Investigation into the Association of Jimmy Savile with Stoke Mandeville Hospital A Report for Buckinghamshire Healthcare NHS Trust Report Authors: Dr Androulla Johnstone: Chief Executive Health and Social Care Advisory Service and Independent Lead Investigator Mrs Christine Dent: Associate Health and Social Care Advisory Service Investigation into the Association of Jimmy Savile with Stoke Mandeville Hospital Investigation into the Association of Jimmy Savile with Stoke Mandeville Hospital A Report for Buckinghamshire Healthcare NHS Trust Report Authors: Dr Androulla Johnstone: Chief Executive Health and Social Care Advisory Service and Independent Lead Investigator Mrs Christine Dent: Associate Health and Social Care Advisory Service … as time has gone on I’ve put it to the back of my mind and anyway “thought it was only me. The more that I’ve learned, the more unconscious thoughts come out and I’ve started to feel should I have spoken out? Should I have done this? I feel quite guilty. Before I didn’t feel it; I was embarrassed and I felt ashamed and all these other things but I didn’t feel responsible for other people. Somehow or other over this whole process I began to feel a little bit responsible for what had happened to other people. ” Victim 26 I just hope anything I say helps somebody somewhere down “the line. ” Victim 40 I have nothing to gain one way or the other except I do not “like injustice. ” Victim 32 …it’s a great hospital. It is wonderful in terms of rehab and approach to “spinal cord injury; world class still I believe. That was part of the issue if you like with the whole Jimmy Savile thing because you knew how difficult it was to get in there even then, and you just didn’t want to really rock the boat. It didn’t take long to realise how integrated, for want of a better word, he was with everything. He was omnipresent. ” Victim 51 That’s what’s so sad, there are so many messed up lives – although “people have built up lives, you have children, you make a life, it ruins everything, your relationships with another human being – the things you are supposed to have. ” Victim 20 I did not know what had happened. I did not understand what had “happened. I knew it felt wrong and I felt dirty and I went to clean myself and, I just wanted to wash myself again and again… I did not understand what he had done… I could not even explain to myself what had happened. ” Victim 46 Foreword Foreword 1. When allegations about Savile’s abuse of children being cared for in the NHS came to the attention of the country in October 2012 we were asked to investigate his association with Stoke Mandeville hospital. There are three key questions arising from the Terms of Reference that the Investigation was asked to address, 1 What happened? 2 How was it allowed to happen? And, 3 Could it happen again? What happened? 2. Between 1969 and 1992 Savile sexually abused 60 individuals connected with Stoke Mandeville Hospital. These victims ranged in age from 8 to 40 years. The victims were patients, staff, visitors, volunteers and charity fundraisers. The sexual abuse ranged from inappropriate touching to rape. Savile was an opportunistic predator who could also on occasions show a high degree of premeditation when planning attacks on his victims. Between 1972 and 1985 nine informal verbal reports were made about the abuse by his victims and in addition one formal complaint was made. The Investigation found that none of the informal complaints were either taken seriously or escalated to senior management. The one formal complaint was dropped by the complainant’s father due to her serious ill health. Consequently no intelligence about Savile’s behaviour was gathered over the years and no action was taken. How was it allowed to happen? 3. In 1969 Savile came to Stoke Mandeville Hospital as a voluntary porter. He was appointed with no checks, monitoring or supervision in place. He was given accommodation on the hospital site and had 24-hour seven day a week access to all parts of the hospital building complex. From an early stage his disruptive behaviour and constant sexual innuendo caused annoyance and distress to the junior staff within the hospital. However his behaviour was explained away as being part of his eccentric celebrity persona. Savile was feted by senior managers as an important asset to the organisation where he was quickly established as an integral part of hospital life. It would appear that at no stage were senior managers made aware of either his sexual offending or his unsatisfactory portering performance and poor moral behaviour. 4. From 1980 Savile’s relationship with Stoke Mandeville Hospital underwent a significant change when he was appointed by Government Ministers and the Department of Health and Social Security (DHSS) to fundraise for, and lead the commissioning process of, the new National Spinal Injuries Centre (NSIC). This placed Savile in a position of authority. He had no previous experience of managing a project of this kind and no checks or balances were put in place. Whilst Savile ensured the NSIC was rebuilt on time and within budget no formal planning processes iii Foreword were deployed and from the outset it was apparent that the NSIC was not financially viable in the long-term. Savile became an ever increasingly difficult and trouble-making influence at the hospital. There were two major consequences. First: there was a dependence upon Savile’s charitable funds for the next twenty years which ensured his continued position of power and influence at the hospital which was often detrimental to service management. Second: Savile was able to access a new cohort of victims for his sexual abuse in the guise of young charity fundraisers to the hospital. 5. Victims felt unable at the time to report Savile’s behaviour. This was because they feared they would not be believed as Savile was seen as being a powerful and influential figure. Could it happen again? 6. The Stoke Mandeville Hospital NHS Trust Board elect (1991) and formally appointed NHS Trust Board (1994) tackled Savile ‘head on’ from 1991 and, whilst it was to take several years, were able to control Savile and diminish his authority. The placing of statutory powers at local service provider level allowed the NHS Trust to address what had become an unworkable situation. 7. At the same time, the Hospital introduced more restrictions and stringent processes, thanks in part to clear and unambiguous national guidance on procedures for complaints, whistleblowing, security, staff checks and volunteering. These factors combined to create a climate that was no longer conducive to a continuation of either Savile’s managerial authority or his opportunistic sexual abuse. 8. The current Buckinghamshire Healthcare NHS Trust has undergone a stringent process of review and investigation over the past two years in relation to safeguarding and governance. The Trust has worked with independent external agencies and this Investigation to ensure that its processes are fit for purpose and provides a safe environment for patients, staff and visitors. 9. It must be noted however that all NHS services should be alert to predatory sexual offenders like Savile who can be placed in a position of trust and authority. Individuals like Savile operate covertly and use their influence to further their own ends in such a manner that may not be immediately obvious to those around them. Policies and safeguards are in place nationally to protect society’s children and vulnerable adults. All workers in the NHS have a duty to ensure these are adhered to at all times. The failure to do so could lead to a similar situation happening again. iv Contents Contents Foreword iii Part One: Introduction 1. Preface 02 2. Acknowledgements 03 2.1. Victims of Savile 03 2.2. Patients of the National Spinal Injuries Centre 03 2.3. Support Agencies 03 2.4. Witnesses 04 3. Introduction 05 3.1. Investigation Inception 05 3.2. National Context for the Stoke Mandeville Hospital Investigation 06 3.3. Links to the Other NHS Investigations 07 3.4. Commissioning Processes 08 3.5. Investigation Team Members 08 3.6. Oversight and Quality Assurance Processes 09 4. Terms of Reference 10 4.1. Terms of Reference for the Jimmy Savile Stoke Mandeville Hospital Investigation 10 5. Investigation Method 12 5.1. Scope and Limitations 12 5.2. Document Search, Selection and Management Processes 13 5.3. Documents Review 14 5.4. Witness Search, Selection and Management Processes 17 5.5. Victim Involvement and Support 21 5.6. Liaison with the Buckinghamshire Healthcare NHS Trust 23 Part Two: Evidence Base 6. Victim Accounts and Experiences 26 7. Buckinghamshire Healthcare NHS Trust: Background Information 51 7.1. Historical Overview of Stoke Mandeville Hospital and the National Spinal Injuries Centre 51 7.2. Buckinghamshire Healthcare NHS Trust 53 7.3. Current Overview of the National Spinal Injuries Centre 53 v Contents 8. The Management Context of the NHS, 1965 to the Present Day 55 8.1. The Administrative and Management Structure of the NHS 1960–1973 55 8.2. The Administrative and Management Structure of the NHS 1974–1982 56 8.3. The Administrative and Management Structure of the NHS 1983–1991 56 8.4. 1991–2000s: Competitive Markets and NHS Trusts 57 8.5. The Administrative and Management Structure of the NHS 2002–2013 58 8.6. 2014: Implementation of the Health and Social Care Act (2012) 58 9. Narrative Chronology of Savile’s Association with Stoke Mandeville Hospital 59 9.1.