Andy Burnham MP, Labour’s Shadow Health Secretary, calling for an over-arching independent inquiry in response to multiple reports on Jimmy Savile’s involvement in the NHS in the House of Commons today, said:

Today’s reports are truly disturbing and as sickening as any ever presented to this House.

How a celebrity DJ and predatory sex offender came to have unfettered access to vulnerable patients across the NHS and gold-plated keys to its highest-security hospital surely ranks as one of the worst failures of patient and public protection our country has ever seen.

It raises questions of the most profound kind about how victims of abuse are treated, how systems for protecting vulnerable children and adults work and the nature of celebrity and society’s relationship with it.

The Secretary of State was right to begin with an apology to the hundreds of people who were appallingly failed and whose lives have been haunted ever since. Our first thought must be with them today.
They had a right to look to the NHS as a place of safety and sanctuary, but were cruelly let down by the very institutions that were mean to offer protection.

Will the Secretary of State ensure that all of Saville’s victims have full and direct access to all the counselling and other support they need?

One of the main purposes of this process of inquiry should have been to give all victims the opportunity to be heard.

He may know that today’s Yorkshire Post reports one person who tried to come forward was at first ignored in September 2012.

Can the Secretary of State assure us that all reasonable steps have taken by those preparing these reports to help victims come forward and tell their story, including those who may have been ignored by those institutions when they previously tried?

Many of Saville’s victims have suffered severe financial loss because of the challenges they have faced.

I understand claims for compensation will, in the first instance, draw on the estate of Jimmy Saville.

Can the Secretary of State tell us whether there has been an assessment of whether the funds in the estate will be sufficient to meet all claims?

Given what has been revealed today, and the abject failures of public bodies, shouldn’t the Government now consider allocating public funds to ensure all people damaged by Saville are properly compensated and supported?

Reading the reports, it is not at all clear to me that a proper process has yet been put in place to hold people who failed in their public duties to account.

Can he assure us that, if evidence is revealed in any of these reports that any person still working in the NHS or Department of Health knowingly facilitated these crimes will now face the full weight of the law and that those who were negligent in respect of their duties will be held to account?

Mr Speaker, it is incomprehensible how this could have been allowed to happen over 55 years and, while it does relate to a different era, there are serious lessons to be learned given that abuse continues in our health and care system today.

First, how victims of abuse are treated, particularly younger people or people with mental health patients, and whether they are listened to.

Sadly there are still far too many instances of abuse in our care system and in mental health settings, and it is likely that the real figure is higher because of under-reporting.

Will he consider what more needs to be done to give people the confidence to come forward and the reassurance that they will be listened to?

Is there a case for more training for staff in dealing with allegations of abuse?

The second area of concern is how public bodies carry out vetting and barring arrangements, public appointments and manage their relationship with celebrity.

Hospitals around the country have increasingly sophisticated fund-raising operations and links with celebrity endorsers.

Will the Secretary of State accept the recommendation in the Broadmoor Report that no celebrity should be appointed to an executive or given privileged access to a hospital and its patients, should be fully vetted if appointed to a non-executive and, more broadly, isn’t there a case for a code of conduct setting out the appropriate relationship that NHS should have with celebrity or business backers?

On vetting and barring, figures obtained by the member for Hull North show the number of people barred from with children as a result of committing a sexual offence against a child has dropped by 10,000 or 75% in the last three years.

These are extremely worrying figures which have come about as a result of changes to the vetting and barring arrangements.

It raises the concern that there are people working in our health and care system who may pose a risk to children.

Will the Secretary of State look again at this issue, consult with the Home Secretary, and urgently report back to this House on why these figures have dropped so much and whether they believe the current child protection is strong enough?

Finally, Mr Speaker, the question arises whether this process of inquiry that has been published is a sufficient response to the scale of these atrocious crimes.

It is hard to draw a clear picture and consistent recommendations from 28 separate reports, and all the other inquiries taking place in schools, care homes, the BBC and the police.

I pay tribute to the work that Kate Lampard has done in assuring the quality of these reports – and we wait for her second phase of work - but questions remain about the independence of them given that each hospital has effectively investigated itself.

And there is also a question of whether it needs to be more independent of Government.

The Broadmoor Report raises serious questions about the conduct of the civil servants and ministers in the Department of Health in how Savile came to be appointed to lead the task force.

A meeting between Edwina Currie and Jimmy Savile in September 1988 records what he would like to do at the hospital if the Minister would “press the button” and records that she promised to give him her full support.

In evidence to the inquiry, Mrs Currie describes the main objective of Savile’s appointment as follows: “The principal question was can Government break this hold that the Prison Officers Association has on the hospital.”

She went on to say: “This task force was dreamed up and seemed like a very good idea and step forward Jimmy Savile who knew the place backwards and was more than happy to volunteer his time to do this. And we were happy to do it.”

It paints a picture of chaos in the department and a complete absence of due process for appointments of this kind.

These are extraordinary revelations and, while there is no suggestion that any minister knew of any sexual misconduct, they point to the need for a further process of independent inquiry, which would also be able to draw together the threads from the multiple inquiries that are on-going.
It cannot be left for Savile’s victims to pull together the details of these investigations.

Isn’t there a clear case for a proper over-arching independent review, led by independent child protection experts, into why there was such large scale institutional failure to stop these abhorrent crimes?

I would be grateful if the Secretary of State would give this proposal careful consideration but can assure him of our full support in establishing the full truth of why abuse on this scale was allowed to happen for so long.