House of Commons Hansard Debates for 1 May 1995

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I commend the new clause. Its purpose is to ensure that parents who are under the age of 16 years will have the necessary legal capacity to fulfil their duty under the Registration of Births, Deaths and Marriages (Scotland) Act 1965 to register their child. The clause is required because doubts have arisen whether after the Age of Legal Capacity (Scotland) Act 1991 a person under the age of 16, who is the father or mother of a child, has the legal capacity to register the birth of the child or to have his or her name entered in the register of births. It is clearly desirable that such doubts should be removed as soon as possible so as to ensure that accurate details about the birth of children can be entered in the register of births, which may have been given by persons under 16 since the 1991 Act.

The clause also has the effect of validating any entry in the register of births that may have been made by a person under 16 years of age since the 1991 Act. We do not wish to encourage parenthood in persons so young but we recognise that it happens. The aim behind the clause is to avoid compounding the difficulties by not allowing such young parents to meet their duty under the 1965 Act.

The clause meets the concerns of the registrar general, who is anxious to ensure that the register of births is as complete and accurate as possible. These provisions will apply retrospectively so as to make lawful all registrations by under-aged parents for the avoidance of doubt.

Amendments Nos. 141 to 143 make it clear that an application for the re- registration of a birth, or for a change of name, may be made by a person aged under 16 years. The amendments make it clear that such applications since the 1991 Act are valid.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

Column 31

New clause 9

Welfare of certain children in hospitals and nursing homes etc.

`.--(1) Where a child is provided with residential accommodation by a person mentioned in subsection (3) below and it appears to the person that the child either--

(a) has had no parental contact for a continuous period of three months or more; or

(b) is likely to have no parental contact for a period which, taken with any immediately preceding period in which the child has had no such contact, will constitute a continuous period of three months or more,

the person shall (whether or not the child has been, or will be, so accommodated throughout the continuous period) so notify the local authority in whose area the accommodation is provided.

(2) A local authority receiving notification under subsection (1) above shall--

(a) take such steps as are reasonably practicable to enable them to determine whether the child's welfare is adequately safeguarded and promoted while he is so accommodated; and

(b) consider the extent to which (if at all) they should exercise any of their functions under this Act with respect to the child. (3) The persons are--

(a) any health board constituted under section 2 of the National Health Service (Scotland) Act 1978;

(b) any national health service trust established under section 12A of that Act;

(i) a private hospital registered under Part IV of the Mental Health (Scotland) Act 1984; or

(ii) a nursing home in respect of which either he is registered under section 1(3) of the Nursing Homes Registration (Scotland) Act 1938 or exemption has been granted under section 6 or 7 of that Act.

(4) For the purposes of subsection (1) above, a child has parental contact only when in the presence of a person having parental responsibilities in relation to him.

(5) A person duly authorised by a local authority may in the area of that authority, at all reasonable times, enter for the purposes of subsection (2) above or of determining whether there has been compliance with subsection (1) above any such place as is mentioned in sub-paragraph (i) or (ii) of subsection (3)(c) above and may for those purposes inspect any records or registers relating to that place; and subsections (2A) to (2D) and (4) of section 6 of the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968 (exercise of powers of entry and inspection) shall apply in respect of a person so authorised as they apply in respect of a person duly authorised under subsection (1) of that section.'.-- [Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

The clause provides a further element of child protection that we consider entirely relevant to a children Bill. It relates to children who are accommodated in health care establishments for lengthy periods and who for various reasons appear to have had no contact with parents or people with parental responsibilities for them for three months or more.

I believe that the chances of children finding themselves in such a situation are remote. The links between hospitals and social workers are strong. In many instances, hospitals have dedicated social workers.

If, however, there is any chance of a child being abandoned or neglected by his or her parents within the health care system, it is right that we should take steps to deal with the matter. That we have done with the clause,

Column 32

which will ensure that if a child has not had contact with parents or those with parental responsibilities for three months, the health board, nursing home or a person operating a private hospital will be required to inform the social work department, which will take steps to enable it to determine whether the child's welfare is adequately safeguarded and promoted. The social work department will also consider the extent to which it should exercise any of its functions under the Act, with respect to the child.

I commend the new clause to the House as a small but useful further safeguard for children.

4 pm

Mrs. Fyfe: A couple of questions also arise out of new clause 9, which I hope the Minister will be able to answer at once. First, the White Paper promised to get children out of long-stay hospital. Can the Minister tell us today when that happy day might arise? Secondly, we welcome the fact that the Minister has, in subsection (4) of the new clause, taken up the point that was made in Committee--that parental contact should not only be a matter of telephoning and sending letters to the child but should be physical presence--but the way in which it is worded means that such a contact could literally be for just a minute, with an infrequent visiting time and long times between visits. That hardly seems an adequate way to respond to the criticism of the Bill. Will he have a further think about subsection (4) before the Bill finally comes to a conclusion?

Dr. Godman: I welcome the new clause, but I would like to ask the Minister--if I can catch his ear for about 10 seconds--just a couple of questions. If the child is incapacitated in a hospital, would it be the hospital social worker who would take on responsibility? I know that we are talking about only a few cases, but if a child is in a private home, would he or she simply be assigned, or consigned, to the local social work area team? I think that the period of three months is reasonable enough, but what about the child whose single parent is incapacitated, who stays in a hospital? Where the parent is unable for entirely legitimate reasons to visit the child in hospital, what safeguards are given to her?

The Minister is racing through these new clauses so quickly. I think that it is only right and proper that we ask him such questions. With reference to the questions that I have asked him, it would have been helpful if he and his officials had provided us with notes on the new clauses and amendments.

Also, what of the mother who is incapacitated and cannot visit her child in hospital? What safeguards does she have in those circumstances in relation to the specified period of three months?

Dr. John Reid (Motherwell, North): Like most hon. Members, from both sides of the House, I welcome the measures that have been introduced in the new clause. During the Minister's explanation of the new clause, he emphasised the need for particular care when a child is suffering-- presumably in a long-term institution--from bad health or is shown to be socially deprived, in the sense of a lack of parents. My one worry is why it has taken us so long to fill that gap, to plug that loophole. What was the position up until now? Was it possible under similar

Column 33

legislation for a child thus placed to have gone for a considerable period in ill health and also be deprived of the social support of parents or guardians?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I should reply in relation to the White Paper, as it addresses the points that have been expressed. The requirement for the removal of a child who does not need to be in a long-stay hospital has, I understand, now been met.

I am quite happy to look at the terms of subsection (4). It is perfectly well drafted, but I will examine it and give considered reflection to the point made by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe).

Hospital social workers would be involved. The hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) raised the issue of a mother who was incapacitated; I believe, from my experience as a Member of Parliament, that social work departments respond positively and sensibly whenever they can in such circumstances.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New clause 10

Inquiries into matters affecting children.

`. After section 6A of the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968 there shall be inserted--

"Local authority inquiries into matters affecting children 6B.--(1) Without prejudice to section 6A(1) of this Act, a local authority may cause an inquiry to be held into their functions under this Act, or any of the enactments mentioned in section 5(1B) of this Act, in so far as those functions relate to children.

(2) The local authority may, before an inquiry under this section is commenced, direct that it be held in private; but where no such direction is given, the person holding the inquiry may if he thinks fit hold it, or any part of it, in private.

(3) Subsections (2) to (6) of section 210 of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973 (powers in relation to local inquiries) shall apply in relation to an inquiry under this section as they apply in relation to a local inquiry under that section, so however that, for the purposes of the application, any reference in those subsections to a Minister shall be construed as a reference to the local authority and any reference to an officer of his Department as a reference to an officer of that authority.

(4) The expenses incurred by a local authority in relation to an inquiry under this section (including such reasonable sum as the authority may determine for the services of any of their officers engaged in the inquiry) shall, unless the authority are of the opinion that those expenses should be defrayed in whole or in part by them, be paid by such party to the inquiry as they may direct; and the authority may certify the amount of the expenses so incurred. (5) Any sum certified under subsection (4) above and to be defrayed in accordance with a direction under that subsection shall be a debt due by the party directed and shall be recoverable accordingly.

(6) The local authority may make an award as to the expenses of the parties at the inquiry and as to the parties by whom such expenses shall be paid.".'.-- [Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.] Brought up, and read the First time.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Madam Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss also Government amendments Nos. 200 and 216.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The new clause would confer on the local authority a specific power to

Column 34

hold social work inquiries into children's issues. It would enable social work of concern relating to such issues to be investigated locally and in a credible way, removing the need for a full -scale inquiry to be conducted by the Secretary of State.

The powers are not intended to be used as a first resort; such inquiries are not designed to be undertaken lightly, but are meant rather to complement other measures available to authorities such as local inspection, management, consultation and informal investigations. Guidance will be issued to remind local authorities of those alternative options.

Amendment No. 200 would ensure that such an inquiry could be held without prejudice to the Secretary of State's power to hold his own inquiry under section 6A, and amendment No. 216 makes minor amendments to the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1975.

Mr. Wallace: If the proposed provision had been in place in 1991, would it have been for the local authority itself to set up an inquiry into the events surrounding the removal of nine children in my constituency, rather than for Lord Clyde to set up a judicial inquiry? That appears to be one possible consequence of the new clause, and, if it is, important considerations are involved. As is well known, one of the issues involved in the case to which I have referred was the action of the council's own social work department. Whatever the nature of a case, however, and whatever the eventual outcome of action by a social work department, I do not think it satisfactory that the council involved should be responsible for initiating an inquiry.

Justice must not only be done, but be seen to be done. If the initiative for such an inquiry came from a body whose officers and employees were closely involved in the matter to be scrutinised by that inquiry--however independent and distinguished the person appointed to conduct it--many might feel that it would not be as rigorously independent as was warranted by the circumstances. Costs are important as well. The new clause looks to me like an effort to offload costs from the Scottish Office to local authorities in the event of a repetition of the circumstances surrounding Lord Clyde's inquiry. On that occasion, the Scottish Office underwrote most of the costs--certainly those incurred by the local authority--and provided assistance with some of the legal costs of people with a particular interest in the inquiry, but it was a hard-won fight. If such inquiries are to achieve what they set out to achieve, they will often cost money. I can imagine the impact and the possible ramifications in my constituency if people had been told that they must pay extra council tax to finance that inquiry: although everyone considered the inquiry necessary, many Scottish local authorities are relatively small, and the burden would have been considerable. My final point relates to subsection (6), which says:

"The local authority may make an award as to the expenses of the parties at the inquiry and as to the parties by whom such expenses shall be paid."

Discretion is pretty well unfettered. If parents are dissatisfied with what happened and the way in which social workers or other local authority employees have dealt with their children, and if they ask for an inquiry and one is granted, the council could say to them, "You

Column 35

have got to pay for it too." That is not a satisfactory outcome. It may inhibit some people from asking for an inquiry that they believe is necessary.

I am uncomfortable with the new clause. A much greater explanation than the purely technical one given by Minister is required.

Dr. Godman: The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) has raised some important matters, especially in relation to Lord Clyde's inquiry. I support what the hon. Gentleman says about the need for a more comprehensive explanation of the new clause's implementation.

The Minister talked about guidance given to councils on the holding of such inquiries. I remind him, if he needs reminding, that the Bill will become an Act of Parliament in the near future, and that, shortly afterwards, social work departments as we know them will be abolished and scattered. The new social work departments--and, more important, social work committees that will be set up by the new authorities--will need comprehensive guidance, especially in relation to new clause 10.

Less than 20 per cent. of the new members in the new Inverclyde unitary authority are regional councillors. Hence, some 15 per cent. or more have no experience in relation to the creation and implementation of social work policies, procedures and practices. I do not know what the case is in Aberdeen, but in Glasgow fewer than 20 of the new councillors, out of a total of 83, are regional councillors. Again, the majority of those councillors, unless they are ex-social workers, will have no experience in these matters. On Friday 21 April, during the Report stage of the Carers (Recognition and Services) Bill--I refer to column 443--the Minister promised that the Government would table amendments on the assessment of disabled children's needs. I have experience of ships draughtsmanship, but not much of parliamentary draftsmanship. I should have thought, however, that new clause 10 could be amended in another place to take on board that promise. Does the Minister intend to amend new clause 10 to achieve adequate protection for disabled children?

Mr. Robert Hughes (Aberdeen, North): I apologise for missing the introduction to the new clause. The Bill seems to be moving rapidly apace. I have no intention of delaying the Report stage. I am, however, somewhat concerned about new clause 10 and how it will operate. We have all had experience in our constituencies of the particular difficulties in relation to the abuse of children. People find the crime of child abuse so impossible to comprehend that, instead of a presumption of innocence, there is a presumption of guilt. Once an allegation of child abuse is levied against a family or an individual, they are often damned for ever and must bear the consequences.

I do not want to go into the detail of the case in the city of Aberdeen, partly because it would take too long, but also because it may awaken memories in the city that are best not awakened. However, I can say that a child was taken into care who then made very strong allegations of sexual abuse against a number of families with whom she had been in contact. There was one incontrovertible fact--the child had been badly abused from an early age. What was less clear, certainly in the initial stages, was who had carried out that extensive abuse over a long period.

Column 36

4.15 pm

The social work department felt it necessary to lay charges against six different families, and to take all the children of those families into care immediately, at 7 o'clock in the morning. By the Tuesday of the following week, all the children had been returned home, but it took almost two years before the charges against the six families were finally dropped.

Those families were devastated. In some cases, marriages split up; in others, people were so demoralised that they became alcoholics. I understand that, even today, people in buses that travel through Aberdeen and pass a house belonging to one of the falsely--as it turns out--accused families say, "That's where those bloody child molesters live." A charge of child abuse can have serious repercussions. Of course, I am not suggesting that, if there are suspicions of child abuse, they should be withheld, but inquiries need to be conducted with some care.

When one of the six families first contacted me, I made a private approach to a counsellor in the region, who was sympathetic and who knew all the background to the case. I wanted an internal inquiry, so that I could at least hear the side of the social workers involved. It was not possible to have a rational discussion. I was told, "It's a witches' coven, with ritual satanic abuse." It became clear that there could be no private local inquiry on which I could rely. I approached the then Under-Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth)--I have rather lost track of where he is now, but that is neither here nor there. I do not want to make any cheap points. Coincidentally, I approached the right hon. Gentleman at the time of what became known as the Orkney child abuse case, which will be uppermost in the memory of the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace). He will know that there was a strong demand for a public inquiry in that case. I believed that my case was equally deserving of a public inquiry.

There were two differences between the cases--in the Orkney case, the people concerned were, generally speaking, middle class; they were certainly articulate. I make no complaint about that. They were able to put together a network of people throughout the United Kingdom to support their claim for a public inquiry. With my case, the people concerned came from six ordinary working-class families. I am sad to say that the only person on whom they could rely to articulate their case was me. Perhaps I failed them in not putting their case strongly enough. There was certainly no question of a public inquiry in that case, nor was there any question of it being conjoined with the Orkney inquiry, which is what I had sought. I am almost sorry that I have raised the case again today, because I do not want it widely reported in the city of Aberdeen. The families concerned are now, with great difficulty, beginning to settle down.

The issue of inquiries being held either in private or in public is very serious. I share to some extent the view of my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) that the new unitary authorities have no experience of social work, but it must be remembered that, when we set up the social work departments, we had no experience, either. Although the new social work departments will be a different size, I

Column 37

strongly urge my colleagues in the unitary authorities to make certain that there is a properly qualified--I think that this is already in the Bill--

Dr. Godman: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Hughes: Of course.

Dr. Godman: I hope that all the social workers employed in the regional and island authorities are re-employed by the unitary authorities. The point that I was making was that, if the Minister is to issue guidelines to social workers--to chief social work officers--he should also issue guidelines to councillors who are unfamiliar with the mass of legislation which has been passed since 1974.

Mr. Hughes: I do not disagree at all with my hon. Friend, but I was pointing out to him that I was a councillor in the city of Aberdeen following the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968, when social work departments were set up. Those of us who were lay members of authorities in those days had very little experience--well, we had no experience of social work departments--although some of us gained experience through the health and welfare committees.

I agree that since then a great deal has happened, so I hope that my colleagues in the unitary authorities--as I said, I believe that the Bill requires only that the director of social work is a qualified officer--will appoint not only a qualified director of social work, but a highly qualified director of education, and that the councillors will take an active interest in social work matters. With regard to matters in the new clause and to other matters surrounding social work, the Scottish Office certainly ought to hold a series of seminars, at which experienced councillors who know social work and those who have never worked in the area because of the split of functions may share their experiences.

The ability to obtain proper advice--legal advice, if

necessary--representation and expenses to enable people to put a case is of absolute importance. I frankly do not mind who pays for that, as long as the access of people who feel aggrieved to proper legal advice is not impeded or inhibited in any way.

When the Under-Secretary makes his winding-up speech on the new clause, I hope that he will address in a little more detail the circumstances in which he believes proceedings should be held in private and in which they should be held in public. There is certainly a balance to be struck between publicity, which is necessary to show that nothing is being hidden, and privacy, which is necessary to try to protect people against whom false allegations may be made. I hope that such false allegations--or mere allegations, since they are proved false or otherwise only once the investigation is completed--will always be taken seriously.

In the case to which I referred--I shall finish on this note just to show how serious the matter is--allegations were made not only against the six families, but against a senior social worker and a general practitioner. I found it particularly reprehensible that the allegations made against the working-class families were investigated, but not a single question was asked of the GP or the senior social worker; they were apparently above reproach. Yet we know from bitter experience that, in some places which are regarded as safe for children, such as residential

Column 38

homes, people have been employed whose abuse of the children in their care has been absolutely disgraceful and terrible.

I hope that we shall not take the attitude that if people are professionals they should be--necessarily--free from suspicion. However, we should not say the alternative. We should not say that, because an allegation has been made, it must be true.

I hope that the possibility of inquiries under new clause 10 will open up the scope for proper investigations, so that the interests of the children, which must always be paramount, will be protected. The interests of children are not always necessarily met by an investigation. There are sometimes innocent third-party children. I hope that the Minister will tell us a little more about how the procedure will work, to ensure that the interests of children are properly looked at and to ensure that the interests of families are not destroyed because of prejudice in respect of particular allegations.

Mr. Sam Galbraith (Strathkelvin and Bearsden): As my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) has said, new clause 10 reiterates a theme that I raised several times in Committee. That theme is the protection of other persons and third persons involved in allegations of child abuse. I am not certain whether the proposal will deal with the problems.

I have no confidence in internal investigations by social work departments. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North, I have personal knowledge of a case which was brought to me by a person who was wrongly accused of abuse. The matter was pursued by the social work department, and it held an internal inquiry based on its various methods of operating.

That internal inquiry amounted to an examination of whether the procedures had been followed. No one challenged the basic evidence on which the charge was brought. That was the issue. People do not worry too much about the procedures, but if the basic premise is wrong, it does not matter what procedures are followed: in the end, the result will be wrong. We could not have that issue challenged. At the end of the day, I received a perfunctory half-page letter saying that all was well, when clearly it was not. Like many others, I have no faith in internal procedures. I have tabled amendments in an attempt to deal with that problem.

With regard to new clause 10, we would like an undertaking from the Minister that he will at least consider tabling two amendments in another place. The first amendment should state not that the inquiry may be held in private, but that it will be held in public unless the local authority gives a good reason for not doing that.

The second amendment should state that there must be an independent person running the inquiry, not a member of the social work department. If the latter is the case, there will be a social work department investigation into the procedures and not into the facts. Without those two criteria, involving some form of independence and a presumption towards public hearings, the proposal will be of limited value.

Mr. George Foulkes (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley): I join my colleagues in welcoming new clause 10. I want to comment briefly on the circumstances in relation to the Ayrshire child abuse case, which has received an inordinate amount of publicity. My view

Column 39

might differ somewhat from that of my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes), but it is certainly not diametrically opposed to it, because I agree with much of what he said. In relation to the Ayrshire child abuse case, I have great sympathy with the problem facing social workers when they are confronted with allegations of child abuse. For example, if a mother, who may be hysterical, reports child abuse and, after some examination and investigation, the social workers shrug it off and say, "No, no, this woman is hysterical. No child abuse is taking place," and it is subsequently found that child abuse has taken place, those social workers are likely to be, and in some cases in the past have been, pilloried by the press, by the media and, on occasion, by Parliament, for not following up those allegations.

With regard to the Ayrshire case, where social workers have pursued the allegations, have believed them and have taken some action, the press obviously felt that they knew a great deal more than the social workers, the medical people, the sheriff and everyone else involved. The press make their judgment and decide that they are absolutely right. As my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North knows, the media never get it wrong.

The media decide that no abuse has taken place, and they pillory the social workers in that instance as well. If social workers take action and are proved wrong, they are pilloried. If they do not take action and are proved wrong, they are pilloried. It is very difficult, as the Minister will know. He has great experience of such issues as a lawyer and as a parliamentarian. It is a difficult problem for social workers, and difficult decisions have to be made.

4.30 pm

In the case of Ayrshire, however, those decisions were made in the first instance by individual basic grade social workers, but in every instance they were reported right up the line to the senior social work managers. Of course, before any action could be taken, it had to be reported to the children's panel. The children's panel had to make a decision on the report from the reporter. In the Ayrshire child abuse case, the ultimate decision was made by Sheriff Neil Gow, after very careful thought and after hearing the children themselves. It is quite astonishing that, after all that careful consideration by social workers, by members of the children's panel and by a sheriff who had gone into the matter in great detail, someone--in that case, it seemed to be only one person, in the press--who knew better than every one of them said that no abuse had taken place.

Mr. Galbraith: I do not want to pillory social workers. My hon. Friend and I are not in great disagreement in this matter, but he must realise that the initial charge on which the case is based is generally made by one person. That is rarely challenged. By the time it comes to the report of the children's panel, decisions are based on the initial report, which is often done by a fairly junior individual, yet that is taken as gospel and never challenged. That is where the problem lies.

Mr. Foulkes: I do not agree with my hon. Friend. If he looks at that case--there is voluminous paper that he can look at--he will see that it was not only questioned very seriously by the children's panel but corroborated by

Column 40

two doctors. That might impress him a little more than the views of social workers. It also went to the sheriff, who tested the evidence very substantially. It went through very well tried and tested procedures.

Because the media made up their minds that the social workers were wrong, they harassed and threatened the social workers concerned. There was doorstepping of the social workers in the early morning--their lives were made an absolute misery. All the social workers had been concerned about were the interests of the children, protecting the children, and carrying out the job that was given to them by Parliament.

The media try to get everything into black and white--it is either right or wrong; it is either clearly proved or it is not clearly proved. I mean no disrespect to the Minister, but lawyers get the same perception; that everything is either right or wrong, and that it can be proved or disproved by evidence. I am afraid that in such cases it is much more difficult to prove.

In family circumstances where abuse may have taken place, the only witnesses are the children who have been abused or other members of the family who may themselves be children. It is very difficult to obtain evidence. It is certainly very difficult to prove something beyond a shadow of doubt. That is why the issue is very complicated. Social workers deserve our sympathy.

In the Ayrshire case, an independent inquiry was carried out. We are talking about inquiries by two outside members of staff of other local authorities. They came to the conclusion that the social workers in the case had acted in an honest way, without any collusion. They certainly said that there were some faults in practice. Of course matters are difficult, and practice is not easy. Advice and guidance are needed as experience develops, as we have more cases and social workers can talk to each other about them. The social workers did not do everything perfectly--we know that--but they acted honestly and there was no collusion, yet the media are still persecuting those social workers. They are asking the Lord Advocate to take up a prosecution against them. I shall see the Lord Advocate later this week, to tell him that he should make it clear that there will be no prosecution of those social workers, who have been cleared by that independent inquiry, and that it is intolerable for the threat of prosecution to continue to hang over their heads. I have a couple of questions which the Minister may be able to answer. I wrote what was, for me, a reasonable letter to the Secretary of State some weeks ago about the case, because I take it seriously and I am deeply concerned about the way in which the lives of social workers and their families have been affected. My letter contained a number of questions, but I have not yet had a reply from the Secretary of State. My assistants have contacted the Secretary of State's office to ask for a reply as soon as possible, and the Minister may be able to use his good offices to say when I will receive such a reply.

I am no expert in this matter, although I served on a social work committee in Lothian region many years ago and saw the reports on such cases. My wife was a member of a children's panel for some time, although she has had no dealings at all with the Ayrshire abuse case. I was on a children's panel advisory committee for some time, and chose the members of those panels in Lothian. However, I do not pretend to have any expertise on the matter at all.

Next Section

Home Page