MN

As you may be aware, Mandate Now contributed significantly to the amendment moved in the House of Lords by Baroness Walmsley. The amendment would have delivered effective MR but instead a now long overdue Consultation was promised. We are still waiting to have its terms of reference agreed.

The opposition amendment NC 17 debated in the House of Commons yesterday was incapable of delivering Mandatory Reporting.  It appears to contain the watermark of the NSPCC’s inadequate August initiative ‘Strengthening duties on professionals…’  to which we responded – see link.

Cheryl Gillan (C) Chesham and Amersham brought to the attention of the House the conflicts and contradictions within the amendment that rendered it an ineffective proposition. Among the many reasons it could not deliver suggested mandatory reporting was its continued reliance on ‘discretionary opinion’ which undermines the concept of Mandatory Reporting.  We posted about this on Saturday. (more…)

Interview on SkyNews 22/2/15

And here is our review of the amendment

The Manchester Evening News  brought to our attention on 19th Feb an amendment Yvette Cooper tabled in the Serious Crimes Bill to be debated on Monday.  We are pleased that the Labour Party has made a committment to Mandatory Reporting, and we hope it will positively consider our review of the amendment.

An earlier MR amendment to the SCR Bill was moved in the House of Lords by Lib Dem Peer Baroness Walmsley, to which Mandate Now contributed (28th October 2015). It was withdrawn on an assurance from the Government that a long needed and inclusive ‘consultation’ on Mandatory Reporting would happen. Disappointingly, the terms of reference have still not yet been announced.

MR in Regulated Activities is inevitable, but its design is critically important.  MR is not a component that can be lifted from a shelf, applied and switched on. It is a complicated and nuanced subject that requires tailoring to be effective. Unfortunately this amendment prompts a number of concerns –  (more…)

This letter is the contribution from the highly motivated activists who coalesce around Mandate Now.  A further copy of the letter was sent to the CSA inquiry Secretariat on 11/2/15 following a meeting at the Home Office.

Please click to enlarge the image. The full letter is available here

Mandate Now attended a debate on the 21st November 2014 kindly hosted by the Loudoun Trust at the Portman Clinic in London. The invitation and the subject of the debate feature below:

Speaking for the proposition, surprisingly, was the NSPCC. It was an odd choice given the charity’s sustained hostility to Mandatory Reporting until just a few months before the debate when, as a  result of increasing public pressure over reporting failures in ‘Regulated Activities’, it released a porous proposal for mandatory reporting in August 2014. (more…)

Ian Dale discusses with Harriet Harman QC – Shadow Deputy Prime Minister, issues relating to the #CSAinquiry following a call from a listener who rightly wanted to see the inquiry statutory from the start.  Following Harman’s easy criticisms of the HO’s performance to date, Dale then asked if Labour would support the general principle of an SI. Harman says she thought there would be cross-party support for such a move.

Dale then asked ‘would you back a statutory inquiry or a Royal Commission?’ Harman hesitates and  aligns Labour firmly behind the Government’s position.

(more…)

The Home Office appears to be acting on little it discusses with ‘survivor’ groups about core issues. MandateNow wholeheartedly supports an inquiry, but finds it increasingly difficult to support this one. We are keen to see it work. Important matters drawn to the attention of the Home Secretary have demonstrably not been addressed in the statement issued by the Panel. If the Home Office chooses to delegate these contentious issues to the new Chair, on an ‘arms length’ basis, then significant further damage could occur to the process.  The Department seems keen to teflon itself from further criticism over its management of the inquiry by simply not managing it any further. Doing nothing and ‘ploughing on regardless’ could deliver significant disengagement within the very people who are meant to be at the centre of it. The views of survivors appear to have influenced nothing about the way the inquiry is conducted.  (more…)