Appendix: Government response
Letter from the Rt Hon Theresa May 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 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 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.
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.
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
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
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
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
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
| 
