Lambeth Council told Southwark social services not to be “too rigorous” with a fostering application from a convicted child sex offender and was “misleading” about the extent of his offence, an inquiry heard.  

It also heard that someone claiming to be ex-MP Lord Paul Boateng, along with his wife Lady Janet Boateng, chair of Lambeth’s social services committee at the time, tried to convince a Southwark officer to give an independent rubber stamp to the fostering application from Michael John Carroll and his wife June. 

Carroll, known as John, was allowed to run Angell Road children’s home in Lambeth from its opening in 1981, despite the council knowing about his conviction.  

He initially failed to disclose his conviction before being hired by Lambeth in 1978, but even when the council found out, he was able to keep his job.  

The Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse (IICSA), examining allegations of decades of abuse suffered by children under Lambeth’s care between the 1930s and 1990s, today (Tuesday, July 7) heard that Croydon Council found out about Carroll’s older conviction in 1986 while they were assessing a fostering application from the Carrolls.

Croydon sent the information to Lambeth but Carroll just had to go through a disciplinary hearing which resulted in a “final warning” – he was allowed to continue working with children until he was later let go for “financial irregularities” in 1991.  

In 1999, Carroll was convicted for a host of child abuse offences on boys in the north west and in Lambeth at Liverpool Crown Court. He was jailed for ten years.  

Giving evidence on Tuesday, Clive Walsh, former probation officer and assistant director with Southwark social services from 1978 to 1985, said he contacted his former colleague Tony Watson, father to former Labour deputy leader Tom Watson, when he saw a news article about Carroll.  

He said he did so because a “significant piece of history” was missing from the story – that the reasons for his decision not to agree with the Carrolls’ application had been “expunged” from the record. 

Mr Walsh said he contacted his colleague to “get a clearer view” of a “strange application for fostering off the Carrolls and a subsequent meeting of politicians of which I was called”.  

He told the inquiry when he learned from Croydon Council that Carroll had a child sex offence conviction he decided not to agree with the application.  

Mr Walsh said the then principle officer responsible for the area officers in the south of Southwark first brought the application to his attention.  

“He came to see me on behalf of the staff at our area office because they had received what they considered to be a strange […] and troublesome request […] 

“They were being asked [by Lambeth] to provide agreement in short order to a fostering application in respect of Mr and Mrs Carroll and seemingly the request came in the terms of it wouldn’t be necessary to be too rigourous because Mr Carroll was already a head of establishment at a children’s home. 

“He was a long-serving trusted member of staff, more to the point he and his wife were already defacto social aunt and uncle to the two boys that they were asking to foster,” he said.  

If you want me to be brutally honest this had all the hallmarks of a side movement to get an agreement, to get some degree of approval from somewhere that would give a degree of validity to the Carrolls.

Counsel to the inquiry Clair Dobbin asked why Croydon, the local authority responsible for the children, wasn’t carrying out the assessment, when they were also assessing the Carrolls in respect of another child in their care.  

Mr Walsh said “transparency would indicate that the approach should have been to Croydon”. 

“At that time, it was known in Lambeth […] that Croydon were not intending to complete the application and approve the Carrolls’ foster parents’ [application]. 

“If you want me to be brutally honest this had all the hallmarks of a side movement to get an agreement, to get some degree of approval from somewhere that would give a degree of validity to the Carrolls,” he said.  

Ms Dobbin asked if the implication was “that Lambeth was going behind the back of Croydon to arrange a foster placement for Croydon children with the Carrolls”.  

“It had that appearance at the time,” Mr Walsh said.  

they were outraged that there was a man running a children’s home in Lambeth who had a conviction as an adult for sexually assaulting a significantly younger child

The inquiry heard that when Mr Walsh decided against the agreement, which he put in writing, he was called into a meeting with “prominent London politician” Lady Janet Boateng – though she denies she was there – and representatives from Lambeth and Southwark. 

Mr Walsh said his director “instructed” him to attend because “there was a problem with the decision”. 

He said during the meeting he was “taken to task” by a senior officer after expressing concerns about Carroll running a children’s home. 

“He took me to task for what he took to be my interference in Lambeth decision making,” Mr Walsh said.  

He said in the beginning the Southwark politicians were “sympathetic to Ms Boateng’s point of view”.  

But Mr Walsh said when he “drew a parallel between” Mr Carroll’s failing to disclose his offence and Lambeth’s “failing to disclose his offence to us”, the meeting “fell apart”.  

“At that point it became quite argumentative. It was also at that point that Southwark councillors started to grasp what they hadn’t previously understood, that Mr Carroll’s offence, a schedule one offence, was actually an offence of sexual assault on a child. 

“They then became angry, they felt that they had been misled […] they were outraged that there was a man running a children’s home in Lambeth who had a conviction as an adult for sexually assaulting a significantly younger child […]” he said.  

Mr Walsh said their preference was to have his decision overturned but their “demand was that my recorded view of the inappropriateness of Mr Carroll working as a head of home be expunged from the record”.  

He also told the inquiry that someone claiming to be Mr Boateng rang him asking if he could help resolve the situation.  

“I received a telephone call from a male person who introduced himself as Paul Boateng and who asked whether or not he could be of assistance in resolving this troublesome matter – my position was that the matter was closed and dealt with so there was no help to be given,” he said.  

Mr Walsh told the inquiry he could not be sure it was actually Mr Boateng as it wouldn’t have been “uncommon” that people “purporting to be people whom they were not” would ring him.  

The inquiry continues.