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?

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 YH (0.17%) and the
lowest is West Midlands (0.05%)
• Total suspensions are 0.02% of child population, YH 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