Slightly worrying?

David Cameron, worried that we either don't get the idea of the Big Society or that it has been trampled by the stampede of stories of cuts, redundancies and general gloom, has tried to breath new life back into his pet project in a piece written for today's Observer.

Now, don't get me wrong - I am not opposed to much of what the Big Society proposes: there is nothing intrinsically wrong with encouraging more people to become involved in their communities through volunteering, for example. I do have some problems around the fact that it is too closely allied to the cuts, that we are looking to replace statutory services with charitable provision, something that just won't fly because of the cuts and the reduction if funding to charitable bodies. Dave can argue until he is (Tory) blue in the face that he had the idea if the Big Society long before it was realised that cuts would need to be made, but it still feels like a cover for a fundamental change to welfare systems. If that's what it is, then just say it - don't argue that the two are only coincidentally linked.

Similarly, some of the schemes as outlined seem a bit barking like the volunteer workforce for 16 year olds aimed at fostering ideas of citizenship and community involvement. Which 16 year olds are going to join this? The ones who really need to learn something about being part of a community - the stereotypical tracksuited ASBO kid - or the middle class kids who realises that something like this will look good on their CV when it comes to getting into Uni or that first post-degree job?

But the real kicker in Dave's piece is this:

"And if someone wants to help out with children, we will sweep away the criminal record checks and health and safety laws that stop them."

So those Criminal Records Bureau checks are just useless red tape are they, Dave? You would be quite happy for anyone to walk in off the street and look after your children? I realise that this is an exaggeration, but even so, if these checks are swept away, whose word will we have to take in future that someone wanting to work with children is fit and proper to do so? The previous system was not perfect: a single person working with several agencies might need to have the check repeated for each workplace (a nice moneyspinner for the CRB no doubt) and anyone changing jobs, likewise, needed a new check before starting at their new place of work. This should have been streamlined and could have been quite simply. Similarly, a little more common sense could be applied to who actually needs a check. If you are willing to help out with kids' activities are not left unsupervised with them, do you need a full check for this?

To severely downgrade these checks is dangerous. Whilst there are some aspects of childhood that have become too wrapped up in cotton wool, knowing about those who act in loco parentis with our children is vitally important. Dave's rather blase statement seems to suggest cases such as the one involving Ian Huntly never happened or will ever happen again.