'Absurd' secrecy left care children at mercy of paedophiles, warns Michael Gove

      Secrecy rules around children's homes have left vulnerable youngsters at the mercy of sex attackers. Education secretary Michael Gove claimed last night. He lashed out at the red tape which prevents police being given basic information about where children in care are living and who is looking after them. Mr. Gove said one of the reasons behind the scandal of young girls being groomed by paedophiles in Rochdale was councils'decanting children to homes far from family, friends and the social workers who knew them. He said that while trying to making inquiries about vulnerable young people in the wake of it, he and his officials had met a 'wall of silence'. He promised a raft of reforms so the police and child protection bodies know where children are, and who is operating children's homes.
                Mr.Gove added: "We cannot allow the interests off adults who have failed to trump the needs of children who have suffered.' The Cabinet minister's comments came as a report into England's children's homes revealed councils spent an average of 4,000 pound a week to place a child in accomodation. Many were sent far away from their local area and a practice Mr Gove said was 'indefensible' and 30 percent of homes fell below the Government's preferred minimum standard. Mr Gove writing in the Daily Telegraph, said the regulator Ofsted was barred from giving information to the police by data protection rules and other 'bewildering regulations'.Explaining how ofsted was barred from sharing basic information even with the police because of data protection rules, and "other bewildering regulations", and he adds , there was one group of people, however, who did seem to possess all the information, the gangs intent on exploiting these vulnerable children. "In the name of 'protecting children' by officially 'protecting' their information, we had ended up helping the very people we were supposed to be protecting them from. We shielded the children from the authorities who needed to be looking out for them. "One figure stands out: almost half of children are placed in homes outside their local authority areas, and over a third are sent more than 20 miles from home, he writes. That is indefensible. So too, is the fact that more than half of children's homes are in areas with above-average crime levels. David Simmonds, of the Local Government Association, said children could be placed outside their home area for their own safety, to break gang affiliation, to place them near other family members or to access specialist services. But he added: "The historic problem of the clustering of lots of children's homes in a small number of areas that may suffer from higher deprivation is something we agree needs to be addressed."