An influential group of MPs has rejected Theresa May's suggestion that they nominate candidates to chair the historic child abuse inquiry, labelling the idea as "totally inappropriate".
The home secretary asked the Home Affairs Select Committee to draw up a list of three candidates for her to consider, according to the committee's chairman Keith Vaz.
But the Labour MP for Leicester East insisted Mrs May should identify a "suitable nominee" and allow the committee to examine the individual before he or she is appointed.
Mrs May's request for candidates follows her apology to victims for failing to ensure the inquiry into historical sex abuse has a chairman four months after it was announced.
Baroness Butler-Sloss stood down as chairwoman in July amid questions over the role played by her late brother, Lord Havers, who was attorney general in the 1980s.
Her replacement Fiona Woolf, the then Lord Mayor of London, resigned in October following a barrage of criticism over her "establishment links", most notably in relation to former home secretary Lord Brittan.
This led to Mrs May acknowledging it will be difficult to find a chairman who has the expertise to lead the inquiry and has no links with institutions or individuals that may fall under investigation.
The home secretary told the Commons this week that the Home Office is compiling a list of candidates.
She confirmed Michael Mansfield QC had been suggested, while NSPCC chief executive Peter Wanless and barrister Richard Whittam - who led a review of the Home Office's handling of paedophile ring allegations in the 1970s, 80s and 90s - were added following a suggestion by Tory MP Philip Hollobone.
In a letter to Mrs May, Mr Vaz also said there was a strong consensus among survivors of abuse that there should be a "short pause" in the inquiry process to ensure that they are properly consulted.
He wrote it was best for the home secretary to identify a suitable nominee. "The committee appreciates the difficulties you face, however it was our unanimous view that it would be totally inappropriate for us to make any such suggestions."
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article