A parliamentary committee questioned the Interior Ministry for delaying the preservation of key documents.
In addition, Bradley focused on what would happen if it was confirmed that key documentation was destroyed before there was an official order for its preservation. The concern is that, without a prior directive, institutions were not required to retain these
materials.The origin of the problem dates back to an audit led by Baroness Casey, who in June recommended preventing the deletion of any record related to these cases.
However, according to the parliamentary committee, it was only on January 14 that the Ministry of the Interior contacted police officials to begin collecting documentation for the national investigation
.This investigation will be led by Baroness Longfield and will aim to examine possible cover-ups by local authorities.
The process will have extensive legal powers to demand testimony and evidence, and will rely both on ongoing police investigations, including those of a national scope, and on the stories of victims and witnesses. If criminal evidence is detected, these will be referred to the security forces
.The context aggravates concern, since many of the crimes investigated occurred more than a decade ago, while the data conservation policies of different administrations allow the elimination of files after varying periods, which can range from six to twenty years.
An alleged “delay” by the British Government of Keir Starmer in ordering the preservation of documents could have resulted in the loss of key evidence linked to the scandals of illegal immigrant gangs linked to sexual exploitation, a UK parliamentary committee warned.
The concern centers on the actions of the British Home Office, which would have taken more than six months to issue directives to protect sensitive information.
The warning was issued by Dame Karen Bradley, president of the Interior Committee, who requested formal explanations from Minister Shabana Mahmood.
In an official letter, Bradley questioned the time elapsed until law enforcement, local authorities and other agencies were instructed to keep records potentially relevant to the ongoing investigation.
As he stated, this delay could have had “direct consequences” on the availability of evidence. In this regard, the legislator asked for clarification as to whether the Executive evaluated the impact of the delay, including possible future legal implications, and whether the administrations were consulted about the
