I'm afraid that the government has not gone far enough in its efforts to protect our children. It is not sufficient for the newly established Independent Safeguarding Authority to vet every adult who comes into regular contact with children outside the home. As we know, most cases of child abuse occur within the extended family or at the hands of family friends. Therefore the state needs to get inside the home to ensure absolute security for every child.

Fortunately, building on the pioneering all-round security work done by the government of Tony Blair, and by the Metropolitan police under Ian Blair, we can now implement an excellent proposal made some years ago by the political analyst Eric Blair. Ahead of his time, he suggested that the state might install hidden round-the-clock monitoring cameras in every home to watch out for any signs of deviance and nip it in the bud. He called them telescreens.

Yet child protection experts point out that telescreens would not cover all situations in which abuse could occur. Therefore the Safeguarding Authority should really move to a system of in-brain chips for every adult who comes into contact with a child – including parents, all of whom are obviously a grave potential threat to their own children. Linked to the National Identity Register, the Criminal Records Bureau, the world's largest DNA database, the ContactPoint database, the National Pupil database, the Police National Computer, the files of MI5 and MI6, and 17 other government databases, known and unknown, these constantly monitored in-brain chips would ensure that all British children could sleep safely in their beds, serene in the knowledge that the now consolidated Supreme Safeguarding Authority, headed by Lord Mandelson, was watching over them day and night.

Rock-a-bye baby, on the tree top / When the wind blows, the cradle will rock / When the bough breaks, the cradle won't fall / For the Safeguarding Authority will call / To take mummy away.

No, even the satirical pen of a George Orwell (born Eric Blair) would wilt before this monstrous elephantiasis of the nanny state that New Labour bequeaths us in its 13th and almost certainly final year in power. You might say that the protection of children from abuse is a bad example to choose, especially in a week when a nursery worker called Vanessa George has been found guilty of some particularly vile child abuse. Surely nothing can be more important than to protect innocent children? But actually this is a fine example of the process by which good, humane intentions get translated into bad, bureaucratic answers.

What happened is this. After the horrific case of the murder of two schoolgirls in Soham by the caretaker at another school, Ian Huntley, the government characteristically reacted to a media chorus of "something must be done!" by setting up an inquiry. Among other recommendations, that inquiry called for the establishment of a register of those working with children. After detailed legislation was passed, and the new agency given the truly Orwellian title of Independent Safeguarding Authority, its bureaucrats came up with a perfectionist model that looked to vet up to 11.3 million people – one in four adults – most of whom would have to pay a registration fee of £64 in order to be cleared, including those who came into contact with children only once a month.

It was only when some prominent children's writers, including Philip Pullman and two former children's laureates, said they would stop doing readings in schools in protest: "Why," asked Pullman, "should I pay £64 to a government agency to give me a little certificate to say that I'm not a paedophile?" – that the schools secretary ordered a review of the scope of the vetting. As a result, the Independent Safeguarding Authority will now vet a mere 9 million or so people, at an estimated initial cost of some £170m. Thereafter, those bringing unvetted persons into regular contact with children will be subject to a fine of £5,000.

Coming on top of the existing Criminal Records Bureau (CRB) checks, this is already having a chilling, deterrent effect. Someone who runs a youth theatre group says it will be almost impossible to ensure that all her helpers are registered – and she could not afford the £5,000 fine.

Its likely efficacy is very questionable. Vanessa George was CRB-checked. It seems quite likely that she would have been ISA-cleared, too. Ah, no, comes the riposte, this would be different because the ISA can use "soft intelligence" from the police. But in that case this procedure, unlike the CRB checks, undermines the basic principle that someone is innocent until proved guilty.

The ISA reassures us on its website that anyone who may be barred will be told in advance and, "we will share with them all the information on which we rely". But I spotted a sentence in the original inquiry recommendation which said, "the police, as now, would be able to identify intelligence which on no account should be disclosed to the applicant". When I asked the ISA press spokesman about this, he conceded that chief police officers "would have discretion". So actually the website lied: people wouldn't necessarily be given all the information? Er, yes. And you wouldn't know what you wouldn't know? Er ... could I send him an email.

In response to my email asking what information would be withheld under what circumstances, he emailed back "this question is for the police to answer". When I asked "who in which part of the police?" he suggested I contact the Association of Chief Police Officers. So much for this authority being "independent".

And what if, on police intelligence grounds that I'm not allowed to know, I'm mistakenly barred by the ISA – that is, tarred as a paedophile? To whom do I appeal? Well, it turns out I can appeal only on a point of law or a finding of fact to the Administrative Appeals Chamber of the Upper Tribunal, located in Chichester Rents, Chancery Lane. Now if I had lots of spare time and lots of money to pay good lawyers I could probably, after some years, win my case, with the aid of the Human Rights Act and the European court of human rights. But what a message to send to those who wish to volunteer to help our children.

As serious is what is the message this sends to the children themselves? Eileen Munro, a leading specialist on child protection at the London School of Economics, says: "People have become over-anxious and we have to remember the harm we are doing to children. This is making them think the world is full of dangerous people." She suggests our recession-squeezed public money would be better spent on helping parents and teachers to educate children to make their own judgments about managing risk; and on funding the excellent Childline helpline, for when parents and teachers fail. I hope the next government will take her advice.

"Suffer the little children to come unto me," said a suspicous-looking unofficial Jewish teacher. Not in this country, mate. Not till you pay your £64 and get your vetting clearance from the Safeguarding Authority.