Starmer says Louise Casey will join grooming gangs inquiry after four survivors quit panel – UK politics live



Starmer says Louise Casey to be brought in to support grooming gangs inquiry

Kemi Badenoch starts with a tribute to the former Tory MP Oliver Colvile, who has died.

She says her first question comes from Fiona, one of the grooming gang survivors. Fiona asks what the point of speaking up if you are going to be called liars.

Starmer thanks Badenoch for the question. The grooming gangs scandal was one of the worst of all time. He says his “vow” to Fiona and others is that this inquiry will be different; survivors won’t be ignored. Fiona is welcome to rejoin the panel. The inquiry will not be watered down, it will focus on grooming gangs and it will cover the ethnicity of offenders.

And he says Louise Casey will be brought in to support the inquiry.

Share

Updated at 

Key events

PMQs – snap verdict

Years ago, when I started doing this live blog and writing snap verdicts after PMQs, I tried to consider how the proceedings might appear, not just to MPs in the chamber, but to a non-partisan, fair-minded, reasonable viewer – ie, to the public at large. Even then, that may have been naive. Now at least one of the main performers at PMQs does not seem to think such an audience exists.

That was clear today because Kemi Badenoch managed to put in what came across as quite a strong performance (Tory commentators liked it – see here and here, for example) without really trying to engage with the arguments at all. Calls for a grooming gangs inquiry took off in the new year (even though prosecutions have been going on for the best part of two decades, and various reports have explored this in considerable detail) because fresh reporting (mainly from GB News) revived a sense that there are grievance and injustices here that have not been fully addressed. It is a story that flourises online, and appeals to people innately suspicious of the state. For Badenoch, it is very comfortable territory.

The inquiry process is clearly in trouble (see 9.11am), and the survivors who have left the oversight panel have clearly lost confidence in the process and it was reasonable for Badenoch to take up their concerns. And there was nothing wrong with gunning for Jess Phillips either. Phillips is under pressure because of this comment she made in a Commons UQ on the inquiry.

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.

Survivors on the oversight panel like Fiona Gooddard (one of the ones who resigned) say they were consulted explicitly on whether the scope of the inquiry should be extended. Whether or not that would be a “dilution” of the inquiry is arguable, but the government should explain why Phillips said the “widening” claim was false – unless she meant it was false because, while it had been considered, it has now been ruled out.

But Badenoch did not question Starmer in detail on these issues. She could have done, but she didn’t. Instead, she was content just to assert bad faith, over and over again.

And Starmer was trying to address the concerns raised by survivors. His opening statement did this, using similar language to Shabana Mahmood in the Times today. He announced a further, unspecified role for Louise Casey, which is always a sign of this government taking something seriously. (Perhaps she will combine this with being cabinet secretary – see 9.40am.) He also had a good explanation as to why a judge-led inquiry would not be ideal, whacked the Tories on mandatory reporting (see 12.14pm) and (rightly) defended Phillips’s record on child protection (see 12.17pm). A “fair-minded, reasonable viewer” would have concluded that he made a strong case, and that Badenoch should have taken yes for an answer. But God know if there are any of them still out there.


Source link


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *