Memorandum submitted by David Hough
Given the recent revelation that Graham Badman is asking local authorities for further evidence in support of his review recommendations, does this not imply that the review as originally presented is inadequate? It appears that he has been asked to present a review favourable to a given set of pre-determined outcomes and is struggling to find sufficient evidence that can be used to further the cause. Indeed, some of the terms he is using are ambiguous and misleading. A key offender here is the term "known to social care", which the review implies is akin to abuse whereas in fact it covers a much wider range and is often triggered by the parents requesting services under section 17 of the Children's Act.
Surely any further evidence gathered should be outside the scope of the Inquiry, especially as it appears that he has been granted more time to prepare than everyone else who is submitting material.
Another issue, although possibly outside the scope of both the Inquiry and the original review is that a small number of local authorities appear to have a disproportionately high number of cases recorded. They conveniently skew the data to appear to support the review recommendations. The question here should be why they are so much greater than the average and if it is due to them having officers unsympathetic to home education rather than any real abuse basis.