Historical Child Sex Abuse

William Cash Excerpts

Thursday 27th November 2014 Commons Chamber

[Simon Danczuk]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Let me start with William’s story. I have changed his name to protect his identity. He is in his late 50s and his wife does not know that he was abused. He believes it would ruin his relationship if she found out. You could not wish to meet a more polite, intelligent and endearing gentleman. He does not look like a gentleman: he has tattoos, his face and skin are weathered, and he is quite dishevelled. William came to see me four months ago to tell me what had happened to him as a child. In 1970, he had been placed in Knowl View residential school in Rochdale, a place for youngsters with behavioural problems. The initial ethos was caring and supportive: the hitting of children was frowned upon and children were to be listened to.

As William pointed out to me, that ethos did not last very long. Within weeks of him arriving, he was being abused, both by teachers and by fellow pupils. Physical and sexual abuse was meted out on a daily basis. From the age of 13, he was bullied and abused, both physically and sexually. Sobbing, he explained to me how he was pleased when a younger boy who was more attractive was placed in the school, because that child became the focus of attention. One day, Cyril Smith tried it on with him, but one of the good teachers saved him. Obviously, at the time, William did not know that Smith was part of a paedophile network operating at the school. It was just one of the networks to which Smith would belong in his long paedophilic career.

William eventually escaped by running away and he has spent the rest of his life working on fairgrounds, an articulate, smart lad whose life chances were limited by his abusers. Needless to say, he is sad and wants justice. Only time will tell whether Greater Manchester police will deliver that for him.

Let me turn to John, who came to my office a few months ago. He suffered a similar fate at Knowl View school. He attacked one of his abusers and ended up going to prison. Years later, he sat in my office seeking help to find accommodation because he was homeless. Abuse had destroyed John’s life.

It is for those people—William and John—that we are here today. They are the survivors. As children, they suffered horrendous abuse. Now, as adults, they are determined to share their stories and bring the abusers to justice.

That desire to get to the truth about child abuse, however, has not been universally shared. We now know that from at least the 1970s up to the present day, there have been not only people in positions of power who have sexually abused children, but powerful people willing to cover up that abuse and obstruct justice. People were more concerned about their own careers and protecting the system than they were about the lives that were being shattered. From the systematic abuse by Jimmy Savile, which has been well documented, to the continual abuse committed by Cyril Smith, which Matt Baker and I have detailed, it is clear that there was a culture of acceptance of child sex abuse by the powerful and well connected.

Amazingly, that attitude seems to have been well known at the time. Indeed, I was recently shown an episode of “Spitting Image” that was produced and aired in June 1987. The sketch mocks Conservative youth unemployment policy by joking that the Government had been very good at

“getting to grips with youngsters”

through their “rent boy scheme” The joke was on the Conservative policy, but it was also on the boys who were raped and abused by politicians.

In addition, we have seen the shocking spectacle of a former Whip, Tim Fortescue, openly telling the BBC that the Whips in the 1970s would help MPs to cover up scandals, including incidents with small boys. It seems that the culture of child abuse around politics was an open secret, yet nothing was done and children continued to be abused.

This problem was not confined just to politics and broadcasters. There are many instances, which I and others have documented, of the police ignoring child sex abuse. Let us not forget that this is the agency charged with keeping children safe, yet there was systematic ignorance by the police of the abuse that was going on.

During my own investigation, Cyril Smith was found to be the subject of multiple police investigations, all of which were dropped. There are many examples of retired police officers offering powerful testimony to me and my staff about past investigations of child abuse. They were shut down once it was apparent that high-profile politicians and other establishment figures were involved. They include Operation Circus, which focused on what was known as the Piccadilly Circus “meat rack”, where men would pick up adolescent boys for sex. Cyril Smith was among the powerful politicians spotted here taking boys back to a flat in north London. Questions must be asked about why those investigations did not continue.

Last Sunday, events took an even more sinister turn and there were allegations that sexually abused children had been murdered and that they involved people with a connection to this House. As shocking as those claims are, I am wholly convinced that we should take them seriously. When responding to the Wanless and Whittam review of missing files at the Home Office, the Prime Minister described those who believed in child abuse cover-ups as “conspiracy theorists”. My view is that those comments were extremely insensitive and I think he will regret them in the months and years ahead. I have to admit that some of the claims that sometimes surround child abuse in that period can seem extreme, but from what I have seen and heard it is not hard to conclude that there was a paedophile network at Westminster during that period. The network organised child abuse and conspired to protect each of its members from exposure. Cyril Smith was certainly a part of it.

Earlier this year, I told the Home Affairs Committee that a dossier containing allegations about child abuse by politicians had been handed by Tory MP Geoffrey Dickens to the then Home Secretary Leon Brittan. That revelation helped lead to the Wanless and Whittam review and to the establishment of the overarching inquiry, but not everybody was pleased with the idea that I might challenge Lord Brittan. The night before my appearance before the Committee, I had an encounter with the hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Sir Edward Garnier). After the 10 pm vote, he drew me to one side outside the Chamber and warned me to think very carefully about what I was going to say the following day. He told me that challenging Lord Brittan on child abuse would not be a wise move and that I might even be responsible for his death, as he was unwell.

I understand that people are cautious about naming parliamentarians, but I think that people who might know about child abuse allegations should answer questions, whatever their position. We should not shy away from that.

I move on to the inquiry itself. It is fair to say that we are in a bit of a mess. First of all, I want to make it clear that I do not necessarily blame the Government or, indeed, the Home Office, but it is clear that mistakes have been made. What the Home Office permanent secretary told the Home Affairs Committee on Tuesday is quite revealing. He said that the Home Office had not appreciated the emotional nature of the inquiry when setting it up and appointing the chair. I was pleased to hear the permanent secretary say that this is now one of the top three priorities for the Home Office.

I do not want to dwell too long on false starts and the progress that still needs to be made. Too much time has been lost already. On the chair, however, I understand that the Home Office is now considering 100 names. Clearly, the process will not be quick and I do not think it should be rushed, but we need to get the right person in place. To do that, it is clear that we need more scrutiny and transparency of the appointment process. I am still confused and disturbed by the role of the Home Office in drafting the letter from Fiona Woolf to the Home Secretary. On the new chairperson, it is important for the Home Office not to have any involvement in any letter to or agreement with the Home Secretary—it should stay well out of it.

It is now clear that we cannot have another chair with significant links to people who might be investigated in the course of this inquiry. I am pleased that the permanent secretary has said that they are looking “further afield” and considering people from outside a narrow Westminster circle.

The other thing that is clear is that there needs to be a much greater role for survivors. I started my speech with two stories about survivors, to remind the House that this inquiry should always be focused on them. I am sure that meeting groups and representatives will redouble the Home Secretary’s efforts to make sure that the inquiry gets to the truth. It is not enough, however, simply to meet survivors—the Home Office needs to listen to them, too. For example, I understand that at a recent meeting with the Home Secretary, there was a vote on whether the inquiry should be a statutory one. I am given to understand that the vote was unanimously in favour. May I ask the Minister whether these views are really being taken on board?

[Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

On the question of having a statutory inquiry, I take it that the hon. Gentleman means an inquiry under the Inquiries Act 2005. We had considerable experience of trying to get such an inquiry on Mid Staffordshire: I had to campaign almost unimaginably hard to get one under the 2005 Act. The reason for having one is simply that evidence can be given on oath and there can be a proper inquiry; anything less would simply not be adequate. Indeed, the Attorney-General will need in some way to be brought in to ensure that the very important people who might be involved in all the investigations are aware that the inquiry is being undertaken at that level.

[Simon Danczuk]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his valuable intervention, which should inform the inquiry and its work.

I know that the new chair of the inquiry, when eventually appointed, will have some scope to alter the terms of reference. It is especially important to concentrate on the geographical scope. If I have learned one thing from studying child abuse networks, it is that there are lots of connections that are difficult to spot or to understand. I am worried that drawing arbitrary boundaries that stop us from looking at Scotland and Northern Ireland might prevent some connections from being made and some lessons from being learned. In Northern Ireland, I am particularly thinking of Kincora boys’ home and the alleged involvement of the security services. I want the new chair to consider the geography of the terms of reference.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tim Loughton]

That is entirely the point that the hon. Member for Rochdale made. It is not in the interests of any one of us who is in politics or in Parliament to stand by while suspicions and allegations of child sexual abuse involving politicians, dead or alive, are ignored. We need to root out this cancer. A child sexual abuser who happens to have been a politician is no less of a vile criminal than Jimmy Savile, a rogue priest or any other subject of the overarching inquiry. Those who think that we would want to cover up the involvement of other politicians in this abuse need to understand that this cancer tarnishes all of us and needs to be cut out. We have more incentive than many to ensure that we leave no stone unturned, however uncomfortable the findings may be.

[Sir William Cash]

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend and the hon. Member for Rochdale (Simon Danczuk) for their persistence in this matter. It is a remarkable example of how results can come from determination. He might be interested to know that it was Jim Callaghan who, as Prime Minister, insisted that the Protection of Children Bill reached its Report stage, against the background of considerable covert opposition. I was involved in that Bill in 1977 on behalf of the former Member of Parliament, the late Cyril Townsend. Jim Callaghan told me that his wife had said that if he did not get the Bill through as Prime Minister, she would not speak to him for six months.

[Tim Loughton]

My hon. Friend makes a good point and one that I have heard him make before. He is a veteran of taking an interest in this issue and ensuring that a spotlight is placed on these horrendous crimes. That was more difficult back in the ’70s and ’80s, when there was what I call the “Oh, it’s only Jimmy” mentality. What we now recognise as vile crimes against vulnerable children were swept under the carpet. It was assumed that that was just what went on and people did not want to rock the boat, for all sorts of reasons. It was harder for people to stand up and point the finger in the ’70s and ’80s than it is now. We should pay tribute to those people who, under whatever duress, brought such matters into the open.

It would have been better and easier if the overarching inquiry had started two years ago. Some of us wrote to the Prime Minister soon after the Savile revelations broke to say, “This is going to be really important. This is going to lead to a serious undermining of confidence in the child protection system in this country, and all sorts of allegations about cover-ups will start to come out.” The floodgates had been opened. The only compensation of the Savile case is that it raised the profile of child sexual abuse and emboldened victims to come forward who for years and decades had been told to go away and forget about it, and had been treated almost as the perpetrators, as the hon. Member for Rochdale said, rather than the victims that they were or the survivors that they are. If the inquiry had got under way before the floodgates opened, I think there would be more trust that the Government and politicians were taking a lead and wanted to uncover it all, but alas that did not happen.

I pay tribute to the Home Secretary, who stuck her head above the parapet and agreed to hold the overarching inquiry that we called for in July, appreciating—almost uniquely—just how important and necessary it was. No less than any of the gang of seven and the rest of us who are interested in this issue, she wants to get to the truth and leave no stone unturned. She wants justice to be done for the survivors and to ensure a child protection system that is fit for purpose in 2014.

However, there has been an unfortunate train of events. Elizabeth Butler-Sloss and Fiona Woolf were both excellent candidates to chair such a high-profile inquiry, but circumstances conspired for them to lose credibility in the eyes of survivors. In many respects, one could not win. Elizabeth Butler-Sloss has huge experience in child abuse inquiries and the family courts. She had a connection with a Government Minister—her brother—back in the 1980s, and decided that that would overshadow the great experience that she could have brought to the inquiry. I think that was unfortunate. Fiona Woolf had no connections with the family courts and seemed to have no baggage or agenda, but, alas, she too was not able to carry the inquiry forward. We should not see that as a deliberate intention to try to undermine or rig the inquiry; they were two, honourable heavyweight candidates, but unfortunately, because of the delicacy and sensitivity of this issue, they were not able to continue.

It is vital to get on with the inquiry and, as the Home Secretary announced, in the absence of a chair the panel must get the work under way. We heard from the permanent secretary at the Home Office that a new candidate is unlikely to come forward until the new year, and the Home Affairs Committee, on which I serve, will be asked to give them a confirmatory hearing. That person—or perhaps persons, as we may need dual chairs—must be allowed to get on with the job. If they cannot, the inquiry will never happen, and we must hold this inquiry.

This overarching inquiry is important for three reasons. First, we must put into historical context exactly how such things were allowed to happen, and learn when things changed and improved. Children are much safer in 2014 than they were in 1964, ’74 or ’84. Did the advent of the Children Act 1989 or the shocking high-profile revelations about the north Wales care homes in the 1990s make society take child abuse more seriously? We must put into context all those different things, which are confusing people with almost weekly revelations of new historical child sex abuse inquiries.

Secondly, the inquiry is necessary to give the survivors a voice at last, ensure that they are listened to, and discover whether the perpetrators are still out there—we know that abuse is still going on, hopefully in a lesser form than it was previously. After decades of not being listened to, people still feel raw. I have met many survivors, and the Home Affairs Committee held a private meeting with survivors who are palpably still traumatised by experiences many decades ago. Survivors must be listened to and feel that they are being listened to, and they must be able to achieve some sort of closure at long last.

The third reason the inquiry must get on with its work is that we must consider whether all major institutions in this country that have significant dealings with children and young people have instituted child protection policies and practices that are fit for purpose in 2014 to deal with modern-day perpetrators of abuse. Rotherham was the tip of the iceberg; there will be more Rotherhams I am afraid, and unless we have assurances and can restore confidence in the public that child protection systems in this country are fit for purpose, people will continue to be worried on behalf of their own children and friends. The inquiry will be vast. Its nature means that it will have to go anywhere and everywhere it needs to go, and it may take many years. That is the nature of the beast that we are dealing with, and it is a beast indeed.

[Tim Loughton]

That is right. We must recognise the enormous pressure that the police services are under to look into historical cases of abuse. Many victims, quite rightly, have bravely been emboldened to come forward, having sat on the issue and been repulsed over many years. I realise that a huge amount of distrust and scepticism from survivors surrounds the inquiry, and I agree with the hon. Member for Rochdale that it is not helpful simply to write them off as conspiracy theorists. During my time as children’s Minister, and subsequently, I met many survivors. They are very raw and there are great sensitivities. It is also difficult to determine who speaks for what is inevitably a disparate group. Some say they would like a judge to head the inquiry. Some say that a judge is the last person they would want. Some say they would prefer to wait a further two, three or six years to get the inquiry right before we start it. Others say we need it now because we need closure now. We must also not forget that there are current victims who need to be helped by the implications of an overarching inquiry.

There are conspiracy theories coming from a very different direction. I received a letter—I should think other hon. Members received it as well:

“I am not one of your constituents. Until last Friday I was only very dimly aware of your existence as an MP, but last Friday evening you appeared on ‘The World Tonight’ and ‘Newsnight’ to discuss the resignation of Fiona Woolf. In both programmes, you repeated allegations about the late Jimmy Savile which you appear not to have verified or investigated in any way.”

There are people standing up for Jimmy Savile, saying that he has been misrepresented in some way. There are extraordinary theories going around, which is why we need an inquiry to get to the truth.

In conclusion, what action should be taken going forward? The whole inquiry could have been handled better. The survivors should have been consulted earlier, before the processes and structures were set up, but we are where we are and we need to move forward and get the inquiry going.

First, we need to get on with appointing a chair, or possibly dual chairs. There will be circumstances where certain people being investigated as part of the overarching inquiry will be known to a chair. It is impossible, frankly, to get somebody with the calibre to chair such an inquiry who has no knowledge of all sorts of people who may have been on the periphery. If that does happen, perhaps they could step aside temporarily and an alternative chair could come in for the part of the investigation which involved somebody with whom they may have had a connection. We must remember, however, that these are not trials of criminals now. This is an overarching inquiry and it is for other police investigations to nail down perpetrators and bring charges.

Secondly, I have got to the stage where I believe the inquiry needs to be chaired by a judge, or judges. Many judges have turned down the invitation, which is not surprising. It is a poisoned chalice. We may have to go overseas to find somebody who does not have connections and baggage. It will perhaps be difficult to find somebody with the knowledge of the way the systems have worked in this country to lead the inquiry, but this is not the Oscar Pistorius trial. This is not a one man or one woman show; it is a panel of experts which includes, at the behest of many of us who went to see the Home Secretary, the survivors. The survivors should be represented at the heart of the panel to ensure that their perspective is included.

Thirdly, it is possible that the inquiry will have to become statutory. The Home Secretary has, perfectly reasonably, cited the Hillsborough inquiry as a very good example of an inquiry where everybody—bar one, I think—came forward with the information required of them. She has promised full co-operation from all Government agencies and Departments including, I would hope, the intelligence services, but we have got to the stage where the inquiry may need to be put on a statutory basis.

[Sir William Cash]

The Hillsborough inquiry was about a dreadful event. This is much more widespread: it goes deeper and involves criminal issues. I entirely agree with the direction my hon. Friend is taking. I am absolutely certain, from all my experience as shadow Attorney-General and in my previous incarnation as a lawyer in these fields, that it is absolutely essential not only to have an Inquiries Act 2005 inquiry but to have it led by a judge who can evaluate all the circumstances.

[Tim Loughton]

I feared my hon. Friend was about to say that Hillsborough was a terrible inquiry. No, it was a good inquiry about a terrible event and I think he is probably right. This is a huge, many-headed hydra that will go into many Departments and include documents and information from the intelligence services and others.

Fourthly, we must recognise that we have a good panel of experts. Questions have been asked about the way certain members of the panel were appointed. That was up to the Home Secretary, with advice from her officials. The gang of seven and others were invited to make any suggestions helpfully. I made some suggestions. Some of the people I suggested had been recommended by other institutions. Some of the people I suggested have not made it on to the panel. Some people think that, because they have been suggested by MPs, they must therefore be tainted. Please recognise that we have a good panel of experts from a wide variety of disciplines who bring great skills to the panel. To think that any one of them, let alone the eventual chair or chairs, could in any way, in such a high-profile inquiry with such a spotlight shining on them, sweep something under the carpet or try to divert the inquiry’s deliberations is just not realistic.