Communication,
Co-ordination and Consistency
Everyone will have to contribute to achieve success - the Government
in giving a lead and front-line workers in thinking about what
they are doing
by
Matthew Payne
Earlier
this month the independent inquiry arising from the Soham murders
opened in London. The inquiry chair, Sir Michael Bichard, has
vowed to make sensible recommendations to improve the way that
those working with children are vetted. The need to improve the
current system was shown up starkly and tragically when Ian Huntley
was able to secure a position at a school with access to children
despite having been known to Police following suspicions of his
involvement in cases of under-age sex when he lived in Grimsby.
Sir
Michael says that he will not shirk from making criticisms of
those individuals and organisations that made the errors, which
gave Huntley the opportunity he needed to kill. These errors were
principally made around how information about individuals should
be shared between organisations, and about how that information
or intelligence is recorded, retained, stored and potentially
deleted.
The
Soham case shows us how we as a society have not yet got to grips
with the idea that a computer-based system like that used by the
Criminal Records Bureau, the principal vetting tool currently
in use, is only as good as the information that is fed into it.
It depends on human beings deciding whether or not a piece of
intelligence is worth sharing. It depends on whether a piece of
information has been entered into a police computer accurately
in the first place. It depends on how quickly that information
is entered into the computer.
These
decisions are being made in different ways around the country,
leading to inconsistencies and poor quality data. The saying “Garbage
in, garbage out” is unfortunately only too relevant where
the CRB is concerned.
Hopefully,
Sir Michael’s report that is due in May will make recommendations
that lead to a consistent, effective protocol for the sharing
and storing of data held by police forces. Local authorities then
need to agree to make the decision that everyone who has contact
with young people in their working lives, - and particularly in
schools this means an ever-growing pool of staff who are not teachers,
- must be asked to provide an enhanced disclosure.
Unfortunately
this will mean an increased cost to local authorities, and the
CRB’s charges are climbing all the time, but otherwise unsuitable
people will be able to slip through the net.
However,
we must also recognise that a vetting system will never provide
a completely safe answer. For example, Ian Huntley had changed
his name, and the Police did not bother to check all data for
both the names he used, so questions of how you prove someone’s
identity remain unanswered. It is likely that those of us who
work directly with young people are going to have to accept finger
printing or iris scans in the near future as a normal part of
an employment package in order to prove that we are who we say
we are. There needs to be a debate on how we protect young people
whilst preserving the rights of adults to privacy and dignity.
Interestingly,
Sir Michael will report to the Home Secretary. This week I received
notice of a consultation being undertaken by the Department for
Education and Skills entitled ‘Safeguarding Children’.
This is guidance put out for comment on child protection arrangements
in the education service.
It
includes an introduction by Margaret Hodge, Minister for Children,
Young People and Families. She says that “Every child deserves
the right to grow up in a safe and secure environment where they
are protected from harm and have the chance to fulfil their potential.”
One
of the sections briefly deals with the appointment of staff, stating
that employers should check identities, academic qualifications,
references and employment history. They should also obtain a criminal
record check from the CRB.
The
Soham case shows us how easily employers can be misinformed and
misled along with doubts about the validity of CRB checks. As
I wrote above, Sir Michael reports in May to the Home Office.
The DfES consultation closes in April. What an example in how
to share information between organisations the Government is setting
us!
