Appendix 3 The Bichard Inquiry Report – a summary

This briefing paper mentions Bichard’s main points of concern and his key areas for action and change. It does not give details of the several recommendations for the police, but focuses instead on recommendations which are relevant for Council services (Education and Social Services).

1. Sir Michael Bichard was asked to look at the actions of the police in and Cambridgeshire in the light of the conviction of Ian Huntley for the . In particular, he was to assess the effectiveness of

 the relevant intelligence-based record keeping  the vetting practices of those forces since 1995, and  information-sharing with other agencies.

2. The report was presented to the on 14th June 2004. It is strongly critical of Humberside police about their handling of intelligence and data protection, but also comments on other agencies. (Humberside) ACPC are conducting a Serious Case Review under Sir Christopher Kelly, which has yet to report on how local agencies worked together in this case. There are likely to be further recommendations and/or endorsements of Bichard’s recommendations from this Review.

3. Apart from the two police areas, attention is given to actions by Humberside Social Services, the recruitment process undertaken by Soham Village College and their personnel agents, and to the responsibilities of national bodies in relation to their local services.

4. The failings of all agencies are categorised in the following way:

 Failure to identify IH’s behaviour pattern (police and social services)  Failure to take under-age sex sufficiently seriously (police and social services)  Flaws in the recruitment process (Soham Village College)  Lack of national IT system for recording police intelligence ()  Lack of national code of practice to cover record creation, retention, deletion and information-sharing (Home Office)

5. Bichard recommends changes at central government level (Home Office and DfES), and within local councils (Education and Social Services Departments), in 5 key areas:

a) A new system for registering those working with children and vulnerable adults b) A national IT intelligence system (Police) c) Clear guidance on record creation, retention, review, deletion and the sharing of information (Police) d) Referral of sexual offences against children and subsequent action e) Training for all involved in appointing people to work with children

1 Appendix 3 6. Issues for Social Services

6.1 Humberside Social Services Department (SSD) received at least 3 referrals indicating that IH – then aged 21yrs - was living with and having sexual relations with girls under 16 years old (and were aware of a further two allegations, of Rape and Indecent Assault). The cases referred to SS were not treated as S. 47 referrals, nor were they referred to the police as allegations of a crime (Unlawful Sexual Intercourse).

6.2 Working Together, the Laming Report and current child protection procedures are all clear that they should have been. Whatever the failings of the police in this case, this intelligence should have been pooled, and should have contributed to the police’s own evidence that Huntley had a significant pattern of sexual attraction to young girls. Had that been accessed when he moved to Soham and applied for a job as a caretaker, a tragedy might have been avoided.

6.3 The report makes the following recommendations to the DfES:

12 The Government should reaffirm the guidance in Working Together to Safeguard Children so that the police are notified as soon as possible when a criminal offence has been committed, or is suspected of having been committed, against a child – unless there are exceptional reasons not to do so.

Westminster: This is longstanding practice in the C&F Division. It is reinforced through training and supervision, as well as in the London CP Procedures.

13 National guidance should be produced to inform the decision as to whether or not to notify the police. This guidance could usefully draw upon the criteria included in a local protocol being developed by Sheffield Social Services and brought to the attention of the Inquiry. The decision would therefore take account of:

• age or power imbalances; • overt aggression; • coercion or bribery; • the misuse of substances as a disinhibitor; • whether the child’s own behaviour, because of the misuse of substances, places him/her at risk so that he/she is unable to make an informed choice about any activity; • whether any attempts to secure secrecy have been made by the sexual partner, beyond what would be considered usual in a teenage relationship; • whether the sexual partner is known by one of the agencies (which presupposes that checks will be made with the police); • whether the child denies, minimises or accepts concerns; and • whether the methods used are consistent with grooming.

14 The Integrated Children’s System should record those cases where a decision is taken not to refer to the police.

15 The Commission for Social Care Inspection should, as part of any social services inspection, review whether decisions not to inform the police have been properly taken.

The report concludes that the issue of underage sex was not taken sufficiently seriously by the police or social services, and notes that the Sexual Offences Act 2 Appendix 3 2003, which came into effect 1st May 2004, reflects this concern, especially where there is evidence of grooming.

Westminster: The ACPC will consider adoption of the Sheffield Social Services’ protocol. The ACPC will provide seminars for inter-agency staff to publicise the Report and any changes for local practice in relation to its findings and recommendations.

6.4 The report raises the issue of the ability of Social Services recording systems to track contact with (single) adults who may be potentially dangerous.

Westminster: The Social Services Information Database (SSID) records information against service users’ names. Currently, it is not the practice to enter an alleged abuser as a “party” on SSID, which would enable that information to be retrieved and linked with other information. Locally, the Department’s Caldicott Group has already been asked to consider whether we could change our practice to record alleged abusers in this way. The Bichard Report suggests the use of a data field “Significant Other” as a way to achieve this. This proposed change will continue to be addressed during the development and training for SWIFT.

7. National changes

7.1 The report recommends to the government a new system for registering those working with children and vulnerable adults – perhaps evidenced by a licence or card.

Nationally, there are approximately 2.4m people working with children. Bichard acknowledges that adopting such a system would take time, care and resources to create. He argues convincingly for the benefits and savings that it would eventually produce – e.g., a central registering body which could have access to the widest possible range of checks, which could be continuously updated, and which could be accessed widely as a public register.

The new Social Care Register offers a model for establishing a central register. The registration of social workers through the General Social Care Council (GSCC) is underway (including in Westminster), and provides a means of licensing social services professionals who work with children. Registration is reviewed every 3 years. This scheme does not meet all of Bichard’s requirements for a licensing or registration scheme, but provides a basis for development.

7.2 The report is critical of the recruitment process in relation to Soham Village College and their personnel agents. It notes improvements in social services’ recruitment practices following the Warner Report, and the National Minimum Standards issued under the Care Standards Act, but suggests that the issue needs to be highlighted, particularly for education.

CRB checks and any registration scheme adopted may help prevent similar events, but because many abusers are not known to the police, a robust staff

3 Appendix 3 selection process is an essential further safeguard. The report therefore recommends:

16 Head teachers and school governors should receive training on how to ensure that interviews to appoint staff reflect the importance of safeguarding children.

17 From a date to be agreed, no interview panel to appoint staff working in schools should be convened without at least one member being properly trained.

18 The relevant inspection bodies should, as part of their inspection, review the existence and effectiveness of a school’s selection and recruitment arrangements.

The report also recommends that the Home Office issue clear guidance to Registered Bodies about their “precise responsibilities for checking identities.”

Westminster: In relation to Social Services staff, the practicality of updating all CRB checks 3-yearly is being pursued with the CRB. Previous enquiries have indicated that this would not be possible because of the bureau’s workload. The need to provide training for rigorous interviewing which pays sufficient attention to safeguarding issues will be considered in the ACPC Training Sub- Committee. The Council currently mounts regular training courses for managers on recruitment and selection, and these will need to be adapted to take this recommendation into account.

8. The Home Secretary has accepted the recommendations of the Inquiry, which will reconvene in six months time to review publicly the progress made against these recommendations.

4