Committee reject nomination idea for chair of child abuse inquiry

By The Press Association14th November 2014News EnglandChild Abuse, Government / Politics, Inquiry, News England

An influential group of MPs has rejected Theresa May’s suggestion that they nominate candidates to chair the historic child abuse inquiry, labelling the idea as “totally inappropriate”.

The Home Secretary asked the Home Affairs Select Committee to draw up a list of three candidates for her to consider, according to the committee’s chairman Keith Vaz.

But the Labour MP for Leicester East insisted Mrs May should identify a “suitable nominee” and allow the committee to examine the individual before he or she is appointed.

Mrs May’s request for candidates follows her apology to victims for failing to ensure the inquiry into historical sex abuse has a chairman four months after it was announced.

Baroness Butler-Sloss stood down as chairwoman in July amid questions over the role played by her late brother, Lord Havers, who was attorney general in the 1980s.

Her replacement Fiona Woolf, the then Lord Mayor of London, resigned in October following a barrage of criticism over her “establishment links”, most notably in relation to former home secretary Lord Brittan.

This led to Mrs May acknowledging it will be difficult to find a chairman who has the expertise to lead the inquiry and has no links with institutions or individuals that may fall under investigation.

The Home Secretary told the Commons this week that the Home Office is compiling a list of candidates.

She confirmed Michael Mansfield QC had been suggested, while NSPCC chief executive Peter Wanless and barrister Richard Whittam – who led a review of the Home Office’s handling of paedophile ring allegations in the 1970s, 80s and 90s – were added following a suggestion by Tory MP Philip Hollobone.

In a letter to Mrs May, Mr Vaz also said there was a strong consensus among survivors of abuse that there should be a “short pause” in the inquiry process to ensure they are properly consulted.

He wrote to Mrs May: “The committee has now considered your letter of November 5 where you asked us to compile a list of three candidates to be put forward to you.

“The committee agreed that the best way to proceed would be for you to identify a suitable nominee, as you suggested in your phone call to me, and for us to conduct a pre-appointment hearing in the usual way.

“This would follow the process which is already well established and has been endorsed by the Liaison Committee.

“The committee appreciates the difficulties you face, however it was our unanimous view that it would be totally inappropriate for us to make any such suggestions.”