Public Policy Researcher Carys Moseley comments on the recent updates over the inquiry into grooming gangs
This Tuesday, the Home Secretary announced in Parliament the names of the chair and panellists of the independent inquiry into grooming gangs. She also published the draft Terms of Reference. This is based on the second recommendation of the audit on group-based child sexual exploitation and abuse, published by Baroness Casey of Blackstock in June.
The aims of inquiry
The draft terms of reference set out the inquiry’s aims as follows:
“1.3 The Inquiry will cover England and Wales and should work in close collaboration with the national police operation (Operation Beaconport) recommended in the National Audit report, and together they should: deliver a more vigorous approach to right the wrongs of the past, bring more perpetrators to justice, hold agencies to account and deliver justice for victims and survivors. The national police operation should ensure more perpetrators will face justice; the Inquiry should ensure agencies will be held to account for past failings.”
“4.1 Building on the work of the National Audit, this Inquiry will identify and illuminate failings in historic and current practice in tackling grooming gangs in local areas across the country, as well as the role of national government. These investigations shall include failures in respect of victims not usually resident in the relevant area, for example where they had been trafficked.”
Definition of grooming gangs
‘Grooming gangs’ is not a legally defined term. Nevertheless, the following is the implied definition:
“3.1 ‘Group-based child sexual exploitation and abuse’ (‘group-based CSEA’) is a subset of child sexual abuse involving two or more perpetrators who are connected through formal or informal associations who are involved in or facilitate the sexual exploitation of children. This involvement may take many forms, including introducing children to others for the purpose of exploitation, trafficking a child for sexual exploitation, taking payment for sexual activity with a child, or allowing premises to be used for such activities.”
Victims and survivor wanted a judge-led inquiry
It is a matter of grave concern that a judge was not appointed to chair the inquiry. Many victims and survivors wanted a judge to lead it. The Conservatives likewise called for a judge-led inquiry.
Journalist Melanie MacDonagh pointed out this week that only a judge would have the authority, legal expertise and political impartiality to deal with all the problems with legal accountability in these cases.
How impartial are the chair and panellists?
The chair of the inquiry is Baroness Anne Longfield CBE, a Labour member of the House of Lords. She was Children’s Commissioner for England between 2015 and 2021. Previously she had established the Commission on Young Lives, and ran the Centre for Young Lives, both working to protect vulnerable teenagers. She has also campaigned on policy on childcare.
She will resign the Labour whip for the duration of the inquiry. Nevertheless, grooming gang survivor Fiona Goddard questioned how impartial or independent the inquiry could be as a result of Longfield’s Labour party membership, as did Elizabeth Harper.
Inquiry chair welcomed exam rescheduling around Ramadan
It has now emerged that when she was Children’s Commissioner for England, Anne Longfield welcomed a decision to reschedule some school exams around Ramadan. In January 2016 the Joint Council for Qualifications, representing exam boards across England, Wales and Scotland, was said to have talked with Muslim lobby groups and agreed to recommend timetabling exams in the most popular subjects to avoid clashing with Ramadan. They were to be scheduled before the start of Ramadan, and consideration would be given for timing them in the morning or afternoon.
Anne Longfield responded thus:
“It’s really important this takes place and important we understand the individual children in this…Clearly, there needs to be rigour around the examinations themselves, but I welcome the discussion.”
This history of caving into Islamic demands in the name of understanding individual children is not a promising sign.
Inquiry panellists’ appointments raise concerns
Two panellists have been appointed for the inquiry.
Zoë Billingham was HM Inspector of Constabulary. No police officer has been disciplined for police failures in respect of grooming gangs which raises questions about her impartiality. She is also a member of the Labour Party.
Eleanor Kelly’s experience includes being chief executive of Tower Hamlets and Southwark councils, leading the latter’s response to the London Bridge terror attack of 2017. Kelly was chief executive of Southwark Council from 2008 to 2022, a council run by a Labour majority from 2010 onwards. As chief executive she wasn’t allowed to be a member of any party. There has never been a grooming gang prosecution in London.
On the one hand it is good that she has not been a member of the Labour Party, unlike the chair and fellow panellist. Nevertheless the government ought to have considered overall the need for panellists to have more distance from the Labour Party.
Geographical scope
The inquiry will look into England and Wales, given that they are a single criminal jurisdiction. Section 5.7 states that it will be allowed to consider which local areas to review. The government and the inquiry will choose specific local areas within three months of the formal start of the inquiry, i.e. by June 2026. Public hearings may be an option. However, the chair needs to consider their impact on victims and survivors, so hearings do not have to be public.
In light of this it’s also important to emphasise that the inquiry is said to have a ‘Victim and Survivor Focus’. However, it was reported by the Metro that the survivors’ panel has been scrapped. This was met with anger by some survivors, warning that this could stop proof coming out about the gangs.
Why conduct local investigations
The purpose of choosing local investigations is to look back on work that has already been done:
“4.5.1 The objective of the local investigations is to identify failures in systems and procedures, and failures by individual leaders, in protecting children from grooming gangs within local areas, and make recommendations for immediate and longer-term change and improvement where required.”
Of particular interest is the fact that the inquiry may consider:
“Whether ethnicity, religion or culture played a role in the response” to the grooming gangs. Also “the extent to which identified failures have led to changes in practice, policy, or legislation, and whether those changes have been effective.”
The inquiry is allowed to examine the actions of various services or agencies including “voluntary or third-sector organisations, such as victim support organisations” [4.5.3]. This could in theory include charities, including Christian churches and organisations.
How thorough will investigation into religious dimension be?
All this comes as a result of the requirement to look into the role of religion.
“4.3 The Inquiry should examine how ethnicity, religion or culture played a role in responses at a local and national level, as well as other issues of denial, as discussed in the National Audit. It will also consider the background (including ethnicity, religion and culture) of perpetrators and victims.”
This is not good enough. The question is not whether religion or culture played a role in the responses, it is whether religion or culture played a role in the abuse itself. It is hardly sufficient merely to consider the religion of perpetrators and victims. There is a fundamental need to investigate the role Islamic teachings have had in motivating, driving and excusing or even justifying the grooming gangs. This must be the first priority when considering the role of religion. Investigating how religion played a role in responses is secondary. Therefore, the inquiry should be looking into mosques and Muslim charities and organisations.
Contrast this with Rev. Dr. Mark Durie’s recent report for Christian Concern on the topic, where he warns that the patterns of behaviour are more linked to Islam than to ethnicity.
Why is the role of religion in motivating the gangs being downplayed?
There is a likely legal reason for the relative silence on religion as the driver of the gangs, namely the ‘moderate’ peaceful redefinition of Islam handed down in 2016 by Justice Haddon-Cave in the case of Shakeel Begg against the BBC. In section 94 of the judgment, Justice Haddon-Cave declared thus:
“It is common ground that Islam is a religion of peace. The Qu’ran is a book of peace.”
It is also significant that the Counter-Extremism Strategy of 2015, later ditched by the Home Office, never mentioned grooming gangs at all.
Another part of the problem here is that the court judgments and transcripts are mostly unavailable for the trials of these gangs. Islam is only mentioned once in one of the ten Sentencing Remarks that have recently been released to the Open Justice UK campaign. In Batley in 2025 the judge told Yusuf Kayat that he had been getting one victim to convert to Islam to pretend that he would marry her.
The almost total lack of mention of Islam from the transcripts raises further questions as to whether the topic has been deliberately sidelined in the criminal justice system altogether. The question is, has the definition of Islam and the Qu’ran as peaceful in Begg v BBC contributed to this state of affairs?
Alternative terms of reference proposed by the Conservatives
The Conservative Party published alternative terms of reference on 8 December, a day before the government’s ones were published. The two paragraphs referring to religion are worthy of special attention:
“(b) To consider any evidence of the propensity for those involved in such networks to exhibit particular religious, ethnic, or national characteristics, including family or clan networks.
(c) Where evidence falling within (b) is discovered, to consider whether any failure to act or investigate suspected cases by State institutions was driven, in any way, by the religious, ethnic, national, family, or clan characteristics of suspects or victims.”
This is an improvement on the government’s terms of reference published a day later. The reason is the requirement to investigate religiously-based family or clan networks as being behind the gangs. Likewise, these alternative terms of reference specify the need to investigate whether failure to act or investigate was driven by consideration of the religion of suspects (Islam) or victims (non-Muslim). In other words, were the authorities that failed to act motivated by not wanting to offend Muslims or fear of being deemed Islamophobic?
Timescale of inquiry
The inquiry is tasked with investigating issues that arose between the 1st of January 2000 and the date it was set up. This roughly coincides with the time since prosecutions have been happening.
The inquiry is to last no longer than three years. The draft terms of reference will be consulted on now, and agreed by March 2026, when the inquiry will be established. This means that it should finish no later than March 2029.
A political balancing act?
The inquiry’s setup and draft terms of reference suggest that the government is involved in a very delicate political balancing act here. It is not clear whether the consultation on them will be public, but we are told the panel will meet with victims and survivors. It is also interesting that the three-year timeframe means the inquiry would finish in March 2029, whereas the Conservatives want it to last only two years. This would be in time for the 2029 general elections. Is this all being timed to favour the Labour Party in the next general elections? The Conservatives seem to want there to be another year before the elections to digest and respond to the findings. The strong pro-Labour bias among the appointees gives real cause for concern about impartiality.
These problems have basically arisen because politics has been put above religion – or indeed worldview – as the basic guide to moral reasoning. No doubt the inquiry will do its very best to investigate failings. However, the draft terms of reference need to be expanded so that the role of religion as a driver in the abuse can be thoroughly investigated, and policies put in place to prevent and forestall further failures. Unless the role of Islamic precepts in the abuse by the gangs is thoroughly investigated, the victims will likely be failed all over again.
