Establishment covered up child abuse claims to protect senior MPs, inquiry finds

Cyril Smith
Support us and go ad-free

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 David Steel, who told the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse (IICSA) last year how he failed to pass on allegations against prominent colleague Cyril Smith, even though he believed them to be true, because it was “past history”.

He later recommended Smith for a knighthood.

State Opening of Parliament 2019
David Steel told the child abuse inquiry he ‘disapproved’ of Cyril Smith’s conduct but said ‘it was past history’ (Toby Melville/PA)

The report found no evidence of a coordinated “paedophile ring” in Westminster, and also stated there was no proof such a network was covered up by security services or police.

Read on...

Support us and go ad-free

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 chair Norman 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 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.

Support us and go ad-free

We need your help to keep speaking the truth

Every story that you have come to us with; each injustice you have asked us to investigate; every campaign we have fought; each of your unheard voices we amplified; we do this for you. We are making a difference on your behalf.

Our fight is your fight. You’ve supported our collective struggle every time you gave us a like; and every time you shared our work across social media. Now we need you to support us with a monthly donation.

We have published nearly 2,000 articles and over 50 films in 2021. And we want to do this and more in 2022 but we don’t have enough money to go on at this pace. So, if you value our work and want us to continue then please join us and be part of The Canary family.

In return, you get:

* Advert free reading experience
* Quarterly group video call with the Editor-in-Chief
* Behind the scenes monthly e-newsletter
* 20% discount in our shop

Almost all of our spending goes to the people who make The Canary’s content. So your contribution directly supports our writers and enables us to continue to do what we do: speaking truth, powered by you. We have weathered many attempts to shut us down and silence our vital opposition to an increasingly fascist government and right-wing mainstream media.

With your help we can continue:

* Holding political and state power to account
* Advocating for the people the system marginalises
* Being a media outlet that upholds the highest standards
* Campaigning on the issues others won’t
* Putting your lives central to everything we do

We are a drop of truth in an ocean of deceit. But we can’t do this without your support. So please, can you help us continue the fight?

The Canary Support us
  • Show Comments
    1. If the inquiry found no evidence of police and security services’ collusion in the protection of establishment figures, then it’s because they either didn’t look for it or ignored it when it was staring them in the face.
      MI5 were positively vetting BBC middle managers (might still be?) yet we’re expected to believe they took no interest in a member of the public who’d spent a dozen Christmases with a Prime Minister, provided ‘marriage guidance advice to the heir to the throne and was known by serving police officers in Leeds as a ‘wrong un’.
      Next: The Waterhouse Inquiry into Child Abuse in North Wales?
      Give us a break, another establishment whitewash; did we honestly expect anything else?

    Leave a Reply

    Join the conversation

    Please read our comment moderation policy here.