Downing Street Says » Sex Offenders

Asked if the Prime Minister had had a full briefing from Ruth Kelly on the circumstances surrounding whether teachers were on or off List 99, the PMOS replied that Ruth Kelly had issued a statement that said that the procedure involved in this was one that, as the PMOS understood it, went back many years, and predated the current administration. Clearly, procedures, and public expectations around the issue of child protection had changed a lot in recent years, and it was therefore right to have a fundamental review of the process.

This had to be not just in the light of the case that had been highlighted, but also the Bichard Report. That was, to some extent, already happening because of the Bichard Report, but now there would be a fundamental review. The PMOS said that Ruth Kelly would report back on that shortly. Therefore, the Prime Minister was fully satisfied that Ruth Kelly was taking the issue seriously and was looking seriously at the whole question. It was right and proper that we did this in an orderly way which addressed the questions such as: should these, in these days, be decisions that were taken ultimately by Ministers, or should they be taken by the experts in the field.

Asked if the Prime Minister had held a meeting where he had gone through the issue, the PMOS replied that there were the normal contacts between No10 and the department on this issue. The Prime Minister was confident that there would be a proper fundamental review of the processes in cases like this.

Asked if the Prime Minister still had full confidence in Ruth Kelly, the PMOS said: yes. The PMOS told journalists that a number of reports that suggested that Ruth Kelly’s job was in some way in jeopardy were simply wrong, and if people had phoned the PMOS in advance of making such reports, he would have said as much then.

Asked to describe the meeting that took place on Monday between the Prime Minister and Ruth Kelly, the PMOS said it was routine. It had been in the diary since before Christmas, and it was to do with the Education White Paper, and was nothing to do with Ruth Kelly’s future.

Asked if the PMOS was saying that despite the fact that on the front page of some newspapers, and wide reporting on Monday, the case of Paul Reeve in Norwich had not been discussed at the meeting on Monday, the PMOS replied that he was not at the meeting, but he was aware that it was not the subject of the meeting. In terms of the case, the department had been handling the implications of it, and working out what to do. We were fully satisfied that they had approached it in an orderly and thorough way.

Asked if the Prime Minister felt there was a need for greater clarity about the people who were still working in school where it had not been made clear, the PMOS said that the Department were investigating all the circumstances, and it was therefore right and proper that they be given time to do so.

Put that it was unsurprising that there was speculation that Ruth Kelly was going to be moved, as people had been waiting for a Ministerial reshuffle for weeks, but there was a mystery about it, therefore people would speculate, the PMOS replied that he was never surprised that there was speculation about reshuffles. All he was saying was that if people had contacted him in advance of reporting that in some way, Ruth Kelly’s position was in doubt, he would have told them they were wrong, and that remained the case.

Put that every week that passed made the reshuffle situation "curiouser and curiouser" the PMOS said again that the speculation had been wrong, and it was for others to speculate, and he would leave it up to them to do so.

Asked to clarify that although Sir Michael Bichard was informing the review, it actually stemmed from the fact that this case was not going to go away, the PMOS said that there had already been a process of getting a new vetting scheme together. The problem essentially arose because of the ad hoc way in which different data systems had been in operation, and the need to bring those together. That process of amalgamation, as the PMOS understood it, was already under way because of the Bichard report. It had been given added point by this case, and the PMOS said he was not going to try and in any way gut duck that. What Ruth Kelly was quite properly doing was having a good look at the way in which these issues were handled.

Put that the PMOS did not normally tell journalists that certain Minister’s jobs were not on the line doing a reshuffle, and that the Prime Minister had confidence in everyone, therefore, was the PMOS doing something different today, and did the Prime Minister wish it to be known that Ruth Kelly would not be moved in a reshuffle if there was one, the PMOS said he was simply stating the fact so there was no misunderstanding.

Asked again that the Prime Minister wanted Ruth Kelly to remain in Education through this difficult period, the PMOS said: correct.

Asked if it was definite that all these cases were referred to Ministers, or would one possible outcome of the review be that Ministers no longer could make a decision, the PMOS replied that in this day and age, where there were borderline cases, it was legitimate to ask whether, given the level of expertise, and what the Bichard review had said, the best was to refer cases up to Junior Ministers. That was a question that this review would address, as Ruth Kelly had said.

Asked to clarify which Junior Minister had taken the decision, the PMOS said he was not going to comment.

Asked how many other people were involved at this stage, the PMOS said he did not have a number at this stage. The whole point of looking back through the files was to find out, but the Department believed the number was small.

Put that given everyone who volunteered to help in sport, Sunday schools etc had to go through a CRB check, was it not a disincentive to discover that the Government knew about people who may or may not have been on a list, the PMOS replied that there were very complicated difficult issues at the heart of this situation. That was partly why it was better to take time and do a review properly and fundamentally.

Asked for further information about the cases and the review, the PMOS said he was not going to give a running commentary on it. It was better that it happened, and Ruth Kelly would make a comprehensive statement on it.

No Comments »

No comments yet.

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Post a public comment

Name (required)
E-mail (required)
(You must give an email address, but it will not be displayed to the public.)
Website
(You may give your website, and it will be displayed to the public.)

Comments:

This is not a way of contacting the Prime Minister. If you would like to contact the Prime Minister, go to the 10 Downing Street official site.

Privacy note: Shortly after posting, your name and comment will be displayed on the site. This means that people searching for your name on the Internet will be able to find and read your comment.

Original PMOS briefings are © Crown Copyright. Crown Copyright material is reproduced with the permission of the Controller of HMSO and the Queen's Printer for Scotland. Click-use licence number C02W0004089. Material is reproduced from the original 10 Downing Street source, but may not be the most up-to-date version of the briefings, which might be revised at the original source. Users should check with the original source in case of revisions. Comments are © Copyright contributors. Everything else is © Copyright Downing Street Says.

» Thursday, January 12, 2006

Sex Offenders

No Comments »

Post a public comment

Search

Supported by

Recent Briefings

Archives

Links

Syndicate (RSS/XML)

Credits

Enquiries