Expert: Child Abuse Enquiry “doomed due to Scottish Government interference”editor
An independent expert has resigned from his position on Scotland’s child abuse inquiry claiming it is “doomed” due to Scottish Government interference.
Professor Michael Lamb, a professor of psychology at Cambridge University, said the inquiry’s fact-finding was being “constrained” and “micro-managed” by ministers.
QC Susan O’Brien is leading Scotland’s inquiry into the historical abuse of children in care, which is expected to last four years.
Professor Lamb joined Ms O’Brien at a launch event in March during which the QC told abuse survivors the inquiry would “shine a light into the dark corners of the past”.
But in an open letter to education secretary John Swinney, Mr Lamb said he had grown frustrated that the Scottish Government was continuing to interfere “in ways large and small, directly and indirectly”.
He said: “Continuing interference threatens to prevent the Inquiry from investigating thoroughly and taking robust evidence of the highest quality.
“To be worthwhile, the inquiry must ask fearlessly about what happened to children in care, who and what institutions failed in their duties of care at the time and subsequently, how the affected individuals can ‘be made whole,’and how we can ensure that such unconscionable events never happen again.
“Crucially, its fact-finding should not be constrained or micro-managed by one of the bodies whose actions or failures to act may ultimately be criticised.”
Mr Lamb, who headed a research unit at the US National Institute of Child Health and Human Development in Washington DC for 17 years, said “repeated threats” to the inquiry’s independence had undermined its work and left it “doomed before the first witness has been heard”.
He said the government had delayed or prevented the appointment of members of staff and said the inquiry had to wait for prolonged periods before making key decisions.
The inquiry is looking into the treatment of children by institutions – including churches and independent boarding schools – going back decades.
Alan Draper, a spokesman for In Care Abuse Survivors (Incas), said Mr Lamb’s resignation was a “devastating indictment” of the government.
He added: “This will have a major detrimental effect on the confidence of survivors. Mr Swinney must make an urgent statement to parliament.”
A Scottish Government spokesperson said: “We entirely reject Prof Lamb’s comments about the Scottish Government.
“The Scottish Government has a clear obligation to fulfil its responsibilities within the requirements of The Inquiries Act 2005 and other relevant legislation. Our primary focus remains on supporting the successful operation of the independent statutory Inquiry.
“Ministers are grateful to Prof Lamb for his work.” Scotsman
Professor Michael Lamb’s resignation exposes the hypocrisy of the Scottish Government’s determination to press ahead with its controversial Named Person Scheme
Their alleged concern for the “well-being” of children (from even before they are born!) has led the Scottish Government to effectively label every parent in Scotland a potential abuser, so what possible reason can there be for their interference in any independent enquiry into child abuse in institutions in Scotland? What is it – if anything – that they are trying to hide?
And, crucially, why are the Bishops not leading a serious fightback against the Scottish Government’s interference in family life, now that the Government’s hypocrisy has been exposed by the resignation of Professor Lamb? It seems the Government’s alleged concern to protect children is bogus and – since the Catholic Church in Scotland is committed to honesty in dealing with and exposing any child abuse by Catholics, whether by priests or laity – the Bishops should be as concerned as the rest of us at this apparent interference in an important enquiry into the abuse of children in institutions. Yes? No? It would, would it not, give an excellent example of disinterested leadership, if the Bishops were to speak out now in support of Professor Lamb’s concerns.