Oral evidence: The work of the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse, HC 636

Oral evidence, 18 October 2016.

Witnesses

Professor Alexis Jay OBE, Ivor Frank and Drusilla Sharpling CBE.

Chair

Welcome to our witnesses. We thought we had lost you; there were a lot of people outside, and there is obviously a lot of interest in today’s proceedings. First, can I ask for any declarations by Members?

James Berry

I have practised as a barrister or studied with a number of barristers who either have been, or are currently, involved in this case, as well as some of the solicitors. However, I have not spoken to any of them about this inquiry, or indeed spoken to them recently at all.

Mr Umunna

As a constituency MP I represent a large number of the members—those who are constituents of mine—of the Shirley Oaks Survivors Association, which is a core participant in the child abuse inquiry.

Chair

I have a general declaration. Before, during and after being children’s Minister I have had various deliberations and associations with all the panel members in front of us. I hope that declaration covers me for everything. First, I thank all three of you for coming today. We have got three for the price of one, Professor Jay; you have brought two of your panel members with you, and we are very grateful for that. Let me set out a general point, which I made clear when we had the Home Secretary and the permanent secretary from the Home Office in front of us a few weeks ago. It is important to put on record that your inquiry is an independent inquiry established under statute, and it is not the job of the Home Secretary or this Committee to interfere with, or steer, its deliberations and how you carry out your inquiries. That is not what we are seeking to do; I will leave it to the Home Secretary to confirm that, and I did mention that point to her. I think that where there is a legitimate role and interest for the Home Office, and us as the scrutinising Select Committee of the Home Office, is in making sure that the inquiry is following its terms of reference, is fit for purpose to carry out the task for which it was set up and is continuing to spend public money in the best interests of the public and to achieve the ends to which it was set up. It is on that basis that we have asked you to come before us today to answer questions about the conduct, historically, currently and in the future, of the inquiry itself. I am sure you will appreciate the mechanics of that.

Professor Jay

Thank you, Mr Chairman. I am very grateful to you for setting out the position clearly. Just to reiterate, we are particularly sensitive to the boundaries because, as you know, both the Government and Parliament are expressly included within the inquiry’s remit and terms of reference.

Chair

The questioning in today’s session will be quite wide-ranging. We are keen to get as much information out of you as possible, and I think you will be keen, given the intense amount of speculation and coverage, of varying degrees of accuracy, that there has been about the work of the inquiry in recent days and weeks, to put as much on the record as possible. I think we will split this into three areas, which will be helpful to proceed, and then we will go into questions. First, obviously the Committee would like to know what on earth has been going on with all these reports and the departure of the previous chair and other key players in the inquiry. The second is your synopsis, Professor Jay, of where we are now, in terms of the good work that I am sure the committee has been getting on with, notwithstanding the headlines about various individuals and their activities. The third is where the inquiry goes from here. Will you build on the short statement you gave yesterday and talk about the progress of the review that you instituted? Those are the general parameters in which we would like to ask questions today, if that is all right.

Professor Jay

Yes, of course.

Chair

In general terms, I will kick off by saying that you have obviously seen that we have put on the record all the correspondence between this Committee, the previous Chairman and Dame Lowell Goddard, including some very recent correspondence between me and Dame Lowell Goddard, which will hopefully lead to her being interviewed by this Committee. She wrote to the previous Chair—in the absence of appearing in front of us, as originally requested—a nine-page letter, in which she effectively gave us her side of the story and talked about why she left the inquiry and what was wrong with it. In general terms, do you think that was a fair assessment of the state of the inquiry and what problems there may be? Was it elaborated? Are there some things that need to be challenged within it?

Professor Jay

We did agree with some of the comments she made about some of the start-up problems that were involved for the inquiry. You can’t set up an inquiry of this scale from scratch without there being some of these issues. Indeed, since her departure, we have managed to address one of two of the important ones. We did not agree with her suggestion of any curtailment of the terms of reference or the scope of the inquiry. There were other circumstances concerning her departure and the panel’s position that were not referred to.

Chair

Let me point out some specific things. I took up one of the issues with the Home Secretary before. Dame Lowell Goddard said that one of the weaknesses of the inquiry was that it was not properly resourced, but it later turned out—as confirmed again by the Home Secretary yesterday—that last year just under £3 million was returned by the inquiry to the Home Office because of an underspend.

Professor Jay

Yes.

Chair

So that was factually incorrect.

Professor Jay

It was factually incorrect.

Chair

She refers to not being given a free hand to recruit staff of the type that she thought essential, and said that “the panel and I”—that is Lowell Goddard—“have had little or no input into either the composition of the senior management team or the recruitment of secretariat staff”. Is that correct?

Professor Jay

Not to my knowledge. It is true that there were some staff recruited from the Home Office, as she referred to. I have no knowledge personally about how people were recruited at the beginning of the inquiry, because we were not engaged in that. That would have been a matter for the secretary to the inquiry, and possibly for Lowell Goddard herself.

Chair

She said that the result was that “the skills and qualifications of many recruits did not fit the tasks which they were called upon to perform”. Do you think that that is a fair description of many people presumably working within the inquiry?

Professor Jay

I’m not aware of that.

Chair

Also, she complained that a tremendous amount of hard work had not been sufficiently visible or communicated widely enough in those 16 months. Is that true? If it is, was it not her job to make sure that that was rectified?

Professor Jay

I certainly believe that we did not fully communicate what we were doing widely enough.

Chair

So whose responsibility was it to resolve that?

Professor Jay

I would suggest that it was the chair’s responsibility, with the relevant staff and managers.

Chair

The specific criticism about the lack of an evidence management system, which she said held back your being able to hold these public inquiries—is that a fair criticism? Again, who is responsible for this?

Professor Jay

That took a long time to put in place. I may say that within two weeks of my appointment we rectified that. It is now in place. Large numbers of documents, many thousands of them, have now been uploaded to the system. That is no longer an issue.

Chair

So overall, a lot of the problems that are mentioned in Dame Lowell’s letter should really have been the responsibility of the chair to seek to resolve and to take some responsibility herself, if they had not actually been resolved in her 16-month tenure. Would that be a fair assertion?

Professor Jay

I would agree with that.

Chair

Could I ask all of you what your relationship, your working conditions and your work relationship was like with Dame Lowell in her 16 months there that coincided with your tenures? I will start with Professor Jay.

Professor Jay

I will start, and the others can make their own contributions. It was clear from the beginning that Lowell Goddard really would have preferred to sit on her own without the assistance of a panel.

Chair

So you were redundant, in her view?

Professor Jay

We were not redundant. There are specific legal requirements that the chair and the panel make certain decisions, but many are for the chair on their own. 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.

Chair

And is that something that manifested itself quite early on?

Professor Jay

Yes. I am sure that we will return to this, but we did make every effort to make the arrangements work from the beginning.

Chair

Mr Frank, what is your assessment of your relationship with the chair and how easy she was to work with?

Ivor Frank

It is fair to say—I have said this before—that there were challenges.

Chair

That is usually a very all-encompassing word, “challenges.”

Ivor Frank

And indeed there were some fairly all-encompassing challenges, too. All I will say is that the chair was not always present in the United Kingdom for that entire 16-month period, so we were able to continue with our work for extensive periods without very much contact with the chair. There were times when things were perfectly amicable and perfectly professional; there were other times when that was less the case.

Chair

What does that mean?

Ivor Frank

Well, there are different working methods that people have, and different experiences and backgrounds that they bring. It may be that, as a judge perhaps working mostly on her own, it was not easy for her to adapt to a situation where she was necessarily having to work in a more collegiate way. There were times when it was obvious that that was not a comfortable situation for her, and that led to challenges.

Chair

Was the office a rather calmer place when she was abroad than it was when she was in residence?

Ivor Frank

On the times I was there myself, which was quite a lot, I would say that was probably the case.

Chair

Was she a nightmare to work with, as some papers have suggested?

Ivor Frank

I would not use that language.

Chair

What language would you use?

Ivor Frank

I would prefer to say that there were challenges.

Chair

This has been a circular exchange. Drusilla Sharpling, what is your view? These reports about her being abusive to staff to a bullying extent, is that an accurate reflection?

Drusilla Sharpling

I am not going to engage in the sort of character issues that have been published across the press. It seems to me to be entirely inappropriate. These matters are not something that ought to be played out in the public domain. However, having said all of that, the panel had concerns about the qualities of leadership being evidenced in the course of the inquiry. That was our principal concern, and that was the reason we wanted to work with the inquiry to ensure that that was overcome. Regrettably, that was not the case in the end.

Chair

How early on did those questions about qualities of leadership, as you put it, manifest themselves?

Drusilla Sharpling

I wouldn’t say immediately. That is not the case. To say that there was a single moment when this become evident would be wrong. It was the accumulation of matters that concerned the panel. As I said, we tried to do everything to manage that. It was our job to try to manage that, for the benefit of the inquiry going forward.

Chair

But would you say that those questions about qualities of leadership manifested themselves on an accumulative basis within the first half of her tenure—in other words, in 2015, rather than having to wait until 29 July 2016?

Drusilla Sharpling

I cannot say there was a particular cut-off date. That would be entirely wrong, but it was a growing concern with panel members about the quality of her leadership that caused us to take various actions at various times.

Chair

Finally, before I ask colleagues to come in, to whom did these concerns about qualities of leadership get reported, if at all? What was your reporting structure, if there were issues around the person at the top?

Drusilla Sharpling

As I understand it, there would have been informal meetings with the secretary of the inquiry. I am not familiar with those, because they were under the former chair’s purview. However, I have something to say about what I did with the consent and knowledge of the panel. At the end of April—I think 26 April—I reported my concerns, with the panel’s knowledge, about the leadership of the inquiry to the then director general of the Home Office, Mary Calam. I want to take the opportunity to make absolutely clear that I did not give anyone permission to spread those concerns among anybody else. I did not, and neither did the panel, require any action to be taken. As I have said—this remains the case—the panel wanted to manage the inquiry in the most effective and efficient way possible, acting in its best interests.

Chair

And that happened when?

Drusilla Sharpling

April of this year.

Chair

April 2016. Thank you.

Mr Burrowes

Can I clarify something? We have read in The Times—“multiple senior sources” are referred to—that the recruitment of Judge Goddard was done in blind panic after the resignation of Fiona Woolf in November 2014. There was then a process in which the Home Secretary had a number of meetings and discussions, leading to Judge Goddard’s appointment on 4 February. That has been described by some as a blind panic. Your appointment occurred seven days after the resignation of Judge Goddard on 4 August. How would you describe your appointment, if others describe the longer process of Judge Goddard’s recruitment as a blind panic?

Professor Jay

I don’t know whether the first of your reported assertions is correct, because I have no information about how the Home Office conducted the recruitment of Lowell Goddard. When it comes to my appointment, I understand that the Home Secretary consulted several people, including panel members, about what should happen next. They considered continuity to be extremely important.

Mr Burrowes

Were you offered the role of chair before August 2016?

Professor Jay

No.

Mr Burrowes

In terms of achievements, Judge Goddard has stated: “I am confident there have been achievements and some very real gains for victims and survivors of institutional child sexual abuse”. Would you say that that is an accurate verdict on her time? If so, what precisely would you say those achievements are?

Professor Jay

I would say certainly the work on the Truth Project is very significant. It was complex to set up. We carried out a pilot in November-December last year, in which all the panel members here were involved. We followed that through and very recently—only in the past couple of weeks—the hundredth person had a private session within the Truth Project. I am assuming that people understand what I am referring to here. Indeed, we have also dealt with another 100 through other means of contacts—through written statements and so on. That would be our principal achievement, although that was a shared achievement, of course. Much of this was a continuation in the past few weeks of what previously had been overseen. After that, the barristers on the inquiry worked very well in the initial stages to review the existing literature around child sexual abuse and case law. They produced very significant reports internally for us as a first step for moving on, and that has proved to be very valuable. And, of course, preliminary hearings were conducted.

Mr Burrowes

Is there anything else that you would suggest were achievements?

Ivor Frank

Yes. There are achievements that are collectively the achievements of the inquiry. You know that it was our specific remit to ensure that victims and survivors were at the heart of the inquiry. We promised that we would do that and we have delivered on that promise, because victims and survivors are enabled to participate in the inquiry in five separate ways. First, if we have a public hearing, you know that a number of them—12—have already been identified; they are able to give evidence as witnesses. Some do not want to do that, so they have the opportunity to give evidence in a private session, which is the Truth Project. In addition to that, we have the victims and survivors consultative panel, who weekly give us really helpful assistance to ensure that we do not lose sight of the importance of victims and survivors in this inquiry. In addition to that, we have set up the victims and survivors forum to enable those who wish to contribute to policy development in any way they wish to. We are constantly reviewing that. That is a project that is not finished; we are constantly reviewing ways in which victims and survivors can contribute. For that reason, that is one of the collective achievements of the inquiry to date.

Mr Burrowes

It is hard to put a price on justice but, in terms of the value of those achievements—£14.73 million in the last financial year—is that acceptable, when looking back, as an achievement?

Ivor Frank

Can I answer that one? We said before that reducing the level of child sexual abuse in this country is not a choice between competing priorities. It is an imperative. Every child has the right to be brought up without the threat of being subjected to child sexual abuse. It is our job to ensure that we hold institutions to account for past failures and put in place policies to stop it happening in the future.

Mr Burrowes

Yes, but at the same time, justice delayed can be justice denied. It is about ensuring that it happens at appropriate progress, so it is surely a legitimate question whether over the past year, given the amount of outlay, there has been sufficient justice and achievements for those very victims.

Drusilla Sharpling

Can I add that there are three strands to our work? We have mentioned the Truth Project and the public hearings. There is also a substantial research strand. These take time to set up if we are to really do the job properly and get to the entrenched issues that have inhibited institutions in the past from fully protecting children as they have deserved. That will take some time. I’m afraid I am not apologetic about that at all. However, we know that as we gather the information from those projects and strands of work we will be able to bring our reports together in what I would call an holistic way, drawing from research and truth in the appropriate way because, of course, they are anonymised summaries of participants and also from the public hearings. That is the core of what we are doing, and that has already started with the Truth Project. We are very far advanced as far as research is concerned, and we will be starting our public hearings in relation to child migrants in February of next year.

Mr Winnick

It goes without saying that we are not interested in gossip or anything of that kind. What we are concerned about, and what the House is certainly concerned about, is how effective is the work of the inquiry. It has taken up a great deal of time and a great deal of money, all of which is justified for the very reasons that you, Mr Frank, set out a moment ago. Would we not be right to say that almost from the beginning of the inquiry, when it started in July last year, it has been a rather unhappy ship, to say the least?

Professor Jay

No, I would not say that. I would say that a great deal of work has been done, and the inquiry has always been open for business. It is not true to say that it was ever in crisis, in terms of the number of staff who work there, and in a highly committed fashion. They are there because they want the inquiry to succeed, and they are doing their very best. We collectively, along with the fourth panel member, have tried to ensure that the inquiry has been kept on its tracks from the beginning.

Mr Winnick

Ms Sharpling, you joined the inquiry in July last year—am I right?

Drusilla Sharpling

Yes, at the same time as everyone else.

Mr Winnick

And by April this year you had told the appropriate Home Office officials of your disquiet over various aspects.

Drusilla Sharpling

Yes.

Mr Winnick

And in my view, if you had such disquiet, which you had, over various matters, you were absolutely right. So clearly, in a very short period of time, the tensions in the inquiry were coming very much to the fore. Would you wish to challenge that, Professor Jay?

Professor Jay

They came to the fore early on, but of course we were all committed to making the inquiry work, and we worked very hard with the former chair to try and succeed with that. It was not as if there were a moment, as my colleague said, when it suddenly became clear that this was not going to work; over time it became evident, when we tried to press for a clearer direction for the inquiry, an understanding of how we would reach the end point to deliver the objectives, and how we would get there. As time went on, this was not evident to us in our working with the chair.

Mr Winnick

Let me put this to you: if Judge Lowell Goddard had not resigned, what would have been the position? Is it not the case that, despite the difficulties and tensions—which are not being denied, when you are being absolutely frank with us, as we would expect and respect—it would have been very difficult for the inquiry to continue? May I put that to you, Ms Sharpling?

Drusilla Sharpling

That is a difficult one, if I may say so, because the chair did in fact resign. However, we would have continued to work with the inquiry to do whatever we could to ensure its survival—

Mr Winnick

If I may interrupt, I do not doubt the commitment of the three of you—that goes without saying—but my question is, would it have been difficult for the inquiry to continue if Judge Lowell Goddard had not resigned?

Drusilla Sharpling

I think that is too difficult to answer, and entirely speculative. I do understand the nature of the question—

Mr Winnick

Despite all your reservations, which you expressed to the Home Office.

Drusilla Sharpling

I understand the reservations. With the greatest respect, I do not have a crystal ball to make that kind of speculation.

Mr Winnick

Mr Frank?

Ivor Frank

What I can tell you is that the relationship between the panel and the chair evolved over time, and steps were taken over time to try to resolve differences. One step included bringing in professional assistance to see if a better rapport could be established. I can tell you that that process was not completed before the chair in fact resigned, so it is at least possible that had that been completed, the matter could have been resolved satisfactorily.

Chair

Can you qualify what “professional assistance” actually is?

Ivor Frank

Yes, I can. The inquiry staff asked for the assistance of a facilitator—I think that is the expression—who has a professional role in engaging parties with difficulties in understanding a common purpose. So there is a discussion about progress and the role of the chair and the panel.

Chair

So are you saying that the inquiry had to bring in a mediator, effectively, to communicate between the panel and the chair?

Ivor Frank

No. I understand the word “mediator” is wrong in this context. I am not an expert on that subject, but I understand it is the wrong expression. I dare say that if you want more information about that, that can be made available.

Chair

What did this person actually do, then?

Ivor Frank

Facilitated a discussion.

Chair

Why couldn’t you do that on your own? You are all grown-ups.

Drusilla Sharpling

We had many discussions on our own. It is not uncommon in organisations to bring in facilitators to lead discussions going forward, and that is what the intention was in this particular case. It is no more complex than that.

Professor Jay

It was simply an afternoon workshop-type discussion.

Mr Winnick

Professor Jay, this is my last question to you. Would it not be reasonable on the part of my colleagues and myself to come to the conclusion that had Judge Goddard not resigned, it would have been very difficult in all the circumstances, given the tensions and other aspects that have come to light, for the work of the inquiry to be carried out as Parliament wishes?

Professor Jay

Of course I am sure it would have been very difficult, as you suggest, but let me say that this inquiry has always been bigger than any single person, and we would have worked—as we did—tirelessly for the sake of our common purpose and in serving the victims and survivors of childhood sexual abuse.

Mr Winnick

Commendable, to say the least, but it would have been difficult, wouldn’t it?

Professor Jay

Yes, it would have been difficult.

Mr Winnick

Thank you very much.

Chair

You will be relieved to hear that this Committee has always been able to operate, even under previous Chairs, without the need for a facilitator to communicate between the Chair and its members.

James Berry

The relationship between the sponsoring Department and an inquiry is necessarily arm’s length, and there are very specific rules—with which you are of course familiar, because you are subject to those rules—for the appointment and removal of the chair and the panel. Those reasons do not include the chair not getting on with the panel, the chair not getting on with the interested parties or the chair not getting on with the barristers and solicitors. It seems to me that under section 12 of the Inquiries Act, the only subsections that could possibly have applied to Justice Goddard were that she had failed to comply with a duty imposed on her under the Act or that she had been guilty of misconduct that made her unsuitable for membership of the inquiry panel. What I want to ask is whether, Mr Sharpling, your complaint of April, or indeed the complaints that we understand were made to the Home Office on 29 June, were framed as complaints that you knew would engage that section of the Act and require the Home Office to take action under the Act, or whether they were just more general concerns.

Drusilla Sharpling

I am going to use the word “concerns”, not “complaints”, because they were concerns about the leadership and progress of the inquiry. I did not go into any detail, because I thought it was inappropriate at the time, and I did not ask for any action to be taken. In direct answer to your question, was section 12 engaged? No, it wasn’t.

James Berry

Thank you very much. Does the same apply to you, Mr Frank and Professor Jay? Professor Jay indicated assent.

Ivor Frank

Yes, it is worth pointing out that under section 12, any member of the inquiry may resign their appointment by notice to the Minister. They are not required to do anything more than that. That is what happened in this case.

James Berry

Indeed. Thank you very much.

Mr Umunna

May I just pick up with you, Ms Sharpling, the way in which your concerns—not complaints—were raised and to whom you raised the concerns? You said that you reported the concerns to the director general of the Home Office in April 2016, but you were not requesting that they do anything in particular with that information.

Drusilla Sharpling

I was alerting them. We as a panel felt they had the right to be informed—not consulted, not for action to be taken, but the right to be informed. That was the purpose of it.

Mr Umunna

Right. You were appointed in July 2015. Have I understood that—

Drusilla Sharpling

Yes, I think that’s about right.

Mr Umunna

And then it was in April that you raised the concerns on behalf of the panel. You said that over time, concerns aggregated, which led to you doing that in April. Why did you not do so sooner? I forget how long it was, but some time passed between you joining the panel, or any of the panel having concerns and them being raised. Why did you wait so long?

Drusilla Sharpling

Well, because it wasn’t our job to go backwards and forwards to the Home Office raising concerns. There were issues that arose which had—I won’t say culminated, but to such an extent that we felt it was appropriate to raise them at that time. Why not sooner? Perhaps it could have been a month sooner; perhaps it could have been a month later.

Mr Umunna

You have described the nature of those concerns in quite general terms as being around leadership. Presumably, one of the principal reasons that she was appointed was because of her legal expertise. Among some of the survivors there was a desire to have a judge-led inquiry. To what extent did the concerns about her leadership relate to her legal knowledge and what she brought to the table in terms of her legal expertise?

Drusilla Sharpling

I understand, from one of the preliminary hearings we had, there was some criticism in the press about that. That was, of course, after I raised concerns with the Home Office. I am not going into detail about it because these were private conversations and I don’t indulge in gossip. These were the concerns that we had over the leadership and the progress of the inquiry. It is as simple as that.

Mr Umunna

In relation to who was informed at the Home Office, the director general was informed.

Drusilla Sharpling

Yes.

Mr Umunna

But did you have any contact with or express any of these concerns to any other civil servant or Minister at the Home Office? I address that question to all three of you.

Drusilla Sharpling

No, I did not.

Professor Jay

No. I must reinforce the point that was made earlier: we understood that the secretary to the inquiry had regular liaison meetings with the appropriate person within the Home Office. These occurred very regularly, I think. I now know what the arrangement is since I took over: it is once a quarter. They meet the relevant director general. I don’t know what the arrangements were then, because he wasn’t accountable to me, but he certainly may have raised these issues on his own behalf at that stage.

Chair

You are talking about John O’Brien?

Professor Jay

Yes, indeed; the secretary to the inquiry. Because we were an independent inquiry, we had no formal contact with officials of the Home Office.

Mr Umunna

Since you raise that point, there is a second issue that I wanted to pursue with you, if the Chair will allow me. The appointment of the chair necessarily is going to involve the Home Office but, as you have indicated, beyond that the independence of the inquiry is paramount. You would agree that that actual and perceived independence, particularly in the eyes of the survivors, is particularly important?

Professor Jay

It is.

Mr Umunna

How many of your secretariat—well, how many do you have? And how many of those—you may have anticipated this question before coming—are current or former employees or officials of the Home Office, just for the record?

Professor Jay

I believe we have 166 employees, and just over 20% are from the Home Office.

Mr Umunna

When you say “from the Home Office”, can you define what that means? Are 20% employees of the Home Office?

Professor Jay

They are former employees of the Home Office, although actually I think the Home Office may employ everybody, because we need a technical employer. They are people who previously worked in the Home Office.

Mr Umunna

Right. And there are no current Home Office workers, apart from the fact that, technically speaking, you are all employees of the Home Office—there are no current Home Office officials seconded into the inquiry.

Professor Jay

I would need to clarify that.

Mr Umunna

Well, you said that 20% are people who are former officials. Are there any people who have been seconded in who are current officials of the Home Office?

Professor Jay

Not that I am aware of, but I don’t know the technicalities of their contract when they moved across. I can get someone to clarify that.

Mr Umunna

If you could write to us, that would be helpful. Can you confirm—he has already been referred to—that the secretary to the inquiry and the head of the secretariat at present is a former senior Home Office official?

Professor Jay

That’s correct. He is also the accountable officer for the inquiry.

Mr Umunna

That’s right. And is it right that the deputy secretary to the inquiry is also a former Home Office official?

Professor Jay

Yes.

Mr Umunna

And the head of communications and engagement is also a former Home Office official.

Professor Jay

I believe so, but I’m afraid I would have to check.

Chair

We won’t go through every member of staff.

Mr Umunna

The reason I raise the issue, Chair, is that it is not just a question of the percentage of the personnel—I will explain for the benefit of the record why this is important to survivors—but also of the controlling mind. You are the chair. You are not a former Home Office official, as I understand it, but many of those who are part of the leadership team and who are in senior positions in the secretariat are. Can you understand why, among some survivors, there is a perception that although nominally the inquiry is supposed to be independent, it is somewhat under the influence of people who have been associated with the Home Office?

Professor Jay

I understand their perception, but in reality I can say with absolute assurance that so many of these people are there precisely because they are knowledgeable, interested and committed to the objectives of this inquiry.

Mr Umunna

I’m not calling into question any of what you have just said in terms of how committed they are, or knowledgeable. But, going back to the beginning of my questioning on this particular issue, independence is very important, not least because the Home Office itself may be found to be culpable. I have just named three officials there, two of whom I believe advised the Prime Minister when she was the Home Secretary. You can understand why there will be a concern about the influence of the Home Office which may be culpable here given that, in the leadership positions, the controlling mind of this organisation certainly does seem to have a lot of Home Office background, if I may put it like that.

Ivor Frank

I wonder if could assist?

Mr Umunna

Please. I am happy for anyone to come in on this.

Ivor Frank

I think there is Cabinet Office guidance that you might like to look at, which specifies that it is normal for the secretary to any inquiry to come from the sponsoring Department. I believe that that is the standard across all inquiries, so it would not be a surprise that the secretary to our inquiry had been a Home Office employee at some time.

Mr Umunna

I am not necessarily saying that it is surprising. All I am saying to you, as key figures in the inquiry, is that part of your challenge is to command the confidence of survivors and amongst a great number of survivors the Home Office is culpable here. Much of what happened in the past has been swept under the carpet; we have seen industrial-scale abuse and key establishment institutions and figures, including at the Home Office itself, involved in that. So you can quote whatever Cabinet Office guidance, bureaucratic book or whatever at the survivors but—

Ivor Frank

The law—I can quote the law.

Mr Umunna

You are quoting Cabinet Office guidance at me. There is a difference between guidance and an Act of Parliament. I am a lawyer; I know that. The simple point I am making—I am not trying to attack anybody here—what I am simply trying to do is to get from you whether you understand why the relationship between the Home Office and your inquiry is a sensitive issue. All I am asking is for you to give some reassurance to the survivors, who are of primary concern to everyone in this room, that this is not going to compromise your ability to make adverse findings against the Home Office where that is deserved. That is all I am asking, Mr Frank.

Drusilla Sharpling

Can I come in here? First, may I just deal with one issue that you raised in the form of the question that you used? You talked about “controlling minds”. The chair and the panel are the controlling minds of this inquiry. I give the assurance to victims and survivors everywhere that we are in charge of this inquiry going forward, and we are determined to do our duty in respect of this inquiry and all its component parts. We are absolutely determined and committed to doing it. Yes, there are former Home Office officials in there. We have many skills and talents drawn from a range of disciplines from across the entire inquiry. We want to make sure that, taken as a whole, the inquiry will have all of the relevant material, all the relevant skills, all the relevant people who can help us take this difficult and challenging task forward. Let me reiterate: it is the chair and panel who are the controlling minds of this inquiry.

Mr Umunna

Thank you. Professor Jay, do you want to say anything?

Professor Jay

Only to confirm my absolute agreement and reassurance on that point.

Mr Jayawardena

Dame Lowell informed us that the Australian Royal Commission of Inquiry into Institutional Child Sexual Abuse was funded at approximately twice the level of this inquiry at its initial stages, despite the project being of a, quote, “lesser scale”. In that context, do you believe that your inquiry has been allocated sufficient funding to function in an effective way, particularly at these initial stages with the volume of work that is necessarily incurred, and as a result to bring forward its work in a timely fashion?

Professor Jay

Yes, indeed. Comments already made about the budget underline that. Since we were underspent on the budget last year, going forward there is an increase in 2016-17. I am absolutely sure that we will be appropriately resourced. I have to say that the Home Office, through our accountable officer, has made it clear that were there any areas we were concerned about, we should raise it with them.

Mr Jayawardena

With the scale of that inquiry involving so many different investigations, covering decades and receiving thousands, if not millions, of documents, I understand that at this initial stage it might be difficult to progress work as fast as survivors might like, but are they not right to expect more action than we have seen to date? Hasn’t the infighting that we have seen been a barrier?

Professor Jay

It absolutely has not been a barrier. What you describe as infighting was, if I may say, the panel members trying their very best to keep the inquiry on track and deliverable in a reasonable timescale. The former chair did not share clearly with us how that was to be achieved.

Mr Jayawardena

That is interesting. You talked earlier about the previous chair having sole control, or wanting to exercise sole control, over as much as she perhaps could, but she of course then said that she had no real input into management or secretariat staff. How many difficulties did she face in that respect?

Professor Jay

We clearly have a different view of what the role of the chair in this inquiry should be—indeed, that was the subject of many discussions with her. I reiterate what I said, that her general preference was expressed—it was no secret that she would have preferred to be sitting alone in charge of the inquiry, rather than with the assistance of the panel, and we were increasingly concerned about the lack of involvement in day-to-day governance of the inquiry. That became very significant to us because she had a different view of that. We believed that our role in this inquiry was to exercise governance oversight of every aspect of its activities. That is not to say that we wished to micromanage or manage on a daily basis, but we did wish to ensure that it was on track to deliver its objectives.

Mr Jayawardena

It would be very difficult to micromanage such a big inquiry. I understand that this is the largest public inquiry ever established in England and Wales, so it is very wide-ranging. You have stated that you do not intend to revisit or revise the terms of reference at all despite widespread concern—not necessarily mine—that the scope of the inquiry is too wide. On what basis have you concluded that the money that you have available is sufficient, that the progress that you have made is justified and that the current scope in that light is manageable and achievable?

Professor Jay

As you will know, I initiated a review immediately upon taking up post. We thought that was very necessary to precisely address the kind of issues you have just raised. That review is not complete and will not be complete for a few weeks, but we are in a position to announce what I did yesterday about taking a different approach as we go forward. I am not going to refer to the individual investigations because that is entirely a business for the inquiry and that will be clear in due course, but we believe that if we were to proceed on the same basis of treating every issue around institutional failure to respond to abuse as if they were mini-public inquiries, we would get nowhere. We would fail and we would not be able to deliver our objectives in a timely manner, and it would be very expensive.

Mr Jayawardena

Is the lack of progress at this stage partly due to the chairman’s lack of power to delegate hearing responsibilities to panel members, as was highlighted by Dame Lowell?

Drusilla Sharpling

I do think that the inquiry has made progress. We have received an enormous amount of material already from institutions and inevitably this takes time to consider properly within the scope of the inquiry. While this preliminary work sometimes appears invisible—I understand that—there is plenty of purposeful work going on. We have an excellent team of lawyers, solicitors and barristers, who are working up these investigations. We have the truth project going forward, and we will publish a report about at the end of the month. Our research projects are continuing, building on the body of knowledge that the inquiry will need to take its work forward. Sometimes it is difficult when you are doing that research and preliminary work for everybody to understand that that is real activity going on in real time with real people working very hard, but let me assure you that that is the truth.

Mr Jayawardena

As a panel, do you feel that there is a risk that fabricated accusations of abuse undermine the serious abuses that have occurred in the past and the work that you are doing to try to ensure that, as Mr Frank said earlier, new processes are put in place so that those things never happen again? Do you feel that people who, for whatever reason, have chosen to fabricate accusations and have been found out have actually undermined your work to date?

Drusilla Sharpling

I do not think that that is the position at all. The inquiry will deal with everything that comes within its purview. There have been challenges along the way, and we have discussed that during the course of the afternoon. The issue that you mentioned has in fact been difficult, and I can understand why people might think that the inquiry has been undermined by it, but it has not been undermined by us doing our job.

Mr Jayawardena

Would you suggest changes to the criminal justice process? Will you look at that as part of the review of process?

Drusilla Sharpling

Nothing is off the agenda.

Stuart C. McDonald

I have a couple of questions on what has already happened, and a couple on how fit for purpose the inquiry is. My colleague, Mr Berry, helpfully set out the limited circumstances in which a chair could be removed from her role through powers exercised by the Home Secretary. That is important in maintaining the inquiry’s independence. Equally important is that any allegations of misconduct are not ignored. So far you have characterised the challenges relating to the previous chair as challenges of leadership. Did any of you ever have concerns that went beyond that—anything that could have amounted to misconduct, making her unsuitable for her role?

Professor Jay

A number of statements have been made in the press, to which I suspect you are alluding. I can only say that we cannot talk about any aspect of HR or personnel experience within the inquiry. That is confidential and any individual employee has a right to privacy, as they would with any employing organisation.

Stuart C. McDonald

I accept that, but equally the Committee is rightly concerned with ensuring that there are procedures in place so that any allegations of misconduct such that the person is unfit to carry out that role are not simply swept aside. People should not carry on regardless to make it work. We need to know that there are procedures in place for such allegations to be investigated. Hypothetically speaking, let’s say that you, Professor Jay, as the chair, made homophobic comments or had allegedly been bullying a member of staff on the inquiry. How would you expect your colleagues to deal with those allegations?

Professor Jay

I can give that reassurance absolutely because we have a dignity at work policy, which has been in place for most of the inquiry’s lifespan. We have whistleblowing policies and processes whereby any incidents or alleged incidents of misconduct would be reported, usually through the secretary to the inquiry.

Stuart C. McDonald

Just to clarify—they would be reported by the secretary to who?

Professor Jay

Reported to the secretary of the inquiry.

Ivor Frank

I just want to make clear that the dignity and respect at work policy applies to the chair and everybody in the inquiry.

Stuart C. McDonald

We are talking about an allegation that goes to the very fitness of the person to carry on as the chair, and the only person with any powers to respond to such an allegation is the Home Secretary. Are there procedures in place to ensure that she gets to hear about such allegations?

Professor Jay

The policy—I do not have it with me—takes account of any allegations about the chair and the panel. Clearly there would need to be some process external to the inquiry to deal with that.

Stuart C. McDonald

I just want a little more clarity on how you would go about bringing this to the attention of the Home Office. Are you saying that if allegations were made that cast doubt on somebody’s fitness for the role of chair, those allegations would definitely make it to the Home Office and the Home Secretary?

Professor Jay

I am not sure whether it would go to the sponsorship branch, or whether it would be for the secretary to commission an independent investigation of any such allegations, but I will certainly clarify that and let you know. It may not necessarily go straight there—our policy may not say that—but it would certainly take it outwith the inquiry itself, for some form of independent investigation or fact finding.

Stuart C. McDonald

It would be very useful if you could write to clarify those points.

Professor Jay

Yes, I can do that.

Stuart C. McDonald

There is one part of the evidence that I also want to clarify, Professor Jay. You referred to the meetings that John O’Brien has—quarterly, I think—with the Home Office. I think you said at one point that he may have raised issues at that stage. Could you clarify what issues you think he raised and what stage they were raised at?

Professor Jay

Well, you will appreciate that he was not responsible to the panel members at that time; obviously he was responsible to the former chair. Again, you would have to ask Mr O’Brien to respond to that.

Stuart C. McDonald

Looking to the future, would you say that the Government has made available all the information and material that has been requested by the inquiry to support its investigations? Would you say that the inquiry now has access to all the skills and experience to ensure its effective operation?

Drusilla Sharpling

That is part of the business of the inquiry.

Stuart C. McDonald

But are you confident that have what you need?

Drusilla Sharpling

That is part of the business of the inquiry.

Stuart C. McDonald

Have you had any contact with the Director of Public Prosecutions about ensuring that all avenues for bringing successful prosecutions against abusers are kept open?

Drusilla Sharpling

We are not a prosecuting outfit. We do have procedures in place, particularly in our truth project, to refer matters to the police when criminal offences may have been committed. That is in our terms of reference. It is, of course, for the police to liaise with the Crown Prosecution Service to decide whether prosecution can take place in due course.

Stuart C. McDonald

Finally, are there any remaining logistical or infrastructure issues that you want to draw to the Committee’s attention, or anything else that is required for the inquiry to function in the way you want it to?

Professor Jay

I am grateful to you for asking that question, because there is an outstanding issue that may be of interest. Ever since the inquiry started, we have been looking for suitable premises, in central London or wider, as a hearing centre. We have very specific requirements for that, because we need to be able to adapt it to suit us—to protect witnesses, et cetera, and for the public to be there, of course. Despite the best efforts of a number of staff who have been involved in the search, we are not there yet, though we are close to securing it. One of our concerns, which you may be interested in, is the extremely disappointing attitude of landlords to the inquiry. We look at somewhere; the premises are suitable; we go so far; and when they learn the nature of our work, they withdraw, because they simply do not wish to have anything to do with the issues of child sexual abuse.

Stuart C. McDonald

That is very helpful to know, and is something that we will obviously want to take forward.

Chair

We want to spend some time now on bringing it more up to date, but there are just a couple of clarifications I would like to draw out, following on from Mr McDonald. It is unclear to me here where the lines of accountability are when you have a complaint that affects the chairman of the inquiry and you have the secretary to the inquiry. Are you saying, effectively, that if there is a complaint about the top woman, in this case, the panel members, as the second tier of responsibility within the inquiry, have no part to play in that?

Professor Jay

I am not entirely sure how that would work in practice, but I am clear that this would need to be dealt with independent of the inquiry itself.

Chair

Okay, but whether or not it is dealt with independently, there is no responsibility or good practice even to inform you that there are complaints or procedures outstanding against the chair.

Professor Jay

Yes, indeed. This is hypothetical, but obviously if that fact-finding produced the conclusion that there was no case to answer, that would be recorded as an investigation or a complaint, and obviously if it did not—if it was considered substantiated—further action would need to be taken. We have not tested that, to my knowledge, but we do have a system in place for the reporting of any complaints to the panel.

Chair

So are you aware of any of those complaints having happened against the previous chair?

Professor Jay

I’m afraid I could not possibly answer that. These are matters of a nature that I cannot discuss.

Chair

Okay, I’m probably going to get the same answer, but notwithstanding the formal procedures, were any of you as panel members directly approached by other members of staff expressing their concerns about the quality of leadership or—however else you want to phrase it—of the chairman?

Drusilla Sharpling

That is something that we could not answer, for the same reasons already given.

Chair

I think we are having the equivalent of pleading the fifth here quite a lot, but I understand why.

Drusilla Sharpling

No, we have pleaded the fifth on two or three occasions and answered the questions where we can.

Chair

I am grateful.

Nusrat Ghani

Professor Jay, can I turn to a statement that was published on 17 October? At bullet point 6, you talk about the terms of reference for the inquiry and say that you will “present recommendations for improved identification, prevention and response to child sexual abuse.” There is some concern, especially among victims and survivors of child sexual abuse, over the timeframe for the inquiry, so what is your anticipated timeframe for concluding all strands of the inquiry?

Professor Jay

Yesterday, I did publish a statement outlining this. We hoped to make significant progress towards concluding the inquiry by the end of 2020.

Nusrat Ghani

Do you believe that progressing up to 2020 refers to what Mr Frank said about having at the heart of the inquiry victims and survivors of child sexual abuse? If they have to wait to 2020 for recommendations, identification, prevention and response to child sexual abuse—

Professor Jay

No, no. Of course, there would be an interim report. There is a commitment to make an interim report by 2018, but as we progress through this, we expect that as we conclude individual investigations or areas of activity, we will produce reports as we go along, including recommendations.

Nusrat Ghani

You mention an interim report by 2018—

Professor Jay

Yes.

Nusrat Ghani

And other reports coming into place before then. I believe that when Justice Goddard gave evidence to this Committee, it was put on the record that interim reports would be published on 13 separate investigations. Can you tell us in which order and what timeframe, apart from just saying there will be one report by 2018?

Professor Jay

No, I’m sorry but I cannot, because that is part of the review that I commissioned when I came into post. I will be able to say something about this in a few weeks’ time. I am not sure I can say something about the order in which it will happen. There are a lot of complex considerations, including, for example, whether there are ongoing police inquiries in different places. That is not to apply to any specific one, but these are the kinds of issues we need to take into account.

Nusrat Ghani

Just to be absolutely accurate, 2020 is when the inquiry will conclude; there will be an interim report by 2018; and there will be some reports—

Professor Jay

Yes.

Nusrat Ghani

—paced up to 2018. So when Justice Goddard gave evidence to the Committee and said that there was an intention to publish interim reports on 13 separate investigations, on what authority were those statements made?

Ivor Frank

Can I try to assist you on that? I think I have already indicated that the thinking in relation to this inquiry has evolved over time. You will understand that if you look at the material that is published already on our website. You will see that in July 2015 there was an opening statement, which described a process. You will understand that in November 2015, there was another statement which finessed that statement and gave a different approach because our thinking had evolved. There is no doubt that we understand the obligation under our terms of reference to publish a report in 2018 and our obligation to try to complete our work by 2020, but it cannot be cast in stone. I remind you of what has already been said. We cannot give a fixed timescale for the completion of all this work, but it is reasonable to assume that while some of the investigation may be completed in 18 months, other parts may take several years. What I can assure you is that all members of the panel look forward to a time when we will have a life beyond this inquiry. I assure you that if we are able to get on with our work—[Interruption.]

Chair

Order.

Ivor Frank

If we are able to complete our work, we will in fact have done it before your restoration committee allows you back into your building in five years’ time.

Nusrat Ghani

Professor Jay, in a few weeks’ time do you think you will be able to share some more information about what the timelines or parameters might be for the interim reports up to 2018?

Professor Jay

We will consider that as part of the conclusion of the review.

Nusrat Ghani

You mentioned earlier that your staff were trying to secure premises to be able to hold hearings—I assume so that victims and survivors of sexual abuse can come forward and give evidence. There was some concern about landlords enabling you to secure property, so the issue isn’t the budget or finding vacant premises that you think are appropriate; it is that when you come into contact with a landlord and declare what you are trying to do, they are not allowing you to sign a deal to secure the premises. I am finding that very hard to believe. Could you open that up a bit more?

Professor Jay

I can certainly give you details of the number of premises we have looked at and where that has happened. I am not sure what you find hard to believe about it. I personally think it is appalling, but we have encountered that on several occasions. We believe we now have premises.

Nusrat Ghani

You do have premises now?

Professor Jay

Well, we have an interim arrangement and a longer-term one, but this will not preclude us starting our hearings. We will have a temporary hearing centre and then a permanent one, we hope. We have got to that point now and I am happy to share that with you once we have the confirmation. My point was that this has been a very disappointing experience. The public apparently support us in our intentions and this inquiry. Individual landlords, usually after consultation with their board, committee or whatever the overseeing body is, come back to us and say, “Sorry, no, we don’t want that. We don’t want to have any associated media attention or anything to do with this subject matter.”

Nusrat Ghani

That is shameful on behalf of the landlords.

James Berry

I want to ask about Mr Emmerson. The counsel to the inquiry is someone who is appointed by the chair. He was not appointed by you, because you were not the chair at the time. Is he still instructed by you?

Professor Jay

There was a period of time—sorry; I am trying to remember. He was continuing to be instructed for a short period to conclude the work. I believe it was two months.

James Berry

And has that period now come to an end?

Professor Jay

It won’t have yet, but it must be concluding shortly.

James Berry

So he is currently still instructed by the inquiry.

Professor Jay

Yes, indeed, but he does not work from the office.

James Berry

And he is still being paid for by the inquiry.

Professor Jay

Yes.

James Berry

And he is producing work in that period.

Professor Jay

Yes, of course, in relation to the handover.

James Berry

Why was Mr Emmerson suspended? I ask that question because I understand that he was never told why, or at least the public have never been told why he was suspended.

Professor Jay

I cannot discuss anything to do with Mr Emmerson’s circumstances.

James Berry

Can you tell us if he was told why he was suspended?

Professor Jay

I cannot discuss any aspect of the circumstances surrounding Mr Emmerson’s resignation from the inquiry.

James Berry

Can I ask why?

Professor Jay

These are HR matters, similar to others we have discussed today, where the individual is entitled to privacy and confidentiality as any employee of any organisation would be.

James Berry

But they would also, I am sure you would agree, be entitled to know why they had been suspended.

Drusilla Sharpling

By giving out that information, we would breach the very confidentiality that we believe exists.

James Berry

I don’t think that is right, with respect. You can explain whether their letter of suspension told them why they had been suspended, even if you don’t give the reasons themselves.

Drusilla Sharpling

I am not sure I agree, but I understand your point.

James Berry

Did the letters of resignation of any of the other counsel in this inquiry include complaints or allegations about the conduct of anyone else involved in the inquiry?

Professor Jay

I cannot comment on that either, for the same reasons.

James Berry

We may have to follow this up in writing. You have very competent solicitors to the inquiry and they have been there for a long time. There has been no break in continuity. How many counsel to the inquiry do you have?

Professor Jay

Twenty barristers, but they don’t work full time of course. They work contracted hours and we need that flexibility so that we are not wasting public funds and utilising or paying people when they are not required.

James Berry

In terms of counsel to the inquiry and first junior counsel, how are you progressing with finding replacements?

Professor Jay

We had a number of expressions of interest in the role of counsel to the inquiry volunteered to us very quickly after Mr Emmerson’s resignation and we are working through the process now. We do not anticipate appointing a first junior without the involvement of the designated counsel to the inquiry. We will progress that first and then move on to the junior.

James Berry

It is right, isn’t it, that the chair decides, first, whether to appoint counsel to the inquiry—you decided to appoint one—and, secondly, exactly what their remit is because there can be a whole variety of things? In giving evidence to the post-legislative scrutiny on the Inquiries Act 2005, Sir Brian Leveson said: “The relationship between chairman and counsel to the inquiry is very close” and that it had to be someone, first, who he thought could do the job and, secondly, someone he could work with and get on with. Do you agree with that?

Professor Jay

Yes.

James Berry

That is part of the job description you will be putting out and when you have appointed someone, you can very much decide how much or how little you use them. It struck me that in some of the comments by someone previously connected there were some criticisms of Mr Emmerson, but I don’t intend to rehearse that. Do you think it might be helpful for you, as chair of the inquiry, to set out for everyone at the beginning when this new person is appointed exactly what their role is and how you have asked them to perform their role so that there can be no suggestion they are overstepping the mark or not doing what they are meant to be doing so that everyone knows how you have asked them to do the role.

Professor Jay

I can see no problem with doing that.

Chair

Professor Jay, could you tell us, without going into personal details, how many people have left the inquiry since its inception?

Professor Jay

I’m sorry, I don’t have that information with me. I don’t have an impression of significant numbers, but I don’t have that information with me at this point.

Chair

It would be helpful if we could have that, but as far as you are concerned the turnover has not been any more than might be expected.

Professor Jay

I don’t believe it is above average, if that is what you are asking, but I would have to confirm that in writing.

Chair

Whatever the average is for any such inquiry, which is certainly unique.

Mr Burrowes

I appreciate the different scale, but you led the independent inquiry into the Rotherham case. Did any lawyers or others leave or resign during your leadership there?

Professor Jay

Absolutely not. Of course not. I did not actually work with a lawyer on it. A QC was engaged to give an opinion on my report at the end, which they did and which was very favourable, but I did not work with a lawyer on it.

Mr Burrowes

We have discussed the issue of leadership, but since you became chair, three lawyers have stepped down. We have also obviously heard concerns in the press and elsewhere about abuse, bullying and other issues. You have been around as the expert adviser while that was happening. What assurance can you give to the public and survivors that we will not have any of that going on while you are chair? You said you were the continuity candidate, effectively. We obviously don’t want what has gone on in the past to continue. There needs to be restoration of confidence that you are the best possible chair. What assurance can you give on that?

Professor Jay

I can only give you the assurances that I have never in my life been accused of tolerating any kind of offensive or bullying behaviour of the sort you describe, and I certainly have no intention of tolerating anything in future within the inquiry.

Mr Burrowes

I am not going to ask you to go into the Emmerson issue, but other lawyers have stepped down—the deputy and the barrister working on the Lord Janner investigation, Abigail Bright. These people have made professional decisions—I am not sure they were necessarily just based on issues around allegations. Is there a question mark about these professionals who get involved in the investigation and make a professional judgment that they cannot be part of the inquiry any further?

Drusilla Sharpling

We have had no difficulty, with those who have left, in doing those day-to-day roles, working up investigations and replacing people. I have worked in the legal profession for much of my life, and people come and people go. That is the nature of the work, and we should expect that to happen in the future. We don’t expect to be hanging on to exactly the same team in three years’ time, because people have their practices, for example, to develop. We expect some coming and going. That is normal in circumstances such as this.

Mr Winnick

On the question of the resignation of the counsel, Ben Emmerson, you said, Professor Jay, supported by your two colleagues, that you can’t give us any details. This is a public inquiry, and a good deal of public money is being spent, with every possible justification. Are we therefore to be in the position where a counsel to the inquiry resigns and we have no information whatever given to us as to the reason? Do you expect Members of Parliament to leave it at that?

Professor Jay

I am sure you have seen the letter of resignation that Mr Emmerson sent to me, which clarifies his position that he thought he was not the person to take forward the inquiry into its next phase.

Mr Winnick

Don’t you think we should have some indication from you about what led to the resignation?

Professor Jay

I can’t speculate about what was in Mr Emmerson’s mind. What I will absolutely say is that there is no truth whatever in the suggestion that he and I had a disagreement about anything. That is entirely untrue.

Chair

Overall, Professor Jay, would you say that the high-profile departures we have had are on matters largely not to do with the basic work of the Committee and the ongoing way in which it handles that work, and that it is rather more to do with personality problems than it is with the actual work of the inquiry?

Drusilla Sharpling

Can I start dealing with that?

Chair

Anybody.

Drusilla Sharpling

The inquiry has an enormous challenge, and our particular concern has always been to make progress within a reasonable timeframe, commensurate with the challenge that relates to the work that we have to do. That is our principal concern. Throughout this time, work is being done. It is nonsense, I’m afraid, to say that in difficult times the staff down tools and don’t do anything. It just doesn’t work like that. They have been continuing to do the work, as required of the inquiry. Now it is our job to bring it to fruition. That, I think, is the distinction that we are making now. We have a plan to put this inquiry together in a way that enables it to report within a reasonable time, hold institutions to account, and ensure we do all the things we must do to make this a really meaningful inquiry for the future. That is our intention.

Chair

I entirely appreciate that, but confidence in the inquiry, like it or not, has been hit—particularly that of the people who are most important to this inquiry and the whole reason for it: the survivors. Everything you have said to us today leads to the suggestion that, notwithstanding the individual details—we understand why we can’t have more details at the moment, frustrating though that is, but we hope we will be able to get more details in the fullness of time—these are actually peripheral matters to the ongoing work of the inquiry, and that 16 months of hard work has not been junked or in some way tainted by the departure of certain high-profile people. Is that a fair assessment?

Professor Jay

I think that is absolutely fair. I reiterate what I said earlier: this inquiry is bigger than any individual ego or personality.

Chair

Certainly we have heard some comments about—[Interruption.] Order. [Interruption.] Order. Sir, you are not part of this inquiry. Please leave the room. [Interruption.] Officer! Sorry for that. Can I get back to what I was saying about restoring confidence in the work? That has perhaps not been possible with one particular person who has been part of the audience today. In your statement yesterday, professor, and in what you have suggested will come out of the review in the next few weeks, could you drill down to the main differences you think there will be with this inquiry going forward? You talked in the statement yesterday about a sharper focus on developing recommendations for the future. You have given a timeline, which I think is helpful, because so much of this speculation was about, “Oh, this will be 10 years,” or “I’ll be dead by the time it reports,” or whatever. Whether or not that timeline proves possible, we are certainly working to certain parameters now that perhaps were not there initially. You have also made comments about the emphasis on public hearings, which are perhaps quite expensive but are not necessarily the most constructive way of getting to the truth. Can you elaborate on some of those things and on how you think things might be more efficient, to put it one way, in the future?

Professor Jay

We want to be sure that the emphasis in the inquiry is firmly on holding to account the institutions that have been responsible. That seems to us to be able to be delivered in a number of different ways, and we outlined a certain approach that is thematic and would allow us to look across institutions and highlight the particular weaknesses or failings—it will be transferrable from one institution to another. We think that by taking a different approach to that we will reach more quickly the kind of conclusions that we are seeking, allowing us to make recommendations faster. I did make a comment about individual public hearings being the slowest and most expensive way to do anything. We will, of course, be continuing with public hearings, and I will announce that later on when the review is complete. We will open others in the future, but each will be assessed on its merits. In general, we want to do things in a way that makes sure we get to the most important aspect of this, which is making recommendations for improvements for the future in a reasonable timescale.

Chair

The Home Secretary made the comment yesterday that the inquiry remains undiminished, despite recent events and claims. How would you reiterate that comment—I am presuming you do—to give assurances to the survivors that the Home Secretary is absolutely right?

Professor Jay

Well, it is certainly the case that I do not seek in any way to reduce the terms of reference or the scope of the inquiry, which would let down huge numbers of victims and survivors who have placed their trust in us and who hope that we will look at areas where abuse has occurred. We have no intention of doing that. We simply want to tackle it in slightly different ways.

Mr Umunna

Do you think you can credibly report at the end of this process if you, as an inquiry, do not command the confidence of the major survivors groups? Particularly those that are core participants have indicated that, currently, they do not have confidence in the inquiry.

Professor Jay

I am aware that there are many, many victims and survivors groups across England and Wales—there is no doubt about that. Indeed, we have the support of the victims and survivors consultative panel within the inquiry. By support, I mean the opportunity to test out ideas constantly and to gain their very valuable advice. However, I have rarely seen absolute unanimity among victim and survivor groups about many aspects of this inquiry. We know that some people may choose not to engage and may choose to leave. I would be very sorry about that, but we do believe we have the confidence of many victim and survivor groups.

Chair

Will you be doing anything, particularly proactively, to try and restore that confidence where it has been knocked?

Drusilla Sharpling

As a panel, we are regularly now being invited to give talks, for example, and seminars—to go and talk about the work of the inquiry. We are going to take them up with alacrity. That is already in place. We have more to do with our Truth Project. We want to encourage people to come forward and share their experiences. That is a really important aspect of this inquiry, which is not to be underestimated. By having that engagement strategy, and particularly our local engagement strategy—not everything comes from London—we want to make sure that that is the case. We have very good staff elsewhere who are going to start taking that work forward.

Chair

You are confident now that there are fewer distractions within the inquiry that may prove obstacles to that progress in the future.

Professor Jay

We would be very grateful for a period lacking in distractions from the critically important work that we are doing.

Chair

This is not a question for Professor Jay, but are there no questions about quality of leadership under the current chairmanship? We won’t ask you to leave the room, Professor Jay—

Drusilla Sharpling

I will answer that: none.

Ivor Frank

I am happy to second that in exactly the same way: none at all.

James Berry

Just following on from Mr Umunna’s question, it is of course very important that the inquiry commands the support of victim and survivors’ group, but what is actually most important is that the inquiry commands the support of all interested parties—

Professor Jay

Of course. Absolutely true.

James Berry

Including people who have been accused of things that they deny they did, and the public as a whole, because this is something that is going to shape the future of all our lives in public service for many years going forward. What is important is that overall everyone has the confidence that you will get to the truth in accordance with your terms of reference, and do justice.

Professor Jay

Absolutely true, and fairness is, as we know from the Act, extremely important. It is necessary.

Chair

Professor Jay, Mr Frank and Drusilla Sharpling, thank you very much. It has been quite a full session. We appreciate that there are sensitivities around various individuals. There is a keenness by this Committee to overcome some of those sensitivities and to be able to put more information in the public domain, which I hope will prove possible in due course. You have offered to write to us on a couple of matters. If there are any other things that come up from today—obviously this is a fast-moving situation—we would be grateful if you could write to the Committee. This was designed as a single standing session, and now we will have the permanent secretary from the Home Office in front of us. In the light of events—and it will be under a new Chairman, after me—the Committee may wish to decide to extend this hearing and have various further witnesses or to refer questions back to you. Any further information would help us in making a decision as to how we carry on with this.

Ivor Frank

Mr Loughton, may I just respond to that? You will appreciate that we are very jealously guarding our independence. I know you understand that, but I want to make that clear. We are here as a matter of courtesy, not of compulsion. It is not our intention to make regular trips back to your Committee, not least because, as you will be aware but the public may not be aware, this institution is one of the institutions into which we are tasked to inquire. It may seem rather odd for us to be constantly coming back to answer questions in that way. Please do not think that because we are here today that that is any kind of promise that we would come back in the future.

Chair

Thank you, Mr Frank. We all entirely understand that. Our intention is not to be a further distraction by constantly requesting your good will in coming here. Certainly any information that would be helpful to us to help the general communication with the many people out there who follow the work of your inquiry, in the way that we have an oversight role that I tried to define at the beginning, I think is mutually beneficial. There is also the point, though, that the previous chair had offered to give progress reports to this Committee, and if all the events we have been discussing had not happened, we would have anticipated having her back in front of us before the summer recess—that did not prove possible—or certainly around now to give an update on how the inquiry was going. It may be appropriate at some stage next year—I hope with all the present characters still very much part of the inquiry—for you to come back to us, as you will probably want to, with much more positive news about how things have progressed and how some of the concerns that we have raised on behalf of other people raising concerns have been set to rest. We ask no more than that.

Ivor Frank

Thank you.

Drusilla Sharpling

Thank you.

Professor Jay

Thank you. Examination of witness

Witness

Mark Sedwill.

Chair

Thank you very much for coming back before us, Mr Sedwill, and thank you for coming at short notice. It was only last Friday when the Committee wrote to you to ask you to come back, so we are very grateful for that. We have just had a session, which had been planned, with Professor Jay and two panel members from the inquiry, which has been very helpful. There has clearly been a lot in the press—not that this Committee believes a lot of what it reads in the press—which has given rise to a great number of concerns as to who knew what about what, and when, in regard to the previous chair of the inquiry. That has obviously proved very unsettling. You appeared in front of us just a few weeks ago alongside the Home Secretary, and you answered various questions in addition to the Home Secretary. When we asked the Home Secretary effectively why Lowell Goddard had handed in her resignation, some of the phrases she used included “because she found it too much” and “ultimately she found it too lonely, she was a long way from home and she decided to step down.” The Home Secretary went on to say, “I only have the information that you have”—referring to the Committee—as to why exactly Justice Goddard went. Is that all the information you had as well?

Mark Sedwill

The Home Secretary and I had the same information. On the line of questioning you were pursuing—of course, the Home Secretary addressed this in the House yesterday—about Justice Goddard’s motives for standing down, the only information we had was what Justice Goddard had said herself. Of course, there was a lot of information—including, at that time, in the public domain—about the circumstances in which she had resigned. There were stories about hearings that had not gone well; there were stories about tensions within the panel, which I know you have been exploring with the panel this afternoon. There was quite a lot of context at the time that was in the public domain—I think, Mr Loughton, you referred to some of that in some of your introductory remarks for the hearing—but as for the line of questioning the Home Secretary was actually responding to at that time, it was about Justice Goddard’s own reasons for stepping down, and she was basing that on what Justice Goddard herself had said.

Chair

Okay, but there is a difference between information and stories. Information or stories in the public domain about problems within the inquiry have only really featured on the radar in recent months—and certainly in the immediate run-up to the resignation of Lowell Goddard. What the Committee is keen to know is what the role of the Home Office was prior to these revelations, which were apparently made in a formal meeting on 29 July; that was followed by Lowell Goddard’s resignation a few days later, on 4 August. We have heard from panel members that concerns were formally, let alone informally, raised with senior officials in the Home Office, certainly back in April. Were you aware of that?

Mark Sedwill

I was not aware of that specific meeting in April, I think for the reasons that Drusilla Sharpling set out. Indeed, I became aware of that as we compiled the timeline over the past few days to prepare for today’s hearing. The director general has now left the Home Office, but she has spoken to one of my colleagues. I presume she was observing the conditions that were set by Dru Sharpling in having that exchange, which were not to share the information, and not to seek any action on it. Anyway, it was not drawn to my attention. I saw Justice Goddard for a routine bilateral meeting a few weeks later, dealing with the usual logistic issues that are the responsibility of the sponsoring Department. It was not in the brief for that meeting. It was not until, as you referred to, Chair, 29 July that the tensions within the inquiry were drawn to my attention.

Chair

Are you saying that you were never made aware by any members of staff within the Home Office of any serious or partly serious problems going on within the inquiry, specifically relating to the quality of leadership, as one of the panel members put it, of the then chair of the inquiry?

Mark Sedwill

Until 29 July; that is correct, Mr Loughton. Perhaps I could answer that in a little more detail, because it is really important. I saw some of the hearing earlier—not all of it—and you made a point in your opening remarks about the importance of the independence of the inquiry and the nature of the relationship with the sponsoring Department. There is a channel of communication. In routine matters, it is between the secretary and the sponsor unit. It is on matters for which the sponsoring Department has a responsibility—money, estates, accommodation and so on—and it is only on those matters. The secretary is operating under the authority of the chair and the panel in maintaining that relationship. I understand that you made a point at the weekend, Mr Loughton, in some press comments, if you have been reported accurately, about whether I and the Home Office had picked up rumblings partly because we have former Home Office staff within the inquiry. The answer to that is no. It would be completely wrong for us to have some channel of communication around the side of the formal channels of communication. That would be completely wrong and would compromise the independence of the inquiry. Mr Umunna, you pursued the point about the number of Home Office staff, and you were asking about the controlling mind. Of course, the panel made it very clear that they are the controlling mind. Just think of the hearing that we would be having if there were some channel of communication around the side of the formal channels of communication with the inquiry, in and out of the Home Office. The answer to that is a categorical no, I wasn’t aware. There is nothing in the Home Office records to suggest that any of my staff dealing with the inquiry were aware of concerns about the leadership and progress of the inquiry, if I can use the panel’s language on that, until it was brought to my attention on 29 July. That is with the exception of this separate conversation, which again was not brought to my attention, for reasons that I understand and have just tried to explain, between Dru Sharpling as a panel member and the director general of the group responsible.

Chair

How do you define the arm’s length relationship, if that is the right term, between the Home Office—Home Secretary, permanent secretary, other officials or Ministers—and the inquiry? Is there is a very large Chinese wall between the two of them?

Mark Sedwill

I would describe it more as an air gap.