BishopAccountability.org
 
 

Theresa May Admits She Was Aware of Concerns over Dame Lowell Goddard's Handling of the Child Sex Abuse Inquiry When She Was Still Home Secretary in April

By Matt Dathan
Daily Mail
October 19, 2016

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3851528/Theresa-denies-Home-Office-dragged-feet-claims-Dame-Lowell-Goddard-mishandled-child-sex-abuse-inquiry-admits-aware-stories-time.html

Theresa May today defended her role in the disastrous child abuse inquiry after it emerged that concerns were raised when she was still Home Secretary in April.

She denied the Home Office dragged its feet over allegations Dame Lowell Goddard, the former chair of the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse (IICSA), had mishandled the probe despite members of the panel revealing yesterday that Home Office officials were told of tensions in the inquiry four months before she quit.

Mrs May, who set up the inquiry more than two years ago, said those concerns were raised confidentially and insisted she was not made aware of them at the time.

Theresa May (pictured at Prime Minister's Questions today) defended her role in the disastrous child abuse inquiry after it emerged that concerns were raised when she was still Home Secretary in April

She admitted she was aware of 'stories around about the inquiry' at the time but told MPs today that it would have been wrong for her to intervene 'on the basis of suspicion, rumour or hearsay'.

The Government would have been accused of trying to interfere with bringing justice to victims of child abuse if she or other ministers had intervened to resolve problems on the information they had at the time, the Prime Minister said.

And she added that it was now for the inquiry to 'get on and deliver for victims and survivors'.

The Prime Minister's official spokeswoman later declined to be drawn on what action the Home Office took, but stressed that, as an independent inquiry, it was first and foremost the responsibility of the panel to deal with the issue.

But Mrs May faced criticism from Labour MPs for failing to say what and when she knew about the inquiry's concerns with the New Zealander chair Dame Lowell.

The inquiry raised 'concerns' over New Zealander chair Dame Lowell Goddard (pictured) with a Home Office official in April, MPs were told yesterday

Theresa May (pictured at Prime Minister's Questions today) denied the Home Office dragged its feet over allegations Dame Lowell Goddard, the former chair of the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse (IICSA), had mishandled the probe despite members of the panel revealing yesterday that Home Office officials were told of tensions in the inquiry four months before she quit

Yesterday the House of Commons Home Affairs Committee heard that concerns about Dame Lowell were raised with a senior Home Office official as April - months before she resigned in August.

But the department's top mandarin, Mark Sedwill insisted he was completely unaware of the worries until the end of July.

Asked by Labour MP Lisa Nandy when she 'personally learnt of the serious problems' with the inquiry and 'why she took no action at all,' Mrs May said today: 'There were stories around about the inquiry and about individuals related to the inquiry.

'But the Home Secretary cannot intervene on the basis of suspicion, rumour or hearsay.'

Mrs May said members of the inquiry's panel had asked for their concerns about Dame Lowell's handling of the inquiry to be kept 'confidential' and told MPs today that as far as she knew, they were treated as such.

The PM added: 'I think it is important for us to recognise that when the Home Office was officially informed of issues, the Home Office acted. It's now for the inquiry to get on and deliver for victims and survivors.'

Labour MP Lisa Nandy (pictured in the House of Commons at Prime Minister's Quesitons today) asked Theresa May when she 'personally learnt of the serious problems' with the inquiry and 'why she took no action at all'

Home Secretary Amber Rudd (pictured today) told MPs yesterday that she was told of leadership failings in the child abuse inquiry in late July

Ms Nandy said the PM must now 'come clean' about what she knew and when.

'Theresa May set up the abuse inquiry and appointed its chair. She was the home secretary in April when serious concerns were raised with her department, and only she had the power to act on them,' she said.

'Today she suggested that she did know of problems but did nothing at all. For this investigation to regain the trust of survivors the Prime Minister must now come clean about what she knew when, and why she failed to intervene.'

Some MPs remain angry that when current Home Secretary Amber Rudd appeared before committee last month she made no mention of the issues that had been raised, saying simply Dame Lowell had resigned because she was homesick.

At yesterday's set-piece evidence session, the new chair of the troubled inquiry, Professor Alexis Jay, hit out at her predecessor Dame Lowell.

She said Dame Lowell had shown little interest in working with the expert panel, and it would have been 'very difficult' if she had not quit.

Theresa May (pictured at Prime Minister's Questions today) admitted she was aware of 'stories around about the inquiry' at the time but told MPs today that it would have been wrong for her to intervene 'on the basis of suspicion, rumour or hearsay'

Professor Alexis Jay is the fourth chair of the child sex abuse inquiry, which was launched by Theresa May when she was Home Secretary

It has also emerged that a relationship counsellor was drafted in to try to smooth over tensions between the New Zealander and her team.

The details came as Dame Lowell said she was ready to 'assist' the MPs but stopped short of agreeing to appearing before them for a grilling.

Prof Jay - the fourth head of the struggling inquiry - told the committee: 'It was clear from the beginning that Lowell Goddard really would have preferred to sit on her own without the assistance of a panel ...

'As a consequence of this view that was conveyed to us, we did feel that we were kept at a distance from a lot of the activities of the inquiry.'

Prof Jay added that 'we did make every effort to make the arrangements work from the beginning'.

Professor Jay made clear she did not recognise the claims in a letter sent by Dame Lowell after her resignation, in which she suggested the huge scope of the inquiry meant it was doomed to fail.

Professor Jay was giving evidence to MPs on the Home Affairs Committee yesterday

Giving evidence alongside Prof Jay, panel member Ivor Frank said that things were so bad at one point a 'relationship' facilitator was drafted in help them work together.

He suggested that Dame Lowell had spent a good deal of her time in New Zealand.

'What I will say is the chair was not always present in the United Kingdom through that entire sixteen month period, so we were able to continue with our work for extensive periods without very much contact with the chair,' he said.

'There were times when things were perfectly amicable and perfectly professional. There were other times when it was less the case.'

Asked what this meant, he said: 'There are different working methods that people have and different experiences and backgrounds.

'It may be that as a judge working perhaps mostly on her own, it wasn't easy for her to adapt to a situation where she was necessarily having to work in a more collegiate way.'

Mr Frank told the committee that a 'facilitator' was brought in to try to resolve differences between the panel and Dame Lowell.

He said: 'The inquiry staff asked for the assistance of a facilitator, I think is the expression, who has a professional role in engaging parties who have difficulties in understanding a common purpose.'

He also strongly defended the cost of the inquiry, which racked up a ?14.7 million bill in the last year, saying: 'Reducing the level of child sexual abuse in this country is not a choice between competing priorities, it is an imperative.

'Every child has a right to be brought up without the threat of being subjected to sexual abuse. It is our job to make sure that we hold institutions to account for past failures and put in place procedures to stop it happening in the future.'

The most senior lawyer appointed to the inquiry, Ben Emmerson QC, resigned last month, but Prof Jay would not comment on 'anything to do' with his circumstances.

She denied having any disagreement with the barrister.

'There was no truth whatsoever in the suggestion that he and I had a disagreement about anything, that was entirely untrue.'

Another member, Drusilla Sharpling said she had met the director general of the Home Office in April to report 'concerns' about the chair.

She said the discussion related to worries about the 'leadership and progress' of the inquiry.

'At the end of April, with the panel's knowledge, I reported my concerns about the leadership of the inquiry to the then director general of the Home Office, Mary Calam,' she said.

'I want to take the opportunity to make absolutely clear that I did not give anyone permission to spread these concerns amongst anybody else, that I did not, and neither did the panel, require any action to be taken.'

There are allegations that Dame Lowell made 'racist' comments in private and behaved like a tyrant - claims that she has vehemently denied.

The new chair and the panel members refused to be drawn on the nature of the 'concerns' they reported back about Dame Lowell, insisting they could not speak about 'HR' matters.

Mr Sedwill, permanent secretary at the Home Office, said he was not aware of the meeting in April 'for the reasons that Drusilla Sharpling set out'.

He told the Committee: 'I presume - the director general has now left the Home Office but she has spoken to one of my colleagues - she was observing the conditions that were set by Dru Sharpling in having that exchange, which was not to share the information and not to seek any action on it. Anyway, it wasn't drawn to my attention.'

He added: 'It wasn't until the 29th of July that the tensions within the inquiry were drawn to my attention.'

Mr Sedwill dismissed any suggestion that the department may have picked up 'rumblings'.

He added: 'I wasn't aware, there's nothing in the Home Office records to suggest any of my staff dealing with the inquiry were aware, of concerns about the leadership and progress of the inquiry until it was brought to my attention on the 29th of July - with the exception of the separate conversation, which again was not brought to my attention, between Dru Sharpling and the director general of the group responsible.'

Professor Jay, who took over from Dame Lowell in August, said earlier this week that it was unrealistic to hold a public inquiry-style hearing into all of the institutions where abuse is said to have occurred.

She said while the inquiry would endeavour to look at many institutions where youngsters were allegedly abused, it would be 'impossible to do so for all of them'.

Professor Jay sought to appease victims by saying the inquiry remained 'very interested in the past' and promised to complete most of its work by the end of 2020.

The panel members were speaking after the inquiry was wracked by months of turbulence

The panel members were speaking after the inquiry was wracked by months of turbulence

But she refused to say if she plans to cut any of the 13 investigations examining child abuse claims in institutions from Westminster to the Church, schools and Armed Forces over the last 60 years.

Professor Jay had ordered a review of the inquiry amid concern its scope was so vast it was unlikely to be completed within a decade and could cost more than ?100million.

Amber Rudd said she was alerted about allegations over Dame Lowell Goddard's 'professionalism and competence' several weeks before she told MPs the judge had quit because she was 'lonely'.

Miss Rudd was accused of being 'economical about what she knew' after the admission, which follows claims of a Home Office cover-up.

She told MPs last month that New Zealander Dame Lowell had left the inquiry because she felt lonely and 'a long way from home'.

Hauled before the Commons earlier this week, Miss Rudd said it would have been 'entirely inappropriate' to tell the home affairs committee about the racism allegations against Dame Lowell.

Hauled before the Commons on Monday, Home Secretary Amber Rudd admitted being made aware of problems at the inquiry a week before Dame Lowell's resignation

Drusilla Sharpling said she had met senior Home Office officials in April to report 'concerns' about the chair

In evidence to the committee on September 7, she said of the judge's departure: 'I think she went – I have to say that it is a matter for her, but I have the information that you have – because she found it too much … ultimately she found it too lonely, she was a long way from home and she decided to step down. That is all the information I have about why she decided to go.'

But on Monday Miss Rudd admitted she became aware on July 29 that concerns about Dame Lowell's 'professionalism and competence' had been raised by inquiry staff with a senior Home Office official.

'On July 29, the secretary to the inquiry met my permanent secretary and reported concerns about the professionalism and competence of the chair,' she said.

'My permanent secretary encouraged the inquiry to raise those matters with the chair.

He reported this meeting to me the same day.' Despite this, Miss Rudd agreed to a payoff of almost ?90,000 for the New Zealand judge when she resigned as chairman on August 4.

Mr Sedwill said yesterday that Mrs Rudd had not misled the committee, and insisted she had been right to base her answer on the reasons given by Dame Lowell in her letter.

 

 

 

 

 




.

 
 

Any original material on these pages is copyright © BishopAccountability.org 2004. Reproduce freely with attribution.