---

Mr. Grieve: Does my hon. Friend share perhaps some disquiet that paragraph 10 of the Government's response disagrees with the suggestion that a range of agencies are

"unaware of these deceptions and/or unwittingly assist them; or are complicit in their fabrication"?

In paragraph 36 of the report, a clear example is given of exactly that.

Mr. Boswell: My hon. Friend is right to point that out. My view is that we cannot ask or expect the police to back out of their duties to investigate historic allegations of abuse, or indeed current ones. Therefore, it is all the more important that such investigations should be carried out scrupulously and fairly. I also believe that the use of various tools as recommended by the Select Committee needs active consideration. I mention particularly video recording of witness evidence. I notice, for example, that at a recent meeting in the House in the context of persons with learning difficulties, vulnerable persons who may be victims even in such cases, the Director of Public Prosecutions suggested that there may be some virtue in video recording. I think that he is on the right lines.

As the Government say in paragraph 35 of their response, and with this I found myself more in sympathy, a clear, accurate and, if I may add, comprehensive and unexpurgated record of approaches to witnesses should be established, whether or not that is in video form. I think that that would then be available to the defence on disclosure.

There is an issue of balance on a matter that has not been much rehearsed so far: the issue of publicity and, in particular, celebrity evidence. I personally still incline to the view that we should withhold those names because the attraction of putting someone's name in the frame is just too great. Recently, the accuser of a former colleague of ours in the House has been sent to prison in that regard. Whether that results in a sufficient deterrent against that sort of practice I know not.

The law of "similar fact", which is another matter on which the Select Committee commented and hence the Home Office responded, is another area of concern. Paragraph 55 of the Government's response states:

"multiple accusations against an offender have a significance that derives from the unlikelihood that a person will be independently falsely accused of offences of a like nature."

The crucial word is "independently". If it is a matter of 20 people, even people who are in prison currently, all independently saying that they remember that there was

19 Jun 2003 : Column 542

a problem with that person, I might understand it. However, if it is in response to a systemic inquiry that makes certain assumptions, I have less sympathy with it.

Ms Munn: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that it is possible to make inquiries of former residents of children's homes where allegations have been made in a way that does not name the suspected person and gives no indication of the particular concerns? That would be a valid process.

Mr. Boswell: That is exactly the sort of proper practice with which I would have no difficulty. This is not a matter of sides. We are trying to tease out a common, good practice approach.

I leave the House with three specific points.

Mr. Brazier: Before my hon. Friend completes his speech, may I ask him to acknowledge that, until the various changes, many of which he has covered, took place, 15 years ago it was almost impossible to get convictions of child abusers? After a case in my constituency, the barrister said that she felt ashamed and disgusted that she had taken the case as it was so obvious that her client was guilty. The process in those days worked in such a fashion that he got off.

Mr. Boswell: We have to seek a balance, but we cannot achieve it by swinging in the opposite direction and putting innocent people in prison.

I have three concerns, and in setting them out I am trying to read the mind of the Home Office. First, in terms of the Home Office's own interests, it is wrong—although perhaps understandable—for it to try to defend the integrity of the judicial system by implying that everything is all right, and that it is therefore better not to rock the boat by asking such questions. Secondly, I am concerned as to whether there is an underlying and subtler point in relation to informers. Many people in prison are police informers or are otherwise compromised, as it were. Are we talking about a way of ensuring that they continue to supply information to police officers, perhaps in respect of other investigations that have nothing to do with sex abuse? [Interruption.] The Minister appears to be surprised by that suggestion; if she can make inquiries and in turn surprise me, I should be delighted. However, I am worried about this issue, and given that informers are registered, perhaps we should look into it further.

My third and final concern is that the Home Office response will be seen as the green light to a series of fresh allegations. Frankly, it would not be difficult to extend this measure to cover not only abuse in child care homes but, for example, the several choirmasters who were recently implicated in various activities. And there is the wholly separate issue of cot deaths and sudden infant deaths, and whether people, once they get into this frame of mind, will start to look in an uncritical way and make accusations that cannot really be substantiated.

It would be terrible if, through not building the right safeguards into our procedures and attitudes, we in this House had to revert to these issues after a series of judicial disasters, with all the wreckage that that might bring to the lives of individuals—whether or not

19 Jun 2003 : Column 543

anything had been done to them, whether or not they had committed offences themselves. We must be careful and ensure that the system delivers a fair outcome.

2.52 pm

Mrs. Claire Curtis-Thomas (Crosby): I want to begin by thanking the members of the Home Affairs Committee for having the courage to take on this very difficult inquiry. I must also point out that, like the other members of the all-party group on abuse investigations, I am not a paedophile-lover or an advocate of paedophiles. Properly convicted sex offenders are the most repugnant form of humanity. Our interest in historical abuse investigations has always centred not on the outcome of police investigations—on whether a person is guilty or innocent—but on the integrity of the processes used by the police and the Crown Prosecution Service. To date, there is no way of independently checking the procedures used by either of those authorities.

I am bitterly and hugely disappointed with the Government's response to the Home Affairs Committee's report, which constituted virtually a total rejection of all of the recommendations, excluding those that concur with existing Government policy. I want to reply to the Government's response and to ask the Minister to think again.

I want to bring to Members' attention a statement presented to the Home Affairs Committee by Mark Merett. It reads as follows:

"I feel I must make this statement after spending three years at a children's home in South Wales, which is now at the centre of child abuse allegations. During my time at the school there was never any talk or rumour of child abuse, if anything of that nature had been going on everyone would have known about it. At night I shared a bedroom with three other boys who knew everything that was going on; if a burglary had been committed, everyone knew about it by breakfast time the next morning . . .


I was interviewed by South Wales Police on three occasions and during these interviews I was amazed that the police openly named suspects who were known to me and they confirmed that these suspects had been named by other former residents. Even though I made the police aware of my medical condition (I am epileptic), they continued to pressurise me into making a complaint, which I did not do. I found the whole experience very distressing and I felt that I was being bullied by the police into making a complaint.


I was horrified when I was asked during the interview, 'Did Mr B touch you up?, did he touch your penis? other people have complained that he did.'


At this moment I was appalled and explained that nothing of that nature . . . went on at the school. The police pointed out that they had been in touch with other former residents who had made complaints. After hours of questioning, I still maintained that nothing ever happened to me, which is the truth."

That is just one of many statements that we are aware of, and which say the same thing. In many ways, that statement is the source of our concerns, and with that in mind I must again congratulate the Home Affairs Committee on its even-handed approach to this inquiry. Seventy-six people submitted memorandums to the Committee—they included barristers, solicitors, the falsely accused, journalists, representatives of social services departments, police authority representatives and even Members of Parliament—and responded constructively to the inquiry's terms of reference.

19 Jun 2003 : Column 544

I should remind Members that the cases that we are considering—historical sex abuse cases—arise from complainants' allegations of abuse in respect of incidents that took place up to 30 years ago. The complainants, who are now all adults, were cared for in care homes. The primary concern of members of the all-party group, endorsed by members of the Home Affairs Committee, is the way in which evidence from those individuals is obtained and recorded. Eight police authority inquiries have taken place throughout the UK in the past five years, involving—according to my own estimates—more than 20,000 complainants and probably in excess of 10,000 care workers and social workers, all of whom have been identified as suspects.

I turn to the body of the report and my concerns about the adequacy of the Government's response. In paragraph 10 of the latter, the Government state:

"The Committee's conclusions would appear . . . to have arisen from a combination of assumptions."

One of those assumptions is that

"Significant numbers of complainants are either serving prisoners or ex-offenders".

The response continues:

"The Government sees no evidence to support these assumptions".

However, if they had so wished the Government could have used the resources at their disposal to substantiate those claims. Through the Association of Chief Police Officers, they could have asked the authorities engaged in these inquiries the following questions. How many of the complainants involved in these cases are known to the police? How many of them have been convicted? How many of them were interviewed in the highly inappropriate setting of a prison?

---