This article is from the source 'bbc' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.
You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-30002908
The article has changed 9 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.
Version 0 | Version 1 |
---|---|
'No cover-up found' in abuse review | 'No cover-up found' in abuse review |
(35 minutes later) | |
A review of the handling of allegations of child abuse by prominent figures has found no evidence that records were deliberately removed or destroyed. | |
Ministers asked the head of the NSPCC to examine how the Home Office dealt with files alleging abuse from 1979-99. | |
Peter Wanless's report said it was "not possible" to say whether files were removed to cover up abuse - but found "nothing to support" such a concern. | |
The government said it had accepted the report's three recommendations. | |
The report's authors, Mr Wanless and Richard Whittam QC, concluded that they had "found nothing to support a concern that files had been deliberately or systematically removed or destroyed to cover up organised child abuse". | |
The report also found no evidence that the Home Office ever funded the Paedophile Information Exchange. | |
'Significant limitations' | |
But it makes clear that the "records management convention" across police forces was that records relating to allegations that didn't lead to a charge were destroyed after two years. | |
And it states that Home Office procedures placed "significant limitations" on the ability to establish a perfect record of what was known at the time. | |
Responding to the report, Home Secretary Theresa May said she had written to its authors "seeking further reassurance". | |
She said she wanted "their consideration of how the police and prosecution authorities" handled any files they received, and whether any material was passed to MI5 - and if so what action was taken. | |
The report endorses the findings of an initial review, published last year, but makes further recommendations about record-keeping at the Home Office. |