Louise Casey to appear before MPs after major review of child grooming failures
The author of the major review into grooming gangs which found authorities have 'shied away' from the ethnicity of sex offenders will face questions from MPs.
Baroness Louise Casey will appear before the Commons Home Affairs Committee on Tuesday morning, after the Government set out plans to launch a new nationwide inquiry into grooming gangs following her rapid review of the scandal.
Home Secretary Yvette Cooper claimed officials have dodged the issue of ethnicity among the groups of sex offenders for fear of being called racist, even though available data showed suspects were disproportionately likely to be Asian men.
Speaking in the Commons on Monday as the review was published, the Home Secretary said 'much more robust national data is needed' on the ethnicity of offenders, adding that the authorities 'cannot and must not shy away from these findings'.
Doing so would allow 'the criminality and depravity of a minority of men to be used to marginalise whole communities', she added.
Lady Casey's report found that: 'The appalling lack of data on ethnicity in crime recording alone is a major failing over the last decade or more. Questions about ethnicity have been asked but dodged for years.'
It added: 'We found that the ethnicity of perpetrators is shied away from and is still not recorded for two-thirds of perpetrators, so we are unable to provide any accurate assessment from the nationally collected data.'
Multiple convictions of men from Asian ethnic backgrounds should have 'warranted closer examination', it said, adding: 'Instead of examination, we have seen obfuscation. In a vacuum, incomplete and unreliable data is used to suit the ends of those presenting it.'
Former Tory government adviser Dominic Cummings meanwhile claimed in an interview with Sky News that officials from the Department for Education were supportive of Rotherham Council's suggestion of going to court in 2011 to prevent the Times' initial reporting of the scandal in Rotherham.
Lord Michael Gove, then the education secretary, rejected the request for a judicial review on Mr Cummings' advice, the broadcaster reported.
Ms Cooper said the Government would take action 'immediately' on all of Lady Casey's recommendations, after Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer committed to launching a national inquiry into the abuse.
The recommendations included:
– Making it mandatory to collect ethnicity and nationality data of all suspects in child sexual abuse cases
– A new national inquiry into child sexual abuse with statutory legal powers, which will co-ordinate the efforts of local investigations led by councils and set out 'strict timescales' for them to follow.
– A nationwide National Crime Agency operation, targeting people who have sexually exploited children, and following up on an estimated more than 1,000 cold cases where no one was convicted.
– A change in the law so that all adult sex with under-16s is considered rape.
– A review of criminal records held by victims of child sexual exploitation.
In the Commons, Ms Cooper 'unequivocally' apologised for the failings which had led to grooming and child sexual abuse.
The Home Secretary also pledged to exclude convicted sex offenders from the asylum system, while the report warned 'a significant proportion' of live investigations into grooming gangs 'appear to involve suspects who are non-UK nationals and/or who are claiming asylum in the UK'.
In her report, Lady Casey said it is time to draw a line in the sand and take action over the issue, which she called 'one of the most heinous crimes in our society'.
She also urged opposition politicians not to use the scandal as a 'political football', adding there was a chance to 'create a national reset'.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Mail
an hour ago
- Daily Mail
How Trump's pride and joy is set to cause 13,000 preventable deaths... are you at risk?
Health experts are sounding the alarm over the president's One Big Beautiful Bill, estimating the proposed cuts to government-funded health insurance could lead to the needless deaths of thousands. The bill, which is expected to be passed July 4, would slash Medicaid coverage, reimbursement and funding by $793 billion over 10 years, as well as implement restrictive requirements for benefits. This gutting of the federal insurance program is estimated to have big implications for the 71 million people enrolled in Medicaid. Now, an in-depth study led by Dr Adam Gaffney, an assistant professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, concluded it could undermine the coverage, financial well-being, medical care, and health of low-income Americans, resulting in up to 12,600 medically preventable deaths annually. And an even higher mounting death toll would occur off the back of necessary healthcare services being reduced for vulnerable populations. This could include, for instance, those battling chronic conditions like heart disease, HIV, and cancer, who rely on regular, low-cost medication and treatment. Supporters of the bill say it will cut taxes, help boost the economy and increase take-home pay. But critics argue the bill primarily benefits the wealthy and could lead to increased national debt. The researchers warn: 'Today, despite its many shortcomings, Medicaid enjoys wide support from the electorate and serves as the foundation of the nation's health care safety net. 'The cuts under consideration, intended to offset the cost of tax cuts that would predominantly benefit wealthier Americans, would strip care from millions and likely lead to thousands of medically preventable deaths.' Researchers identified six potential Medicaid cuts that the House of Representatives ' Budget Committee estimates would each reduce the federal government's Medicaid outlays by at least $100billion over 10 years. They include reduction of the Medicaid matching floor; reduced funding of the Affordable Care Act's Medicaid Expansion; Medicaid per capita caps; Medicaid work requirements; reduced Medicaid provider taxes; and repeal of the Biden-era Medicaid eligibility rule. The measure includes exceptions for those who are under 19 or over 64, those with disabilities, pregnant women, main caregivers for young children, people recently released from prisons or jails or during certain emergencies. It would apply only to adults who receive Medicaid through expansions that 40 states chose to undertake as part of the 2010 health insurance overhaul, which expanded eligibility and created a national minimum income threshold. The team also assessed the overall effects of the current House bill, which includes three of the six options along with multiple smaller policy changes, such as shortening the duration of Medicaid's retroactive coverage and increasing cost-sharing for some Medicaid enrollees. The researchers project that individually, these six Medicaid cuts would lead to an annual increase of between 651 and 12,626 medically preventable deaths. These cuts would increase the number of uninsured Americans by between 600,000 and 3.9 million, and the annual number of people foregoing needed medical care will range from 129,060 to 838,890. It could lead to 1.9 million people losing their personal doctor, 1.3 million foregoing needed medications and 380,270 women going without a mammogram. The authors assert that policy makers should weigh the likely health and financial harms to patients and providers of reducing Medicaid expenditures against the desirability of tax reductions, which would benefit mostly wealthy Americans. Under the current proposal, childless adults without disabilities who want Medicaid coverage would have to prove that they had worked, volunteered or attended school for 80 hours in the month enrolling. But if you have a medically diagnosed illness or disability that prevents you from working, you may be exempt from Medicaid work requirements. This exemption falls under the category of being 'medically frail' or having 'special medical needs'. Many details of the bill have yet to be ironed out, leaving beneficiaries with a host of unknowns and causing worry that their illnesses might not be enough to exempt them from the work requirements. Advocates and sick and disabled enrollees also worry that even those who might be exempted from work requirements under the law could still lose benefits because of increased or hard-to-meet paperwork mandates. A tracking poll conducted by health policy research firm Kaiser Fund Foundation in May found that the enrollees come from across the political spectrum, including those who voted for Trump. About one-fourth are Republicans; roughly one-third are Democrats. The poll found that about seven in 10 adults are worried that federal spending reductions on Medicaid will lead to more uninsured people and would strain health care providers in their area. About half said they were worried reductions would hurt the ability of them or their family to get and pay for health care. Amaya Diana, an analyst at KFF, points to work requirements launched in Arkansas and Georgia as keeping people off Medicaid without increasing employment. Amber Bellazaire, a policy analyst at the Michigan League for Public Policy, said the process to verify that Medicaid enrollees meet the work requirements could be a key reason people would be denied or lose eligibility. 'Massive coverage losses just due to an administrative burden rather than ineligibility is a significant concern,' she said. Republicans have suggested a work requirement similar to the conditions for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program - food stamps. Those ages 16 to 59 must work or volunteer at least 80 hours a month if they are not in school, caring for a child under age six, disabled, pregnant or homeless. Republicans say, however, the requirement could motivate people to find employment — maybe even a job that comes with health insurance. Other cuts on the table include a proposal to change TO the federal government's reimbursement, which would shift the costs to states, forcing them to make tough choices about who or what they cover. Joan Alker, executive director of the Georgetown Center for Children and Families, SAID: 'People still have health care needs even if you cut their coverage. Their health care needs are not going to go away.'
South Wales Argus
3 hours ago
- South Wales Argus
Welsh transport secretary reviews Raglan A40 junction
Welsh Government cabinet secretary for transport and north Wales, Ken Skates, visited Monmouthshire to review the A40 junction at Raglan, following repeated calls for action from residents and politicians. The visit included a site inspection and a formal meeting with stakeholders in Raglan. South Wales East MS Laura Anne Jones described the meeting as 'really useful and productive,' and said: "It seems we can achieve some improvements over the next year – 'quick wins' – that will, until a more permanent solution is found, be of some comfort to the Raglan and surrounding areas community." Peter Fox, MS for Monmouth, said: "I am very happy to see the cabinet secretary here in my constituency, to listen to our concerns and to see the problem first hand." Monmouthshire County Council said it welcomed the recent introduction of a 50mph speed limit, but believes further short-term measures are needed to improve safety. The council said: "While we are pleased to see our request for the 50mph on this stretch introduced, we believe implementing additional short-term measures could further support safety. "However, while average speeds have been reduced, compliance is not universal, and the South Wales Trunk Roads Agency has agreed to look at additional measures in the short term. "Monmouthshire County Council will continue to explore what measures within our control can also be implemented." The council said it remains 'committed' to working with partners including the Welsh Government on the situation.
Glasgow Times
3 hours ago
- Glasgow Times
Ignore 'hysteria' around Loch Lomond Flamingo Land, says developer
Lomond Banks – owned by theme park operator Flamingo Land – has proposed to build more than 100 lodges, two hotels, a water park, monorail and parking spaces for more than 300 cars at the site, on the southern shores of the loch at Balloch, West Dunbartonshire. Last week, the Scottish Government took the decision to call in the application, which had been given the green light by a Government reporter despite heavy backlash from campaigners. The reporter elected to approve the application, subject to 49 conditions, despite the unanimous rejection of the Loch Lomond and Trossachs National Park authority and objections from the Woodland Trust, the National Trust for Scotland and the Scottish Environmental Protection Agency (Sepa). Minister Ivan McKee had previously ruled out an intervention on the issue but, last week, said the decision was of 'national significance'. The decision came 24 hours before a motion tabled by Labour deputy leader Dame Jackie Baillie was due for a vote, with the motion passing unanimously. On Monday, Lomond Banks development director Jim Paterson said the firm was 'extremely disappointed' MSPs had voted last week to force the application to be called. 'We have engaged with the planning process in good faith, following every regulation and expectation set by the National Park and Scotland's new national planning framework,' he said. 'The land in question has been allocated for sustainable tourism development for decades, a fact acknowledged by the DPEA (Planning and Environmental Appeals Division) reporter. 'To have this long-established planning context disregarded at the 11th hour raises serious questions not only about the integrity and consistency of the Scottish planning system, but also about Scotland as an investment destination.' The director went on to urge ministers to back the proposals. 'We now call on all ministers, especially the planning minister, to uphold the integrity of the planning system,' he said. 'This process must remain impartial and evidence-led, not subjected to political opportunism or pressure campaigns built on misinformation. 'The rules must apply fairly and equally to all, or public trust in the system will be irreparably damaged. 'We urge the Scottish Government to see through the hysteria and consider not just the facts of this proposal, but the precedent it sets for all future investment in Scotland.' Paterson accused opponents of the development – spearheaded by Scottish Green MSP Ross Greer – of a 'sensationalist and misleading campaign' full of 'mistruths and inaccuracies'. Contrary to the 150,000 people who signed a petition to halt the plans, and the 50,000 who wrote to the Scottish Government to intervene, Paterson claimed the project has 'strong local support'. 'Anyone genuinely interested in the views of the Scottish people need only look at the widespread positive engagement on social media and elsewhere, reflecting a clear desire for sustainable, year-round economic activity and job creation,' he said. According to a study commissioned by Lomond Banks, 200 jobs would be created in the area, 80 full-time and 120 part-time or seasonal, though the study suggested a net of just 61 jobs would result from the £43.5 million development. Paterson also took issue with the description of Flamingo Land as a 'Yorkshire company'. 'Flamingo Land is a Scottish-registered business, incorporated in 1973, and all taxable profits are retained within Scotland,' he said. The company is registered at an address in Uddingston, South Lanarkshire, but its key site is in Yorkshire, with all three of the firm's active directors on Companies House being based south of the border. Greer accused the developer of being 'desperate', adding that the company 'have treated the people of Balloch with complete contempt' and claiming multiple surveys have shown local opposition to the plans. 'Flamingo Land would rather throw accusations around than address the many, many ways in which their mega-resort would be a disaster for the National Park,' he said. 'The evidence all points one way – the Scottish Government must reject this application and save Loch Lomond.'
