Grooming gangs inquiry divided over the question of widening its focus

Deep divisions surrounding Keir Starmer’s inquiry into grooming gangs were first disclosed by the Guardian last week. But for one of the survivors now refusing to take part, splits first emerged in July, a month after the inquiry was announced. Fiona Goddard, who was abused by a gang while a teenager in a Bradford children’s home, said she and other grooming gang survivors were told in June that the inquiry would centre on group-based child sexual exploitation of girls by grooming gangs. Headed by an independent chair, the Home Office’s announcement said the Independent Commission on Grooming Gangs would have “statutory powers to direct targeted investigations in local areas, with the aim of holding institutions to account for current and historic failures in their response to group-based child sexual exploitation”. Related: UK grooming gang inquiry faces further disruption as candidate for leader withdraws In July, an agenda for a meeting held by the mayor of West Yorkshire, Tracy Brabin, said the government planned to consult victims of “CSE/A” – child sexual exploitation and abuse – over the terms of reference of the inquiry. An independent charity, NWG, would form a panel of abuse survivors who would be given a central role in the inquiry, including helping to pick the chair and set its parameters, she was told. During the subsequent online meeting, it emerged that those on that panel would not have to be survivors of grooming gangs. “I thought it was wrong,” Goddard said. “The whole point, and impression that I had been given, was that this new inquiry would focus on grooming gangs. Otherwise it would become another general inquiry and not address what happened to me and hundreds of other girls in our unique situation.” She complained to Jess Phillips, the safeguarding minister, who reassured her that she and grooming survivors would be central to the inquiry. A month later, Goddard and six other victims of grooming gangs were invited on to the panel. But over several weeks, she said, it became clear that there were many other survivors on the panel who had not been groomed by street gangs. Some had been kidnapped and raped by strangers, she claimed, while some had been abused within their families; others had been targeted by individuals. But they had not all been groomed and raped by street-based gangs of men. For those who had survived grooming gangs, the failure to concentrate on how to stop gangs from preying on young girls was paramount. Since the issue was first exposed by the Times in 2003, campaigners have alleged that this is because officials have failed to examine the cultural drivers behind why many of the street gangs have been dominated by men of Pakistani heritage. In September, the NWG Network sent a list of “questions for reflection” to panel members. It included questions such as “What do you most want the inquiry to achieve?”, “What areas should it focus on?” and “How can the inquiry best involve and engage victims and survivors throughout its work?”. One asked: “Should the inquiry have an explicit focus on ‘grooming gangs’ or ‘group-based CSEA’ (child sexual exploitation and abuse) or take a broader approach?” Goddard said she texted Phillips about this on 26 September. She posted a screenshot of the text she had sent asking Phillips: “If it’s supposed to be about grooming gangs why has the charity that the Home Office has set up to consult with survivors just sent out the agenda for the questions that are going to be asked?” Phillips replied: “The reason for the question is because there have been differing views and we want you to be able to give a clear steer on what you want.” Phillips added: “I know it’s hard to trust but I can promise you no one is trying to manipulate the response and it is my view that it is only a grooming gangs specific inquiry but it is not right for me to make that decision without it being formally consulted on.” Abuse victims who were not groomed by gangs have argued that the new inquiry should include their experiences too. Katie (not her real name), a survivor from Lincolnshire whose testimony helped to jail one of dozens of her abusers for rape, said she was concerned that those pushing a narrow ‘Asian grooming gang’ narrative were gatekeeping the inquiries before they had begun. “The constant use of the term ‘grooming gangs’ is misleading and confusing. It is not an official safeguarding term, yet it continues to be used by government and media. Baroness Casey was clear: this was always supposed to be an inquiry into group-based child sexual exploitation (CSE). It was not a ‘grooming gangs’ inquiry,” she said. Related: Why is there a national inquiry into grooming gangs and how is it going? Hours after the Guardian reported that the government had struggled to find a chair for the inquiry, the Home Office sent a confidential email to those on the panel asking them to attend a meeting on Tuesday 21 October where they could meet two potential chairs – former police officer Jim Gamble and the former senior social worker Annie Hudson. An attempt to recruit people from professions that had failed to protect grooming gang victims proved to be the final straw for Goddard, and she resigned shortly after, to be followed by four other grooming gang victims. She said: “I think the government needs to get a handle on things. Grooming gang survivors are never going to agree on everything but that is going to be complex enough to navigate without including people with other experiences outside grooming gangs.” Information and support for anyone affected by rape or sexual abuse issues is available from the following organisations. In the UK, Rape Crisis offers support on 0808 500 2222 in England and Wales, 0808 801 0302 in Scotland, or 0800 0246 991 in Northern Ireland. In the US, Rainn offers support on 800-656-4673. In Australia, support is available at 1800Respect (1800 737 732). Other international helplines can be found at ibiblio.org/rcip/internl.html