every entertainer that slows down the DBS and clogs up the system bacause of irrelevant checks, genuine people are not geting it done. We are never left alone with children. We are supervised visitors, so we don’t need it. End of. The public should be educated by this not scaremongered by entertainers telling them only to book checked acts.
Dominic: That’s a really good point. Perhaps it boils down to personal choice. It would be disappointing to take a booking and find out you lost it as you hadn’t been checked.
Isn’t it better to have it, and not need it, than need it and not have it?
I know personally I wouldn’t book a children’s entertainer that hadn’t been checked, for my children’s parties. If that’s the case for me, I’m sure it’s also the case for others too.
When it comes to child safety, I don’t think there is any excuse for shortcuts, no matter how effective or ineffective you may feel the checks may me.
Because of that, when I’m asked if children’s entertainers should get checked, I would have to say YES.
I work as a magician part time and I also work as a T.A. so I have the whole bells and whistles, but if anyone asks me if I have a check I say no and I let them know the rules. I have lost work from it, but I dont care because they are wrong and the myth needs to stop here. You saying that you wouldn’t book a children’s entertainer without a check – so do you leave them alone with your children? I doubt it, so it’s pointless. But I’m sure you’d leave them alone on a scout/guides weekend with somebody that has had the check, and all that proves is that they’ve not been convicted. So wheras vigilance would work, your misplaced trust in the checks wouldn’t.
More good points! You obviouly feel very strongly about it to turn down work over the issue.
Thanks for adding a valuable counter opinion and balance into the post.
The criteria is set out in law that Disclosures can only be requested for employment positions which are exempt from the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act. These tend to be occupations where potential employees would have some degree of ‘care’ for vulnerable people (children in this case). To recap – one can only ask for a Disclosure if a persons occupation is included in the exemption to the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act and it is ILLEGAL for a check to be carried out if one’s occupation isn’t included in the list.
Coming into contact with children IS NOT the criteria for requiring a check. Of course that would be ridiculous and unworkable and it wasn’t what this was intended for. Furthermore, asking for a check isn’t just at your discretion. It is set out in law that Disclosures can only be requested for employment positions which are exempt from the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act. Therefore if we’re not legally entitled to have a check it would be illegal for us to do so.
Great post. Thanks for sharing this info.
It seems there is a disconnect between this and the publics perception of the checks.
Regardless of their effectiveness, the checks are often highlighted by entertainers in their promotional material, and asked for by the public
Do you think entertainers that have not had one done may be at a disadvantage to those that have?
I’ve just been asked for a CRB certificate to do a gig for a well know Swedish furniture retailer and my performance isn’t even for children. Told them I’ve never been asked before (been an international act for ten years) and could they wait a couple of weeks whilst I apply for one and they’ve gone silent on me.
Can’t believe these checks are anything more than a tax on those who work in proximity to vulnerable people and do little, if anything, to prevent crime.
It is ILLEGAL to ask for a DBS check for an entertainer – Equity have a paper on the subject. As entertainers, we are NEVER (or should never be) in sole charge of the children at any point. Remember that all such checks only ever prove that at the time of the check you had not been found guilty of any thing wrong.
The DBS website clearly says it is illegal to require someone to have a DBS check if the job they are doing does not meet the criteria to have a DBS check carried out.
All you are doing is clogging up the system for people who do in fact need these checks done.
We are never left alone in charge of children or vulnerable adults and therefore the risk is practically zero. Do you accept a booking where the booker wants to leave you alone with the children? if so, what do you do if a child need to go to the toilet?
For the latest information on who needs a DBS check contact these guys https://www.ddc.uk.net, I’m not a magician but in an industry that has similar sentiment to the comments here. Very helpful company.