The child abuse inquiry could be split into two parts—a forensic, legal inquiry focused on securing justice for victims and an inspectorate form of inquiry looking into issues around child protection.
The home affairs select committee, in a report published this week, notes that confidence in the inquiry has been “seriously diminished by the problems it has encountered”. It suggests consideration be given to dividing the work into two elements: “One pursuing forensic and legal investigations, to establish the truth about past institutional abuse, and the other looking at thematic and compliance issues around child protection and safeguarding procedures within institutions today.”
The Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse was set up to examine the extent to which state and non-state institutions have failed to protect children from abuse after the crimes of TV presenter Jimmy Savile came to light. However, it has been beset by problems, with three inquiry chairs resigning, the latest being New Zealand judge Dame Lowell Goddard in August. She left for personal reasons. Several senior lawyers have also stepped down, leaving the inquiry without a senior counsel.
The Committee condemned Dame Goddard’s refusal to provide oral evidence to them since her departure as “disgraceful”, noting: “We regard this refusal as falling well below the standards we would expect of any public servant.” However, they said Dame Goddard has provided two detailed written submissions.
Richard Scorer, a lawyer in the abuse team at Slater Gordon, who is acting for some of the survivors, said dividing the inquiry “is one possible way forward and certainly not something we would object to.
“Certain parts of the inquiry absolutely do need to have the forensic courtroom treatment, but a less legalistic model may be more appropriate when discussing child protection issues. There are benefits in adopting both approaches at different stages of the inquiry. One benefit may be that it helps to bring groups back on board.
“However, any restructuring of the inquiry should be based on what is necessary for it to discharge its functions and not on anticipating what any particular groups wants.”
The inquiry’s work is being conducted through 13 separate investigations including one on Lambeth Council, which was responsible for the notorious Shirley Oaks home and other children’s homes where widespread historic abuse is alleged to have been carried out and subsequently covered up by the authorities. More than 600 survivors of abuse have come forward.
The Shirley Oaks Survivors Association pulled out of the inquiry last week and is calling for its current chair, former social worker Professor Alexis Jay to step down. Chuka Umunna MP, who is working with constituents among the survivors, said they want what was done to them recognised and justice to be served rather than an inspectorate-style inquiry. He said he has backed their calls for a new chair to be appointed because a forensic, legal approach should be taken. Yvette Cooper MP, head of the Justice select committee, has not called for Professor Jay to step down but has called for the inquiry to be divided into two.
Responding to the report, Professor Jay said: “We recognise that the past few months have been difficult for the Inquiry and for the victims and survivors who have placed their trust in it. I am personally sorry for any unnecessary anxiety the inquiry may have caused to victims and survivors during this transitional period.
“In the coming weeks, I will publish my review of how the inquiry operates. While this will not alter our terms of reference, I believe it will make the work of the Inquiry more transparent and set out a clear path for how the inquiry will progress.
“In particular, we recognise that the inquiry needs to share more information about the vital work it does. We will begin this process shortly by sharing testimonials from victims and survivors who have shared their experiences with the inquiry’s truth project.
“While I am confident that our safeguarding and dignity at work procedures are robust, I recognise the impact of recent speculation and commentary about them. As a result, the Inquiry will invite an external senior legal figure to review some of the issues raised in the Committee’s report.”
