Ruth Kelly's Announcement to ban all those accused

In response to the Media and Government orchestrated mass hysteria over accused persons continuing to work with children, Kelly announced today that she has banned from working with children all those accused of a sexual offence against a child. During her announcement she confirmed that as a result of the investigation she requested, the number of those accused of an offence who were still working with children and dating from 1997, amounted to 10. None of those 10 are now working with children.

Further changes announced by Ruth Kelly include the formation of an 'expert panel' to review individual cases. Though she failed to state who those experts are.List 99, which contains the names of those accused, not just those on the sex offenders register, will now be managed by the former head of Barnardos. She has confirmed that Ministers will no longer be responsible for deciding who should work with children. Kelly claims that there will be no 'witch hunt' against those wrongly accused and that the new system will still be fair. She goes on to claim that the new measures will protect teachers against false and malicious allegations. This announcement by Ruth Kelly, Education Secretary, has raised a number of concerns. The hysteria whipped up by the Government and mass media has ensured that any response, however extreme and unnecessary, would be gladly accepted by the public and child protection workers. Having ensured that the situation spiralled out of control, any rational discussion of the facts was no longer possible.

Her announcement however, has raised a number of concerns. The fact that ministers have relieved themselves of responsibility something as important as this is wrong. Are they only able to deal with difficulties and ‘sticky problems’ by passing the buck and washing their hands of it? Who are these experts, and more importantly who will they be answerable to? Are they the same experts which more and more often are being criticised for the actions in cases where a person is wrongfully accused of a crime? How can that result in a remotely fair vetting system? If this expert panel consists solely of police and child protection workers, they will have no reason to consider any case fairly.

Kelly’s claim that this system will actually protect teaching staff from false and malicious allegations is very hard to understand. There is nothing in this system that will allow for differentiation between false and genuine allegations.

On the contrary, she has just ensured that the growing problem of malicious allegations will take an enormous leap. The knowledge that all those accused will be banned plays directly into the hands of disgruntled pupils, resident youngsters and colleagues who will see this as an easy and ‘sure fire’ way to exact revenge. This already happens, Ruth Kelly has just given it her support. Below are the questions that I have today put to Ruth Kelly via email. I will be posting her response when I receive it. Contact her at the Parliamentary website with your comments. Dear Mrs Kelly,

I am deeply concerned about a number of statements contained in your announcement. I am writing on behalf of a campaign and support group in Scotland who highlight cases of false allegations of any kind. As the number of false allegations, particularly those involving allegations of abuse against children, have seen a sharp increase over the last 15 years and continue to rise. Together with the fact that it is becoming increasingly easier for false and malicious allegations to be made against another person, your latest announcement has raised a number of concerns.I would therefore be grateful if you could answer the following questions.

1. Who are the 'experts' that will make up the panel.

2. Does your announcement to automatically ban all those who have had allegations made against them also include those who have had their convictions overturned and those who have been proved to have had false allegations made against them by some other means (such as an accuser admitting making false allegations, or the accuser being found to have lied.)?

3. Why did you chose to give responsibility for 'List 99' to the head of a voluntary organisation which is unregulated by any 'watchdog' or ombudsman and not accountable to anyone?

4. As the investigation you requested only exposed 10 cases since 1997, can you explain why this action should not be seen as excessive and extreme?

5. Who will the panel of 'experts' be accountable to?

6. Will their actions and decisions be regularly reviewed and by who?

7. This is a 'witch hunt', can you explain why you feel it is not?

8. You claim that the new system will still be fair to individuals and will protect teachers against false or malicious allegations. Can you explain how this system is fair to individuals and how will this system protect teaching staff against false and malicious allegations?

9. Now that it is publicly known that anyone accused of an offence will be automatically banned, does it not concern you that an individual who wishes for some reason to exact revenge on another will now (as many do already) use this as a tool to accomplish their aim?
10. In November 2005 you announced new guidance on investigating allegations of abuse with regard to teaching staff. These measures included maintaining confidentiality while cases are under investigation and the avoidance of automatically suspending staff. These were welcomed by NASWUT who had campaigned for steps to be taken to protect teachers from false and malicious allegations. Can you explain how your announcement will affect these guidelines?

I feared that the government and media orchestrated mass hysteria, and the resultant witch hunt would require extreme measures to resolve, I have been proved right.

It is also no coincidence that this current hysteria arose at the same time as the BBC's excellent programme exposing the malicious actions of the agencies responsible for the Rochdale satanic abuse scandal of 1991.

It is also due to the deep involvement of voluntary organisations including Barnardos in scandals such as these which causes me great concern that they will be responsible for List 99.

Yours sincerely,

Penny Campbell for Faascotland