Historical Abuse Systemic Review

Historical Abuse Systemic Review Residential Schools and Children’s Homes in Scotland 1950 to 1995 An independent review led by TOM SHAW orical Abuse Systemic Review e ¡¢ Co ¡ C Foreword 01 Summary 03 Introduction 09 Chapter 1 Context 13 Chapter 2 The Regulatory Framework 35 Chapter 3 The Regulatory Framework: 95 Observations, Conclusions and Recommendations Chapter 4 Compliance, Monitoring and Inspection 105 Chapter 5 Records of Residential Schools 115 and Children’s Homes in Scotland Chapter 6 Former Residents’ Experiences 131 Chapter 7 Conclusions and Recommendations 151 A Final Observation 159 Appendices 163 Appendix I Societal Attitudes to Children 165 and Social Policy Changes 1950 to 1995 Appendix 2 Abuse In Residential Child Care: 177 A Literature Review Appendix 3 Children’s Residential Services: 209 Learning Through Records Appendix 4 A National Records Working Group: 267 Suggested Representation and Terms of Reference Appendix 5 References 271 Appendix 6 Glossary 277 Foreword 1 Foreword As a society we need to learn from the past, to recognise ¨© § C £¤¥ ¦§ e the most valuable and yet the most vulnerable group in society. the good and to understand how to prevent the bad. Learning from our mistakes is a sign of maturity, an indication that we want to do better and, in the context It is our responsibility to respect them, of this review, to do so for all who were or are to care for them, to protect them, to children in the care of the state. acknowledge and respond to their needs and rights. Abuse of children occurs throughout the world; it is a concern in many countries. It is a focus of the work Abuse of children – however it is defined, whenever of the United Nations. We can learn much from the it occurs, whoever is responsible – must not be experiences of other countries about how to identify tolerated. It is self-indulgence in its ugliest form. abuse, how to respond to those who have been When it occurs where children are placed for abused and how to prevent abuse. And we should protection, it is even more despicable. do so now. Those who experienced abuse in the past need to be An apology, an essential part of any response to heard; they need to know that society supports them mistakes or failure, is but the beginning, not the end, in speaking out and that their experiences, however of the process of addressing wrongs. The process distressing, are recognised and addressed. needs to involve us all as we strive to meet the needs and entitlements of those whose cries for help were We all have a need and a right to know about our ignored in the past. past, our childhood, our family circumstances, our home – wherever or whatever that was for each of There can be no guarantee that abuse will never us. Our sense of identity is based on this knowledge. happen again – but we have a responsibility to do everything in our power to prevent it. This review There are many challenges to finding out about is a contribution to meeting that objective. our past and the process is even more daunting when those past experiences were bad. The reaction to our search can be cynical rather than constructive; the need to know can be viewed with insensitivity rather than with respect. The past is sometimes dismissed as over and done with: yet another unacceptable response. Summary 3 Summary This report is the direct outcome of a debate in the about the systems for monitoring and inspecting the Scottish Parliament on 1st December 2004. The debate schools and homes. was on a motion on behalf of the Public Petitions Committee, seeking an inquiry into past institutional It’s not about individuals, individual institutions or child abuse. It was the first time the Committee had organisations. I established a confidentiality policy secured such a debate. from the outset. The report does not name individuals or organisations with whom I’ve had contact as part The then Minister for Education and Young People, of the review. Peter Peacock, announced his intention to appoint someone with experience to analyse independently And, as my remit specified, I am not reporting on the the laws, rules and regulations that governed facts or circumstances of individual cases of abuse. children’s residential establishments, how these were monitored and how they worked in practice. 3. What the review was asked to do This summary has the following sections: The remit was to carry out an investigation against 1. Who carried out the review the background of abuse suffered by children in 2. What the review is – and isn’t – about residential schools and children’s homes in Scotland 3. What the review was asked to do between 1950 and 1995. I could, if necessary, consider 4. What we did materials from outwith these periods if I felt these 5. What the review found would be relevant. 6. What the review recommends I was to consider: I the laws, rules, regulations and powers that 1. Who carried out the review governed how these schools were run, regulated and inspected; The Scottish Parliament appointed me, Tom Shaw, as I what systems were in place to make sure these Independent Expert to lead the review. I am the laws, rules, regulations and powers were followed; former Chief Inspector of Education and Training in and Northern Ireland. I was assisted by researcher Nancy I how these systems worked in practice. Bell and legal researcher Roddy Hart. To do this I would: I have access to government records; and 2. What the review is – I be expected to seek the co-operation of local and isn’t – about authorities and other organisations that ran children’s residential schools and homes. This is a systemic review: it’s about systems – the systems of laws, rules and regulations (the regulatory I was not permitted to: framework) that governed residential schools and I report on the facts or circumstances of children’s homes. It’s about how these schools and any individual cases of abuse; or homes complied with the regulatory framework, and I take submissions from individuals. 4 H orical Abuse Systemic Review I felt it was essential to talk to the people who had their experiences in residential childcare is scarce. lived and worked in children’s residential schools and Attitudes to children have changed gradually but only homes. So I later sought, and received, permission to in the last 10 years or so in Scotland has there been meet and receive information from individuals. full acknowledgement in law of children’s rights. Attitudes to punishment have been inconsistent. 4. What the review did Although evidence indicates that abuse of children was known about throughout the review period, The review used questionnaires and a survey to seek public awareness didn’t develop until the 1980s. information from organisations – including local authorities and religious and voluntary organisations – Throughout the period there was a lack of qualified and archivists. care staff, perhaps a symptom of the low status given to residential child care. The review received information from former residents, in interviews, telephone calls, emails, The law didn’t provide adequately for talking and correspondence and from cuttings, video tapes and listening to children and taking their views into DVDs that former residents sent to us. account until the end of the review period. My researcher and I interviewed people who had The law in place during the first half of the review worked in services involved with child care services. period didn’t ensure that children’s residential care services responded sufficiently to the needs of the My researcher and I reviewed files held in the children requiring the services.. National Archives of Scotland and the Scottish Executive Education Department and my researcher The law responded slowly to growing awareness of reviewed files in other archives held in various the abuse of children across the review period and to locations in Scotland and England. strengthening the protection of children in residential establishments and children’s homes. Corporal I sought expert advice on aspects of the legal framework punishment was permitted in residential establishments and commissioned two specialist reviews. My researcher into the 1980s despite concerns expressed about abuse and I focused on abuse in children’s residential in residential child care. And the law did not require establishments and the other considered how society’s inter-agency working and sharing information as an attitudes to children and social policies have changed aid to protecting children until after the review period. during the period of my review. Accountability for children‘s welfare and safety were I established an advisory group of people drawn from weakened by the law’s lack of insistence that children’s backgrounds relevant to the review. My researcher and residential care staff should be suitably qualified, by I examined previous reviews and inquiries. the lack of a national vetting system for residential care staff and by the lack of national care standards. 5. What the review found Monitoring and inspection requirements were subject to a considerable degree of interpretation across much Looking back over a long period of time poses of the review period. In the absence of national difficulties, not least the risk of imposing 21st century standards of care, consistency in the expectations and perspectives on what people did in the past. Research assessment of residential schools and children’s homes material about children’s lives in Scotland and about could not be assured. Summary 5 The law specified in varying degrees of detail what and time-consuming.

Load more