UNITED KINGDOM
Family Law
Natasha Phillips
03 DEC 2014
Since its inception in July, the Independent Panel Inquiry has made several serious but avoidable faux pas and continues to function without a Chair, arguably its most vital member. But what else has the Inquiry done to date and is it more of a hindrance than a help in the quest to safeguard Britain’s children from abuse and exploitation?
In a meeting in the House of Commons last Thursday, MPs met to discuss the Panel Inquiry and its progress. It was confirmed that the Inquiry had attended two sessions described as listening meetings with survivors of child abuse to hear their thoughts, and to take on board other important factors which may aid the inquiry process. A positive move, given that the Inquiry has been accused of being insensitive to survivors in the past for failing to include them more robustly in the inquiry process. In addition to weekly conferences being held in the run-up to Christmas, the panel also has two scheduled regional get-togethers before the New Year and four further meetings have been set for 2015. However the lack of a Chair has caused concern, with some MPs questioning the official nature of the work the members were doing without a complete panel, which may anger survivors if their input is set aside or down-played once a Chair is elected.
The thorny issue of who will be Chair is also unlikely to resolve itself quickly. When asked about the time frame for electing the Chair, the Home Secretary was unable to give an answer, saying only that the selection process was underway and that over 100 candidates were being considered for the position. And although thelist of candidates remains a secret for now, there was evidence at the meeting that several senior judges had been invited to take the position but each one had declined, viewing the role as a poisoned chalice. This view may be in part due to the poor reception previous Chairs have received by the public, but is most likely to stem from the concern that a judge sitting on the panel may be accused of asserting executive control over the proceedings. Such control may in turn create the potential for the public, and survivors, to be shut out of the investigative process altogether.
Note: This is an Abuse Tracker excerpt. Click the title to view the full text of the original article. If the original article is no longer available, see our News Archive.