Asked by
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what discussions officials from
the Home Office have had with the Independent Inquiry into Child
Sexual Abuse in the last month.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of
Trafford) (Con)
My Lords, as sponsors to the inquiry, Home Office officials have
a responsibility to protect the inquiry’s independence and ensure
that it has the resources it needs to deliver its terms of
reference, as set out in the IICSA management statement. Regular
discussions have taken place in the last month regarding such
sponsorship.
(Lab)
My Lords, is it not ironic that, while so-called complainants
with substantial criminal records are accorded anonymity as
witnesses before IICSA, those who stand accused, such as Harvey
Proctor and , still have no anonymity,
no right to cross-examine witnesses and no right of defence, and
can still be freely attacked, even when they are dead? IICSA is
not listening to Parliament. Is this not precisely what Sir Cliff
Richard was referring to yesterday when launching the FAIR
campaign, a petition for pre-charge anonymity now being supported
by thousands every day? The law is an ass and should be reformed.
I ask noble Lords to listen to the excellent episode of “The
Moral Maze” broadcast last night on BBC Radio 4, in which these
matters were dealt with beautifully.
My Lords, on the first point, the hearings are inquisitorial and
enable the inquiry to test witnesses and their evidence. All core
participants are provided with the evidence; their legal teams
are permitted to propose questions for the witnesses and apply to
the chair for permission to put them. Regarding the point that
the noble Lord made yesterday, I cannot comment on the handling
of specific investigations but, as I said then, current police
guidance is very clear and adopts a similar approach to that
advanced by the petition to which the noble Lord refers.
Suspects’ identities should not be released before charge, save
in exceptional circumstances and with proper oversight. I am not
aware of evidence to suggest that the police are not following
that guidance.
(LD)
My Lords, for too many years, victims of child sexual abuse have
been ignored; it is now their time to be heard. What
consideration have the Government given to special provisions
where serious allegations of child sexual abuse are made against
those who have died or are otherwise unable to defend themselves?
I wholeheartedly agree with the first part of the noble Lord’s
question. For too long, those victims have been ignored. On the
anonymity to which he refers—we talked yesterday about his Bill—I
explained in my Answer to the noble Lord, , about the
presumption of anonymity, save in exceptional circumstances.
(Con)
My Lords, does my noble friend accept the seething discontent in
your Lordships’ House about the way in which the reputations of
Sir Edward Heath, Leon Brittan and Greville Janner have been
trashed? Can she not see that this House wants something like a
royal commission to be set up on this issue, appointed by the
Government and given six or nine months to report?
I of all people am very aware of the anger in your Lordships’
House. Let us get to the heart of what IICSA is about: I am also
aware of the historic issues that need to be tested and explored
through that inquiry, for all those people for whom some of the
historic events have not yet been addressed.
(Lab)
As the Minister said, the College of Policing’s guidelines advise
officers not to,
“name those arrested, or suspected of a crime, save in
exceptional circumstances where there is a legitimate policing
purpose to do so”.
Yesterday, in the debate on the Question in the name of the noble
Lord, , two noble Lords referred
to the desirability for a judge or a court to have to approve the
release by the police of the name of an individual arrested or
suspected of a crime but not charged, as opposed to that approval
being given, as now, by a chief officer following consultation
with the Crown Prosecution Service. I am not quite sure of the
Government’s position on this point. Do they believe that the
present College of Policing guidelines satisfactorily address the
issue of anonymity until charged for those arrested or suspected
of any offence, or are they now seriously considering whether the
decision to name an individual not yet charged should be
judicial, rather than for the police?
Perhaps it would be helpful if I went over what I said yesterday.
The College of Policing’s authorised professional practice
guidance on relationships with the media makes it clear that
suspects’ names should be released to the media prior to charge
only in exceptional circumstances if there is a legitimate
policing purpose to doing so—for example, where there is a threat
to the public or for the prevention and detection of crime. This
approach recognises that there is a risk of unfair damage to the
reputations of those arrested, particularly if they are never
charged. The noble Lord asks whether we support this approach.
Yes, we do; as I said to the noble Lord, , we have every
evidence that the police are sticking to that guidance.
(Con)
Does the new guidance mean that never again will a police officer
pronounce, having talked to a complainant, that his evidence was
credible and true?
The issue of Operation Conifer allowed the police to look at the
guidance and make sure that it is as clear as it can be. As I
said, there is no evidence that the police are flouting that
guidance. I hope that that situation will continue.
(LD)
My Lords, child abuse is endemic in many institutions and has
been historically. What is being done to ensure that people who
are now older, but who suffered so terribly in different
institutions, are still encouraged to come forward, give evidence
and seek justice? We know that many have already committed
suicide or died, but it is very important that we do not forget
that those children and young people need protecting.
The noble Baroness is absolutely right; many of those children
are now well into adulthood, and it is very important that people
feel that they can come forward and give their testimony to the
inquiry. More than 320 individual victims and survivors are
participants in the inquiry, as well as a number of other
survivor groups and institutions. To date, the inquiry has
received almost 2 million pages of evidence, while more than 300
witnesses have given evidence.
