Home / Sources / Select Committees / Home Affairs Committee / Child sexual exploitation and the respo…
Select committee inquiry

Child sexual exploitation and the response to localised grooming: follow-up

Closed

Home Affairs Committee · Opened 29 May 2014 · Closed 31 March 2015

1 recommendation · 3 conclusions
Inquiry on parliament.uk ↗

What the inquiry looked at

“A follow-up inquiry into Child sexual exploitation and the response to localised grooming Related former inquiry Child sexual exploitation and the response to localised grooming”

The committee's words, from the inquiry page on parliament.uk ↗.

What it found

In the committee's words, from the summary of 6th Report - Child sexual exploitation and the response to localised grooming: follow-up ↗

• In June 2013, the Committee published a report on localised child grooming, highlighting the appalling cost paid by victims for past catastrophic multi-agency failures.

• An independent investigation into Rotherham Borough Council's response to historical cases of child sexual exploitation between 1997 and 2013 was carried out by Alexis Jay OBE. The report was published in August 2014.

• In response, the Committee conducted a follow-up inquiry, examining the institutional response to historical child sexual exploitation in Rotherham, in particular addressing the accountability of PCCs and senior council members.

What the government said

The government responded on 2 March 2015.

Summary written by Accountability Index from the government's response.

The government responds to the Committee's four recommendations on child sexual exploitation in Rotherham, describing events there as "a complete dereliction of duty", noting some comments and setting out actions already taken or under way.

  • On missing files, the Home Secretary has asked officials to "look into this thoroughly" whether the Home Office received a 2002 report from the Rotherham Council researcher, and has asked Peter Wanless and Richard Whittam QC to review that work when completed. No date is given.
  • On the Committee's conclusion about Rotherham Council and South Yorkshire Police ignoring warnings, the government cites action it says it is taking, including a Commissioner appointed by the Education Secretary, the Louise Casey inspection, and a National Crime Agency investigation.
  • On the Committee's conclusion about the Chief Constable and the Rotherham unit, the government says only "We note the Committee's comments."
  • On recall of Police and Crime Commissioners, the government does not commit to legislation. It has "noted" the draft Bill and the Committee's view that detailed discussion is required, and says it "will listen carefully" and "reflect upon these views".

Read the government's response ↗ Read the report ↗ Report an error

How the inquiry ran

Each dot is a dated item listed on this page, from the inquiry's opening on 29 May 2014 to its close on 31 March 2015.

  1. Oral evidence 4 sessions
  2. Report 18 Oct 2014
  3. Government response 2 Mar 2015

What it recommended 1 recommendation · 3 conclusions

1This is not the first case in which it has been alleged that files of...
Concluded (the committee's words)
This is not the first case in which it has been alleged that files of information relating to child sexual exploitation have disappeared. The proliferation of revelations about files which can no longer be located gives rise, whether fairly or not, to public suspicion of a deliberate cover-up. The only way to address these concerns is with a full, transparent and urgent investigation and the Home Office must do everything in its power to locate any missing files in its possession relating to child sexual exploitation in Rotherham and other places.
2David Crompton, the Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police, met with Dr Angie Heal to...
Concluded (the committee's words)
David Crompton, the Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police, met with Dr Angie Heal to gain a first-hand account of the issues that she raised. All chief officers in South Yorkshire Police have visited the Public Protection Unit in Rotherham and have met with police staff and council staff to develop a deeper understanding of demand and arrangements to support victims. By 1 October 2014, 29 new cases had been reported to the unit.
3There is compelling evidence that both Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council and South Yorkshire Police ignored...
Concluded (the committee's words)
There is compelling evidence that both Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council and South Yorkshire Police ignored numerous, credible warnings about the scale of child sexual exploitation in Rotherham. Given that these warnings came from Risky Business and others who had been expressly tasked with investigating and tackling the problem, it is difficult to understand why they were not taken more seriously. It is even suggested that documentary evidence was stolen in order to supress it. It is hard to resist the conclusion that, if the Council and Police had taken these warnings seriously, the abusers could have been brought to justice more quickly and some of the later victims could have been spared their ordeal.
4We recommend that new legislation be brought in to provide for a Police and Crime...
Recommended (the committee's words)
We recommend that new legislation be brought in to provide for a Police and Crime Commissioner to be subject to recall. There are a number of possible methods by which this could be done, and detailed discussion is required. One possible model is contained in a draft Bill that is published as an Annex to this Report. It allows for recall of PCCs when one of two conditions is met: the first that the Police and Crime Panel has passed a motion of no confidence in the PCC, and second that one or more local authorities representing at least half the population of the police area have passed a motion of no confidence in the Commissioner. We will return to this issue when we return to the subject of PCCs again.

Evidence

Oral evidence sessions 4