The home secretary has denied the government is watering down its response to child grooming gangs after it was accused of dropping plans for local inquiries.
Yvette Cooper announced at the beginning of the year that “victim-centred, locally-led inquiries” would take place in five areas after the issue caught the attention of tech billionaire Elon Musk.
But this week, safeguarding minister Jess Phillips did not provide an update on the reviews and instead said local authorities would be able to access a £5m fund to support any work they wanted to carry out.
Her statement led to accusations that the government was diluting the importance of the local inquiries by giving councils the choice over how to spend the money.
Asked by Anna Jones on Sky News whether the government was “watering down” its response, Ms Cooper said: “No, completely the opposite.
“What we’re doing is increasing the action we’re taking on this vile crime.”
More on Yvette Cooper
Related Topics:
The home secretary pointed to the rapid audit that is being carried out by Baroness Louise Casey, which will bring together the data gathered so far on grooming gangs and consider the lessons that should be learned at a national level.
She added: “Most important of all, what we’re doing is we’re increasing the police investigations, because these are dangerous perpetrators and again, they should be behind bars.”
Image: Elon Musk has been critical of Labour’s response to grooming gangs and has called for a national inquiry.
Demands for a national inquiry into the scandal – in which girls as young as 11 were groomed and raped across a number of towns and cities in England over a decade ago – grew louder this year after Mr Musk accused Labour of failing to act on the issue on his social media platform X.
The government refused to hold a national inquiry, citing the work carried out by Professor Alexis Jay, who led the Independent Inquiry into Child Sex Abusethat looked into abuse by organised groups following multiple convictions of sexual offences against children across the UK between 2010-2014.
However, it did commit to holding local inquiries in five areas backed by £5m in funding and advised by Tom Crowther KC.
‘Political mess’
But ministers are facing a backlash following Ms Phillips’ statement in the Commons on Tuesday – made an hour before parliament rose for Easter recess – in which she said the government would take a “flexible approach” by allowing five councils to launch victims’ panels or locally led audits.
Labour MPs angry with government decision grooming gangs
With about an hour until the House of Commons rose for Easter recess, the government announced it was taking a more “flexible” approach to the local grooming gang inquiries.
Safeguarding minister Jess Philips argued this was based on experience from certain affected areas, and that the government is funding new police investigations to re-open historic cases.
Sky News presenter and former chair of the Equality and Human Rights Commission Trevor Philips called the move “utterly shameful” and claimed it was a political decision.
One Labour MP told Sky News: “Some people are very angry. I despair. I donāt disagree with many of our decisions but we just play to Reform ā someone somewhere needs sacking.”
The government insists party political misinformation is fanning the flames of frustration in Labour, and that they not watering down the inquiries ā on the contrary, they say are increasing the action being taken – , but while many Labour MPs have one eye on Reform in the rearview mirror, any accusations of being soft on grooming gangs only provides political ammunition to their adversaries.
One Labour MP told Sky News the issue had turned into a “political mess” and that they were being called “grooming sympathisers”.
On the update from Ms Phillips on Tuesday, they said it might have been the “right thing to do” but that it was “horrible politically”.
“We are all getting so much abuse. It’s just political naivety in the extreme.”
Tory leader Kemi Badenoch said yesterday that she was “absolutely astonished that Labour has dropped what it said it would do in January”.
“They are clearly uncomfortable with having inquiries that are looking into this issue,”she said.
“They said that they’ll have a pot of money for councils to bid in, but why would a council bid for money to investigate itself?
“We need something that is national. We need a statutory inquiry so we can compel witnesses, and I’m going to make sure that we force another vote.”
‘We will leave no stone unturned’
Ms Phillips later defended her decision, saying there was “far too much party political misinformation about the action that is being taken when everyone should be trying to support victims and survivors”.
“We are funding new police investigations to re-open historic cases, providing national support for locally led inquiries and action, and Louise Casey… is currently reviewing the nature, scale and ethnicity of grooming gangs offending across the country.
“We will not hesitate to go further, unlike the previous government, who showed no interest in this issue over 14 years and did nothing to progress the recommendations from the seven year national inquiry when they had the chance.
“We will leave no stone unturned in pursuit of justice for victims and will be unrelenting in our crackdown on sick predators and perpetrators who prey on vulnerable children.”
The two baronesses of the podcast finally lift the lid on the House of Lords in this special Q&A episode. What’s it really like on the red benches in parliament? And if you’re a Lord, are you a has-been?
Also – was Tony Blair actually cool in the 90s? Or was it just a more optimistic time in politics?
It was perhaps not quite how officials, in London at least, had envisaged the announcement of the state visit would be made.
In the Oval Office, Donald Trump revealed the news in his own way.
“I was invited by the King and the great country. They are going to do a second fest – that’s what it is. It is beautiful,” he said during an impromptu Oval Office moment.
Or was this actually just the smaller visit that had been offered two months ago as an initial bilateral visit at which the state visit would be discussed?
Back in February, Sir Keir Starmer presented the president with a letter from King Charles and the offer of a state visit.
The letter proposed an initial meeting between the King and the president to discuss details of the state visit at either Dumfries House or Balmoral, both in Scotland, close to Mr Trump’s golf clubs.
The King wrote: “Quite apart from this presenting an opportunity to discuss a wide range of issues of mutual interest, it would also offer a valuable chance to plan a historic second state visit to the United Kingdom⦠As you will know this is unprecedented by a US president. That is why I would find it helpful for us to be able to discuss, together, a range of options for location and programme content.”
As he revealed the news of his “fest” with his “friend Charles”, Mr Trump said: “I think they are setting a date for September⦔
Sources have since confirmed to Sky News that it will amount to the full state visit.
Image: Sir Keir Starmer handed Trump the invite earlier this year. Pic: Reuters
‘Even more important’
It’s possible the initial less formal presidential trip may still happen between now and September. Mr Trump is in Europe for the NATO summit in June and is due in Scotland to open a new golf course soon too.
“It is the second time it has happened to one person. The reason is we have two separate terms, and it’s an honour to be a friend of King Charles and the family, William,” the president said.
“I don’t know how it can be bigger than the last one. The last one was incredible, but they say the next one will be even more important.”
His last state visit in 2019, at the invitation of the late Queen, drew significant protests epitomised by the giant blow-up “Baby Trump” which floated over Parliament Square.
Image: The president was hosted by the Queen in June 2019. Pic: Reuters
Britain’s trump card
September is a little earlier than had been expected for the visit. It may be an advantage for it to happen sooner rather than later, given the profoundly consequential and controversial nature of the first few months of his second term.
The decision by the British government to play its “state visit trump card” up front back in February drew some criticism.
And since February, Mr Trump’s position on numerous issues has been increasingly at odds with all of America’s allies.
On Ukraine, he has seemingly aligned himself closely with Vladimir Putin. His tariffs have caused a global economic shock. And on issues like Greenland and Canada, a member of the Commonwealth, he has generated significant diplomatic shock.
A risk worth taking
Mr Trump is as divisive among the British public as he is in America. Sir Keir is already walking a political tightrope by choosing the softly softly approach with the White House.
Spreaker
This content is provided by Spreaker, which may be using cookies and other technologies.
To show you this content, we need your permission to use cookies.
You can use the buttons below to amend your preferences to enable Spreaker cookies or to allow those cookies just once.
You can change your settings at any time via the Privacy Options.
Unfortunately we have been unable to verify if you have consented to Spreaker cookies.
To view this content you can use the button below to allow Spreaker cookies for this session only.
The UK government chose not to retaliate against Mr Trump’s tariffs, unlike some allies. Sir Keir and his cabinet have been at pains not to be seen to criticise the president in any way as they seek to influence him on Ukraine and seek an elusive economic deal on tariffs.
On that tariff deal, despite some positive language from the US side and offers on the table, there has yet to be a breakthrough. A continuing challenge is engaging with the president for decisions and agreements only he, not his cabinet, will make.
British officials acknowledge the risk the state visit poses. In this presidency, anything could happen between now and September.
But they argue British soft power and Mr Trump’s fondness for the Royal Family and pomp – or a “fest” as he calls it – amount to vital diplomatic clout.
For a special relationship under strain, a special state visit is the tonic.
Laws may need to be strengthened to crack down on the exploitation of child “influencers”, a senior Labour MP has warned.
Chi Onwurah, chair of the science, technology and innovation committee, said parts of the Online Safety Act – passed in October 2023 – may already be “obsolete or inadequate”.
Experts have raised concerns that there is a lack of provision in industry laws for children who earn money through brand collaborations on social media when compared to child actors and models.
This has led to some children advertising in their underwear on social media, one expert has claimed.
Those working in more traditional entertainment fields are safeguarded by performance laws,which strictly govern the hours a minor can work, the money they earn and who they are accompanied by.
The Child Influencer Project, which has curated the world’s first industry guidelines for the group, has warned of a “large gap in UK law” which is not sufficiently filled by new online safety legislation.
Image: Official portrait of Chi Onwurah.
Pic: UK Parlimeant
The group’s research found that child influencers could be exposed to as many as 20 different risks of harm, including to dignity, identity, family life, education, and their health and safety.
Ms Onwurah told Sky News there needs to be a “much clearer understanding of the nature of child influencers ‘work’ and the legal and regulatory framework around it”.
She said: “The safety and welfare of children are at the heart of the Online Safety Act and rightly so.
“However, as we know in a number of areas the act may already be obsolete or inadequate due to the lack of foresight and rigour of the last government.”
Victoria Collins, the Liberal Democrat spokesperson for science, innovation and technology, agreed that regulations “need to keep pace with the times”, with child influencers on social media “protected in the same way” as child actors or models.
“Liberal Democrats would welcome steps to strengthen the Online Safety Act on this front,” she added.
‘Something has to be done’
MPs warned in 2022 that the government should “urgently address the gap in UK child labour and performance regulation that is leaving child influencers without protection”.
They asked for new laws on working hours and conditions, a mandate for the protection of the child’s earnings, a right to erasure and to bring child labour arrangements under the oversight of local authorities.
However, Dr Francis Rees, the principal investigator for the Child Influencer Project, told Sky News that even after the implementation of the Online Safety Act, “there’s still a lot wanting”.
“Something has to be done to make brands more aware of their own duty of care towards kids in this arena,” she said.
Dr Rees added that achieving performances from children on social media “can involve extremely coercive and disruptive practices”.
“We simply have to do more to protect these children who have very little say or understanding of what is really happening. Most are left without a voice and without a choice.”
What is a child influencer – and how are they at risk?
A child influencer is a person under the age of 18 who makes money through social media, whether that is using their image alone or with their family.
Dr Francis Rees, principal investigator for the Child Influencer Project, explains this is an āescalationā from the sharing of digital images and performances of the child into āsome form of commercial gain or brand endorsementā.
She said issues can emerge when young people work with brands – who do not have to comply with standard practise for a child influencer as they would with an in-house production.
Dr Rees explains how, when working with a child model or actor, an advertising agency would have to make sure a performance license is in place, and make sure āeverything is in accordance with many layers of legislation and regulation around child protectionā.
But, outside of a professional environment, these safeguards are not in place.
She notes that 30-second videos ācan take as long as three days to practice and rehearseā.
And, Dr Rees suggests, this can have a strain on the parent-child relationship.
āIt’s just not as simple as taking a child on to a set and having them perform to a camera which professionals are involved in.ā
The researcher pointed to one particular instance, in which children were advertising an underwear brand on social media.
She said: “The kids in the company’s own marketing material or their own media campaigns are either pulling up the band of the underwear underneath their clothing, or they’re holding the underwear up while they’re fully clothed.
“But whenever you look at any of the sponsored content produced by families with children – mum, dad, and child are in their underwear.”
Dr Rees said it is “night and day” in terms of how companies are behaving when they have responsibility for the material, versus “the lack of responsibility once they hand it over to parents with kids”.