Orkney Child Abuse Inquiry

Reform in the field of child law and in particular in matters of child protection should proceed under reference to the European Convention on Human Rights and the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (15.2-3).

As regards terminology it is recommended that in the investigation and practical management of cases of child sexual abuse care should be taken to avoid the use of labels without a common understanding of the definition and the purpose of the label (15.11).

Steps should be taken to increase public awareness of the problem of child sexual abuse and of the difficulties inherent in the work of investigation of child abuse (15.17).

Consideration should be given to the development of training and services to deal with the levels of stress experienced in work in relation to child sexual abuse (15.18).

Consideration should be given in all agencies where the need is recognised to the provision of an appropriate support system for those engaged in child protection work including those at managerial levels. Senior staff in Social Work Departments and Police Forces should within a set period work out what support is needed and programme its provision (15.19).

Area Child Protection Committees should be encouraged to take active initiatives in suggesting courses of action, training, practical planning and other positive projects to secure that the whole needs of child protection are effectively and efficiently met in their area (15.20).

Those involved in investigating allegations of child sexual abuse must keep an open mind and not fall into the trap of confusing the taking of what a child says seriously with believing what the child has said (15.22).

Where allegations are made by a child regarding sexual abuse those allegations should be treated seriously, should not necessarily be accepted as true but should be examined and tested by whatever means are available before they are used as the basis for action (15.23).

The recipient of a confidence from a child must above all display sympathy and understanding and not transmit any element of disbelief (15.24).

In the investigation of multiple sexual abuse a high level of secrecy and organisation, a carefully planned approach and a degree of caution should be adopted (15.26-27).

In cases of child sexual abuse neither a referral nor a removal of a child should be undertaken unless both an objective assessment of the situation has been made and in addition meticulous planning, so as to balance the risk inherent in intervention against the success of the legal process (15.28).

In a joint approach while investigation of a case is properly a matter for the police each agency should share fully with each other the whole information relevant to their particular responsibilities (15.30-31).

At least in cases of suspected multiple sexual abuse a senior member of the staffs of the Police and Social Work Department should be designated to co-ordinate their joint work (15.32).

To assist in practical co-operation both agencies should engage in joint training and should prepare joint guidelines (15.33).

The discovery of sexual abuse is not the monopoly of any agency. In particular, schools should establish close links with their local Social Work Departments. Teachers should be designated to be trained in the recognition of child sexual abuse and the roles of the various professionals who may be involved (15.34-35).

The administrative bodies of all schools should be helped to develop an awareness of the problems involved in child sexual abuse and the roles of the various agencies engaged in dealing with it (15.36).

Education authorities should recognise the problems created for teachers in their continuing work where a teacher has become involved as a potential witness in relation to an allegation of abuse. All steps should be taken to minimise the effect which such a situation may have on the relationship between the teacher and the family by securing as much confidentiality as possible at all stages of the process (15.37).

Any information about children which is to be used for the purposes of their compulsory care and which is provided by their school-teacher should be provided in writing (15.38).

In any case of child sexual abuse an inter-disciplinary meeting should be held at the earliest stage (15.39). Parents should usually be informed from the outset that the suspicion exists and that the matter is being investigated. Their co-operation should be sought (15.40-41). Consideration should be given to making enquiries of adults rather than of the children (15.42) and enquiries should be discreetly made from every available relevant source (15.43).

Social Work Departments should have recourse to independent professional advice in all appropriate cases in addition to the carrying out of any necessary medical examinations. A list of persons suitably skilled and experienced in providing such advice should be available to all Social Work Departments. It may also be appropriate to have recourse to advice from a child psychiatry team (15.44-46).

Where two separate local authorities become involved in the investigation of a case of suspected multiple sexual abuse which extends over both their areas the heads of the respective agencies involved should make special arrangements to ensure complete co-operation (15.47).

All agencies involved in child protection work should have a contingency plan to enable them to make an effective and appropriate response to media interest to be mounted if occasion should require it and consideration should be given to a more open approach than may have been traditionally adopted (15.48).

Guidelines should allow for the possibility of abusive activities of a kind hitherto not clearly identified or recorded (15.49).

Consideration should be given to empowering a Sheriff to order a suspected abuser to be excluded from contact with a child where abuse is suspected (15.51).

Consideration should be given to the adoption of alternatives to prosecution in appropriate cases (15.52).

While there should be no decriminalising of child sexual abuse, consideration should be given to alternatives to imprisonment in cases at least of intra-familial child sexual abuse (15.53-54).

While guidelines should be available for practitioners working in cases of child sexual abuse they should not be mandatory rules but guidance for normal procedure (15.55-56).

All local authorities should have guidelines for the management of cases of child abuse consistent with and in the context of national guidelines (15.57).

A new edition of national guidelines for Scotland should be prepared embodying extracts from the relevant legislation (15.58-59) set in the context of a clear statement of basic principles (15.60).

The national guidance should be prepared with the co-operation of all agencies and disciplines engaged in work in the field of child abuse and be available as guidance for all of them (15.61). It should include guidance on all forms of sexual abuse including multiple abuse (15.62), and should recognise the difference between operational and managerial guidance in cases of multiple sexual abuse (15.63).

The national guidance should include guidance on the principles to be followed where authorities or agencies of different areas require to co-operate in dealing with complex cases of child abuse together with other particular matters suggested in the main Report (15.64-65) and a new title should be given to the national guidance (15.66).

So far as the problem of a small local authority requiring to deal with a major case of suspected multiple sexual abuse is concerned it is not recommended that any solution along the lines of constitutional change should be adopted (15.67-69)

While practical assistance by way of extra staff may be obtained from geographically adjacent regions or failing that from other parts of Scotland (15.81) a central resource should be established to provide a high level of expertise for guidance, advice and support in particular cases where such assistance may be of service (15.70-79).

ADSW with the support of SWSG should set about the creation of a resource group whose members would be available when required to advise any social work agency in cases of particular complexity (15.80).

Area Child Protection Committees should prepare lists of psychiatrists and psycholgists available to give professional advice when required (15.82).

Research should be urgently undertaken into all forms of child sexual abuse and in particular cases of multiple abuse and into the provision of personal social services in the islands authorities and the less populated areas of Scotland (15.84-88).

Section 37(2) of the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968 should be re-written so as expressly to empower removal of a child where the child is likely to suffer imminent and significant harm of any kind and the removal is necessary for the child’s protection (16.1-6).

Guidance should be given on the occasions on which the discretion to instruct removal should be exercised (16.7).

In all training in matters of child abuse account should be taken of the opportunity which a child has to take steps for his or her own protection (16.8).

Removal of a child should be recognised as a course to be considered where no alternative exists and the urgency of the risk requires it (16.9). Caution must be exercised (16.10). The gravity of the threat has to be considered (16.11) and the applicant must be satisfied that the situation calls for immediate removal of the child (16.12).

To avoid confusion a name other than ‘Place of Safety Order’ or the corresponding English Order should be adopted and the title ‘Child Protection Order’ is used for convenience (16.13)

A record should be kept of the grounds for any decision to seek a Child Protection Order (16.14).

Where it is considered that a Child Protection Order should be executed but the Order cannot be effected immediately a clear written record should be made of the decision to obtain it, the reason for it and the reason why it cannot be immediately effected (16.15).

A Child Protection Order should only be sought where there is clear and cogent evidence to support the Order (16.16).

Where there is a likelihood of harm continuing to the child if he or she is not retained in care the evidence for a Child Protection Order should be sufficient to give a reasonable expectation of securing such retention after a referral to the Children’s Hearing (16.17).

The Sheriff or JP granting the Order must be satisfied on the whole material which is placed before him or her that there is reasonable cause to believe that the child is likely to suffer significant harm if the child is not removed (16.18).

Guidance should state for the avoidance of doubt that evidence from two or more separate sources is not a formal necessity for the obtaining of a Child Protection Order (16.19).

Child Protection Orders should be obtained either from a Sheriff or a JP but where the case is one of suspected sexual abuse the Order should if practicable be obtained from a Sheriff (16.20).

Encouragement should be given to further training of JPs (16.21).

No change should be made so far as concerns the definition of the persons who may remove a child to a place of safety (16.22).

Consideration should be given to the possible amendment of Sections 14 and 323 of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1975 so as to bring their terminology into accord with the revised provisions of Section 37(2) of the Act of 1968 (16.23).

A simple standard form should be designed for applications for Child Protection Orders in Scotland (16.24).

At the time of making the application or within forty-eight hours thereafter a written statement of facts setting out the grounds for the perceived risk to the child should be prepared and presented to the Sheriff or JP (16.25) The evidence need not be given on oath or affidavit (16.26).

The Order should contain a brief statement of the grounds on which it was granted in addition to the other necessary details (16.27).

The child and his or her parent or guardian should have an immediate opportunity to have the Order varied or cancelled by the Sheriff (16.28).

The Reporter’s existing power to have the child returned should continue but should be qualified in its exercise by the proviso that the return of the child would not expose the child to the risk of significant harm (16.29).

A Child Protection Order together with the form of application and any supporting documentation should be intimated both to the police and to the Reporter (16.30).

On the occasion of the grant of a Child Protection Order such authorisations or supplementary Orders as may be appropriate to the circumstances should also be granted (16.31).

Where the address of the child or children should be concealed from the parent a specific Order should be made to that effect at the time of the grant of the Order with or without a limit on the period for such concealment (16.32).

Child Protection Orders should be enforceable only within a period of three days only from the date of the grant (16.33).

The time for the removal of a child must depend upon the whole circumstances of each particular case but the prime consideration must be the welfare of the child (16.34).

At least in complex cases those involved in the removal of the child should be given full written instructions (16.35).

Social workers and police officers removing children to places of safety should when practicable be given sufficient information to enable them to inform the child and the parents about the place of safety (16.36).

Where practicable written information should be available about the background of the child for the use of the social worker or police officer removing the child (16.37).

A spare copy of the Order should be given to and left with the parent when the child is removed or delivered to them at the earliest practicable time thereafter (16.38). In addition to the copy of the Order a clear explanatory document should be made available to the parents (16.39).

Guidance should be given on the need for maintaining contact with the parent and the method of securing that contact despite the risk of hostility which the worker may require to face (16.40).

The fullest possible information about the background of the child should be made available to the child’s carer together with such administrative detail as the carer will require for the well-being of the child (16.41).

No special forms need be required when a child is removed to a place of safety but where occasion permits the Reception into Care Forms should be completed as far as possible to reflect the information available (16.42).

A procedure should be introduced for application to the Sheriff to obtain any of a wide range of Orders as may be appropriate in the circumstances either for purposes of investigation or for the immediate protection of a child pending investigation. Such Orders are here referred to as Interim Protection Orders (16.43-44).

The application for an Interim Protection Order should be intimated to the child and to the parent and they should be given an opportunity to object to it (16.45).

Guidance should be given on the matters to be considered before resort is had to an Interim Protection Order (16.46).

When a child is removed under a Child Protection Order the local authority should be under the same obligations as are set out in Section 20(1) and (2) of the Act of 1968 (17.1-2).

Where consents are required for matters of the care of the child, for interviewing or for examination and parental consents are not forthcoming, specific powers should be obtained from the Sheriff (17.3).

Procedures should be provided for the resolution of any disputes regarding the welfare of the child either by the Sheriff or by the Children’s Hearing, depending on which of them has last given directions regarding the child (17.4).

Any Order authorising the removal of a child should require the person so authorised to intimate the removal and the whereabouts of the child to the appropriate Social Work Department (17.5).

Correspondingly any constable or other person removing a child should give a like intimation to the Social Work Department (17.6).

Due consideration should be given to the views of the child in all matters affecting him or her (17.7).

Where a child is placed outside the area of the child’s own local authority the Social Work Departments of the two areas should have a clear mutual understanding of the roles and responsibilities of those involved in the care of the child (17.8).

Where a child is placed outside the area of its own home authority a social worker preferably of the home authority should be identified and allocated to that child (17.9).

In all cases of Child Protection Orders there should be an opportunity for the appointment of an independent person with a role wider than that of the present safeguarder to protect the child’s interests (17.10-12).

All local authorities should explore the sufficiency of their supply of persons able and willing to serve in the capacity of safeguarders and if that supply is deficient should take steps to recruit a greater number and arrange training for them (17.13).

In every case when a child is removed under a Child Protection Order the appointment of a safeguarder must be considered at the time of the granting of the Order or if the appointment is not then made at any later stage when the case comes before the Sheriff (17.14-15).

Where curators ad litem are appointed their specific powers should be stated in the interlocutor of their appointment (17.16).

A pilot scheme should be run in order to try out an enhanced role of a safeguarder in cases of child protection before further consideration is given to the possible development of a Child’s Advocate (17.17).

Where siblings who have been living together are taken into care following allegations of abuse they should not be placed separately unless there is some compelling reason in their own interests for so doing (17.18-19).

Where siblings are placed separately that matter should be kept under regular review (17.20) and they should be permitted reasonable access to each other subject to an appropriate degree of supervision (17.21).

In general, children should be allowed to retain such personal possessions as they reasonably wish or require (17.22).

In general, reasonable access to a child in a place of safety should be permitted to parents, relatives and friends (17.23) and restrictions on access should only be imposed if there are compelling reasons justifying such restrictions in the interests of the child (17.24).

Access should be kept under constant review while a child is in a place of safety (17.25).

The Sheriff should be empowered to regulate access to a child in a place of safety and should be obliged to consider that matter when the case first comes before him or her after the granting of the Order (17.26-27) with the assistance of a confidential report where appropriate (17.28).

The same principles and procedures as apply to access should also be made applicable to all forms of communication between parent and child (17.29).

Any dispute regarding visits by professionals to a child should be resolved by application to the Sheriff (17.30).

Where local authorities exercise any powers involving the removal of a child from home, their Social Work and Education Departments must, at the earliest practicable stage secure that provision is made for the continued education of that child (17.31).

Orkney Islands Council should take immediate steps to recruit more foster carers within the islands (17.32).

SWSG should take urgent steps to assist all local Social Work Departments in a positive initiative to increase their stock of foster carers (17.33).

Consideration should be given to a possible provision for refuge for children and to a possible amendment of the definition of ‘places of safety’ (17.33).

Foster carers should be given a written report at the time when the child is placed, or as soon as practicable thereafter, with as much personal information about the child as possible (17.34).

Foster carers should be kept informed of any developments regarding any child in their care and of any course of action being taken with the child (17.35).

Where children are placed with foster carers belonging to another local authority, a copy of the terms of the agreement between the two authorities regarding the placement should be available to the foster carer so that lines of support and communication are clearly understood (17.36).

It is not recommended at present that a Parent’s Advocate should be appointed to represent parents in contacts with the Social Work Department (17.37).

Medical examinations of children removed under Child Protection Orders should be carried out before they enter their placements (17.38).

Local authorities should prepare lists of appropriate persons to carry out medical examinations of children suspected of sexual abuse in so far as they have not already done so (17.39).

Where a child is being examined for evidence of sexual abuse a general examination of the child’s health should be carried out at the same time (17.40).

The Sheriff should be empowered to authorise a child to be taken for a medical examination (17.41), although the carrying out of the examination should not proceed if the child refuses to be examined (17.42).

In general, a parent should be told the results of a medical examination of their child (17.43).

A child should be able to choose whether the examination is conducted by a female or a male doctor (17.44).

There should be a greater recognition by agencies, training colleges, Central Government Departments and the public of the complexity of the task of interviewing children where allegations of sexual abuse arise (17.47).

The purpose, techniques and course of any interviews should be planned at the outset as well as the need to make an overall assessment of the child (17.48).

Consideration should be given to the classification and terminology of the various types of interviews which may be held (17.49).

All details should be thoroughly planned before any interviewing starts (17.50).

The consents of parents and of children where of a maturity to give consent should be sought prior to investigative interviewing being undertaken (17.51).

The importance of full training in the art of interviewing and the techniques of recording should be fully recognised (17.52).

Wherever possible interviewers who have dealt extensively with children making allegations about other children should not be involved in interviews of those other children (17.53).

Each interviewer should wherever possible have consistent and relevant background information about the child and in particular about his or her emotional, physical and mental development (17.54), and an assessment of the child’s wider family (17.55).

The importance should be recognised of interviewers keeping an open mind on the truth or otherwise of any allegations (17.56).

Clear communication channels should be set up from interviewers to case managers (17.57).

Where investigative interviews are being undertaken the contribution of foster carers must be valued, collected and recorded (17.58).

Where agencies are to undertake joint interviews, there should be an agreed strategy both for the course of interviews and for the resolution of disputes and for the assessment of the ongoing work both by managers and interviewers (17.59).

Interviewers should be involved in decisions relating to the care of the children while they are in places of safety and the extent of their involvement should be defined (17.60).

No more than two investigative interviews per interviewer per day should be undertaken and their workloads should be regularly monitored (17.61).

Attention should be given to the development of more facilities suitable for interviewing children in relation to child abuse (17.62). Area Child Protection Committees should undertake an audit of premises and facilities that may be available locally (17.63).

Every effort should be made to improve recording techniques and maintain consistent recordings throughout a series of interviews (17.64) The standards and practices of recording should be regularly monitored (17.65).

Whether or not there is mechanical recording, a full written record must be made as soon as possible after each interview (17.66).

Any drawings made during an interview should be labelled at the time of creation to enable the occasion and their creator to be clearly identified (17.67).

Clear arrangements should be made to secure the control and custody of any audio-tapes or video-tapes of interviews with children (17.68).

Where interviews involve complex or multiple sexual abuse allegations there must be provided individual personal supervision, management supervision and detailed interview supervision (17.69).

Where interviews are being undertaken jointly, supervision should be planned on an occasional but regular joint basis (17.70).

An interviewer’s manager should have a clear understanding of all the people from whom the interviewer is receiving support (17.71).

A decision should be made on the number of interviewers required prior to any interviews starting (17.72).

In general a maximum of two investigative interviews per child per week should be appropriate and the frequency of interviews is a matter for regular review (17.73).

The timescale for investigative interviews should be determined at planning meetings (17.74).

An initial series of investigative interviews should usually not exceed four (17.75).

Any departure from the purpose or number of interviews should only be made after a full review of the situation and the agreement of all agencies (17.76).

Before embarking on an investigative interview interviewers should consider the matters of denial and retraction by a child, the interviewer’s knowledge of information relating to allegations, the interviewer’s own agenda, the use of leading questions and the introduction of personal material (17.77).

As part of the national guidance already recommended SWSG should undertake the preparation of guidelines for the investigative interviewing of children in consultation with representatives of all the agencies and professions who may be involved in that work (17.78).

A departure from suggested guidelines should not be automatically seen as a breach of good practice (17.78).

Consideration should be given to the review and revisal of the work of the Children’s Hearings in the area of child protection (18.1-6), including as is suggested later the transference to the Sheriff of all matters relating to a child in a place of safety (18.7).

Clarification of the statutory provisions relating to the first lawful day hearing under Section 37(4) of the 1968 Act is required (18.8-18).

A procedure should be introduced by an amendment to the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968 enabling immediate recourse to be made to the Sheriff for a decision on the question whether a child reasonably requires to be in a place of safety (18.19).

A parent, guardian or safeguarder of the child should be entitled to apply to the Sheriff for recall of the Order at any time within seven days after the removal of the child (18.20).

The processing of Child Protection Orders should be transferred from the Children’s Hearing to the Sheriff with certain consequential changes in the procedure of referral (18.21).

Consideration should be given to securing that legal aid is available in the proceedings before the Sheriff (18.22).

If grounds for referral have not been served within seven days of the removal of a child under a Child Protection Order, the Order should fall (18.23).

A single overall time limit on the detention of a child whether under Section 37 or Section 40 or both Sections of the 1968 Act should be introduced (18.25-26).

Provision should be made for the giving of information confidentially to the Sheriff (18.27).

Consideration should be given to empowering a Sheriff at his discretion to release documents to which access is statutorily restricted (18.28).

No special provision should be made for extending the time for a proof on the grounds for referral (18.29-30).

The child and the child’s parent or guardian should be informed of any ‘business meeting’ of the Children’s Hearing and their position presented orally or in writing at that meeting (18.31).

The right of parents to be present throughout a Children’s Hearing should give way to the interests of the child when the child’s interests so require (18.32).

In considering the whole question of the representation of children and of their parents before Children’s Hearings attention should be paid to the necessity to avoid the introduction of any formal or adversarial character into the proceedings (18.33).

Consideration should be given to certain matters of procedure and evidence in relation to cases involving children (18.34).

Consideration should be given to the desirability or otherwise of introducing further restraints on press reporting of proceedings before Children’s Hearings and in the Sheriff Court in children’s cases (18.35-36).

Consideration should also be given to clarifying the application of Section 58 of the 1968 Act (18.37).

The press should be encouraged to enable a greater understanding by the public of the problems of child sexual abuse and of child protection work (18.38).

In any informal discussion between the Social Work Department and the Reporter his independence of action must be recognised and respected (18.39-41).

It is not recommended that Reporters should undertake an investigative function before matters are brought formally to their attention (18.43).

No amendment of the 1968 Act is required to clarify the stage at which agencies should make known their anxieties to the Reporter or of the nature and scope of the material to be passed to him (18.44).

The Reporter on being informed of the execution of a Child Protection Order should check the propriety of the continued detention of a child (18.45) but should also proceed with his statutory functions under Sections 38 and 39 in light of that information (18.46).

In proceedings before the Sheriff the protagonist should be the Reporter and not the agency which removed the child in the first place (18.47).

It should be clearly stated in all local guidelines in what form if any information requires to be given to the Reporter (18.48-49).

Where a Reporter requires to consider the abandonment of a case which has been passed to the Sheriff for proof he should consult the Social Work Department before finally deciding to do so (18.50).

The Reporter and the Procurator Fiscal should consult together to avoid conflict between the courses of action to be taken and they should also be invited to attend case conferences where appropriate (18.51).

In all cases where a police constable has reasonable cause to believe that a child may be in need of compulsory measures of care he should be under a statutory duty to pass that information to the Reporter (18.52).

An express statutory provision should be made enabling the Reporter to obtain from the police any information or articles held by them so that they may be available for the conduct of a proof under Section 42, subject to their being immediately required for purposes of criminal proceedings (18.53).

Consideration should be given to the preparation of guidance for Reporters to secure greater uniformity across Scotland in their practice (18.56).

ADSW should promote debate in Scotland through social work and allied agencies regarding the role and function of social work as a profession for the future so as best to serve the needs of the community (19.1-3).

ADSW should consider the taking of appropriate initiatives to develop a centralised self-governing profession of social worker in Scotland (19.4).

The whole area of work in child protection requires to be seen as a specialist area to be undertaken by practitioners with specialist skills and knowledge with adequate training and support (19.5-6).

An increase in the facilities for training in social work is required and in particular for specialist training over the whole area of child care (19.7).

A three-year qualification course for social workers should be introduced as soon as possible (19.8).

It should be recognised that the area of child abuse in general and child sexual abuse in particular is an area of expertise into which not all members of the profession should necessarily enter (19.9).

The need to increase facilities for post-qualifying training should be considered by ADSW (19.10).

Local and central government should consider as a matter of priority the problems of resource and facilities involved in meeting that need (19.10).

Basic qualifying training for social workers when extended should include substantial tuition on interviewing children (19.10-12).

Planning should be started for developing more extensive post qualifying training to cover the complex subject of interviewing children in cases of suspected sexual abuse (19.10-12).

Training in management skills should be extended (19.13).

No Social Work Department should be without a sufficient proportion of its staff adequately skilled and knowledgeable in the identification, investigation and management of problems of child protection (19.14).

Joint training should be undertaken between the social work profession and other agencies including in particular the police (19.15).

Each region should develop joint training for interviewers of children where they are expected to undertake joint investigations of allegations of sexual abuse (19.16).

Consideration should be given to the provision of training to all those outside the social work profession and the police who in one context or another may have an involvement in child protection work (19.17).

Every encouragement and support should be given to the creation and development of specialist courses in social work in Scotland with the involvement of practitioners from all agencies (19.18-19).

SWSG should be given every encouragement to initiate and promote further and fuller facilities for training including joint training between agencies, to recognise the resource implications and to secure a level of training which will produce standards of practice to be monitored by the new inspectorate (19.20).

Local authorities should give serious consideration to securing that there is a sufficient number of staff with the appropriate qualifications to deal with the growing burden of work of suspected child abuse (19.21).

More extensive police training in work relating to matters of child care should be provided particularly in the work of interviewing children (19.22).

It should be recognised that the experience of dealing with cases of suspected child sexual abuse involves as much stress for police officers as it does for social workers and requires a corresponding degree of support (19.23).

The press and the public should give social workers the support which they need to continue in the work which the public requires of them (19.24-25).

Social workers should not be seen to be spies or detectives but should be recognised as agents for the provision of advice, guidance and assistance (19.26).

Steps should be taken to improve the public understanding of and encourage debate about the work of child care and child protection in Scotland including the work of the Children’s Hearings and the Reporter (19.27).

Social workers should be readily accessible and available to the particular community which they serve and know and be known by it (19.28).

The use of technical jargon which may obscure communication with clients should be avoided and in particular the use of the term ‘disclosure work’ should be discouraged (19.29-31).

Every opportunity should be taken to secure such advice and assistance for the nine children whose removal was the subject of this Inquiry to ensure that they are untroubled for the future so far as any effects of the Inquiry or the incidents which occasioned it are concerned (19.32).

Orkney Islands Council should take active steps towards improving the relationship between themselves and in particular their Social Work Department and the local community (19.33).