Official Report: Minutes of Evidence
Committee for Justice , meeting on Tuesday, 27 January 2015
Members present for all or part of the proceedings:
Mr A Ross (Chairperson)
Mr Raymond McCartney (Deputy Chairperson)
Mr S Douglas
Mr Tom Elliott
Mr Paul Frew
Mr Seán Lynch
Mr A Maginness
Witnesses:
Mr Derek Williamson, Department of the Environment
Mrs Kathleen Marshall, Inquiry Chairperson
Report of the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Exploitation in Northern Ireland: Mrs Kathleen Marshall and Mr Derek Williamson
The Chairperson (Mr Ross): Good afternoon. Hansard will provide a report of the session, and that will appear on the Committee website in due course. You may brief us on your report when you are ready, and then we will open up to questions.
Mrs Kathleen Marshall (Inquiry Chairperson): First, thank you for the opportunity to present the findings of the independent inquiry into child sexual exploitation. I very much welcome the fact that the Committee has devoted time to this issue. I know that officials and the Minister are coming next week in what is a clear sign of your commitment. I invite Derek to introduce himself and his role in the inquiry.
Mr Derek Williamson (Criminal Justice Inspection Northern Ireland): I led the criminal justice elements of the methodology for the review. You will know from the report that the methodology was focused very much on the front-line issues for child sexual exploitation.
Mrs Marshall: Derek was a member of the inquiry board, which comprised six people. The Regulation and Quality Improvement Authority (RQIA) was also represented, as was the Education and Training Inspectorate. The inquiry made full use of the resources of the three inspectorates. Members included Sheila Taylor, chief executive of the national working group that specialises in child sexual exploitation, and Fiona Smith, children and young people's adviser for the Royal College of Nursing. We were keen to make sure that we had a specific health as well as education focus, because this is a subject that crosses all sorts of boundaries.
As members are aware, the inquiry was commissioned by the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety and the Minister of Justice in the wake of revelations in September 2013 about the alleged abuse of 22 children and young people. The Minister of Education subsequently joined the inquiry. A strength of the inquiry has been that we have had a lot of cooperation and very practical input from these Departments and the inspectorates.
The inquiry was one of three responses to the revelations. There is an ongoing PSNI investigation of the cases and a thematic review of the same 22 cases by the Safeguarding Board for Northern Ireland. That will involve a review of the files of the individual young people to identify whether there were failings. In that respect, the thematic review is a bit more like the Rotherham approach of looking at case files, whereas this inquiry took a broader perspective.
The terms of reference were to:
"Seek to establish the nature of child sexual exploitation (CSE) in Northern Ireland and a measure of the extent to which it occurs; examine the effectiveness of current cross sectoral child safeguarding and protection arrangements and measures to prevent and tackle CSE; make recommendations on the future actions required to prevent and tackle CSE".
The inquiry was specifically required to seek the views of children and young people and other key stakeholders, to engage with parents to identify the issues they faced and to seek their views on what needed to be done to help keep their children safe from exploitation. In total, the inquiry consulted 580 young people and 795 parents through a variety of consultation processes and face-to-face engagements.
The inquiry's initial call for evidence attracted 50 submissions, some of which were followed up by individual meetings. We also proactively sought out persons and agencies that we believed could assist the inquiry.
The key messages about the nature of child sexual exploitation were that it is not new, as we all know, but advances in communication technology have made it much more significant as a threat to a greater number of children and young people. People told us that there has been quite a change, even in the past two to five years. The greater number who are now vulnerable includes disabled children and young people. Parents used to feel that they were better able to protect them when they were out and about, but now, in the confines of their own bedroom, they can be vulnerable when using social media, for example.
Child sexual exploitation is a threat to all children and young people, not just to children in the care system. The forms it takes in Northern Ireland are similar to those in other parts of the UK, but in each area of the UK CSE is manifest at the hard level in a slightly different way, depending on the environment in which it is growing. In Northern Ireland, that has emerged, in particular, in relation to the legacy of the Troubles.
It is not possible anywhere in the UK to give a precise assessment of the extent of child sexual exploitation at the moment, because the information is not held in a way that allows for that. That was known when we started, and it is known now. Some of the recommendations are aimed at trying to make sure that that changes.
Over the past year, awareness of child sexual exploitation has increased in Northern Ireland, and the response to it has improved. There are excellent examples of dedicated work by a range of professionals and voluntary organisations, as well as the beginnings of improvement in data collection. Much more remains to be done, but there are some good foundations for that future work. Improvements in data collection and information sharing provide an essential foundation but will have no impact unless accompanied by analysis and reflection. We concluded that this element was underdeveloped, although the work of Operation Owl on the 22 cases provided an excellent example of good practice and something to build on.
Themes from the recommendations include the need for awareness and cultural change. We recommended a public health campaign: the message has to get through to everyone. From a justice perspective, it is particularly important to inform those who serve on juries. We heard a lot about the difficulties of juries in accepting the credibility of allegations and what young people tell them. The inquiry has recommended awareness raising aimed at attitudinal change for those who work in the justice system, but that is not practical for jurors who perform a critical role and need to have their awareness raised beforehand. One of the big issues was that juries do not understand why young people go back to abusers or people who groom them.
We need a continued and reinforced commitment to improving relationships between police, young people and communities. That is a message that came through very strongly. We know the commitment that the PSNI has to that, but there is still an issue to be addressed. We also need a continued and reinforced commitment to improving the response of the criminal justice system to reports of child abuse and child sexual exploitation.
We need a strategic approach. Good things are happening around the region, but they are not joined up. We need a regional strategy that links in with and builds on related strategies, such as those in trafficking, domestic violence, early intervention and drugs and alcohol.
If you asked me what I wanted for young people as a result of all this work, I would say this: we need the structures and processes that promote justice and safety for them, but we also need to inculcate in young people and their communities faith in the possibility of justice and safety and faith in their own human dignity and value. That is all I have to say just now, Chair. Thank you for the opportunity to make an opening statement. We are happy to receive questions.
Mr A Maginness: First, thank you very much for the report. What I am interested in is the commitment of the PSNI and how you saw that working through the system. It is very important that the PSNI is committed — I think that you have acknowledged that — but to what extent does it manifest itself?
Mrs Marshall: The commitment is clearly there at the strategic and policy level; the difficulty is in making sure that it filters through to the level of work in the communities. I came across that when I was here a few years ago doing the youth justice review. It was manifest in the people I met and I did not doubt their commitment, but, when you are out in the community, talking to young people, parents and sometimes voluntary staff, the message is not always getting translated into practice. That is not to say that there is not some excellent practice in some areas by some very dedicated officers — I acknowledge that — but too often we hear stories of young people and parents who will not go to the police, sometimes for community reasons, sometimes because they feel they will not get treated fairly or with respect or because they feel that nothing will happen as a result. A lot has been achieved, but there is still an awful lot to be done in that area.
Mrs Marshall: I think it is about culture and attitude, and that applies to the specific topic of child sexual exploitation, which we are talking about today. We notice the value, for example, of the huge investment in trafficking recently. You have the Act that has recently come into place, and there has been training on that. Certainly, Derek did interviews with front-line officers and found that that had an impact. More officers knew about trafficking than about child sexual exploitation.
In the education stream, the Education and Training Inspectorate visited a number of schools and spoke to staff and pupils and found there was more awareness of trafficking as a result of the work that had been done. I think what has been done with trafficking presents a good example of what can be done to raise awareness of child sexual exploitation. There is an issue, though, with general relationships, perhaps more in some communities than others. Certainly, I have found from work I have done that how people — young people in particular — feel they are treated at the front line differs across communities. There are these two strands: general relationships and the subject matter.
Mr Williamson: I will add to that with some practical outworkings and examples. If you look at how broadly, as a society, people understand and know CSE, then police officers, to an extent, are not much different from other people. On the one hand, while I absolutely agree that the PSNI has more to do and can do more to raise awareness and understanding, it is not in a different position. I think we need to be fair: we cannot expect operational front-line officers to be a child protection expert for 20 minutes in the hour, a domestic violence expert for another 20 minutes and an expert in mental health for another 20 minutes and so on. That puts a slightly different perspective on it for me. It is easy to point the finger of blame and say that one organisation can solve this problem. It is a societal problem; it is about awareness across all of society.
Mr Douglas: Thank you for your presentation. Kathleen, you mentioned that some children kept going back to their abuser. I assume that is not just a problem in Northern Ireland but more widely —
Mrs Marshall: No, it is very common. One of the problems with child sexual exploitation is that young people often do not see themselves as victims. It is part of the grooming process. Sometimes, once they have got into it, they are in so deep, and then there are the threats etc. Also, young people go back for different reasons. There was one young person I spoke to who had been in the care system and said — I quoted it in the report — that things were so chaotic in the unit she was in that it was better being out with these people she felt she got something from. In saying that, I do not want imply that all residential care is bad; there is some very good residential care as well. However, that shows you that there are push factors and pull factors. Some young people have been brought up in environments where that kind of exploitative relationship is almost normalised and they do not know any better. That is what I meant about having faith in their own human dignity and value. Basically, they do not have that, and they allow — I will not say "allow"; that sounds as if I am blaming them — they get involved in relationships. They do not have anything better on offer to encourage them to get out of it.
Mr Williamson: We should think about this in the context that very many victims of child sexual exploitation, particularly young girls, think of this as a normal relationship, which it absolutely is not. They do not see themselves as victims and therefore keep going back, because they receive gifts and so on. As Kathleen said, when a case like that goes to court, juries do not understand why they keep going back.
Mrs Marshall: It is a mixture of attraction and threats. The relationships have so many different configurations. I would not like to say that they all went back, because for some of them it is a threatening relationship or dependency on drugs and things like that as well. There is a variety of reasons for going back.
The Chairperson (Mr Ross): Young people not realising that they are being exploited when they are being given alcohol or drugs or things like that and then asked for things in return is a key issue. Do you think that underage drinking is taken seriously enough by the police? Is there enough police enforcement of that sort of stuff?
Mrs Marshall: That came through as a big issue. The general feeling — basically, the universal feeling — was that it is very easy for young people to get into licensed premises and not very much is done about it. Young people talked about this too. One young person said that, up to 13, you can go to underage discos, but, from 13 to 15, there is nothing to do. Once you are 15 or 16, you get fake ID and go to pubs and clubs. That was the norm. Lots of people asked why more was not being done to enforce the licensing laws.
There is also the issue of taxi drivers in the context of party houses, which I found strange. They respond to requests to buy alcohol and deliver it to houses. If they do not get paid for it, they are out of pocket, but sometimes it is a party house with underage people there. I cannot help feeling that there must be something wrong about that. You are selling alcohol. Alcohol is a big issue and, along with drugs, impacts on young people's credibility, because they will often not know what has happened to them. They cannot give the detail that will convince a jury.
The Chairperson (Mr Ross): In response to Alban's question, you said that a lot of young people were afraid to come forward or go to the police. The report talks about the involvement of powerful individuals in communities who are perhaps linked to paramilitary organisations. How widespread is that? Is it in particular areas of Northern Ireland, or is it more of a widespread problem?
Mrs Marshall: We had different views on that. Some people told us that it was endemic. Others made it clear that it was maybe a more serious problem in some communities than others but was not just in the cities and there were villages and hamlets that were perhaps controlled by three or four powerful families that people felt they could not say no to. Again, there was a great sense in those communities that they were being left to it. One of the phrases that cropped up regularly was "The dogs in the street know what is going on", but nobody is going to raise their head above the parapet and do anything about it. We had some quite emotional meetings with people from communities that were affected by that. It is a real issue, and I know that these are certainly the perceptions of the communities involved.
We did not get that just from the communities; it was one of the subjects that was often raised when we went round meeting the trusts' looked-after children social workers, management, family support and intervention teams. Also, when we had events, people would come up to us at coffee break and say, "You have got to say this, because something has to be done about it", or they would write it on the flip chart that we put up for people to write messages on. It was not just one or two people who said this. Nobody suggested, as I have said, that this was a mission statement of paramilitary organisations. It is about power and the abuse of power, and that issue has still not been cracked in many areas.
The Chairperson (Mr Ross): Were there any suggestions or recommendations about how young people could be made to feel more comfortable when coming forward with information or about structures to make it easier for them to do that?
Mrs Marshall: I remember one person saying that there had been a meeting about community safety and something else, but the place where it was held and the format of the meeting had made the community representatives feel uncomfortable. Before you even get to talking, you have to have an environment in which people feel comfortable. Some of the people who spoke to us were adamant that we should not name them. They were not going to give us names or locations, and that is why I made sure I wrote that in the report. They were frightened of being identified.
We talked about police and community safety partnerships. There are already structures in place that should be bridges between communities and the police and should be able to raise these issues — I know that Derek and the inspectorate have done some work on that — but they do not seem to be capturing these issues and the issues that are of critical concern to people.
The Chairperson (Mr Ross): I have a final question before I open it up. The report talks about the different circumstances now, where young people can be approached on the Internet and may not know that the person they are talking to is not of a similar age or is who they say they are. The Minister has indicated that he is bringing forward legislation on sexting and things like that. The report indicated that there is already quite a bit of legislation that is not being used effectively, and I note that Sheila Taylor said to the Health Committee:
"It is about getting better at using the legislation available to us. I do not believe that the legislation is not fit for purpose; I just think that we do not understand it enough to use it for the benefit of this area of work."
Could you expand on that and give us examples of where legislation could have been used better in cases of child sexual exploitation?
Mrs Marshall: A lot of people think that trafficking legislation should be used more, but this is only appropriate for some cases, obviously, and I think there has been some movement on that. I was surprised that more use was not made of provisions in the Children (Northern Ireland) Order 1995 for recovery orders, which are more powerful than harbourers' warning notices under the Child Abduction Act 1984. I have flagged that up, as it just does not seem to be mentioned much. I found one reference in guidance, but it was not fleshed out.
I think there is some confusion about the different orders that are available. Northern Ireland uses sexual offences prevention orders more than some other jurisdictions, and there are some issues with the risk of sexual harm orders. There are things going on, but a lot of it is more the practical stuff. For example, as far as indecent images are concerned, a lot of it is about capturing and interrogating the information. We have found some inconsistencies. We talked with one police district that seemed to have a very robust approach to taking what they called the "pants and phones", but in other places that did not seem to happen. We also know there is a big backlog of forensic examinations, which is so critical for things like that.
There are things that probably could be used better if they were better known. Again, I think Derek found different levels of understanding among front-line police officers of what was available and what could be used.
Mr Williamson: A practical example is the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. Officers were not fully aware of their powers under section 19. There were other examples. I would also add that there could be greater understanding and use of existing powers, but there are also gaps in the powers available that we highlight in the report. That is part of the whole story of the legislation and not just a focus on what is not being used but is current in the statute book.
Mr McCartney: Thank you very much for your presentation. Derek, you mentioned the idea of blame and said that it should not be there. Unfortunately, however, sometimes, when there is an atmosphere of blame, people can become a bit defensive. In September 2013, the Minister held a summit, and I think there was another meeting. The former Chair and I were invited to it. In fairness, all the people around the table were very candid, but there was a sense that people knew this was happening and there were gaps. Kathleen, you mentioned structures and processes. Are we in a better place now in relation to structures and processes, and has that gap — I do not want to say that it is not there — narrowed?
Mrs Marshall: Things have moved on a lot in the past year. There is a lot more awareness because of things like the work of Operation Owl. I say that again. This is one of the things I am keen to find out. People kept talking to us about how valuable they found it being across Northern Ireland and multi-agency and that it was helping with all the gathering and analysis of information etc. It has been subsumed back into the public protection units, the idea being that they will learn the lessons from Operation Owl and build on them. It is very important that that actually happens. A lot of the time, people are talking about all the negatives, so, when you get something that people are universally positive about and that seems to work, it is important that that strength is carried through and built on. Things have improved, but there is a lot more to be done.
Mr McCartney: Officials came to the Committee. The Committee was briefed by a senior member of the PSNI on the operations. I do not want to speak on his behalf, but there was a sense from him that he knew there had been gaps. However, as far as he was concerned, he wanted to deal with it as it was, which was very candid. On reflection, in these reports and in situations such as that, were there signals that were missed and should have been spotted early? What is the mechanism to ensure that they are spotted?
Mr Williamson: When we produced the report, the structures in the PSNI were undergoing further change. The positive in that for me was the indication of a strategic intent on the part of the organisation to put more resources into that area. If there was a gap — I think it has already been acknowledged by the PSNI — it was in strategic analysis and the linking of cases, which led to Operation Owl. It was not consistent, and that was the learning from Operation Owl. It is also the learning that, I hope, will be applied in the new structures. I am pretty confident now, although the proof of the pudding is always in the eating, that the new structures have, at least, the capability to make the links and join cases together, allowing us to make strategic assessments of where the risks are and where the resources need to be applied.
Mr McCartney: I read your briefing to the Health Committee. The situation is layered in that some people do not think that they are being exploited. People gave evidence to the Committee very openly and frankly and talked about how difficult it is to keep someone in a care situation against their will. Then the conviction rate is low. So there is a combination of things. I will not say complacent, because that would be an improper use of the word. What can we do about it? Do we have things in place to take forward preventative action or intervention?
Mr Williamson: You are right in saying that this is multi-layered, but at the very top end, this is actually about increasing confidence among victims, something Kathleen referred to at the outset. We need to increase trust and confidence among victims, so that they know what they are looking at, that there is a pathway to report it and that, once it is reported, the system will respond appropriately. If I was to leave one message, it would be about building trust and confidence. Almost everything flows from that.
Mr McCartney: Say in a year's time, what would your measurement of that be?
Mr Williamson: That can only be measured by us going back to victims and talking to them again. Other performance indicators could be developed for different agencies as a result, but again, as I said earlier, the proof of the pudding is in the eating. Unless and until we get victims who are confident in the system, we cannot achieve what we need to achieve.
Mrs Marshall: One of the ways of increasing confidence in the system for victims is listening to what young people have to say. It is amazing how often they come out with perspectives that you would not have thought of. A lot of good things have been put in place to support vulnerable witnesses, but you have to find out how those are experienced by the young people and what the barriers are for them. One young person I spoke to kept saying, "It was scary." People talked in a very formal way, and it made this young person feel as if it was his fault. The best information that this young person got was from a junior professional who sat down and explained things in a human way. There are little things like that. We have structures in place, but if we are to make them work for young people, we need to get their views on them. That is really how to use resources best as well, because you can have all these things in place, and if you knew about it you would do it, but if the information does not come to you, you do not know. Getting the voice and the input of young people would be a big help in making the system work more smoothly and making it more attractive for victims.
Mr Frew: This is a very serious subject, as is the context. I read somewhere — I cannot find it now — that there is a 10% conviction rate.
Mr Frew: In everybody's eyes that is horrendous, but obviously there are reasons for that, as we all realise. It is very complex, and there is a wide spectrum of crime and situations. Kathleen, you said that it is not just an inner-city problem but that it can be in our villages and towns and can be based around what are perceived to be powerful families or individuals. I think that everyone who works on the ground as an MLA can see how that would develop and could be perceived to be the case. There is always the burning sense, no matter what the crime — whether it is sexual exploitation, drug dealing, racketeering or paramilitarism — that some people in communities are untouchable. How often does that come up in your findings, and how do we break that perception down? The obvious question I have for Derek is this: is it a perception? Or is it reality?
Mrs Marshall: One witness I spoke to said that what needed to happen in their community was for some of the low-level crime to get tackled to give them confidence that the police were there to protect them as well. Some people talked about some very good examples of community policing, and then they said that the community police officer would be taken off to work at the interface, which would disrupt the relationship with the community, especially when the young men got involved in some of the flag protests and things like that, which energised them in a pretty negative way. It is about giving priority to policing in the community and making sure that those officers are people who are appropriate and committed and are there for a long enough time. Sometimes, people get moved on, and you get someone else in, and the building of relationships has to start again.
Mr Williamson: You asked whether this is a perception. I do not want to dismiss the fact that some people's perception is what you have described, because the perception can be their lived reality and, therefore, it cannot be dismissed, not by the PSNI, not by us and not by this Committee or anyone else. However, there are a number of things that we can do to break that cycle. Earlier on, we mentioned the role of policing and community safety partnerships; there is an information and community confidence-building role that those partnerships can play in this.
I do not speak for the PSNI, but they told us very clearly in this piece of work, and were very forthright in saying, that there are no untouchables and no one is above the law. I accept that, but I put it to one side and say that that might be the reality for the PSNI but the reality for communities is as you have described. The gap is the piece that needs to be worked on by the PSNI, policing and community safety partnerships and others who can be controlled and corralled by the PCSP.
Mrs Marshall: May I just tell you what this dynamic reminds me of? I have done work in the past on historical abuse in children's homes in Scotland, and children who are now adults told me that they thought that everybody must know because life went on and people just walked on past. That increased the difficulties for them in telling everyone, because they thought that everybody knew anyway and was not doing anything about it.
It is a bit like that with the communities; what we are hearing is that that is their perception and the reality that they are working from. We cannot go in and say whether it is true or not; that is their experience and that is the basis on which they live their lives and decide to cooperate or report. The police at senior levels will say that they cannot act if they do not have the information and that people have to give it to them before they can do anything. A real piece of work needs to be done there. The issue of the untouchables came out quite strongly from the communities.
Mr Frew: With regard to credible statements and the credibility of witnesses/victims, there are probably many scenarios in which the victim could well have a criminal record by virtue of the fact that there was a previous connection with the perpetrator. Surely social services, along with the PSNI, can be a positive factor in shoring up the credibility or the evidence of a victim. Is that not bearing fruit or truth in a court scenario? Does a jury not take that on board?
Mr Williamson: Practice has been changing, which you would see if you mapped this out over the last five to 10 years. The practice used to be very much that it was the credibility of the witness that was the issue in any court proceedings. Now it is very much the case that it is the credibility of the allegation. That starts with the investigation by the PSNI in this jurisdiction. The PSNI should not look to see whether a victim has a previous criminal record; it should look at the credibility of the allegation. The evidence either supports and corroborates that allegation or it does not. The prosecution service should and does, I know, take the same approach, which is about the credibility of the allegation.
Potentially where this breaks down is the issue that we referred to earlier, where juries, perhaps, may not understand this is in the same way. As ordinary members of society, many of them do not understand CSE and the issues around it, such as returning to abusers and so on, or the fact that, if it is a drugs-related issue, they may have a conviction for drugs possession or something like that. Juries do not readily assimilate that information and understand it in the same way. That is where there is a gap.
Mrs Marshall: The emphasis on the credibility of the allegation is one of the recent things that has strengthened over the past year. The PSNI has said that, in the past, it has tended to focus on the credibility of the victim and rely on the victim's evidence. In a situation such as child sexual exploitation, you are often not going to get the cooperation of the victim, so you have to try to work around that. That has been one of the changes for the better in the past year. There is also an issue around how much information there is in the police files that go to the Public Prosecution Service (PPS), how full that information is and what it is informed by to set the context. There were some comments about that; that sometimes the files that go from the police to the PPS are not full enough even to give the PPS a full picture of the context in which that case arose.
Again, moving in the helpful wake of all the trafficking work that is being done here and the emphasis on not blaming the victim, there is an understanding that people who have been trafficked can often become involved in criminal activity. It is sometimes deliberately done to make it difficult for victims to approach the statutory authorities. I am hoping that, given some of that learning, people will also understand that that dynamic is also at work in child sexual exploitation.
Young people have said that as well; you might not want to go the police because you have done something. One young person said that you might have told them something that was not true in the past and they are not going to believe you now. All of these things are going on, and young people in care, particularly, often accumulate charges and convictions for things that no other young person would ever get involved in. They get ridiculous bail conditions about abiding by the rules of the children's home or something like that. Young people in care can very easily build up a number of convictions that lessen their credibility in the eyes of juries as well. There is a whole concatenation of things feeding that.
Mr Frew: I need to be careful here because, obviously, in my experience as an elected representative there will not be that many in the constituency, but there is bound to be evidence of perpetrators targeting care homes in a locality to entice young people out and shower them with gifts. How big an issue is that? Is it sporadic or is it the work of an orchestrated and organised gang?
Mrs Marshall: There are levels of organisation. What we heard generally was that mostly, in Northern Ireland at the moment, it was not organised gangs as such but associations. Some of it was organised; they would coalesce around a young person and home in on their vulnerability. That is not to say that there are not gangs; I believe that there are gangs, but that is not the primary model in Northern Ireland. There are gangs particularly around drugs, and drugs are very closely associated with prostitution and trafficking. There are different levels of organisation and different forms of CSE.
The social care staff told us that, in the past, it was more evident that people were targeting young people in homes and were turning up in cars and taxis etc, and they thought that that had decreased, but, of course, another side to that is that people are getting cleverer at it. The fact that the taxi or the car is not at the door of the children's home does not mean to say that it is not around the corner. It is one of these moving targets, and when we are talking about child sexual exploitation here, it is going to keep changing. As soon as we plug one gap, people are going to find a way for another. You cannot just put guidance and training in place, and that is it, you have done it. It has to be constantly refreshed by what is happening. Again, that is where you are going to need a link to young people who are able to tell you what kinds of things are happening.
Mr Frew: How do we educate our young people to make them aware of the dangers of this evil crime? How do we get through to people? Many people will simply say, "This is my lot. This is the way my life is. This is the way my mother, sister and cousin's lives were. This is it. There's nothing better for me, and, if I make a nuisance of myself, it will become known and things may become worse."
Mrs Marshall: It is very difficult. It is about giving young people hope that things could be better. That is going to be very difficult for some young people's lives.
We also heard from older people who had been exploited as children. Women said that they found it difficult to support their children because they had not got over what happened to them. You have to deal with it at the different generational levels so that they can support their children and tell them that there is something better.
Awareness-raising is important, but there has to be stuff that follows on from that. One of the recommendations that there has not been any discussion on at all as far as I am aware, but which is critical, is about reviewing youth services. There already are resources in Northern Ireland. I know that you cannot just say that you are going to put millions of pounds into new services, but there are resources. A lot of people, including youth workers, have said that, generally speaking, the services are not attractive to young people and need to be reviewed.
Young people need to have things to do. All these enticing things are going on in pubs and clubs. The thing is that there is a fun element to it. We talk about it in terms of child sexual exploitation, but to them it is entertainment and fun. Some young people we spoke to were quite clear about that, saying, "We go to parties and, yes, there are drugs and alcohol, but it is just good times. We don't have to do anything in exchange for that." They do not see their own vulnerability and what might happen next. We really do have to create environments in which there are attractive things for young people, where they can identify, nurture and value the talents that they have and realise that they are worth something.
That is only one strand. It is a multifaceted thing. A strong message came out about the role of schools. The work that the Education and Training Inspectorate did in going through all the schools, including special schools, and talking to people in cluster groups was illuminating. Schools are willing to be involved in that and are in a good position to identify young people's talents and nurture them.
It is about giving them hope and a sense of dignity and value. For those who are deeply mired in it, it is about trying to give them faith in the idea that there may be some escape. That is why we talked about having safe spaces for children. Young people will tell you different things about what makes them feel safe. It is not necessarily having one place that is a refuge for all young people who have experienced child sexual exploitation. What they need to feel safe can differ from one young person to another. One young person said that when she was in secure, for example, she was able to receive phone calls and a member of staff sat in the room. She said, "But you know, they should have a loudspeaker", because the staff member could not hear what was being said at the other end. That was one thing that would have made her feel safe.
I remember once speaking in a children's unit in Scotland to young people who had abusive parents. Two girls were talking about foster care and residential care. They were saying that residential care was much better, because, when you were in foster care, you just had two skinny wee foster carers and your parents could track you down, push them away and get you, whereas in the unit there were staff and some of them were quite big. That sheer physical thing made them feel safe in the unit. There are other things, too. You can have premises that are secure from the outside in but not from the inside out.
It is about talking to young people, and it is not necessarily one thing that will make all young people feel safe or supported.
If they have faith in the fact that they can be safe, they are more likely to go along with it and comply with it.
Mr Lynch: I apologise for not being in at the start. I glanced over the report and there seems to be a lot in it and a lot of issues. Did you look at the role of social media in CSE?
Mrs Marshall: Yes, social media is a huge issue, and, again, it is constantly changing. People think that there is something on Facebook or something, and then they will move on to another. Social media is constantly evolving and young people are miles ahead of us with it. That is where the issue of sexting came up, in particular. There is encouragement to send indecent images of yourself, often on the understanding that they will disappear after 10 seconds or something like that, but there are ways of capturing the screen. So, young people do that and the pictures then get passed around and they can get blackmailed about it or bullied. Because it is so accessible, a lot of disabled young people, in particular, rely on social media for their social life. They are very vulnerable, and there have been examples where someone pretends to be their age and says, "You are beautiful. Can you do this and that". They are in their own bedroom, and their parents do not know. So, there is a big issue. Social media is a very positive thing as well, and young people and parents made that point. One of the awareness-raising things is that, from the very beginning, some of the young people who we spoke to were saying, "Why did we not know this?" They get education at school on online exploitation and a lot of young people mentioned that, but it has to be able to keep up to date with what is happening and the current threat.
Mr Elliott: Again, apologies for missing the start of the presentation. I notice that the report focuses quite a lot on looked-after children and children who we would maybe expect to be vulnerable in society. What about, as we would class them, the more stable family homes? Do you see a significant exploitation of some of those children as well? I would like to hear whether some of that even takes place in the home or whether those children are being exploited through the house parties and other groups that they can get involved with in today's society.
Mrs Marshall: That is one of the growing phenomena, and we had a universal response to that from the voluntary organisations, social care and the schools. A lot of the education organisations that were consulted, such as the counselling services, education welfare service etc, all identified a growing number of young people from what you would call ordinary stable families who were being caught up in that. Again, it is very difficult to estimate the extent of that because young people are not likely to say what is happening to them, and we hope that, as awareness is being increased amongst young people, education staff and social care staff, that will begin to change. It might look frightening at the beginning as the numbers increase but actually it is happening already. Certainly, the Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre (CEOP) information shows that, with a lot of the indecent images, for example, the backdrop is the young person's bedroom. They are sending those things from their home. It is a peer pressure thing, and it is the thing to do. As I say, I had some engagements with young people at the beginning in groups, and they were saying, "We should know about this, and our parents should know about this". Parents were very eager to learn, and schools are very eager to share the information.
Mr Elliott: Yes, that is a double-edged sword though. When the parents know and you tell the children, it can have two effects. First, it can be positive in that it stops them from being exploited, or, secondly, there is always the temptation to try it out or to get engaged in other groups that may not be appropriate. So, I totally accept the issues around that, but it is a double-edged sword. I assume that social media has increased the amount of sexual exploitation among what we would term as more stable family homes.
Mrs Marshall: Yes, undoubtedly. It is just so easy for people to access young people through it, and party houses as well. Party venues are advertised on social media. It is not just word of mouth any more. They will know that something is going on, and they will go to it. It is just so easy for people to contact young people and for young people to get caught up in this.
Mr Williamson: You are right in saying that a good part of the report talks about looked-after children, but we are also very clear in saying that ordinary stable family homes are as much a vulnerable place as a looked-after children's home. We did some research around one of the vulnerability issues, which is looked-after children going missing. We found that, on one weekend, there were almost twice as many children missing from ordinary stable homes as there were from children's homes. That gives you a sense of the scale, and it will be no different for social media. Therefore, it would be wrong to focus entirely on looked-after children. We should be concerned about the vulnerability of all children.
The Chairperson (Mr Ross): Just to finish off, and we are a wee bit tight on time, you mentioned the arrangements where statutory and voluntary organisations can share information about those who may be a threat. Obviously, there was the recent judicial review, and there was some confusion around that. What are the issues and the concerns about the ability to share information?
Mrs Marshall: I think that it is more important for Northern Ireland than for other jurisdictions, because, in Northern Ireland, a lot of the people who have been sexual offenders in the past, and maybe even in the present, have been dealt with illegally by paramilitary beatings, and they are not on record. So, we do have people floating around, and people know that they have abused children in the past.
It is important that we get a very balanced view of human rights here, and I know that the DHSSPS is working on new guidance. Sometimes, people get a view that human rights are adult rights and are somehow in conflict with children's rights. However, the European Court of Human Rights has also been very clear that children's rights to protection are a very legitimate consideration, and it is a question of making sure that you have a proportionate response. Certainly, in the wake of the judicial review, we found that there was a lot of uncertainty among practitioners about what information they could share. Although some interim guidance had come out to say that circular 3/96 still stands at such and such, people still felt very hesitant.
It may be that some things had gone too far. I think that there was a suggestion that the information was being shared too widely about general risks rather than focusing on particular children. So, it is being looked at, but I hope that children's rights to protection is put into the balance as a very proportionate thing and that very clear guidance is given. One of the pieces of information that went out said that it was still extant and links to court judgements, but practitioners do not have the time or the expertise to look at court judgements; they need that to be interpreted for them, and management needs to take the responsibility for saying that this is what should happen. Obviously, there is some professional discretion, but we need a lot more clarity on that and a robust process that takes full account of the weight that needs to be given to the protection of children.