I am writing to express shock
and amazement at the ignorance of the Home Office according the present
Permanent Secretary about the role of the Home Office in relation to the oversight
and inspection of child care, including residential care and child protection
service between 1948 and 1971 and I view with scepticism the reasons given for the
decision to commence the original panel inquiry in 1970.
(In my capacity as Parliamentary
Officer for the Association of Children Care officers and then as its Vice
Chairman I was involved with the President and the full time Secretary in the
passage of the Children and Young Persons Act 1969 which changed the role of
the Home Office Children’s Department for the short period before the disastrous
creation of Social Services Departments in England and Wales in 1971).
The Library of the House of
Commons should have copies of the three year reports to Parliament of the Home
Office Children’s department and if necessary I can make available my copies of
two reports
The Home Office Children’s
Department was a body within the Home Office separate from the Prison and other
Departments. The functions of the department can be summarised by the headings
of chapters in the report to Parliament 1961-1963. Section 1 The Child Care
Service and the Family Prevention and Rehabilitation. Section II. The Care of Children Deprived of
a Normal Home Life with sub sections with included Residential Care, Child Protection
and the training of Residential care staff;
Section III on Adoption and Section IV Delinquency and the Juvenile Courts
with sub sections on the separate Detention centres and where some became short sharp shock
establishments and where Medomsley is the subject of an Inquiry Investigation
leading to a public hearing and with a sub office in relation to the Truth
project established at Darlington. (In this respect the terms of reference of the
inquiry are too narrow as the relationship between sexual abuse and violence cannot
be separated as the recent Houses of Parliament list of briefing papers related
to the Urgent question to the Home Secretary of 17th October 2016 makes clear
for although headed Sexual offences includes briefings on Slavery and also
Violence against women and girls).
Section V is on Remand Homes and
secure provision and Section VI is on Approved Schools; Section VII Employment
of Children; VIII Research; IX The International Scene. Appendix on membership of the Advisory Committee on
Juvenile Delinquency and the Central Advisory Council on Child Care and separately
on Training in Child Care are important as at one point they included the
protected leader of the Paedophile Information Exchange, Peter Righton, and in the 1963 there are a number of individual mentions
or establishments of potential interest including one, then Netherton Park
Approved School, a subject under Operation Rose where Labour Members of the
Commons have continued to raise concerns of cover up.
Bee Serota is included in the
1961-1963 then Chairman of the LCC Children’s Committee who became Minister of
State and Shadow minister of State at Home Office, House of Lords and to whom I
wrote regarding a matter of political corruption involving a children’s Home
West Riding County Council where I had been appointed an Assistant County
Children’s officer in 1970, and also Barbara
Kahan Children’s Officer Oxfordshire, who in 1964 became President of
the Association of Child Care officer on the first day of my appointment as a
Child Care and Court Officer. In 1971 I also wrote to Mrs Kahan in her capacity
as Deputy Chief Inspector at the Children’s Home Office Department. In both instances my communication was on a you
should know basis and it did lead to one telephone conversation with a senior
legal officer in the West Riding where the Council was said to have been involved involved in the corruption investigations in involving the convicted and imprisoned John Poulson and
the former Leaders of Newcstle and Durham County Councils, but where it is widely
believed that the imprisonment of the Leader of Newcastle City Council for six years
was to deflect attention and protect the position of former Home Secretary and
deputy Party Leader Reggie Maudling.
In 1970 I was asked to investigate
the position of the head of the children’s home who ignored procedures to
protect children and the role the of Area Children’s officers and their child
care officers. The head had married a girl in the home when she became 16
years. The senior Home Office Children’s
Inspector in the region and the then recently appointed Children’s Officer had
first investigated and then asked me to pay special attention to how the home
was run, and I was provided information on the alleged corrupt relationship between
head of the home and how he had obtained the position involving a leading
Alderman Councillor, who became head the appointments of senior management to
the new West Riding Social Services Department (abolished in 1974).
I was asked by the head of the
home in the presence of his young wife to fix his position with the new
management in exchange for a good position in the new department because of his
relationship with the Alderman, which I refused and was treated with contempt
at the internal appointment process.
I was subsequently advised by
the Home Office that I was being recommended to become one of the new Directors
of Social Services and only learned after I had accepted the position of unofficial
acting second Deputy with another local authority that I was to have been
Director of Social Services (Dewsbury) 1971), but was appointed Director at
South Tyneside 1974-1990 and where the present member for South Shields is the
Labour Shadow Minister for Families and Children. The Doncaster area Councillor
involved became a leading individual in the Association of Metropolitan Authorities
created with the reorganisation of local government in 1974
I mention what I did and what
happened 1970 and 1971 because I also listened with amazement to the statement that
on behalf of the panel members in April 2016. the Director General at the Home
Office was advised of the challenges being faced because of the leadership
style and approach of the chairman but no formal action was required. In simple
terms what was the point? Who was consulted within the Inquiry before the step
was taken? I will comment further on what
was said this afternoon, on the Times revelations and the Urgent questions
yesterday when the Home Secretary failed to explain why she did not contact directly
or arranged for someone to contact directly the Inquiry Chairman about the
reasons for her departure or do so especially when the letter of explanation
was published and where the Permanent Secretary nearly went as far as to say,
not my fault if you did not ask me the right questions and anyway my job is to
support the line taken by the Home Secretary.
It has always been my view
that the decision to focus the original panel inquiry on sexual abuse and from
1970 was a damage limitation response to the cross party political pressure,
survivor and campaigner groups which was mounted in the weeks before the sudden
change of mind by the then Home Secretary and it can be assumed the Ministerial
brief given to the civil servants about the inquiry was limited. It is
important to appreciate that the former Home Secretary made it clear that the
terms of reference would be agreed with the appointed Chairperson and that she
could come back following the appointment of panel members where only two were
appointed in the first instance. It was also evident from a Ministerial answer
in the Home Office Question Time before the Inquiry announcement decision was
made that the department had undertaken considerable background work on the history
and cause of the past and present situation and indeed the Lord Tebbit attempted
to explain on the Andrew Marr programme (the day before the Mrs May announced
the reversal of policy, which the Deputy Prime Minister admitted he did not know
about in advance) the approach of the establishment with disastrous results. It
can now be assumed that because the Home Office was the lead department the
work done for the Ministerial sub-committee went only back to 1970.
That there are dark and potentially
unscrupulous forces at work to undermine and if possible wreck the Inquiry was
brought out clearly when Professor Jay disclosed that they failed to rent an
appropriate building to hold public hearings because the landlords and their
committee did not want to be associated with the inquiry. I expect the full
list of the landlords to be made available to the Home Affairs Committee so
that each body can be questioned on their reasons had if any external
influences had been brought to bear. One refusal or even two might be coincidental,
but more than two suggests a conspiracy. Has the Inquiry taken steps to ensure
its digital storage and communication processes are secure? The Home Affairs Committee failed to pursue the
admission that a vast quantity of material had been set aside unprocessed but
that was said to have now been resolved.
