Conclusions and recommendations
The Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse
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)
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)
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)
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)
The candidate
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)
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)
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. (Paragraph 22.a)
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.
(Paragraph 22.b)
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. (Paragraph 22.c)
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. (Paragraph 22.d)
11. The Panel should
give consideration to employing its own specialist staff to provide
support to survivors giving evidence. (Paragraph 22.e)
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.
(Paragraph 22.f)
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. (Paragraph
22.g)
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. (Paragraph 22.h)
15. The Chair should
consult the Director of Public Prosecutions to ensure that all
avenues for bringing successful prosecutions against abusers are
kept open. (Paragraph 22.i)
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. (Paragraph 22.j)
17. The Panel should
look to the examples of Hillsborough and Leveson as well-run,
focused, and victim-centred inquiries. (Paragraph 22.k)
Appointment of the new panel and staff
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)
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)
Scope of the inquiry
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)
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)
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)
| 
