Monday, February 20, 2017

All That Is Solid ...: Abandoned Stoke

All That Is Solid ...: Abandoned Stoke: An interesting short from the comrades at WellRedFilms, just ignore the talking head saying things about the passing of Stoke's industry...

Wednesday, February 15, 2017

Questions Re A £1.5 Million Grant Awarded In Gwynedd.

Previous blog posts ‘Service User Involvement in North Wales’ and ‘We Control All The Outcomes’ describe how there is no effective or genuine representation for ‘services users’ and carers in north Wales and indeed never has been. If anyone at any time had ever ‘listened to’ a service user or carer the ‘services’ would simply not be in this state. For years, ‘service user involvement’ was left to completely ineffective bodies like the ‘Independent Advocacy Service’ or the ‘Gwynedd and Ynys Mon Users Forum’ (which were staffed and managed by people who were terrified of the staff and managers of the lethal services whom they were supposed to be holding to account), or Unllais (whom I knew were refusing to make representation regarding the mental health services even when they were being told of the most serious abuses). Until March 2016 Unllais held the contract for service user involvement in north Wales. Considering how hopeless Unllais had been at representing and involving service users, the ending of their contract would have been the most wonderful opportunity for the Betsi to begin some real ‘service user and carer involvement’. Readers will know that this never happened and instead a new nightmare is promised, as the ‘contract’ was subsequently given to CAIS/Hafal, who have now formed another vehicle, CANIAD (please see blog post ‘Introducing Caniad!’). So Dr Dafydd Alun Jones and Lucille Hughes, who sit on the Board of Trustees of CAIS, are now responsible for ‘service user involvement’ in north Wales. We can assume that the outcome from this will therefore be truly grim. Many of my previous blog posts describe the unethical and criminal behaviour of Dafydd Alun Jones – and Lucille Hughes was named in the Waterhouse Report as knowing that a paedophile ring was operating in Gwynedd Social Services whilst she was the Director of these ‘Services’ but that she was failing to act. Dafydd and Lucille are now in their eighties, they have never protected the interests of service users and carers before and I very much doubt that they are going to start now.

As soon as I heard that CAIS/Hafal had landed this ‘contract’ from the Betsi, I was interested to find out exactly how this had happened, particularly as there seems to massive conflicts of interest in many other ‘contracts for services’ being handed out by the Betsi. Blog post ‘A Total Lack of Transparency’ details how the whole process has been shrouded in secrecy.

So I recently put in a FoI request to Wrexham County Borough Council (who were inexplicably allowed by the Betsi to ‘lead’ on this whole travesty) in an attempt to find out exactly how CAIS had landed this contract and the identities of the people involved. Last week I received a reply from Wrexham Council which didn’t answer all my questions but did provide a lot of enlightening information. Wrexham Council told me that I wasn’t allowed to reproduce ‘copyrighted’ information without permission and although I’ve written to them requesting this permission I haven’t received a reply. So I cannot reproduce the wonderful information that I have been provided with in it’s entirety, but I can blog about the salient points within this information.

The first surprise that I got was how much this ‘contract’ was worth. It was worth 1.5 million. That’s right, the Betsi have channelled 1.5 million quid to Dafydd et al for five years worth of ‘service user involvement’. The Betsi are currently nearly bankrupting the Welsh Govt so bad is their financial position. But CAIS have been given 1.5 million. The information given to me also confirmed that a grand total of FOUR unidentified service users were ‘involved’ in this process. And I bet they won’t see much of the 1.5 million that has been handed over – indeed, I was sent a rather simplistic ‘presentation’ allegedly designed by one of the ‘service users’ regarding what ‘involvement’ means to him and he mentioned that he was able to claim his expenses. So he gets his bus fare and the price of a lunchtime sandwich reimbursed and Dafydd et al net 1.5 million.
The information provided told me that there were only two ‘bids’ put in for the ‘tender’, one from Unllais and one from CAIS/Hafal. The fact that ‘service user involvement’ was subject to a ‘tendering’ process alone excludes nearly all service users and carers. How many patients and carers are ever going to ‘bid for a contract’? How many even knew that all this was happening? I didn’t and I actually try to keep aware of what is going on in the mental health services in north Wales. But people on the ‘professional’ networks will have known all about it, because the information sent to me revealed that ‘from January 2014 onwards, the Health Board’s Commissioning Manager…attended all the Local Planning Groups in North Wales’. Well you won’t find many service users and carers in them, but ‘professionals’ know all about these planning groups, who sits on them and when they hold their meetings. It was also mentioned that the Commissioning Manager attended ‘Third Sector’ networks (CAIS is a Third Sector organisation) and Service User and Carer networks. Now in a region that was not blighted by corruption and criminal activity in the mental health services, the Commissioning Manager attending Service User and Carer Networks would be a positive sign. But in north Wales, most ‘service users’ experiences of the ‘services’ are so bad that when they finally wave goodbye to the services (if indeed they ever manage to obtain a service in the first place) they want no more to do with them. They do not join a ‘service user network’. Furthermore, in my experience the ‘service user networks’ in north Wales have always been manipulated or indeed completely controlled by the ‘services’ themselves or the lame third sector organisations such as MIND who have for years colluded with the abuses of the mental health services. And some of the service user groups are run by CAIS. So it’s highly unlikely that any grassroots service user and carer groups would have encountered the Commissioning Manager who was allegedly publicising the commissioning process.

But what if north Wales happened to have a really enterprising group of service users and carers who did know that a commissioning process was happening and who were even prepared to form a group to bid for this contract? Well the information provided to me suggests that they would have found such bidding very difficult indeed. For a start, the information regarding the bidding process and what needs to be done to land the bid successfully is littered with acronyms with are never explained. I have a PhD and a research background in social policy and sociology in the Welsh context and I didn’t know what most of those acronyms meant. But it gets worse. Even if a group of service users had managed to plough through all this and somehow decipher it, at the ‘Meet The Buyer Event’, in the ‘procurement information’, provided by Rachel Glynn-Thomas (‘category manager’) there was a reference to a preference for the bidders to make use of technology – specifically to submit the bid via e procurement, ‘utilising the Bravo Solutions etenderWales software hosted by the Welsh Government’. Well that will be familiar to every service user and carer in Wales won’t it, they’ll use it daily. Service users wanting to bid will have needed a good accountant as well, because they had to complete one of the most taxing spreadsheets that I’ve ever seen, worse even than the spreadsheets that I used to complete when I wrote research bids for the research councils that fund academic research (and I had the University accountant to help me). Now, even if our hypothetical service user group did contain a social policy expert, an accountant, someone who was familiar with procurement procedures used by the Welsh Govt as well as someone who knew how to install and use the specialised software used by the Welsh Govt for procurement, there was something interesting about when the ‘Meet The Buyer Event’ was held. I don’t remember seeing it being advertised anywhere.

But if I was someone who might have been looking out for an opportunity to bid for a Welsh Government contract and was familiar with the procedure of bidding for these contracts, I’d have been looking at the website Sell2Wales. The contract was advertised on Sell2Wales – but not until nearly a month after the ‘Meet The Buyer Event’ had been held. So anyone attending that ‘Meet The Buyer Event’ (the only opportunity to receive information and ask questions) could have only known about it from an inside contact.

The ‘Meet The Buyer’ event was held in the Boardroom of Optic St Asaph, a location virtually impossible to get to by public transport – so interested service users who did know about it will have needed their own cars to get there. The people making up the panel at the ‘Meet The Buyer’ event included Wyn Thomas (Assistant Director, Community Partnership Development, BCUHB), Vicky Jones (Regional Substance Misuse Commissioning and Development Manager), Jane Jones (Partnership Manager, BCUHB), Rachel Glynn-Thomas (Category Manager, Wrexham Borough County Council) and Sion ap Glynn (Business Support Wales). These are not the sort of people that your average service user would know – but I bet people from CAIS knew them, particularly as CAIS already provide ‘substance misuse services’ on behalf of the Betsi and thus work ‘in partnership’ with them.
There were also two ‘service users’ on this panel, a David Holmes and an Andrea Hughes – however at least one of the powerpoints supplied to me allegedly presented by the ‘service users’ contained a number of highly complex flow charts. I have yet to meet a service user who would ever include such things in a presentation on ‘What Involvement Means To Me’. These managerialist flow charts were also noticeably inconsistent with the rest of the presentation material from the ‘service users’, which pivoted around claiming expenses, supporting others, feeling like a valuable human being, undertaking an entry level education course and no longer being sectioned. I suspect that the managerialist flow charts had been added to those presentations by someone else.

The information supplied to me also suggested that someone might have been expecting a bid from CAIS/Hafal. The information is littered with references to ‘substance misuse services’. Indeed mentions of ‘substance misuse services’ were being prioritised – again and again they were mentioned in the remit after ‘service user involvement’. But there are other rather big clues as well. One slide sent to me in response to my FoI request was a presentation by Jane Jones, Partnership Manager, BCUHB. She certainly seems to gearing up for a partnership with CAIS/Hafal – her presentation states that ‘we would welcome bids from a consortia or partnership but partners must be clear about their partnership arrangements before submitting an application’. No doubt Jane Jones wanted to ensure that any such partnerships contained the word ‘CAIS’ in their ‘arrangements’. The biggest clue however is contained on the slide prepared by Rachel Glynn-Thomas regarding ‘procurement information’: ‘WCBC [Wrexham County Borough Council] on behalf of the Six North Wales Authorities represented by the Area Planning Board for Substance Misuse and with the Betsi Cadwaladr University Health Board…’ So at the very heart of the ‘procurement process’ was the Area Planning Board For Substance Misuse – who are presumably the people who have already commissioned CAIS to provide ‘substance misuse services’ and know them well. Rachel’s slide mentions the need to ensure ‘best value’ and that a marketised commissioning process is the best way of achieving this – ah, so that’s how 1.5 million found its way into the pockets of Dafydd Alun Jones, Lucille Hughes et al…

The dirty deed has now been done, the dosh has gone to CAIS/Hafal and now Dafydd, Lucille and their mates are dictating what ‘service user involvement’ in north Wales looks like. One of the slides sent to me gives some ‘facts and figures’ regarding the region covered by the Betsi. It mentions that there are 1,600 staff employed in the Mental Health Division. So ‘service users’ who dare to complain are faced with 1,600 people sticking together like glue. (It’s tempting to suggest that there are probably more staff employed in the Mental Health Division than patients successfully obtaining a service.) And now they’ve got CAIS to represent their interests against the 1,600 people.
Whilst reading through the information supplied to me in response to my FoI request, any, many questions sprung to mind. But the biggest question of all surely has to be that if CAIS have been given 1.5 million for five years worth of ‘service user involvement’ how much are they raking in for providing all their other ‘services’? As Private Eye would say, I think we should be told…

Monday, February 13, 2017

PIP investigation: Regulator refuses to act over Capita assessment report ‘lies’ .

 A healthcare regulator has decided that a notorious benefits assessor will not face any disciplinary action over allegations of dishonesty, even though his former employer admitted that he lied in an assessment report.

Paramedic Alan Barham still faces being struck off for comments he made to an undercover reporter while working for the government contractor Capita, which were aired in a Channel 4 Dispatches documentary last April.

But the Health and Care Professions Council (HCPC), which is investigating Barham’s actions, has decided that separate allegations that he lied in a report he wrote after assessing a disabled woman’s eligibility for personal independence payment (PIP) will not be dealt with by a disciplinary hearing.
The conclusions reached by the council will add to concerns that regulators are failing to act when they receive complaints from disabled people that healthcare professionals have written dishonest reports after carrying out face-to-face PIP assessments.

Following a two-month investigation, Disability News Service (DNS) has collected scores of cases of disabled people who claim that PIP assessors like Barham lied repeatedly in reports produced for the Department for Work and Pensions.

Undercover footage from the Dispatches programme (pictured) showed Barham admitting that he sometimes completed his PIP assessment reports before even meeting the claimants.
He also told an undercover reporter that he could usually “completely dismiss” what he was told by PIP claimants, and made offensive comments about an overweight claimant who was unable to carry out her own personal care.

After watching the programme, two disabled people who had been assessed by Barham lodged complaints about his behaviour, based both on the documentary and on reports that he had written following face-to-face assessments of their entitlement to PIP.

An HCPC investigating committee has now concluded that the comments Barham made in the documentary are serious enough for him to be found guilty of “misconduct and/or lack of competence” if a disciplinary panel finds them proven.

But the committee has also decided that allegations about the two PIP assessments carried out by Barham – which were not part of the documentary – are not serious enough to merit findings of misconduct and/or lack of competence, even though Capita has already concluded that Barham lied in one of the assessment reports.

The committee concluded that the allegations concerning lying and other failings in assessments “could be considered to fall short of the expected standards of a Paramedic” but “do not, in the Panel’s view, constitute misconduct and/or lack of competence”.

David Nicholls, from Northampton, the husband of one of the PIP claimants, has told DNS of his anger and frustration at the way HCPC has dealt with the case.

DNS has seen Capita’s response to his complaint about the assessment report Barham wrote following an assessment of his wife, Jacqueline, in March last year, a month before the Dispatches documentary was screened.

As a result of the assessment, she was found ineligible for PIP.

It was only after the documentary was aired and DWP agreed to allow her to be reassessed that she was granted the enhanced rate for both the daily living and mobility components of PIP.

In the response to the Nicholls complaint about Barham, a Capita senior complaint handler wrote: “You stated that you disagree with the content of your assessment report and that you believe [Barham] had made inaccurate assumptions and had lied in his report…
“Based on the outcome of my investigation, I uphold this element of your complaint.”

In his report, Barham repeatedly stated that what he was told by Jacqueline Nicholls was not backed up by the tests he carried out during the assessment.

But David Nicholls said Barham had ignored the impact of his wife’s brain injury on both her physical and mental functioning, including her seizures, her confusion when asked too many questions, the lack of feeling in parts of her body, her memory problems, and her tendency to get lost when on her own.

Barham reported instead that she could plan and follow routes, understand complex written information without any help, and make her own budgeting decisions.

Nicholls said: “He has misled people with the findings in his report in the worst possible way.
“His assessment gave no consideration to brain injury at all. Jacquie could not take it in.”

He said that the effect of dishonest assessors like Barham on disabled people was “devastating”.
He said he was “very upset” by the HCPC decision, which he said showed that it was “letting down any person who feels they have been badly treated or assessed.

“It sends out the message that no matter what your assessor does or says, they will get away with it. They will be protected and never seen to be at fault.”

An HCPC spokeswoman said: “We can confirm that complaints against Alan Barham are currently being investigated through our fitness to practice process and an allegation pertaining to these matters has been referred to the conduct and competence committee.
“However, due to the ongoing nature of the investigation and our duty of confidentiality to all parties involved it would be inappropriate for us to comment any further at this stage.

“Once the matter is listed for final hearing the full details of the public allegation will be published on our website four weeks prior to the hearing date.”

She later added: “I can confirm to you that [the Dispatches claims]are the only allegations going forward to the final hearing, they are now the only two allegations in the public domain.  
“Essentially, this means [the allegations concerning the two PIP assessments]will not be further considered.
“However as this is a private document stemming from an independent panel decision we cannot provide any further comment on the reasoning behind this.”

DNS has approached Barham for a comment, but he had not replied by noon today (Thursday).

Alan Barham can be contacted via his website -
His phone number is -

01536 656 998

Alan also promotes Event Paramedics on his website as he suggests he works with them.
Their website and contact details are -

Saturday, February 11, 2017

FOI Request - Who is the CLERK TO THE JUSTICES At Gwynedd Council ?

Freedom of Information request to Gwynedd Council.

Mr Creathorne 1 December 2016
Dear Gwynedd council
As GCC print their own summonses , please identify the current Clerks to the justices signature that you use the facsimile of. Please also name all the Clerks to the justices of the last five years.
Please also provide a correspondence address for the current Clerks to the justices.
Yours faithfully,
Mr Creathorne

Rhyddid Gwybodaeth, 5 December 2016

Dear Mr Creathorne,
Freedom of Information (Ref T1739)

Thank you for your recent request under the Freedom of Information Act 2000.
Your request has been passed to me to process and I can confirm that it has been logged under the reference number T1739.
The Council may take up to 20 working days, from the date of receipt, to respond to your request. You should therefore receive the information you have requested, subject to the application of any exemptions permitted under the Act, by 02/01/2017 .
If you require further information please contact me by phone on or by emailing [Gwynedd Council request email] by quoting the reference number above.
Yours sincerely,
Wena Green
Owen Gwawr (CG), 3 January 2017
Dear Mr Creathorne,
Freedom of Information (Ref T1739)
We refer to your request under the Freedom of Information Act in respect
to the above.

Having reviewed your request for information, we have identified that Llys
Ynadon, Llandudno could respond more appropriately. We would therefore
suggest that you contact them at the address given below in order to
receive the relevant information:

Clerk To The Justices
Magistrates Court
Conway Road
LL30 1GA
If you have any further queries regarding this letter please contact me as
the Freedom of Information Co-ordinator. Please remember to quote the
reference number above in any future communications.
Yours sincerely,
Gwawr Owen
Mr Creathorne 3 January 2017
Dear Owen Gwawr (CG),

This response is unacceptable Since you are using the facsimile of a Clerk to the Justices signature then GCC must know who this is. Please now answer the question without further delay.
Yours sincerely,
Mr Creathorne

Owen Gwawr (CG), 5 January 2017

Dear Mr Creathorne,

The Information is signed by the Council’s Monitoring Officer, being the Proper Officer, in order to authorise the commencement of proceeding. The Summons and Information is thereafter passed to the Clerk to the Justices for approval. The Clerk to the Justices do not sign the Summons and no facsimile of the Clerk’s signature is used by the Council. Under previous arrangements the Council would forward the Information and Summons to the Clerk to the Justices who would sign and return the summons to the Council. The new arrangement have been in place for the past 12 months.
As the Council adhere’ s to the Courts requirements, if you have any questions as to this please refer enquiries to Magistrates Court Service, Llandudno
Many Thanks

Gwawr Owen

Adamna left an annotation (12 January 2017)
Courts have no records of individual summons or liability orders. Neither is now produced by the courts, but by the council. Nobody is taking responsibility for the court’s part in the process. We are left with only the council’s assurance that the court has, in some vague way, been involved. This is unacceptable and cannot be regarded as a legitimate court process.

Mr Creathorne 15 January 2017

Dear Owen Gwawr (CG),

You have not answered the question.
The summonses that are issued by the council ( they are printed and sent from council office) clearly show a facsimile signature of what is purported to be the Clerk to the Justices. Who is this person , how long has this person held the position and what is the individuals contact address. As the council are using this information on their own summonses it is ludicrous to suggest that you know nothing of it.
Yours sincerely,
Mr Creathorne

Owen Gwawr (CG), 15 January 2017
Rwyf allan o’r swyddfa tan Dydd Llun 16/01/2017. A fyddech cystal รข anfon unrhyw ymateb/ymholiad i gais Rhyddid Gwybodaeth i’r mailbox [email address] os gwelwch yn dda . I’m currently out of office until Monday 16/01/2017 . Please could you forward any response/enquiry to Freedom of Information Requests to the mailbox [Gwynedd Council request email] Thank You
Owen Gwawr (CG), 23 January 2017

Dear Mr Creathorne,

As previously advised, under current arrangements the Council do not use a facsimile of the Clerk to the Justices’ signature.
So as to assist us in answering your request, please provide a specimen copy of a summons from this Council which you maintain contains a facsimile signature of the Clerk to the Justices.
Many Thanks
Gwawr Owen
Swyddog Cefnogol a Gwybodaeth/ Information and Support Officer
Est 32809
[email address].cymru
show quoted sections

Mr Creathorne 29 January 2017
Dear Owen Gwawr (CG),
You may be aware that I cannot upload a document to this site. Please therefore provide me with your email address so that I may forward the document in question so that I can provide the evidence.
Yours sincerely,
Mr Creathorne
Rhyddid Gwybodaeth, 30 January 2017

Dear Mr Creathorne,
Please see email address below.
[email address].cymru
Many Thanks
Gwawr Owen
Swyddog Cefnogol a Gwybodaeth/ Information and Support Officer
Est 32809
[email address].cymru
show quoted sections

Mr Creathorne 11 February 2017

Dear Owen Gwawr (CG),

You were provided with the document showing the facsimile signature of the Clerk to the Justices some time ago. Please provide the answers to original questions by return.
Yours sincerely,
Mr Creathorne
Owen Gwawr (CG), 11 February 2017

Wednesday, February 08, 2017

Staff using derogatory language and records falsified at failing Mirfield care home.

Woodlands Care Home, Mirfield,Huddersfield,Ian.
Speciality Care Limited, ( REIT Homes )
Responsible Person Maureen Royston.
This home is under the general banner of Four Seasons.
This is Maureen Claire Royston,MD,etc. Big figure at FSHC.
Link thanks to Karl Womack.
Home rated as inadequate and placed in special measures, latest CQC Inspection Report Inadequate in Three Key Areas,Requiring Improvement in two more. Fourth consecutive non compliant inspection report. Six out of nine inspection reports non compliant. No new admissions.

Just another failing care home in a high incidence area. Been going on since 2002 around, Huddersfield, Halifax,Kirklees.

Nothing improves, or if it does not for long.

Patient records were falsified and staff used derogatory language at a failing Mirfield care home.
Woodlands Care Home in Sands Lane has been placed in special measures after being rated ‘inadequate’ by the Care Quality Commission (CQC).
The home, to 55 people during the inspection in December, was given the lowest rating for its safety, management and its compassion towards patients.
It was given amber ‘requires improvement’ ratings by the government health watchdog for effectiveness and responsiveness.
The report said: “Although some staff treated people with kindness and compassion, showing respect for their privacy and dignity, other staff did not.
“Some staff used derogatory terms and spoke over people to each other.

“Some staff failed to recognise when people’s dignity was being compromised.”
The report noted other safety and dignity issues.
It said: “People were not always provided with safe care and treatment.
“Some people were not assisted to move regularly and some people did not receive adequate assistance to meet their continence needs.”
CQC inspectors found that residents’ care records were incomplete – and some had been ‘falsified.’
The report said: “Some care records were inaccurate and incomplete and, in some cases, records were falsified. Audits were not robust and did not identify some areas for improvement.”

Woodlands Care Home, Sandy Lane, Mirfield
CQC inspectors discovered that admissions to one of the home’s four units had been suspended.
The report said: “Admissions to ‘Thornhill’ had been suspended by the local authority due to safeguarding concerns on this unit in relation to staffing, the role of one to one staff and the management of medicines.”
The CQC raised concerns about staffing shortages at the home.
The report said: “Despite a dependency tool being used to help determine staff numbers, there were not always sufficient numbers of staff to meet people’s needs.”

A spokesperson for Woodlands Care Home said: “The wellbeing of people entrusted to our care is our priority and we are sorry that Woodlands Care Home has fallen below the standards that we expect all of our homes to provide.
“We are implementing a comprehensive programme of improvements that is being overseen by our home manager supported by the regional senior management team working in close liaison with Kirklees Council and the Care Quality Commission.
“We have also held meetings with residents and relatives to tell them about the improvement programme.
“Before the inspection we had already identified areas where we needed to improve.”

Kincora campaigner's fury after abuse evidence is censored.

Tthe man who tried to expose historical sex abuse at the notorious Kincora boys' home in Belfast in the 1970s has criticised a major inquiry after it redacted part of his evidence. 

Former Army captain and intelligence officer Colin Wallace, whose attempts to blow the whistle on the abuse of the young boys were thwarted by superiors, said the censored information undermines the Historical Institutional Abuse inquiry (HIA).

He refused to testify before it last year, because he said it did not have adequate powers to get answers. Instead, Mr Wallace submitted a 45-page document about Kincora.
However, two sections were redacted - blacked out - before the material was placed on the HIA website. The redacted information, published by Lobster Magazine, includes details about senior figures from public life.

Mr Wallace said it was "strange and disappointing" that important information was kept out of the inquiry and from the public.

"This report has illustrated the weaknesses of the system, because there are lost files and material that I had in 1973 that they haven't found and the stuff that we did give has been excluded," he said.
"I feel for the victims, because this is very unsatisfactory."
Some of the concealed information centred around Sir Knox Cunningham, a former parliamentary secretary to former Prime Minister Harold Macmillan.

The barrister from Northern Ireland was also an Ulster Unionist MP for South Antrim.

It details how there were clear links between Knox Cunningham and William McGrath, a notorious paedophile, who was jailed for child abuse at Kincora.
Colin Wallace
Colin Wallace
Part of the redacted information had already been published in the book Let The Petals Fall, by Robin Bryans.
It revealed how Cunningham was a close friend of Belfast painter Sidney Smith, who was one of a group of paedophiles on both sides of the border.
"Knox never hesitated to flex his legal muscles for illegal purposes as a Queen's Counsel," the book claims.
"Knox could also cite chapter and verse about Sidney Smith's similar immunity from prosecution over his years of sex with unconsenting children as young as three years."

Mr Wallace said that although the sexual abuse allegations relating to Sidney Smith pre-date the Kincora sexual abuse allegations, the links between McGrath, Cunningham and others make them relevant to the HIA Inquiry.

"There are important witnesses that were never approached by the inquiry and having taken part in the Saville inquiry I was amazed the HIA was relying on the unsigned statements people had given back in 1982," he said.
"That's not acceptable.

"Knox Cunningham did have connections to John McKeague who had links to Kincora and Peter Montgomery (the gay lover of Russian spy Sir Anthony Blunt). The intelligence service must have been keeping a close eye on them.
"What I find odd is that information that has been published in one inquiry has later been redacted by the HIA.

"The illogical nature of what the HIA has done is something I find hard to understand.
"I don't think that account fitted the HIA view, so they left it out. This undermines the work of the HIA inquiry.
"The inquiry has not helped victims because it has left so many things up in the air.

"Victims have been waiting for the HIA to answer their questions and they have not answered their questions - it has raised more questions. The HIA is not the full story."
A spokeswoman for the HIA inquiry said: "The inquiry only redacted material that related to national security, protected the identity of those whose safety might be at risk, or had no relevance to the work of the inquiry. The inquiry does not intend to comment on the reasons for specific redactions."