Fury at police over blunders

A major row today broke out over the system supposed to prevent sexual predators from working with children.

Police and Government are at war over who is to blame for the astonishing situation in which information about Ian Huntley's history of sex allegations was "weeded out" of his police file.

And a confidential report has revealed a catalogue of incompetence surrounding the Police National Computer - the backbone of the intelligence system supposed to protect the public.

A leaked report by Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary has revealed how it is taking many forces almost two months to enter details of convictions and arrests on the system.

It should take just a week. The damning report, ordered in the wake of the Soham arrests, revealed the ease with which another Huntley could slip through the net.

The report said: "There is the potential for known offenders or those suspected of serious offending to be overlooked during the Criminal Review Bureau checks." The reason for this, it says, is that police are failing to put convictions into the national computer in time.

The report found that on average it was taking forces 50 days to input details of a conviction - meaning many are taking far longer.

It leaves the way open for newly-convicted paedophiles to apply for jobs knowing they are safe from being discovered - putting them in a position to strike undetected.

Under the present system, information about convictions - and supposedly about intelligence - is passed to the Criminal Records Bureau when they ask for "disclosures" from police about people who want to work with children.

But Huntley's conviction has revealed a grim picture of confusion created by the Data Protection Act and exacerbated by the Human Rights Act over what information police can keep about suspected paedophiles.

A headteacher warned today that another Ian Huntley could be working in a British school because of the "lottery" of police checks.

Headteachers' leader David Hart warned the system of police checks was a "lottery that throws up totally different sets of information, depending entirely on the discretion of the Chief Constable".

He added: "This must be dealt with as a matter of urgency because heads must not be misled, however inadvertently, into employing staff who are a danger to children.

"There is always the potential for more individuals who pose a danger to children to slip through the net, while some police forces only pass on the most basic information."

Today pressure also mounted on the two chief constables at the centre of the Huntley case - Tom Lloyd of Cambridgeshire and David Westwood of Humberside.

Both face calls to quit over their handling of the case, with Home Secretary David Blunkett ready to apply massive pressure. Privately he has said he does not want to see scapegoats but close aides admit that heads will have to roll.

David Westwood claimed his force had been obliged to "weed out" accusations against Huntley which did not lead to convictions.

But his claim was slammed by the office of the Information Commissioner, the Government's data protection watchdog. Assistant commissioner David Smith said: "Their explanation appears to be nonsense from what we know of the information they were keeping.

"The information was clearly relevant to protecting the public and there's nothing in the Data Protection Act or in any guidance we've issued that required them to delete information of such obvious value."

The finger-pointing between the two agencies puts police and Whitehall on a collision course - and Home Secretary David Blunkett at the heart of the row.

The inquiry he has ordered into the background checks system must come up with clear reforms which end the chaos.

Police claim they are deluged with complex guidance on data protection which they have to pass to their own lawyers, who have little or no training and background in the area - and comply with the legal minefield of the Human Rights Act.

They are also supposed to provide the Criminal Record Bureau with full information which can help protect the public.

Chris Fox, president of the Association of Chief Police officers, said: "It is clear that there are different interpretations of what is required by different agencies."

Mr Blunkett must now make the system work properly. And he must make sure that the Criminal Record Bureau - which started working after Huntley got his job - discloses every piece of information which could be useful in keeping paedophiles away from children.

The row is a major embarrassment to ministers who had been confident that the bureau was reaching its targets and making disclosures on time, after being dogged by years of late-running and lurching from crisis to crisis.

But the revelation that police checks are not up to date will only increase calls for urgent reforms.

Phil Willis MP, Liberal Democrat Shadow Education Secretary today said: "It is clear that the Government's bungled attempts to move criminal checks into the private sector, without adequate resources or sufficient lead-in time, have led to confusion and inefficiency in the system. The Government must now provide answers."