The UK’s grooming gangs inquiry appears to be in turmoil before it has even started, following the resignation of several women from its victim liaison panel. Their complaints related mainly to appointments to chair the inquiry and the potential for its focus to be widened.
The difficulties facing the inquiry have led Reform UK’s Nigel Farage to describe it as “dead in the water”. After years of investigation and controversy over this topic, how did it come to this?
The issue of grooming gangs – referring here to predominantly Asian men grooming and sexually exploiting white girls across a range of English cities – first came to light from the early 2000s. The first prosecutions and convictions occurred from 2010. Hundreds of perpetrators have been convicted in cases involving thousands of victims across the UK. Other trials are ongoing.
There have been numerous inquiries or reviews into grooming gangs and child sexual exploitation at both local and national level. Local inquiries and serious case reviews have included those in Rotherham, Rochdale, Telford and Oldham.
At the national level, child sexual abuse was also examined more broadly by the independent inquiry into child sexual abuse, chaired by Professor Alexis Jay, which reported in October 2022. Some survivors and their advocates claimed the inquiry’s findings were not specific enough on grooming gangs. The government also faced criticism that survivors had been “let down” due to the lack of enactment of the inquiry’s core recommendations.
One recurring allegation has been that police and social workers failed to properly investigate and prosecute grooming gangs perpetrators, for fear of being labelled as racist.
Public and political pressure for a separate national statutory inquiry grew from January 2025, when Elon Musk intervened. Musk accused Prime Minister Keir Starmer of being complicit in a cover-up of grooming gangs when he was director of public prosecutions. The then home secretary, Yvette Cooper, announced a “rapid” review of evidence of the nature and scale of group-based sexual abuse to be led by Baroness Louise Casey.
The Casey report was published in June 2025. It concluded that the issues of race and ethnicity of those involved in grooming gangs had been “shied away from” by the authorities and advocated the need for a separate inquiry.
The government accepted this and Casey’s other recommendations, and announced a new national inquiry.
But the inquiry is now facing delays, after four survivors resigned from the victim liaison panel in protest of the government’s handling of the inquiry. They accused safeguarding minister Jess Phillips of contradicting them on the scope of the inquiry, and called for her resignation. Others on the panel, however, have said that Phillips remaining in post is a condition of their participation.
The women who resigned also expressed concerns over the two shortlisted candidates to chair the inquiry, who had backgrounds in social work and policing. Both candidates have now resigned.
What the inquiry needs now
In setting up inquiries, one of the most important principles is the need for an effective independent investigation of the facts. This means that panel members need to be appointed by open competition and must be independent of government.
For victims, the appointment of inquiry panellists with social work and policing backgrounds calls into question the inquiry’s independence from the state. This is especially significant given that social worker and police concerns with race and ethnicity have, historically, impeded investigations. At the same time, the composition of an inquiry panel needs to draw from a wide range of expertise – including legal and human rights backgrounds – to be effective.
Any inquiry should be cognisant of the trauma experienced by victims in both being groomed and abused, and not being believed. Survivors’ concerns could be addressed by appointing academics with expertise in policing and social work, rather than police officers or social workers themselves.
A well-established principle of abuse inquiries is that there must be a victim-centric approach. For survivors, the process of the inquiry matters as much as the outcome. Involving survivors in the process of selecting a chair, and as part of a consultative role, ensures their “buy-in” and establishes trust and credibility. The victim liaison panel helps to fulfil this role.
However, there is also a need to inform and manage survivor expectations about what inquiries can hope to achieve. In particular, as my research has established, inquiries are usually focused on broad, systemic institutional failings rather than on the accountability of individuals that many survivors want.
While the victim liaison panel was designed to give survivors a role in advising on the inquiry’s terms of reference, there are currently no terms of reference for the liaison panel itself. Setting out clear terms of reference for both the inquiry and the panel itself is essential for the inquiry to run smoothly.
Farage has called on the government to replace the statutory public inquiry with a parliamentary inquiry. Yet, this would not solve any of these issues and might even cement them. Parliamentary inquiries are usually small investigations, conducted by cross-party MPs who have powers to gather written and oral evidence.
A parliamentary inquiry would likely face criticisms from survivors about lack of independence – survivors would also have a very limited role in the process. Moreover, any recommendations for policy change from a parliamentary inquiry are not binding, so outcomes are substantially reduced.
More broadly, this controversy highlights the need for a comprehensive and thorough investigation of the facts from the outset, rather than the series of separate investigations which we have had to date. It is not too late for the grooming gangs inquiry to get back on track. But it needs to be focused, impartial and properly resourced.
Anne-Marie McAlinden has previously received funding from the ESRC, the AHRC, The British Academy, and the North South Research Programme
This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.
