Your SlideShare is downloading. ×

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

×

Introducing the official SlideShare app

Stunning, full-screen experience for iPhone and Android

Text the download link to your phone

Standard text messaging rates apply

Child Abuse in the UK : Are Children Really Being Protected?

855
views

Published on

This report examines whether changes in the law in relation to child abuse and protecting vulnerable groups has made any real impact. Malcolm Underhill of IBB Solicitors provides analysis on child …

This report examines whether changes in the law in relation to child abuse and protecting vulnerable groups has made any real impact. Malcolm Underhill of IBB Solicitors provides analysis on child abuse and the laws designed to protect children and vulnerable adults. As high profile child abuse cases coutinue, is the government actually doing anything that will help protect potential victims?

Published in: News & Politics, Technology

0 Comments
1 Like
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
855
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
1
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
5
Comments
0
Likes
1
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1. Safe from harm? 10 years after Soham...
  • 2. Safe from harm? | 10 years after Soham | Page 3 The past 10 years, as a father, school governor and solicitor representing victims of child abuse, I have considered from different perspectives the impact of measures taken in response to the Soham tragedy. At the time of the murders in the summer of 2002 steps had already been initiated to improve upon child protection measures, under the Police Act 1997. However, further steps were taken, after Soham, to provide greater protection. In the past 10 years, from my different perspectives, I have had cause to wonder whether those steps have had the kind of beneficial effect that we all hoped for. I became concerned that, perhaps, inappropriate individuals were still working in schools. I therefore commissioned this report to ascertain whether those perceptions were real or imaginary. The information collated from the majority of England’s local education authorities supports my concern that there are still too many people gaining access to children, for their own iniquitous behaviour. Of equal concern is that some local education authorities were unable to provide answers to the requests, as they do not collate the statistics. As to those authorities that did respond, the replies reveal a high number of allegations of abuse and consequential action taken. This suggests further work needs to be done and I am delighted that so many stakeholders have participated in the report which, I hope, will promote further contributions on this very important subject.    Malcolm Underhill Partner, IBB Solicitors Foreword
  • 3. Safe from harm? | 10 years after Soham | Page 5Safe from harm? | 10 years after Soham | Page 4 Labour government set up the Independent Safeguarding Authority in 2009 under the Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Act 2006 (see left) with the aim of vetting every individual who applied to work with children or vulnerable adults, paid or voluntary. According to official estimates, as many as 11.5 million adults – 20% of the population – would be registered with the scheme by the time it was fully rolled out. However, there was a dramatic public and political reaction to the original proposals for a vetting and barring scheme particularly when the new Coalition government came into power. Home Secretary Theresa May called a halt to the ‘draconian’ vetting scheme in June 2010, declaring that it was time to return to a more ‘common sense’ approach. The scaling back of the scheme was given statutory effect under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, which received Royal Assent in May this year (see box). Speaking last February, the deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg said that the post-Bichard regime had to be ‘scaled back to sensible levels whilst at the same time protecting vulnerable people’. ‘Labour engaged in a 13-year assault on our hard-won British freedoms. The coalition Government is determined to hand them back to people. We inherited a messy criminal records regime that developed piecemeal for years and defied common sense.’ Nick Clegg As to whether this scaling back of the scheme represents an injection of ‘common sense’ to redress the balance as a result of a ‘knee-jerk response to a tabloid-fed panic about child abuse* ’ or an over-sensitive response to criticisms of the original scheme, depends on your perspective – and both views are represented in this report. Speaking earlier this year, the independent crossbench peer Lord Bichard accepted the current arrangements were ‘not proportionate’ but also called for the safety of children ‘to be placed above all other considerations’. * The Spectator, 17 December 2011 It has been more than 10 years since school caretaker Ian Huntley murdered the two Soham schoolgirls, Holly Wells and Jessica Chapman in August 2002. The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 received Royal Assent in May this year, a few months before the 10th anniversary of that tragic event. That 2012 Act represents a scaling back of the scheme designed to introduce safeguards to protect children and vulnerable adults in the wake of the Soham murders. It is part of a wider policy initiative to end what deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg has called a ‘13-year assault on hard-won British freedoms’. This report looks at the regime introduced to protect the most vulnerable members of society in the aftermath of the Soham murders. It considers how effectively such a regime provides a safeguard and how the Coalition government proposes to reform it under Protection of Freedoms legislation. In compiling this report we submitted Freedom of Information requests to all local education authorities in England to get a picture of how many allegations of child abuse had been made in schools and how those allegations had been dealt with. Calls for change When it emerged that Huntley had previously been accused of indecent assault and rape there was understandable outrage and calls for a system of protection to more robustly police those people who work or volunteer with children and vulnerable people. The creation of such a regime over the decade has been convoluted and controversial. Following the murders, Sir Michael Bichard was appointed to investigate institutional failings and recommended increased use of vetting and a registration scheme for people working with children and vulnerable adults. This was distinct from the CRB scheme, which was conceived as an aid to help safer recruitment by employers. The new scheme would replace barring schemes such as List 99 and others and would be a statutory barring scheme based on a quasi-judicial process. The New Introduction The Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Act 2006 The Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Act 2006 was passed by Parliament in the wake of the Soham murders and in response to the Bichard Inquiry’s recommendations. The ideas behind the legislation were to: • Create the Independent Safeguarding Authority (ISA) to oversee a new ‘Vetting and Barring Scheme’ to deal with referrals and decide who should be on its barred lists; • Reduce red tape: two ‘barring’ lists were to be run by the ISA (one for adults and one for children) rather than the three lists previously (under the Protection Of Children Act, Protection of Vulnerable Adults, and List 99); • Introduce barring from ‘regulated activities’: people included on the ISA lists were to be barred from a wider range of jobs and activities than before; • Introduce a new duty to share information: employers, social services and regulators would have to notify the ISA of relevant information so individuals who posed a threat could be identified and barred; • Introduce new criminal offences: for example, it would be a crime for a barred individual to seek or undertake work with vulnerable groups and a crime for employers to knowingly take them on; • Introduce a new system of registration: From July 2010, all new entrants to jobs working with vulnerable groups would have to register with the VBS and be checked by the ISA. According to the Home Office (press release, March 20th 2009), the new scheme would have a much broader coverage ‘with an estimated 11.3 million people needing to be registered up from around 6.5m who are checked today.’ Freedom of information.....
  • 4. Safe from harm? | 10 years after Soham | Page 7Safe from harm? | 10 years after Soham | Page 6 Despite the fact that all volunteers and professionals who work regularly with children are now required to undergo checks as a result of the Soham murders and the Bichard report, concerns remain about just how well protected children and young people are from their workers. The reality is that abuse does take place and all too frequently with traumatic consequences for the victims. As part of our study, we have made Freedom of Information (FoI) Act requests relating to allegations of abuse (both sexual and physical) at schools. The idea was to gain a clearer picture of how many allegations were made and how they were treated. FoI requests were sent to 152 local education authorities – we received 119 responses. We asked about allegations of sexual and physical abuse; suspensions and dismissals as a result of those allegations for three separate years 2008/09; 2009/10; and 2010/11 and in relation to two classes of employee (teachers and non- teaching staff). We asked LEAs† : • How many allegations of physical or sexual abuse have been made against nursery, primary and secondary school teaching staff in your LEA the past three complete academic years (i.e. 2008/9, 2009/10 and 2010/11)? • How many of those have been suspended and/or dismissed as a result of those allegations? • How many have remained employed at the establishment they were working at, at the time of the allegation, or remain employed at other educational establishments within your LEA? • How many allegations of physical or sexual abuse have been made against employees without Qualified Teacher Status at nursery, primary and secondary schools, in your LEA the past three complete academic years (i.e. 2008/9, 2009/10 and 2010/11)? • How many have been suspended and/or dismissed as a result of those allegations? • How many have remained employed at the establishment they were working at, at the time, of the allegation, or remain engaged or employed at other educational establishments within your LEA? A further FoI request was sent to the Independent Safeguarding Authority, we asked: • How many teachers have been referred to the ISA for physical or sexual abuse of a child in the years 2008/2009? • How many teachers have been referred to the ISA for physical or sexual abuse of a child in the years 2009/2010? • How many teachers have been referred to the ISA for physical or sexual abuse of a child in the years 2010/2011? † You can read the wording of the FoI requests in Appendix 1 to this report. Freedom of information Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 As part of the coalition agreement, the government committed to reviewing the ‘Vetting and Barring Scheme’ and the CRB regime – in its words – ‘scaling them back to common sense levels’. Home Secretary Theresa May called a halt to the registration scheme under the 2006 Act. The Coalition’s Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 introduced changes to the VBS regime as of September 2012, including: • A new definition of ‘regulated activity’: covering an estimated five million people; • A repeal of ‘controlled activity’: this had covered people who might have less contact with vulnerable groups including children than people in ‘regulated activity’; • Repeal of registration and continuous monitoring: the original plan under the VBS was anyone who wanted to work with vulnerable groups would need to register and be continuously monitored for new criminal record information. This never came into force; • Repeal of ‘additional information’: under the Police Act 1997, police forces can provide certain sensitive ‘additional information’ about applicants only to organisations, not to the applicants themselves – sometimes known as ‘brown envelope’ material and is issued separately to an enhanced CRB check. This provision will no longer exist in the Police Act; • Introduction of a minimum age (16 years) at which someone can apply for a CRB check; • Introduction of a more rigorous ‘relevancy’ test as to when the police can release information held locally on an enhanced CRB check. Prior to September 2012 the police included information if it ‘might be relevant’ whereas now they will include it if they ‘reasonably believe it to be relevant’. Plus if information is included on an enhanced CRB certificate and the applicant does not think that it should be, they will be able to ask the Independent Monitor to review and the Independent Monitor can ask the CRB to issue a new certificate either without that information or amend it. • ChallengestoinformationonCRBcertificates:anapplicantforaCRB checkwhobelievesthatinformationdisclosedonthecertificateis inaccuratecanapplytotheCRBforadecisionastoitsaccuracy.
  • 5. Safe from harm? | 10 years after Soham | Page 9Safe from harm? | 10 years after Soham | Page 8 A balance to be struck The debate over the regime to best protect those children and vulnerable adults post- Soham is often couched in terms of striking the balance between the protection of children and vulnerable adults and protecting the rest of us ‘from unwarranted state intrusion in their private lives’ (as the government said in relation to the Protection of Freedoms Act). ‘When ministers spoke of redressing the balance between freedom and child protection, we felt that was such an extraordinary statement. Child protection is a freedom, one of those rights of children listed in the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child to which the UK is signatory,’ comments Jan Cosgrove, national secretary of Fair Play for Children. ‘Children’s welfare is a primary concern in UK law. We also felt that, in addressing the rights of employees and volunteers who wished to work with children, no one paid any regard at all to the rights of adults who wish to work with children, no one one paid any regard at all to those other adults who would be working alongside them as volunteers and employees.’ In the intervening years after the Soham murders, the issue of child protection moved from an issue that united political and public opinion in a response to a single tragic event to one that sharply divided both sets of opinion. ‘The Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Act 2006 had all-party support. Nick Clegg was home affairs spokesman at the time,’ continues Cosgrove. ‘But the issue became a political football with David Cameron and Nick Clegg talking about it as an example of the worst excesses of new Labour authoritarianism.’ Licensed To Hug? As Jan Cosgrove points out the politicization of child protection pre-dated the Coalition. Under New Labour, the children’s secretary Ed Balls called for a review of the regime and for a review that would reduce the numbers covered by the scheme from 11 million to nine million. ‘It’s not doing a proper job when you fix the outcome of a review,’ reflects Cosgrove. A 2008 study by think tank Civitas called for regulation and vetting to be relaxed because the ‘dramatic escalation of child protection measures [had] succeeded in poisoning the relationship between the generations’. The report (Licensed To Hug) by the sociologist Frank Furedi described ‘an atmosphere of mistrust’. ‘From Girl Guiders to football coaches, from Christmas-time Santas to parents helping out in schools, volunteers - once regarded as pillars of the community - have been transformed in the regulatory and public imagination into potential child abusers, barred from any contact with children until the database gives them the green light.’ The backlash against the 2006 Act gathered pace when children’s authors Philip Pullman and Michael Morpurgo complained that it was ‘outrageous and demeaning’ that they should have to go through the £64 vetting checks before they could give readings in school. Sir Roger Singleton, chairman of the Independent Safeguarding Authority (ISA), also commented upon the distance travelled from apparent political consensus on the arrangements of the new scheme to disharmony over the implementation of the practical arrangements on Radio 4’s Today programme in September 2009. ‘I’m surprised that some of the concerns now being expressed were not raised by legislators at the time,’ he told John Humphrys. ‘Do we not have parliamentarians whose job is to scrutinise this legislation?’ Josie Appleton is director of the Manifesto Club, a group that campaigns for ‘freedom in everyday life’. ‘The vetting of adults in the name of child protection is out of control,’ the group argues; adding that the 2006 Act ‘institutionalises distrust’. ‘Running an after-school Findings In relation to the FoI requests sent to LEAs, we found: Teachers: • Total numbers of allegations: 6,107 • Total numbers of suspensions: 1,038 • Total numbers of dismissals: 496 All staff: • Total numbers of allegations: 2,941 • Total numbers of suspensions: 317 • Total numbers of dismissals: 370 In relation to the FoI request sent to the ISA: How many teachers have been referred to the ISA for physical or sexual abuse of a child in the years • 2008/2009: 163 (physical, 45; sexual, 118) • 2009/2010: 225 (physical, 41; sexual, 184) • 2010/2011: 228 (physical, 49; sexual, 179) Information from the ISA (from its annual report 2011/12) Number of people placed on ‘barred lists’ since October 2009 and still on the lists at 31 March 2012 • ISA’s children’s list: 46,557 • ISA’s adults list: 43,249 • Total across both lists: 48,485 • This includes information from England, Wales and Northern Ireland lists. 2011/12 statistics • Number of referrals received and processed: 6,222 • Number of automatic bars: 11,618 • Number of discretionary bars: 467 The ISA does not comment upon cases that have been dealt with by its internal disciplinary process. ‘The important consequence of any referral sent to the ISA is that we reach a fair and proportionate decision based on all the available and relevant information. Given the serious implications of a barring decision, the number of people barred will be significantly lower than the number referred to the ISA,’ a spokesman said.
  • 6. Safe from harm? | 10 years after Soham | Page 11Safe from harm? | 10 years after Soham | Page 10 they said. The group’s key outstanding concern was the exclusion of ‘supervised’ work from regulated activity. They argued that supervised employees and volunteers are still able to develop relationships with children which could be exploited (‘... for example, a volunteer teaching assistant in a classroom of 30 children, with only light-touch supervision by the classroom teacher...’). The idea of supervision adds ‘another layer of complication which is not particularly helpful’, reflects the NSPCC’s Colin Reid. ‘Trying to work out who is supervised and who is not supervised becomes very complicated and this was subject to considerable debate in parliament at the time the Protection of Freedoms Bill was passed. Our view now is that we would suggest to employers that for supervised roles, while there is no requirement for a check, the legislation does allow employers to do one with the caveat that the enhanced disclosure will not include barred list information.’ If employers choose to perform a CRB check on someone working with children, but outside of regulated activity, they will not be able to see if that person is barred. ‘In some 20% of cases where people are barred by the ISA they do not involve police information and so the employer might not know if they are barred because they are not engaged in “regulated activity”,’ says Reid; adding that the government has brought into place various mechanisms to ensure that the ISA share with the police barring information to prevent this happening. Reid points out that ministers made a significant concession in bringing back further education and work with 16 and 17 year olds into the scope of ‘regulated activity’. Such concerns are echoed by Jan Cosgrove, of Fair Play for Children. ‘The worst part of the scheme is that extent to which it has been scaled back. The biggest worry for us is the confusion and ambiguity caused over whether a person is deemed to be “supervised” and that then the fact of them being barred will not be revealed to the employer on the CRB certificate. What is the point of a barring scheme if somebody who is working with children and is barred is able to work with children because the employer is not told? What does “supervision” mean? How do you monitor it?’ A spokesman for the ISA says that it is ‘anticipated that current volumes of referrals and barring decisions made by the ISA will be maintained’. ‘This is because the new definition of regulated activity focuses on those roles within the workforce considered to represent the highest risk and it is those roles that currently generate the majority of referrals,’ he says. Another point raised by the child welfare groups was that the new Act would mean that people would only be placed on the barring list if the ISA has reason to believe that they are, have been, or might in the future work in ‘regulated activity’. ‘We believe if adults are convicted of an offence that is sufficient for bar, then there is no reason why they should not be automatically placed on the barring list, as presently happens,’ they added. By contrast, Josie Appleton of the Manifesto Club welcomes the new Act as ‘a very significant step’ insofar as it scraps the requirement for people to register with the ISA. However, she adds: ‘It has left in place the whole concept of “regulated activity” and therefore the legal obligation to have a CRB check if you do certain work with children’. ‘The main issue for me is the changing role of CRB checks to what they were 15 years ago – they were at level of 400,000 a year in 1988 and now there are four million a year. There has been a shift from CRB checking for certain child professionals to checking people according to the degree of the intensity of the contact with children and in very informal settings.’ Such as the parent who ‘pitches in’ to assist with your child’s local football team. ‘You wouldn’t think you would need government clearance. It’s your own child, his friends and everyone knows everybody else,’ she adds. club is now subject to more stringent security tests than selling explosives,’ it claims. Appleton points out that many of the people who still regularly contact them to complain about the worst excesses of the vetting regime are parents ‘mainly mothers – who are the least likely child abusers statistically speaking’. ‘Essentially, the majority of the checks are for people who are low risk. To me it is a concern for civil liberties reasons and also for community and civil society reasons. Plus, in terms of social work and child protection, it’s simply a bad use of resources. We reckon there have been some 32 million checks over 10 years costing £1.5 billion. Every time you check a grandmother that is cost – a cost to the police, to the organisation, and a cost to her.’ A real evidence base The NSPCC is in no doubt that the statutory response to Soham through the introduction of the Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Act 2006 has had a tangible and positive impact. ‘We always took the view that vetting and barring was only one aspect of good practice – alongside, child protection policies and good recruitment practices - and one shouldn’t over-rely on any aspect of it,’ comments Colin Reid, policy and public affairs manager at the NSPCC Northern Ireland. ‘But vetting does play a significant part in the protection of children today. The CRB has already screened out a lot of unsuitable people. There is a real evidence base for having this type of regime.’ Reid offers a more qualified response to the 2012 legislation. ‘What happened after Soham was that we ended up with two schemes - criminal records disclosure and an ISA registration scheme,’ he continues. ‘The positive thing about the government’s reforms is that it will introduce one certificate that, by and large, will be portable within sectors. That makes a lot of sense to NSPCC.’ A relationship of trust In a recent interview ahead of the 10th anniversary of the murders and after the implementation of the Protection of Freedoms Act, Sir Michael Bichard warned policymakers that the balance between protecting children and not putting off volunteers from helping out at schools, sports clubs and Scout groups, was a delicate one. His view was that New Labour’s vetting system was ‘not proportionate’. ‘Some of us felt, and I felt quite strongly on this, that Labour’s rules had gone too far. It’s always a question of balance. I think the Labour regime was covering too many people. It was too bureaucratic and excessively complex,’ he told the Cambridge Evening News (August 3, 2012). However Bichard went on to say: ‘You have to be careful it does not swing too far the other way.’ In particular, he was worried by the government’s plans not to require vetting for adults working with children where activities are ‘supervised’. ‘My concern is that you can be supervised and still develop a relationship of trust with a child, which can then be exploited. It may not happen during the supervised activities but it could happen through the internet or away from school, the youth club or wherever.’ Supervision The NSPCC was part of a broad coalition of groups concerned with children’s welfare (comprising Action for Children, Ambitious about Autism, the Children’s Commissioner, Children England, the Children’s Society, ECPAT UK, Sport and Recreation Alliance and the Scouts). In a briefing prepared for the third reading of the Protection of Freedoms Bill, the groups welcomed the introduction of ‘a simpler and streamlined vetting and disclosure system’ but listed a number of significant concerns. For example, a major issue related to the definition of ‘regulated activity’ which, they argued, did not cover some groups of people who have frequent and close contact with children. ‘This creates risks for children. Those who seek to harm children can be predatory and manipulative,’
  • 7. Safe from harm? | 10 years after Soham | Page 13Safe from harm? | 10 years after Soham | Page 12 Checks can and do save lives ‘There is a lot of incorrect information in the press about vetting which can be really unhelpful,’ the NSPCC’s Colin Reid says; referring to a recent story in the Sunday Mirror (September 30, 2012) claiming that a school in Swindon had ‘stopped parents from watching their children take part in sports unless they are cleared by a police CRB check’ (Furious dad Neil Park, 54, fell foul of the policy when he was turned away from watching his son George, 12, play rugby. He said: ‘What are they going to stop you going to next? Parents’ evening?’). ‘CRB checks protect children and can, and do, save lives,’ comments Jon Brown, sexual abuse lead for the NSPCC. ‘But they were never intended to be used for one-off events such as parents attending sporting competitions and the NSPCC would never support their use is this way. In fact, schools doing this may find they are actually breaking the law. Of course there is always some risk, however small, but that risk has to be put into perspective and the response must always be proportionate. The NSPCC believes that putting parents off attending their own child’s sporting events will do more harm than good by spoiling a fun day out for children and parents alike.’ Why do these stories persist? Is it a misunderstanding at a local level or a determination on the part of the media to misunderstand? ‘It’s a combination of all those things. You cannot vet everyone, you have to have sensible thresholds and there are already exemptions in both the 2006 Act and the amendments brought in by government. If, for example, you go to school to run a one-off Halloween disco you do not meet the “frequency” conditions then you do not need a CRB check,’ says Brown. The idea of the ‘frequency’ test in the 2006 Act is to allow sensible flexibility for organisations to allow for a stand-in ‘without being caught up in the red tape around vetting’. There are a number of qualifications under the 2006 Act that have been further amended and added to by the 2012 Act. Scaling back Unsurprisingly, employee representative groups and trade unions broadly welcome the scaling back of the scheme. Amanda Brown, assistant secretary (employment conditions and rights) at the National Union of Teachers also approves of the introduction of the procedure to complain about information held ‘rather than ending up in the Never-never land of bureaucracy’. ‘We see these as positive steps but we don’t think they go far enough to deal with the problems caused by the way that, for very good reasons, the procedures were tightened up over the last 10 years. Somewhere in that process things went off track. They became far too bureaucratic, losing sight of reasonableness.’ A key message from unions is the devastating impact on members’ lives who have become embroiled in complaints which are either unfair or malicious. ‘For a period of time they are almost outcasts in their community. Many leave the profession,’ says Brown. It is a point made by a legal spokesperson for a teaching union. ‘As a result of the Bichard inquiry and the implementation of the CRB regime, for the first time “soft information” could be disclosed - and so an individual can face an allegation, and even if that doesn’t go anywhere, they are effectively rendered unemployable,’ she says. ‘It’s very easy to make an allegation against a teacher, or carer, and that individual is tarnished by the allegation despite it not being prosecuted by the police or other prosecuting authorities.’ In her experience such allegations are often baseless and often with fairly traumatic consequences. ‘The Protection of Freedoms Act will raise the threshold slightly in relation to the hoops that the police have to pass before they disclose information to prospective employer. In my view it does not go far enough.’ The legislation will repeal powers under the Police Act 1997 enabling the police to provide ‘additional information’ (or ‘brown envelope’ material) in relation to enhanced CRB checks. The new Act is ‘one of the few things we welcome about Coalition policy’, comments Ben Thomas, national officer in education and children’s services with Unison. ‘Because of the scope of the system – originally covering 11 million workers – some of the natural justice was removed from the system. For example, you do not have the right to a personal hearing or the right to appeal against an ISA decision. We felt that was a breach of natural justice.’ Unison’s main objection though was to the £64 cost for individuals to pay for registration. ‘It had a particular impact on the low paid. It’s a transfer of what we say is a public service – child protection – to the employee and largely disproportionate in terms of risk. Most people who are subject to sexual abuse allegations are men, however, 98% of the early years workforce are women.’
  • 8. Safe from harm? | 10 years after Soham | Page 15Safe from harm? | 10 years after Soham | Page 14 Malcolm Underhill, Partner, IBB Solicitors It is clear that opinion is divided on the likely consequences of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. This is highlighted by the concern about whether individuals are “supervised”. I certainly believe under the most recent legislation there is a real risk that inappropriate individuals will continue to gain access to children, under the cloak of supervision.      With this protection paedophiles will be able to make initial contact within the protected environment, but then exploit the relationships in a different setting. These concerns have been articulated within the report, but deserve a louder voice. I hope the publicity surrounding the activities of Jimmy Savile will prompt the Government to do much more work in this area. We need to understand the extent of abuse across all institutions, not just schools. Only with a frank debate can society have confidence in the recommendations of any further inquiry. I also hope that in respect of any further work the Government does in this area, they will allocate sufficient resources to the impact of abuse on children. At present the debate is, possibly, too focused on the abusers and the organisations they work in, without sufficient support given to the victims, particularly when such abuse can cause long term suffering. APPENDIX 1: FREEDOM OF INFORMATION REQUESTS - QUESTIONS 1. How many allegations of physical or sexual abuse have been made against nursery, primary and secondary school teaching staff in your LEA the last three complete academic years (i.e. 2008/9, 2009/10 and 2010/11)? 2. How many of those identified in question one have been suspended and/or dismissed as a result of those allegations? 3. How many of those identified in question one have remained employed at the establishment they were working at, at the time of the allegation, or remain employed at other educational establishments within your LEA? 4. How many allegations of physical or sexual abuse have been made against employees at nursery, primary and secondary schools, without Qualified Teacher Status in your LEA the last three complete academic years (i.e. 2008/9, 2009/10 and 2010/11)? 5. How many of those identified in question four have been suspended and/or dismissed as a result of those allegations? 6. How many of those identified in question four have remained employed at the establishment they were working at, at the time, of the allegation, or remain engaged or employed at other educational establishments within your LEA? Conclusion Appendix.....
  • 9. Safe from harm? | 10 years after Soham | Page 17Safe from harm? | 10 years after Soham | Page 16 APPENDIX 2: FREEDOM OF INFORMATION REQUESTS - RESULTS Teachers Total numbers of allegations: 6,107 Total numbers of suspensions: 1,038 Total numbers of dismissals: 496 All staff Total numbers of allegations: 2,941 Total numbers of suspensions: 317 Total numbers of dismissals: 370 Teachers  Allegations 2008/2009: 1846 2009/2010: 2154 2010/2011: 2107 Suspensions 2008/2009: 273 2009/2010: 346 2010/2011: 419 Dismissals: 2008/2009: 81 2009/2010: 224 2010/2011: 191 All Staff Allegations: 2008/2009: 829 2009/2010: 1035 2010/2011: 1077 Suspensions: 2008/2009: 92 2009/2010: 129 2010/2011: 96 Dismissals 2008/2009: 103 2009/2010: 151 2010/2011: 116 FREEDOM OF INFORMATION REQUEST TO THE INDEPENDENT SAFEGUARDING AUTHORITY How many teachers have been referred to the ISA for physical or sexual abuse of a child in the years 2008/2009: 163 (physical, 45; sexual, 118) 2009/2010:225 (physical, 41; sexual, 184) 2010/2011:228 (physical, 49; sexual, 179) APPENDIX 3: LOCAL EDUCATION AUTHORITIES WHO DID NOT RESPOND County/Borough Population Size Region 1 Barnet 356,000 London 2 City of London 7,400 London 3 Enfield 312,500 London 4 Hackney 246,300 London 5 Harrow 239,100 London 6 Hounslow 254,000 London 7 Bournemouth 183,500 South West 8 Cornwall 532,300 South West 9 Council of the Isles of Scilly 2,200 South West 10 Swindon 209,200 South West 11 Hampshire County Council 1,296,800 South East 12 Isle of Wight 140,500 South East 13 Reading 155,700 South East 14 Southend-on-Sea 173,600 East 15 Birmingham 1,073,000 West Midlands 16 Staffordshire County Council 318,800 West Midlands 17 Wolverhampton 249,500 West Midlands 18 Derby City 248,700 East Midlands 19 Leicester 329,900 East Midlands 20 Lincolnshire County 714,800 East Midlands 21 Northamptonshire County 687,300 East Midlands 22 Rutland County Council 37,400 East Midlands 23 Sheffield 552,700 Yorkshire & Humber 24 York County 198,000 Yorkshire & Humber 25 Blackburn with Darwen 147,500 North West 26 Manchester 503,100 North West 27 Rochdale 211,700 North West 28 St Helens 175,300 North West 29 Tameside 219,300 North West 30 Wigan 317,800 North West 31 Gateshead 200,200 North East 32 South Tyneside 148,100 North East 33 Sunderland 275,500 North East
  • 10. Safe from harm? | 10 years after Soham | Page 19Safe from harm? | 10 years after Soham | Page 18 County/Borough (Full Disclosure) (Full Disclosure) (Full Disclosure) (Full Disclosure) (Full Disclosure) (Full Disclosure) (Full Disclosure) (Full Disclosure) (Full Disclosure) (Full Disclosure) (Full Disclosure) (Full Disclosure) (Full Disclosure) (Full Disclosure) (Full Disclosure) (Full Disclosure) (Full Disclosure) (Full Disclosure) (Full Disclosure) (Full Disclosure) (Full Disclosure) QTS Non QTS Total QTS Non QTS QTS Non QTS Total Total Total QTS Non QTS Total QTS Non QTS QTS Non QTS Total QTS Non QTS Total Allegations Allegations Allegations Allegations Allegations Allegations Allegations Allegations Suspensions Suspensions Dismissals Dismissals Dismissals Dismissals Dismissals Dismissals Dismissals Dismissals Dismissals Dismissals Dismissals Total 2009 to 2011 Total 2009 to 2011 2009 to 2011 Proportion Proportion per 100,000 population per 100,000 population per 100,000 population Total 2009 to 2011 as Percentage of Allegations Total 2009 to 2011 Total 2009 to 2011 Total 2009 to 2011 Proportion Proportion per 100,000 population per 100,000 population per 100,000 population as Percentage of Allegations as Percentage of Total Allegations as Percentage of Total Allegations Bath North East Somerset Bexley Bracknell Forest Buckinghamshire Calderdale Cambridgeshire Cheshire West and Chester Coventry Darlington Derbyshire Devon Doncaster Dudley Durham East Riding East Sussex Greenwich Hartlepool Havering Herefordshire Hull Islington Kingston Lancashire Leicester Lewisham Liverpool Merton Middlesbrough Newham Norfolk North Lincs North Somerset North Yorkshire Northumberland Oldham Plymouth Poole Portsmouth Redcar & Cleveland Sefton Shorpshire Solihull South Glos Stockton Suffolk Sutton Tower Hamlets Walsall Warrington West Berkshire Windsor and Maidenhead Total 35 3 38 92 8 19.9 1.7 22 0 0 6 0 6 100 0 3.4 0.0 3.4 17 0 9 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 7 5 12 58 42 6.2 4.4 11 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 132 72 204 65 35 26.1 14.2 40 46 23 0 20 20 0 100 0.0 4.0 4.0 0 28 14 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 139 51 190 73 27 112.2 41.2 153 67 35 0 11 11 0 100 0.0 8.9 8.9 0 22 11 5 4 9 56 44 1.5 1.2 3 1 13 0 3 3 0 100 0.0 0.9 0.9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 9 3 12 75 25 8.5 2.8 11 4 32 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 23 18 41 56 44 32.3 25.3 58 50 123 10 0 10 100 0 14.1 0.0 14.1 43 0 22 13 8 21 62 38 1.1 0.7 2 11 51 2 2 4 50 50 0.2 0.2 0.3 15 25 20 6 6 12 50 50 2.0 2.0 4 7 58 1 4 5 20 80 0.3 1.3 1.7 17 67 42 42 16 58 72 28 13.4 5.1 19 10 17 0 9 9 0 100 0.0 2.9 2.9 0 56 28 131 41 172 76 24 25.5 8.0 34 48 28 10 7 17 59 41 1.9 1.4 3.3 8 17 12 45 18 63 71 29 13.5 5.4 19 30 48 6 7 13 46 54 1.8 2.1 3.9 13 39 26 12 19 31 39 61 2.3 3.6 6 9 28 0 6 6 0 100 0.0 1.1 1.1 0 32 16 13 8 21 62 38 5.3 3.3 9 18 87 1 1 2 50 50 0.4 0.4 0.8 8 13 10 3 1 4 75 25 3.3 1.1 4 1 27 0 1 1 0 100 0.0 1.1 1.1 0 0 0 34 18 52 65 35 14.3 7.6 22 13 24 0 5 5 0 100 0.0 2.1 2.1 0 28 14 59 0 59 100 0 32.2 0.0 32 0 0 5 0 5 100 0 2.7 0.0 2.7 8 0 4 3 3 6 50 50 1.1 1.1 2 7 119 1 1 2 50 50 0.4 0.4 0.8 33 33 33 21 11 32 66 34 10.2 5.3 16 5 17 2 2 4 50 50 1.0 1.0 1.9 10 18 14 7 6 13 54 46 4.8 4.1 9 6 47 0 2 2 0 100 0.0 1.4 1.4 0 33 17 15 479 494 3 97 1.3 40.9 42 133 27 1 64 65 2 98 0.1 5.5 5.5 7 13 10 51 48 99 52 48 15.5 14.5 30 20 20 0 9 9 0 100 0.0 2.7 2.7 0 19 9 13 17 30 43 57 4.7 6.2 11 14 47 0 9 9 0 100 0.0 3.3 3.3 0 53 26 41 10 51 80 20 8.8 2.1 11 13 26 0 7 7 0 100 0.0 1.5 1.5 0 70 35 0 2 2 0 100 0.0 1.0 1 1 50 0 2 2 0 100 0.0 1.0 1.0 0 0 0 54 22 76 71 29 39.0 15.9 55 18 24 8 4 12 67 33 5.8 2.9 8.7 15 18 16 74 48 122 61 39 25.0 16.2 41 0 0 1 8 9 11 89 0.3 2.7 3.0 1 17 9 251 169 420 60 40 111.3 74.9 186 102 24 6 1 7 86 14 2.7 0.4 3.1 2 1 1 6 13 19 32 68 3.6 7.8 11 10 51 0 5 5 0 100 0.0 3.0 3.0 0 38 19 34 1 35 97 3 16.8 0.5 17 3 10 7 1 8 88 13 3.5 0.5 3.9 21 100 60 97 100 197 49 51 16.2 16.7 33 40 20 0 26 26 0 100 0.0 4.3 4.3 0 26 13 33 5 38 87 13 10.4 1.6 12 5 12 0 1 1 0 100 0.0 0.3 0.3 0 20 10 25 9 34 74 26 11.1 4.0 15 7 21 0 1 1 0 100 0.0 0.4 0.4 0 11 6 47 34 81 58 42 18.3 13.3 32 29 36 2 5 7 29 71 0.8 2.0 2.7 4 15 9 4 2 6 67 33 2.7 1.4 4 3 56 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 14 8 22 64 36 6.8 3.9 11 16 72 0 4 4 0 100 0.0 2.0 2.0 0 50 25 3 3 6 50 50 2.2 2.2 4 6 104 1 0 1 100 0 0.7 0.0 0.7 33 0 17 31 21 52 60 40 11.3 7.7 19 35 67 0 1 1 0 100 0.0 0.4 0.4 0 5 2 7 2 9 78 22 2.3 0.7 3 6 63 1 1 2 50 50 0.3 0.3 0.7 14 50 32 38 22 60 63 37 18.4 10.6 29 30 49 0 11 11 0 100 0.0 5.3 5.3 0 50 25 12 3 15 80 20 4.6 1.1 6 6 41 2 0 2 100 0 0.8 0.0 0.8 17 0 8 10 14 24 42 58 5.2 7.3 13 14 60 0 2 2 0 100 0.0 1.0 1.0 0 14 7 42 16 58 72 28 5.8 2.2 8 18 31 8 2 10 80 20 1.1 0.3 1.4 19 13 16 5 7 12 42 58 2.6 3.7 6 7 56 0 6 6 0 100 0.0 3.2 3.2 0 86 43 92 44 136 68 32 36.4 17.4 54 42 31 3 4 7 43 57 1.2 1.6 2.8 3 9 6 2 1 3 67 33 0.7 0.4 1 1 46 0 1 1 0 100 0.0 0.4 0.4 0 100 50 10 15 25 40 60 4.9 7.4 12 13 54 0 7 7 0 100 0.0 3.5 3.5 0 47 23 7 1 8 88 13 4.6 0.7 5 8 96 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 30 14 44 68 32 20.7 9.7 30 16 36 0 7 7 0 100 0.0 4.8 4.8 0 50 25 1787 1441 3228 55 45 747 430 1177 950 29 84 270 354 24 76 43 82 126 0 19 9
  • 11. Safe from harm? | 10 years after Soham | Page 21Safe from harm? | 10 years after Soham | Page 20 0 100 200 300 400 500 Bath North East Somerset Bexley Bracknell Forest Buckinghamshire Calderdale Cambridgeshire Cheshire West and Chester Coventry Darlington Derbyshire Devon Doncaster Dudley Durham East Riding East Sussex Greenwich Hartlepool Havering Herefordshire Hull Islington Kingston Lancashire Leicester Lewisham Liverpool Merton Middlesbrough Newham Norfolk North Lincs North Somerset North Yorkshire Northumberland Oldham Plymouth Poole Portsmouth Redcar & Cleveland Sefton Shorpshire Solihull South Glos Stockton Suffolk Sutton Tower Hamlets Walsall Warrington West Berkshire Windsor and Maidenhead (Full Disclosure) QTS Allegations 2009 to 2011 0 125 250 375 500 Bath North East Somerset Bexley Bracknell Forest Buckinghamshire Calderdale Cambridgeshire Cheshire West and Chester Coventry Darlington Derbyshire Devon Doncaster Dudley Durham East Riding East Sussex Greenwich Hartlepool Havering Herefordshire Hull Islington Kingston Lancashire Leicester Lewisham Liverpool Merton Middlesbrough Newham Norfolk North Lincs North Somerset North Yorkshire Northumberland Oldham Plymouth Poole Portsmouth Redcar & Cleveland Sefton Shorpshire Solihull South Glos Stockton Suffolk Sutton Tower Hamlets Walsall Warrington West Berkshire Windsor and Maidenhead (Full Disclosure) Non QTS Allegations 2009 to 2011
  • 12. Safe from harm? | 10 years after Soham | Page 23Safe from harm? | 10 years after Soham | Page 22 0 25 50 75 100 Bath North East Somerset Bexley Bracknell Forest Buckinghamshire Calderdale Cambridgeshire Cheshire West and Chester Coventry Darlington Derbyshire Devon Doncaster Dudley Durham East Riding East Sussex Greenwich Hartlepool Havering Herefordshire Hull Islington Kingston Lancashire Leicester Lewisham Liverpool Merton Middlesbrough Newham Norfolk North Lincs North Somerset North Yorkshire Northumberland Oldham Plymouth Poole Portsmouth Redcar & Cleveland Sefton Shorpshire Solihull South Glos Stockton Suffolk Sutton Tower Hamlets Walsall Warrington West Berkshire Windsor and Maidenhead (Full Disclosure) Total Allegations 2009 to 2011 0 50 100 150 200 Bath North East Somerset Bexley Bracknell Forest Buckinghamshire Calderdale Cambridgeshire Cheshire West and Chester Coventry Darlington Derbyshire Devon Doncaster Dudley Durham East Riding East Sussex Greenwich Hartlepool Havering Herefordshire Hull Islington Kingston Lancashire Leicester Lewisham Liverpool Merton Middlesbrough Newham Norfolk North Lincs North Somerset North Yorkshire Northumberland Oldham Plymouth Poole Portsmouth Redcar & Cleveland Sefton Shorpshire Solihull South Glos Stockton Suffolk Sutton Tower Hamlets Walsall Warrington West Berkshire Windsor and Maidenhead (Full Disclosure) QTS Allegations per 100,000 population
  • 13. Safe from harm? | 10 years after Soham | Page 25Safe from harm? | 10 years after Soham | Page 24 0 50 100 150 200 Bath North East Somerset Bexley Bracknell Forest Buckinghamshire Calderdale Cambridgeshire Cheshire West and Chester Coventry Darlington Derbyshire Devon Doncaster Dudley Durham East Riding East Sussex Greenwich Hartlepool Havering Herefordshire Hull Islington Kingston Lancashire Leicester Lewisham Liverpool Merton Middlesbrough Newham Norfolk North Lincs North Somerset North Yorkshire Northumberland Oldham Plymouth Poole Portsmouth Redcar & Cleveland Sefton Shorpshire Solihull South Glos Stockton Suffolk Sutton Tower Hamlets Walsall Warrington West Berkshire Windsor and Maidenhead (Full Disclosure) Non QTS Allegations per 100,000 population 0 50 100 150 200 Bath North East Somerset Bexley Bracknell Forest Buckinghamshire Calderdale Cambridgeshire Cheshire West and Chester Coventry Darlington Derbyshire Devon Doncaster Dudley Durham East Riding East Sussex Greenwich Hartlepool Havering Herefordshire Hull Islington Kingston Lancashire Leicester Lewisham Liverpool Merton Middlesbrough Newham Norfolk North Lincs North Somerset North Yorkshire Northumberland Oldham Plymouth Poole Portsmouth Redcar & Cleveland Sefton Shorpshire Solihull South Glos Stockton Suffolk Sutton Tower Hamlets Walsall Warrington West Berkshire Windsor and Maidenhead Chart (Full Disclosure) Total Allegations per 100,000 population
  • 14. Safe from harm? | 10 years after Soham | Page 27Safe from harm? | 10 years after Soham | Page 26 0 50 100 150 200 Bath North East Somerset Bexley Bracknell Forest Buckinghamshire Calderdale Cambridgeshire Cheshire West and Chester Coventry Darlington Derbyshire Devon Doncaster Dudley Durham East Riding East Sussex Greenwich Hartlepool Havering Herefordshire Hull Islington Kingston Lancashire Leicester Lewisham Liverpool Merton Middlesbrough Newham Norfolk North Lincs North Somerset North Yorkshire Northumberland Oldham Plymouth Poole Portsmouth Redcar & Cleveland Sefton Shorpshire Solihull South Glos Stockton Suffolk Sutton Tower Hamlets Walsall Warrington West Berkshire Windsor and Maidenhead (Full Disclosure) Non QTS Allegations per 100,000 population 0 50 100 150 200 Bath North East Somerset Bexley Bracknell Forest Buckinghamshire Calderdale Cambridgeshire Cheshire West and Chester Coventry Darlington Derbyshire Devon Doncaster Dudley Durham East Riding East Sussex Greenwich Hartlepool Havering Herefordshire Hull Islington Kingston Lancashire Leicester Lewisham Liverpool Merton Middlesbrough Newham Norfolk North Lincs North Somerset North Yorkshire Northumberland Oldham Plymouth Poole Portsmouth Redcar & Cleveland Sefton Shorpshire Solihull South Glos Stockton Suffolk Sutton Tower Hamlets Walsall Warrington West Berkshire Windsor and Maidenhead Chart (Full Disclosure) Total Allegations per 100,000 population 0 38 75 113 150 Bath North East Somerset Bexley Bracknell Forest Buckinghamshire Calderdale Cambridgeshire Cheshire West and Chester Coventry Darlington Derbyshire Devon Doncaster Dudley Durham East Riding East Sussex Greenwich Hartlepool Havering Herefordshire Hull Islington Kingston Lancashire Leicester Lewisham Liverpool Merton Middlesbrough Newham Norfolk North Lincs North Somerset North Yorkshire Northumberland Oldham Plymouth Poole Portsmouth Redcar & Cleveland Sefton Shorpshire Solihull South Glos Stockton Suffolk Sutton Tower Hamlets Walsall Warrington West Berkshire Windsor and Maidenhead (Full Disclosure) Total Suspensions Total 2009 to 2011 0 25 50 75 100 125 150 Bath North East Somerset Bexley Bracknell Forest Buckinghamshire Calderdale Cambridgeshire Cheshire West and Chester Coventry Darlington Derbyshire Devon Doncaster Dudley Durham East Riding East Sussex Greenwich Hartlepool Havering Herefordshire Hull Islington Kingston Lancashire Leicester Lewisham Liverpool Merton Middlesbrough Newham Norfolk North Lincs North Somerset North Yorkshire Northumberland Oldham Plymouth Poole Portsmouth Redcar & Cleveland Sefton Shorpshire Solihull South Glos Stockton Suffolk Sutton Tower Hamlets Walsall Warrington West Berkshire Windsor and Maidenhead (Full Disclosure) Total Suspensions as Percentage of Allegations
  • 15. Safe from harm? | 10 years after Soham | Page 29Safe from harm? | 10 years after Soham | Page 28 0 50 100 150 200 Bath North East Somerset Bexley Bracknell Forest Buckinghamshire Calderdale Cambridgeshire Cheshire West and Chester Coventry Darlington Derbyshire Devon Doncaster Dudley Durham East Riding East Sussex Greenwich Hartlepool Havering Herefordshire Hull Islington Kingston Lancashire Leicester Lewisham Liverpool Merton Middlesbrough Newham Norfolk North Lincs North Somerset North Yorkshire Northumberland Oldham Plymouth Poole Portsmouth Redcar & Cleveland Sefton Shorpshire Solihull South Glos Stockton Suffolk Sutton Tower Hamlets Walsall Warrington West Berkshire Windsor and Maidenhead (Full Disclosure) Non QTS Allegations per 100,000 population 0 50 100 150 200 Bath North East Somerset Bexley Bracknell Forest Buckinghamshire Calderdale Cambridgeshire Cheshire West and Chester Coventry Darlington Derbyshire Devon Doncaster Dudley Durham East Riding East Sussex Greenwich Hartlepool Havering Herefordshire Hull Islington Kingston Lancashire Leicester Lewisham Liverpool Merton Middlesbrough Newham Norfolk North Lincs North Somerset North Yorkshire Northumberland Oldham Plymouth Poole Portsmouth Redcar & Cleveland Sefton Shorpshire Solihull South Glos Stockton Suffolk Sutton Tower Hamlets Walsall Warrington West Berkshire Windsor and Maidenhead Chart (Full Disclosure) Total Allegations per 100,000 population 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 Bath North East Somerset Bexley Bracknell Forest Buckinghamshire Calderdale Cambridgeshire Cheshire West and Chester Coventry Darlington Derbyshire Devon Doncaster Dudley Durham East Riding East Sussex Greenwich Hartlepool Havering Herefordshire Hull Islington Kingston Lancashire Leicester Lewisham Liverpool Merton Middlesbrough Newham Norfolk North Lincs North Somerset North Yorkshire Northumberland Oldham Plymouth Poole Portsmouth Redcar & Cleveland Sefton Shorpshire Solihull South Glos Stockton Suffolk Sutton Tower Hamlets Walsall Warrington West Berkshire Windsor and Maidenhead (Full Disclosure) QTS Dismissals Total 2009 to 2011 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 Bath North East Somerset Bexley Bracknell Forest Buckinghamshire Calderdale Cambridgeshire Cheshire West and Chester Coventry Darlington Derbyshire Devon Doncaster Dudley Durham East Riding East Sussex Greenwich Hartlepool Havering Herefordshire Hull Islington Kingston Lancashire Leicester Lewisham Liverpool Merton Middlesbrough Newham Norfolk North Lincs North Somerset North Yorkshire Northumberland Oldham Plymouth Poole Portsmouth Redcar & Cleveland Sefton Shorpshire Solihull South Glos Stockton Suffolk Sutton Tower Hamlets Walsall Warrington West Berkshire Windsor and Maidenhead (Full Disclosure) Non QTS Dismissals Total 2009 to 2011
  • 16. Safe from harm? | 10 years after Soham | Page 31Safe from harm? | 10 years after Soham | Page 30 0 50 100 150 200 Bath North East Somerset Bexley Bracknell Forest Buckinghamshire Calderdale Cambridgeshire Cheshire West and Chester Coventry Darlington Derbyshire Devon Doncaster Dudley Durham East Riding East Sussex Greenwich Hartlepool Havering Herefordshire Hull Islington Kingston Lancashire Leicester Lewisham Liverpool Merton Middlesbrough Newham Norfolk North Lincs North Somerset North Yorkshire Northumberland Oldham Plymouth Poole Portsmouth Redcar & Cleveland Sefton Shorpshire Solihull South Glos Stockton Suffolk Sutton Tower Hamlets Walsall Warrington West Berkshire Windsor and Maidenhead (Full Disclosure) Non QTS Allegations per 100,000 population 0 50 100 150 200 Bath North East Somerset Bexley Bracknell Forest Buckinghamshire Calderdale Cambridgeshire Cheshire West and Chester Coventry Darlington Derbyshire Devon Doncaster Dudley Durham East Riding East Sussex Greenwich Hartlepool Havering Herefordshire Hull Islington Kingston Lancashire Leicester Lewisham Liverpool Merton Middlesbrough Newham Norfolk North Lincs North Somerset North Yorkshire Northumberland Oldham Plymouth Poole Portsmouth Redcar & Cleveland Sefton Shorpshire Solihull South Glos Stockton Suffolk Sutton Tower Hamlets Walsall Warrington West Berkshire Windsor and Maidenhead Chart (Full Disclosure) Total Allegations per 100,000 population 70 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 Bath North East Somerset Bexley Bracknell Forest Buckinghamshire Calderdale Cambridgeshire Cheshire West and Chester Coventry Darlington Derbyshire Devon Doncaster Dudley Durham East Riding East Sussex Greenwich Hartlepool Havering Herefordshire Hull Islington Kingston Lancashire Leicester Lewisham Liverpool Merton Middlesbrough Newham Norfolk North Lincs North Somerset North Yorkshire Northumberland Oldham Plymouth Poole Portsmouth Redcar & Cleveland Sefton Shorpshire Solihull South Glos Stockton Suffolk Sutton Tower Hamlets Walsall Warrington West Berkshire Windsor and Maidenhead (Full Disclosure) Total Dismissals Total 2009 to 2011 0 20 40 60 80 100 Bath North East Somerset Bexley Bracknell Forest Buckinghamshire Calderdale Cambridgeshire Cheshire West and Chester Coventry Darlington Derbyshire Devon Doncaster Dudley Durham East Riding East Sussex Greenwich Hartlepool Havering Herefordshire Hull Islington Kingston Lancashire Leicester Lewisham Liverpool Merton Middlesbrough Newham Norfolk North Lincs North Somerset North Yorkshire Northumberland Oldham Plymouth Poole Portsmouth Redcar & Cleveland Sefton Shorpshire Solihull South Glos Stockton Suffolk Sutton Tower Hamlets Walsall Warrington West Berkshire Windsor and Maidenhead (Full Disclosure) QTS Dismissals as Percentage of Allegations
  • 17. Safe from harm? | 10 years after Soham | Page 33Safe from harm? | 10 years after Soham | Page 32 0 50 100 150 200 Bath North East Somerset Bexley Bracknell Forest Buckinghamshire Calderdale Cambridgeshire Cheshire West and Chester Coventry Darlington Derbyshire Devon Doncaster Dudley Durham East Riding East Sussex Greenwich Hartlepool Havering Herefordshire Hull Islington Kingston Lancashire Leicester Lewisham Liverpool Merton Middlesbrough Newham Norfolk North Lincs North Somerset North Yorkshire Northumberland Oldham Plymouth Poole Portsmouth Redcar & Cleveland Sefton Shorpshire Solihull South Glos Stockton Suffolk Sutton Tower Hamlets Walsall Warrington West Berkshire Windsor and Maidenhead (Full Disclosure) Non QTS Allegations per 100,000 population 0 50 100 150 200 Bath North East Somerset Bexley Bracknell Forest Buckinghamshire Calderdale Cambridgeshire Cheshire West and Chester Coventry Darlington Derbyshire Devon Doncaster Dudley Durham East Riding East Sussex Greenwich Hartlepool Havering Herefordshire Hull Islington Kingston Lancashire Leicester Lewisham Liverpool Merton Middlesbrough Newham Norfolk North Lincs North Somerset North Yorkshire Northumberland Oldham Plymouth Poole Portsmouth Redcar & Cleveland Sefton Shorpshire Solihull South Glos Stockton Suffolk Sutton Tower Hamlets Walsall Warrington West Berkshire Windsor and Maidenhead Chart (Full Disclosure) Total Allegations per 100,000 population 0 20 40 60 80 100 Bath North East Somerset Bexley Bracknell Forest Buckinghamshire Calderdale Cambridgeshire Cheshire West and Chester Coventry Darlington Derbyshire Devon Doncaster Dudley Durham East Riding East Sussex Greenwich Hartlepool Havering Herefordshire Hull Islington Kingston Lancashire Leicester Lewisham Liverpool Merton Middlesbrough Newham Norfolk North Lincs North Somerset North Yorkshire Northumberland Oldham Plymouth Poole Portsmouth Redcar & Cleveland Sefton Shorpshire Solihull South Glos Stockton Suffolk Sutton Tower Hamlets Walsall Warrington West Berkshire Windsor and Maidenhead (Full Disclosure) Non QTS Dismissals Percentage of allegations dismissed 0 20 40 60 80 100 Bath North East Somerset Bexley Bracknell Forest Buckinghamshire Calderdale Cambridgeshire Cheshire West and Chester Coventry Darlington Derbyshire Devon Doncaster Dudley Durham East Riding East Sussex Greenwich Hartlepool Havering Herefordshire Hull Islington Kingston Lancashire Leicester Lewisham Liverpool Merton Middlesbrough Newham Norfolk North Lincs North Somerset North Yorkshire Northumberland Oldham Plymouth Poole Portsmouth Redcar & Cleveland Sefton Shorpshire Solihull South Glos Stockton Suffolk Sutton Tower Hamlets Walsall Warrington West Berkshire Windsor and Maidenhead (Full Disclosure) Total Dismissals as Percentage of Total Allegations
  • 18. Safe from harm? | 10 years after Soham | Page 35Safe from harm? | 10 years after Soham | Page 34 0 50 100 150 200 Bath North East Somerset Bexley Bracknell Forest Buckinghamshire Calderdale Cambridgeshire Cheshire West and Chester Coventry Darlington Derbyshire Devon Doncaster Dudley Durham East Riding East Sussex Greenwich Hartlepool Havering Herefordshire Hull Islington Kingston Lancashire Leicester Lewisham Liverpool Merton Middlesbrough Newham Norfolk North Lincs North Somerset North Yorkshire Northumberland Oldham Plymouth Poole Portsmouth Redcar & Cleveland Sefton Shorpshire Solihull South Glos Stockton Suffolk Sutton Tower Hamlets Walsall Warrington West Berkshire Windsor and Maidenhead (Full Disclosure) Non QTS Allegations per 100,000 population 0 50 100 150 200 Bath North East Somerset Bexley Bracknell Forest Buckinghamshire Calderdale Cambridgeshire Cheshire West and Chester Coventry Darlington Derbyshire Devon Doncaster Dudley Durham East Riding East Sussex Greenwich Hartlepool Havering Herefordshire Hull Islington Kingston Lancashire Leicester Lewisham Liverpool Merton Middlesbrough Newham Norfolk North Lincs North Somerset North Yorkshire Northumberland Oldham Plymouth Poole Portsmouth Redcar & Cleveland Sefton Shorpshire Solihull South Glos Stockton Suffolk Sutton Tower Hamlets Walsall Warrington West Berkshire Windsor and Maidenhead Chart (Full Disclosure) Total Allegations per 100,000 population 0 5 10 15 Bath North East Somerset Bexley Bracknell Forest Buckinghamshire Calderdale Cambridgeshire Cheshire West and Chester Coventry Darlington Derbyshire Devon Doncaster Dudley Durham East Riding East Sussex Greenwich Hartlepool Havering Herefordshire Hull Islington Kingston Lancashire Leicester Lewisham Liverpool Merton Middlesbrough Newham Norfolk North Lincs North Somerset North Yorkshire Northumberland Oldham Plymouth Poole Portsmouth Redcar & Cleveland Sefton Shorpshire Solihull South Glos Stockton Suffolk Sutton Tower Hamlets Walsall Warrington West Berkshire Windsor and Maidenhead (Full Disclosure) QTS Dismissals as Percentage of Allegations 0 5 10 15 Bath North East Somerset Bexley Bracknell Forest Buckinghamshire Calderdale Cambridgeshire Cheshire West and Chester Coventry Darlington Derbyshire Devon Doncaster Dudley Durham East Riding East Sussex Greenwich Hartlepool Havering Herefordshire Hull Islington Kingston Lancashire Leicester Lewisham Liverpool Merton Middlesbrough Newham Norfolk North Lincs North Somerset North Yorkshire Northumberland Oldham Plymouth Poole Portsmouth Redcar & Cleveland Sefton Shorpshire Solihull South Glos Stockton Suffolk Sutton Tower Hamlets Walsall Warrington West Berkshire Windsor and Maidenhead (Full Disclosure) Non QTS Dismissals Percentage of allegations dismissed
  • 19. Safe from harm? | 10 years after Soham | Page 37Safe from harm? | 10 years after Soham | Page 36 0 5 10 15 Bath North East Somerset Bexley Bracknell Forest Buckinghamshire Calderdale Cambridgeshire Cheshire West and Chester Coventry Darlington Derbyshire Devon Doncaster Dudley Durham East Riding East Sussex Greenwich Hartlepool Havering Herefordshire Hull Islington Kingston Lancashire Leicester Lewisham Liverpool Merton Middlesbrough Newham Norfolk North Lincs North Somerset North Yorkshire Northumberland Oldham Plymouth Poole Portsmouth Redcar & Cleveland Sefton Shorpshire Solihull South Glos Stockton Suffolk Sutton Tower Hamlets Walsall Warrington West Berkshire Windsor and Maidenhead (Full Disclosure) Total Dismissals as Percentage of Total Allegations
  • 20. Safe from harm? | 10 years after Soham | Page 39Safe from harm? | 10 years after Soham | Page 38 0 25 50 75 100 Bath North East Somerset Bexley Bracknell Forest Buckinghamshire Calderdale Cambridgeshire Cheshire West and Chester Coventry Darlington Derbyshire Devon Doncaster Dudley Durham East Riding East Sussex Greenwich Hartlepool Havering Herefordshire Hull Islington Kingston Lancashire Leicester Lewisham Liverpool Merton Middlesbrough Newham Norfolk North Lincs North Somerset North Yorkshire Northumberland Oldham Plymouth Poole Portsmouth Redcar & Cleveland Sefton Shorpshire Solihull South Glos Stockton Suffolk Sutton Tower Hamlets Walsall Warrington West Berkshire Windsor and Maidenhead Percentage of QTS vs non QTS alleged against 0 25 50 75 100 Bath North East Somerset Bexley Bracknell Forest Buckinghamshire Calderdale Cambridgeshire Cheshire West and Chester Coventry Darlington Derbyshire Devon Doncaster Dudley Durham East Riding East Sussex Greenwich Hartlepool Havering Herefordshire Hull Islington Kingston Lancashire Leicester Lewisham Liverpool Merton Middlesbrough Newham Norfolk North Lincs North Somerset North Yorkshire Northumberland Oldham Plymouth Poole Portsmouth Redcar & Cleveland Sefton Shorpshire Solihull South Glos Stockton Suffolk Sutton Tower Hamlets Walsall Warrington West Berkshire Windsor and Maidenhead Percentage of QTS vs non QTS dismissed
  • 21. Safe from harm? | 10 years after Soham | Page 41Safe from harm? | 10 years after Soham | Page 40 0 25 50 75 100 (Full Disclosure) QTS Allegations Proportion (Full Disclosure) Non QTS Allegations Proportion 0 25 50 75 100 (Full Disclosure) QTS Allegations Proportion (Full Disclosure) Non QTS Allegations Proportion 0 25 50 75 100 (Full Disclosure) QTS Dismissals Proportion (Full Disclosure) Non QTS Dismissals Proportion
  • 22. Safe from harm? | 10 years after Soham | Page 43Safe from harm? | 10 years after Soham | Page 42 Assumptions • Where a combined figure has been provided over a three year period, we have assumed equal incidence in each year • A figure <10 has been assumed to be an incidence of 5; <5 an incidence of 2 • Regional child demographics are taken from the ONS population tables published in 2012 relating to mid 2010. • These percentages have been used to estimate child populations in each LEA and calculate incidences per child population Key points Of the 119 local education authorities who responded only 52 (44%) held complete data to provide us with full information on teachers and those without QTS for the last three academic years. This includes those who combined figures for teachers and those without QTS and those who gave undefined responses. • 19 (16%) of the remaining 67 who responded did not disclose or hold any information at all. • 48 (40%) of the 119 LEAs provided us with incomplete data. The number of LEAs recording the number of teaching staff remaining is increasing: • In 2008/2009: 55 (46%) of the 119 LEAs who responded did not include the number of staff remaining. So 32 (27%) of the 119 LEAs who responded did include the number of staff remaining. • In 2009/2010: 54 (45%) of the 119 LEAs who responded did not include the number of staff remaining. So 33 (28%) of the 119 LEAs who responded did include the number of staff remaining. • In 2010/2011: 52 (44%) of the 119 LEAs who responded did not include the number of staff remaining. So 35 (29%) of the 119 LEAs who responded did include the number of staff remaining Of the 119 LEAs who responded 32 (27%) recorded the number of teaching staff remaining as a total figure for the three years. The number of LEAs recording the number of staff remaining without QTS is also increasing but there are still a greater number of LEAs who do not record any such data: • In 2008/2009: 62 (52%) of the 119 LEAs who responded were unable to provide us data for the number of staff remaining without QTS status. So 28 (24%) of the 119 LEAs who responded provided us with the number of staff without QTS status who remained. • In 2009/2010: 63 (53%) of the 119 LEAs who responded were unable to provide us with data for the number of staff remaining without QTS status. So 27 (23%) of the 119 LEAs who responded provided us with the number of staff without QTS status who remained. • In 2010/2011: 61 (51%) of the 119 LEAs who responded were unable to provide us with data for the number of staff remaining without QTS status. So 29 (24%) of the 119 LEAs who responded provided us with the number of staff without QTS status who remained. • Of the remaining 119 who responded 29 (24%) recorded the number of staff without QTS status remaining as a figure for the total of the three years. About IBB • IBB is recognised in the Legal 500 as a South East regional heavyweight. • The Personal Injury team are specialists in child abuse claims, head injury and spinal injury with a strong expertise in a whole range of personal injury and clinical negligence claims. The team acts for a whole spectrum of clients, those of all ages and backgrounds. • Malcolm Underhill is ranked in the top tier as a leader in his field by independent legal directory Chambers and Partners. • The firm has offices in Uxbridge and Chesham (Bucks). It is a full service law firm handling complex legal work for both businesses and individuals across four main practice areas — Real Estate, Corporate & Commercial, Private Client and Community Legal Services. • The private client office at Chesham offers a wide range of services to high net worth individuals, their families and businesses, including: family and matrimonial; residential conveyancing; wills, trusts and probate. About the author Jon Robins is director of the legal research company Jures, freelance journalist and author. He has been writing about the law for the national and specialist legal press for over 15 years. About Jures Jures is an independent research company dedicated to the legal services market which combines expertise from a number of different disciplines: journalism; research; PR and communications; as well as publishing in both traditional and new media. About the authors Appendix (Methodology).....
  • 23. Safe from harm? | 10 years after Soham | Page 45Safe from harm? | 10 years after Soham | Page 44 • Some of the highest suspension rates were in Hull (100% of 3 instances), Derbyshire (65.2%), Knowsley (96.9%), Kirkless (75%) and West Berkshire (85.7%). • Knowsley – 64 allegations, 62 suspended • Kirklees – 148 allegations, 111 suspended Knowsley and Kirklees also have the highest number of suspensions. • NB: Hull, Derbyshire, Brighton and West Berkshire had a lower number of allegations (e.g. Hull had 3 allegations and 3 dismissals). Regarding dismissals In addition to not recording the number of dismissals at all, many LEAs combine these figures with the numbers of suspensions (e.g. Dorset, Dudley and Cambridgeshire) The highest number of dismissals was in Kent (300). It should be noted that we have interpreted ‘substantiated’ allegations as dismissals as we assume that if an allegation of physical or sexual child abuse was found to be true that member of staff would have been dismissed instantly. The next highest was 21 in Gloucestershire. Kensington, North Somerset, Middlesbrough and South Gloucester had more dismissals than suspensions. The lowest dismissal rates (i.e. dismissals per allegations) were in Newham (1%), Norfolk (2%), Essex (3%), Tower Hamlets (3%), Bristol (4%) Hillingdon (4%), Plymouth (4%) Gloucestershire (7%) and Durham (8%): • Newham – 74 allegations, 1 dismissal • Norfolk – 251 allegations, 6 dismissals • Essex – 299 allegations, 9 dismissals (no data for 2010/2011) • Tower Hamlets – 92 allegations, 3 dismissals. • Bristol – 159 allegations, 6 dismissals • Hillingdon – 99 allegations, 4 dismissals • Plymouth – 47 allegations, 2 dismissals • Gloucestershire – 314 allegations, 21 dismissals • Durham – 131 allegations, 10 dismissals Allegations (across three years) The highest number of allegations against staff without QTS were found in North Yorkshire (100), Oxfordshire (101), Ealing (89), Norfolk (169), Buckinghamshire (72), Kirklees (193) and Surrey (157). In Kirklees, North Yorkshire, Surrey and Oxfordshire there were more allegations against staff without QTS than teachers. Headline Analysis on Global data • The UK child population (under 16) has been calculated as 6.59 million during mid 2010. • In total, 9,048 allegations were made, 1,355 suspensions and 866 dismissals. • 6,107 allegations were made against teaching staff, with 1,038 suspensions and 496 dismissals • Kent had the highest number of allegations for teaching staff (632) but did not record the number of suspensions or number of staff remaining in place. There were 300 dismissals and eight convictions amongst Kent teaching staff. It should be noted that we have interpreted ‘substantiated’ allegations as dismissals as we assumed that if an allegation of physical or sexual abuse was found to be true, then that member of staff would have been automatically dismissed. Kent did not record the number of dismissals or suspensions against those without QTS. The information Kent did provide showed there were 529 allegations against staff without QTS, this was also the highest number of allegations. • Gloucestershire had the next highest number of allegations against teaching staff (314) but held no data on those without QTS. Kirkless had the second highest number of allegations against those without QTS with 193 (as the 479 figure for Lancashire is combined data). • Only three LEAs had no allegations against teachers or those without QTS: Coventry, Calderdale and Bexley. In addition, Merton had no allegations against teaching staff and Halton had no allegations against those without QTS. • Norfolk, Surrey and Ealing had a high number of allegations against both teachers and those w/t QTS. (Norfolk – teachers: 251 , others 169; Surrey – teachers 183, others: 195; Ealing – teachers: 227, others: 89). • The majority of LEAs with a high number of allegations are in the south, suspension and dismissal rates (i.e. the number of suspensions and dismissals per allegations) are also generally lower in the south. • The overwhelming majority of authorities did not hold data for 2000/2001 or 2002/2003. More specifically: TEACHERS: Regarding allegations • Southampton, Luton, Salford and Redbridge do not record the number of allegations. Regarding suspensions • Examples of LEAs that did not record information on suspensions were: Richmond, Camden, Cumbria, Stoke, Barking, West Sussex, Barnsley and Torbay. This is quite surprising as some of these LEAs had a high number of allegations (e.g. Stoke: 115, West Sussex: 164, Cumbria: 100 and Barnsley: 83). The lowest suspension rates (i.e. suspensions per allegations) were: • Newcastle – 95 allegations, 3 suspensions • Kensington – 28 allegations, 1 suspension • North Somerset – 34 allegations, 3 suspensions • Norfolk – 251 allegations, 17 dismissals • Bristol - 159 allegations, 8 dismissals • Milton Keynes – 50 allegations, 1 dismissal.
  • 24. Safe from harm? | 10 years after Soham | Page 46 • Overall, 9.57% of allegations resulted in dismissal. • 63.84% of those suspended were dismissed. • Based on child population, there are 0.14% (0.09% teaching staff) incidences where an allegation is made. The highest incidence of this is in NE, SE & Y&H (0.17%) and the lowest is West Midlands (0.05%) • Total suspensions are 0.02% of child population, Y&H having the highest at 0.04%. • The highest suspension rate occurs in NW (27.74%), lowest suspension rates in SE, 6.41% • There has been an 19.02% increase in child abuse allegations between 2008 and 2011 • Suspensions have also increased in that time by 41.1% • Dismissals have increased from 184 in 2008 to 306 in 2011, an increase of 66.3% • The increase between 2008 and 2009 was even greater, a jump of 103.8% • 21.7% of all QTS allegations were made in the Lancashire LEA (639 of 2,941) • Norfolk has the highest allegations per child population at 0.99% over the 3 year period • 26.2% of allegations were made in South East LEAs, the SE child population makes up 20.5% of the English child population. • 414 dismissals were made in the South East region. 47.8% of all dismissals over the 3 year period • Kent had 300 dismissals in the period, 34.6% of all dismissals • The child population of Kent (under 16’s) makes up 4.22% of England’s total