News...News...News...News

By Julie Morgan MP, a member, along with PANN, of CRY (This article reprinted from the Professional Association of Teachers (PAT) Journal, Spring 2000)

The publication of the Waterhouse Report on 15 February has reinforced my belief that a national register of childcare workers is needed. Such a register would help to protect children from unsuitable individuals who look after them in paid capacities in many different settings. These settings include care, residential homes, foster homes, nurseries, care by nannies in the children's own homes, residential schools etc. The presentation of the Report to the House of Commons was a very solemn occasion. Paul Murphy, Secretary of State for Wales, presented the Report and said that reading it was one of his worst experiences as a politician. The report highlighted, in the most harrowing detail, the deficiencies that exist within the care system.

I felt particularly upset by the revelations as I had worked as a social worker, employed by local authorities in South Wales, prior to becoming an MP, and had known of many children who had been sent to one of the homes referred to in the Report. These children were considered 'safer' there than in their own homes. I am also aware of the tremendous effort that was needed to bring to the public domain the information contained within this Report. It was very difficult to work against the system and get all this into the open. It has literally taken years and it is known that during that time some of the young adults who had been in care have committed suicide.

The Report highlights the scale of abuse that existed and how vulnerable young people are when they are put in the hands of careworkers who are considered 'safe'. It is well known that paedophiles deliberately go to places of employment where they can gain access to vulnerable young people and they do move between different care settings. When the Report was published it was not known where a significant number of the careworkers named in the report were actually located. They were, however, quickly identified afterwards.

Protecting children

In anticipation of this Report, the Government has made efforts to provide greater protection for children and young people. The Care Standards Bill is going through Parliament at the moment. One of the Waterhouse Report's major recommendations is for a Children's Commissioner and it is hoped that an amendment to the Care Standards Bill will set up a Children's Commissioner for Wales. This was an election pledge of the Labour Party in Wales for the National Assembly Elections. It is considered vital for the protection of children and young people. It is my hope that the Commissioner will be granted power To ensure that a situation never arises again as that experienced by the children in North Wales.

The Protection of Children Act requires the Secretary of State to keep a list of people considered unsuitable to work with children. The Children Leaving Care Bill, which is also going through Parliament at the moment, will provide local authorities with new and stronger duties until children are 18. understand it is possible that this will be extended by a governmental amendment to the age of 21. The Children Leaving Care Bill has finally shown that the Government recognises he huge disadvantages faced by young people n care. Indeed, all the evidence shows that the are disadvantaged both socially and educationally.

Still need for National Register

All these measures are very welcome and will improve the lot of children in care. Nevertheless, I believe that there are still loopholes in the law and this is why cross-party support for the campaign for a national register for careworkers (CRY) is so important. It is probably impossible ever to be totally confident that all potential abusers can be screened out. However, I believe that every effort should be made and every loophole should be closed. CRY originally started because of the fact that nannies are unregulated and there have been a number of high profile scandals. The Department of Education and Employment has agreed to set up a voluntary nanny register, but we believe that this does not go far enough. CRY is supporting a comprehensive register for all people who work with children.

The Waterhouse Report has made us all look again at how we look after our children, children who are in care and are the most vulnerable in society, and all other children who are looked after by paid careworkers. The fallout from Waterhouse must and should be huge. Let us hope that it will include a national register, so that it is made as difficult as it can possibly be for potential abusers to penetrate the world of care workers.

For further information about CRY, contact Professional Officer (PANN) Tricia
Pritchard in Derby,
e-mail cry@pat.org.uk
or visit the Playpen Web site (www.patorg.uk).

DEPARTMENT FOR EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT SANCTUARY BUILDINGS GREAT SMITH STREET WESTMINSTER LONDON SW1P 3BT TELEPHONE 0870 0012 345 E-mail dfee.ministers@dfee.gov.uk MARGARET HODGE MBE MP Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State Caroline Flint MP House of Commons London SW1A OAA 14th February 2000 Dear Caroline

Thank you for your letter of 12 January about approaches made to you by the Professional Association of Nursery Nurses, concerning child protection. I am also replying on behalf of Jacqui Smith to your similar letter to her. The Government is naturally very concerned that children should be protected from abuse. I enclose a copy of the DfEE Circular 10/95 "Protecting Children from Abuse: the Role of the Education Service" which issued in October 1995. Circular 10/95 makes a number of recommendations which the Secretary of State expects schools to follow. These include that all maintained schools, including nursery schools, should have a child protection policy; that a school should have a designated member of staff responsible for co-ordinating action within the school and liaising with other agencies, including the Area Child Protection Committee (ACPC); and that there should be procedures for handling suspected cases of abuse of pupils, including procedures to be followed if a member of staff is accused of abuse. I also enclose a copy of "Working Together to Safeguard Children" which was published in January. It which was prepared jointly by DH, DfEE and the Home Office, and provides a guide to inter-agency working to safeguard and promote the welfare of children. It supersedes "Working Together under the Children Act 1989". The DfEE is also working closely with a number of other Government Departments on measures to improve protection for children. In December 1998, the Home Secretary announced plans to establish a Criminal Records Bureau to implement new arrangements for criminal record checks to identify people who are unsuitable to work with children. The Bureau will phase in its operations over a 12 month period from July 2001. By early 2002, when the Bureau makes a check for child protection purposes, it will also be able to access information from the DfEE's list of people who are barred from working in the education service and the DH's new list of people who are considered to be unsuitable to work with children. The recommendations of the Interdepartmental Working Group on Preventing Unsuitable People from Working with Children and Abuse of Trust form part of the Crime and Public Protection Bill, to be introduced in the current parliamentary session. The Bill will create a new criminal offence for a person who is banned from working with children to apply for, accept an offer of, or continue in work with children when banned. It will also provide a new criminal offence for an employer to employ a person whom he knows to be barred from working with children in work which he knows will involve contact with children. I note that you have also written to John Mutton at DH, who will be able to address the issue of child protection in the wider context. I am copying this letter to him. All the best MARGARET HODGE

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH WHITEHALL LONDON SW1A 2NS Jackie Ballard MP Dear Jackie Thank you for your letter of 10 December. You asked for further information about measures that the Government is taking to tighten the protection of children.   There are a number of initiatives the Government is currently taking forward to afford greater protection to children and young people. Through the Care Standards Bill we are reforming the regulatory system for care services in England and Wales. In England the Bill provides for an independent National Care Standards Commission to undertake this regulatory function, and in Wales this function will be carried out by a new arm of the National Assembly for Wales.

The Bill will also establish the General Social Care Council (GSCC) to regulate the social care workforce for the first time, including childcare staff. The GSCC will become the guardian of standards for social care. It will be able to register staff on the basis of their having completed a period of approved training. The Council's first task, however, will be to draw up codes of conduct and practice for all social care staff. These will be enforced. The Council will also draw up a code of practice for employers, emphasising the need for full checks on recruits to prevent unsuitable people from entering the workforce in the first place. We regard these codes as so important that we have commissioned their initial drafting now so the GSCC can get off to a positive start as soon as it is established. We have also funded the development of a new post qualifying award for professional social workers who specialise in childcare. The first students began working for this award in January at the initial centres of excellence that will be delivering the training. In the coming months we shall be inviting further partnerships of universities and social care agencies to bid to become the second tranche of centres to extend this training. We intend to have given a total of 7,000 social workers the opportunity to begin this training by 2006. Part of the Crime and Public Protection Bill, being taken forward by the Home Office, is devoted to preventing unsuitable people from working with children, and extends the provisions of the Protection of Children Act 1999, which received Royal Assent in July last year. As you may know the Protection of Children Act will place the Department of Health's Consultancy Service Index (a list of people considered to be unsuitable to work with children) onto a statutory footing. Child care organisations, as defined in the Act, will be required to check the names of anyone they propose to employ in child care positions against the list, and will be prevented from employing anyone whose n.me is found on it. The Act will provide a right of appeal against inclusion on both the New Department of Health list and the similar " List 99" of the Department for Education and Employment. The Protection of Children Act also amends part V of the Police Act 1997 to allow the Criminal Records Bureau to act as a central access point for people to obtain criminal records information and make checks against List 99 and the new Protection of Children Act List. The wider scheme being taken forward by the Home Office (Crime and Public Protection Bill) aims to prevent those people who pose a risk to children from moving from one area of working with children to another with impunity. Through an integrated system persons identified and classified as unsuitable to work with children would be banned from such work. Those identified and banned will be subject to criminal sanctions if they breach the ban. All areas which can be properly defined as working with children will be covert by the ban. Access to information about those banned from working with children will be available as part of criminal and enhanced criminal record certificates once the Criminal Records Bureau is in operation. As the Protection of Children Act requires the Secretary of State to maintain a list of people considered unsuitable to work with children, the Care Standards Bill enables the Secretary of State to hold a similar list of people considered to be unsuitable to work with vulnerable adults. A single list will be established for both England and Wales, and will operate in a similar way to the Protection of Children Act list. Finally, you may be interested to know of the measures we are introducing through the Children (Leaving Care) Bill, which is currently on its passage through Parliament. The principal aim of the Bill is to improve the life chances of young people living in and leaving local authority care. The Bill is based on the proposals in the consultation document 'Me, Survive, Out There? - New Arrangements for Young People Living in and Leaving Care' published in July 1999 which was very well received. The Bill will impose new and stronger duties upon local authorities to support care leavers until they are at least 18. The government believes that care leavers ought to be able to expect support from their 'parent' - the responsible local authority * more akin to the type of support that responsible parents provide for their own children. The Children (Leaving Care) Bill is intended to make this happen. I hope this has helped to give you an outline of the types of child protection initiatives we are currently taking forward, and I would like to thank you for your keen interest in this subject. Yours JOHN HUTTON

The Government's measures are targeted in two directions. First, they are being more explicit in dealing with people who have offended against children and other people who are clearly unsuited to the work. Action includes the consolidated of the DfEE List 99 with the DoH Consultancy Index, the measures contained in the Crime and Public Protection Bill to make it an offence for abusers to work with children or for employers to take them on, and the creation of the Criminal Records Bureau. Between them, these measures send out a clear message that every employer must be vigilant in excluding abusers and that every abuser is under threat to stay away from work with children. This message is likely to be a deterrent, and the measures are welcome.

The weaknesses in these measures are that they obviously have no bearing on people who as yet have no record of offences or professional misconduct, and that action is generally only taken to put names on the Government lists when a serious misdemeanour is demonstrable, such that people who are subject to suspicion only or where evidence is slight are left in circulation. Despite these caveats, the measures outlined are welcome, and are a useful part of the armoury.

The second direction in which the Government's action is aimed is the more general regulation of social care through the General Social Care Council, the National Care Commission, the National Training Organisation for the Personal Social Services, and so on. The measures they are taking should improve levels of training among childcare workers, set standards for professional conduct and for agencies, and initiate the registration of certain groups of people working with children and young people. Registration will be applied first to field social workers and residential childcare workers. The former will be expected to hold the Diploma in Social Work or its equivalent and the latter to have completed relevant training up to National Vocational Qualification Level 3.

Again, these measures are all very welcome, but the gaps in the protective measures appear to be greater. It is not yet clear which groups of workers will eventually come under the GSCC's aegis. The term social care has not been clarified, and it could include all childcare workers, or it might miss substantial groups out. If it is going to be a requirement of registration that applicants must have achieved an appropriate level of training, it is likely that certain groups of workers will not be ready for consideration for many years yet, and it could in any case be argued that it is the unqualified workers who need to be checked out as they have not yet successfully gone through the testing processes of training and examination. If the legislation goes through as planned, it will be 2002 before anyone is registered, and probably a lot longer for the bulk of the workforce, even if they are included by the GSSC.

Nor is it yet clear what processes the GSCC will apply in setting up its register. It is understood that other national registers such as the UKCC gather data only on the training records of people on their registers. The ICSE proposals argue for gathering full data about applicants' careers in order to offer the maximum reasonable level of protection to children and young people. If the ICSE approach is not adopted by the GSCC, children and young people may not be sufficiently protected.

The ICSE proposals include the gathering of information which should enable employers - whether parents taking on a nanny or statutory or independent bodies - to make decisions based on much fuller data, improving general standards in the appointment of workers and excluding less suitable workers as well as the obvious paedophiles who would be kept out through the Government's measures.

Of course, it can be argued that even if the ICSE were to set up a full-blown register incorporating all childcare workers, there would still be weaknesses. Some abusers would no doubt still slip through. Some people with previously blameless records would start to abuse. Some people would gradually slip into unacceptable incompetence. Registration is not a panacea.

The question which remains is whether the measures taken by the Government, excellent though they are, are sufficient, or is there still a significant plank missing from the platform?

Proposals for the Regulation of Nanny Agencies

On 17th January 2000 Margaret Hodge, Minister for Employment and Equal Opportunities announced measures designed to "strengthen the safeguards for children who are looked after by nannies." New guidance was promised, to be published in the spring to underpin the new and revised regulations governing employment agencies to be issued by the Department of Trade and Industry. The Minister had originally issued proposals for consultation for the establishment of a voluntary system of registration for nanny agencies. This had met with considerable opposition. Only about 30% of nannies are employed through agencies in the first place, and since the proposed standards for voluntary registration were likely to be expensive, it was thought that very few would in fact register voluntarily, making the system ineffective. Proponents of statutory registration wanted a system under the control of the DfEE, the Government Department responsible for the quality of services for young children. The new Government proposals will pass the responsibility to the DTI, who will deal with nanny agencies along with all the other types of employment agency. The need for a National Register for nannies and other childcare workers remains on the shelf, and until that is dealt with, there remains a serious gap in the Government's measures.

The guidance for nanny agencies will include advice on : identity checks the checking of histories, qualifications and references interviewing the placing of candidates. The Minister said that she was "sure that [the advice] will provide parents and agencies with the help they need to minimise the risk of children being cared for by unsuitable nannies." Speaking on behalf of PANN, Tricia Pritchard said that the proposals were "welcome, but still not enough."

Paedophile Jailed : A New Act Used for the First Time History was made when Kenneth Biden, aged 64, was jailed for three years under the 1997 Sex Offenders Act at Middlesex Guildhall Crown Court for offences committed in another country. Biden had assaulted young girls at the camp-site he ran in Brittany, and he pleaded guilty to six charges of indecent assault on five girls aged between 5 and 12. Biden groomed the children carefully, vetting his customers and playing with the children for hours. Detective Inspector David Marshall said, "The Act has enabled us to convict a very calculating, manipulative and dangerous paedophile". Guardian 22nd January 2000 The case indicates the need for an international register for people working with children and young people. The use of the Act is a very welcome step forward, but when Biden is out of prison on completion of his sentence, there is little to prevent him finding another country where supervision may be more lax.

CRY Backs the NSPCC In a Press Release issued jointly with PANN, CRY supported the NSPCC's calls for tighter controls and measures such as an independent watchdog with statutory powers, visitors for children in care and the early implementation of the Criminal Records Bureau. Tricia Pritchard said, "The NSPCC has highlighted how it is still all too easy for undesirable people to gain access to children. We support its calls for tighter controls. The Home Secretary has said it will take two years to establish the Bureau. We need action now to protect children, parents and childcarers." Under the original plans, the Criminal Records Bureau would have been commencing work shortly, but it was put on hold by the Home Office Minister, Paul Boateng, in order to avoid the embarrassment of a failure with the computers comparable to the one which affected the issue of passports.