I absolutely understand that survivors want the broadest definition possible, but I also understand from quite a lot of written submissions that that might be unhelpful to some.
The definitions in the Scottish Government’s “National Guidance for Child Protection in Scotland 2014” are helpful. On sexual abuse, it says:
“Sexual abuse is any act that involves the child in any activity for the sexual gratification of another person, whether or not it is claimed that the child either consented or assented.”
On physical abuse, it says:
“Physical abuse is the causing of physical harm to a child or young person … Physical harm may also be caused when a parent or carer feigns the symptoms of, or deliberately causes, ill health to a child they are looking after.”
That is a “Fabricated or induced illness”. On the convener’s earlier example of a child not having designer shoes being emotional abuse, the guidance is clear. It states:
“Emotional abuse is persistent emotional neglect or ill treatment that has severe and persistent adverse effects on a child’s emotional development … Some level of emotional abuse is present in all types of ill treatment of a child”
but
“it can also occur independently of other forms of abuse.”
The issue that I would like to raise is neglect, which is clearly covered in current Scottish child abuse policy and procedures, which say:
“Neglect is the persistent failure to meet a child’s basic physical and/or psychological needs, likely to result in the serious impairment of the child’s health or development.”
I think that we mentioned in our written submission that the law is clear even going back as far as the Children and Young Persons (Scotland) Act 1937, section 12 of which—although we would probably argue that it is a bit out of date now—covers:
“any person … who has parental responsibilities … or has charge or care of a child”
and
“wilfully assaults, ill-treats, neglects, abandons, or exposes him, or causes or procures him to be assaulted, ill-treated, neglected, abandoned, or exposed”.
Neglect is seen as something different. As Bruce Adamson said, the Scottish Human Rights Commission’s written submission states:
“The Commission … considers that neglect should be explicitly included in the definition of abuse to bring it into line with international human rights law”,
which says that
“child abuse includes physical, emotional, or sexual mistreatment of a child or the neglect of a child”.
There, again, neglect is considered separately.
I know that we are looking at non-recent cases, but as we mentioned in our written submission,
“In 2011 neglect remained the most common reason for registration or initial category of those made subject to a child protection plan”.
We also know that
“By 2016 the two most common concerns identified at Child Protection Case Conferences for children who were subsequently placed on the Child Protection Register were emotional abuse (39%) and neglect (37%).”
Neglect was an issue previously and still is. Our understanding of it is far better because of all the work that has been done, predominantly at the University of Stirling by Professor Brigid Daniel. The Scottish Government child protection improvement programme, which is on-going at the moment, has a work stream that is considering neglect specifically. I think that it is focusing on three areas: online abuse, child sexual exploitation and neglect.
One of the representatives of Former Boys and Girls Abused in Quarriers Homes last week suggested that the bill would widen awareness. If we do not mention neglect in it, it might not be in the spotlight.