Whitehall officials tried to convince Lord Michael Gove to go to court to cover up details of a report into the grooming scandal in 2011, he has said, confirming Sky News reporting earlier this week.

Speaking to Sky’s Politics Hub With Sophy Ridge, the former senior cabinet minister said it is “undoubtedly the case that more should have been done” to prevent the abuse of young girls in Britain, admitting that it weighs on him.

The allegations of an attempted cover-up were first made to Sky News by former Downing Street adviser Dominic Cummings in an interview with Sky News, and the claims were substantiated by other sources as well. Mr Cummings was working for Lord Gove, who was then education secretary.

Politics latest: Badenoch says UK should ‘support Israel’

Lord Gove explained that in 2011, he learned that the late Times journalist Andrew Norfolk, who he described as “a heroic reporter who did more than anyone to initially uncover this scandal”, was seeking to publish details of a report from Rotherham Council about the abuse and grooming of young girls.

He said: “Rotherham Council wanted to stop that happening. They wanted to go to court to prevent him publishing some details, and we in the Department for Education were asked by the council, ‘would we join in, would we be a party to that court action to stop it?’

“And I had to look at the case, advised by Dominic [Cummings] and by others, and there were some within the department, some officials who said, ‘be cautious, don’t allow this to be published, there may be risks for relatives of the victims concerned.”

Rotherham Council also argued that publication may pose “risks” to the process of “improving in the way in which it handles” grooming cases, he continued.

The judicial review wanted by officials would have asked a judge to decide about the lawfulness of The Times’ publication plans and the consequences that would flow from this information entering the public domain.

But Lord Gove said: “My view at the time, advised by Dominic and by others within the department, was that it was definitely better for it to be published.”

“So we said to Rotherham, we will join the case, but we’re joining it on the side of the Times and Andrew Norfolk because we believe in transparency.”

‘Tough questions’ for Whitehall

Lord Gove went on to say that a national inquiry could see some “tough questions” asked of the Home Office about its culture and its interactions with the police.

But those questions will also be posed to two departments he led – the Department for Local Government and the Department of Education, and he said: “I think it’s right that there should be, because the nature and scale of what the victims have endured means that there’s an obligation on all of us who’ve been in any form of elected office to be honest and unsparing in looking at what went on.”

He said he “certainly didn’t have the knowledge at my command that we now do about the widespread nature of this activity”.

‘Not nearly enough’ progress made

Sophy Ridge put to Lord Gove that despite commissioning a report on what was happening to girls in care, and not seeking to block the publication of Andrew Norfolk’s reporting, he still failed to make change.

He replied: “Yes, so it is undoubtedly the case that more should have been done.”

Read more on grooming gangs:
What we do and don’t know from the data
A timeline of the scandal

He admitted that it “absolutely” weighs on him, and that “not nearly enough” progress was made on the protection of vulnerable girls.

“With the benefit of hindsight, I do wish that I had been more vehement in trying to persuade people to take appropriate action,” he said.

Local government ‘sought to deny scale’ of scandal

The now Spectator editor went on to say that there was “pushback, particularly but not exclusively, from those in local government” to subsequent questions about cultural background, and he said “local councillors and others sought to deny the scale of what was happening and particularly, sought to deny questioning about the identity and the background of the perpetrators”.

👉 Listen to Sky News Daily on your podcast app 👈

He continued: “I think the right thing to do is for everyone to acknowledge that sometimes there were people who were acting from noble motives, who did not want to increase ethnic and racial anxieties, who did not to fan far-right flames, and thought that it was better to step away from the really grim reality of what was going on.

“I can understand that. But ultimately, that didn’t serve anyone. It did not serve the victims.”

The Department for Education and Rotherham Council did not respond when approached for comment earlier this week on the claims first made by Dominic Cummings, revealed by Sky News.

The politician who introduced the assisted dying bill has said she is “confident” MPs will push it through to the next stage on Friday.

Speaking at a news conference ahead of a Commons vote, Kim Leadbeater said: “I do feel confident we can get through tomorrow successfully.”

If new amendments are voted through on Friday, the bill to give some terminally ill adults the right to end their lives will get closer to becoming law as it will go through to the next stage in the House of Lords.

Politics latest: PM should decide if MPs get vote on military action

Ms Leadbeater, who introduced the bill in October last year, said if MPs do not vote it through on Friday, “it could be another decade before this issue is brought back to parliament”.

But she said there was a “good majority” who voted for the bill at the last major vote, the second reading in November, when MPs voted it through by 330 to 275.

“There might be some small movement in the middle, some people might change their mind or will change their mind the other way,” she said.

“But fundamentally, I do not anticipate that that majority would be heavily eroded.”

A new YouGov poll found 72% of Britons supported the bill as it stands, including 59% of those who say they support assisted dying in principle but oppose it in practice, and 67% were opposed to the principle of euthanasia but are willing to back it in practice.

Criticism by doctors

The Labour MP was joined by bereaved and terminally ill people at Thursday’s news conference as she made her case for a change in the law.

The proposed legislation would allow terminally ill adults, with fewer than six months to live, to apply for an assisted death, subject to approval by two doctors and a panel featuring a social worker, senior legal figure and psychiatrist.

Recently, the Royal College of Psychiatrists, the Royal College of Pathologists and the Royal College of Physicians have raised concerns about the bill.

The Royal College of Psychiatrists said the bill, in its current form, did “not meet the needs of patients”.

It has also expressed concern over the shortage of qualified psychiatrists to take part in assisted dying panels.

Read more:
Assisted dying bill does not meet needs of patients, says Royal College of Psychiatrists
Why cancer patient is praying assisted dying bill passes major vote

But Ms Leadbeater said doctors and psychiatrists have their individual views on assisted dying and royal colleges have, over the years, been neutral because of that.

“My door is open, so if they have got concerns, they can come and speak to me about those concerns,” she said.

“But what I would say is they were very keen that there was psychiatric involvement in the process, and that’s why I included it. And I do think that’s important.”

On Friday, MPs will vote on a number of amendments proposed by Ms Leadbeater after months of discussions with the assisted dying committee, made up of MPs both for and against the bill.

At the start of the session they will vote on a person not being eligible for assisted dying if their wish to end their life was substantially motivated by factors such as not wanting to be a burden, a mental disorder, a disability, financial considerations, a lack of access to care, or suicidal ideation.

The Speaker has indicated he will also choose these amendments for MPs to vote on:

• Supported by Ms Leadbeater – Requiring the government to publish an assessment of palliative and end-of-life care within a year of the bill passing

• Supported by Ms Leadbeater – A person cannot be considered terminally ill solely because they voluntarily stopped eating or drinking

• Not supported by Ms Leadbeater – Disapply the presumption a person has capacity unless the opposite is established

• Not supported by Ms Leadbeater – Prevent section 1 of the NHS Act 2006, which sets out the NHS’ purpose, from being amended by regulations.