The Report summarises two recently published reports into child protection issues in respect of Ian Huntley and his contacts with a number of girls and young women in North East Lincolnshire during the 1990s.  Because of the circumstances of Huntley’s murder of Holly Wells and Jessica Chapman both reports attracted national interest.  The reports concluded that there were significant failings in the way that the Social Services Department of this Council discharged its duties towards the young people concerned.

That Cabinet note the content of the report.

Monitoring of the Serious Case Review Action Plan is being undertaken by the Area Child Protection Committee and the Commission for Social Care Inspection

1.        BACKGROUND AND ISSUES

a) An inquiry commissioned by the Home Secretary and led by Sir Ronnie Flanagan of Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary into the handling of the Soham murder investigation by the Cambridgeshire Constabulary.

b) An inquiry again commissioned by the Home Secretary and chaired by Sir Michael Bichard with the brief of:-

‘Urgently to enquire into child protection procedures in Humberside Police and Cambridgeshire Constabulary in the light of the recent trial and conviction of Ian Huntley… In particular to assess the effectiveness of the relevant intelligence based record keeping, the vetting practices…and information sharing with other agencies.

c) A serious case review commissioned by North East Lincolnshire Area Child Protection Committee under the terms of Part 8 of Working Together and led by Sir Christopher Kelly. This review was asked to examine the way in which the statutory agencies discharged their functions in respect of Ian Huntley and the young women from North East Lincolnshire with whom he had a relationship or sexual involvement in the period between 1995 and November 2001.

‘It is not for me to reach conclusions about Social Services’ handling of the early contacts with Huntley. This is a matter for Sir Christopher Kelly’s Serious Case Review. I have, however, referred to him my misgivings about several aspects of these contacts.’ (Bichard para 16)

‘Although our main focus is different, there is some overlap between Sir Michael Bichard’s terms of reference and our own. We have tried to deal with that sensibly and to keep duplication to the minimum necessary to a coherent narrative. The two reviews shared information and kept each other in touch with emerging findings as our separate enquiries progressed.’ (Kelly para 3)

2.         Conclusions of the Bichard and the Kelly Inquiries

     Failure of staff to communicate with each other about Huntley and his activities. This is perhaps best illustrated by a fax sent from Immingham school to social services stating that Huntley was having sex with two girls. Staff in two social services offices who were dealing (separately) with the two girls concerned did not communicate with each other over the contents of the fax.

     Failure to refer cases of USI (unlawful sexual intercourse with persons under the age of 16 years), including those mentioned in the fax (above) to the police.

     Failure to follow up with any sort of any rigour reports that a young woman below the age of sexual consent was living with Huntley.

      Failure to engage the police in the above case

     Flawed decision making in respect of a girl aged 11 years who alleged Huntley had sexually assaulted her. The social services staff involved with this matter simply and wrongly, viewed the case as a criminal rather than a child welfare matter and did not visit or interview the girl concerned.

     Failed to act appropriately when both Huntley and the young woman concerned admitted to having a sexual relationship, instead the social services staff concluded that there were ‘no significant welfare concerns’.

‘The standards of care offered to a significant number of the young people who have been the subject of this review were less than adequate. There was poor decision making in a number of cases. There were significant shortcomings and inconsistencies in the way information was shared between some of the agencies, particularly social services and the police; and some of the connections which could have been made to identify a pattern in Ian Huntley’s behaviour were missed.’  (Kelly Report para 229.

‘Shortcomings in practice do not happen in vacuum. What looks like an individual failure can often reflect system failure and inadequate leadership, support or oversight by senior managers…Senior managers of the social services department, and elected members of the Council, must take a great deal of responsibility for the poor response of the child care services for which they were responsible during the period under review. (Kelly Report para 147)

‘The department was characterized by frequent changes of senior management, lack of clear direction, budget cuts, large numbers of job vacancies, increasing workloads, poor morale and inadequate supervision.’ (Kelly Report para 21)

‘Since 1995 many things have changed in North East Lincolnshire, in particular in relation to child care services. They have a largely new senior management team; and since 2003 they have no longer been subject to special measures. The Social Services Inspectorate Inspection of children’s services in 2003 found ‘clear evidence of marked improvement in many key areas’. Child protection systems were up to date, designed to effectively protect vulnerable children and young people.’ (Kelly Report para 14)

There are nine recommendations to the Area Child Protection Committee and three to central government. The nine to the Area Child Protection Committee are essentially about ensuring that the changes alluded to above are fully embedded in constituent agencies. The three recommendations to central government are concerned with the need for policy on extra familial abuse, the retention of records and aspects of electronic child care records and their ability to be searched for information on perpetrators.

3.         Conclusion