
The grooming gang fallout is only just beginning
Photo by'The findings are here, and they are damning.' This was the assessment of Yvette Cooper in response to Baroness Casey's rapid national audit of the grooming gangs scandal.
As the Home Secretary stood up to make her statement on the Casey report, a group of schoolchildren were hurriedly shepherded out of the public gallery, where they had a moment ago been watching Education Questions. A few stragglers will have heard Cooper speak of the conviction of seven men in Rochdale last Friday for 'treating teenaged girls as sex slaves'. It has, she added, taken 20 years to bring them to justice.
This was the theme of Cooper's statement. As she outlined the recommendations in Casey's 200-page report, which MPs were frenetically skimming during her speech, and confirmed that, despite the Government's insistence to the contrary that there was no need to hold a national public inquiry into this scandal, one would now be launched, she returned again and again to the issue of time. 'Most disturbing of all,' Cooper told MPs, 'is the fact that too many of these findings are not new.' Later, she cited 15 years of reports and reviews: 'We have lost more than a decade.'
This is the message the government will be trying to get across as the backlash from the report – and from the six months of delay since this historic scandal was pushed to the top of the news agenda in January – plays out. The failings listed in such stark terms by Casey, horrific though they are, should not come as a surprise: victims as young as ten repeatedly failed by police and social services; the use of the law to protect adult perpetrators rather than child victims; ethnicity data not collected; calls for mandatory reporting of child sexual violence (which Cooper herself demanded 10 years ago) ignored; a 'deep-rooted failure to treat children as children'.
Cooper attempted to strike an impartial tone, trying (though not always succeeding) to keep the emotion out of her voice as she outlined the steps which had not been taken over the last decade and a half, during almost all of which the Conservatives had been in power. She talked of the House coming together now to right this injustice, as though the cross-party consensus of the horrors in the Casey report could extend to cooperation.
Any such illusion was shattered the moment Kemi Badenoch stood up to respond. It is no surprise the opposition leader chose to take this on herself rather than leave it to her shadow home secretary. There are few issues on which she is more passionate, and few areas on which her attacks against the government land better. 'We all know this is another U-turn,' Badenoch contended, sweeping away Cooper's attempts to deflect the government's abrupt change in stance. Her rhetoric had the frenzied intonation of a religious preacher as she accused the Home Secretary of having been 'dragged' to this new position, and the Prime Minister of 'an extraordinary failure of leadership'.
While the House was hushed in sombre silence while Cooper spoke, the jeers and taunts from both sides while Badenoch was on her feet were grew so aggressive she had to pause and repeat herself as she ran through a list of the three times Labour MPs had voted against the national inquiry the government now supports. Pausing theatrically for a sip of water, she speculated that perhaps the fact these crimes often occurred in Labour-run local authorities was a factor in the government dragging its heels. 'The people out there believe this is why nothing has happened,' Badenoch added slyly, couching her accusation in terms of rumour and public discontent. There were cries of 'shameful' from the Labour benches; Cooper looked pale with anger.
Subscribe to The New Statesman today from only £8.99 per month Subscribe
These are the battlelines to watch as this fight plays out: the Labour government endeavouring to take the heat out of an issue that has exploded on their watch, the Conservatives determined to stoke it. And not just the Conservatives: four Reform MPs were present in the Commons today (though Nigel Farage was absent – as was Rupert Lowe, which is curious given he has been spearheading his own grooming gangs inquiry campaign).
Critics of the government have all the ammunition they need. Cooper all but said it herself: the findings in Casey's report are damning, but they are not new. Starmer and Cooper can argue that they were waiting for the recommendations that they will now implement in full – including an inquiry with statutory powers, new police operations, new ethnicity data and research, and further support for child victims – rather than rushing in with a half-baked response. But this hesitancy has made the government appear bounced into its new position, and as such they have lost much of the moral high ground they had when pointing to the Conservatives' patchy record on the topic.
It is true that Badenoch only seemed to care about this issue once she was out of office and looking for a stick with which to beat the government. It is also true that the government handed that stick right to her.
[See also: The truth about the grooming scandal]
Related

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles

Rhyl Journal
12 minutes ago
- Rhyl Journal
Tearing up strikes law branded ‘recklessness' by Government opponents
In moving to scrap the legislation, introduced by the previous Tory administration, the Government argued it was ineffective, having failed to prevent a single day of industrial action while in force. The Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Act became law back in July 2023 in the face of fierce opposition. The controversial move allowed ministers to impose minimum levels of service during industrial action by ambulance staff, firefighters, railway workers and those in other sectors deemed essential. It was brought in against a backdrop of disruptive strikes in the NHS and on the railway. Labour promised at the time to repeal the legislation if it got into office. Provisions contained in the Employment Rights Bill, currently going through the House of Lords, will deliver on this pledge. The Conservative opposition frontbench has called for a review to assess the impact on the emergency services of ripping up the law. Describing it as 'a public protection measure', Tory shadow business minister Lord Sharpe of Epsom said: 'The truth is that this law has teeth, it provides leverage, and it establishes a legal baseline. 'The Government want to remove it not because it is useless but because it places limits on how far certain interests can allow disruption to stretch.' He added: 'What is the Government's alternative? If we strip away the only existing mechanism for maintaining safe service levels during strikes, what replaces it? Nothing in the Bill offers an equivalent safeguard.' Lord Sharpe went on: 'We are about to discard the only statutory mechanism for ensuring minimum service level provision during strikes… without evidence, without a plan and without a single word of accountability to Parliament. That is not governance; it is recklessness.' But former general secretary of the Trades Union Congress (TUC) and Labour peer Baroness O'Grady of Upper Holloway pointed out the legislation had not been used. She said: 'That was because the Act was so widely regarded as unfair and unworkable and, in addition, that it would put fuel on the fire of difficult industrial disputes when all decent people wanted to resolve those disputes. 'Finally, it ignored the fact that life-and-limb voluntary agreements are in place in the industries and sectors where safety is genuinely at stake.' Conservative peer Baroness Noakes said: 'I accept that those in the party opposite, throughout the passage of that Bill, registered their strong opposition to it. 'So I understand that, in power, they seek to expunge it from the statute book. However, that is a grave mistake that ignores the needs of ordinary citizens and places unions above the needs of ordinary citizens.' Fellow Conservative peer Baroness Lawlor said repealing the legislation would appear to many 'as an irresponsible act of Government'. Responding, Labour minister Lord Leong said scrapping the strikes law had been an election manifesto commitment. He told peers: 'It has not prevented a single day of industrial action but has contributed to industrial unrest. 'Before the Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Act 2023, most industrial action was consulted on, and voluntary agreements were put in place for minimum service levels in the interests of security. The system worked perfectly, so I do not see why this Act should be in place.' In reply, Lord Sharpe said: 'All we have done is ask for the Government to pause and consider the real-world consequences of repealing a law that was designed to protect public safety during times of industrial action.' He added: 'There is no analysis of outcomes, no tracking of safety impacts, no consultation findings and no plan for what replaces the protections that they are so eager to tear down. In short, there is no case, just conviction without content.'


South Wales Guardian
27 minutes ago
- South Wales Guardian
Tearing up strikes law branded ‘recklessness' by Government opponents
In moving to scrap the legislation, introduced by the previous Tory administration, the Government argued it was ineffective, having failed to prevent a single day of industrial action while in force. The Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Act became law back in July 2023 in the face of fierce opposition. The controversial move allowed ministers to impose minimum levels of service during industrial action by ambulance staff, firefighters, railway workers and those in other sectors deemed essential. It was brought in against a backdrop of disruptive strikes in the NHS and on the railway. Labour promised at the time to repeal the legislation if it got into office. Provisions contained in the Employment Rights Bill, currently going through the House of Lords, will deliver on this pledge. The Conservative opposition frontbench has called for a review to assess the impact on the emergency services of ripping up the law. Describing it as 'a public protection measure', Tory shadow business minister Lord Sharpe of Epsom said: 'The truth is that this law has teeth, it provides leverage, and it establishes a legal baseline. 'The Government want to remove it not because it is useless but because it places limits on how far certain interests can allow disruption to stretch.' He added: 'What is the Government's alternative? If we strip away the only existing mechanism for maintaining safe service levels during strikes, what replaces it? Nothing in the Bill offers an equivalent safeguard.' Lord Sharpe went on: 'We are about to discard the only statutory mechanism for ensuring minimum service level provision during strikes… without evidence, without a plan and without a single word of accountability to Parliament. That is not governance; it is recklessness.' But former general secretary of the Trades Union Congress (TUC) and Labour peer Baroness O'Grady of Upper Holloway pointed out the legislation had not been used. She said: 'That was because the Act was so widely regarded as unfair and unworkable and, in addition, that it would put fuel on the fire of difficult industrial disputes when all decent people wanted to resolve those disputes. 'Finally, it ignored the fact that life-and-limb voluntary agreements are in place in the industries and sectors where safety is genuinely at stake.' Conservative peer Baroness Noakes said: 'I accept that those in the party opposite, throughout the passage of that Bill, registered their strong opposition to it. 'So I understand that, in power, they seek to expunge it from the statute book. However, that is a grave mistake that ignores the needs of ordinary citizens and places unions above the needs of ordinary citizens.' Fellow Conservative peer Baroness Lawlor said repealing the legislation would appear to many 'as an irresponsible act of Government'. Responding, Labour minister Lord Leong said scrapping the strikes law had been an election manifesto commitment. He told peers: 'It has not prevented a single day of industrial action but has contributed to industrial unrest. 'Before the Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Act 2023, most industrial action was consulted on, and voluntary agreements were put in place for minimum service levels in the interests of security. The system worked perfectly, so I do not see why this Act should be in place.' In reply, Lord Sharpe said: 'All we have done is ask for the Government to pause and consider the real-world consequences of repealing a law that was designed to protect public safety during times of industrial action.' He added: 'There is no analysis of outcomes, no tracking of safety impacts, no consultation findings and no plan for what replaces the protections that they are so eager to tear down. In short, there is no case, just conviction without content.'


Powys County Times
28 minutes ago
- Powys County Times
British involvement in Iran-Israel conflict could end up like Iraq War, MPs warn
MPs have warned against the Government becoming embroiled in the conflict between Israel and Iran, as they said any involvement could have the same results as the Iraq War. Labour and Liberal Democrat MPs said Britain should be wary of any involvement, as they compared it to the British invasion of Saddam Hussein's country in 2003. Intelligence on Tehran's nuclear capabilities was treated with scepticism, as one MP said the Commons should have a vote on whether to engage in any military action. It came as Foreign Secretary David Lammy said any British nationals in Israel should register with the Foreign Office, so they can receive information about how to leave the country. He said it was tougher to help British nationals in Iran due to the closed airspace. The Government has long-issued 'do not travel' advice to the country. He also said the UK had had no role in Israel's counter-strikes. Liberal Democrat MP Al Pinkerton (Surrey Heath) drew a comparison with the Tony Blair-era conflict. He said: 'A despotic Middle Eastern dictatorship, a rogue state, a terrorist state perilously close to achieving a weapon of mass destruction so serious that it could disrupt the entire region. 'Members, as well as the public listening at home, may hear echoes of 2003 in that description of current events. 'And with talk of regime change again in the air, can I ask the Foreign Secretary what he is going to do to personally talk back the authorities in Jerusalem, in Israel, because what they're doing at the moment strikes me as providing the Iranian regime with the best possible propaganda tool that they could possibly have.' Mr Lammy said: 'He's right to emphasise in his words a degree of caution. 'He will have heard what I said in the House this afternoon, which forms the bedrock of diplomacy that our officials are exercising in Israel, in Iran, and across the wider region.' Labour's Barry Gardiner (Brent West) asked the Foreign Secretary what he had done to get information from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to get a fuller picture of Iran's nuclear capabilities. He said: 'The failure to get transparent information from UNSCOM (United Nations Special Commission) and UNMOVIC (United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission) caused untold damage 22 years ago.' Mr Lammy said he had spoken to director general Rafael Grossi last week. Meanwhile his party colleague Abtisam Mohamed (Sheffield Central) asked: 'Given that Israel's claims have been challenged, even by US intelligence assessments, can the Foreign Secretary assure this House that no UK military support, whether direct or indirect, will be given without the clear and explicit consent of this House and that this Government has learnt the hard lessons of Iraq and Libya and will not repeat them?' Mr Lammy said: 'Categorically, the UK is not involved in Israel strikes.' He added: 'We do have an important regional role. We have UK assets, of course, in Cyprus, we have them in Bahrain, we have them in Qatar, and we have a role, an important role in Operation Shader, where we're dealing from terrible threats to us and our allies from Daesh and other things.' It came as MPs said they feared the conflict between Israel and Iran would distract from Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's forces' actions against Palestinians in Gaza. The Commons heard renewed calls for the Palestinian state to be recognised, as a UN summit in New York has been delayed by the hostilities between Jerusalem and Tehran. Conservative MP Kit Malthouse (North West Hampshire) said: 'The Foreign Secretary said he was keeping his eye on Gaza. 'I'm not quite sure what that means. 'It's certainly the case that the eye of the world has been drawn to the footage that emerged as the missiles have flown of young children shot and bleeding out their lives in the sands of Gaza. 'As he said, 50 people hospitalised over the weekend or shot dead while begging for food. 'And just this morning, 38 people killed while queuing for food, or attempting to obtain food from the new American-sponsored distribution system. 'What comfort should all those bereaved families in Gaza take from the fact that he is keeping his eye on this situation?' Mr Lammy said he had met the family of a hostage who was killed by the terror group Hamas on Monday morning, who asked him to keep Gaza 'at the forefront of my mind'. He added: 'We are absolutely clear that the aid needs to get in, that those hostages need to get out, and we want to see a ceasefire.'