Supplementary memorandum submitted by
the NSPCC
As discussed, I am writing regarding the recent
evidence session held by the Children, Schools and Families Committee
as part of its current inquiry into allegations against schools
staff. I understand that the Committee will not be hearing any
further oral evidence on this issue and I am therefore writing
to clarify the NSPCCs position on these issues following the evidence
given by witnesses on Wednesday 17 June. Thank you for providing
the NSPCC with the opportunity to do so.
1. "FALSE"
ALLEGATIONS
The NSPCC recognises that allegations made against
schools staff can sometimes be unfounded, unsubstantiated or malicious
and that they can be very distressing for the person who is accused.
However, the nature of allegations made against school staff are
often complex and it is too simplistic to describe allegations
which are not criminally prosecuted, or unsubstantiated, as "false".
The NSPCC recommends that schools should designate allegations
as either "unfounded", "unsubstatiated" or
"malicious" rather than using the term "false",
which suggests that the allegations are of no further concern
and should be disregarded, which can also mean that any underlying
reason for the allegation being made is not explored.
It is important to recognise that such allegations
can be a cry for help or a sign that a child or young person is
being abused at home or elsewhere. There should be full exploration
of why the child or young person made the allegation, including
an assessment of whether they need any extra support.
2. BEST INTERESTS
OF THE
CHILD
The starting point of this issue must be the
best interests of the child and ensuring a system that protects
children and enables them to come forward if they are being abused.
We were particularly concerned by some comments made
by witnesses at the evidence session which stated that children
and young people needed to have "a clear understanding of
the seriousness of the allegations that they might be making".
This comment suggests that children and young people need to be
interrogated before proceeding with making an allegation and could
send out a message to children and young people that genuine allegations
will not be believed.
It is very difficult for children to bring a
successful prosecution against people whom they know well, and
relatively few children make allegations about abuse. Allegations
of abuse need to be dealt with robustly, quickly and efficiently
and children and young people must know who they can turn to if
they are being abused and that any allegation will be thoroughly
investigated. There should be no presumption at any point that
the allegation is malicious. Such a decision should only be arrived
at once the issue has been fully explored.
3. RETENTION
OF RECORDS
We would like to refute oral evidence given
to the Committee which stated that there is no justification for
retaining details on a personnel file of an allegation which is
shown to be unfounded, unsubstantiated or malicious. It is of
course very important that the retention of records of such allegations
must be consistent, reasonable and proportionate for all of the
parties involved. However, allegations may be unsubstantiated,
not because they are untrue, but because of a lack of evidence,
or because allegations have been withdrawn by the person who made
them. There were nine separate allegations against Ian Huntley—from
sexual assault to rape—and all except one were investigated
by Humberside Police between 1995 to 1999. The murder of two young
girls in Soham by Ian Huntley demonstrates the importance of retaining
allegations which have not been substantiated or are deemed unfounded.
The case also highlights it is essential that information is shared
properly between agencies and that staff who are responsible for
this know how to do it in a timely and appropriate manner.
The NSPCC operates a system whereby any allegation
relating to child protection that is made against either employed
staff or volunteer independent visitors is kept on record. We
release the information to future employers if we have reason
to believe that the individual poses a risk to a child or a young
person. We recommend that guidance on managing allegations which
is due to be published shortly by the DCSF should state that any
allegation relating to a child protection concern made against
a staff member or volunteer, whether or not it has been found
to be malicious, unsubstantiated or unfounded, should be kept
whilst that person is still employed by the school where the allegation
was made and also referred to a central point in the school's
local authority. Sometimes it is only when `soft' intelligence
of this kind is retained, and put together with other evidence
that may come to light, that the risk an individual poses to children
becomes apparent.
We understand that the Committee's report on
allegations against school staff is currently being drafted and
that there will not be any further oral evidence sessions. However,
if it is helpful we would be very happy to facilitate a meeting
with one of our practitioners who has detailed knowledge and experience
of handling allegations to ensure that the best interests of children
and young people are at the centre of this issue.
June 2009
| 
