House of Commons Home Affairs Committee

Appointment of the Chair of Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse: Government Response to the Committee's Twelfth Report of Session 2014–15

Ninth Special Report of Session 2014– 15

Ordered by the House of Commons to be printed 17 March 2015

HC 1131 Published on 23 March 2015 by authority of the House of Commons London: The Stationery Office Limited £5.00

Home Affairs Committee

The Home Affairs Committee is appointed by the House of Commons to examine the expenditure, administration, and policy of the Home Office and its associated public bodies.

Current membership Rt Hon Keith Vaz MP (Labour, Leicester East) (Chair) Ian Austin MP (Labour, Dudley North) Nicola Blackwood MP (Conservative, Oxford West and Abingdon) James Clappison MP (Conservative, Hertsmere) Michael Ellis MP (Conservative, Northampton North) Paul Flynn MP (Labour, Newport West) Lorraine Fullbrook MP (Conservative, South Ribble) Dr Julian Huppert MP (Liberal Democrat, Cambridge) Tim Loughton MP (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham) Yasmin Qureshi MP (Labour, Bolton South East) Mr David Winnick MP (Labour, Walsall North)

The following were also members of the Committee during the Parliament.

Rt Hon Alun Michael (Labour & Co-operative, South and Penarth) Karl Turner MP (Labour, Kingston upon Hull East) Steve McCabe MP (Labour, Birmingham Selly Oak) Bridget Phillipson MP (Labour, Houghton and Sunderland South) Chris Ruane MP (Labour, Vale of Clwyd) Mark Reckless MP (UKIP, Rochester and Strood)

Powers The Committee is one of the departmental select committees, the powers of which are set out in House of Commons Standing Orders, principally in SO No 152. These are available on the Internet via www.parliament.uk

Publication

The Reports and evidence of the Committee are published by The Stationery Office by Order of the House. All publications of the Committee (including press notices) are on the Internet at www.parliament.uk/homeaffairscom

Committee staff The current staff of the Committee are Tom Healey (Clerk), John-Paul Flaherty (Second Clerk), Dr Ruth Martin (Committee Specialist), Duma Langton (Committee Specialist), Andy Boyd (Senior Committee Assistant), Iwona Hankin (Committee Assistant) and Alex Paterson (Select Committee Media Officer).

Contacts All correspondence should be addressed to the Clerk of the Home Affairs Committee, House of Commons, 7 Millbank, London SW1P 3JA. The telephone number for general enquiries is 020 7219 2049; the Committee’s email address is [email protected]

Appointment of the Chair of the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse: Government Response 1

Ninth Special Report

On 13 February 2015 the Home Affairs Committee published its Twelfth Report of Session 2014–15, Appointment of the Chair of the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse (HC 710). The Government’s response to the Report was received on 12 March 2015, and is published as an Appendix to this Special Report.

Appendix: Government response

Letter from the Rt Hon MP, Home Secretary, 12 March 2015

I am writing to you further to the Committee's report 'Appointment of the Chair of the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse' which was published on 13 February.

I would like to thank the Committee for their report, and for their endorsement of Justice Goddard as Chairman of the Independent Panel Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse. The hearing, and your subsequent report, is an important element of bringing further transparency to the appointment process. Please see the enclosed Government response to this report.

You will also note that I have today laid a Written Ministerial Statement formally appointing Justice Goddard as Chairman, appointing the members of the new Panel and setting out the Terms of Reference for the Inquiry.

The Rt Hon Theresa May MP

Introduction

The Government is determined that no stone will be left unturned in this essential inquiry into the failings of state and non-state institutions. We are determined that appalling cases of child sexual abuse should be exposed so that perpetrators face justice and the vulnerable are protected.

This is a once in a generation opportunity to get to the truth. The Inquiry will consider whether public bodies and other, non-state, institutions have taken seriously their duty of care to protect children from sexual abuse, exposing what has gone wrong in the past and making recommendations to prevent it from happening in the future.

The Home Secretary is absolutely committed to ensuring the Independent Panel Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse has the confidence of survivors. That is why she met them and their representatives to hear their views and to ensure the right person was appointed to lead the Inquiry Panel.

More than 150 people were nominated for the role of Chairman, and full consideration was given to their background, relevant experience and expertise. A copy of the criteria

2 Appointment of the Chair of the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse: Government Response

used to assess the nominations has been placed in the House library and published on gov.uk.

Based on clear feedback from survivors, and assessment of the nominations against the agreed criteria, the Home Secretary chose to appoint Justice Goddard as the new Chairman. Justice Goddard is a judge of the High Court of New Zealand and is a highly respected member of the judiciary who has been at the forefront of criminal law and procedure. As chairman of the Independent Police Complaints Association of New Zealand she conducted an inquiry into the policing of child abuse in New Zealand and she is also a member of the United Nations Subcommittee on Prevention of Torture.

The Home Secretary also announced on 4 February that the Inquiry will be placed on a statutory footing under the 2005 Inquiries Act, with the power to compel witnesses to give evidence. The current panel have been disbanded and replaced by a new panel selected against a set of criteria which has been placed in the House Library and published on gov.uk.

The Committee’s specific conclusions and recommendations are addressed in turn below.

Government response

Conclusion/Recommendation 1

There were well-publicised problems with the appointment of the Panel, which resulted in the early resignation of two previous Chairs. It is important that a Chair is now appointed who will command the confidence of survivors. (Paragraph 7).

Government response

It is clear the Inquiry needs a Chairman who has the experience and authority to run such an Inquiry, and commands the confidence of the survivors. That is why the Home Secretary met survivors and their representatives to hear their views and to ensure the right person was appointed to lead the Inquiry.

Survivors expressed a strong preference for a judge to lead the Inquiry, and Justice Goddard is an outstanding candidate. Justice Goddard has strong credentials to run this Inquiry, and her qualities and experience will stand her in good stead to continue to command the trust of survivors. She has relevant experience having run an inquiry into the police handling of child abuse cases in New Zealand and is a High Court judge in New Zealand.

Conclusion/Recommendation 2

We thank all the members of the original Panel for their work. The work that has already been done, in particular the material gathered at listening meetings, must be made available to the new Panel. The original Panel was unable to operate effectively without leadership and the appointment of a Chair for the new Panel should not be delayed further. The terms of reference for the inquiry need to be established and the new Panel appointed as quickly as possible so that the inquiry

Appointment of the Chair of the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse: Government Response 3

team can get to work. Parliament must be kept actively informed about the future work of the inquiry. (Paragraph 13).

Government response

The Home Office has been clear that the disbanding of the current Panel is not a criticism of the current Panel members who were selected on the basis of their expertise and commitment to getting to the truth about child sexual abuse in this country. The fact that the Panel is being dissolved has nothing to do with their ability or integrity, and the Home Office is grateful for the work they have done so far. The original Panel members have produced a report on their work so far, which will be passed to Justice Goddard and the new Panel.

The Home Office is clear that the new Panel should be up and running as soon as possible. The Home Secretary has consulted with Justice Goddard on the Terms of Reference for the Inquiry and the membership of the new Panel, which has been agreed against the set of published criteria. The Panel will produce interim reports on the work of the Inquiry, which will of course be shared with Parliament.

Conclusion/Recommendation 3

We welcome the role of this Committee in this pre-appointment hearing, which we believe is a valuable contribution to the independence and transparency of the inquiry process. The Committee’s involvement should have been invited from the start. (Paragraph 17).

Government response

The Home Office would like to thank the Committee for completing the pre-appointment process so swiftly. The hearing, and the Committee’s subsequent report, is an important element of bringing further transparency to the appointment process.

Conclusion/Recommendation 4 The controversy of the last few months has demonstrated the need for the inquiry to develop a robust methodology for dealing with the conflicting views of different contributors to the inquiry and for demonstrating transparency of the inquiry process whilst maintaining individuals’ confidentiality. The panel will need to ensure that different views are heard and taken account of, and that all survivors of abuse have confidence in that process. (Paragraph 18). Government response

Hearing from survivors is an essential element of this Inquiry. Prior to the announcement on 4 February, the Home Secretary met survivors and survivors’ groups, whose views were incredibly valuable. The Home Secretary has consulted Justice Goddard on the make-up of the panel and any expert consultative groups, and will be considering the most appropriate way to ensure that survivors’ views continue to be at the heart of the Inquiry.

4 Appointment of the Chair of the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse: Government Response

Conclusion/Recommendation 5

Based on the information available to us, we are pleased to endorse the appointment of Justice Lowell Goddard to the post of Chair of the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse. (Paragraph 20).

Government response

The Home Office is grateful to the Committee for their endorsement.

Conclusion/Recommendation 6

We note that Justice Goddard had not previously been asked to write an open letter detailing her interests in time for it to be presented to this Committee; we believe that this should happen as soon as possible. We reserve the right to recall Justice Goddard, once we have received the relevant correspondence, should it disclose any new information which might give cause for concern. (Paragraph 21).

Government response

The Home Office has now received a copy of Justice Goddard’s direct interests letter. The Secretariat will be making that letter public in due course. Due diligence checks have been carried out by the Home Office, Cabinet Office and other Government departments. The Home Office is confident that Justice Goddard has no direct links to organisations or institutions which might be subject to the Inquiry and which would impede her impartiality as Chairman.

Conclusion/Recommendation 7

Members of the Inquiry Panel should be chosen primarily for their specialist expertise and experience in areas that are likely to be covered by the investigation, as well as in providing support for survivors, and in providing redress for victims.

Government response

The Home Office is clear that each Panel member must have the right skills, expertise and background to do the job and also command the confidence of survivors. All members have been assessed against a set of published criteria, providing an added degree of transparency to the process.

Conclusion/Recommendation 8

We can see the logic of Justice Goddard’s comment that survivors did not need to be represented on the Panel, but only provided that a parallel Survivors’ Forum is established on a formal basis, with strong links to the Inquiry Panel. Its remit, status and relationship with the Panel should be clear from the outset and it should be properly funded to provide the necessary support to its members.

Appointment of the Chair of the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse: Government Response 5

Government response

The Home Office is clear that survivors will play a vital role in this Inquiry. They have the experience, understanding and expertise, and their voice will be an important part of the process. The Home Secretary will be discussing with Justice Goddard how the Inquiry can get the greatest breadth of input from survivors to ensure that their voice is heard.

Conclusion/Recommendation 9

We were encouraged by Justice Goddard’s undertaking that no survivor who did not want to do so would be required to give evidence in public. The Panel should do everything within its power to ensure that survivors are able to give their best evidence, including the use of the “special measures” that are used in court to help vulnerable and intimidated witnesses and, where necessary, taking evidence in private.

Government response

The Secretariat to the Inquiry has put information on the Inquiry website about support for survivors who come forward to the Inquiry. The previous Panel had set up a safeguarding support working group to assist the new Chairman in making an informed decision on the model for support, and the Secretariat is consulting with safeguarding professionals on the model of support which the Inquiry could employ.

Conclusion/Recommendation 10

The Home Office should re-examine the arrangements for providing funding to support survivors’ participation to ensure that smaller organisations are able to access those resources.

Government response

The Government is determined that survivors have the right support available to them. The Home Office and the Ministry of Justice have announced plans to provide additional £7m funding to support victims of sexual abuse in 2014/15 and 2015/16. Of this, £2m has specifically been made available to those organisations which are reporting an increase in referrals prompted by the Independent Panel Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse. All non- statutory organisations in England and Wales that meet the requirements of the criteria for the funds were eligible to apply. This includes those smaller organisations that have seen a marked increase in the use of their services since the start of the Inquiry.

Conclusion/Recommendation 11

The Panel should give consideration to employing its own specialist staff to provide support to survivors giving evidence.

Government response

6 Appointment of the Chair of the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse: Government Response

The Secretariat to the Inquiry is already considering the best way to ensure that the Inquiry has access to staff with the specialist skills required.

Conclusion/Recommendation 12

The Panel should have access to all relevant Government material, including all the material discovered by the Wanless and Whittam review, and the Permanent Secretary of the Home Office should conduct a new search to establish that no relevant documents have been overlooked.

Government response

The Home Secretary made clear in her statement to Parliament on 4 Feb that it is imperative that the whole Government co-operates fully with the independent panel inquiry into child sexual abuse and provides full access to any information that is requested. The Home Secretary has subsequently written to all Secretaries of State to ask for their full cooperation with the Inquiry, and that all relevant files and information are retained so they are available should the Inquiry call them for evidence. The files discovered by the Wanless and Whittam review will of course be made available to the Inquiry to be examined, but it will be for the Panel to set out what material it wishes to see, from government departments and elsewhere.

Conclusion/Recommendation 13

Careful thought needs to be given to the composition of the secretariat, in which Home Office secondees currently appear to be very well represented. Members of the secretariat should be chosen for their skills and the Panel should look well beyond the Home Office and the civil service if that is necessary to produce the right skill mix.

Government response

Civil Servants from several government departments are seconded to the Secretariat, but as members of the Secretariat they are independent from the Home Office and government. They have been appointed for their skills and experience. As the Inquiry is sponsored by the Home Office, all Secretariat staff nominally transfer to the Home Office for payroll and administrative purposes when they join the Inquiry. This is regardless of where they worked prior to this appointment.

Conclusion/Recommendation 14

The Chair of the Inquiry should fully consult the Chairs of the Northern Ireland Inquiry into Historical Institutional Abuse and the Scottish national public inquiry into historical abuse of children in institutional care, with particular regard to seeking to avoid gaps between the areas covered by the various inquiries.”

Government response

Appointment of the Chair of the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse: Government Response 7

The Home Office is clear that there is a need for the Inquiry to co-operate with other existing Inquiries. Discussions are under way to establish protocols for information sharing with the relevant inquiries.

Conclusion/Recommendation 15

The Chair should consult the Director of Public Prosecutions to ensure that all avenues for bringing successful prosecutions against abusers are kept open.

Government response

As the Home Secretary set out in her statement, the Director of Public Prosecutions has appointed her Legal Adviser, Neil Moore, to lead on all referrals from the Inquiry and the police Operation Hydrant team.

Conclusion/Recommendation 16

The Panel should produce periodic interim reports as frequently as it sees fit but should aim to produce its first interim report as soon as possible.

Government response

The Home Office has been clear that there should be no further delay in getting the Inquiry up and running. As a fully independent statutory body, it will be up to the Inquiry to decide how regularly they report. However Justice Goddard made clear at her hearing before the Committee that interim reports will be made available.

Conclusion/Recommendation 17

The Panel should look to the examples of Hillsborough and Leveson as well-run, focused, and victim-centred inquiries.

Government response

The Secretariat and the Panel will wish to consider this. The Home Office can facilitate engagement with members of the Inquiry teams as appropriate.

Conclusion/Recommendation 18

It is crucial that the Chair will play a full role in the selection of Panel members, that it should be clear with whom the final decision lies, and that the selection process should be fully transparent from the outset. (Paragraph 24).”

Government response

8 Appointment of the Chair of the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse: Government Response

The Home Office is clear that the appointment of the new Panel must be as transparent as possible, which is why we have published the criteria by which each new member has been selected. The new Panel members have been appointed in consultation between the Home Secretary and Justice Goddard.

Conclusion/Recommendation 19

We are pleased that Justice Goddard will have a free hand over the appointment of the Inquiry Counsel and Secretariat, as she acknowledged when she gave evidence to us. She must be permitted to shape the Inquiry team as she thinks appropriate. (Paragraph 25).

Government response

The Inquiry is independent, and it is of course for Justice Goddard to shape it. In accordance with the 2005 Inquiries Act there are certain elements of the Inquiry such as the make-up of the Panel and the Terms of Reference for which the Home Secretary retains responsibility.

Conclusion/Recommendation 20

We recommend that the scope of the inquiry be extended to include cases of abuse in Scotland and Northern Ireland, where there is reason to believe that material relevant to the case might be held by the UK Government. This would include cases such as the Kincora Boys’ Home. (Paragraph 27).

Government response

The Home Secretary has consulted Justice Goddard on this matter. There are good reasons for confining the Inquiry’s scope to England and Wales. The Hart inquiry in Northern Ireland and the Oldham inquiry in Jersey are already under way, while the Scottish Government has announced its own inquiry into child abuse. However the Home Office has been clear that there must be a protocol to make sure that no information falls through the cracks and that no people or institutions escape scrutiny, censure or justice. The terms of reference set out this requirement. The Home Secretary has also made clear that she will consider incorporating the Hart Inquiry if it cannot get to the truth.

Conclusion/Recommendation 21

We welcome the Home Secretary’s announcement that she is open to giving the Panel a much earlier cut-off date than 1970, which will give a reasonable prospect of the experience of most living survivors falling within the scope of the inquiry. (Paragraph 28).

Government response

Appointment of the Chair of the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse: Government Response 9

The Home Secretary has listened to survivors’ strong call that the Inquiry’s remit should go back further than the current time limit of 1970. In consultation with Justice Goddard, the Home Secretary has decided to remove any timeframe from the terms of reference.

Conclusion/Recommendation 22

We recommend that the Panel draw up terms of reference which will allow it to complete its work within a reasonable time frame, producing interim reports where necessary to ensure that key recommendations can be implemented without unnecessary delay. (Paragraph 29).

Government response

It will be for Justice Goddard and the Panel to take forward this recommendation as they see fit.

Conclusion

The Government wishes to thank the Committee for its report, and its endorsement of Justice Goddard as Chairman to the Inquiry. We welcome the Committee’s involvement in this work.

Rt Hon Theresa May MP March 2015