In the last few days I've been doing a lot of thinking and reading about what the best way forward for the UK Child Abuse Inquiry might be.
Because my thinking is in flux I haven't yet finalised my proposals to the Home Office.
But it seems to me that much of my thinking in
A draft proposal for a credible, definitive inquiry into UK child (sexual) abuse
remains valid.
I've been looking around at the Web sites of other child abuse inquiries to see if there are lessons which could be usefully learned. And if there are procedures that could usefully be applied to improve the proposed Home Office inquiry.
For example, I've been reading some of the information on the Web sites of the
Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse
in Australia and the
The Historical Institutional Abuse Inquiry
in Northern Ireland.
Each has stimulated thought.
In this post I'd like to focus on the Acknowledgement Forum aspect of the Northern Ireland Historical Institutional Abuse Inquiry.
I've found it difficult to find a detailed account of exactly what the Acknowledgement Forum does but here is my tentative understanding.
Put simply the Acknowledgement Forum provides a confidential, private setting for survivors of abuse to tell their story.
So far as it's possible it seems the Acknowledgement forum provides a friendly, supportive venue for each survivor to tell their story in private on a one to one basis.
It seems that information from the Acknowledgement Forum is passed to the Statutory Inquiry.
I assume, but haven't yet been able to confirm, that the Inquiry can consider information from the Acknowledgement Forum but on the basis that it is not to be publicised.
If I understand the process correctly then survivors have a mechanism to put their experiences on record. If the survivor wishes it seems that the information from the survivor remains totally confidential (as far as the public is concerned) but that information is made available to the Statutory Inquiry so they can join up the dots.
It seems to me that some mechanism similar to the Acknowledgement Forum would be useful in the UK Child Abuse Inquiry.
Since I haven't seen any discussion of that possibility I'm writing this post to hopefully stimulate discussion of whether an Acknowledgment Forum, or something similar, would be a useful component of the UK Child Abuse Inquiry.
Survivors have a right (and a need) to be heard. It seems to me that an Acknowledgement Forum or something similar to it could help meet that need.
So far as I'm aware the notion of an Acknowledgement Forum hasn't entered the Home Office's thinking.
My feeling is that such an approach should be formally put to the Home Office as being both an essential component of the UK Child Abuse Inquiry and a significant improvement to the current proposed inquiry.
What do you think?
Wednesday, 5 November 2014
Monday, 3 November 2014
Keith Vaz must make a public statement on his past if he is to continue as Chair of the Home Affairs Select Committee
Below is the text of a letter which I sent on 1st November to Keith Vaz MP.
In it I ask him to, at a minimum, make a public statement about his past employment and actions which seem to me to be directly relevant to the matters to be considered by the UK Child Abuse Inquiry.
Mr. Vaz has rightly demanded demanded transparency from Fiona Woolf.
I believe it is right that Mr. Vaz too should be totally transparent about his own past associations. For Mr. Vaz to refuse to be transparent would be hypocritical in the extreme, as I say in the letter.
I am in discussion with the office of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards with respect to Mr. Vaz's conduct.
My opinion is that Mr. Vaz broke Parliamentary rules when he didn't declare his past personal associations relevant to child abuse and to the child abuse inquiry.
A decision on that is, formally, for the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards.
However, there is also the matter of public confidence in Mr. Vaz. Why, given that he is a solicitor, did he not declare these associations when the Home Affairs Select Committee took evidence from Mark Sedwill, Theresa May and Fiona Woolf?
I watched each of those three evidence sessions live and I have no recollection of Mr. Vaz declaring these associations as interests.
To the best of my understanding these remain undeclared interests.
Mr. Vaz needs to explain his silence on these matters, in my opinion.
Here is the text of the letter of 1st November to Mr. Vaz.
In it I ask him to, at a minimum, make a public statement about his past employment and actions which seem to me to be directly relevant to the matters to be considered by the UK Child Abuse Inquiry.
Mr. Vaz has rightly demanded demanded transparency from Fiona Woolf.
I believe it is right that Mr. Vaz too should be totally transparent about his own past associations. For Mr. Vaz to refuse to be transparent would be hypocritical in the extreme, as I say in the letter.
I am in discussion with the office of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards with respect to Mr. Vaz's conduct.
My opinion is that Mr. Vaz broke Parliamentary rules when he didn't declare his past personal associations relevant to child abuse and to the child abuse inquiry.
A decision on that is, formally, for the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards.
However, there is also the matter of public confidence in Mr. Vaz. Why, given that he is a solicitor, did he not declare these associations when the Home Affairs Select Committee took evidence from Mark Sedwill, Theresa May and Fiona Woolf?
I watched each of those three evidence sessions live and I have no recollection of Mr. Vaz declaring these associations as interests.
To the best of my understanding these remain undeclared interests.
Mr. Vaz needs to explain his silence on these matters, in my opinion.
Here is the text of the letter of 1st November to Mr. Vaz.
1st November 2014
ToKeith Vaz MP, Home Affairs Select CommitteeDear Mr. Vaz,
Undeclared personal interests regarding child abuseRequest for public statement
It seems to me that you have undeclared interests which have the potential materially to undermine any credibility you might otherwise have to chair confirmation hearings with respect to the UK Child Abuse Inquiry.
I write to ask that you make a public statement about these undeclared personal interests.
I further ask that you consider your position as Chair of the Home Affairs Select Committee, at a minimum recusing yourself from playing any part in the proposed confirmation hearings for a replacement for Lady Butler-Sloss and Mrs. Woolf.
The three issues of concern
There are three personal interests which relate to you which, it seems to me, could impact on any credibility you might otherwise have:
- Your past employment as a solicitor with Richmond Council
- Your past employment as a senior solicitor with Islington Council
- Your attempt in 1991 to change the Law with respect to allegations of child abuse made in open court
Past employment with Richmond Council
I understand that in the early 1980s you were employed as a solicitor by Richmond Council.
You are likely aware that it is alleged that a Richmond Council children’s home supplied boys to the Elm Guest House.
I ask that you make a full public statement as to whether, while employed by Richmond Council, you had any knowledge of child abuse allegations or took any action on behalf of Richmond Council which might have had the effect of suppressing public awareness of child abuse allegations.
Past employment with Islington Council
I understand that in the mid 1980s you were employed as a senior solicitor with Islington Council.
You are likely aware that there are allegations of cover-up by Islington Council, or comparable failures by Islington Council, with respect to widespread child abuse.
I ask that you make a full public statement as to whether, while employed by Islington Council, you had any knowledge of child abuse allegations or took any action on behalf of Islington Council which might have had the effect of suppressing public awareness of child abuse allegations.
Attempt to change the Law following Greville Janner allegations
In 1991 allegations were made in open court that the then MP Greville Janner had acted improperly with children.
In the House of Commons you subsequently sought to change the Law to suppress public awareness of any such allegations of child abuse by important people made in open court.
The full text in Hansard is online here:
The predictable effect of your attempt to change the Law is, in my estimation, to suppress child abuse allegations.
It seems to me that your attempt to change the Law in 1991 is a matter you should declare as a personal interest and that you should also make a public statement regarding that matter.
I suggest that the statement should cover what steps you took to establish whether or not there was any basis for the allegations about Mr. Janner. You will, I imagine, be aware that the Police have continued to investigate the matter in 2013 and 2014.
How was it possible for you to know that those future accused were “innocent”? It seems to me that you had no rational basis for such a conclusion.
The change in the Law that you sought to make would predicably protect the guilty, in my estimation.
How could you fairly refer to those making future allegations of child abuse by important persons as “unscrupulous people”?
It seems to me that you were prejudging the character of any victims of child abuse who might have the courage to express their traumas in the already intimidating atmosphere of a Court of Law.
Did you contact or influence Police re Janner allegations?
In addition to the three undeclared personal interests I wish to ask you about your contact with the Police in relation to the allegations of child abuse made agaisnt Mr. Janner.
Chief Constable Mick Creedon has indicated that the Greville Janner investigation was closed down by more senior officers.
Your praise for Greville Janner was unstinting in the “Contempt of Court” debate in the House of Commons.
Was your support for Mr. Janner limited to your words in the House of Commons?
Did you at any time contact the Police regarding the allegations relating to Mr. Janner?
Did you at any time act in a way which might give rise to concern that you sought to influence the Police investigation of the allegations relating to Mr. Janner?
You are reported as having contacted Leicestershire Police in 2001 re the matter relating to Eileen Egginton.
Did you contact the Police in 1991 regarding the child abuse allegations relating to Mr. Janner?
Your awareness of the three issues
It seems to me that you have deliberately remained silent on the three issues.
In July 2014 I made contact with you via Twitter asking that you address the three issues relating to your past employment and conduct.
Any or all of those issues could directly bear on the credibility of the needed independence in your role as Chair of the Home Affairs Select Committee.
At the same time I placed on my Focussing on Uncomfortable Quality Questions blog, http://fuqq.eu, a blog post entitled FUQQ.EU: Keith Vaz MP Why did Keith Vaz try to change the Law to conceal allegations of child abuse?
I can identify no step you took to declare these personal interests following my contacting you.
The only action I can identify is the following. According to Twitter, you have blocked my ability to retweet your tweets. I understand that to do so takes conscious action on your part.
The need for full declaration of interests
It seems to me that the prospect of confirmation hearings with respect to a replacement for Fiona Woolf makes it absolutely essential that the Chair of the Home Affairs Select Committee is beyond reproach.
Accordingly, I ask you as a matter of urgency to make a public statement regarding the three issues I raise with you as well as the question about whether you contacted the Police in 1991.
I have listened live to the sessions that the Home Affairs Select Committee has had with Mark Sedwill, Theresa May and Fiona Woolf.
To the best of my recollection you did you not declare the perceived personal interests.In the requested public statement I ask you to explain why you did not declare these interests.
It seems to me that in a context where you have grilled Fiona Woolf in detail about her actions your silence on these undeclared personal interests is hypocritical in the extreme.
In conclusion
It seems to me that you have three undeclared personal interests relating to the matters that a credible child abuse inquiry might consider:
- Your employment as a solicitor by Richmond Council
- Your employment as a senior solicitor by Islington Council
- Your attempt to change the Law to suppress child abuse allegations
I ask that you make a public statement about these undeclared personal interests without further delay.
I also ask that you carefully consider whether you can credibly chair the Home Affairs Select Committee in relation inter alia any confirmation hearing for the Chair of the UK Child Abuse Inquiry.
Distribution
This letter is a public document.
I will publish a copy of it on my UK Child Abuse Inquiry blog:
When I send the letter I will ask the Clerk to the Home Affairs Select Committee to ensure that this letter is distributed to each member of the Home Affairs Select Committee since the matters I raise have the potential to impact the credibility of the whole Committee regarding any confirmation hearings.
I am also copying the letter to Chief Constable Simon Cole of Leicestershire Police since, unlike me, he is in a position independently to check any answer that you may give to the fourth issue I raise with you.
I anticipate raising these matters in a submission to the UK Child Abuse Inquiry. Chief Constable Cole may wish to send any relevant information to the Inquiry.
I am also copying this letter to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards for information and assessment.
I have no objection to your replying privately to me but I’m of the firm opinon that you must make a public statement on these undeclared interests.
Yours sincerely
(Dr) Andrew Watt
Who conducted the review before the Wanless/Whittam Review?
Last year Mark Sedwill, Permanent Secretary at the Home Office, commissioned a review of the files which are often referred to loosely as the Dickens Dossier.
The review looked into what files existed and in the end (and more importantly) identified that some 114 files were missing.
Theresa May promised "maximum transparency". She hasn't delivered on that promise.
Some time ago I asked if the anonymous investigator was a member of the security services:
Child abuse: Was the Home Office-commissioned "investigator" a member of the Security Services?
We still don't know. In the interests of transparency we should be told.
Also we still don't know who the investigator was. Is he trustworthy? We don't know.
We can assume that the Home Office thought him/her a safe pair of hands. But the Home Office thought that Butler-Sloss and Woolf were a safe pair of hands and look how that ended up.
We don't know which organisation the anonymous investigator worked for. That should be disclosed.
Just how "independent" was the investigator? We don't know.
Was he/she as "independent" as the preparation of Fiona Woolf's letter to Theresa May? We are not told.
The only credible course for the Home Office is total transparency.
If the anonymous investigator could have had potential conflicts of interest then we need to be told the facts to let us make up our own minds.
It is ridiculous for Mark Sedwill to take the approach "We're the Home Office. Just trust us.".
Those days of naive trust in the Home Office are gone.
Nothing less than total transparency will do.
The review looked into what files existed and in the end (and more importantly) identified that some 114 files were missing.
Theresa May promised "maximum transparency". She hasn't delivered on that promise.
Some time ago I asked if the anonymous investigator was a member of the security services:
Child abuse: Was the Home Office-commissioned "investigator" a member of the Security Services?
We still don't know. In the interests of transparency we should be told.
Also we still don't know who the investigator was. Is he trustworthy? We don't know.
We can assume that the Home Office thought him/her a safe pair of hands. But the Home Office thought that Butler-Sloss and Woolf were a safe pair of hands and look how that ended up.
We don't know which organisation the anonymous investigator worked for. That should be disclosed.
Just how "independent" was the investigator? We don't know.
Was he/she as "independent" as the preparation of Fiona Woolf's letter to Theresa May? We are not told.
The only credible course for the Home Office is total transparency.
If the anonymous investigator could have had potential conflicts of interest then we need to be told the facts to let us make up our own minds.
It is ridiculous for Mark Sedwill to take the approach "We're the Home Office. Just trust us.".
Those days of naive trust in the Home Office are gone.
Nothing less than total transparency will do.
We need to see both versions of the Wanless/Whittam review when it is published next week
Yesterday Theresa May indicated that she had read the Report of the Wanless/Whittam Review and had raised a number of questions.
In the Terms of Reference for Wanless/Whittam we were promised this:
Given the evidence that the Home Office participated in the drafting of the supposedly personal letter of Fiona Woolf to the Home Secretary trust in the Home Office is at an all time low, with good reason.
Therefore we need to see both versions of the Wanless/Whittam Report in order to know what changes have been made at the Home Secretary's behest.
And we need to see Theresa May's letter to Wanless.
After the collusion of Home Office officials in the preparation of Fiona Woolf's letter nothing less than total transparency is acceptable in my view.
In the Terms of Reference for Wanless/Whittam we were promised this:
The full report of the investigation will be published.See the final sentence here: Terms of Reference for the Review of the Departmental Reviews
Given the evidence that the Home Office participated in the drafting of the supposedly personal letter of Fiona Woolf to the Home Secretary trust in the Home Office is at an all time low, with good reason.
Therefore we need to see both versions of the Wanless/Whittam Report in order to know what changes have been made at the Home Secretary's behest.
And we need to see Theresa May's letter to Wanless.
After the collusion of Home Office officials in the preparation of Fiona Woolf's letter nothing less than total transparency is acceptable in my view.
Sunday, 2 November 2014
How can a Child Abuse Inquiry rigorously investigate the possible use of Public Interest Immunity Certificates in the child abuse cover-up?
This post poses the question, "How can a Child Abuse Inquiry rigorously invesigate the possible use of Public Interest Immunity certificates in the child abuse cover-up?".
It seems to me that this is a potentially explosive area.
It seems to me that the investigation of this matter should go back at least as far as the 1970s, not least in view of the allegations that the late Prime Minister Edward Heath was a paedophile and the allegations of cover-up by the Thatcher Government.
My understanding of the potential problem is a little hazy. And that's one reason I'm posting about it. I'd like to know more about how Public Interest Immunity Certificates could have been used in the official cover-up of child abuse and, in light of that, identify a strategy for the Child Abuse Inquiry to identify any possible use of Public Interest Immunity Certificates in the high-level cover-up of child abuse.
Public Interest Immunity Certificates are certificates issued by Government Ministers which, so I understand, have the effect of blocking disclosure of evidence.
Have Public Interest Immunity Certificates ever been used to block disclosure relating to cases of child abuse?
I don't know if Public Interest Immunity Certificates have been used to cover up child abuse but I think it's important to find out.
Historically, Courts took the view that Ministerial issuing of a Public Interest Immunity Certificate was binding and therefore could not be questioned.
Thankfully that ridiculous position is no longer held in the same unquestioning way.
Can anyone help me better understand whether and to what extent Public Interest Immunity Certificates could have been used to conceal evidence relating to child abuse and/or its cover-up?
Are there other mechanisms Ministers could have used to cover up child abuse?
How could such potential mechanisms of Ministerial cover-up of child abuse be rigorously investigated?
It seems to me that this is a potentially explosive area.
It seems to me that the investigation of this matter should go back at least as far as the 1970s, not least in view of the allegations that the late Prime Minister Edward Heath was a paedophile and the allegations of cover-up by the Thatcher Government.
My understanding of the potential problem is a little hazy. And that's one reason I'm posting about it. I'd like to know more about how Public Interest Immunity Certificates could have been used in the official cover-up of child abuse and, in light of that, identify a strategy for the Child Abuse Inquiry to identify any possible use of Public Interest Immunity Certificates in the high-level cover-up of child abuse.
Public Interest Immunity Certificates are certificates issued by Government Ministers which, so I understand, have the effect of blocking disclosure of evidence.
Have Public Interest Immunity Certificates ever been used to block disclosure relating to cases of child abuse?
I don't know if Public Interest Immunity Certificates have been used to cover up child abuse but I think it's important to find out.
Historically, Courts took the view that Ministerial issuing of a Public Interest Immunity Certificate was binding and therefore could not be questioned.
Thankfully that ridiculous position is no longer held in the same unquestioning way.
Can anyone help me better understand whether and to what extent Public Interest Immunity Certificates could have been used to conceal evidence relating to child abuse and/or its cover-up?
Are there other mechanisms Ministers could have used to cover up child abuse?
How could such potential mechanisms of Ministerial cover-up of child abuse be rigorously investigated?
Saturday, 1 November 2014
Have Keith Vaz and Theresa May done a grubby deal about the relationship between Fiona Woolf and Leon Brittan?
Have Keith Vaz and Theresa May done a grubby deal which will have the effect of concealing possible impropriety, including possible Contempt of Parliament, by Fiona Woolf and others associated with the Child Abuse Inquiry?
Is Keith Vaz being a hypocrite?
Keith Vaz criticised Fiona Woolf for collusion with officials in the preparation of the various drafts of her letter to Theresa May.
But has Vaz secretly colluded with Theresa May to stop investigation of possible improper conduct by Fiona Woolf and various officials related to the Inquiry and in the Home Office?
I'm not aware of anyone previously asking these questions.
If anyone is to have faith in the confirmation hearing by the Home Affairs Select Committee it seems to me that Keith Vaz and Theresa May must tell us how the deal was done.
Events relating to the UK Child Abuse Inquiry moved fast on 31st October, culminating in the resignation of Fiona Woolf as Chair-designate at 17.00.
In the media interviews which followed it became clear that there had been secret discussions between Theresa May and Keith Vaz.
One very surprising outcome of those secret discussions was that Keith Vaz's Home Affairs Select Committee was to conduct a "confirmation hearing" with respect to Fiona Woolf's successor.
It has also emerged on Twitter that Fiona Woolf won't be called back on Tuesday 4th November to give evidence to the Home Affairs Select Committee.
This, potentially, allows a very convenient veil to be drawn over the possible improper collusion in the preparation of the various drafts of the Fiona Woolf letters.
There are several important questions that, so it seems, won't now be asked:
For example,
The bottom line is this. Did Theresa May agree to a "confirmation hearing" about Fiona Woolf's replacement with the quid quo pro that Keith Vaz wouldn't look too hard into the collusion between Fiona Woolf and officials, both in the Home Office and the Child Abuse Inquiry?
Are the Home Office and the Home Affairs Select Committee, in effect, covering up what happened?
Was a grubby deal done between Keith Vaz and Theresa May?
In the interests of "total transparency" I think we must be told what was discussed on 31st October between Mr. Vaz and Mrs. May.
Is Keith Vaz being a hypocrite?
Keith Vaz criticised Fiona Woolf for collusion with officials in the preparation of the various drafts of her letter to Theresa May.
But has Vaz secretly colluded with Theresa May to stop investigation of possible improper conduct by Fiona Woolf and various officials related to the Inquiry and in the Home Office?
I'm not aware of anyone previously asking these questions.
If anyone is to have faith in the confirmation hearing by the Home Affairs Select Committee it seems to me that Keith Vaz and Theresa May must tell us how the deal was done.
Events relating to the UK Child Abuse Inquiry moved fast on 31st October, culminating in the resignation of Fiona Woolf as Chair-designate at 17.00.
In the media interviews which followed it became clear that there had been secret discussions between Theresa May and Keith Vaz.
One very surprising outcome of those secret discussions was that Keith Vaz's Home Affairs Select Committee was to conduct a "confirmation hearing" with respect to Fiona Woolf's successor.
It has also emerged on Twitter that Fiona Woolf won't be called back on Tuesday 4th November to give evidence to the Home Affairs Select Committee.
This, potentially, allows a very convenient veil to be drawn over the possible improper collusion in the preparation of the various drafts of the Fiona Woolf letters.
There are several important questions that, so it seems, won't now be asked:
For example,
- What was the relationship between Fiona Woolf and Leon Brittan? We don't know. By virtue of skilled evasion Fiona Woolf has not disclosed the nature of the relationship.
- Did Fiona Woolf and various officials set out to deceive the Home Affairs Select Committee and the Public by concealing aspects of the relationship between Mrs. Woolf and Leon Brittan? We don't know but I think we should know.
- What was the sequence of drafts and who contribued to which draft? We don't know because Fiona Woolf concealed that information in her letter to Mr. Vaz.
- Did officials of the Child Abuse Inquiry and of the Home Office participate in deception? We don't know. I believe we should know.
The bottom line is this. Did Theresa May agree to a "confirmation hearing" about Fiona Woolf's replacement with the quid quo pro that Keith Vaz wouldn't look too hard into the collusion between Fiona Woolf and officials, both in the Home Office and the Child Abuse Inquiry?
Are the Home Office and the Home Affairs Select Committee, in effect, covering up what happened?
Was a grubby deal done between Keith Vaz and Theresa May?
In the interests of "total transparency" I think we must be told what was discussed on 31st October between Mr. Vaz and Mrs. May.
UK Child Abuse Inquiry: MI5 and the Catch 22 about vetting Panel members
MI5 is accused of playing a part in covering up paedophile activity in relation to the Kincora Boys' Home and elsewhere.
Any credible Child Abise Inquiry must establish whether or not those allegations of MI5 misconduct (and/or criminal activity) are true or not.
How can the Inquiry Panel and the Public get access to all the relevant information that survives?
One possible solution is that the Inquiry Panel members be vetted to allow them authorisation to read classified documents.
This now seems to be on the cards.
See, for example,
Child abuse inquiry: Theresa May under pressure to give investigation greater powers
It seems to me that there is a Catch 22 with this proposed solution.
There are two broad categories of vetting that I'm aware of. I'll call them normal vetting and developed vetting.
In the normal course of events normal vetting takes a few weeks. From memory, many years ago it took about a month for my normal vetting to be completed.
Developed vetting is a much longer and more intrusive process.
My knowledge of it dates backs to my interest in the suspicious death of Dr. David Kelly. See, for example, The Death of David Kelly - David Kelly's security clearance
Developed vetting can take months. It involves interviews with people who know the person being vetted. The purpose, of course, is to establish whether the person being vetted is likely to hold in confidence any information they are given access to.
What is the Catch 22 that I see?
The purpose of this aspect of the Child Abuse Inquiry is to inquire into whether the security apparatus of the British State has acted in an improper or criminal manner.
Yet, it is the security apparatus of the British State which controls who is or is not given vetting clearance.
Can that security apparatus be trusted not to block vetting clearance of one or more of the Inquiry Panel?
It has a clear motive not to allow particularly energetic members of the Panel to inquire into MI5's (allegedly) very grubby past.
It is irrational to trust the security apparatus of the State to act honestly with respect to vetting when it is the conduct of that security apparatus that is in question.
It seems to me that a different solution is required. Vetting leaves open the very real possibility of ongoing cover-up by MI5 and associated organisations.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)