Home Secretary Takes Researching Reform’s Advice And Scraps Child Abuse Inquiry Panel

21 Sunday Dec 2014

Posted by Natasha in Children, Inquiry, Update

In a move which has left several if not all of the current Child Abuse Inquiry Panel members livid, it’s been reported that Home Secretary Theresa May has written to the panel to let them know she will be scrapping the panel and starting again.

This move comes days after we published our piece on the Inquiry advising the very same course of action, over at our Column for Jordans Family Law. Of course we don’t know whether Theresa May read our article, but her plan of action reads very similarly to what we felt the government should do in order to mount the kind of inquiry survivors could place their trust in, and be a part of.

If the news items today are anything to go by, May is hoping to give the Inquiry some teeth by giving it statutory status, which would enable the panel chair to compel people to give evidence and would also allow the Inquiry to enforce criminal sanctions against those who deliberately conceal evidence or refuse to come forward. May is also considering turning the Inquiry into a Royal Commission.

As a result, current panel members would have to be scrapped, but could be re-appointed if considered appropriate. Amongst the arguments put forward by current panel members for not scrapping, well, them, is the view that to do so would be to pander to a small vocal minority that does not represent the majority of abuse survivors. This is utter bollocks of course. The panel members do not themselves know how the majority of survivors feel, and the minority who are speaking out represent a much larger group who do feel that a new panel would be best. And regardless of the size of the group raising concerns, those concerns should still be addressed and resolved, because without that resolution the Inquiry has no credibility whatsoever. (The other excuses given are even less convincing and completely irrelevant to the Inquiry’s future, but can be accessed in the news items linked to above should you feel like casting your eyes over wanton drivel).

Pouting panel members aside, it’s not clear yet when and if May will scrap the panel, despite reports to the contrary over at Exaro news. She has hinted at three possibilities, all of which she is still currently considering. The third option has not been openly reported upon but may simply involve keeping the current panel and raising the Inquiry to that of statutory status. But with some of the panel members facing criticism over their conduct towards survivors and two failed chairs with a third replacement nowhere in sight, now is the time to put this panel to bed and let a newer, fresher, professional panel rise from the ashes.

As we wrote in our article for Jordans, we would like to see a panel that represents the best of British Child Welfare – diverse professionals, from all walks of life, with a passion for children and a deep insight into the world of child abuse. That panel should include survivors, as well as members of religious communities and professionals from diverse ethnic backgrounds with cutting edge knowledge of child sexual abuse and its many different guises. We expect nothing less from the new panel.

And we want to see the list of candidates (all 100 plus of them) for the chair position, out in the public domain and be able to cast our own vote as to who should lead this most important Inquiry.

Good luck, Theresa.

Theresa May

First Ever Fund To Help Male Victims Of Rape And Sexual Violence

11 Thursday Dec 2014

Posted by Natasha in Update

≈ 1 Comment

It’s been long overdue, but the government has now committed itself to pledging over one million pounds to help male victims of rape and sexual violence.

In a press release published today, The Ministry of Justice announced that it would it would help to fund specialist rape support organisations across England and Wales, as part of the first ever fund to help male victims of rape and sexual violence. The fund is called The Male Rape Support Fund.

The press release tells us that:

1 in 10 victims of rape or attempted rape every year are men
According to data from 2012-13, around 75,000 men are victims of sexual assault or attempted assault a year
9,000 men are victims of rape or attempted rape each year according to 2013 figures and;
Police figures show fewer than 3,000 offences of male rape or sexual assault were recorded in 2013/14

12 organisations have already secured funding and the government hopes to launch a website which will be built by Survivors UK for men who have suffered rape or sexual abuse.

Do read the press release in full if you have a moment.

Child Abuse Inquiry -Today’s Meeting Between The Panel and Survivors

08 Monday Dec 2014

Posted by Natasha in Children, Consultation, Inquiry, Update

≈ 1 Comment

As we mentioned in a recent post, last week’s meeting between survivors of child abuse and panel members detailed a further meeting for today (you can catch a more complete schedule here).

That meeting has now taken place and one of the attendees, Ian Pace, has written a good summary of that session.

The points up for discussion and the matters raised are very similar to the 5th December meeting; namely making the inquiry a statutory one, getting a Chair sorted out sooner rather than later, expanding the terms of reference and looking at support for survivors who wish to talk about their own personal experiences during the Inquiry process.

The issue of chair also raised the notion of an English judge leading the inquiry. Ian mentions some hesitancy over this by the Home Office, who cite difficulties with asking judges to be relieved of their duties. The clue in relation to the preferred judicial contender is clear, as they mention the awkwardness of relieving a Supreme Court judge for example, which may then cause problems as the Supreme Court may be left with a deeply imbalanced crew in terms of gender. Lady Hale, of course, would be the perfect choice but having a member of the British judiciary, it could be argued, would be tantamount to allowing the Executive to have control over what is supposed to be a fully independent inquiry, and this in turn could have a negative effect on the process.

In order to counteract that point perhaps and to fulfill certainly the government’s and perhaps survivors’ wishes, it looks as if a judicial Chair will be found from farther afield, in another country, so watch this space.

Do read the summary if you have time; we are sure these meetings will prove to be important in the future.

Hat tip to JG for alerting us to this item.

Child Abuse Inquiry Panel Meeting With Survivors

08 Monday Dec 2014

Posted by Natasha in Children, Consultation, Update

≈ 3 Comments

Chris Tuck, a survivor and representative from a group called Survivors of Abuse has very diligently made notes of the meeting that took place last week between members of the Inquiry and several survivors.

Amongst those listed as present were John O’Brien, Director of Safeguarding at the Home Office; Liz Sanderson, Theresa May’s media spin doctor; at least three Inquiry’s panel members and 10 Survivors/Survivor Organisations which included SOB, NAPAC, Rape Crisis, Survivors Alliance and representation from Scotland & Wales.

The three key points raised by survivors at the meeting were that:

The inquiry must be statutory & independent
The need for transparency around the panel
The TOR needs to be expanded geographically and start from at least the 1950’s

O’Brien told the attendees that the first thing that needed to sorted out was getting the Chair in place and that he hoped this could move forward with more haste after a meeting taking place today (8th December). Survivors were going to be given a package of items to look over, but the notes don’t clarify what this refers to or the weight to be given in terms of survivor comment on this package.

It’s clear from the notes that survivors have become increasingly distrustful of the Inquiry and its members and it appears that this phase is the government’s last chance to get the Inquiry right before they are inundated with a mass boycott of the thing.

It’s also apparent from the meeting that people were not happy with the panel, and several attendees complained about not having yet received replies to their emails from certain panel members. They were assured that responses would be delivered but it had to be done in the appropriate way.

Any delayed responses to communication now may well be due to the recent storm surrounding panel members who have engaged in communication with other survivors, and so it is likely that communication may well be being vetted before it’s sent off.

The call to increase the geographical remit included involving Scotland, and survivors were told that they had invited Scotland to join. A Scottish representative then said the invitation would be accepted. Survivors also wanted to include other countries as they felt many paedophiles had fled the UK and so were likely to evade justice.

Survivors also want to take the Inquiry back to the 1950s, to include everyone who is still alive today.

It was confirmed that all alleged perpetrators’ names would be passed on to the police to deal with.

A support package for victims was also discussed.

The overall sentiment from this meeting was that the government really were working hard to get it right and apologetic for failing to include survivors from the start. But it was also made plain that if the government failed to deliver a proper Inquiry survivors would walk away from the process, which would leave the Inquiry helpless, and impotent.

An interesting meeting and we hope today’s session makes further progress. (You can read our thoughts on improving the Inquiry here).

Thank you to JG for alerting us to this website.

Summary for the Westminster Debate: Religious Power, Risk and Regulation

28 Friday Nov 2014

Posted by Natasha in Update, Westminster Debate

≈ 2 Comments

It took us a little while, but we can now share with you the summary for our debate in the House of Commons on child abuse within a faith setting.

The summary gives you a run-down of the speakers’ speeches, the questions asked by the audience and links to organisations mentioned, individual guests who spoke and debate materials.

We hope you find the summary interesting.

Update on the Inquiry Into Historic Child Sexual Abuse

27 Thursday Nov 2014

Posted by Natasha in Update

≈ 14 Comments

MPs met this afternoon to talk about their concerns and the latest developments in relation to the Independent Panel Inquiry, and below we have added a few of the key points that were raised:

Simon Danczuk (Labour MP for Rochdale) made the following statements:

Just over 100 candidates are now being considered for the role of Chair for this inquiry
There needs to be a central role for survivors
At a recent meeting with the Home Secretary, there was a vote in favour of making the inquiry a statutory one under the 2005 Inquiries Act (this would essentially give the inquiry greater powers such as ensuring all evidence is given under oath and legal consequences could be implemented against individuals who destroy relevant evidence which would involve criminal sanctions). All those present voted unanymously in favour of making the inquiry a statutory one.
There needed to be proper support in place for survivors
Conditions need to be created to allow survivors to come forward

Tim Loughton (Conservative MP for East Worthing and Shoreham):

A Chair needs to be appointed immediately, or dual Chairs if necessary
The Inquiry should be led by a judge. UK judges have been approached but have all declined the position, seeing it as a poisoned chalice. It may be necessary to look abroad for a judge who can fit the position and who will take it on.
Survivors should sit on the panel
Make the inquiry a statutory one
Create a sounding board panel of survivors who are consulted not just at the beginning of the inquiry but throughout

Zac Goldsmith (Conservative MP for Richmond Park):

There needs to be an assurance by the Home Office that all Ministries and Government agencies will not to destroy any documents that are even remotely connected to child sex abuse.

John Hemming (Lib Dem MP for Birmingham, Yardley):

Approached Michael Mansfield personally, who agreed to chair the panel, but has not yet managed to persuade the Home Secretary to appoint him.
One in seven children in care are being subjected to abuse
It needs to be harder for state employees to conceal abuses of power. More transparency and accountability are needed, as well as less secrecy.

Other notable comments included the confirmation by the The Home Secretary that the chair can decide whether to make the inquiry statutory, and that whilst a Chair has not yet been appointed and a date for that appointment not yet known, the process is underway.

An update on the panel’s activities was also given, although there was some concern amongst the speakers at the meeting that much of what was taking place might not be considered official without a Chair at the helm. Nevertheless, the panel is currently working, and has done or is doing the following:

It is meeting weekly in the run-up to Christmas.
Panel members have already attended two listening meetings with victims and survivors.
Two further regional meetings will be held before Christmas, and four regional meetings will be held in the new year.
The meetings will provide an early opportunity for survivors to give their views, and they will help to inform the panel on how to go about its work.

We’ll bring you more news as we get it, though as you can see, the inquiry is clearly not going to go full steam ahead for a while yet. You can read the full transcript from the meeting here.

Photos and Audio for Our Event on Child Abuse Within a Faith Context

24 Monday Nov 2014

Posted by Natasha in Children, Update, Westminster Debate

≈ 3 Comments

On Tuesday 18th November, we helped to organise and chair a debate in the House of Commons on child abuse and its existence within different religious settings, including the Catholic Church, the Church of England, Judaism and Islam.

The debate lasted for two and a half hours and when we asked the audience if they wanted a short break at the half way point, they unanimously declined. It was a very thought-provoking evening, filled with peaceful questions and an audience who graciously sat through seven panel speeches and launched themselves into the discussion with many and varied views, all fascinating.

We can now share some photos of the event with you, as well as the audio of the panel delivering their speeches. We hope very much that more media will be made available in the next few days, but in the meantime come and relive the debate with us.

Female Genital Mutilation: Proposal to Introduce a Civil Protection Order

21 Tuesday Oct 2014

Posted by Natasha in Children, Consultation, Update

≈ 4 Comments

As we mentioned yesterday, the government is hoping to introduce new laws to protect victims of FGM, after issuing a consultation on the matter in July of this year.

They have now published the consultation outcome which responds to that proposal.

The response to the consultation was carried out by the Ministry of Justice, and runs to 17 pages. It highlights the background to the report, a summary of the responses, responses to questions raised in the report and the next steps post the consultation.

It’s an interesting document which explains the different viewpoints on the proposal for a civil protection order. Some respondents felt that the current criminal sanctions were not enough, others felt that the Children Act’s prohibited steps order was already effective at preventing parents from removing children from the jurisdiction to undergo FGM and others felt that a specific civil law measure would offer child welfare professionals a clear pathway to safeguarding children and supporting them within the family unit.

It’s a complex area, combining cultural norms and standards which are not always beneficial to empowering children or allowing them to speak out without fear of devastating repercussions. A must read report, which highlights many of the nuances in this field and offers a good overview.

New National Standards for Family Court Experts

01 Wednesday Oct 2014

Posted by Natasha in Consultation, Family Law, Update

≈ 3 Comments

This just in: new standards to raise the quality of expert evidence became law today.

The new standards follow the laws implemented in April of this year which were designed to speed up court process by engaging professional opinion only when a judge considers it necessary to resolve a case justly. We think that sounds silly and ironic, but what do we know.

GOV.UK’s website tells us:

The standards include making sure that the expert:

has knowledge appropriate to the court case
has been active in the area of work or practice and has sufficient experience of the issues relevant to the case
is either regulated or accredited to a registered body where this is appropriate
has relevant qualifications and has received appropriate training
complies with safeguarding requirements

You can catch the consultation documents here:

More Challenges to Legal Aid

22 Monday Sep 2014

Posted by Natasha in Update

≈ 4 Comments

With the green light given to Rights of Women to challenge the current legal aid guidelines for domestic violence victims, another battle rages on, this time with the mantle being carried by the Criminal Law sector. The hearing which also took place last Friday saw lawyers calling for a review of the consultation process which led to the current policy on legal aid (and fee cuts), and this is one battle that just got ugly.

For the scrap this morning is not amongst disgruntled families, or charities like Rights of Women who brought their challenge out of concern for the safety of vulnerable people across Britain, but between the MOJ and the legal sector. Quite simply put, the Ministry of Justice has sent out a clear message that fee cuts for legal aid are not going to make up part of the challenge – but the fairness of the consultation process on legal aid, will.

Legal Cheek chose to focus on the MOJ’s recent tweet on the matter, which whilst we think is a little clumsy, says more about the department’s desire to move away from the legal sector’s financial interest in the outcome of this case, than it does its choice of wording.

Everyone understands that the legal profession needs to earn to survive, and that legal aid does offer a lifeline to people in distress. But to turn this case into a tug of war between a bratty child of the State and the Bank of Chris, is as embarrassing as it is demeaning – to the entire profession.

This case should be about access to justice, protection and the preservation of our rights as a democratic people. And that is all.