24 June 2004 - Bichard calls for child register People who want to work with children could be issued with a card or licence showing they have been vetted, Sir Michael Bichard has said. Sir Michael said he wanted to see the introduction of a national registration scheme as soon as next year. His inquiry into the Soham murders made a raft of suggestions to improve practices and reassure the public. But he warned there was no guarantee a "sufficiently devious" person would be stopped even by new measures. Sir Michael's 200-page report into police and vetting procedures found "errors, omissions, failures and shortcomings which are deeply shocking". He said the "very serious failings" of the system meant he could not be sure Ian Huntley, found guilty of murdering schoolgirls Holly Wells and Jessica Chapman, was the only person to have "slipped through the net". As a result he made 31 recommendations to improve systems nationally, in five key areas: • A registration scheme for those wishing to work with children or vulnerable adults • The urgent introduction of a national police intelligence system for England and Wales • A clear code of practice for all police forces on record creation, retention, deletion and sharing • Training for head teachers and school governors on how to ensure interview panels safeguard children • Guidance to social services on when they should refer cases involving underage sex to the police Sir Michael said the proposed register should be accessible to any employer - even parents taking on a tutor or sports coach - and would confirm whether there was any known reason why an applicant should not work with children. It would be regularly updated with new convictions and those on it could be asked to carry a licence or card, Sir Michael said. The applicant would have the right to appeal if their registration was refused - before the prospective employer was told of past convictions. Sir Michael said the Home Office would decide whether to tie in his proposals with plans for a national identity card scheme. "It is easy to see how it can fit alongside," he said. "If we don't have an identity card, I'm still recommending a licence scheme whether or not it has hard evidence in terms of a card or licence." He said a card with biometric details "would provide real advantages in checking identity" but acknowledged the danger of forgeries undermining the system. Sir Michael said at least one person on each interview panel of head teachers and school governors must be trained in ways to question job applicants with child safety in mind. But, he said: "I'm not suggesting every teacher needs an identity card before they are allowed into a school." He urged the Home Office to take the lead in making the development of a national intelligence system for England and Wales "a priority", drawing comparisons with Scotland, where a system should be running by the end of the year - and said interim measures should be in place by 2005. He said individual police forces must take a "mature" approach towards sharing intelligence and recognising its importance. "When priorities have had to be made, intelligence seems to have been put on the back-burner," he said. "I'm making a plea for it to be made a priority in the immediate future." He said a new national code of practice was needed to give clear guidance to police forces on creating and maintaining records. 'Devastating consequences' It should also advise on how information was shared with agencies like social services. Sir Michael said he was concerned "the issue of underage sex may not be taken sufficiently seriously" by social services and the police. He said national guidelines should set out when cases must be referred to police and urged social services departments also to keep records of incidents not referred. He said the Data Protection Act, although "inelegant", was not to blame for the failure by police to keep Huntley's records - and lessons must be learnt. Sir Michael concluded: "We should never forget how important apparently dry-looking systems can be - and we should never undervalue the people who administer them. "The consequences of when these systems go wrong can be devastating." Source www.bbc.co.uk/news 22 June 2004 - Police braced for Soham criticism Two police forces face a scathing attack in a report into how Soham killer Ian Huntley passed vetting checks to become a school caretaker. Sir Michael Bichard's report, out on Today is expected to pull no punches in criticising both Humberside and Cambridgeshire forces. It emerged after Huntley's trial that he got the job in Soham despite a string of past sex allegations. Huntley went on to murder pupils Holly Wells and Jessica Chapman, both 10 years old. Another report is due to focus on Cambridgeshire Police's investigation of the murders in August 2002. Sir Michael's findings, handed to the Home Office last week, will be published at noon. Home Secretary David Blunkett will then present the report to the House of Commons. It is likely to attack the Cambridgeshire force, which allowed Huntley to pass vetting checks to get his job at Soham Village College, and Humberside Police, which deleted its records of previous sex allegations against Huntley. Sir Michael Bichard is likely to criticise police intelligence handling. It emerged after Huntley's trial that he had faced nine previous sex allegations - four suspected rapes, an indecent assault and four alleged incidents of underage sex - while living in Grimsby in the 1990s. But flaws in Humberside's intelligence handling meant no records of Huntley's past were retained. Humberside Chief Constable David Westwood admitted "long term collective failure" in intelligence handling within his force. Deputy Chief Constable Steve Love admitted the force had "failed at a critical time and in a critical way". He added that following the force's own inquiry it had put 44 more staff into intelligence work and appointed a detective superintendent as director. Cambridgeshire Chief Constable Tom Lloyd has admitted "disturbing" and "significant" failings at every stage of the vetting of Huntley. He said it was "more likely than not" that Humberside had not been asked for a vetting check on Huntley before Soham Village College employed him. The school's principal Howard Gilbert admitted he did not check Huntley's job references. The Bichard report's recommendations could include that applicants for jobs working with young people be "positively vetted" on their suitability rather than only undergoing checks on their past. It could also compare police intelligence handling in Scotland, where forces share information on a national database, to that in England, which still has no equivalent system. Meanwhile, Sir Ronnie Flanagan's review of the early stages of the murder investigation is expected to conclude that mistakes were made by the Cambridgeshire force. After Huntley had been convicted for the double murder, it emerged that Operation Fincham - which prompted the biggest manhunt in British history - had been dogged with problems. False leads wasted police time, there were delays in checking Huntley's alibi and Mr Lloyd was criticised for being on holiday during the investigation. Source: www.bbc.co.uk/news 21 June 2004 - No 10 rejects smacking ban move Downing Street has rejected a complete ban on parents being allowed to smack their children - but a tightening of the law is being considered instead. At present parents can use "reasonable chastisement" to discipline children. But more than 200 peers and MPs want a total ban added to the Children Bill currently going through Parliament. Tony Blair's official spokesman said the prime minister "does not believe there should be a law banning parents from smacking their children". However government sources say they accept some parents are exploiting this defence to justify ‘beatings’. As a result it appears Labour is prepared to offer its MPs a free vote on the tightening up of "reasonable chastisement". The Children are Unbeatable Alliance is calling for a ban. The group's Sir William Utting said: "Hitting children is as unacceptable as hitting anyone else and the law should clearly say so." A survey last month by the alliance suggested 71% of people would support a complete ban. Source: taken from www.bbc.co.uk/news 16 June 2004 - Ofsted Praise Early Excellence Centres Ofsted inspectors have praised Early Excellence Centres which they say are helping tackle the effects of poverty on young children with both children and parents benefiting from their involvement. The centres began opening in England in the late 1990s, offering early years education, childcare, parenting classes and adult learning. Ofsted says three out of four centres provide a “good service”. England's chief inspector of schools, David Bell, said: "Early excellence centres are ahead of the game when it comes to providing a range of services for local communities in some of the most disadvantaged parts of the country. "The findings of this report show that there is some excellent work going on at the centres to give children a better start." He said the 20-plus centres visited by inspectors were using "innovative and exciting ways to address the needs of local children and their parents to give them the best start possible". The quality of education offered for under fives at the centres was found to be generally good, although inspectors said teaching in maths and literacy was not as strong as it could be. Older, more able children were "not always challenged sufficiently". The centres fit in with the government's drive towards integrated services, for example, children’s centres or extended schools offering before and after-school care, incorporating access to adult learning, health or social services. Inspectors said adult education and support classes for parents had been powerful in helping them to help their children learn. Parents had gained a variety of qualifications including GCSEs and vocational quailfications. In one centre 63 parents gained qualifications and 17 returned to employment over the course of a year. Another centre had to discontinue its fathers group - when most of its members found jobs. Source: www.bbc.co.uk/news 01 June 2004 - Children 'start lessons too soon' OfSTED inspectors want a smoother transition into formal learning; they have challenged the way five-year-old pupils make the transition into formal learning. OfSTED says some pupils in England find the switch from reception class to the first year of primary school too abrupt. "Parents have expressed concern about the impact on their children of such a sudden change," says the chief inspector of schools, David Bell. The OfSTED chief also criticised how reception pupils were assessed. The assessment system - the foundation stage profile - was described as involving too much paperwork and failing to provide the information teachers would need in the following year. "I would urge the Department for Education and Skills and Qualifications and Curriculum Authority to look closely at today's report as it is clear that the foundation stage profile does not fit the bill," says Mr Bell. But the OfSTED report says there is widespread support for establishing the reception year as a separate stage within the curriculum. This so-called "foundation stage" covers the first year in school - but inspectors note some pupils might only get a much shorter amount of time before they are moved up. "Some children have only been in school for little over a month when they move up to Year 1 and inevitably some pupils struggle," says Mr Bell. David Bell wants to change the assessment for reception pupils. The report also says many schools are starting formal lessons at the earliest opportunity - even when it feels that pupils are not ready. Reception teachers also felt this emphasis on getting off to an early start with literacy and numeracy could be at the expense of creativity and a more imaginative approach. But inspectors found maths and literacy were the areas in which the transition from reception to Year 1 was most likely to be successful - reflecting that many schools will have introduced the literacy and numeracy strategies into the reception year. Responding to the criticisms, the QCA said: "An important element is the ongoing assessment of children based on observations, but we will look carefully to make sure that this is not too bureaucratic." The Department for Education and Skills did not show signs of accepting the call for change. "We are pleased to note that schools generally support this transition effectively and now that teachers are familiar with the profile, we expect that good progress to continue. "The Foundation Stage Profile is the right mechanism to record children's progress at the end of the reception year," said a DfES spokesperson.