Allegations child sexual of abuse Westminster to linked Allegations of child sexual abuse linked to Westminster Investigation Report Investigation Investigation Report February 2020 February 2020 2020 Allegations of child sexual abuse linked to Westminster Investigation Report February 2020 A report of the Inquiry Panel Professor Alexis Jay OBE Professor Sir Malcolm Evans KCMG OBE Ivor Frank Drusilla Sharpling CBE © Crown copyright 2020 The text of this document (this excludes, where present, the Royal Arms and all departmental or agency logos) may be reproduced free of charge in any format or medium provided that it is reproduced accurately and not in a misleading context. The material must be acknowledged as Crown copyright and the document title specified. Where third‑party material has been identified, permission from the respective copyright holder must be sought. Any enquiries related to this publication should be sent to us at [email protected] or Freepost IICSA INDEPENDENT INQUIRY. This publication is available at https://www.iicsa.org.uk/reports CCS1219768174 02/20 Printed on paper containing 75% recycled‑fibre content minimum. Printed in the UK by the APS Group on behalf of the Controller of Her Majesty’s Stationery Office. Contents Executive Summary v Part A: Introduction 1 A.1: Background to the investigation 2 A.2: Scope of this investigation 3 A.3: Methodology 6 A.4: Terminology and references 7 Part B: Allegations of child sexual abuse linked to Westminster 9 B.1: The 1960s 10 B.2: The 1970s 10 B.3: The 1980s 11 B.4: The 1990s 13 Part C: Searches at the security and intelligence agencies and at Metropolitan Police Special Branch 15 Part D: Police responses to allegations of Westminster child sexual abuse 21 D.1: Introduction 22 D.2: The Home Secretary and the Metropolitan Police Commissioner 23 D.3: The Clubs Office 24 D.4: Howard Groves and Operation Circus 31 D.5: Sir Cyril Smith, Special Branch and the South African connection 32 D.6: Sir Cyril Smith and the Special Branch raid on the Bury Messenger: Don Hale’s allegations 35 D.7: Allegations connected to Elm Guest House 40 D.8: Concerns raised by Peter McKelvie 42 Part E: Political parties 47 E.1: Introduction 48 E.2: The Liberal Party and Sir Cyril Smith 48 E.3: The Conservative Party and Sir Peter Morrison 62 Part F: Whips 79 F.1: Introduction 80 F.2: The whips’ offices in Westminster 80 F.3: The keeping of notes and ‘dirt books’ 83 F.4: Allegations of child sexual abuse 85 Part G: The Paedophile Information Exchange 87 G.1: Introduction 88 G.2: PIE’s links with other organisations 90 G.3: Allegation that the Home Office funded PIE 96 Part H: Prosecutorial decisions 107 H.1: Introduction 108 H.2: Victor Montagu 108 H.3: Sir Peter Hayman 113 Part I: Honours system 127 I.1: Introduction 128 I.2: Operation of the honours system 128 I.3: Particular cases 130 Part J: Safeguarding 137 J.1: Introduction 138 J.2: Safeguarding and child protection policies in government departments, political parties and the Palace of Westminster 138 J.3: The intelligence and security agencies 144 Part K: Conclusions and recommendations 147 K.1: Conclusions 148 K.2: Recommendations 152 Annexes 155 Annex 1: Overview of process and evidence obtained by the Inquiry 156 Annex 2: Glossary 168 Annex 3: Acronyms 172 Executive Summary This investigation concerns institutional responses to allegations of child sexual abuse and exploitation involving persons of public prominence who were associated with Westminster. Westminster is defined in this report as the centre of the United Kingdom’s government, government ministers and officials, as well as Parliament, its members and the political parties represented there. Seven topics were covered in evidence. These were: police misconduct, political parties, whips’ offices, the Paedophile Information Exchange, prosecutorial decisions, the honours system, and current safeguarding policies in government, Parliament and the political parties. Several cross‑cutting themes recurred throughout the investigation. One is the theme of ‘deference’ by police, prosecutors and political parties towards politicians and others believed to have some importance in public life. Another concerns differences in treatment accorded to wealthy or well‑connected people as opposed to those who were poorer, more deprived, and who had no access to networks of influence. A third relates to the failure by almost every institution to put the needs and safety of children first. The police paid little regard to the welfare of sexually exploited children. Political parties showed themselves, even very recently, to be more concerned about political fallout than safeguarding; and in some cases the honours system prioritised reputation and discretion in making awards, with little or no regard for victims of nominated persons. There is ample evidence that individual perpetrators of child sexual abuse have been linked to Westminster. However, there was no evidence of any kind of organised ‘Westminster paedophile network’ in which persons of prominence conspired to pass children amongst themselves for the purpose of sexual abuse. The source of some of the most lurid claims about a sinister network of abusers in Westminster has now been discredited with the conviction of Carl Beech. Nevertheless, it is clear that there have been significant failures by Westminster institutions in their responses to allegations of child sexual abuse. This included failure to recognise it, turning a blind eye to it, actively shielding and protecting child sexual abusers and covering up allegations. Several highly placed people in the 1970s and 1980s, including Sir Peter Morrison MP and Sir Cyril Smith MP, were known or rumoured to be active in their sexual interest in children and were protected from prosecution in a number of ways, including by the police, the Director of Public Prosecutions and political parties. At that time, nobody seemed to care about the fate of the children involved, with status and political concerns overriding all else. Even though we did not find evidence of a Westminster network, the lasting effect on those who suffered as children from being sexually abused by individuals linked to Westminster has been just as profound. It has been compounded by institutional complacency and indifference to the plight of child victims. There was no evidence that individual persons of prominence visited Elm Guest House in South London, although child sexual abuse almost certainly occurred there. v Allegations of child sexual abuse linked to Westminster: Investigation Report Police investigations A vivid picture of corruption in central London in the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s was portrayed by several witnesses. This included the cruising of expensive cars around Piccadilly Circus, by those viewing boys and young men, who would hang around the railings known as the ‘meat rack’ to be picked up by older men and abused. The boys were described as aged between 11 and 22. Many were from damaged backgrounds or were runaways from the care system, and were known as ‘street rats’ by police officers. Lord Taverne, a Home Office minister in 1966, described a meeting with the then Home Secretary, Roy Jenkins, and the then Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, Sir Joe Simpson, at which Sir Joe remarked that there were “several ‘cottages’ in Westminster which we don’t investigate” because “they are frequented by celebrities and MPs”.1 While not specifically about the sexual abuse of children, it is an example of a policy giving special treatment to persons of prominence and of deference towards those in power at Westminster. The Clubs Office at the Metropolitan Police Service The Clubs Office was a department of the Metropolitan Police Service specialising in the licensing and supervision of nightclubs, and vice and obscene publications. Three retired officers described their experiences of working in the Clubs Office. Although runaway boys found at the ‘meat rack’ were often arrested and brought to the police station, little was done to protect them from harm. No specialist child protection unit existed and the procedures for looking after children were described as “rudimentary”. 2 Robert Glen, a retired officer who worked in the Clubs Office, told the Inquiry that his team had enough evidence to prosecute Cyril Smith in the 1970s for his involvement in sexual activity with young boys. Progress of that investigation was thwarted by senior officers at the time, who claimed that it was “too political”.3 He told us that “we did as we were told and you were not encouraged to question operational decisions made by senior officers”.4 Many years later another retired officer was traced who confirmed much of Mr Glen’s account. He explained that sex workers were treated by the vast majority of police officers as second‑class citizens. It was difficult to persuade victims to provide statements because they would be traumatised again by giving evidence. Cyril Smith’s name featured on at least two other occasions when police officers had cause to interview inmates at Feltham Borstal Institution on criminal matters. On one occasion officers were apparently stopped by Special Branch officers and ‘warned off’ the interview. They ignored the warning and, out of the blue, the inmate launched into a sexually explicit rant about the relationship he had had with Cyril Smith – something entirely unconnected with the purpose of the interview and that came as a surprise to the officers. On another occasion officers interviewed Andre Thorne, who claimed that he was a ‘rent boy’ and had engaged in sexual activity with Cyril Smith. He later publicly withdrew the allegations. A minor public scandal emerged around this time involving a plot by the South African Bureau 1 Lord Taverne 5 March 2019 195/17-196/7 2 Paul Holmes 7 March 2019 86/23-25 3 Robert Glen 6 March 2019 92/7-93/2 4 Robert Glen 6 March 2019 113/14-16 vi Executive Summary of State Security to smear Liberal MPs who opposed apartheid.