The Buzz

The child welfare items we feel should be right on your radar:

Buzz

Hurry! Have Your Say On The Children And Social Work Bill And Make A Difference

The Children and Social Work Bill is now taking written submissions from anyone with an interest in its contents.

Best known for its controversial clause allowing local authorities to do away with fundamental duties and responsibilities set out in children’s social care legislation, this review stage represents a crucial opportunity to share your views with the Public Bill Committee, and make sure children’s rights are not further reduced and their lives not placed at greater risk. This is a highly effective process, and a great deal of weight is given to evidence, so your contribution CAN make a difference.

The window in which to send in submissions though, is narrow – The Committee is set to have its first meeting on Tuesday 13 December and will stop receiving written evidence at the end of the Committee stage at 5.00pm on Tuesday 17 January, 2017.

Once the Committee completes its consideration of the Bill it will no longer able to receive written evidence. Parliament’s website goes on to advise that it can conclude earlier than the expected deadline of 5.00pm on Tuesday 17 January 2017, so it’s vital to share your views as soon as you can. 

We are adding some useful information from Parliament UK below, but please do click on the first link above for a full break down of the details including how the Committee handles the evidence it receives:

Guidance on submitting written evidence

Deadline for written evidence submissions

The Public Bill Committee is now able to receive written evidence. The sooner you send in your submission, the more time the Committee will have to take it into consideration. Once the Committee has dealt with an amendment it will not revisit it. The order in which amendments are taken in Committee can be found under Selection of Amendments.

The Committee is expected to meet for the first time on Tuesday 13 December 2016; it will stop receiving written evidence at the end of the Committee stage on Tuesday 17 January 2017. Please note that when the Committee concludes its consideration of the Bill it is no longer able to receive written evidence and it can conclude earlier than the expected deadline of 5.00pm on Tuesday 17 January 2017.

What should written evidence cover?

Your submission should address matters contained within the Bill and concentrate on issues where you have a special interest or expertise, and factual information of which you would like the Committee to be aware.

Your submission could most usefully:

suggest amendments to the Bill, with supporting explanation; and
(when amendments are published) support or oppose amendments tabled to the Bill by Members of Parliament, with supporting explanation
It is helpful if the submission includes a brief introduction about you or your organisation. The submission should not have been previously published or circulated elsewhere.

If you have any concerns about your submission, please contact the Scrutiny Unit (details on the web page).

How should written evidence be submitted?

Your submission should be emailed to scrutiny@parliament.uk. Please note that submissions sent to the Government department in charge of the Bill will not be treated as evidence to the Public Bill Committee. Submissions should be in the form of a Word document. A summary should be provided. Paragraphs should be numbered, but there should be no page numbering.

Essential statistics or further details can be added as annexes, which should also be numbered. To make publication easier, please avoid the use of coloured graphs, complex diagrams or pictures. As a guideline, submissions should not exceed 3,000 words.

Please include in the covering email the name, address, telephone number and email address of the person responsible for the submission. The submission should be dated.

What will happen to my evidence?

The written evidence will be circulated to all Committee Members to inform their consideration of the Bill.

Most submissions will also be published on the internet as soon as possible after the Committee has started sitting.

There may well be other clauses in the Bill you’d like to address, but for Researching Reform, Clause 29 is a priority. Whilst the Lords have tried their best to encourage the government to remove this Clause, they have this week confirmed their intention to keep it (though they’ve suggested the Clause will be edited in some way). Child welfare organisations and lawyers are equally concerned about this Clause, and an official statement from the Magistrates Association also expresses concerns.

Whether you agree with this Clause or not, or have thoughts and ideas about any of the other clauses within the Children and Social Work Bill, Public Bill Committees are a powerful way to help inform and shape our laws and so we would urge anyone with an interest in this Bill to make a submission. Good luck.

imagevaulthandler-aspx-1

Footballer Andy Woodward To Speak At Meeting On Child Sex Abuse In Sport (Public Event)

In response to the latest news that child sexual abuse has been rife within sports like football, Voicing CSA, a project which works with the Independent Inquiry Into Child Sexual Abuse supporting survivors and victims, will be hosting a meeting next year to address the issues. It is understood that the project will be asking the Inquiry to look at child sexual abuse in sport.

Speakers attending include former professional footballer Andy Woodward, who has been in the news recently talking about his own terrible experiences at the hands of convicted paedophile coach Barry Bennell.

The Voicing CSA website explains the purpose of the meeting in more detail:

“The meeting is in response to the disclosure by survivors of childhood sexual abuse by ex and  current football players. It is all encompassing and includes all sport.

Speakers include Andy Woodward, survivor and former footballer. Steve Walters former midfielder and survivor. Phillip Lafferty, Chair of Voicing CSA. Daniel Wolstencroft, co-founder of ShatterboysUK. Elaine Hook an Inspirational motivational speaker, advocate & campaigner for victims & survivors of abuse. Jameel Hadi will discuss ‘The Culture and Complacency of Childhood Sexual Abuse in Sport’. Donna Peach will discuss ‘The impact of sexual abuse in childhood development’. Georgina Hall from Whistleblowers UK will discuss The need for whistleblowing in relation to childhood sexual abuse.

This venue will be by confirmation of application to attend only. “

The meeting will take place on Saturday 11th February, 2017 from 11am-5pm.

If you would like to attend, please email contact@voicingcsa.uk, or alternatively you can go online and fill in their form.

A big thank you to Phillip Lafferty for getting in touch with us and alerting us to this meeting. You can reach Phillip on Twitter over at @philspetition.

andy

 

 

 

 

 

Question It!

Welcome to another week.

Home Secretary Amber Rudd would like to set up specialist training for police officers dealing with child sexual abuse. Under the current proposal, police officers would be trained and accredited in the same way officers carrying firearms are. Once officers passed the training, they would then be awarded a license.

The idea comes after a damning report into the Metropolitan Police revealed that mistakes were made in 75% of cases involving child abuse.

It is not clear what kind of training the police might receive or how long the training will last.

Our question then, is this: do you think specialist training for police working on child abuse cases is a good idea?

face_question_mark

The Child Abuse Inquiry – One Of The Great Success Stories Of Our Time

Overwhelmed by resignations and allegations of in-house bullying and sexual assault, the nation’s Independent Inquiry Into Child Sexual Abuse is being widely described as a complete disaster but it’s a misguided view which fails to understand just how succesfull this Inquiry has been, and why.

The backdrop for these apparently awful events centers around a long and unpleasant history featuring UK Public Inquiries. A look at the National Archives reveals a staggering amount of inquiries in their many forms, but despite the sheer volume of investigations, a significant portion have been plagued with rumours of cover ups and consistent failings to implement the findings they make.

Unsurprisingly, government sanctioned inquiries as vehicles for change haven’t been well received: an independent survey in 2012, of 2000 members of the public, showed that 73% lacked confidence in the Public Inquiry process and were dissatisfied with the length and cost of the process. And in 2015, a report was published looking into exactly why Inquiries were failing the public. The report made several recommendations, including measures to improve impartiality and community involvement. Any assessment of the Child Abuse Inquiry then, must take this narrative into consideration, as well as a close look at the Inquiry’s subjects.

Survivors and victims of child sex abuse have known for a long time that if you want transparency and accountability, you have to fight for it. Many of these survivors have spent decades in conversation with a reluctant Government, trying to expose child abuse scandals and are hugely experienced campaigners, directly responsible for the creation of the Inquiry, which they urged the government to form through a series of Parliamentary meetings.This makes the Child Abuse Inquiry unique amongst Inquiries, as it provides the investigation with an invaluable asset – a large group of highly informed and deeply committed campaigners with a keen eye for inconsistency.

Survivors and victims were quick to notice that first Chair, Baroness Butler-Sloss, had close links to the establishment. Her brother, Sir Michael Havers, was attorney general at the height of the child abuse scandal in the UK and the Inquiry would have required her to investigate him. Butler-Sloss’s report into the Church’s handling of child abuse complaints was also highlighted by survivors who offered concerning evidence showing a bias towards the Church. Survivors’ pressure to stand down left Butler-Sloss with no choice. She resigned, and a second Chair was appointed.

Fiona Woolf’s appointment was also closely analysed by survivors. After she disclosed that she lived on the same street as Leon Brittan, and appeared to be friendly with him and his wife, more questions were raised. When pressure from MPs to get Woolf to stand down failed, a survivor launched a Judicial Review into Woolf’s appointment which led to her resignation.

Survivors and victims have not limited themselves to probing the fitness of Chairs at the Inquiry, though. Sharon Evans, a survivor who herself sat on the Inquiry panel, accused its most senior legal adviser of bullying her and of creating an atmosphere of fear and intimidation at the Inquiry. Her allegations were rejected by the Home Office and she was dismissed from the Panel, but in raising this concern she contributed to a sequence of events that would ultimately lead to the investigation’s lead lawyer stepping down. Almost two years after her departure, the fourth Chair, Professor Alexis Jay, would suspend Lead Counsel Ben Emmerson over concerns about his conduct at the Inquiry and a further allegation of assault would further bolster Sharon Evans’ concerns. 

Another area in which survivors have played a prominent role is that of securing investigations against institutions and individuals. In October 2014, victims and survivors hosted a conference in the House of Commons attended by Inquiry officials and politicians, which proposed that religious organisations should also be investigated by the Inquiry. The conference was a success, and the Inquiry subsequently added a number of religious bodies to their strands of investigation. Pressure was also placed on the government to include a look at child abuse allegations against the late peer, Lord Janner, a move that was acknowledged and led to the launch of a separate investigation into the peer at the Inquiry. More complaints over delays and a growing number of investigations slowing down the Inquiry were voiced through the media.

These events have been consistently categorised by politicians and the press as terrible failures which have prevented the Inquiry from carrying out its vital work, rather than a successful attempt at protecting the Inquiry’s mission – to uncover the extent of child abuse within the UK over decades, and to the present day. Whilst these developments have delayed certain aspects of the Inquiry’s work, and there is a real imperative to move quickly with so many individuals both accused of child abuse and with knowledge of failures already elderly and frail and in a growing number of cases, no longer alive, these setbacks actually represent a phenomenal success.

With every inappropriate chair and panel member removed, and every conflict of interest and bias uncovered, the Inquiry becomes purer, and more powerful. It also represents the best of democracy in action, at a time when so many of us have lost faith in a system which no longer seems to deliver on that front. This stripping down of the Inquiry to give it its independence back and protect its integrity can be attributed to survivors and victims tirelessly fighting for a world free from child abuse, and it is them we should thank for pushing the Inquiry’s transparency and accountability to its limits and in doing so, making it strong.

Addams (2)

Section 20: You CAN Remove Your Child From Local Authority Accomodation

A thought-provoking meeting yesterday reminded us that Section 20 arrangements (agreements which allow a local authority to place a child in accommodation where there may be child welfare concerns) are still a problem area for many families.

As a quick recap, we thought we would add these key points for parents below:

  • Section 20 arrangements are voluntary – this means that the local authority cannot place a child in alternative accommodation unless parents agree to the arrangement.
  •  You are entitled to be fully informed – the local authority must offer you as much information as you need, in a clear and accessible format
  • If you have parental responsibility for a child, you can remove your child from accommodation provided by or on behalf of the local authority at any time
  • If a child is 16 or 17, they can leave the accommodation without parental consent
  • Always ask for a S.20 arrangement to be put into writing – something this important shouldn’t be set up on word of mouth. If anyone refuses to put this agreement in writing, tell them you have the support of the President Of The Family Division
  • Children have a right to be heard – any child who wants to express their wishes and feelings in writing is entitled to do so under a S.20 agreement, and to have those views taken on board by the local authority
  • A S.20 arrangement should never be used to secure care proceedings – local authorities do not have the right to put you off terminating a S.20 by giving you the impression that it’s final or compulsory

This is advice we give to every family we assist with these arrangements. At their heart, S.20s are intended to foster collaboration between families, the local authority and most importantly, the children involved. The local authority is bound to take the child’s view into account too if it’s providing accommodation for a child.

If the local authority you’re talking to doesn’t understand your rights under S.20, or isn’t aware of them, don’t be shy to tell them. They’re your rights, and they’re real.

addams-new-york

 

 

Question It!

Welcome to another week.

The news that football has been plagued by child sexual abuse has deeply affected a nation whose identity is rooted in the sport. Whilst the Football Association has promised to investigate the allegations, it now appears that other sports will come under the spotlight for child abuse.

Chief Constable Simon Bailey, who is the National Police Chiefs’ Council lead for child protection, said the number of ex-players coming forward was likely to grow significantly and that governing bodies from other sports would find themselves at the center of inquiries that are now being conducted across four forces.

Chief Constable Bailey made this statement after the National Association for People Abused in Childhood (NAPAC) confirmed it was aware of anecdotal evidence that child abuse had been an issue across swimming, tennis and judo and had not been properly investigated.

The question Researching Reform raised last weekend over this matter was whether or not the nation’s Independent Inquiry Into Child Sexual Abuse should now be adding another strand to their investigations to include this latest development.

Thoughts against doing so include the worry that the Inquiry could become too big, and fail, or become so bogged down that it will never finish its work, and that as the police are currently investigating these allegations there is no need for the Inquiry to examine the issue.

Thoughts in favour of adding sexual abuse allegations in the sports sector to the Inquiry include the need to find out why such abuse takes place in a sports setting and give the Inquiry a chance to get a rounded picture of the abuse phenomenon, which could lead to more clues as to why abuse has been such a deeply impactful and ongoing practice in our culture, and perhaps even cultures around the world.

Our question then, is this: do you think the Inquiry should also look at child sexual abuse in sport as part of its investigation?

We’d love to hear your thoughts on this in the comments section below. If you’re also on Twitter, come on over and take our Survey asking the same question.

face_question_mark

Letters To Child Abuse Inquiry Condemn Handling Of Assault Allegation And Expose Tensions With Home Affairs Committee

The news this morning is that three out of the four lawyers invited to send letters to the Home Affairs Select Committee outlining why they chose to leave the Inquiry have declined to provide information unless the statutory inquiry agrees to waive its right to confidentiality, and Parliamentary Privilege.

However, some letters have been published within the Committee’s newly released report into the Inquiry. Former counsel to the Inquiry, Hugh Davies QC’s letter is now available to read, and in it, he makes several criticisms of the way the Inquiry handled the allegation of sexual assault at the investigation. Here are some extracts from that letter:

“Assuming such disclosures were made – and it does not appear to be challenged that they were – important safeguarding issues and responsibilities arise. These duties are obviously engaged whether or not the person making the disclosure wishes to pursue it as a formal complaint. Firstly, the institution cannot abdicate responsibility to the person making the disclosure, who may be vulnerable or otherwise emotionally unable to pursue a formal process. Secondly, the purpose of any such investigation following a relevant disclosure is not limited to determining a formal complaint. It is directed at establishing facts so that (amongst other purposes) the risk to others within the institution may be evaluated and addressed, and similarly to evaluate and mitigate risk in any other institution or workplace where the subject of disclosure may work.

21. History demonstrates that where bullying or other abuse reflects an imbalance of power between individuals it is more likely to be repeated.

22. As matters stand, however, there is an impression that rather than investigating the disclosures to meet these safeguarding objectives, IICSA has reached a de facto compromise agreement with the subject of the disclosures, and ended the investigation. There is no evidence of consideration having been given to either (i) the possibility of recurrence within the Inquiry; or (ii) what investigation was required, even if the person making disclosure did not wish to pursue a formal complaint, as to risk to future employees who may work with the subject of complaint in the future (whether at IICSA or elsewhere)….

As stated, where bullying and/or sexual misconduct occurs in a working or institutional environment it usually reflects an abuse of power. It is likely to be repeated unless the risks are identified and addressed following investigation. I would criticise any failure by an institution to act, and IICSA must expect to be judged by the same standards it will doubtless set for others. In the course of its work IICSA will investigate and make findings on institutions that have put reputational advantage ahead of a duty to investigate, including the use of compromise agreements with the subject of disclosure. If that is what has occurred here the reputational harm to IICSA is obvious. If it is not, it is in IICSA’s interests to correct this impression.

25. In my opinion it is reasonable to expect IICSA to provide a public explanation as to (i) the characteristics of the disclosure made; (ii) what was done to investigate it; and (iii) what was done to identify and address future risk. These questions arise regardless of whether the person making the disclosure wished to make a formal complaint. These are substantive procedural matters and need not lead to identification of the persons concerned. I am obviously not expressing any opinion on the facts underlying the reported disclosure.”

Davies also explains in the letter that due to the current confidentiality rules in place, he feels unable to go into more detail.

A request from the Home Affairs Committee for more openness and transparency at the Inquiry (especially in relation to its working methods), is causing problems. In their own letter, The Inquiry Panel have defended their decision not to waive their right to confidentiality on the grounds that it is currently conducting its own review of the Inquiry and that the legislation governing the Inquiry itself demands full independence from the Committee. The letter goes on to address Hugh Davies’ own criticisms of the Inquiry – the panel suggest Davies is not in a position to comment as he left the Inquiry almost a year ago, and expresses concern over his decision to provide personal observations on events he was not a party to.

The panel also highlight tensions between itself and the Home Affairs Committee:

“We recognise that [The Home Affairs Committee] wish[es] to help the Inquiry progress the vitally important work it has to do to protect children from sexual abuse. You will understand however that there is a tension between the role of your Committee and the independent work of the Inquiry. We are not aware that any other public inquiry has been subject to the level of scrutiny which the Committee is seeking to apply. This is particularly the case when some members of your Committee have expressed views on our Chair’s status and all are members of political parties whose conduct is being investigated by the Inquiry both at central and local government level.”

There is clearly a need for transparency at the Inquiry, so why are the panel constantly trying to block these attempts? Their lack of understanding, whether actual or put on, as to why scrutiny of its work has become necessary is astounding. The political pot shot at the end of the comment is also unbecoming of one of the world’s most important investigations.

The Home Affairs Committee’s report into the current events at the Inquiry is very much worth a read. The key observations and recommendations they make are added below:

  • The Child Abuse Inquiry must remain independent, however that does not mean it can frustrate a need for transparency in its work
  • The Inquiries Act 2005 does not give the Inquiry permission to keep its working methodology from Parliament, or the public
  • Former Chair, Lowell Goddard has been heavily criticised for failing to give evidence to the Committee on why she left and events at the Inquiry
  • The Committee rejected the Solicitor to the Inquiry’s view that the Committee could not ask questions about intentions in relation to the Inquiry’s working practices
  • The Committee condemned the way the Inquiry handled the allegation of sexual assault and suggest appointing an independent lawyer to investigate the claims and find out why its Lead Counsel resigned
  • The Committee recommended that the Inquiry look into whether the environment at the Inquiry allows people with concerns to come forward
  • There needed to be a working document at the Inquiry outlining how it intends to deal with the current problems
  • The Inquiry should also produce a strategy detailing how it intends to move forward wth investigations and evidence gathering
  • The search for new Lead Counsel should be the Inquiry’s priority for now

As we’ve come to expect, other letters published in the report show the extent of the fact dodging that’s going on at the Inquiry. Toby Fisher, another lawyer who had been advising the Inquiry but has since left, makes vague and disjointed comments in his letter.  Much of what he says is in fact irrelevant and doesn’t address any particular aspect of his departure, it just reads like a defensive and pretty strategic exit.

A more recent letter from Hugh Davies is equally baffling, blaming professional commitments for his departure.

Nobody really wants to talk.

You can read more letters from others here. 

Addams 4

 

 

 

MPs Weigh In On Child Abuse Inquiry Woes (And A Peer Declares An Eyebrow Raising Interest)

As victims, survivors and Inquiry panel members continue to go head to head on the latest issues to plague the nation’s Independent Inquiry Into Child Sexual Abuse, politicians and peers have been having it out in Parliament this week, too.

The debate transcript from the House of Commons makes for a very frustrating read. Lisa Nandy’s Urgent Question, which asked for an update on how the Inquiry is handling the latest setbacks, was met with resistance by Sarah Newton, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department. Every time a question was asked about the state of the Inquiry – was the Chair recruiting new Lead Counsel, was a new Chair going to be put forward – the response was always the same: the Inquiry functions ‘Independently’ from Government, so…. no comment.

The argument the government puts forward for not giving any details about the Inquiry’s current state is a legal one. Under the Inquiries Act 2005,  it’s up to Inquiry members to sort out procedural problems, without government interference, in order for it to remain as independent as possible. However, It would have been helpful prior to the debate if Newton had actually asked Inquiry Chair Professor Jay for an update. The lack of effort on this front could only mean two things: either the government is being more dullard-ish than usual, or they’re playing for time and giving the Inquiry the space it needs to sort itself out.

More interesting, was the chat over at ‘The Other Place’. 

The debate in the House of Lords begins with a recap of Newton’s formal response to Nandy’s Urgent Question, added below:

“The inquiry was set up to look at the extent to which institutions in England and Wales failed to protect children from sexual abuse. We know the terrible impact that abuse has on survivors, sometimes for many years. As the House knows, following the resignation of the previous chair, my right honourable friend the Home Secretary appointed as chair Professor Alexis Jay. She has a distinguished career in social work and a long-standing dedication to child protection. She led the independent inquiry into child sexual exploitation in Rotherham where she scrutinised the work of social workers and proved her capability to uncover failings across institutions and professions. She is the right person to take this work forward.

Taking the work forward is vital for creating a sense of certainty for victims and survivors. The inquiry has set up 13 strands of investigation, made 250 formal requests for information from over 120 institutions, with 164,000 documents now having been submitted. It has referred roughly 80 cases a month to the police. It has rolled out the Truth Project, providing survivors with the opportunity to tell the inquiry what has happened to them, and more than 500 people have come forward so far.

The inquiry has adequate resources to undertake its work and we will support the inquiry with what it reasonably needs. The inquiry remains independent, which means that it is not part of government and is not run by a government department. Professor Jay is mindful of both the scale of the task and the need to move forward at a pace. That is why she instigated an internal review of the inquiry’s approach to its investigations, exploring new ways to deliver its investigative work while remaining faithful to its terms of reference. She has made it clear that if any changes are proposed, the views of those affected by them will be sought. We expect the outcome of this review soon.

It is crucial that we now give the inquiry the space and the support it needs to get on with its job, getting to the truth for victims and survivors. I urge everyone in the House to do just that”.

There’s the usual response to direct questions asking about specifics at the Inquiry (the investigation is independent, bla, bla, we can’t interfere, yada, yada, so….. no comment). Then, it gets interesting.

Lord Faulks makes a suggestion which tries to shift the Inquiry’s focus away from gathering evidence about individuals who are alleged to have abused children, to collecting information about child abuse complaints instead. It’s a bizarre proposal, given that both of these actions are necessary to understand the history of child abuse in Britain, until you read on and realise why Lord Faulks makes it. Declaring his interest in the debate, Faulks tells The House that he’s been instructed by Lord Janner’s family. The late peer has been accused of a string of serious assaults against children during the 1950s-1980s. Several attempts by his family have been made to block an inquiry into these allegations.

This question is raised just as the Inquiry’s own investigation into complaints of child sexual abuse against the late peer has been put on hold. Janner’s son, a QC, has been campaigning to drop the investigation, and this latest question from Lord Faulks looks uncomfortably like a further attempt at frustrating proceedings. However, it’s unlikely Faulks will get his way. The Inquiry has confirmed that it will continue to hold hearings into the allegations against Lord Janner, once criminal investigations have taken place.

What do you think? Is the Government right to field questions about the Inquiry back to its Chair, or is it just a play for time? 

Addams (2)