PM announces full inquiry into grooming gangs after resisting calls for probe
The Government has for months held off launching a statutory probe, saying its focus was on implementing the outstanding recommendations already made in a seven-year national inquiry by Professor Alexis Jay, which found institutional failings and tens of thousands of victims across England and Wales.
But speaking to reporters travelling with him on his visit to Canada, the Prime Minister said: 'From the start I have always said that we should implement the recommendations we have got because we have got many other recommendations… I think there are 200 when you take all of the reviews that have gone on at every level and we have got to get on with implementing them.
'I have never said we should not look again at any issue. I have wanted to be assured that on the question of any inquiry. That's why I asked Louise Casey who I hugely respect to do an audit.
'Her position when she started the audit was that there was not a real need for a national inquiry over and above what was going on.
'She has looked at the material she has looked at and she has come to the view that there should be a national inquiry on the basis of what she has seen.
'I have read every single word of her report and I am going to accept her recommendation. That is the right thing to do on the basis of what she has put in her audit.
'I asked her to do that job to double check on this; she has done that job for me and having read her report, I respect her in any event. I shall now implement her recommendations.'
Asked when it would be launched, Sir Keir said the inquiry would be implemented under the Inquiries Act, which will take 'a bit of time to sort out' and would be done in 'an orderly way'.
The issue of grooming gangs was thrown back into the spotlight after tech billionaire Elon Musk used his X social media platform to launch a barrage of attacks on Prime Minister Sir Keir and safeguarding minister Jess Phillips.
It followed the Government's decision to decline a request from Oldham Council for a Whitehall-led inquiry into child sexual abuse in the town.
Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch, who has repeatedly attacked Sir Keir over his resistance to another national probe, said the Prime Minister had to be 'led by the nose to make the correct decision'.
'Keir Starmer doesn't know what he thinks unless an official report has told him so,' she said.
'Just like he dismissed concerns about the winter fuel payment and then had to U-turn, just like he needed the Supreme Court to tell him what a woman is, he had to be led by the nose to make the correct decision here.
'I've been repeatedly calling for a full National Inquiry since January. It's about time he recognised he made a mistake and apologised for six wasted months.
'But this must not be the end of the matter. There are many, many more questions that need answering to ensure this inquiry is done properly and quickly.
'Many survivors of the grooming gangs will be relieved that this is finally happening, but they need a resolution soon not in several years' time. Justice delayed is justice denied.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Guardian
an hour ago
- The Guardian
Angela Rayner on lessons learned from Labour's first year
Pippa Crerar and Kiran Stacey speak to Angela Rayner about Labour's first year in government and the challenges ahead. The deputy prime minister reveals the issue that keeps her awake at night, reflects on why voters are frustrated with Labour, what she thinks the party can do about it, and how it's planning to take the fight to Reform
The National
an hour ago
- The National
How pension savings could be an indy Scotland's ‘wealth fund'
A national pension fund (NPF) would be a large mutual fund owned by Scottish citizens as distinct from a state-owned sovereign wealth fund. It could be established in law based on mandatory 'auto-enrolment' of all new employees starting work for the first time, with all employers and employees paying contributions into the fund. These contributions would provide entitlement to an earnings-related pension but would also build up a large fund that could be invested to support the Scottish economy and the execution of Scottish Government industrial strategy. READ MORE: Man arrested for 'carrying a placard calling Donald Trump an offensive word' We need to be clear that pension savings give rise to future financial claims upon the resources and productive capacity of the economy. Unless the economy is capable of meeting the needs of everyone in the future, we are storing up a crisis and conflict over access to goods and services. Pension savings need to be used primarily to support the productive capacity of the economy instead of being allocated for speculation in financial markets. The NPF would quickly build into a substantial fund. The contributions made by new employees would not be drawn down to pay pensions for 40 years or more. Once established, existing workers could be offered the option of transferring in their second pensions. For those with defined contribution pensions, there would be a strong incentive as transferring into the NPF would give them rights to an earnings-related pension. Transfers in would increase the size of the NPF even further. The fund would need to be structured so that there was a 'buffer fund' of cash available to meet operating costs and pay out pension benefits. Workers who had transferred in would reach retirement age earlier than the founding auto-enrolled membership, so after a few years the NPF would need a certain amount of available cash to pay pension benefits. Funds in excess of that required to maintain a buffer fund (Fund A) could be allocated for productive investment. Fund B could be designated for investment in government and corporate bonds, a liquid form of financial asset that can be quickly redeemed for cash if necessary to supplement the buffer fund. Fund C could be allocated for direct investment in infrastructure and in the form of partnerships with businesses, giving the NPF direct equity stakes in individual companies. This fund would play a central role in giving the general public a direct stake in business and infrastructure and form the basis of what could be described as 'mutual capitalism'. Fund D would allocate any remaining funds in tradeable shares with an emphasis on the holding of shares in Scottish companies and taking stakes in foreign companies operating in Scotland. Funds C and D would contribute to the process of taking back control and ownership of our national assets and resources. Funds B and D would rely on there being a Scottish Stock Exchange to facilitate their activities. The funds of the NPF could be enhanced further by allocating revenues derived from the management of Scotland's resources. Initially this might be limited to tax revenues, for example from foreign companies operating in the energy sector. However, over time, as Scotland regains ownership and control over our own resources, the higher revenues could also be used to supplement the funds of the NPF in addition to the share of profits the NPF derives from direct investments in infrastructure and equity partnerships. A NPF would constitute a strategically important part of Scotland's future financial architecture and its evolution would have a significant impact on the Scottish asset management industry. A substantial shrinkage of that industry would be likely, but that would be compensated for with the creation of highly skilled, well-paid jobs needed to drive the successful business partnerships which are central to the NPF's purpose as an investor. The administration of an earnings-related pension system, of which the NPF would be a critical part, would also create well-paid jobs in activities such as financial advice, IT systems development and co-ordination with the tax and welfare systems and related government departments. In out next column I will outline how the NPF could be designed as a provider of earnings-related pensions for all Scottish citizens, integrated with a new state earnings-related pension.
Daily Record
an hour ago
- Daily Record
John Swinney says an SNP majority at Holyrood is needed for a second independence referendum
EXCLUSIVE: The First Minister has laid out his plan to secure another referendum after the first vote in 2014. John Swinney has declared the SNP will need to win a Holyrood majority next year to secure a second independence referendum. In a major shift, the First Minister has moved away from Nicola Sturgeon's position of claiming a majority of SNP and Green MSPs is enough for indyref2. He will table a motion to his party's conference arguing that the SNP winning outright is the mechanism for triggering another referendum. Sturgeon's SNP fell short of winning on their own in 2021, but she demanded indyref2 after her party and the pro-independence Greens won a majority of MSPs. Westminster knocked back her call and the Supreme Court later ruled that indyref2 is outwith Holyrood's powers. Swinney will now go back to the approach of former SNP First Minister Alex Salmond fourteen years ago. Salmond secured an outright majority for the SNP at the 2011 Holyrood election, a result that led to a joint agreement with the UK Government on a referendum. In his column for the Daily Record, Swinney wrote: 'For us to achieve that independence, the first step is to secure a legal referendum recognised by all. In 2011 we secured that reliable and dependable route when the SNP achieved a majority of seats at Holyrood. 'That is the only mechanism that has been proven to deliver such a vote - so that is what we need to deliver again. 'That is why I have submitted a motion to the SNP conference proposing that we work to deliver a majority of SNP MSPs in the Scottish Parliament to secure that referendum on Independence. 'The SNP has high ambitions for Scotland, and we must be bold to deliver on those ambitions. We must be ready to follow the path which we know can lead us to an independent state.' Swinney has been under pressure to produce a route map and strategy for delivering independence. Senior activists believe the Supreme Court decision created a vacuum that the Scottish Government has struggled to fill. A senior SNP source said the Government still believed an SNP/Green majority 'should' be enough for indyref2, but the experience of the past four years showed 'this is not going to happen'. The insider claimed the new position is a 'pragmatic' change based on an outcome the pro-UK parties could not ignore. Swinney's Record column also underlines his personal commitment to a referendum as the route to independence. Some independence activists believe an SNP majority at either Holyrood or Westminster is enough to deliver independence without another vote. The source said Swinney is firmly of the view there must be a referendum. Scottish Lib Dem leader Alex Cole-Hamilton said: "At last year's election the SNP took an all mighty beating because people were tired of them obsessing over one issue. It seems like John Swinney is a glutton for punishment. "Perhaps rather than focusing on what the SNP membership cares about, he should focus on what the country needs. The health service and the state of our schools has been neglected for too long because all the SNP care about is breaking up the UK." Scottish Tory Deputy Leader Rachael Hamilton said: ' John Swinney is like a broken record on this divisive issue. He should stop trying to placate the fanatics in his own party and accept the fact that most Scots firmly rejected the SNP 's plans to break up the UK and have no desire to revisit them. 'Instead, he should be trying to repair the immense damage his party's policies have inflicted on Scotland's economy and essential services such as our schools and NHS.'
