26. No system can guarantee the eradication of child sexual abuse. There are measures that institutions, organisations and settings which work with or come into contact with children should take to help to create a protective environment for children. Key to this is vetting applicants to recruit the right people, putting effective child safeguarding policies and procedures in place, and providing appropriate training and monitoring to ensure those policies are understood and implemented.
27. The Inquiry has made many recommendations to improve protective measures. It has also identified several key areas in which increased professional regulation would improve child protection. Workforce regulation requires those who work with children to comply with professional standards of competence, ethics and integrity set by an independent regulatory body defined in legislation. Although certain workplaces are regulated to ensure adherence to appropriate standards, individuals working in those institutions are not necessarily subject to any form of workforce regulation.
28. Regulation of the education workforce varies considerably between England and Wales, but neither has a comprehensive system of regulation. For example, in Wales, registration with the Education Workforce Council is not compulsory for those who work in the independent (fee-paying) education sector and as a result those who are unregistered are not covered by its misconduct jurisdiction. In England, although there is professional regulation of those engaged in ‘teaching work’, there is no longer a system of registration for the education workforce. Disciplinary regulations do not apply to the approximately 500,000 teaching assistants and learning support staff as they are “subject to the direction and supervision of a qualified teacher or other person nominated by the head teacher”.
29. The government has announced an extension of the teacher misconduct regime in 2022, but it does not appear that this will address these issues or the Inquiry’s previous recommendations in March 2022 in The Residential Schools Investigation Report.
30. The Inquiry’s investigations regarding the sexual abuse of children looked after by local authorities highlighted sexual abuse of children in residential care by staff. There were also failures by staff to identify and act upon clear signs that children were being sexually abused and exploited by adults or other children, and failures to respond appropriately to allegations of abuse.
31. There have been a number of changes to local authority practice over time. While Ofsted will assess the fitness of a person to manage a children’s home, it is not a workforce regulator. It may deregister a children’s home, but it does not have any disciplinary function by which to regulate registered managers and hold them to professional standards of competence and conduct. There is also no system of registration for the approximately 35,000 workers in care roles in England. In Wales (as well as in Scotland and Northern Ireland), children’s social care workers must register with a regulatory body.
32. In April 2018, the Interim Report of the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse (the Interim Report) recommended the introduction of arrangements for the registration of staff working in care roles in residential care settings. In July 2021, the government agreed, in principle, that professional regulation of staff in children’s homes in England could provide an effective additional means of protecting children and that it would keep the recommendation under review. This response is inadequate. Workforce regulation is necessary in order to better protect children in residential settings, including those in secure children’s homes. The Inquiry therefore reiterates its recommendation that all staff working in care roles in children’s residential care settings, including secure children’s homes, are subject to registration with an independent regulatory body.
The Inquiry recommends (as originally stated in its Interim Report, dated April 2018) that the UK government introduces arrangements for the registration of staff working in care roles in children’s homes, including secure children’s homes.
Registration should be with an independent body charged with setting and maintaining standards of training, conduct and continuing professional development, and with the power to enforce these through fitness to practise procedures.
33. Children in custodial institutions are “very vulnerable children in a very dangerous place”.
34. In March 2019, the Inquiry’s Sexual Abuse of Children in Custodial Institutions: 2009–2017 Investigation Report highlighted concerns that the workforce in custodial institutions is unregulated and that staff lacked specialist training, skills and qualifications. A requirement was introduced in March 2022 that all staff working with children in the secure estate must undertake specialist training to gain qualifications for working with young people and children.
35. While this is welcome, it is unacceptable that there are still no sector-wide standards for those working with such a vulnerable cohort of children. A Youth Custody Service review in October 2019 proposed that it should develop a code of conduct for all adults in the youth custody sector, and that guidance and supervision should include professional conduct. This falls far short of professionalising the workforce through registration with an independent body, as recommended by the Inquiry in February 2019 in its Sexual Abuse of Children in Custodial Institutions Investigation Report.
36. In November 2021, the Ministry of Justice stated that it had reviewed evidence collected through a targeted consultation on professional registration, and was considering the issue. In May 2022, more than three years after the Inquiry’s recommendations regarding the children’s secure estate were published, the Inquiry was informed that the Ministry of Justice was considering the review and would subsequently publish a response to this recommendation. No timescale for the response has been provided.
37. A requirement for all staff with responsibility for the care of children in the secure estate to register with a regulatory body would improve the quality of care and the protection of highly vulnerable children. The Inquiry reiterates its recommendation regarding the professional registration of staff in roles responsible for the care of children in young offender institutions and secure training centres.
The Inquiry recommends (as originally stated in its Sexual Abuse of Children in Custodial Institutions: 2009–2017 Investigation Report, dated February 2019) that the UK government introduces arrangements for the professional registration of staff in roles responsible for the care of children in young offender institutions and secure training centres.
38. Another central aspect of protecting children is the use of safer recruitment procedures for those who come into contact with children, whether through paid or voluntary work. Throughout its investigations, the Inquiry encountered examples of poor recruitment practice, including failures to obtain the appropriate record checks, in many settings, including schools, local authorities and religious organisations. Often people classed as ‘volunteers’ were allowed open access to children without any vetting, as a result of which children were exposed to unnecessary risk of harm.
39. In February 2022, the Home Office announced that it had commissioned an independent review of the disclosure and barring regime to provide assurance on its effectiveness, to identify key issues of concern about the current regime, and to assess and advise on risks and opportunities. The review, which will include recommendations for improvement, is due to be completed by summer 2022. While this review may lead to significant and wide-ranging changes to the existing regime of disclosure and barring, the Inquiry has identified important deficiencies relating to the current system.
40. Obtaining the appropriate level of Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) check – a disclosure ‘certificate’ – is an important element of safer recruitment as it contains information about an individual’s criminal record. It is not, however, generally compulsory for employers to obtain a DBS check on a prospective employee and the regime is framed in terms of ‘eligibility’ for a particular level of check. The DBS issues four types of certificate (basic, standard, enhanced and enhanced with a barred list check), the extent of the check for each depending upon the role to be undertaken.
41. The DBS has the power to bar any person it considers to pose a risk of harm to children from undertaking ‘regulated activity’ with children in England, Wales and Northern Ireland.
42. The concept of ‘regulated activity’ was created and defined in the Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Act 2006. It has a complex definition, including specific activities, positions and certain work in specified establishments (such as schools) which involves frequent or close contact with children. Regulated activity does not mean, however, that the activity itself is regulated by any supervisory body or that the worker engaged in such activity is regulated by a professional regulatory body. Very many of those engaged in regulated activity with children are working in occupations that are not subject to workforce regulation.
43. Where certain work falls within the definition of regulated activity with children, staff or unsupervised volunteers are eligible for an enhanced certificate with a barred list check (which is not available as a standalone check). Increasingly, very little police intelligence is included on enhanced certificates. As it is the addition of this information which distinguishes the enhanced certificate from a standard certificate, this omission diminishes the value of enhanced certificates.
44. There are a number of circumstances in which a barred list check would clearly be desirable in order to protect children better but is not permitted under the current disclosure regime.
45. It is the employer’s responsibility to determine whether a role falls within the definition of regulated activity and to apply for the appropriate level of check, but the majority of queries received by the DBS from employers concern uncertainty about whether a role amounts to regulated activity. In 2012, the definition of regulated activity was narrowed to exclude those people with roles which are subject to “day to day supervision” by another person who is engaging in regulated activity. As a result, a role may involve a degree of close contact with children but may not fall within the statutory definition of regulated activity (such as volunteers supervised to a greater or lesser degree by a member of staff). Enhanced certificates together with barred list checks can only be requested by an organisation which is registered by the DBS as a regulated activity provider. This is a limitation on access to the children’s barred list, preventing for example self-employed people and those engaging their services from obtaining relevant checks.
46. All employers of adults who work with children (whether paid or voluntary) should be able to check whether applicants have been included on the children’s barred list, in order to help to ensure that children are kept safe from those who pose a risk of harm. The Inquiry therefore recommends its greater use.
The Inquiry recommends that the UK government enables any person engaging an individual to work or volunteer with children on a frequent basis to check whether or not they have been barred by the Disclosure and Barring Service from working with children. These arrangements should also apply where the role is undertaken on a supervised basis.
47. Employers have a legal duty to notify the DBS (known as making a ‘referral’) when they have dismissed or removed an individual from undertaking regulated activity or when an individual has resigned from such a role, where there is concern that the individual may pose a risk of harm to children.
48. Despite this, the DBS has indicated that it does not receive the number of referrals it would expect from employers. Similarly, supervisory authorities (workforce and workplace regulators and inspectorates) have the power to refer individuals to the DBS to consider for inclusion on the barred list, but do not have a legal duty to refer or to share information with the DBS unless in response to a specific request. The DBS has developed information-sharing protocols with some workforce regulators, but not all inspectorates or regulators routinely share information with the DBS about resignations and dismissals in circumstances where child protection or safeguarding concerns have been raised.
49. In its Interim Report, the Inquiry recommended that the Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Act 2006 be amended to place keepers of relevant registers under a duty to refer information about practitioners who had been removed from the register to the DBS. It also recommended that, upon receiving the referral, the DBS should be under a duty to automatically bar the practitioner from working with children. In July 2019, the government responded, stating that the Home Office had asked the DBS to continue its “close engagement” with professional bodies and regulators to ensure effective information-sharing takes place.
50. The Inquiry remains concerned that individuals who have ceased working in a setting with children and who have acted in a manner which indicates they may pose a risk of harm to children are not always referred to the DBS, enabling them to move on to a different setting without potential risk of harm being considered. The Inquiry therefore recommends that action is taken to improve regulated activity providers’ compliance with their statutory duty to refer concerns about the suitability of individuals to work with children to the DBS.
The Inquiry recommends that the UK government takes steps to improve compliance by regulated activity providers with their statutory duty to refer concerns about the suitability of individuals to work with children to the Disclosure and Barring Service, including:
51. DBS checks on citizens or residents of England and Wales cannot be accessed by employers based overseas. The non-statutory International Child Protection Certificate (ICPC), which some overseas organisations choose to utilise, does not include access to the DBS children’s barred list. These territorial limitations on the DBS disclosure regime facilitate predatory offenders from England and Wales obtaining employment working with children overseas.
52. In its Children Outside the UK Phase 2 Investigation Report, the Inquiry recommended that the geographical reach of the DBS be extended. In its response, the Home Office indicated that it considered that the information provided on an ICPC was broadly similar to that on an enhanced certificate. The absence of barred list information on the ICPC creates a significant risk to the safety of children in the UK and abroad. The Inquiry therefore reiterates its recommendation that the disclosure and barring regime should be extended to those working with children overseas.
The Inquiry recommends (as originally stated in its Children Outside the United Kingdom Phase 2 Investigation Report, dated January 2020) that the UK government introduces legislation permitting the Disclosure and Barring Service to provide enhanced certificates with barred list checks to citizens and residents of England and Wales applying for:
53. All organisations which work with children or whose members may come into contact with children should adhere to basic child protection standards and have suitable safeguarding policies and procedures in place. While there is a requirement for institutions in certain sectors to set policies, others are under no legal obligation to do so, despite children visiting their facilities, attending their events or otherwise being involved in the organisation. For example, a child might go to school during the day, play football with a club in the afternoon, attend a prayer group in the evening and then spend time at night on a social media platform. Of these four activities and settings, only the school has a legal obligation to have child protection and safeguarding policies and procedures in place.
54. Variation between organisations is inevitable, given the different types of settings and institutions which work with children. It would not be realistic or helpful to propose one single set of safeguarding and child protection policies for all institutions, but there are a number of useful sources which provide a starting point for an appropriate policy.
55. It is critical that safeguarding and child protection policies should be clear and easy to follow and implement. They should set out how the organisation will protect children from harm, ensure child protection concerns can be raised and respond to allegations or incidents, including reporting to the relevant authorities. They should also be subject to regular scrutiny or review to monitor their implementation and effectiveness. This will assist in protecting children from individuals who may seek to establish relationships of trust and authority with children in order to create opportunities for abuse. In due course, this may be a matter on which the Child Protection Authorities recommended by the Inquiry could assist.