Labour “Kills” Local Grooming Gang Inquiries Before They Can Crawl

 

JJ STARKEY 

Back in January, Labour Home Secretary Yvette Cooper promised the country that the government would act on the grooming gang scandal.

They pledged to conduct five local independent inquiries. It wasn’t what certain survivors and commentators hoped for but it was something.

This week we learned they’ve been quietly dismantling such promises.

On January 16th, Cooper announced a national plan to roll out local inquiries into child sexual exploitation across five key areas.

The announcement was backed by £5 million in funding and led by a respected figure: Tom Crowther KC, the barrister who chaired the Telford inquiry, which uncovered the sexual abuse of more than a thousand children over three decades amid “shocking” failures by local police and councils.

They asked Crowther to help create a national framework for victim-centred, locally led inquiries. He agreed. Days later, Cooper stood up in the Commons and formally announced his involvement.

But from that point on, it all began to break down.

The Quiet U-Turn

Ahead of his committee appearance this week, and still unclear on what his role actually was, Crowther sought advice from his friend and former Justice Secretary Robert Buckland who passed him Jess Phillips’ number.

Crowther texted her, asking if she could clarify “what I was likely to be asked to do and when.”

By February 14th—five full weeks Cooper announced his involvement—Crowther still hadn’t received a formal update. He called the Home Office directly and asked: “Do you still want me?”

The official informed him that the framework would now be drafted by ministers and advisers. Crowther’s role was no longer central—he could “comment” on a draft, once written, but that was it.

He asked the official to confirm the exchange in writing and was promised an email that day. Seven days passed. Nothing came.

On February 21st, Crowther followed up again by text:

“A week ago, you told me you would send me an email so we wouldn’t have to conduct this through text. Would still welcome that.”

No reply. Summing up the situation for MPs this week, Crowther admitted:

“Ultimately, in answer to the question ‘how is a national framework being developed?’ I would say, at this stage, I don’t know.”

A meeting with the Home Office has since been scheduled—only after Crowther went public with his concerns.

Note this is the same Jess Phillips—Minister for Safeguarding—who met in February with Marlon West, the father of a grooming gang survivor in Greater Manchester.

During that meeting, West made his position clear: he called for a national inquiry. But something had changed in the official meeting minutes.

His words had been altered—“national inquiry” had become “national strategy.” A quiet substitution with significant implications. An honest mistake or a calculated move to soften the demand and avoid accountability?

It’s an obvious point to make but, on many levels, it seems the government is less concerned with being responsive than looking responsive.

Conflicts of Interest

Then came the money.

Initially, £5 million had been set aside for five local inquiries. But on March 20th, it was revealed that this funding would no longer be allocated directly. Instead, councils would have to bid for it.

Leaving it up to councils to decide whether to “opt in” to a grooming inquiry is not only a cop-out; in certain areas, it’s a glaring conflict of interest.

Some of these same local authorities are alleged to have been complicit—either through denial, incompetence, or outright cover-up.

Arguably, giving them the power to decide whether to subject themselves to scrutiny is akin to letting suspects choose whether they want to be investigated.

Even if a council does bid, they don’t have to conduct a full inquiry.

In further correspondence with the Home Office, Conservative MP Robbie Moore discovered the money can now be used for “options” that fall “short of a full investigation”—such as “victim-survivor engagement”, “scrutiny,” and “follow-up”.

These are the Home Office’s own words—incredibly vague words, some would say deliberately so.

What Comes Next

Meanwhile, the Conservatives—having spent 14 years in government without launching a full, independent inquiry—now says it will table an amendment to the Crime and Policing Bill to mandate a statutory investigation.

The move, though no doubt politically-motivated, would force a vote in Parliament and—if passed—compel local authorities to participate in inquiries, regardless of whether they want to or not.

Outside Westminster, Rupert Lowe has launched his own private inquiry into the scandal. But without statutory powers, it can’t compel testimony, demand documents, or force cooperation from councils or police forces.

Still, Lowe remains undeterred. Writing in The Telegraph on Tuesday, he said: “We have to try. I want to be able to say I have done everything within my power to shine a light on the many horrors that still continue today.”