PARLIAMENTARY DEBATE
Rape Gangs: National Statutory Inquiry - 21 October 2025 (Commons/Commons Chamber)

(Urgent Question): To ask the Home Secretary to make a statement on the recent criticism of the statutory inquiry into the rape gang scandal.

As stated in my previous statement to the House on 2 September and in my letter to the Home Affairs Committee yesterday, the Government remain resolute in delivering Baroness Casey’s recommendations following her national audit of group-based child sexual exploitation and abuse. These crimes committed by grooming gangs are among the most horrific imaginable. Baroness Casey’s report exposed more than a decade of institutional inaction, and we are determined to ensure that such failures are never repeated.

Central to our response is a statutory national inquiry under the Inquiries Act 2005. It will oversee local investigations and will have full powers to compel evidence. It will also be time-limited to three years to ensure that victims and survivors receive answers swiftly. The inquiry will examine safeguarding systems, accountability and intersections with ethnicity, race and culture, identifying failures and good practice. The inquiry will work alongside Operation Beaconport, a national police operation.

The appointment of the chair is at a critical stage, and we hope to confirm its conclusion soon. Victims and survivors have been at the heart of the process, with trauma-informed opportunities to share their views. We have engaged with them on the chair appointment and the terms of reference, which will be shaped by the chair in public consultation with stakeholders. As has been widely reported in the media, victims and survivors are meeting prospective chairs this week—today, in fact. This process, contrary to the reporting, was managed not by the Home Office but by the independent child exploitation charity NWG Network. We are gathering views to ensure that the perspective of victims and survivors remains central.

We must avoid delays, as were seen in the independent inquiry into child sexual abuse, and we are progressing as swiftly as thoroughness allows. Misinformation undermines this process. Allegations of intentional delay, lack of interest and a widening or dilution of the inquiry’s scope are false. The inquiry will remain laser-focused on grooming gangs, as Baroness Casey recommended.

This scandal arose because young, mainly white girls were systematically gang-raped and it was covered up by those in authority because the perpetrators were mainly of Pakistani origin. It is all the more shocking that when calls for a national inquiry became public in January, the Prime Minister smeared campaigners as

“jumping on a far-right bandwagon”.

Comments like that are a disgrace and are what led to this scandal being covered up in the first place. Months later, just two days before facing a vote in Parliament, the Government finally agreed to the inquiry, but it is clear that they never wanted this inquiry and were forced into it. Perhaps that is why, months later, the Government have said nothing substantive publicly and their inquiry is descending into chaos.

What we have heard publicly is that victims and survivors on the liaison panel have no confidence in the Government or the inquiry. In the last 24 hours alone, two have resigned. Fiona Goddard resigned from the panel, saying that

“the secretive conduct and conditions imposed on survivors”

—by the Government—

“has led to a toxic, fearful environment, and there is a high risk of people feeling silenced all over again.”

Hours later, Ellie-Ann Reynolds also resigned, saying that the remit of the inquiry had been widened to

“downplay the racial and religious motivations behind our abuse.”

The Minister shakes her head, but that is what Ellie-Ann Reynolds said.

Fiona also raised the issue of Sabah Kaiser, who has been acting as a liaison officer on behalf of NWG. Just two years ago, Ms Kaiser described calling out the fact that the majority of perpetrators were of Pakistani heritage as “destructive, distracting, irresponsible”. Given those frankly appalling views and the complaints about them by survivors, will the Minister ensure that Ms Kaiser plays no further role?

Victims and survivors have also questioned the suitability of former police officers or social workers to chair the inquiry. They do not believe that people from the professions that failed them so badly are suitable. Will the Minister accept this feedback and appoint a judge to lead the inquiry? Will the Minister confirm that the scope of the inquiry will not be diluted, as both Fiona and Ellie-Ann say is now happening, and that it will focus on the cover-up of the rape gangs scandal because of the fact that the majority of perpetrators were of Pakistani origin?

Finally, Fiona said this yesterday:

“I just won’t be gagged and controlled by the Government while they turn this inquiry into a cover up.”

Will the Minister apologise to Fiona and Ellie-Ann?

The right hon. Gentleman cannot have listened to my remarks at all if he is suggesting that the Government have silenced anybody. The Government have not handled the process; it has been handled by a grooming gang charity. He cited and named a victim of crime.

If the right hon. Gentleman had done anywhere near the level of work that I have done, he would know that not all victims and survivors are of the same opinion. They are not one homogeneous group of people who all think the same thing, who all want the same exposure and who all want their identities known. I have spoken to Fiona Goddard many times, and I will continue that relationship with her, should that be what she wishes. Every single survivor who has been engaged with—there have been many—will have different feelings on the subject.

With regard to the right hon. Gentleman requiring a judge, Baroness Casey said to the House in the Home Affairs Committee that she did not want a traditional judicial-led inquiry. She was explicit about that. Can anyone in the House find me an institution that did not fail these girls over the years? That includes our courts, which took children away from the grooming gang victims and which criminalised some of them. There is no institution in our country that has not failed.

Today, I will meet many of the victims and get their feedback, and I will continue to progress with that in mind. I will engage with all the victims, regardless of their opinions, and I will listen to those who have been put in the media and are put in panels. I will always listen, and I will speak to all of them.

Oldham has stepped forward to take on a local inquiry, and it has been waiting to understand what the move to the national inquiry means for its work. The same is true of victims and survivors, whose bravery and strength in the most difficult circumstances have been truly remarkable. What arrangements have been put in place to ensure that there is a clear front door, offering support that is fully independent of councils and police forces? While local deep dives are clearly essential, can we have an assurance that if the evidence takes an investigation beyond council and police force boundaries, it will be followed to the fullest extent?

I will not be chairing the inquiry, so I can only say to my hon. Friend that the terms of reference—I am not sure this is usual—will be consulted on in public. That is because of the issue of bad faith and the concern about transparency. The remit of the inquiry will be decided by the chair, living within those terms of reference. Having been part of various different inquiries or watched them from a distance, I know that no stone will be left unturned. Whoever chairs the inquiry will feel empowered to do what they think is best.

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

It has been four months and longer since the Home Office announced the national statutory inquiry into group-based child sexual exploitation. I know that Ministers will have wanted quicker progress. We on the Liberal Democrat Benches do, too. We still have no chair, no terms of reference and, most importantly, no justice for the victims who have already waited years. Now, two members of the victims and survivors liaison panel have stepped down after raising concerns about shortlisted chairs. They seem to have lost confidence in the process before it has begun.

The Home Office must listen to and act on the concerns of victims—I know that the Minister will agree—and get the inquiry off the ground. That is the only way to ensure that it proceeds with integrity and the trust of those it is meant to serve.

Now is the time to prioritise justice and prevention over political point scoring—I know that the Minister will agree with me on that, too—because this is an extremely sensitive matter, particularly for the victims. Will the Minister commit to publishing the terms of reference along with full details of the inquiry’s budget and staffing and a timeline by the end of the month? If not to that deadline, when will that be published?

I thank the hon. Gentleman for both his tone and his approach. As per the Inquiries Act 2005, the terms of reference have to be set and consulted on with the chair. The chair is being decided on.

I have to say, it is not taking any longer than the covid inquiry or the infected blood inquiry, which I think each took seven months from their announcement to the appointment of the chair. I do not remember huge amounts of criticism or bellyaching about that, because we wanted to get those things right. Actually, getting this right means dealing with lots of different stakeholders and victims with different views. The process has to be followed that the terms of reference go through the chair. We have already done some of the work on the terms of reference with victims’ groups, but we cannot publish those—we will do that publicly, as I said—until a chair is appointed. I will not rush that, because I will take note of all the feedback I receive.

Today, the Government have announced that they will take parental responsibility away where a child is born of rape. That will protect grooming victims. Children in this country will no longer be the only proceed of crime that criminals can have lifelong access to. Does the Minister agree that survivors were failed for too long by a Conservative Government who did not prioritise giving them justice? That party is led by the Leader of the Opposition, who did not mention grooming when she had the power to do something about it. Instead, survivors have had to wait for victims and activists to be on the Government Benches, and for the fiercest of advocates to be at the Dispatch Box.

I thank my hon. Friend. I think she mischaracterises me as the fiercest of advocates because she, as a grooming victim, with a child born of rape, is the fiercest and bravest. I could cry, I feel so proud that the Government sought to get her elected. I have been campaigning for the thing she has fought for with grooming gang victims for nearly a decade. I met with Ministers of the then Government and nothing was done. [Interruption.] The exact thing that she has campaigned for was asked for repeatedly and nothing was done. I am incredibly proud of her, as it is because of her and this Government that today I can say that that will change.

I have a copy of the Government’s response to the developments last night addressed to the Home Affairs Committee, and I find the response completely unacceptable. Are the Government seriously implying that Fiona and Ellie, who have been disbelieved and called liars by the British state their entire lives, are spreading “misinformation” about a process they have been directly involved in? That would be a deeply damaging thing for any Government to imply.

Worse, there is a line in the letter about the Government’s proposed inquiry in Oldham that says that the Government

“have been in discussions with Oldham Council about the right approach for Oldham”.

How can that possibly be right? How can the Home Office discuss the right approach with the very local authorities being investigated? It would be like the Post Office inquiry sitting down with the Post Office to negotiate how it should be investigated. Will the Minister explain how the Government will restore trust right now in the process, given the contents of the letter that she sent to the Home Affairs Committee last night?

Can I be completely clear? I am suggesting that I will listen completely and utterly to the feedback from the victims who were on the panel and those who still are. They are not spreading misinformation at all, but the hon. Member’s interpretation is a brilliant case in point.

I will be completely honest. The conversation with Oldham is: do we not think it might be better for Oldham just to take part in a statutory inquiry? It has absolutely nothing to do with the idea that Oldham is telling me what to do. The more people on the Conservative Benches—[Interruption.] Oh, the hon. Member can hold up his letter and have a smug face all he likes, but the fact of the matter is that there is no council in this country that will tell the inquiry where it can and cannot go. I have said that 1 million times from the Dispatch Box, yet the same thing gets peddled again and again.

I know that the Minister will not want to comment on individual candidates to chair the national grooming inquiry. However, may I put on record that Jim Gamble is a highly regarded police officer with a long experience of dealing with this matter? His leadership of the child exploitation and online protection centre proved what a fearless and fiercely independent figure he was, with a real track record of tracking down sick paedophiles online and off. Does the Minister agree that the chair of the inquiry must be someone who can earn the trust of those who have been let down by those in positions of authority for far too long? Will she confirm—I hope that she will—that the inquiry will not shy away from issues of race or class and will follow the evidence wherever it leads?

First and foremost, I absolutely confirm that that will not happen. Not only that, but I confirm that the Home Office has asked police forces across the country to collect data on ethnicity. That was not done before. I will not be drawn into his point about the chair; it is not up to me. However, I will say that the gentleman my hon. Friend mentions resigned from a previous role in this field because he thought that the then Government were not invested enough in tackling child sexual exploitation.

The victims of these crimes were vulnerable children who were ignored, gaslit and dismissed. Two victims have now resigned because of the process, its failure and their lack of faith in it. Yet, I hear what appears to me to be an aggressive and defensive tone from the Minister.

Yes, that is because of you lot.

She should remember that those people are watching. Will she listen to the victims and does she regret that those two individuals have resigned from the process?

I absolutely regret that they have resigned from the process. Funnily enough, in the particular instance of one of the people, I have had no involvement in that process. I do not know who are on the panels of victims; it is entirely independently managed by a grooming gang charity. One of my only interventions was to ensure that the names of some of the voices that I thought deserved to be heard were included. I have done that on a number of occasions.

I will, of course, listen to them. Actually, I am meant to be with those panels of victims, hearing their response, right now. As I have said, I will take the feedback of anyone, both publicly and should they want to speak to me, as I have approached them. I am always sad when victims feel that they cannot take part in a process—of course I am. There are many different victims and they have many different views. There are ones that we hear publicly. But I want to make it clear that there are many different victims and we have to ensure that all their voices are heard equally, whether they are part of the process or not.

The Minister has reiterated time and again that victims must be at the centre of an inquiry. Will she tell us what she intends to do to ensure that that aim is fully implemented?

While the inquiry is ongoing, that will be a matter for the chair. However, I know from the inquiries that I have been involved in that were successful and victim-centric that there always has to be a system for supporting the victims, both with taking part in the inquiry and with the trauma that might be brought up. Usually, those two things are separate, but I will say this once again: I will not be the chair of this committee. Undoubtedly, it is about ensuring that victims are protected throughout the process. Should they want to go out and speak publicly both negatively and positively about that process, I would absolutely welcome that. People should never be prevented from speaking. We have to ensure that support is available, regardless of how they wish to gain it.

There should be nothing more precious in the eyes of this Parliament than the protection of children, particularly those who suffered at the hands of these barbaric individuals. Many of us are parents, aunts, uncles and grandparents and this cuts very deep. I know that the Minister cares and is a caring person, but today we need decisive action. Given that one of the victims has walked away from the inquiry—

Two.

Given that two of the victims have walked away from the inquiry, will the Minister clearly state how she will ensure that a fully independent inquiry can take place and that it prominently includes victims?

All I can say is that there is a reason that I cannot stand in front of the victims, who I am meant to be getting feedback from right now, and definitely say when the chair will come. I could have just put my finger in the air and picked out some random judge—we could have done that—but I am listening to victims’ feedback. Again, I have to stress that that process is not easy. There are difficult dynamics within groups of people and the people who we have asked to engage are dealing with difficult things, so undoubtedly, that is not uncomplex. As anyone who has worked with groups of people who have been wronged, shamed and treated badly will know, it would be a lie to stand here and tell them that there is a straight line and a simple answer—and I am not willing to do that.

I thank the Minister for her continued work. All victims and survivors have not had their voice heard for too long. We need to ensure that that happens and I am sure that the Minister is doing that. Will she confirm what resources are available to ensure that survivors are properly supported through the process? On system delays, we know that there are still issues with court delays and ensuring we go after all the perpetrators. Will she give an update on that and on the Jay inquiry recommendations?

I will chair an interministerial cross-Government group next week to push through the other recommendations. Baroness Casey made 12 recommendations, but people rarely speak about any of the others. This was not her most pressing one; instead, she gave primacy to the policing-related recommendation around Operation Beaconport. As I said in my previous statement on 2 September, the work on the 216 cases that moved forward is ongoing and runs alongside this. That is where justice will be served: in our courts—if only they had not been horrendously degraded so that rape victims wait for years and years.

I think we all agree that the voices of survivors have to be at the heart of this. It is worrying and concerning when two of those survivors do not feel as if the process is properly looking after them and ensuring their voice is heard. Will the Minister commit to speaking to both Fiona Goddard and Ellie-Ann Reynolds to try and encourage and reassure them that this is a process that really will listen to their voices?

That opportunity has already been presented to them and I would be more than happy. I know one of them but not the other. That opportunity is always available, and one of them has my phone number. On the idea that I do not listen and have not been making myself available, I have tried to keep the process fiercely independent of Government intervention so that it can happen and victims can feel safe in that, but of course I feel sad that this is how it has ended. Actually, I hope that this is not how it has ended and I will commit to making sure that this is not the end. My door is always open to them.

In 2012, a Bangladeshi national was sentenced in my Carlisle constituency for attempting to recruit four girls, aged 12 to 16, into prostitution. In his summing up, the judge described how the man’s conduct had corroded

“the foundations of decency and respect by which all right-thinking people live their lives whatever their ethnic or religious background.”

Will the Minister take the opportunity to again reassure all right-thinking people that this inquiry will look at everything to find answers, including the role of ethnicity?

I say again and again that it will not shy away from findings where they are present. Anybody who has done the work in this space will know that that is going to be found, as the case in my hon. Friend’s constituency highlights. There is absolutely no sense that ethnicity will be buried away. Every single time that there is an apparently needless delay—even though it took seven months to put in place chairs for both the covid inquiry and the blood inquiry, and nobody moaned about that—it gets used to say that we want to cover something up. That is the misinformation I am talking about. It will not cover things up. We are taking time to ensure that that can never happen.

The hon. Lady has been an outspoken champion for the victims, and will continue to be so, but she must be concerned that two members of the panel have withdrawn, and we understand that one of the candidates to be chair of the inquiry has withdrawn. Clearly, there is concern across the House that institutions such as the police, social services, councils and the courts are all in a position where they have failed. Whoever chairs the inquiry must, therefore, have full rigour over services that they may have been involved in. So there is an issue of confidence. Can she update the House on how the inquiry will report back to the House and what scrutiny the House will have over the actions of the inquiry and the terms of reference?

I thank the hon. Gentleman, who is in a unique category of always asking a question that leads me to further questions that are pertinent. An inquiry does not usually report to the House while it is ongoing, but I will take that away to see if there is an appetite for that. All I can say is that there is no institution in the country, including this one here, that does not have skeletons. Do I think all politicians would not be robust in this? No, I do not. I think some would. I can guarantee that I can point at people, the hon. Gentleman included, who would show absolute rigour even against his own. The independent inquiry into child sexual abuse, IICSA, had a judge leading it and it lost the confidence of the victims. Three people lost the confidence of the victims. It took two years. There is not an institution that did not fail those girls. That is the whole point. There is no clean skin, but there are brilliant people who whistleblew and who tried, in every one of those institutions. That is essentially where we are left with this, but I promise rigour in the same way that, when I saw things happening in here, I was rigorous.

I commend the Minister for her formidable personal leadership on this, and I am proud to sit on these Benches alongside other formidable campaigners, too. The Minister has reiterated that the inquiry must be trauma-informed, and I know from speaking to victims in my constituency just how vital it is that we are cognisant both of the initial trauma that they have experienced and also of the retraumatising effects of going through the process of seeking justice for themselves and others. Can the Minister set out more about how she will ensure that this trauma-informed approach is woven through the ongoing inquiry?

As the inquiry is set up—as with previous inquiries with very vulnerable groups of people, such as IICSA—things will have to be put in place to ensure that people can freely give their evidence, and that will have to be done in a trauma-informed way. The twelfth of Baroness Casey’s recommendations was that all the recommendations should be fully funded by the Government, and this Government have absolutely committed to that. I very much expect that, when the chair is in place, those conversations about exactly how that will look will begin. The only thing I do control, I suppose, in any of this, is that this Government will pay for it.

It is quite impressive that the hon. Member says that after a grooming victim has stood up and spoken from these Benches, but I have learned to expect it. He talks about a cover-up—maybe he is doing it for clicks; I do not know—and I understand that he thinks he is doing God’s work in fighting this issue, but the idea that it is easy to find a chair or to find people who want to step forward and take part in this process, given the level of bad faith and when the issue is mired in political point scoring of the type he has just done! He should really question his own morality.

Ellie Reynolds has said that financial dependency has made people stay silent when they should speak, and also alleged that people on the panel were isolated by having contact with each other discouraged. The Minister has been extremely clear that this is a fully independent process and has not had Government involvement, but how does she propose to handle the very complex relationship between the concerns that Ellie Reynolds has spoken clearly about and ensuring that the process retains the faith of everyone involved?

As I have said, I would very much hope to hear those concerns directly from Ellie herself and to see what can be done. I only know the victims who I have worked with—when they have been on the panel, they have spoken to me, because I have personal relations with them—and what I can say is that there are differing views about the levels of confidentiality. The confidentiality is not to silence people or prevent them from speaking about their own experiences. It is necessary because there are people in those rooms who have never shown their faces who are also victims. Having run an agency myself, I know about trying to manage that. I can see why somebody might say that we should not seek out people outside the meeting, because others might have said they do not want that, but they are not going to say that in public. I can imagine all those things. I am trying to get across the idea of how complex these situations are, but I am more than happy to listen to Ellie and see what has gone wrong in the process for her and seek to make it better. I am absolutely happy to do that.

We have heard what the Minister said about diverse views among victims, but is she concerned that some survivors of these terrible crimes have described the process as a toxic, fearful environment and warned that there is a high risk of people feeling silenced all over again? What is she going to do to reverse that failure?

I refer the hon. Member to my previous answer. As I have said a number of times, I am going to speak to those involved and look into the process. It is not a process that I have personally been part of, and I can only speak to the victims who I happen to have known before, if they tell me that they are part of it—not the other way around. I cannot ask who is involved. That is confidential by its very nature. Of course I am going to listen to that feedback and, like I have said, I will speak to those victims involved.

Victims must be at the heart of the grooming gangs inquiry. Does the Minister agree that getting the right chair is absolutely key to ensuring that that happens? Does she also agree that we have to avoid the scenes that we saw under the last Government, who appointed three chairs who then withdrew from the independent inquiry into child sexual abuse—an inquiry that took two years to start?

My hon. Friend, who I know has some experience of inquiries from her previous life, is exactly right. People do not remember it now, but there were victims going out in the press complaining about what was going on with IICSA. It went through numerous chairs. There is already much worse faith in this instance, both rightly and wrongly. For me to allow the same to happen during this inquiry would just make people shout “Cover-up!”, so we are trying to do everything possible to ensure that the mistakes made by the previous Government are not made again.

The credibility of the national inquiry rests on placing the voices, experiences and needs of victims and survivors at its very centre. Can the Minister show victims in Wales how this inquiry will be guided by their best interests, given that survivors have such grave concerns that they feel they must resign from the panel?

To go back to the previous answer, the chair of the inquiry will set the tone for the inquiry. That is why we have to put in place the right chair and a system for victims who want to take part in the inquiry that will care for and look after them, and that is what we are working to achieve.

I thank the Minister for her responses, and I absolutely agree that it is crucial to get this right, so can she be absolutely clear that the inquiry will not be watered down, particularly in its focus on grooming gangs and ethnicity, including on models of grooming where groomers focused on the ethnicity of victims, whether that be young white girls or even Sikh girls?

Absolutely. I absolutely pay tribute to the community response in my hon. Friend’s local area to recent incidences of very hideous sexual violence, and I put on record my love to the families and victims involved. I absolutely agree: this is a grooming gangs inquiry, and it will follow what Baroness Casey stated. As I said in my statement, it will be three years long, it will not shy away and it will be a grooming gangs inquiry.

I acknowledge the Minister’s commitment to get to justice on this issue, and I recognise the frustration that she expresses, because I was responsible for the infected blood compensation scheme, which involved meeting a diverse group of 40 different charities and representative bodies that did not agree with one another. However, I gently and respectfully say to her that we face a credibility gap on this issue, and I urge her to examine how she can get ahead with the communications so that she can continue to demonstrate her commitment to get to justice. Frankly, we as Members of Parliament have to come to this place when things get into the media and public concerns are expressed. I understand her frustration, but getting the communications right and maintaining a pathway to the delivery of justice is critical.

I do not disagree with the right hon. Gentleman. Most of what I see reported on anything in this space is largely inaccurate and often comes with an agenda, more so than in the case of the infected blood scheme, although I absolutely take my hat off to the job that he had to do. There is a balance between wanting to give a complete and utter running commentary on a very complicated thing and making sure that people feel like something is going on, because nature abhors a vacuum and so does misinformation.

The Minister has heard me implore her many times to move as speedily as possible to address the challenges of the victims of these awful crimes, but on this occasion I implore her to take the right time to find the right judge. It is not a normal public appointment; this is someone who has to command the confidence of the House, the public, and most importantly, survivors. They must leave no stone unturned and investigate everything, whether that is ethnicity, class-related or institutional, and make the Minister’s life harder if they have to do so. Will the Minister take the time to find the right judge and not repeat what we saw with the child sexual abuse inquiry several years ago?

I absolutely will, and my hon. Friend gives me the opportunity to say that, no matter who is picked, there will be people unhappy with it. Like most politics that we deal with, let us just call a spade a spade and stop pretending that there is a perfect situation. There is only the best situation we can have. Funnily enough, in the conversations that I have had with some of the prospective chairs, the main thing I have wanted them to take away is the feeling that, if they have to slag me off all day long, then that is exactly what they should do, and I would say the same to the victims.

The Minister obviously feels very deeply about this issue. I think we all agree that anyone who was involved in these awful and horrific crimes must be held to account, and we must shine a light on anyone who turned a blind eye and ensure that it does not happen again. Can the Minister provide a commitment that the inquiry will not be politicised, particularly after multiple local authorities have attempted to block investigations? That is a really important question, because we see that happening. Everyone needs to be investigated on this—it does not matter which party they are from; this is too important.

Absolutely—100%. Far be it from me to speculate about where I would like the inquiry to go, but if I had my way and I was the chair, I would have grave concerns about the area where I live—Members will not be surprised to hear—because that is where I worked. The fact that it has a Labour council would not stop me from wanting to look there. In fact, if the House will excuse my unparliamentary language, I could not give a toss about—

Order. I am sorry the Minister felt she had to push it. She is doing an excellent job. She does not need to push it; she is better than that. I call Alison Hume.

I thank the Minister both for her statement and for the passion and rigour that she brings to her role. Even if sometimes she might say things that she has to apologise for, we greatly appreciate her dedication to the role.

Actually, I granted the urgent question—that is why we are here.

Thank you, Mr Speaker.

Every survivor’s experience of abuse is unique. Does the Minister agree that taking the time to find the right chair will enable them to ensure that every story will be fully told?

I really hope so, but I am not going to do what other people seem to want to do in this circumstance and pretend that there is a guarantee and that I have some sort of magic weapon. That is the process that I am undertaking: I am trying to get the very best chair, who is supported alongside the victims who have been taking part in the process.

Getting this right is both important and extremely difficult. I have two questions for the Minister. If, when she meets Fiona and Ellie-Ann, she finds that they are right and that there is something wrong, what powers does she have to intervene? Secondly, will she provide assurances that the inquiry will not be staffed—she may be able to comment on her powers and the power to influence—by individuals who previously dismissed the concerns of survivors and campaigners as racist slurs?

In answer to the first question, I have every power to intervene in the panel’s process, but the decision I made was that it should be independent of me and my offices, and would be better handled by experts in the field. When I speak to those involved, of course I can raise things and make decisions about how this goes forward. I very much hope that we will be drawing to a conclusion and that soon I will have much less involvement.

To the right hon. Gentleman’s other question, victims and survivors of this crime all have different political opinions. They all have different views on the substantive. They have different views about whether it should be called “grooming” or whether it should be called “grouped”. They have different views on all these things. I will not stand here and say that I would eliminate any victim or survivor working on this based on their political views, and I will continue to say that as it is. Many of them do not like me very much. Imagine if I just did not let the people who did not like me very much have their voices heard. Well, frankly, I would be guilty of a cover-up.

The Minister has made it clear that women and girls were failed by every institution, and it is a positive step that the failure has now been acknowledged by Government and that the acknowledgment is leading to action after years of inaction. But in Scotland we have had absolutely no acknowledgment or action. What advice would the Minister give me and others across Scotland who are becoming increasingly angry that the Scottish Government are doing all they can not just to block an investigation, but to block any kind of independent scrutiny or case review of organised child exploitation?

First, while the inquiry is in England and Wales, one of the victims who we have been hearing about today—Ellie—lives very much in the borderland of our two great countries of England and Scotland. There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that some of the things that may get found in the inquiry will have findings across the border. Unfortunately, the trafficking of young girls does not follow lines on a map as easily as we might think it does when we administer inquiries. My hon. Friend should continue to work with survivor groups up in Scotland to push for what exactly it is that they want to see in Scotland.

I thank the Minister for her answers. I know her heart is in this to get justice, and I do not think that there is any doubt about that. However, it is difficult to hear the news that these victims, who have already been denigrated and treated as voiceless and worthless during their initial abuse, have been made to feel that way once again in this inquiry, and the Minister will understand that it is also difficult for us to accept that this is taking place on the Government’s watch. Does she agree that the inquiry is not getting this right? Will she instruct that immediate action is taken to give those young women their voice back to ensure that justice is served and that safeguards are in place to prevent such abuse from taking place on British soil ever again?

I absolutely share the hon. Gentleman’s upset and frustration on the matter. He knows that when I say that I will do whatever I can to ensure that these problems are sorted out, where they can be, that is what we will seek to do, and we will continue to try to do that. What we have to do with this inquiry is not just look at what went wrong and hold people to account; we have to ensure that it cannot happen again.

I say to Opposition Members that their relentless politicisation of the issue is no doubt making it much harder to find a chair because it will be putting candidates off.

As the inquiry gets under way, we must keep up progress on implementing the recommendations of the Jay IICSA inquiry. I raised concerns on Report during the Crime and Policing Bill that the Government’s proposals to implement mandatory reporting of child sexual abuse do not go quite as far as IICSA wanted, and those concerns were raised again in the other place last week by Baroness Grey-Thompson. Will the Minister ask her colleague Lord Hanson to meet me and Baroness Grey-Thompson to discuss how we can remedy that in a way that works for everyone and that protects children?

The simple answer is yes. My hon. Friend is absolutely right on his first point. What we should all seek to be doing throughout this is to try to grease the wheels so that we can have the best possible inquiry. We should all be seeking to do that while holding people to account with as much scrutiny as is needed. I will absolutely do that, and obviously I have met my hon. Friend a number of times. Getting mandatory reporting right is vital and, much like in the survivor group, there are different views on either side.

Blackpool continues to live with the scars of Charlene Downes and Paige Chivers, two young girls in Blackpool who never came home and were subject to grooming. Will the Minister confirm to my constituents that the grooming gangs inquiry will be thorough and comprehensive, and committed to a full and transparent investigation, ensuring that every avenue is examined to uncover the truth?

I absolutely will. Funnily enough, this morning I spoke to one of my hon. Friend’s constituents, a grooming gang victim, to assure her of similar things. Quite a lot of this process causes quite a lot of nervousness, and there is a need to manage lots of different people’s emotions, but I absolutely make that commitment to him, as I made it to one of his constituents this morning, and I make it to the House.