Live International Development Committee

0:58:51 > 0:58:54Nobody, not one organisation was actually tackling it and doing a

0:58:54 > 0:58:59thing about it. And that is shocking. You are also opposed to

0:58:59 > 0:59:04the good people trying to help the world but you are not as good as you

0:59:04 > 0:59:11should be.I feel, it is truly heartbreaking that we are in this

0:59:11 > 0:59:17situation but I want to assure you that we were not doing nothing. We

0:59:17 > 0:59:22were working on it but we have reached the point where the world

0:59:22 > 0:59:29has woken up to the abuse of women and girls in a very special way and

0:59:29 > 0:59:32we find ourselves not to have done enough but we did something, we have

0:59:32 > 0:59:38been improving every year, but we are not where we want to be. And we

0:59:38 > 0:59:44admit that.Your organisation is not the victim in this it is the women

0:59:44 > 0:59:50and girls being abused by the menu employed in other agencies. -- by

0:59:50 > 0:59:55the men you employed. No wonder the world is angry and questioning

0:59:55 > 0:59:59whether money should be given to charities, sadly the people who

0:59:59 > 1:00:03should benefit from this are the poor people in the different

1:00:03 > 1:00:06countries and we are going to lose out because of all of your

1:00:06 > 1:00:14behaviours in the aid sector.I can see that indeed some people entered

1:00:14 > 1:00:19our system who did not share guidance, the abused the trust of

1:00:19 > 1:00:26Oxfam, the power of Oxfam in their hands, the abused the trust of the

1:00:26 > 1:00:29British public who contribute and turned on the people who are

1:00:29 > 1:00:34supposed to protect. It is true. I am deeply sorry for that. But this

1:00:34 > 1:00:40lifeline that we give to people caught in conflict and in disasters,

1:00:40 > 1:00:46I know personally, I came to this country as a teenager fleeing a

1:00:46 > 1:00:50brutal dictatorship in my country and benefited from the generosity of

1:00:50 > 1:00:57British people. I think that I find we must keep going but we will clean

1:00:57 > 1:01:07up.Absolutely, it must happen. Thank you, Pauline. Nigel.How many

1:01:07 > 1:01:13subscriptions have been cancelled to Oxfam following the revelations?I

1:01:13 > 1:01:18think about 7000 individuals have cancelled a regular donation to

1:01:18 > 1:01:25Oxfam over the last ten days.That is a massive impact. At any

1:01:25 > 1:01:31corporate sponsors severed connections?Corporate sponsors are

1:01:31 > 1:01:35reserving judgment, they want to look at both what we have done, what

1:01:35 > 1:01:39policies and procedures are, how their particular relationship may

1:01:39 > 1:01:43have been compromised and indeed what we are setting in place for the

1:01:43 > 1:01:52future.And of the new cases coming to light, we know some of them are

1:01:52 > 1:01:58historic, taking into regard sex tourism was through the world, are

1:01:58 > 1:02:00you passing the relevant information onto the relevant police

1:02:00 > 1:02:04authorities?We have made an absolute commitment that if there is

1:02:04 > 1:02:08a possibility that a crime has been committed we will pass that

1:02:08 > 1:02:14information on. What I have done already is right to the government

1:02:14 > 1:02:17of the countries, the seven countries from which the

1:02:17 > 1:02:23perpetrators in Haiti came, explained what we found them

1:02:23 > 1:02:26culpable of. I have also given that fool listen to the Haitian

1:02:26 > 1:02:30government. But our commitment is that we will report anything that

1:02:30 > 1:02:34might be a crime and it is not for Oxfam to decide whether it is a

1:02:34 > 1:02:39crime, if it is potentially illegal our job is to make sure that the

1:02:39 > 1:02:45relevant authorities whether they be several police are informed.Could I

1:02:45 > 1:02:51add something here? Oxfam works at any one time in more than 40 crisis

1:02:51 > 1:02:56countries, at any one moment. We have a long history that started

1:02:56 > 1:03:03here in 1942. Underground things are very complex. You will find in some

1:03:03 > 1:03:09countries where there are laws against prostitution but where the

1:03:09 > 1:03:14practice is that it is women who are pursued for being prostitutes, not

1:03:14 > 1:03:20the men who buy sex. In other countries it is only women who are

1:03:20 > 1:03:25under the law prohibited from prostitution, the law does not touch

1:03:25 > 1:03:31men. In providing this information to authorities we must always be

1:03:31 > 1:03:35conscious, are we risking the very women who have been abused by doing

1:03:35 > 1:03:42this? It is not simple.I appreciate that but we have domestic laws in

1:03:42 > 1:03:47the United Kingdom where we can pursue wrongdoers here, so I think

1:03:47 > 1:03:50we mustn't forget that. I realise this was out of your purview because

1:03:50 > 1:03:55you came in 2013 but when the Secretary of State, he seems to

1:03:55 > 1:04:01suggest that Oxfam had with the permanent secretary then, the

1:04:01 > 1:04:05gravity of the situation really did not come to light. In the

1:04:05 > 1:04:12discussions that you have had with the permanent secretary, how far has

1:04:12 > 1:04:15the officials gone down to the seriousness of the allegations of

1:04:15 > 1:04:20the sexual problems that existed in Haiti and other countries?I think

1:04:20 > 1:04:25it is completely fair to say that Oxfam did not tell the Department

1:04:25 > 1:04:28for International Development enough, Oxfam contacted every donor

1:04:28 > 1:04:34that have given money for that appeal. The SIG was not amongst

1:04:34 > 1:04:40those donors. But as in a sense the parent government of Oxfam Great

1:04:40 > 1:04:47Britain Oxfam also contacted the F ID, it did not say enough. I think

1:04:47 > 1:04:52Mr Mitchell's assurance that he did not realise the gravity is backed up

1:04:52 > 1:04:55by estimates.Since you have taken over at what stage have you started

1:04:55 > 1:05:00to give full information about what is going on?What I did with the

1:05:00 > 1:05:04Secretary of State last week was: her at her request, give her a copy

1:05:04 > 1:05:10of the full investigation report and give her a full picture of what had

1:05:10 > 1:05:16happened and what Oxfam did afterwards. We have reassured the

1:05:16 > 1:05:19Charity commission, who are our primary regulator, will matter where

1:05:19 > 1:05:25the money comes from that we will not use words like sexual

1:05:25 > 1:05:29misconduct, which is what we use in our report to them, we will spell

1:05:29 > 1:05:34things out and then they can make a much more informed decision as to

1:05:34 > 1:05:38whether they want to follow that through. We do see the Charity

1:05:38 > 1:05:41commission as a prime source of formal accountability because the

1:05:41 > 1:05:49money may or may not come from the IFT. And at my apology, the concern

1:05:49 > 1:05:56is that the F ID is time to be a leader in humanitarian development

1:05:56 > 1:06:00and in tackling violence against women and anything that undermines

1:06:00 > 1:06:04that effort of the widgets government at people as comprising

1:06:04 > 1:06:09their mission.I appreciate that. That is why I am not going back to

1:06:09 > 1:06:13far beyond your time. We have is what Andrew said what -- when he was

1:06:13 > 1:06:20Secretary of State and the conceded that was the case. But I'm

1:06:20 > 1:06:26interested in now is the discussions that demo officials had with you.

1:06:26 > 1:06:30How often do they raise the case of sexual must practice in projects

1:06:30 > 1:06:40around the world? How rigorous Abbey in drilling down with you? Ever

1:06:40 > 1:06:45since you to go with your position. How interested in the in the issues

1:06:45 > 1:06:53that they have been reading?DFID is an important funder of Oxfam in

1:06:53 > 1:06:56several projects, we do not get general funds from DFID and about

1:06:56 > 1:07:0210% of turnover per year comes from ten the night. But as a

1:07:02 > 1:07:05representative of the British government we have a better

1:07:05 > 1:07:09obligation so I detailed accountability is to the Charity

1:07:09 > 1:07:12commission, what we have committed to the Secretary of State is that we

1:07:12 > 1:07:15will give her details on all of these new cases that have come up so

1:07:15 > 1:07:20they can see.What you're saying is that discussions between permanent

1:07:20 > 1:07:24officials and yourselves on this issue really have not been all that

1:07:24 > 1:07:29detail until now?On individual cases where they have related to the

1:07:29 > 1:07:32British government funding, I believe we have kept them

1:07:32 > 1:07:38well-informed. Where we have funds from other sources it has been much

1:07:38 > 1:07:42more a sense of what do we do together to pick up on the kinds of

1:07:42 > 1:07:46issues that Miss Latham was talking about? Which was tackling sexual

1:07:46 > 1:07:51violence, which the former song -- former Foreign Secretary took the

1:07:51 > 1:07:57lead on. But you never got the sense that permanent secretaries are other

1:07:57 > 1:08:00individuals within DFID had raised this issue as being something that

1:08:00 > 1:08:05is endemic in paid work in certain parts of the world?

1:08:05 > 1:08:08I think the British government has shown real leadership in saying this

1:08:08 > 1:08:12is a problem not just about the behaviour of aid workers but

1:08:12 > 1:08:15violence against women and the abuse of women is something the British

1:08:15 > 1:08:19government has given a priority to, we're going to work with them on

1:08:19 > 1:08:22that. We have also made a commitment to them consistently that there

1:08:22 > 1:08:28should not be any surprises from Oxfam that undermine.So when the

1:08:28 > 1:08:34permanent Secretary needs of officials from Oxfam and yourself in

1:08:34 > 1:08:38October, how often have you spoken with the permanent secretaries about

1:08:38 > 1:08:43six practice?I cannot say aye have spoken to the permanent secretaries

1:08:43 > 1:08:48or indeed ministers about sexual practice in Oxfam until these issues

1:08:48 > 1:08:55have arisen. I have spoken to readers of DFID both logical and

1:08:55 > 1:08:58civil servants about working together to tackle violence against

1:08:58 > 1:09:04women and abuse of women. We try to work on the central business and

1:09:04 > 1:09:08indeed are now doing so to respond to things like the passport in that

1:09:08 > 1:09:20we talked about.Maki mentioned many times that you are answerable mainly

1:09:20 > 1:09:30to the Charity commission but when Oxfam put the matter to the Charity

1:09:30 > 1:09:33commission, what reasons behind a door know but they failed to mention

1:09:33 > 1:09:40that crimes have been committed. And it is true that they may have been

1:09:40 > 1:09:48involved. Why was that the failure? I can't defend that decision, I

1:09:48 > 1:09:52don't defence that decision, the report made at the time in 2011

1:09:52 > 1:09:58talked about sexual misconduct, it's talked about bullying and

1:09:58 > 1:10:02intimidation and breaches of the Oxfam could conduct and unacceptable

1:10:02 > 1:10:05behaviour. I believe that my colleagues at the time thought that

1:10:05 > 1:10:09this was sufficiently transparent. I am not defending it, I don't justify

1:10:09 > 1:10:12it and we are committed that we will go further. I can see by the Charity

1:10:12 > 1:10:18commission says that this was not enough. At the time the enquiry

1:10:18 > 1:10:25report which I believe you have said that there was, Oxfam was unable to

1:10:25 > 1:10:30establish where there was no proof that women under 18 were involved.

1:10:30 > 1:10:34Despite the investigation. I think we should actually said exactly

1:10:34 > 1:10:43that. Rather than simply leaving it out. I think my colleagues did what

1:10:43 > 1:10:46they thought was sufficiently transparent at the time, we know now

1:10:46 > 1:10:50what was not transparent enough and our commitment is, we will give the

1:10:50 > 1:10:53details to the relevant authorities whether in the countries concerned

1:10:53 > 1:10:58or in the UK and we will let them work out what is right and wrong and

1:10:58 > 1:11:03how we should sort it out and we will quarterly with that.Do you

1:11:03 > 1:11:10agree that when the public think it was a deliberate way of hiding the

1:11:10 > 1:11:18truth from the general public, when they failed to inform on such an

1:11:18 > 1:11:22important part of the complaint to the Charity commission?I can fully

1:11:22 > 1:11:28see why the public has a challenge to any confidence in what Oxfam said

1:11:28 > 1:11:33and did overtime. We now have to work hard to earn back that trust

1:11:33 > 1:11:38from the public that we will not do my words, we will do it by deeds. At

1:11:38 > 1:11:44the time my colleagues reflected undecided on a form of words that

1:11:44 > 1:11:48they thought were sufficiently transparent, which included section

1:11:48 > 1:11:54-- sexual misconduct. We know that was not sufficient. And telling half

1:11:54 > 1:12:00the story is not enough. We have to go further and especially if we want

1:12:00 > 1:12:02to set ourselves up to be trusted by the public. We have actually got to

1:12:02 > 1:12:06say we will go the extra mile, we will be unequivocal in the way we

1:12:06 > 1:12:14handle this and that is a commitment that we have made.We have quite a

1:12:14 > 1:12:19few more questions and we have two further panels will go to James.

1:12:19 > 1:12:25Earlier in response to Mr Evans he conflated preventing sexual violence

1:12:25 > 1:12:30as perpetrated in country by the people in country, should --

1:12:30 > 1:12:34shouldn't we expect a higher standard of people from a European

1:12:34 > 1:12:37environment with the European set of laws funded by the taxpayer and

1:12:37 > 1:12:44funded by small donations? And could I give you the opportunity to split

1:12:44 > 1:12:48those two things out because I do not think they are equivalent.I'm

1:12:48 > 1:12:53sorry if I give that impression. I was trying to respond to what Oxfam

1:12:53 > 1:12:57atop the Department for ten national development about and I was seeing

1:12:57 > 1:13:01we talked about the bigger issue not only specific behaviour of the

1:13:01 > 1:13:04organisation. Oxfam must be held to the highest standards of personal

1:13:04 > 1:13:08behaviour. Those individuals came from seven different countries

1:13:08 > 1:13:14around the world, not including the UK. But they were being managed by a

1:13:14 > 1:13:19UK agency and we take full responsibility for that. We have got

1:13:19 > 1:13:23to work on this agricultural level in the way that when he described,

1:13:23 > 1:13:28so that our values are driven through everything from how we

1:13:28 > 1:13:31collect references to how we get them at the other end and everything

1:13:31 > 1:13:36in between. The training, the behaviour, the accountability. Their

1:13:36 > 1:13:39behaviour was not acceptable, it was not acceptable that Oxfam tolerated

1:13:39 > 1:13:44it or indeed that is less if -- led certain individual design rather

1:13:44 > 1:13:50than go three former process so you have improved commitment that we do

1:13:50 > 1:13:58not accept those standards.

1:13:58 > 1:14:05There was a statement that there was no abusive beneficiaries -- abuse of

1:14:05 > 1:14:09beneficiaries. I'm trying to get a grasp of what a beneficiary is. I

1:14:09 > 1:14:14think what you're saying is there was no transaction of aid or food

1:14:14 > 1:14:18and expecting to have sex but is there a wider definition of

1:14:18 > 1:14:25beneficiary? Nobody goes into prostitution as an alternative to a

1:14:25 > 1:14:36well-paid job somewhere else. Completely agree. Oxfam used

1:14:36 > 1:14:39beneficiary to mean those indirect receipt of Oxfam assistance. The

1:14:39 > 1:14:47whole population of much of Haiti were beneficiaries in the wider

1:14:47 > 1:14:51sense of which they were affected by the earthquake. They were living in

1:14:51 > 1:14:57poverty. Whether or not they were affected by the earthquake. Oxfam

1:14:57 > 1:15:03tried to distinguish in a technical way was not the right thing to do.

1:15:03 > 1:15:06The investigators were trying to say, there was not the selling of

1:15:06 > 1:15:13six in return for Oxfam aid to -- selling of sex. There was a much

1:15:13 > 1:15:21bigger failure and misdemeanour.you think there is sex for aid going on?

1:15:21 > 1:15:29Not at Oxfam but wider?I just want to say that this categorisation is

1:15:29 > 1:15:34not even something we should pay much attention to. This is about

1:15:34 > 1:15:38abuse of power, this is about abuse of women and girls because they are

1:15:38 > 1:15:46vulnerable and voiceless. Whether they have given them some money from

1:15:46 > 1:15:54Oxfam or from their pocket, it is still not warrant as we are ashamed

1:15:54 > 1:16:00-- it is still abhorrent. We're going to route it out of our

1:16:00 > 1:16:04organisation. It's a cultural issue. We have to fight it as a cultural

1:16:04 > 1:16:10issue. It's also an issue of procedures.I think it's a legal

1:16:10 > 1:16:20issue.A legal issue, yes.Could be go back to the issue of references?

1:16:20 > 1:16:26You said the former director of the Haiti office went on to work with

1:16:26 > 1:16:32other NGOs and what Oxfam provided was a record of when he worked for

1:16:32 > 1:16:39Oxfam rather than a reference in the traditional sense. There were seven

1:16:39 > 1:16:46men involved in those incidents in Haiti. Did any of them have

1:16:46 > 1:16:58references on Oxfam paper?To the rest of my knowledge, one did. One

1:16:58 > 1:17:07gave as his referee one of the other staff in the Haiti office who was

1:17:07 > 1:17:11his senior, who then got sent a form by another agency to fill in and

1:17:11 > 1:17:18filled it in as from Oxfam. It had no official Oxfam stamp but it was

1:17:18 > 1:17:24from Oxfam, so because the reference went straight to the individual to

1:17:24 > 1:17:30be written, the former manager, he filled it in having left Oxfam's

1:17:30 > 1:17:34employment as an individual, but said I was the manager of that

1:17:34 > 1:17:41person. That's the one instance that I've come across on which a

1:17:41 > 1:17:45reference that an innocent third party, another agency, could

1:17:45 > 1:17:47reasonably believed the reference had come from Oxfam even though it

1:17:47 > 1:17:53had not come from the institution and to prevent any of that happening

1:17:53 > 1:17:57again, the improvement that we have been talking about witches that we

1:17:57 > 1:18:03only allow references to come certain channels, we have now

1:18:03 > 1:18:08introduced. We were not aware... Well, we should have been aware that

1:18:08 > 1:18:12that was a risk that could happen but we couldn't stop the individuals

1:18:12 > 1:18:17doing it. We need something that is more proactive which is essentially

1:18:17 > 1:18:24the central register, which is which we are now trying to explore.No

1:18:24 > 1:18:28Oxfam reference will be given until we have that database. No reference

1:18:28 > 1:18:35is going out.Of the manager who gave the reference, for clarity, was

1:18:35 > 1:18:44one of the group that had been dismissed.Could be just go back to

1:18:44 > 1:18:52the 2011 report that you were briefed on when you took over? One

1:18:52 > 1:18:58of the recommendations of that report was that all regional

1:18:58 > 1:19:03management teams were to review learnings from Haiti and consider

1:19:03 > 1:19:06potential risk countries and further action needed and that was meant to

1:19:06 > 1:19:12be carried out in December 2011. Where you briefed that that was one

1:19:12 > 1:19:22of the results that came out that investigation?I wasn't briefed

1:19:22 > 1:19:27specifically on that. I was told all necessary follow-up actions had been

1:19:27 > 1:19:34taken at country and regional level and that central action such as the

1:19:34 > 1:19:36setting up of the safeguarding team and the whistle-blowing line had

1:19:36 > 1:19:42been carried out, so it wasn't that maybe thing was a specific on that

1:19:42 > 1:19:45recommendation, but the sense that this had been appropriately followed

1:19:45 > 1:19:53up was the sense that I was very clearly getting.So has there ever

1:19:53 > 1:19:59been an organisation wide review of potential risk countries? If so,

1:19:59 > 1:20:02what are they?We have been well aware of the high risk countries and

1:20:02 > 1:20:07we have tried to put extra work into them. They tend to be the countries

1:20:07 > 1:20:11with the highest level of conflict and destabilisation of Government

1:20:11 > 1:20:17and civil authority. So at the moment, places like the Democratic

1:20:17 > 1:20:24Republic of the Congo and South Sudan in that very high risk level.

1:20:24 > 1:20:28Any country where you have an immediate natural disaster is always

1:20:28 > 1:20:35a high risk because it is people who, like in Haiti, are people who

1:20:35 > 1:20:39have had their lives traumatised and so we try to put protection teams in

1:20:39 > 1:20:43at an early stage of our response to make sure we work on the practical

1:20:43 > 1:20:54front and safety fund the same time. -- safety front.Another

1:20:54 > 1:20:58recommendation is that headquarter senior staff should arrange meetings

1:20:58 > 1:21:03with female staff only were they explore issues of culture and ways

1:21:03 > 1:21:09of working and any problems. Does that happen?If I could answer that,

1:21:09 > 1:21:14as part of my induction to Oxfam, I have done to visits, one to

1:21:14 > 1:21:19Pakistan. It was made clear that one of the things I should do was have

1:21:19 > 1:21:23this meeting with female only staff. I did it in both cases. My

1:21:23 > 1:21:29predecessor didn't religiously. -- did it religiously. It is about

1:21:29 > 1:21:34building trust as much as anything else and giving people an

1:21:34 > 1:21:37opportunity, giving people a voice, giving women a safe place to report

1:21:37 > 1:21:51these are given to -- or give indications.By all senior female

1:21:51 > 1:21:59staff.It is very important is done by the women.It was happening by

1:21:59 > 1:22:03the time I joined in 2013. It's something my predecessor did and

1:22:03 > 1:22:08other senior staff have done so it was in place by 2013, it wasn't

1:22:08 > 1:22:16something I had to get involved in starting.I want to ask for a

1:22:16 > 1:22:21confirmation about the references you give. It's common practice that

1:22:21 > 1:22:24references are shown or unavailable to the employee who is seeking them

1:22:24 > 1:22:29to go on to another job. Is that Oxfam's practice, that the

1:22:29 > 1:22:35unavailable to your employees -- that they are available to your

1:22:35 > 1:22:39employees?I'll have to get back to you on the universality of that but

1:22:39 > 1:22:43don't think it is Donald practice. In other words, if I am asked for a

1:22:43 > 1:22:47reference, I feel no obligation to show it to the individual and of

1:22:47 > 1:22:50something is being shown to the individual, I would expect that to

1:22:50 > 1:22:53have been agreed and shared with the person to whom you're giving the

1:22:53 > 1:22:59reference. So it is not standard practice.So you can be completely

1:22:59 > 1:23:04honest in your references but you're not, because you allow people to

1:23:04 > 1:23:10leave and move on to other jobs even though they are questionably

1:23:10 > 1:23:16perpetrators of sexual violence against women and girls.I think the

1:23:16 > 1:23:22adventure describing where in 2011, were Oxfam gave a certificate of

1:23:22 > 1:23:27service. It should have gone beyond that.I'm not talking just about

1:23:27 > 1:23:34that, I'm talking about others.The note actually says that the

1:23:34 > 1:23:42statement of service that was given in 2011 said we cannot complete the

1:23:42 > 1:23:48form you asked us to complete. It says for legal reasons, we cannot

1:23:48 > 1:23:55say more. That's the note that I just got. It then said he served

1:23:55 > 1:24:00from 2010 to 2014 but what I had insured with you previously was that

1:24:00 > 1:24:11statement that this was actually for legal reasons.Were Oxfam's internal

1:24:11 > 1:24:17investigation included in 2011, the statement to the public was vague.

1:24:17 > 1:24:27Was it a cover-up or was it head in the sand?I can't give you the

1:24:27 > 1:24:30thinking of each individual. I can tell you what is being recorded and

1:24:30 > 1:24:36what we now know. Oxfam was trying to deliver the programme of

1:24:36 > 1:24:40desperately needed assistance to 1 million people, it was a huge

1:24:40 > 1:24:45programme with 500 staff and I believe that in making the decisions

1:24:45 > 1:24:52at the time, my predecessors would have looked at the balance of being

1:24:52 > 1:24:55proactive and actually saying, we got this wrong, wanting to reassure

1:24:55 > 1:25:00the public that money that should have been spent on beneficiaries had

1:25:00 > 1:25:11not been defrauded and carry on delivering that programme. I don't

1:25:11 > 1:25:13defend that decision but I believe those would have been the reason

1:25:13 > 1:25:20that were primarily behind it at the time. I also need to say that Oxfam

1:25:20 > 1:25:25believed wrongly it was being proactive in that not every

1:25:25 > 1:25:28organisation chooses to go out and tell the public about something

1:25:28 > 1:25:36they've got badly wrong. That's not an excuse, but I suspect that the

1:25:36 > 1:25:39motivation was actually the power of delivery of what Oxfam was trying to

1:25:39 > 1:25:45do for 1 million people in desperate need.I appreciate your comments but

1:25:45 > 1:25:49from our point of view, does it not the click Oxfam is more interested

1:25:49 > 1:25:54in protecting its own brand than protecting vulnerable women and

1:25:54 > 1:25:57girls?It may look like that, I can't do anything other than I think

1:25:57 > 1:26:02it was wrong but I actually think that the first thought in the minds

1:26:02 > 1:26:07of my colleagues at the time would actually have been protecting the

1:26:07 > 1:26:12delivery of assistance to people who were living in poverty. That money

1:26:12 > 1:26:17had already been raised for Haiti. It was really important that it was

1:26:17 > 1:26:23well spent so I repeat, I don't think they made the right call, but

1:26:23 > 1:26:31I believe the call was made in good faith at the time.We've got a

1:26:31 > 1:26:39number of further questions and we are running overtime.Do you use

1:26:39 > 1:26:46your public affairs companies when you talk about branding?Not

1:26:46 > 1:26:52normally. We will use companies that help us with creation of particular

1:26:52 > 1:27:00advertising at giving fund for -- at a particular time for fundraising

1:27:00 > 1:27:06but we have people in to manage our operations.Do you perceive the way

1:27:06 > 1:27:11you have to bid for Government funding and to donors and members of

1:27:11 > 1:27:15the British public as a disincentive for being open and transparent

1:27:15 > 1:27:22because of your reputation?Oxfam has tried to be open and

1:27:22 > 1:27:26transparent, it hasn't tried hard enough and we haven't always

1:27:26 > 1:27:30succeeded but far more than ten years, well before 2007, Oxfam has

1:27:30 > 1:27:38actually published a list of incidents in our annual report. Not

1:27:38 > 1:27:44many organisations do that. We've shared details data or data with

1:27:44 > 1:27:49regulators. That all of our obligation. We need to go further

1:27:49 > 1:27:53and I suspect many times there is a difficult question about how much do

1:27:53 > 1:27:58we say and what will the impact be? What I can reassure you is that

1:27:58 > 1:28:02Caroline as chair has said explicitly we will never allow

1:28:02 > 1:28:08Oxfam's reputation to be put ahead of our absolute commitment to

1:28:08 > 1:28:15deliver our mission.I was going to ask you, what more do you think the

1:28:15 > 1:28:20trustees should have done specifically in 2011? In the

1:28:20 > 1:28:28response to the scandal at the time? As I said, I start from the presence

1:28:28 > 1:28:35that secrecy is an anathema to trust and transparency is a key tool to

1:28:35 > 1:28:41rooting out the sort of behaviour and changing the values of the

1:28:41 > 1:28:43organisation, and I think it has a value beyond the accountability

1:28:43 > 1:28:49value in terms of culture change. In 2011, I think it should have been

1:28:49 > 1:28:53made clear that the allegations were about prostitution and that she had

1:28:53 > 1:28:56been clear in the report to the Charity commission and in the report

1:28:56 > 1:29:04to DFID and in the press release. It should essentially have been more

1:29:04 > 1:29:12explicit.One of the things that came out last week was the use of

1:29:12 > 1:29:17prostitution in contracts because of Civil Liberties. Slightly bizarre in

1:29:17 > 1:29:25my view. Is there nothing in the contract that would effectively

1:29:25 > 1:29:30covered that? The two things that DFID does is talking about tackling

1:29:30 > 1:29:40global poverty. So that would have covered that?

1:29:40 > 1:29:44We do have that cattle and it should have covered it. It is absolutely

1:29:44 > 1:29:50clear that the behaviour at the time was absolutely contrary to Oxfam's

1:29:50 > 1:29:53code of conduct.So would you say that the use of prostitutes in

1:29:53 > 1:29:58conflict or disaster zones, because they are the wider sense the

1:29:58 > 1:30:01beneficiaries as we were talking about earlier would automatically be

1:30:01 > 1:30:08against the contract?It is implicit in the code of conduct.It wasn't at

1:30:08 > 1:30:13the time?Not in that wording but it was in the sense that it was

1:30:13 > 1:30:19anything that is exploitative, and all of these relationships are

1:30:19 > 1:30:21exploitative, we fully accept that. And that is why we should not have

1:30:21 > 1:30:26accepted the resignation of the individuals. In two cases we had no

1:30:26 > 1:30:29choice, they literally disappeared. But we should still have completed

1:30:29 > 1:30:34the hearing and found them culpable and that is the practice that we now

1:30:34 > 1:30:39have.Was that another example of someone misspeaking when they said

1:30:39 > 1:30:43that it wasn't in there because of civil liberties when the report came

1:30:43 > 1:30:48out and said that prostitution was not explicitly forbidden in the

1:30:48 > 1:30:54contract was not to offend the employees civil liberties?I think

1:30:54 > 1:30:58we have two things there. The code of conduct has always said

1:30:58 > 1:31:05exploitative relationships are absolutely credited. The code of

1:31:05 > 1:31:10conduct did not see the use of prostitutes explicitly was. What we

1:31:10 > 1:31:14should have used that issue of bringing Oxfam into disrepute, power

1:31:14 > 1:31:17relations, all those other dimensions, and we could have done

1:31:17 > 1:31:24that without worrying about legal jurisdictions.Can I ask you to

1:31:24 > 1:31:32comment on this aspect.The use of prostitutes in conditions of poverty

1:31:32 > 1:31:39and helplessness and conflict is exploitation. It is abuse. And this

1:31:39 > 1:31:44is intolerable in their organisation. What happened to let

1:31:44 > 1:31:52the country director Galway with some dignity? That is wrong. It is

1:31:52 > 1:31:56something that would not happen today in Oxfam and it hurts me that

1:31:56 > 1:32:05the organisation cannot be today faced with the question about

1:32:05 > 1:32:10whether we put our reputation, our brand before the lives of people. A

1:32:10 > 1:32:14reputation depends on the relationships with the people we

1:32:14 > 1:32:25serve and it is not helpful free abuse the people we serve. And I

1:32:25 > 1:32:28want to be sure that Oxfam is the organisation, plan of action which I

1:32:28 > 1:32:34have put out is precisely about that. It is our top priority right

1:32:34 > 1:32:40now. We will open their books to investigators to tell us what we

1:32:40 > 1:32:46need to do. It is about letting the people who come in through

1:32:46 > 1:32:50appropriate references. It is about increasing money for safeguarding

1:32:50 > 1:32:59and making sure that we do this job properly. Chair and honourable

1:32:59 > 1:33:01members of parliament this organisation reaches 90 million

1:33:01 > 1:33:06people every year in 90 countries, most of them women trapped by war

1:33:06 > 1:33:13and disasters. Help us to get this right in to clean up but to keep

1:33:13 > 1:33:18reaching people who need the British help.James has a follow-up

1:33:18 > 1:33:25question.Said there was a list of all of the cases in the report. Was

1:33:25 > 1:33:28that the annual report? The only thing I saw last night was the three

1:33:28 > 1:33:34paragraphs. Was that a different report?Now, we have since I believe

1:33:34 > 1:33:4320 is -- 2007 and a summary in our annual report which was the cases.

1:33:43 > 1:33:49Sorry I thought it was an actual summary.The details get reported to

1:33:49 > 1:33:54the relevant authorities so what we publish is the summary number of the

1:33:54 > 1:34:04cases.But not a summary of the cases.In your statement last week

1:34:04 > 1:34:13used book about extending the review of the practices of recruitment and

1:34:13 > 1:34:18monitoring and managing those people who are employed to work in

1:34:18 > 1:34:29challenging environments. Shouldn't you have had that as part of your

1:34:29 > 1:34:33review before Oxfam was exposed as being negligent?We should have

1:34:33 > 1:34:42done. We believed that we had sound recruitment systems which are very

1:34:42 > 1:34:47occasionally fail. Now recognise that that is not good enough and

1:34:47 > 1:34:52that what we need is something that goes right through the culture of

1:34:52 > 1:34:56the whole organisation, which includes recruitment systems and it

1:34:56 > 1:35:05includes the commitment we have been making to transparency. We launched

1:35:05 > 1:35:09in November of peace offer that was intended to help with that the whole

1:35:09 > 1:35:15employment cycle of staff. That work is underway and we have made a

1:35:15 > 1:35:19commitment to report on it as soon as it is finished. What he's done in

1:35:19 > 1:35:24the last week is something much bigger that looks at the different

1:35:24 > 1:35:27strands of work and holds them together and says is the sufficient?

1:35:27 > 1:35:31And commit to making that public. We have had too many people whose

1:35:31 > 1:35:38behaviour is unacceptable, who have been allowed to work and we have got

1:35:38 > 1:35:41to find better ways of making sure we don't recruit them in the first

1:35:41 > 1:35:43place and indeed that they are reported to the relevant

1:35:43 > 1:35:50authorities.And when is that review going to report?The first review

1:35:50 > 1:35:55comes to our governing body in March.Miss Thompson would you like

1:35:55 > 1:36:03to band on the councils -- would you like to expand on the council?

1:36:03 > 1:36:08Absolutely. When I arrived us chair in October I immediately, before

1:36:08 > 1:36:10this happened, commissioned an external review of governance

1:36:10 > 1:36:17because I think it is a good practice to have external reviews

1:36:17 > 1:36:20every three years but also because particularly with the event creation

1:36:20 > 1:36:24of new arrangements with Oxfam International I thought governance

1:36:24 > 1:36:29needed to be brought up to date. Just a few weeks later we had the

1:36:29 > 1:36:34initial stories in the Times about safeguarding Sobhi immediately

1:36:34 > 1:36:37working with the Charity commission extended that review of governance.

1:36:37 > 1:36:43It is an external review by a former Charity commission member. We

1:36:43 > 1:36:46extended to include our governance and safeguarding. I have seen the

1:36:46 > 1:36:49preliminary report on safeguarding, it is making some big

1:36:49 > 1:36:53recommendations about how we could improve our governance. It talks

1:36:53 > 1:37:00about the strengths as well as weaknesses. The preliminary view is

1:37:00 > 1:37:12coming to the council in March for action.On that idea of looking at

1:37:12 > 1:37:22the recruitment of staff, I know that there have been a number of

1:37:22 > 1:37:26reports including for example the sexual exploitation report, which

1:37:26 > 1:37:32interviews a number of aid workers about sexual abuse in the aid sector

1:37:32 > 1:37:41over a number of years. But also Unite the union have raised the

1:37:41 > 1:37:48practices of short-term contracts often mean that aid workers who are

1:37:48 > 1:37:54the troublemakers or raise issues are the ones who do not get their

1:37:54 > 1:37:57contract reviewed -- renewed when is the more established many management

1:37:57 > 1:38:01will often be on permanent contracts. Is that something that

1:38:01 > 1:38:08you need to urgently look at the use of short-term contracts may prevent

1:38:08 > 1:38:14people people from sneaking out? That the humanitarian organisation

1:38:14 > 1:38:22we are committed to achieving speed and scale when disaster strikes and

1:38:22 > 1:38:32conflict erupts. It is true we have a challenge of recruiting any people

1:38:32 > 1:38:34to work on an emergency and then they must have a short contract

1:38:34 > 1:38:39because then they also, the emergency ends and they have to go

1:38:39 > 1:38:44so short-term contracts have to be part of emergency work. The issue

1:38:44 > 1:38:51there is about helping people who are already vetted at least. That is

1:38:51 > 1:38:55why it is so important that humanitarian workers are also

1:38:55 > 1:39:00certified, the way teachers and doctors are certified, so that we

1:39:00 > 1:39:04recruit from a pool of already vetted people when there is an

1:39:04 > 1:39:07emergency. And this is something we are championing, this is something

1:39:07 > 1:39:13we're putting a lot of...Sexual exploitation for example lists how

1:39:13 > 1:39:19junior aid workers are being sexually assaulted by senior

1:39:19 > 1:39:23management in aid organisation so it is not just about making sure the

1:39:23 > 1:39:30short-term staff are vetted, and is about making sure the short-term

1:39:30 > 1:39:36staff are not the victims of some management failure.I think you're

1:39:36 > 1:39:41hitting an important issue follows, and actually also in November we

1:39:41 > 1:39:47started it a review by an external consultant of Oxfam Great Britain's

1:39:47 > 1:39:49employment practices and how we handle them and I think you're

1:39:49 > 1:39:53absolutely right to point out that people on short-term contracts and

1:39:53 > 1:39:57the vulnerability they feel which exacerbate the power relationship

1:39:57 > 1:40:02which already exists where often younger women feel under pressure to

1:40:02 > 1:40:09do things for older men. Because of the power relationship. That report

1:40:09 > 1:40:16is coming to our March board meeting for discussion and I will make sure

1:40:16 > 1:40:18it covers the issue of short-term contract because I think that is

1:40:18 > 1:40:24really important.You mentioned a number of times that there are legal

1:40:24 > 1:40:28barriers to doing some of this checking. My understanding is that

1:40:28 > 1:40:33you can use the DS checks for anyone working with vulnerable people.

1:40:33 > 1:40:41First of all, do you use devious checking with the barring service,

1:40:41 > 1:40:47what used to be CRB? On all of your staff that you are sending out to

1:40:47 > 1:40:50country? And secondly what have they legal challenges of making sure

1:40:50 > 1:40:56you're using those checks and that you are reporting back to this body

1:40:56 > 1:41:03so that then issues go on file?If I answer the question taking us back

1:41:03 > 1:41:07to Haiti, we have seven staff who are seriously culpable, none of them

1:41:07 > 1:41:15were British. So the issue of international verification is a real

1:41:15 > 1:41:24challenge. For British staff in positions of working with honourable

1:41:24 > 1:41:27people, the BS is a central part of the way that we work and to use the

1:41:27 > 1:41:33example we have extended it steadily beyond, in the UK are shop managers

1:41:33 > 1:41:40to the supervising volunteers, we are steadily rolling back out.Is

1:41:40 > 1:41:45every British person in the field working that way?Every British

1:41:45 > 1:41:51person who is in a position of directly working with vulnerable

1:41:51 > 1:41:55people is someone who I believe should be checked. The review

1:41:55 > 1:42:00writing afterwards and the issuance of how we define that. But the real

1:42:00 > 1:42:04issue for us is we need something that goes beyond the existence of

1:42:04 > 1:42:09that system, as it does with social workers and teachers. And that is

1:42:09 > 1:42:14what we need -- we might need power to help us but in the meantime we

1:42:14 > 1:42:19can get our own house better in order by trying to build this

1:42:19 > 1:42:21humanitarian passport really need a positive endorsement rather than

1:42:21 > 1:42:29just an negative mark to be recommended. In some ways we -- in

1:42:29 > 1:42:32some things we're working with others and in other areas we may

1:42:32 > 1:42:40need greater help.You alluded that some other agencies will have been

1:42:40 > 1:42:43cooperative forthcoming. Why would they not be quarter of an

1:42:43 > 1:42:49forthcoming? Who's to blame in that lack of cooperation?I did not say

1:42:49 > 1:42:54that they were not cooperating, what I wanted to say was that the process

1:42:54 > 1:42:58of moving this was slow and I think the big issue that was being raised

1:42:58 > 1:43:05is due distinction. That in some countries some of the offences in

1:43:05 > 1:43:14our global conduct need to go and how do you then as an employee

1:43:14 > 1:43:22expose them for breaching her code of conduct? These were the questions

1:43:22 > 1:43:25that different countries have different jurisdictions and it was

1:43:25 > 1:43:31part, I would not want to blame anyone, I would just that all of us

1:43:31 > 1:43:38were slow. But now with we have to fast-track this and we are doing

1:43:38 > 1:43:44exactly that.The last thing I wanted to touch on was about the way

1:43:44 > 1:43:52the regulation and reported to the appropriate authorities of course. A

1:43:52 > 1:43:55number of you mentioned about the Charity commission being your

1:43:55 > 1:43:59primary regulator. Do we need to consider setting up a new regulator

1:43:59 > 1:44:04like you have in the educational institutions, also regularly by

1:44:04 > 1:44:10Ofstead? Would it be your view that maybe we need to expand and have a

1:44:10 > 1:44:19view of looking at how effective you are in the doing no harm part? Do we

1:44:19 > 1:44:21need power regulation here in the UK and how would you see that

1:44:21 > 1:44:28happening?That is an issue to which we should give some thought. I would

1:44:28 > 1:44:33say that there would be benefits and it would give some focus and clearly

1:44:33 > 1:44:40it also might help rebuild trust. Against that there is a risk of

1:44:40 > 1:44:44multiple regulators that actually that causes confusion, things fall

1:44:44 > 1:44:51between the cracks everywhere to do it it would need to be done with

1:44:51 > 1:44:56good debate.Education charities manage.That might be an interesting

1:44:56 > 1:45:03model to look at.

1:45:03 > 1:45:09I asked you early, around reporting to the Charity Commission.I have

1:45:09 > 1:45:15been sent a copy of an e-mail from the Charity Commission to Oxfam in

1:45:15 > 1:45:202015 in which they say it has been suggested there have been incidents

1:45:20 > 1:45:24in Oxfam shops. Incidents about fraud in charity shops but not about

1:45:24 > 1:45:29safeguarding issues. Do you recall that e-mail from the Charity

1:45:29 > 1:45:35Commission and then what was done in response to it?I don't recall that

1:45:35 > 1:45:41e-mail. I haven't seen that e-mail before. What I have seen is a

1:45:41 > 1:45:46reinforcement of Oxfam's work in 2015 in charity shops to make sure

1:45:46 > 1:45:51not only whether systematic reporting but there was a very

1:45:51 > 1:46:03systematic approach to training, vetting, upskilling senior staff and

1:46:03 > 1:46:07systematic reporting was part of that.As I mentioned at the

1:46:07 > 1:46:11beginning, we decided in her private session early that we will be

1:46:11 > 1:46:16conducting a full inquiry into these matters and to reach there might be

1:46:16 > 1:46:26at a rate that as part of that, those who took part in the events in

1:46:26 > 1:46:31Haiti in 2011. My summary as part of today's evidence session, it has

1:46:31 > 1:46:34been striking how much you have apologised over the last two hours

1:46:34 > 1:46:38which I think partly reflects the scale of this scandal and therefore

1:46:38 > 1:46:41there was a lot to apologise for what I do appreciate the tone of the

1:46:41 > 1:46:47evidence you have given today. Clearly there is a set of issues

1:46:47 > 1:46:51about what happened in 2011 and what has happened since where Oxfam would

1:46:51 > 1:46:55appear to have put their reputation ahead of their beneficiaries and

1:46:55 > 1:46:57have all said today that is something from which you want to

1:46:57 > 1:47:02learn and I welcome that, I welcome the fact you have said it is about

1:47:02 > 1:47:06deeds, not words, and it is clear from the evidence we will explore

1:47:06 > 1:47:10this with the other two panels, that this is a much wider issue across

1:47:10 > 1:47:16the sector, that there is a set of challenges across the sector and

1:47:16 > 1:47:19that these are not new issues and the world has known about them for a

1:47:19 > 1:47:24very long time. My closing comment to you is, you have both got to get

1:47:24 > 1:47:27your house in order and demonstrated the British people that you're

1:47:27 > 1:47:30getting your house in order, but thank you for giving this evidence

1:47:30 > 1:47:43today. If I can invite our second panel.

1:48:34 > 1:48:38There was a lot of ground that we wanted to cover as the committee

1:48:38 > 1:48:44with the previous panel. My plan at the moment is to run this second

1:48:44 > 1:48:48panel for probably about 25 minutes so we would look to be taking

1:48:48 > 1:48:56evidence from DFID at around 1:45pm. As with our normal practice, we go

1:48:56 > 1:49:07straight to questions -- 12:45pm. In 2002, Save the Children produced a

1:49:07 > 1:49:12report on sexual exploitation of women and children by aid workers

1:49:12 > 1:49:19and peacekeepers. Save the Children then published a further report in

1:49:19 > 1:49:252008, a decade ago, which came to similar conclusions. Can you be

1:49:25 > 1:49:27confident that Save the Children staff have not been involved in the

1:49:27 > 1:49:35kind of abuse we have been healing about at Oxfam?If I could start by

1:49:35 > 1:49:39saying that I am utterly appalled by the type of practices that have come

1:49:39 > 1:49:43to light as a result of investigative journalism, a few

1:49:43 > 1:49:51inquiries, the work of others, both shocked and appalled. This is an

1:49:51 > 1:49:56issue that has been on our agenda for a very long time. Both of those

1:49:56 > 1:50:05reports you mentioned highlighted the role of powerful men as

1:50:05 > 1:50:14gatekeepers to food, to shelter and two security. -- to security. And

1:50:14 > 1:50:19the concerns of the people who felt unsafe and unprotected I think what

1:50:19 > 1:50:27has come to light over the past couple of weeks cautions all of us

1:50:27 > 1:50:32against it. If I sat here and told you I thought we were doing enough,

1:50:32 > 1:50:37that would be complacency. We are absolutely not complacent. We had to

1:50:37 > 1:50:40strengthen our systems across all of our programmes and we are working to

1:50:40 > 1:50:45do that with our colleagues in Save the Children. We had to strengthen

1:50:45 > 1:50:50our assistance even the UK. My colleague Steve Reeves is head of

1:50:50 > 1:50:58our safeguarding operation. I've seen it argued that if you work in a

1:50:58 > 1:51:02difficult and dangerous place, and you should somehow be subjected to a

1:51:02 > 1:51:05different set of rules, that the standards should be lower. There is

1:51:05 > 1:51:12only one rule to our organisation and that is that you treat other

1:51:12 > 1:51:17people as you would expect to be treated yourself and that is the

1:51:17 > 1:51:21standard all of us have to work towards.I welcome the fact you said

1:51:21 > 1:51:25it. Do you think it is a huge collective failure by the sector, by

1:51:25 > 1:51:29governments, by the UN that you published this report with the UN

1:51:29 > 1:51:37agency 16 years ago and this was discussed at the world of

1:51:37 > 1:51:44humanitarian summit in 2016, but it feels as though it has taken the

1:51:44 > 1:51:50Times and other media outlets to really focus this attention.I was

1:51:50 > 1:51:55at the summit and it was widely discussed and has been in previous

1:51:55 > 1:52:02summits. This is a subject that is known about. You use the word

1:52:02 > 1:52:06collective failure and I think that is a very important phrasing because

1:52:06 > 1:52:11all of us as individual agencies have to get our house in order on a

1:52:11 > 1:52:15no excuses basis. That is my responsibility as CEO of Save the

1:52:15 > 1:52:22Children in the UK. The problem we have is that if you tip poison into

1:52:22 > 1:52:28a river, everyone who uses that river will get affected by it. Even

1:52:28 > 1:52:32the UK, we have very strong screening procedures because we are

1:52:32 > 1:52:40the children's charity -- we are a children's charity and as a sector

1:52:40 > 1:52:42we would benefit from legislation established a it worked as a

1:52:42 > 1:52:54regulated sector that we can't just apply that in the UK. We need a

1:52:54 > 1:52:58globalisation of the system. It is because of the volume of people and

1:52:58 > 1:53:02vulnerability of people we work with that we need that system. In the

1:53:02 > 1:53:07course of my first year of working at Save the Children, I have had

1:53:07 > 1:53:17cause to visit Somalia twice, Yemen, northeast Nigeria, and it is very

1:53:17 > 1:53:23difficult to put into words, when you speak to someone who has been

1:53:23 > 1:53:29uprooted from their home, traumatised by violence,

1:53:29 > 1:53:33impoverished, a mother who doesn't know where their next meal of her

1:53:33 > 1:53:37child is coming from, that is vulnerability and that is why there

1:53:37 > 1:53:43is only one standard we should ever apply in our sector.you said last

1:53:43 > 1:53:49week that predatory paedophiles are particularly attracted to seek out

1:53:49 > 1:53:54this sort of work. Will you elaborate on that?The point I was

1:53:54 > 1:53:58making, I'm not sure if I mentioned predatory paedophiles, I certainly

1:53:58 > 1:54:02mentioned predatory men who insert themselves into positions of power

1:54:02 > 1:54:07as gatekeepers because for those people I have just described, the

1:54:07 > 1:54:12person who has access, the person who can provide you with security,

1:54:12 > 1:54:18that is a person of of great power and the regulatory system is surely

1:54:18 > 1:54:22to constrain arbitrary power and protect people from the abuse of

1:54:22 > 1:54:30arbitrary power. It is a consistent thing in all of the cases you have

1:54:30 > 1:54:36mentioned.Can you tell us the sort of process that is followed in Save

1:54:36 > 1:54:43the Children when there is an allegation of sexual misconduct?We

1:54:43 > 1:54:46have a single reporting line that goes straight through to designated

1:54:46 > 1:54:49staff who are trained specifically to deal with allegations around the

1:54:49 > 1:54:56safety of children and those staff will get training and supervising on

1:54:56 > 1:55:03a weekly basis for the work that they do and all concerns allegations

1:55:03 > 1:55:10are reported to statutory agencies across the UK, even law enforcement

1:55:10 > 1:55:15-- either law enforcement or social care or the NSPCC if it is difficult

1:55:15 > 1:55:22to identify the child's geographical location. We then work the special

1:55:22 > 1:55:28agencies on the basis we do not want to hamper their investigations. We

1:55:28 > 1:55:31have a process where we would to suspend individuals as soon as we

1:55:31 > 1:55:36were cleared to do so by statutory agencies, we would await the outcome

1:55:36 > 1:55:40of their investigations. Once we got the result of those investigations,

1:55:40 > 1:55:44if there is more work we felt we needed to do to satisfy ourselves,

1:55:44 > 1:55:48the better the outcome, we would conduct an internal investigation

1:55:48 > 1:55:55but for somebody who might commit an offence against a child, we would

1:55:55 > 1:56:01take that very seriously.From the evidence we've seen about Oxfam,

1:56:01 > 1:56:04there were two issues, one is about the size of the team that is working

1:56:04 > 1:56:12on safeguarding. The second is about their access to and how easily they

1:56:12 > 1:56:18were taken by senior people within the organisation. Are you confident

1:56:18 > 1:56:21you have the resources you need to deal with these sorts of

1:56:21 > 1:56:28allegations?I've been in save the chosen for just over four years. I

1:56:28 > 1:56:31started as a sole member of staff and they now lead a team of six,

1:56:31 > 1:56:34three of whom are targeted specifically on overseas and

1:56:34 > 1:56:41humanitarian child safeguarding. I'm a member of the corporate leadership

1:56:41 > 1:56:45team, so I'm a relatively senior member of the team in my own right,

1:56:45 > 1:56:52but I report to the executive team. I meet with them on a biweekly basis

1:56:52 > 1:57:01for our area. Periodically, we have people like a trustee who I meet.

1:57:01 > 1:57:06how often would you meet the trustee?It depends on availability,

1:57:06 > 1:57:12it's every five or six weeks but we would report back if anything crops

1:57:12 > 1:57:18up that we think is significant and the trustee should be aware of, we

1:57:18 > 1:57:23would make the call and have a conversation and our trustees are

1:57:23 > 1:57:27very responsive. I send reports to the trustee body on a regular basis

1:57:27 > 1:57:34and our audit committee. I find little criticism with the way in

1:57:34 > 1:57:42which our organisation works from our perspective. If I have issues

1:57:42 > 1:57:44with senior leaders, they have been addressed and I don't have any

1:57:44 > 1:57:53complaints about the way in which my team are treated by senior members.

1:57:53 > 1:57:58to draw the distinction between predatory males and predatory

1:57:58 > 1:58:06paedophiles, with your work in the UK context with Save the Children,

1:58:06 > 1:58:13would you realise there is a propensity for people to apply to

1:58:13 > 1:58:18certain jobs because it gives them access? And have you got any

1:58:18 > 1:58:21evidence to say that Oxfam is the tip of the iceberg and that actually

1:58:21 > 1:58:30there predatory paedophiles is actively seeking work in war-torn

1:58:30 > 1:58:43countries because they can access prostitution? Prostitution seems

1:58:43 > 1:58:50like paving over it, it is people who are underage, it is paedophilia.

1:58:50 > 1:58:57Is this systematic?Is clear over the course of media revelations that

1:58:57 > 1:59:00sexual abuse of children in the UK is far more prevalent than ever.

1:59:00 > 1:59:05People might have thought before. The national crime agency talks

1:59:05 > 1:59:09about one in 35 adult males in the UK having some form of paedophilic

1:59:09 > 1:59:17tendency. It is research that talks about 1% of the adult population of

1:59:17 > 1:59:25men having interest in children sexually. A cause for the most

1:59:25 > 1:59:27vulnerable children should be operating with the major those

1:59:27 > 1:59:31people will seek out opportunities to access children and will seek out

1:59:31 > 1:59:36access to children in places where jurisdictions are weaker, where

1:59:36 > 1:59:39regulations are put and therefore it is the job of organisations to up

1:59:39 > 1:59:46their game to meet the gap between regulation in jurisdictions and the

1:59:46 > 1:59:55risk that may be posed to children. I started my career in the UK system

1:59:55 > 1:59:59with safeguarding, which were many people may criticise the way it

1:59:59 > 2:00:03operates, it gives a solid framework to organisations around the way it

2:00:03 > 2:00:08gets its staff, the provision of local authority designated officers

2:00:08 > 2:00:11and local authorities where employers are obliged to report

2:00:11 > 2:00:15concerns. When you start working on a global scale, that framework is

2:00:15 > 2:00:20absent and what we have been doing over the last two or three years is

2:00:20 > 2:00:23trying essentially to create an element of that framework in the way

2:00:23 > 2:00:28we do our business. We think there is a lot of best practice and

2:00:28 > 2:00:33underworld saw our work is about creating an equivalent of the system

2:00:33 > 2:00:38on a global scale and resetting and innovating the way we tackle these

2:00:38 > 2:00:44things, it is critical, but there are people with a sexual interest in

2:00:44 > 2:00:48children who actively seek out the opportunity to work with children.

2:00:48 > 2:00:51It's a very considerable problem. We know there are large numbers of

2:00:51 > 2:00:55those people and we know that they will seek out access into

2:00:55 > 2:00:58organisations that appear to be weaker and work in places where the

2:00:58 > 2:01:06protection for children appear to be put.

2:01:06 > 2:01:12One in 35 had paedophilic tendencies. Are we saying there can

2:01:12 > 2:01:19be more in the development community for the same reasons? As you would

2:01:19 > 2:01:24expect there to be more than that in volunteering youth groups or

2:01:24 > 2:01:30applying for roles were vulnerable available.Certainly that is a

2:01:30 > 2:01:33figure that the National Crime Agency has talked about. One in 35

2:01:33 > 2:01:40adult males. They also talk about 50,000 adults in the UK who may be

2:01:40 > 2:01:46accessing children on a regular basis. We are trying to establish

2:01:46 > 2:01:50the nature of the scale of the risk to children in the UK. We do know it

2:01:50 > 2:01:53is significant. We know that a number of people target

2:01:53 > 2:02:04organisations and that the level of abuse reported, as far as we are

2:02:04 > 2:02:11aware, is even in a developed context. Five to 7% of child abuse

2:02:11 > 2:02:14will ever be reported at all. That is in the context where we would

2:02:14 > 2:02:21hope police would be supportive, social care, health services. We

2:02:21 > 2:02:26then move into jurisdictions where that appears to be largely absent.

2:02:26 > 2:02:32It becomes even more challenging. I think it is almost beyond doubt that

2:02:32 > 2:02:36there is more abuse appearing then we know about. I think the message

2:02:36 > 2:02:39to organisations should be that we should behave as though this abuse

2:02:39 > 2:02:45is happening, even if we see no evidence of it, because we know it

2:02:45 > 2:02:48almost certainly is and we should behave as if it is happening, even

2:02:48 > 2:02:54if we see no direct evidence. I want to talk about some of the

2:02:54 > 2:02:58proposals you have made to the Secretary of State. We need to look

2:02:58 > 2:03:03at some of these numbers. There are clearly more to come out. We can't

2:03:03 > 2:03:08look at the proposals without a context of the size of the problem.

2:03:08 > 2:03:11I have got a horrible feeling we're really just scratching the surface

2:03:11 > 2:03:16of this problem. On the initial proposals you have brought forward,

2:03:16 > 2:03:19what are the key proposals within that that you think are absolutely

2:03:19 > 2:03:29essential?We have a number of proposals. There are some which are

2:03:29 > 2:03:33achievable over the shorter term, something is slightly longer term.

2:03:33 > 2:03:36Kevin rightly as pointed out the fact we have a system in the UK

2:03:36 > 2:03:42about how we regulate criminal records checks. One of the committee

2:03:42 > 2:03:48members asked our colleagues in Oxfam about that. The regulations

2:03:48 > 2:03:51around access to criminal records checks in the UK are very complex.

2:03:51 > 2:03:58They are complicated in a of ways. And they work primarily on the basis

2:03:58 > 2:04:01for how intense and frequent the contact between children and

2:04:01 > 2:04:05professionals is. And the real struggle that we would have is that

2:04:05 > 2:04:11we have staff with contact with children over short periods of time.

2:04:11 > 2:04:15We found the regulatory environment around DVS checks quite challenging.

2:04:15 > 2:04:20We use the system quite actively. We spent in excess of £100,000 last

2:04:20 > 2:04:28year. Stipulating that working in an agency like ours is regulated

2:04:28 > 2:04:35activity, regardless of the level of access to children, it is always

2:04:35 > 2:04:41regulated activity. The amount of transactional cost involved in

2:04:41 > 2:04:47trying to assess the level of check involved individual staff is quite

2:04:47 > 2:04:49astonishing. That would be a short-term peace we think would be

2:04:49 > 2:04:56relevant. We did work with Interpol over a couple of years attempting to

2:04:56 > 2:05:01establish a global criminal records chest -- checking system. We part

2:05:01 > 2:05:04funded a feasibility study to get us over the line. That stalled at the

2:05:04 > 2:05:09Interpol and in terms of their willingness to deal with some of the

2:05:09 > 2:05:13administrative and financial aspects of that. We think those issues could

2:05:13 > 2:05:23be overcome relatively simply. If I could just add very briefly to

2:05:23 > 2:05:28that, I've heard the argument over the past few days that the

2:05:28 > 2:05:31humanitarian passport system that we and other agencies have advocated,

2:05:31 > 2:05:35that it would be terribly constipated and difficult to put in

2:05:35 > 2:05:38operation because we don't actually have a global multinational

2:05:38 > 2:05:42framework for doing it. My short answer to that problem is create

2:05:42 > 2:05:50one. This is clearly a confiscated problem. But the consequences of not

2:05:50 > 2:05:54dealing with it, in human terms, are utterly appalling, leaving aside the

2:05:54 > 2:06:01reputational effects. What I would say just in addition to the point

2:06:01 > 2:06:11that Steve has made is every year we reach around 20 to 22 million

2:06:11 > 2:06:13children, providing life-saving attritional interventions, health

2:06:13 > 2:06:21support, educational support. If we get this one thing wrong, this one

2:06:21 > 2:06:26area of regulator except the wrong, the whole house of cards comes down.

2:06:26 > 2:06:32-- this one area of regulator activity. I have a thousand people

2:06:32 > 2:06:35are coming to our office in Faringdon every day, dedicated

2:06:35 > 2:06:38professionals who want us to be out there on the front line working with

2:06:38 > 2:06:46children. This is a condition for making that possible.

2:06:46 > 2:06:49A couple of quick things. We are talking about vulnerable women and

2:06:49 > 2:06:56girls, mainly. Is there any evidence of young boys being abused as well?

2:06:56 > 2:07:06And are they being abused by men or women? You talked about having been

2:07:06 > 2:07:10in the organisation for a few years, not Ridgers length of time. How many

2:07:10 > 2:07:16women have come forward to say they have been abused in that period of

2:07:16 > 2:07:21time? And are the women mainly people who are the vulnerable women

2:07:21 > 2:07:25you are trying to help, or are they within the staff body, who are also

2:07:25 > 2:07:36being abused by predatory men?The first part, globally, it's pretty

2:07:36 > 2:07:40clear that girls and young women are most frequently victims of sexual

2:07:40 > 2:07:49avoidance. Di spoke -- violence. We do see evidence of boys and young

2:07:49 > 2:07:52men being exploited in the same way. As far as we can tell from the

2:07:52 > 2:07:58research available, this is abuse largely perpetrated by men, although

2:07:58 > 2:08:04we shouldn't discount the possibility that somebody engaging

2:08:04 > 2:08:10in this behaviour is largely perpetrated by men. We do see

2:08:10 > 2:08:13evidence of boys being harmed. There is some evidence about crossover

2:08:13 > 2:08:18offending, the importance of gender for victims -- of victims for a

2:08:18 > 2:08:22certain kind of offenders. I don't think that is terribly significant

2:08:22 > 2:08:29in terms of how an agency might respond. In terms of people coming

2:08:29 > 2:08:35forward, my role, very clearly, in the organisation is about the

2:08:35 > 2:08:42protection of children. My role is that children are positive

2:08:42 > 2:08:46experiences of the organisation. I don't have direct responsibility for

2:08:46 > 2:08:50the management of allegations that may come to light about adults

2:08:50 > 2:08:51harming other adults. That would be a leadership responsibility for

2:08:51 > 2:08:56Kevin. Do you want to answer that specific

2:08:56 > 2:09:04issue?What I can tell you, I don't want to give you incorrect numbers,

2:09:04 > 2:09:11so this is very tentative. We're reporting to Dfid on Monday a full

2:09:11 > 2:09:17breakdown of our figures. On the child safeguarding challenges, we

2:09:17 > 2:09:27have 193 cases in 2016, comprehensive data. Around 53 of

2:09:27 > 2:09:30those were taken to full investigation. Around 20 of those

2:09:30 > 2:09:34cases, the files were handed over to the police. And 11 people were

2:09:34 > 2:09:40dismissed. The thing that is always difficult about these exercises is

2:09:40 > 2:09:44to know whether you are cutting the tip of the iceberg or you are

2:09:44 > 2:09:50catching the iceberg itself. -- catching the tip of the iceberg. The

2:09:50 > 2:09:54system we have to build is about creating a culture in every single

2:09:54 > 2:09:57one of our offices, where people feel safe enough to come forward and

2:09:57 > 2:10:04report on these matters.What is the split, would you say, between

2:10:04 > 2:10:09vulnerable women and girls in different countries, compared with

2:10:09 > 2:10:15women working for your organisation who are being abused, or there are

2:10:15 > 2:10:22many were trying to abuse them within your system?We also have

2:10:22 > 2:10:26investigations on sexual harassment. I'm not just talking about Save the

2:10:26 > 2:10:30Children UK. This is as part of Save the Children International. I know

2:10:30 > 2:10:33this is a bit confusing. It is the programme delivery platform, which

2:10:33 > 2:10:41we share with Save the Children from the United States, Scandinavia Omid

2:10:41 > 2:10:47Germany, Australia and others. In those investigations last year we

2:10:47 > 2:10:52had 35 cases reported. Again, please take these numbers as tentative. We

2:10:52 > 2:10:59had 35 cases reported. From memory, 19 of them resulted in staff

2:10:59 > 2:11:06dismissals. I don't remember the number of files handed over to

2:11:06 > 2:11:16police. It gives you some sense. Thank you. Some questions about the

2:11:16 > 2:11:23suggestions you have made. In terms of regulated activity, if we brought

2:11:23 > 2:11:28that in, how quick could organisations such as yourselves

2:11:28 > 2:11:32then implemented to ensure that all your workers were checked and you

2:11:32 > 2:11:39were abiding by the regulated activity requirements under DVS?

2:11:39 > 2:11:43From our perspective that would happen very promptly. We criminal

2:11:43 > 2:11:50records check every single member of staff in our organisation. Regulated

2:11:50 > 2:12:00activity would provide a single level.Would you be able to

2:12:00 > 2:12:05implement the enhanced level within a month if we introduced it?

2:12:05 > 2:12:12Relatively short order, yes. You said there was some financial

2:12:12 > 2:12:21stalling. Do you know what kind of order of money that Interpol... Have

2:12:21 > 2:12:29you heard any kind of figure?There have been some conversations about

2:12:29 > 2:12:37how the systems might be financed. That may be a significant technology

2:12:37 > 2:12:44spend. The real crux for me came at some of the stakeholder meetings.

2:12:44 > 2:12:48From our perspective we spend well in excess of £100,000 a year on

2:12:48 > 2:12:53checking her starve. But the system only works if a small Ugandan

2:12:53 > 2:12:59orphanage can also afford that check. So actually just simply

2:12:59 > 2:13:03dividing that cost by the people you think might use it is not a workable

2:13:03 > 2:13:13way to ensure that the very smallest...If the British gum gave

2:13:13 > 2:13:20a donation for ten years to run that system, would that be realistic? We

2:13:20 > 2:13:27need to take a lead.Certainly. We had some set up costs that we may be

2:13:27 > 2:13:32able to provide. Interpol may be able to provide a figure quite

2:13:32 > 2:13:40rapidly at this point.If I may, there are two parts to this. There

2:13:40 > 2:13:44is a part that the UK government can lead and drive, which I think is

2:13:44 > 2:13:49what you are getting at. There is also a broader international

2:13:49 > 2:13:56leadership role. We need some sort of international framework. The UK

2:13:56 > 2:13:58government, I believe, could play a critical role in helping establish

2:13:58 > 2:14:05that. There are a number of vehicles that could be considered. For

2:14:05 > 2:14:12example, as an administrative entity. We put a proposal for

2:14:12 > 2:14:16discussion into Dfid towards the end of last year. That was on the idea

2:14:16 > 2:14:25of a centre of global excellence on safeguarding.

2:14:25 > 2:14:29Properly constructed, that centres could potentially help to oversee a

2:14:29 > 2:14:34local database but more critically, it could insert people into

2:14:34 > 2:14:41difficult areas because if you think of the crisis, he has 800,000

2:14:41 > 2:14:45people, a movement of people bigger than the city of Newcastle from one

2:14:45 > 2:14:51place to another in the space of a couple of months. What happens when

2:14:51 > 2:15:00that crisis erupts is we sent in our water people, the people providing

2:15:00 > 2:15:05education, and there is no one of the moment is really surging in a

2:15:05 > 2:15:07safeguarding team that can ensure there is a proper level of

2:15:07 > 2:15:14protection. We would have to pool our resources as a sector to do this

2:15:14 > 2:15:22effectively and if pulling is what it takes, that's what we need to do

2:15:22 > 2:15:27-- pooling.What you think the wider implications for the aids sector

2:15:27 > 2:15:41following these scandals? -- aid sector.The journalists who brought

2:15:41 > 2:15:44these stories to light have turned the light on horrible stuff which we

2:15:44 > 2:15:48as a sector have to take responsibility for as have to take

2:15:48 > 2:15:53responsibility for fixing. Our first order of priority is we need to

2:15:53 > 2:15:57recognise that this is not the occasional bad apple we're dealing

2:15:57 > 2:16:01with, this is a structural and systemic problem that we have to

2:16:01 > 2:16:08deal with through proper integration. There is a wider set of

2:16:08 > 2:16:15damage to the trust that UK public put in us to deliver on incredibly

2:16:15 > 2:16:20jealous population in the UK to some of the most vulnerable people in the

2:16:20 > 2:16:25world and trust is our most precious commodity. If that goes, and ability

2:16:25 > 2:16:29to play the linking global be damaged. There is an issue of trust

2:16:29 > 2:16:33with the sector and the Department for International Development. All

2:16:33 > 2:16:39of these things have to be the belt. One of the things that concerns me

2:16:39 > 2:16:47is that I have seen the argument surfacing that this is now all

2:16:47 > 2:16:52about... And I think this is an opportunistic, misplaced way of

2:16:52 > 2:16:59looking at the problem. This is a real problem, it is systemic and

2:16:59 > 2:17:07large-scale and we have to fix it by duty age -- but UK aid is the most

2:17:07 > 2:17:11effective and accountable aid in the world. It makes enormous difference

2:17:11 > 2:17:16to children all around the world working with us and other agencies.

2:17:16 > 2:17:23We cannot afford to allow this issue to pollute the wider discussion

2:17:23 > 2:17:31about the role of the UK in aid leadership.As a follow-up, it took

2:17:31 > 2:17:42external reporters to largely exposes this scandal. -- expose this

2:17:42 > 2:17:46scandal. Do you think the aid sector as a whole is capable of bringing

2:17:46 > 2:17:53its house into order?If I didn't believe that, I wouldn't be working

2:17:53 > 2:18:02in the sector. Our organisation is staffed by incredibly professional

2:18:02 > 2:18:10and committed people. We can resolve this problem. I know there is a view

2:18:10 > 2:18:14that the sector is being given a hard time by the media and that in

2:18:14 > 2:18:19some way we are victims. It is only one victim in this and that is the

2:18:19 > 2:18:24people who have at their lives shattered I some of these practices.

2:18:24 > 2:18:29The other victims of the people who lose trust that prevents us doing

2:18:29 > 2:18:34what we need to do so I am totally convinced that we can fix it and I'm

2:18:34 > 2:18:41totally committed to Save the Children playing a leadership role

2:18:41 > 2:18:48in that.I was concerned when you said "We could do with legislation",

2:18:48 > 2:18:54it sounded like abdication of responsibility but you have gone

2:18:54 > 2:19:05back on that. But you could you talk about... Clearly at the UN are going

2:19:05 > 2:19:09to play a big role and clearly DFID should stop giving money to any

2:19:09 > 2:19:13organisation that doesn't move in the direction we wanted to, but

2:19:13 > 2:19:18surely the answer is never to wait for legislation. What can Save the

2:19:18 > 2:19:24Children do now, immediately, and move on to protect yourself from the

2:19:24 > 2:19:28critique that you're abdicating responsibility by saying it is

2:19:28 > 2:19:32Government, it is legislation, it is too complex, it is something for the

2:19:32 > 2:19:36United Nations? God help us if we're going to have to wait for the United

2:19:36 > 2:19:43Nations!That couple to -- that cavalry might take some time to

2:19:43 > 2:19:48arrive. Can I be clear, I did not say waiting for legislation. What we

2:19:48 > 2:19:59need to do as a sector is to act now with urgency. I believe there is a

2:19:59 > 2:20:06great responsibility on the major NGOs in this country to come

2:20:06 > 2:20:13together and start framing practical solutions. The legislation we have

2:20:13 > 2:20:18mentioned about regulated employment would help. It would strengthen one

2:20:18 > 2:20:22part of the system but there is plenty of other things we can do,

2:20:22 > 2:20:29both to get our own house is in order. One thing we're doing at Save

2:20:29 > 2:20:31the Children UK with our international partners in

2:20:31 > 2:20:37strengthening our safeguarding systems across the world. We want a

2:20:37 > 2:20:45focal point in the 125 countries that we operate in to Save the

2:20:45 > 2:20:48Children International. That has to be strengthened. We need to come up

2:20:48 > 2:20:55with ideas. That is our job. We obviously really appreciate the idea

2:20:55 > 2:21:00is that you are generating, the inquiry that you mentioned, but we

2:21:00 > 2:21:04can't sit around and wait for summit else to come and solve this problem.

2:21:04 > 2:21:07This is our problem. We need to generate the ideas for solving it

2:21:07 > 2:21:11and I think they're are good ideas out there. We have tried some of

2:21:11 > 2:21:14them. The challenge is to move very quickly and to build the coalitions

2:21:14 > 2:21:24that we need to and Bond is a critical part of that.Thank you,

2:21:24 > 2:21:37please feel free to stay to listen to the final panel.

2:22:03 > 2:22:07Thank you for joining us and for your patience, we are running behind

2:22:07 > 2:22:12schedule. Our usual practice, we invite you to introduce yourself

2:22:12 > 2:22:20when you first answer a question. Nearly two years ago, I went to the

2:22:20 > 2:22:26wild humanitarian summit in Istanbul where I learned from a committee, a

2:22:26 > 2:22:34panel that was talking, that sexual abuse was happening by NGOs by UN

2:22:34 > 2:22:41peacekeeping forces as well, which is another issue, but it was common

2:22:41 > 2:22:44knowledge but nobody really knew how to deal with it, so I came back and

2:22:44 > 2:22:49wrote to the Secretary of State at the time saying that DFID is

2:22:49 > 2:22:53respected around the world. We should be leading this, an

2:22:53 > 2:22:59international register should be setup for people who in the sector.

2:22:59 > 2:23:07I got a letter back from the civil servants saying that actually, this

2:23:07 > 2:23:12is just too difficult. It was in the too difficult to do box and we

2:23:12 > 2:23:19couldn't tackle it. We had a similar letter back after our chairman wrote

2:23:19 > 2:23:24on the previous committee basically saying the same sort of thing. We

2:23:24 > 2:23:29have heard from Oxfam and Save the Children. Save the Children appear

2:23:29 > 2:23:33to be doing this, Oxfam say they're going to do it. Why do you think

2:23:33 > 2:23:39that we cannot do this? Have a global register for aid workers? It

2:23:39 > 2:23:44is clearly absolutely necessary. If the money we spend is going to

2:23:44 > 2:23:49protect vulnerable women and girls in incredibly difficult

2:23:49 > 2:24:00circumstances, I am sure this is happening in the Rohingya refugee

2:24:00 > 2:24:03camps and other places around the world. Why do you believe DFID

2:24:03 > 2:24:07cannot start a global register and hold its other people can do the

2:24:07 > 2:24:15same sort of service as the safeguarding services do currently?

2:24:15 > 2:24:26It is a no-brainer, we have to do it.My name is Matthew Rycroft, I am

2:24:26 > 2:24:32the permanent secretary at DFID.I understand you are new to the job so

2:24:32 > 2:24:35it is slightly unfair but you bring a fresh view to this so I think it

2:24:35 > 2:24:40is fair to ask you these questions. All of your questions are there and

2:24:40 > 2:24:43I look forward to answering all of them today and in future. Let me

2:24:43 > 2:24:48begin by saying how shocking these issues are and these incidents have

2:24:48 > 2:24:52been and let me agree with you that this is an issue that the United

2:24:52 > 2:24:56Kingdom must lead on in terms of this response and that is what the

2:24:56 > 2:25:00Secretary of State for International Development is determined to do. She

2:25:00 > 2:25:05has written to all of the UK-based charities to make sure and to tell

2:25:05 > 2:25:10us what their systems are to put in place all of their safeguarding. We

2:25:10 > 2:25:16are doing something similar with all of our partners around the world. We

2:25:16 > 2:25:21are going to be working with the United Nations, who have had a

2:25:21 > 2:25:24long-running history in relation to allegations of sexual exploitation

2:25:24 > 2:25:28and abuse in relation to peacekeeping and we need to learn

2:25:28 > 2:25:32from that. We need to work with the private sector and other Government

2:25:32 > 2:25:39departments around the British Government for development. This is

2:25:39 > 2:25:45a huge issue for the sector and one of the things the Secretary of State

2:25:45 > 2:25:48has announced is a summit on the 5th of March with the charity sector to

2:25:48 > 2:25:52look at the way ahead and I think central to that summit will be an

2:25:52 > 2:25:57analysis of the issue which you brought back from the eastern bill

2:25:57 > 2:26:05world humanitarian summit and which we very much hope the sector itself

2:26:05 > 2:26:09will put forward. Nothing is too difficult any more, even if it ever

2:26:09 > 2:26:13was. This is a moment where we need to be looking with fresh eyes and

2:26:13 > 2:26:21also with experienced eyes. Everyone coming together, whether the adding

2:26:21 > 2:26:24Government, the private sector, an organisation, all of us, to make

2:26:24 > 2:26:28sure we root out this evil and that something good can come from the

2:26:28 > 2:26:31crisis, which has been a breach of trust for the people of Haiti and

2:26:31 > 2:26:36countries like that but also for the people of the United Kingdom who

2:26:36 > 2:26:44give so generously to charities like Oxfam.I think the current Secretary

2:26:44 > 2:26:49of State has done a fantastic job given she is new to it and she has

2:26:49 > 2:26:52had to go out there and say some pretty tough things that I think she

2:26:52 > 2:26:55has done a good job on that but what I have been disappointed about is

2:26:55 > 2:27:00the previous Secretary of State did raise his issues with the Department

2:27:00 > 2:27:06and she was asked not to raise them, not to bring them in speeches but

2:27:06 > 2:27:11she continued to do so anyway which I think was good that she did,

2:27:11 > 2:27:15particularly in terms of the UN. We know that peacekeepers have been

2:27:15 > 2:27:21raping women in vulnerable situations. You said you had been

2:27:21 > 2:27:25working with them. What exactly are you going to do to be able to stop

2:27:25 > 2:27:30women being raped and abused and children in very vulnerable

2:27:30 > 2:27:41situations? Everybody knows it is happening, it seems, so it appears,

2:27:41 > 2:27:49"oh, that's OK then," but there must be a system because the world is a

2:27:49 > 2:27:52much smaller place now. We need to work world to safeguard these very

2:27:52 > 2:27:57vulnerable people so what is DFID Ashley going to do to stop the

2:27:57 > 2:28:04sexual abuse through the UN?The Secretary of State is leading this

2:28:04 > 2:28:08agenda and her predecessor did a good job of raising this issue and I

2:28:08 > 2:28:11remember from my previous job at the United Nations as the British

2:28:11 > 2:28:16ambassador in New York that it was a big theme of the UN General Assembly

2:28:16 > 2:28:19last September and that was because of the previous Secretary of State

2:28:19 > 2:28:26for International Development. The United Nations has long had a huge

2:28:26 > 2:28:31problem with sexual exploitation and abuse amongst peacekeepers and the

2:28:31 > 2:28:35UK has been helping to lead the way in response to that so first of all,

2:28:35 > 2:28:38the UK has doubled our contribution to UN peacekeeping in the last

2:28:38 > 2:28:42couple of years and we make sure that every single one of the British

2:28:42 > 2:28:47peacekeepers who goes to joint UN missions has proper training on how

2:28:47 > 2:28:52to prevent sexual exploitation and abuse. We also offer training to

2:28:52 > 2:28:55other contingents from other countries who perhaps have less of a

2:28:55 > 2:28:58tradition in this area than we ourselves do and we are working with

2:28:58 > 2:29:04the United Nations itself to make sure that one part of the family of

2:29:04 > 2:29:08organisations is able to spread best practice to another part. One thing

2:29:08 > 2:29:14about the UN is it such a large bureaucracy that even if there is

2:29:14 > 2:29:17good bureaucracy, that might not be spreading to other parts of the UN

2:29:17 > 2:29:21so what we were seeking to do with the previous Secretary of State was

2:29:21 > 2:29:24to bring together all the different parts to the native nations to the

2:29:24 > 2:29:33best.

2:29:33 > 2:29:40We have to stop this abuse of the most vulnerable people in the world.

2:29:40 > 2:29:52Have Dfid completed a review?Yes, the work has been completed. The

2:29:52 > 2:29:56assurances have been met and we have gone beyond them. We will make a

2:29:56 > 2:30:02copy available to you right away. Excellent. I do think this is really

2:30:02 > 2:30:10urgent. It has been going on for years. What I fail to understand is,

2:30:10 > 2:30:14it is, I believe, a minority of people in the aid sector but we need

2:30:14 > 2:30:18to root those out. What is wrong with those minority of men that they

2:30:18 > 2:30:28cannot keep their trousers done up? What is wrong with these men? Do

2:30:28 > 2:30:34they need mental health help? If they do, let's get them some. They

2:30:34 > 2:30:39should not be doing this. And nobody can believe it is right.I am not

2:30:39 > 2:30:45going to seek to justify, explain her excuse that behaviour. It is

2:30:45 > 2:30:50totally inexcusable. I am not going to go down that route. We are

2:30:50 > 2:30:54determined to use this crisis, and it is a crisis for the aid sector,

2:30:54 > 2:30:58for reasons we have been hearing about. We are determined to use this

2:30:58 > 2:31:02crisis to get the whole of the sector into a better shape, to root

2:31:02 > 2:31:07out this evil wherever it occurs and two draw on the whole of the sector

2:31:07 > 2:31:12and beyond to get the ideas on how best to do that.I am encouraged to

2:31:12 > 2:31:17hear that. I hope you move very quickly.

2:31:17 > 2:31:23I want to turn specifically to the events in Haiti in 2011. What did

2:31:23 > 2:31:31Dfid know about these events?I am going to ask my colleagues, Gerrard

2:31:31 > 2:31:36and Beverley. Oxfam did bring to David's attention at the time the

2:31:36 > 2:31:39factor was an investigation into misconduct by some members of staff.

2:31:39 > 2:31:49Dfid. They wrote three letters, the last giving us a summary of the

2:31:49 > 2:31:53outcome of the investigation. At no point was either the scale or the

2:31:53 > 2:32:00severity of the allegations made clear to our predecessors.

2:32:00 > 2:32:11Since last Monday I have been fighting singularly fur Dfid's

2:32:11 > 2:32:14safeguarding unit. The second letter Oxfam Road told us that the country

2:32:14 > 2:32:19director had resigned and the investigation would be concluded.

2:32:19 > 2:32:22The third level reported on the outcomes of that investigation,

2:32:22 > 2:32:27saying there had been a breach of the code of conduct of Oxfam. None

2:32:27 > 2:32:30of this involved beneficiaries of the misuse of any funds. We were

2:32:30 > 2:32:35discussing earlier on the nature of the meaning of the word beneficiary.

2:32:35 > 2:32:42We understood it to be the people of Haiti that the -- Oxfam were

2:32:42 > 2:32:52fundraising for.In July 2015, Oxfam's former head of global

2:32:52 > 2:32:57safeguarding contacted Justine Greening and informed how examples

2:32:57 > 2:33:02of sexual misconduct in Oxfam, what was done as a result of this and how

2:33:02 > 2:33:07was it carried out?At this point we can find no record of that contact.

2:33:07 > 2:33:12We have been looking since we received that allegation.You think

2:33:12 > 2:33:16that is potentially a false allegation?No, there is no record

2:33:16 > 2:33:23of that.My understanding is a member of Parliament then wrote to

2:33:23 > 2:33:29the Home Secretary.We were asked about her approach to child

2:33:29 > 2:33:34protection policies, protecting children between 14 and 17. In that

2:33:34 > 2:33:38letter Justine Greening responded to Andrew Smith, reporting how we were

2:33:38 > 2:33:42managing our accountable grants in terms of the absolute requirement,

2:33:42 > 2:33:51if people see allegations and accusations, to tell Dfid

2:33:51 > 2:33:59immediately. That is in line with good practice.Priti Patel has also

2:33:59 > 2:34:02claimed the department knew about this. What do you have to say about

2:34:02 > 2:34:07this?I want to be clear about two different things. At no point did

2:34:07 > 2:34:13she say there were particular members of staff who were aware of

2:34:13 > 2:34:17particular instances of sexual exploitation. What she has said is

2:34:17 > 2:34:27that the department did not respond as quickly as she wanted to push the

2:34:27 > 2:34:30issue up the international agenda. I know that in the end of the

2:34:30 > 2:34:33department did do that. Her concern was it took too much pushing to get

2:34:33 > 2:34:38to that point. She has not said that individual incidents of sexual

2:34:38 > 2:34:46exploitation and abuse were known about by Dfid.

2:34:46 > 2:34:49Obviously we are taking evidence in terms of the safeguarding our lack

2:34:49 > 2:34:54of safeguarding by non-governmental organisations. Can one of you

2:34:54 > 2:34:59outline what safeguarding procedures are adopted for Dfid staff here and

2:34:59 > 2:35:06in the field? Let me make a start. First of all,

2:35:06 > 2:35:12the general point is to make years we hold ourselves at least two as

2:35:12 > 2:35:15high a standard as our partners, and we are explicit in doing so. We have

2:35:15 > 2:35:20made sure that all staff are aware of the whistle-blowing procedures

2:35:20 > 2:35:25and so on. We need to distinguish between UK-based members of Dfid

2:35:25 > 2:35:30staff and staff employed locally in individual countries around the

2:35:30 > 2:35:36world. The former are civil servants. They are recruited the

2:35:36 > 2:35:38same way that other civil servants are recruited, with the same sort of

2:35:38 > 2:35:47abetting. -- vetting. Local staff are recruited in an individual

2:35:47 > 2:35:52country and are recruited according to procedures and the law. There is

2:35:52 > 2:35:56always some formal background check. The precise measure of that object

2:35:56 > 2:36:02does vary from country to country. And contract is? The evidence from

2:36:02 > 2:36:08Oxfam earlier gave some evidence of someone who had left who had been

2:36:08 > 2:36:13employed by a contract. What sort of due diligence would there be with a

2:36:13 > 2:36:18Dfid contractor?We have just started a new contract with

2:36:18 > 2:36:24Palladium. In response, Palladium are very aware of this and have

2:36:24 > 2:36:29procedures in place at the moment. They do due diligence on their

2:36:29 > 2:36:35staff. The issue is it is as far as you can go giving the nationality of

2:36:35 > 2:36:40the person you are looking at. They do have that in place. They are now

2:36:40 > 2:36:44reviewing and looking again at all of their processes and plan to act

2:36:44 > 2:36:48soon with an idea of what further steps we can take. They do have

2:36:48 > 2:36:52measures in place, quite strong measures.They are your contract

2:36:52 > 2:37:00with regard to humanitarian? Those contract may come into contact with

2:37:00 > 2:37:05vulnerable people, including children. Is there a similar process

2:37:05 > 2:37:08for other contractors?We have just had a very big process of looking

2:37:08 > 2:37:18how we work with our contractors. We have a new supply review. Part of

2:37:18 > 2:37:30that has a code of conduct Ferraro -- how are suppliers act.

2:37:30 > 2:37:33The number of times you have said depending on national circumstances

2:37:33 > 2:37:37of the nationality of the people. I'm struggling to quite understand

2:37:37 > 2:37:43that. Here in Parliament I employ an Australian national. He had to come

2:37:43 > 2:37:47with a certificate from the Australian police and provided to me

2:37:47 > 2:37:52and the Parliamentary authorities. They then still did a check with the

2:37:52 > 2:37:56British security services. They checked back in Australia. That

2:37:56 > 2:38:03seemed to be no problem. I don't understand why... May be

2:38:03 > 2:38:06misinterpreting what you are saying, but we are not having a standard

2:38:06 > 2:38:17system that we are opposing -- imposing, maybe even imposing VAT on

2:38:17 > 2:38:23any NGO we have a refund.All I meant was that when we employ

2:38:23 > 2:38:26someone in country X, in addition to what we're doing globally, we need

2:38:26 > 2:38:30to make sure we are implying that person within the law of the

2:38:30 > 2:38:35country. Ice it is an addition rather taking away? Certainly there

2:38:35 > 2:38:43is no taking way.If possible, could someone from the committee, long on

2:38:43 > 2:38:49the 5th of March when everybody is getting together at a summit to join

2:38:49 > 2:38:52this up? It strikes me this is a longer term issue, it is quite

2:38:52 > 2:38:59complex. We would be keen to hear what you are saying and be part of

2:38:59 > 2:39:04that enquiry. We would welcome that. The 5th of

2:39:04 > 2:39:08March is an important point. You are hearing about some of the proposals

2:39:08 > 2:39:12from Save the Children. We have been gathering over the last while other

2:39:12 > 2:39:17policy proposals we want to test. That is only a start. We will be

2:39:17 > 2:39:21working with a broader range of organisations after the 5th of March

2:39:21 > 2:39:27to further test of those ideas, to potentially see whether we could

2:39:27 > 2:39:31test them in reality through some of our departments and look towards a

2:39:31 > 2:39:34larger conference possibly later in the year where we can bring a larger

2:39:34 > 2:39:44group of people together. I just want to develop something.

2:39:44 > 2:39:49The UN seems to me is not fit for purpose because it is not stopping

2:39:49 > 2:39:52what is going on. We should be leaving that as well. What plans do

2:39:52 > 2:39:58you have following this summit for working with the UN, to get all of

2:39:58 > 2:40:03those organisations together, to make sure that they actually put in

2:40:03 > 2:40:06proper safeguarding procedures and proper training, and not just leave

2:40:06 > 2:40:12it to the UK? I have heard about this ever since I have been involved

2:40:12 > 2:40:16with this. Since I came into Parliament. That was 2010. It hasn't

2:40:16 > 2:40:24gone away. It is not going away. What are you doing to lead the world

2:40:24 > 2:40:29by holding the UN to account?The Secretary of State for International

2:40:29 > 2:40:32Development has made it clear we are not going to wait for the UN anybody

2:40:32 > 2:40:37else. We were lead from the front. We are reaching out to others to

2:40:37 > 2:40:42encourage them to join us in that fight because we know that the more

2:40:42 > 2:40:46numerous we can be, the more effective we can be. But we're not

2:40:46 > 2:40:50waiting for anybody to catch up. In addition to the point about

2:40:50 > 2:40:54peacekeeping, we also have in place, thanks to the previous Secretary of

2:40:54 > 2:40:58State and subsequent work, a series of performance agreements with the

2:40:58 > 2:41:03different part of the United Nations, which permit us to withhold

2:41:03 > 2:41:07funding from any parts of the United Nations that do not match our

2:41:07 > 2:41:13requirements, either in terms of their reform or of the results, and

2:41:13 > 2:41:18results can mean either the development results or if you like

2:41:18 > 2:41:24the internal processes in relation to sexual exploitation or abuse or

2:41:24 > 2:41:28other priorities. We have already announced, and we discussed this, we

2:41:28 > 2:41:35have already made it absolutely clear that those parts of

2:41:35 > 2:41:38international organisations who wish to continue to receive UK government

2:41:38 > 2:41:43funding need to make sure that they not only have zero tolerance for

2:41:43 > 2:41:47sexual exportation abuse, but they can prove it.That would include the

2:41:47 > 2:41:52World Bank? We have different performance agreements with the

2:41:52 > 2:41:57World Bank.I would have to check if the precise wording is the same.

2:41:57 > 2:42:03Thank you. Can I return to the issue we

2:42:03 > 2:42:10discussed with Save the Children, these reports published in 2002

2:42:10 > 2:42:16between the UNHCR and Save the Children, and the second in 2008.

2:42:16 > 2:42:23What, if anything, did Dfid do about those reports at the time?

2:42:23 > 2:42:28I think firstly, and Mr Watkins said earlier, I think we would

2:42:28 > 2:42:31acknowledge that systemwide there was a collective failure to respond

2:42:31 > 2:42:38that scale to those messages, including from 2007. We are all

2:42:38 > 2:42:40taking responsibility to improve in this area. There is no doubt about

2:42:40 > 2:42:46that. When the committee look at some of the measures we have put in

2:42:46 > 2:42:50place within Dfid, you will see a further strengthening. From early on

2:42:50 > 2:43:00we now have in our accountable... People have the facility to tell us

2:43:00 > 2:43:03immediately when they have concerns. That is really important. We are

2:43:03 > 2:43:09doing broader work. The Secretary of State was in Stockholm last week as

2:43:09 > 2:43:13a founder member of the global partnership for violence against

2:43:13 > 2:43:18children. What you are seeing is a broadening movement that has found

2:43:18 > 2:43:22purchase. The global partnership was only established two years ago. The

2:43:22 > 2:43:25wake-up call that we had been hearing earlier on is resonating

2:43:25 > 2:43:32more broadly. Why do you detect -- think it talks

2:43:32 > 2:43:38the times journalist to give us this wake-up call? The department has

2:43:38 > 2:43:43known about the Oxfam allegations for some time. Why has it taken a

2:43:43 > 2:43:49newspaper for this to give it the wake-up call you have described?

2:43:49 > 2:43:53First of all, I would like to pay tribute to the journalism that has

2:43:53 > 2:44:00led to this wake-up call. There is a much-needed wake-up call. I wouldn't

2:44:00 > 2:44:03speculate on the psychology involved over the intervening years. I think

2:44:03 > 2:44:09it is fair to say that this whole issue of safeguarding has, for a

2:44:09 > 2:44:14long, been a priority for Dfid and for the sector. But it has been a

2:44:14 > 2:44:21priority amongst others. What we are now doing is honing in on it, giving

2:44:21 > 2:44:26of laser focus and making sure that we pull in ideas from wherever we

2:44:26 > 2:44:37can in order to root out this evil.

2:44:37 > 2:44:46And the it is a huge collective failure on all our cards.-- it is a

2:44:46 > 2:44:57huge collective failure on all our parts.

2:44:58 > 2:45:01The Secretary of State put Oxfam on a pretty tight deadline saying that

2:45:01 > 2:45:07by the end of last week, they should show precisely how they would handle

2:45:07 > 2:45:13any future allegations around safeguarding. Have they done that?

2:45:13 > 2:45:17Yes, they have. Oxfam wrote to the Secretary of State late last

2:45:17 > 2:45:24Thursday night. The Secretary of State sent to feed a man's. -- sent

2:45:24 > 2:45:29three demands. The first was handling allegations, the second was

2:45:29 > 2:45:34that they would cooperate completely and fully with the Haiti authorities

2:45:34 > 2:45:38and the third was that they ritual leadership across this case. For the

2:45:38 > 2:45:45Haitian authorities, I met the ambassador yesterday to discuss this

2:45:45 > 2:45:48case and make sure that corporation was indeed happening and we have

2:45:48 > 2:45:53also been talking to Foreign Office colleagues and the ambassador has

2:45:53 > 2:45:59been to see the ambassador in Haiti to make sure Oxfam are doing the

2:45:59 > 2:46:07right thing. Oxfam also confirmed they reported these individuals to

2:46:07 > 2:46:10the national authorities. On making clear how they would handle

2:46:10 > 2:46:14forthcoming allegations, Mr Golding mentioned earlier, they handed over

2:46:14 > 2:46:19their current caseload of life cases. They told us they are now

2:46:19 > 2:46:23employing an independent firm to come and oversee and to run the

2:46:23 > 2:46:26whistle-blowing and we will be looking closely at their performance

2:46:26 > 2:46:31over the next period of time. We welcome the opening of the Charity

2:46:31 > 2:46:33Commission inquiry which was shed further evidence on the handling of

2:46:33 > 2:46:39the incidents in Haiti in 2011, the governance of Oxfam going forward

2:46:39 > 2:46:49and hope we despond. -- how we respond.I take it you're satisfied

2:46:49 > 2:46:54that Oxfam has, in terms of what they have been asked to do, have

2:46:54 > 2:46:59responded sufficiently.There are two sets of requirements, the Oxfam

2:46:59 > 2:47:04specific requirements which had a deadline of last week, then there

2:47:04 > 2:47:09are the sector wide requirements. They are one of the UK-based

2:47:09 > 2:47:13charities that has deceived a letter from the Secretary of State asking

2:47:13 > 2:47:16them to set out in detail to give us assurance that they have processes

2:47:16 > 2:47:25in place on safeguarding. Clearly they have themselves, following

2:47:25 > 2:47:29discussions with the Secretary of State, withdrawn from bidding for

2:47:29 > 2:47:35any new UK Government funding until they are satisfied they can meet the

2:47:35 > 2:47:39high standards we expect of our partners and of course the Secretary

2:47:39 > 2:47:40of State for International Development will be looking very

2:47:40 > 2:47:44seriously in order to make that judgment of the sort of moral

2:47:44 > 2:47:50leadership they are able to show. That is a judgment which she will be

2:47:50 > 2:47:57making in the future.The Secretary of State, as you say, said that she

2:47:57 > 2:48:05is prepared to review funding if any agency falls below the standards

2:48:05 > 2:48:14that are required. There are others who have suggested that actually,

2:48:14 > 2:48:19funding from Oxfam should be withdrawn. If it was going to be

2:48:19 > 2:48:25withdrawn, what do you think the impact of that would be on

2:48:25 > 2:48:27beneficiaries around the world?That is the sort of judgment which we

2:48:27 > 2:48:33will be making in the future in relation to future funding

2:48:33 > 2:48:39decisions. We need to wait to get that evidence to make that judgment.

2:48:39 > 2:48:45It's going to be a complex judgment to make and it will be based on

2:48:45 > 2:48:52actions in the future as well as an assessment of the recent past.I

2:48:52 > 2:48:56understand the issues that would be brought in making a judgment about

2:48:56 > 2:49:03whether or not that was the right thing to do, but presumably already,

2:49:03 > 2:49:10the department has got some assessment of what would happen

2:49:10 > 2:49:17around the world of funding to Oxfam was withdrawn.We do, that is part

2:49:17 > 2:49:22of the assessment we will be making in the future.You don't have any

2:49:22 > 2:49:28thoughts on that?It's a very complex question to answer and it is

2:49:28 > 2:49:33going to be specific to individual countries in some parts of the world

2:49:33 > 2:49:38there will be a variety of partners that DFID could choose to work with

2:49:38 > 2:49:43and in others it will be harder to find an alternative to an existing

2:49:43 > 2:49:48partner so it is difficult to give a global answer to that hypothetical

2:49:48 > 2:49:54question at the moment.I should declare an interest because I went

2:49:54 > 2:50:01with Oxfam in 2015 and sort the work they do in the refugee camp with

2:50:01 > 2:50:04Syrian refugees. Were there to be a decision to withdraw funding,

2:50:04 > 2:50:07presumably you would only do that when another partner was put in

2:50:07 > 2:50:10place so that the water and sanitation currently provided by

2:50:10 > 2:50:18Oxfam is still provided.Oxfam and a big part of water and sanitation, we

2:50:18 > 2:50:24would need to take it into account. We would need to do that contingency

2:50:24 > 2:50:37planning.Wouldn't be fair to say that they would be a major haul

2:50:37 > 2:50:41potentially in a lot of really important development efforts around

2:50:41 > 2:50:49the world, particularly water and sanitation?We would do our best to

2:50:49 > 2:50:53make sure there were other partners we could operate through. It is

2:50:53 > 2:50:58something we're looking at number of ways. There are also new projects

2:50:58 > 2:51:02which would be fine because we were just take bids from different

2:51:02 > 2:51:05partners so on existing partners, we would like to mitigate impact on

2:51:05 > 2:51:17beneficiaries.Am I right in thinking you are now the head of the

2:51:17 > 2:51:21safeguarding unit that the Secretary of State promised to be established?

2:51:21 > 2:51:28If that is the case can I just ask, why do you think it took so long for

2:51:28 > 2:51:33such a unit to be set up, seeing that a number of colleagues and the

2:51:33 > 2:51:37committee as a whole has been raising these issues for quite some

2:51:37 > 2:51:46time?It is not that DFID hasn't got about safeguarding over the past

2:51:46 > 2:51:54period of time. As you take forward the broader inquiry, you will see

2:51:54 > 2:51:58this. For example, in December 2017, we issued as smart data

2:51:58 > 2:52:03safeguarding, the product of a lot of work and how best to do

2:52:03 > 2:52:07safeguarding. We have safeguarding written into some of our procedures

2:52:07 > 2:52:12and policies will be looked the capability of organisations to have

2:52:12 > 2:52:14safeguarding policies but also operate them so until this point,

2:52:14 > 2:52:19safeguarding was the responsibility across the organisation. What we

2:52:19 > 2:52:23have decided to do in response to this crisis is draw that together to

2:52:23 > 2:52:27categorise further action. The responsibility of the safeguarding

2:52:27 > 2:52:36unit is not to replace safeguarding. It is to set and to raise standards

2:52:36 > 2:52:40and safeguarding right across the international sector including DFID

2:52:40 > 2:52:45and to make sure we are responding to that responsibility we have

2:52:45 > 2:52:52discussed early on, the work that out in -- our internal audits does

2:52:52 > 2:52:57and I will advance team does, this is about consolidating and rising to

2:52:57 > 2:53:05the challenge that we know we all face.We all know that mainstreaming

2:53:05 > 2:53:09is a code for not doing it if you don't have some leading in the

2:53:09 > 2:53:14centre, to having someone in the centre and mainstreaming the work

2:53:14 > 2:53:22very good, but just so I'm clear, who will you report to? Directly to

2:53:22 > 2:53:26the Secretary of State? Just in terms of what level it sat.You will

2:53:26 > 2:53:30understand the Secretary of State announced the creation of this unit

2:53:30 > 2:53:40and we have been working that currently. We will review those

2:53:40 > 2:53:44arrangements as we consolidate and consider the further functions of

2:53:44 > 2:53:51the safeguarding unit within DFID. She did say it was reporting

2:53:51 > 2:54:03directly to her and Jimmy so there is that joule chain -- dual. We put

2:54:03 > 2:54:09together in one unit, 16 people to provide that central impetus but I

2:54:09 > 2:54:17wouldn't want anyone to have the impression that there was no focus

2:54:17 > 2:54:25on safeguarding before that grip, but this is a new phase.So you

2:54:25 > 2:54:34report to three?He directly to the Secretary of State and have

2:54:34 > 2:54:37conversations directly and has done so most days, so that's a bit of

2:54:37 > 2:54:46civil service issue. On any issues like this, he has a direct line if

2:54:46 > 2:54:50necessary to the Secretary of State. From the conversations we have had

2:54:50 > 2:54:53with Save the Children, they were talking about some of the

2:54:53 > 2:54:58discussions we have had with Interpol struggling to get political

2:54:58 > 2:55:03capital. Has the department had any discussions with Interpol about

2:55:03 > 2:55:13trying to oil those wheels? If so, what were the discussions and if

2:55:13 > 2:55:16not, is very commitment to go to Interpol and even offers a cost of

2:55:16 > 2:55:23what this needs to be to make sure those wheels or oiled?Yes, we will

2:55:23 > 2:55:28work with them in the run-up to the summit on the 5th of March and

2:55:28 > 2:55:33beyond and we will be looking imaginatively at whatever ideas come

2:55:33 > 2:55:43out of that. As for the first question, I don't know.I don't

2:55:43 > 2:55:48believe we have. The Secretary of State met the national crime agency

2:55:48 > 2:55:52recently and that is all part of the process and an important

2:55:52 > 2:56:02functionality.In terms of this idea of regulated profession whatever the

2:56:02 > 2:56:10term is, so that aid agencies can automatically... Is that a

2:56:10 > 2:56:12discussion that is happening with the relevant department that we need

2:56:12 > 2:56:17to bring that statutory instrument in and have there been any

2:56:17 > 2:56:20consideration in the Department of just unilaterally establishing a

2:56:20 > 2:56:28register? Not just British aid workers, but of all aid workers that

2:56:28 > 2:56:32get in touch of British money or NGOs or anything and extending our

2:56:32 > 2:56:40jurisdiction to the Globe until another agency comes forward and

2:56:40 > 2:56:44takes that please? Has there been consideration about whether that

2:56:44 > 2:56:50would be feasible?As I said in answer to the question earlier, yes.

2:56:50 > 2:57:01Nothing is any longer to difficult. -- too difficult. This issue was

2:57:01 > 2:57:05deemed to be difficult when she first raised it, difficult to

2:57:05 > 2:57:08implement and with some concerns about lack of accountability and so

2:57:08 > 2:57:13on. I think now on the changed circumstances, we are looking at it

2:57:13 > 2:57:18and seeing whether the time is now right and we will be using the

2:57:18 > 2:57:24summit on the 5th of March to see if the time is right to launch it.

2:57:24 > 2:57:27It'll be useful to share that with the committee so that we can see the

2:57:27 > 2:57:31thought process, even if it doesn't go ahead, because that be useful for

2:57:31 > 2:57:36us.Can I criticise you for something you said. You said if the

2:57:36 > 2:57:43time is right. The time is right. It is not a case of if, we have to do

2:57:43 > 2:57:53it, we cannot let this happen again. I am saying yes to that. The time is

2:57:53 > 2:58:01long overdue, it needs to be done now.Save the Children recently

2:58:01 > 2:58:08wrote to you in terms of giving the number of proposals on safeguarding.

2:58:08 > 2:58:12Will you be implementing these proposals or do you have any

2:58:12 > 2:58:19timescale on them?Out of the first part of the answer then hand over to

2:58:19 > 2:58:23my colleague. As with previous suggestions in this area, we want to

2:58:23 > 2:58:26use the summit on the 5th of March as an opportunity to gather all of

2:58:26 > 2:58:31us together to hear from those with most front-line experience on these

2:58:31 > 2:58:34issues including Save the Children, including Oxfam, including others in

2:58:34 > 2:58:38the sector and there might be other ideas out there as well so we added

2:58:38 > 2:58:44the state pulling those ideas and seeing which ones are most likely to

2:58:44 > 2:58:55really resolve this issue -- pooling this idea.Unless colleagues have

2:58:55 > 2:58:59other questions, we need to finish with a closing question. This has

2:58:59 > 2:59:03been a massive news story of the last ten days, raising massively

2:59:03 > 2:59:07serious concerns and as we have dug further into it, we see these issues

2:59:07 > 2:59:11that have been known about in one form or another a very long period

2:59:11 > 2:59:16of time. Do you recognise the damage that this has done to the reputation

2:59:16 > 2:59:26of the aid sector and what is DFID's strategy to address that?

2:59:26 > 2:59:32Yes this is a huge crisis for the aid sector, I welcome the enquiry

2:59:32 > 2:59:38announced today, as a contribution to turning this crisis around and

2:59:38 > 2:59:40learning from it, rooting out the evil which exists within the sector

2:59:40 > 2:59:48and through those improvements to grab an opportunity and to create

2:59:48 > 2:59:53something better as a legacy of this crisis and the awful things which

2:59:53 > 3:00:00have happened to people in Haiti and elsewhere. The reputation of the

3:00:00 > 3:00:03sector, the reputation of aid, the reputation of the 0.7% commitment

3:00:03 > 3:00:11have been pulled into the mix but as the previous witness was saying,

3:00:11 > 3:00:15it's very important to consider why the British government, why all the

3:00:15 > 3:00:21main parties have committed to spend 0.7% of our economy each year on

3:00:21 > 3:00:27international aid and to do a better job than we have done in the past

3:00:27 > 3:00:30between us of explaining to the British people why that's a good

3:00:30 > 3:00:35thing to do for our own country, for our own prosperity and security and

3:00:35 > 3:00:39our own influence around the world. All those things are threatened by

3:00:39 > 3:00:43this crisis but we are determined to act with you and the charities and

3:00:43 > 3:00:48the private sector to turn that around.Thank you for that. Let me

3:00:48 > 3:00:54conclude this hearing by repeating what we said earlier this morning as

3:00:54 > 3:01:00a committee, we will be holding a formal enquiry into the issues we

3:01:00 > 3:01:03have addressed this morning and which will be looking for that

3:01:03 > 3:01:07culpability for the past but also importantly on how we can improve in

3:01:07 > 3:01:12the future and we will consider further witnesses in due course.

3:01:12 > 3:01:14Thank you.