APPENDIX 72
Supplementary memorandum submitted by
The Association of Directors of Children's Services
FORCED MARRIAGES
AND "CHILDREN
MISSING EDUCATION"
Thank you for the invitation to give
oral evidence to the Committee on 25 March, in addition to the
written evidence already submitted. I hope you and members of
the Committee found it a useful session.
During the discussion, I committed to
responding further in several respects, and this letter does that.
The Association of Directors of Children's Services would be pleased
to respond to any further questions, if that would be of assistance
to the Committee. We will also continue to work closely with DCSF
officials and have initiated formal contacts with the Forced Marriages
Unit.
There are two fundamental problems with
dealing with forced marriages; the first is the very considerable
familial and societal pressure on young women to conform with
parental expectations; and the second is the complete family disruption
that is likely to ensue once the statutory agencies become involved.
(I am aware that forced marriage is not simply related to young
women, but they are the largest vulnerable population.) Both of
these factors are likely to lead to unwillingness to raise complaints
both before and after the fact.
The emphasis therefore has to be on prevention
through education and publicity; through personal, social and
health education, through sex and relationships education, and
through pastoral support; and through community education more
generally. Local Safeguarding Children's Boards have put in place
multi-agency training and awareness-raising for children's services
professionals, including school and college staff, police, and
social workers, as well as voluntary groups. This includes elements
on the warning signs relating to potential forced marriage, and
on how to deal with disclosures, whether direct or indirect. Good
practice has been developed locally around issues such as extended
leave. The national guidance for education professionals, for
social care staff, and for the police, is locally referenced and
accessed where necessary. I know that Jim Knight MP, Minister
of State for Schools and Learners, is presently leading a review
of sex and relationships education, and I am sure that the issue
of forced marriages will be further considered during that review.
Some of the publicity materials produced
nationally have been criticised, and I would recommend that Local
Safeguarding Children's Boards be encouraged to work with appropriate
local groups, including representative young people, to design
locally-customised publicity materials.
With regard specifically to young people
over the age of 16 and up to the age of 18, that is, still falling
within the statutory definition of "children", the existing
tracking mechanisms are aimed primarily at securing their engagement
with education and training, rather than safeguarding. Those young
people who attend sixth forms or colleges will generally be supported
appropriately.
As the provisions of the Learning and
Skills Bill related to raising the age of participation in education
and training are implemented, there will be fewer young people
who do not attend school or college, or employer-based training.
And local authorities will maintain a database of these young
people, in order to implement their duty to secure participation.
This database could be used to identify young people who have
"gone missing", and might be subject to forced marriage.
But again this would be a post facto solution.
In collating information on Children
Missing Education for the written and oral evidence, I have been
impressed with how much detail is available from different local
authorities, and how much analysis has already been undertaken.
Colleagues from Bradford will write separately with further details
of their analysis, but the level of information, and internal
checking and triangulation, gives considerable cause for reassurance
in an inherently difficult area of work.
All 14 of the local authorities, and
others to whom I have spoken, are confident that relatively very
few children who are not receiving an appropriate education are
at risk of forced marriage. That is not to say that it does not
occur, neither is it to say that these local authorities are complacent.
Since the meeting of the Committee, I
have checked further with the 14 named local authorities, and
within my own authority, Dudley, which has a significant minority
population, and can confirm that the casework relating to forced
marriages presently in hand (as of 28 March) in these 15 local
authorities is limited to the following four cases:
1. A girl, A, below the age of 16,
taken into Council care following self-disclosure of fear of being
taken abroad for purposes of forced marriage.
2. A girl, B, below the age of 16,
subject to a multi-agency case conference following concerns raised
by a third party about the possibility of forced marriage.
3. A girl, C, aged 17, in the care
of a Council, who went missing from foster care and who has not
been traced, but is thought to have left the UK.
4. A girl, D, aged 16, now returned
to the UK from an extended holiday, who has been reported to have
been subject to forced marriage.
Each of these cases has been properly
followed up with social care, the police and the FMU as appropriate,
although the cases are still live. Most of the local authorities
have reported that there have been no live cases during the last
year. No local authority has reported more than three live cases
in the last year.
Of course, this is not to say that there
have not been any more cases of forced marriage than this; only
that these have not been disclosed or otherwise come to the attention
of the local authorities.
These figures do not sit easily with
the FMU estimate of 250 cases per year, together with many other
cases resolved without reference to the FMU, and yet others not
reported at all. And I am aware that there is other evidence,
for example from the Luton study, of greater numbers. There are
several potential explanations for this apparent discrepancy,
perhaps the most obvious being that it is not clear how many cases
within the FMU estimate relate to children under the age of 16,
and young people between the ages of 16 to 18.
I proposed in my oral evidence that it
would be helpful for all concerned, not least local authorities
and their local partners in the statutory and voluntary sectors,
for some action research to be undertaken on the underlying facts:
— At a statistical level, it
would help to know the ages of the young women known to the FMU
as having been at risk of, or suffering, forced marriage; their
home location; the country in which the forced marriage was threatened
or carried through; any specific vulnerabilities such as special
educational needs, or disabilities; and the outcomes for the young
women concerned in respect of family reconciliation.
— At a case study level, it
would be helpful to analyse, for a sample of specific cases:
— what the local authority,
school or college, and other local agencies knew, and when; what
action was actually taken; and the effectiveness of the action;
and
— what the local authority,
school or college, and other local agencies could or should have
known in advance, and what further action could or should have
been taken, and by whom, that would have been more effective in
securing better outcomes.
— On preventative work, it would
be useful to collate and disseminate examples of good practice.
I would hope that this research work
could be carried through fairly rapidly. Most of the statistical
information should be available through the FMU, and most of the
material for the case studies should also be to hand.
The Association of Directors of Children's
Services would be pleased to collaborate with such a research
programme, although it would probably need to be led by either
DCSF or FMU.
It may well be that the national guidance
could be updated in light of the research; again the Association
would be pleased to be involved in that process; indeed one of
our predecessor organisations, the Association of Directors of
Social Services, contributed to the 2005 guidance.
Thank you again for the chance to contribute
to the debate. We are committed to acting to prevent the human
rights abuse of forced marriage so far as is possible, and to
deal sensitively and appropriately with its aftermath, where prevention
is not possible.
John Freeman
Joint President
March 2008
|
