Why is the Children’s Commissioner not engaging with the evidence?
Why are journalists more interested in the evidence than those paid to protect children?
The Ofsted report which judged Herefordshire Children’s Services as inadequate in every area started with these words:
Children and young people in Herefordshire are not protected from harm.
FAC (Herefordshire) wrote to the new Children’s Commissioner to Herefordshire Children’s Services to offer her evidence that:
(i) The Foster Panel has not been informed about a police MASH referral about a foster carer previously charged with 15 counts of child sexual abuse including the rape of a child
(ii) The Director of Children’s Services appears to have reviewed this case without even knowing all the charges against the carer
(iii) The Complaints Team shut down a complaint about the handling of this case with a blatant lie in writing to an MP
The Commissioner’s reply abdicated operational responsibility for the case and showed no interest in seeing the evidence offered to her of process failure.
In stark contrast a journalist who read the open letter to the Children’s Commissioner did get in touch with FAC and ask to see their evidence. On 8th May 2025 he published this BBC article about the case. We thank him for the diligence with which he engaged with the evidence.
FAC (Herefordshire) remains of the belief that safeguarding is everyone’s responsibility and asks: What hope there is for the children of Herefordshire if the Commissioner refuses to engage in a case like this?
The Correspondence with the Commissioner
On 10th April 2025 FAC (Herefordshire) sent an Open Letter to the Children’s Commissioner raising concerns about the handling of a case in which children are living with a Foster Carer previously charged with 15 counts of child sexual abuse including child rape. The full letter can be read here.
Her replies provide clear evidence that children in care are being wilfully left to the mercy of a service which has been judged by Ofsted and the Secretary of State to be inadequate.
Just three months ago, the Secretary of State issued a Revised Statutory Direction which said this:
The Secretary of State has now further considered the reports of the Commissioner for Children’s Services in Herefordshire published 13 December 2023 and 4 December 2024 and remains satisfied that the Council is failing to perform to an adequate standard
So it is disappointing in the extreme that the newly appointed Commissioner is failing to engage with ongoing concerns of the public, professionals, priests, politicians and the police in this case.
Her initial response came on 23rd April 2025 when she was keen to stress that she does not have “operational responsibilities” for this case.
“The Department for Education and Commissioner do not hold operational responsibilities”
On 27th April 2025 FAC replied pointing out that under the terms of the revised Statutory Direction issued by the Secretary of State on 7 Feb 2025, the Commissioner has very considerable powers to influence the decisions taken in this case.
…we do believe that the Statutory Direction gives you significant powers should you wish to exercise them. Part 6a of that direction requires the Council "to comply with any instructions of .... the Children’s Services Commissioner in relation to the improvement of the Council’s exercise of its children’s social care functions" and it would be regrettable if you as the National Safeguarding Partner (LA Lead) did not take a keen interest in this case. We believe that you could influence the decisions in this case if you chose to.
On 1 May 2025 the Children’s Commissioner replied but completely ignored these points. This time she commented that:
It would be inappropriate for me to comment on specific cases with a third party.
We agree that she shouldn’t be commenting on a case with a third party. But there is nothing stopping her from gathering evidence from a third party about significant process failures which put children at risk.
It would also be wrong for the police to discuss a case with a third party, but this does not stop them from gathering evidence! How can she reach any reasonable conclusions about the handling of this case without scrutinizing all the available evidence?
In her email to FAC of 23 April 2025 the Commissioner wrote this:
“The Department for Education and Commissioner … are assured, the routes to raise the issue have been used to a full extent.”
She states that she has been offered assurances but does not say who has offered the assurances. The truth is that those assurances will have come from Children’s Services and Legal Services, two departments who have been roundly and repeatedly accused of lying and incompetence, not just by Councillors and the public, but by a High Court Judge. Failing to interrogate the quality of the assurances she has been offered by departments with such an appalling track record and failing to triangulate those assurances against information being offered to her from outside the services, is nothing short of negligent.
There are many lies that have been told in this case, but the Commissioner could start with just one, the claim made to her by FAC in writing that a complaint about this case has been shut down by a “blatant lie in writing to an MP.” This is what FAC wrote in the email of 27th April 2025:
Further, you mention the quantity of correspondence and reviews of this case, but you make no comment on the quality of the information supplied by the Council in this case. Proper scrutiny requires you to consider the quality and the veracity of what is said. Should you wish to engage more fully with us, we can provide evidence that repeatedly the facts of this case have been misrepresented by Council officers, and that a complaint about this case has been shut down with a blatant lie in writing to an MP.
Why is she so reluctant to examine the evidence on offer?
None so deaf?
Is this a case of “none so deaf as those who don’t want to hear”? What would happen if she did scrutinise the evidence? It would be awkward for her. She might have to reach the conclusion that there has been a conspiracy of cover up, led by senior officers, to hide yet more egregious failings which put children at risk of harm. It wouldn’t look good to admit that for two years the Council has been defending a risky placement with a string of lies. Some senior officers would have very difficult questions to answer, not least the Chief Executive and a string of Directors, including the Director of Governance and Legal Services, the Director of Children’s Services and the Service Director Safeguarding and Family Support. Are the children in this case being thrown under the bus to protect officers?
If the Commissioner did examine the evidence in this case, she would expose the real problem at the heart of ongoing failure in Children’s Services: the Council has still not learnt how to deal with its mistakes promptly, openly and honestly and in a way that ensures that families are protected and vital lessons are learned. Families are still reporting that when they raise a serious concern, the default response is delay, obfuscation and denial, often followed by demonisation of the complainant. It still feels as though the focus of the Council’s efforts is to protect its own reputation, not to protect children and families.
What is the Commissioner paid to do?
The Commissioner is paid handsomely for her work in Herefordshire. For what? Is her main function to ensure that children are protected or that the Council’s reputation is protected? Surely, she should have a laser focus on any hint of dishonesty or incompetence amongst officers, particularly if lies and incompetence leave children at risk. Instead, we are seeing a wilful lack of professional curiosity from her.
The Commissioner talks about the need for “culture change” within the Council. But it is deeds not words which count and which keep children safe. If the Commissioner believes that culture change is needed, perhaps she should model a different way of doing things herself and act as though she truly believed that safeguarding is everyone’s responsibility.