Why is there a row?

A national investigation into grooming gangs in England and Wales has been thrown into turmoil with the resignation of four women from a victim contact panel.

So how did we get here and what’s next in this research?

Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer announced the investigation in June this year.

The UK government said It will “coordinate a range of targeted local investigations” into group-based child sexual exploitation of girls by grooming gangs.

The inquiry, called the Independent Grooming Gangs Commission, will have legal powers to direct targeted investigations in local areas and call witnesses to give evidence.

The government has said that once an independent head is appointed, the inquiry will decide which local areas to investigate based on information provided by police, victims of abuse and the public.

The government says the process is being led by independent child abuse charity NWG Network, not the Home Office.

The charity provides “support and guidance for those working with children and young people affected by abuse.”

The grooming gang scandal first emerged in The Times newspaper in 2003 and has been the subject of frequent debate, investigation and news in the two decades since.

It rose to prominence again earlier this year, thanks in part to tech billionaire Elon Musk, who criticized the prime minister for not launching a national investigation.

The dispute between the two centered on high-profile cases in which groups of men, mostly of Pakistani origin, were found guilty of sexually abusing and raping predominantly young white girls in towns such as Rotherham and Rochdale.

At the beginning of the year the government rejected calls for a national inquiry, arguing that the scandal had already been examined in a seven-year investigation led by Professor Alexis Jay.

Professor Jay submitted his report to the then Conservative government in 2022 but so far only two of its 20 recommendations have been implemented.

But for months Sir Keir has faced mounting political pressure over his unwillingness to launch a new national inquiry, particularly focused on grooming gangs.

In February this year, the prime minister appointed Whitehall senior troubleshooter Dame Louise Casey to assess the scale, nature and drivers of group-based child sexual abuse and exploitation (CSEA) at national and local levels.

Inside his reviewDame Louise has recommended a national inquiry be launched which would coordinate a range of targeted investigations into child sexual abuse in England and Wales.

Sir Keir agreed to the proposal, saying it was “the right thing to do” based on the information his review had uncovered.

The government said a panel of abuse victims would be given a central role in the investigation.

It is thought that the panel included approximately 20 people who oversaw the launch of the investigation.

This week, four women resigned from the inquiry panel in protest at how the government has handled the process so far.

The women have all written open letters expressing similar concerns about suggestions that the investigation could be broadened beyond grooming gangs, with tight controls placed on what they can say and who they can talk to.

All four expressed doubts about the two candidates proposed to head the investigation.

They objected to both because one had a background in social work and the other was a senior police officer; Both professions faced problems with trust.

Both candidates withdrew from the process.

One of the women, Ellie Reynolds, said in her resignation letter that she felt the investigation had become “more about a cover-up than about the truth”.

Conservation Minister Jess Phillips rejected claims of a cover-up and insisted the government was “committed to exposing failures”.

The group of four abuse survivors specifically criticized Phillips and demanded his resignation with a list of conditions for them to rejoin the investigation.

The women accused Phillips of “treason” for comments he made about the scope of the investigation.

On Tuesday, Phillips answered an urgent question put to the House of Commons by the Conservatives about “recent criticism” of the inquiry.

Phillips told MPs that “allegations of deliberate delay, indifference, or expansion or dilution of the scope of the investigation are false.”

This encouraged Response from Fiona Goddard, an abuse survivor “For Phillips to suggest that any accusations of expanded coverage are untrue is a lie, and he knows it,” he said.

One of the main concerns of many victims is that the investigation needs to be tightly focused on gang grooming.

Mrs Goddard said The NWG Network charity had sent panel members a list of “questions to consider”. He posted it on social media this week.

This section asks, “What do you most want the investigation to achieve? What areas should it focus on?” and “How can the investigation best include and engage victims and survivors throughout its work?” Contains questions.

One of the questions asks: “Should the investigation focus explicitly on ‘grooming gangs’ or ‘group-based CSEA’ (Child Sexual Exploitation and Exploitation), or should it take a broader approach?”.

Ms Goddard said she texted Jess Phillips directly about this on Friday, September 26.

He posted a screenshot of the text he sent to Phillips: “Sorry to message again but if this is supposed to be about grooming gangs, why did the charity set up by the Home Office to consult with survivors send out an agenda of questions to ask?”.

He sent Phillips the question about the focus of the investigation.

“This is a distortion of what should happen in every way and it is not fair,” Ms. Goddard wrote.

Room Posted Phillips’ answer“The reason for the problem is that there are different opinions and we want you to be able to clearly direct what you want,” he said.

Phillips added: “I know it’s hard to trust but I can promise you no one is trying to manipulate the answer and in my view this is a gang-specific investigation but it’s not right for me to make this decision without formal consultation.”

The victims’ panel began holding meetings last week, including questioning the proposed candidates to head the investigation.

Downing Street has said there has been no change in the prime minister’s stance on Phillips’ suitability for his role and, despite the recent turmoil, there is no suggestion the investigation will be shelved.

Efforts are still ongoing to find a chair that everyone involved can support; This process has already taken five months.

Dame Louise Casey said she wanted the inquiry to be completed within three years, a relatively short period for investigations of this nature, but the government had not agreed a final timetable.

Some abuse victims and Conservatives have called for a judge to look into the case.

At the PMQs, Sir Keir said Dame Louise was “considering whether the inquiry should be judge-led” and that he decided against it for two reasons.

The first reason, the Prime Minister said, was “the speed at which we can do it.”

Summing up the second reason, Sir Keir said: “One of the problems facing judge-led inquests – I have seen and experienced this myself – is that they are often delayed until the end of criminal investigations, and I decided that we could do both together.”

On Wednesday Sir Keir Starmer told MPs the investigation “will not be watered down” and its scope will not change.

“We will examine the ethnicity and religion of the criminals and find the right person to head it,” Sir Keir said.

He said Dame Louise would now support the investigation’s work and ministers hoped it could help it get back on track.