Tom Perry and I have had a further Twitter exchange with Peter Wanless.
So a few days later (on 21st May) Tom Perry wrote to Peter Wanless to confirm the exchange and his willingness to participate in a meeting.
Dear Mr Wanless,Two days later Peter Wanless replied.
Following our exchanges on Twitter on 15 May (attached), Jonathan West is in the process of assembling a draft agenda for your consideration and input. We will perhaps be circa 5+ people, the names of whom Jonathan will confirm in advance of the meeting once the agenda agreed. I propose we meet in chambers located twenty minutes from your Curtain Rd office. These arrangements will be subject to competing diaries, accommodation availability, and no doubt the usual collection of factors that make such meetings so challenging to arrange.
Let’s firstly agree the agenda, then proceed with participants and availability to establish a meeting date. I hope you consider this a sensible approach. Do you have a PA who can liaise these matters for you?
I look forward to your reply.
Dear TomIt took a few days' work to put together an agenda, I sent it to Peter Wanless on 5th June.
Look forward to hearing from you again when you are ready to make a proposal. It all feels terribly formal but let’s see what is suggested. I’m happy for you to liaise directly with me but have copied my PA into this exchange as well.
Peter waited a week to replyHi PeterHere is what I propose for the agenda for our meeting. Note that I have put some bullet points under item 4, items of concern to Mandate Now. I would appreciate it if ahead of time you could provide some bullet points for item 3 to expand on the issues which have caused NSPCC to oppose mandatory reporting until now.
2. To develop a constructive dialogue and relationship with the common goal of the safety of children attending Regulated Activities of all types.
3. Issues of primary concern to NSPCC regarding safeguarding in Regulated Activities including those matters which have driven NSPCC to oppose mandatory reporting. [NSPCC to present]
4. Issues of primary concern to Mandate Now: [Mandate Now to present]
- Abuse in regulated activities not being reported in part because of the inadequate ‘regulatory’ framework. [abuse within the RA, and abuse outside the RA but noticed and reported by it] [L]
- Poor child protection policies and protocols [P]
- Poor child protection/safeguarding inspection of schools [P]
- Inadequate training supervision and support of staff, DSO’s and Governors [P]
- Poorly resourced LADOs / Children’s services + poor training [P]Key:
5. Reporting legislation :
6. Practice + Policy issues :
- What benefits/disadvantages does the status quo provide? [NSPCC]
- What benefits / disadvantages does mandatory reporting introduce. [Mandate Now]
7. Common ground
- Enhancing the role of LADO’s + training for this role
- Child protection inspections of schools
- Placing staff, DSO, Governor, training on credible foundations
8. Next steps
Hello JonathanAnd that is the current state of things. A month has gone by since Peter Wanless indicated his willingness to talk about the evidence informing the NSPCCs opposition to mandatory reporting, but I've had no more word from him as to when the clarification he speaks of will occur. We have no date for a meeting and no indication of what (if anything) NSPCC is willing to say in defence of its opposition to mandatory reporting. One wonders how strong that willingness really is.
I'm conscious I've not replied to your message but I have been involved in some meetings that will, I hope, better clarify the ground at our end and make for a more productive meeting. I will have some comments on how you have chosen to lay things out below and/but I will be happy to list risks identified by those who have argued against advocating for mandatory reporting (in regulated settings) so we can explore together the strength of those points against the case for a new mandatory reporting requirement.
NSPCC seems to be interested in talking about mandatory reporting to anybody and everybody except the people who are actually proposing it. I'll leave it to you to decide why that might be.