Elizabeth Butler-Sloss is too close to the establishment to lead this abuse inquiry
|
Version 0 of 1. It is not hard to imagine ministers' joy and relief when they scanned the list of the great and the good and alighted upon the name of Elizabeth Butler-Sloss. On the face of it, Baroness Butler-Sloss has all the qualifications, and more, for what will be a highly complex and sensitive task: heading the wide-ranging inquiry the home secretary has announced into historical child abuse. First, she is a retired appeal court judge – so of the judiciary, but no longer in its ranks. Second, she is a woman, and it is probably true that only a woman will command the confidence needed to consider these multifarious allegations about the abuse of children, even though they relate to young boys as well as girls. Third, she has an unimpeachable track record in this very area, having chaired with distinction the inquiry into the 1987 Cleveland child abuse cases and served as president of the high court family division. In short, her CV could hardly have equipped her better. Cometh the hour, cometh the woman. Except that the more highly she has been lauded since her appointment was announced, the more questions arise about the suitability of this most obvious candidate. There is nothing wrong with her credentials or her integrity – they are impeccable. The doubt is whether she will enjoy the confidence not only of those who will testify about their abuse as children, but with the public at large. And this matters. Indeed, public confidence is the whole point of what is likely to be a long and expensive inquiry. The problem for Butler-Sloss – or rather for the government – is that she is a quintessential establishment figure. When her name was first mentioned, it was stressed (misguidedly, in her support) that she was from a distinguished legal family, which she is. Worse, for the purpose of this particular inquiry, her late brother, Michael Havers, was attorney general in the 1980s, when some of the abuse cases are said to have been covered up. Butler-Sloss says she knew nothing about any of this, and her word need not be doubted. In the eyes of the public, though, that link will cast a shadow. It hardly helped when her nephew, the actor Nigel Havers, came out publicly in her support. Was that family solidarity? Evidence of support from outside judicial circles? An appeal to the public at large? The purpose was not immediately clear. If not Butler-Sloss, however, then who? You do not have to be overly ageist to observe that the home secretary's decision to call on an 81-year-old retired judge illustrates the disgracefully narrow pool of individuals that governments are inclined to draw from, especially when they need a woman. In this case, there is the added complication that a retired female judge would seem to be the ideal choice, except that any retired judge will be branded, rightly or wrongly, as an "establishment" figure, when it is the establishment that is essentially in the dock. So the government needs to look further afield, and venture outside the establishment box. How about Shami Chakrabati, with her civil liberties credentials? Or Baroness Helena Kennedy – a doughty champion of the voiceless. Or how about Geoffrey Robertson QC, in partnership with his outspoken feminist wife, Kathy Lette? Or even Cherie Blair. Jackie Smith might be ruled out by virtue of having been home secretary in the recent past, but her experience and popular touch place her in the right sort of area. Baroness Butler-Sloss is a distinguished former judge and a fine human being. But this is one job for which her establishment credentials should rule her out. |