THE political establishment spent decades turning "a blind eye" to allegations of child sexual abuse, with high-profile politicians protected from police action as whips sought to avoid "gossip and scandal" which would damage the parties, a scathing report has found.
The long-awaited investigation into historical allegations against MPs, peers and civil servants working in Westminster found political institutions "significantly failed in their responses to allegations of child sexual abuse".
It cited as an example the evidence of former Liberal party leader Lord Steel, who told the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse (IICSA) last year how he failed to pass on allegations against prominent colleague Sir Cyril Smith, even though he believed them to be true, because it was "past history".
He later recommended Smith for a knighthood.
READ MORE: These are the roles politicians played in shocking child abuse cover-up
The report found no evidence of a coordinated "paedophile ring" in Westminster, following claims by fantasist Carl Beech of its existence, and also stated there was no proof such a network was covered up by security services or police.
But it said institutions "regularly put their own reputations or political interests before child protection".
Professor Alexis Jay, who chaired the inquiry, said: "It is clear to see that Westminster institutions have repeatedly failed to deal with allegations of child sexual abuse, from turning a blind eye to actively shielding abusers.
"A consistent pattern emerged of failures to put the welfare of children above political status although we have found no evidence of an organised network of paedophiles within government.
"We hope this report and its recommendations will lead political institutions to prioritise the needs and safety of vulnerable children."
The report identified how former prime minister Margaret Thatcher and ex-Conservative party chairman Norman (now Lord) Tebbit were aware of rumours about MP Peter Morrison having "a penchant for small boys" but did nothing about it.
The report said the allegations "should have rung alarm bells in government".
But, instead, "considerations of political embarrassment and the risk to security were paramount, while the activities of an alleged child sexual abuser who held senior positions in government and the Conservative Party were deliberately overlooked, as was the course of public justice".
Indeed, the inquiry found there was a "consistent culture for years" in the whips' offices to "protect the image" of their party by "playing down rumours and protecting politicians from gossip or scandal at all costs".
It meant victims' interests were often overlooked, with many organisations failing to pass on allegations to police.
The report also found senior diplomat Sir Peter Hayman was the beneficiary of "preferential, differential and unduly deferential treatment" over claims he sent obscene material in the post, following a meeting between his solicitor and the then-director of public prosecutions.
There was also "striking evidence" of how "wealth and social status insulated perpetrators of child sexual abuse" from being brought to justice, as in the case of Tory MP Victor Montagu.
The report stated: "A consistent pattern that has emerged from the evidence we have heard is a failure by almost every institution to put the needs and safety of children who have survived sexual abuse first."
The report made a number of suggestions including changes to the Honours system, re-examining the policy over posthumous forfeiture of honours - which would strip knighthoods from the likes of disgraced entertainer Jimmy Savile, and creating widespread and well-understood whistleblowing policies for all Westminster institutions.
The Government has also been urged to review its child safeguarding policies, and for all legitimate political parties to have a "comprehensive safeguarding policy" overseen by the watchdog.
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel