Child passport

Published Tuesday 10 April 2007 at 14:50

As a supporter of the Council for Dance Education and Training RS Mark scheme, I am disappointed the Equity council voted against endorsing the scheme by allowing the use of its logo (albeit only by one vote). I fervently believe Equity as a whole needs to consider children who are training to be, or who are already working, in the entertainment industry.

Equity seems to be shelving any responsibility of child care and protection, and is leaving it to the local borough councils.

Depending on the council borough the child lives in, it is up to whoever runs the department as to whether a child can be licensed in time. It is an anomaly of this profession that very often a child is found to be required for a production, but the requisite time for licensing, which is 21 days, has not been allowed for. There is, however, a London protocol of seven working days. Come five minutes outside the seven days, the license will be refused. If a production company omits half of a postcode off the form they are threatened with the license being refused. Courier bikes are often called on to get these forms to the council on time. One recently employed biking a form from Scotland to London! A child lost a job worth £1,800 last summer, because the local borough welfare offices for the applicant were closed for holidays. Money and work experience which would have benefited the child was denied due to an outdated, inappropriate licensing system.

There are boroughs outside London that provide blanket licenses, offering licenses for six months. In London, a license has to be applied for every single employment, which involves time and expense for the parent, agent and production company. It can all be very perplexing and frustrating. One of the requirements for a license is a letter from a GP. This is valid for six months and usually a fee is charged.

Why can there not be a licensing system which lasts for six months in London? Let’s rid ourselves of all this form filling and bureaucracy. A possible solution could be by following CDET’s example by drawing up requirements for bona fide agencies. Established agencies with CRB-checked staff, licensed chaperones, etc. The children under their umbrella and protection could, for instance, hold a six month child performer’s passport and allowed to work, subject to school permission. The borough local to them would have vetted the agencies, know them and monitor them. Of course, child protection is paramount, but not all agencies are unscrupulous. There are some that care, know the business the children are performing in, and with a much closer liaison with the councils can ensure a less stressful, fairer future for child, parent and production companies alike.

Teri Scoble

Equity Councillor

Email supplied