Mps to Question Child Abuse Inquiry Chair over Goddard Racism Claims

By Matthew Weaver
The Guardian
October 14, 2016

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/oct/14/mps-question-alexis-jay-child-abuse-inquiry-lowell-goddard-racism-claims

Dame Lowell Goddard resigned abruptly in August. Photograph: Suzanne Plunkett/Reuters

MPs are to question the head of the troubled inquiry into allegations of institutional child abuse, Prof Alexis Jay, over allegations that her predecessor Dame Lowell Goddard made racist remarks and acted aggressively.

Goddard, a New Zealand judge, has rejected claims in the Times that officials warned her about offensive remarks, including a claim that she said high rates of child abuse in the UK were “because it has so many Asian men”.

In a statement issued on Friday, Goddard said the accusations were false and malicious.

The home affairs select committee will raise the claims next Tuesday when it questions Jay - who has been involved in the inquiry since it was set up.

Speaking to the Guardian, the Labour MP Chuka Umunna, a member of the committee who is campaigning to be its new chairman, said: “I will certainly be asking questions about this.

“What we are hoping is that on Tuesday Professor Jay will give us some confidence that the appearance of chaos and crisis from the outside is not borne out by the reality of the work of the inquiry.”

But he added: “I suspect she [Jay] won’t be in a position to answer for Judge Goddard in relation to the allegations that have been made against her, nor will she be able to provide us with answers on how the Home Office has actually dealt with the allegations either.”

At the time of Goddard’s appointment the then home secretary, Theresa May, insisted she had been thoroughly vetted. In February 2015, May told the committee: “Justice Goddard has already been through substantial checks and in-depth interviews as part of the due diligence process.”

Advertisement

Umunna said the allegations of racism renewed MPs’ desire to question Goddard herself.

He said: “Judge Goddard’s departure poses a number of questions, not least the further allegations that have been made. She has also provided a fairly detailed note to the committee, not only giving the reasons for her departure but making some comments and recommendations in relation to how the inquiry is being conducted and its scope.

“We would very much like her to come and give evidence to the committee to expand on the recommendations that she has made but also respond to the very serious allegations that appear in the Times today.”

Goddard has so far refused, suggesting she does not want to return to the UK from New Zealand to appear before the committee.

But Umunna is hoping MPs will be able to question her via video link.

He said: “If she is unable to do so in person we are very keen for her to give evidence to the committee via video. I think at the very least she owes that to the survivors, the biggest group of whom are constituents of mine and a core participant: the Shirley Oaks Survivors Association.”

Goddard was appointed by May to succeed two previous chairs – Elizabeth Butler-Sloss and Fiona Woolf – who had stepped aside after concerns were raised over their links to the establishment and potential conflicts of interest.

Goddard’s abrupt resignation in August, claiming the inquiry was weighed down by a “legacy of failure”, prompted calls for a reassessment of its work and scope.

Jay’s subsequent tenure has also been controversial, with the lead counsel to the inquiry, Ben Emmerson, suspended in September after reported conflicts with the new chair. He quit the role soon afterwards.

Asked if he thought there had been a deliberate attempt to undermine the inquiry, Umunna said: “When things appear as allegations and nobody has put forward formal statements to the committee it is hard for us to come to a view. Looking at it from the outside it is not a pretty sight.”

He added: “The lead counsel to the inquiry was suspended and then resigned, the second lead counsel resigned and then it turns out nobody was told about this in public until after the event. And a third lawyer has left the legal team as well. The legal team is the fulcrum around which a lot of the inquiry revolves. If that is in the state it is in now then of course it is going to call into question the smooth functioning of the inquiry.”