Essex Council Urged To Come Clean Over Child Abuse Pay-Outs
Weds 7th January 2015, Yellow Advertiser

CAMPAIGNERS have urged Essex Council to come clean about secretive pay-outs for alleged abuse.

One child abuse survivor said County Hall’s refusal to answer basic questions about the payments was ‘tantamount to a cover-up’.

The National Association for People Abused in Childhood (NAPAC) and the Taxpayers’ Alliance have joined a YA campaign to uncover details of the historic abuse allegations.

The pay-outs were revealed in a list of 600 council compensation claims paid since December 2013.

Among the hundreds of claims are 10 pay-outs for ‘alleged abuse’ in 1970, 1974, 1992 and 1993.

One case involved the adult social care department, four were connected to children’s social care and five were linked to the vulnerable children and young people department.

The authority paid £90,000 for two 1993 cases. Eight more pay-outs totalled £4,422.

County Hall has refused to tell taxpayers anything about why the money was paid. The YA asked basic questions in early December, such as the age and gender of each victim, where the alleged abuse occurred, the nature of the alleged abuse and whether anybody was convicted.

Press officers refused to answer the questions and instead submitted them as a Freedom of Information request, forcing the YA to wait weeks for answers.

When the response arrived on Christmas Eve, the council had failed to answer a single question.

Civil servants claimed the answers were ‘personal’ and could identify alleged victims.

The YA said the information requested was too general to identify victims and that taxpayers had a right to know why they were paying for the compensation. Essex Council said the YA would have to go through an internal complaints procedure and then take its case to the Information Commissioner – a process which can take years to complete.

Abuse survivor Peter Saunders, founder of NAPAC, said the phrase ‘alleged abuse’ implied nobody had been convicted, leading him to believe the council could be making out-of-court settlements to avoid criminal proceedings.

He said: "That might be why the council won’t give you the details about whether anyone was convicted. If that’s the case, the abusers could still be out there.

"In my mind, the way the council is responding is tantamount to a cover-up. This sort of behaviour is why Theresa May’s child abuse inquiry is so important – to make councils like Essex Council aware that they cannot sweep it under the carpet any longer.

"I would agree with withholding information if there was an issue of identifying victims, but you are not looking to do that and you haven’t done anything to initiate that. The council should not get away with this sort of cover-up and there is no reason why they should be so secretive about the use of public money."

The Taxpayers’ Alliance joined calls for details to be made public.
Campaign manager Andy Silvester said rate-payers had potentially funded the initial abuse through their taxes, as well as now paying compensation to the victims.

He said: "Councils should be open and transparent; never more so than when it concerns such a grave issue as alleged child abuse. Taxpayers have paid for this twice over, but in truth, the more worrying issue is the way the council seems so keen to brush the issue under the carpet.

"Officials at the council must be aware that withholding this information will seriously damage the trust local residents have in them. It would be far better to be open about what has occurred, so that we can learn the lessons and ensure any alleged abuses are not allowed to happen again."

The YA has lodged an official challenge to the council’s refusal to release the information, and will take its case to the Information Commissioner if the decision is upheld.

Back to Shoebury Paedophile Ring Investigation

Back to Portfolio