Localised grooming
Background
1. In June 2013, we published a Report on Child
sexual exploitation and the response to localised grooming,
highlighting the appalling cost paid by victims for past, catastrophic,
multi-agency failures.[1]
The police, social services and the Crown Prosecution Service
must all bear responsibility for the way in which vulnerable children
have been left unprotected by the system. During the inquiry we
took evidence from a wide range of witnesses including those involved
with investigations and prosecutions into localised grooming,
individuals involved in social care, representatives of third
sector organisations, victims, the Children's Commissioner, and
Ministers. We also took evidence on the response of local authorities
to child sexual exploitation, with a focus on children's social
care in Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council.
2. We concluded
that Rotherham council had been inexcusably slow to realise that
the widespread, organised sexual abuse of children, many of them
in the care of the local authority, was taking place on their
doorstep. This was due in large part to a woeful lack of professional
curiosity, or even indifference, from the council Chief Executive
who claimed to have known nothing about the problem during his
first decade in post, to the Director of Children's Services who
saw prosecution of sex offenders as a desirable but ancillary
goal, through the Local Safeguarding Children's Board which tried
to suppress criticisms in a Serious Case Review, to the individual
practitioners who, in a chilling confirmation of the abusers'
blackmail and threats, dismissed the victims—children as
young as 12—as 'prostitutes'.
3. Although the local authority now recognises the
nature and extent of localised grooming in South Yorkshire, and
has made improvements to the way that it deals with children and
young people who are at risk of sexual exploitation, it is clear
that senior leadership in Rotherham council failed in their duty
of care towards these girls. A Report on Rotherham Council's response
to child sexual exploitation was published in August 2014. The
Report, which covered the period from 1997 to 2013, followed an
independent inquiry by Professor Alexis Jay OBE into the Council's
internal processes and procedures and its work alongside partners.
It was commissioned by the council's Chief Executive, Martin Kimber,
in September 2013.[2]
4. Our intention in our follow-up inquiry is not
to replicate the work of the Jay inquiry, but to consider the
transparency and effectiveness of Rotherham council's response
to child sexual exploitation. We are particularly grateful to
Dr Angie Heal of the University of Sheffield, Jayne Senior of
Risky Business, and to the former Home Office researcher for their
evidence detailing the true extent of the suffering of victims
at the hands both of their abusers and of failing agencies.[3]
Strengthening Rotherham Council
children's services
5. The Jay inquiry estimated that approximately 1,400
children were sexually exploited over the 16-year inquiry period,
and that in just over a third of cases, children affected by sexual
exploitation were previously known to services because of other
child protection issues. It concluded that between 1997 and 2009,
"the collective failures of political and officer leadership
were blatant", with evidence from the beginning that child
sexual exploitation was a serious problem in Rotherham. The Report
concluded that within social care, the scale and seriousness of
the problem was underplayed by senior managers, while at an operational
level, South Yorkshire Police gave no priority to child sexual
exploitation, regarding many child victims with contempt and failing
to act on their abuse as a crime.[4]
6. In September 2014, the Committee took evidence
in private from a former researcher who had been employed by Rotherham
Metropolitan Borough Council between 2000 and 2002 as a Research
and Development Officer working on a Home Office-funded pilot
under the Crime Reduction Program, on an initiative called "Tackling
Prostitution: What Works?".[5]
7. The researcher was located with a child sexual
exploitation specialist project called Risky Business. Risky Business
had been established after a pilot project in 1997 following concerns
about child sexual exploitation in Rotherham. She was employed
to research and develop measures to disrupt the activities of
the men targeting young women, including working with the Crown
Prosecution Service to look at how enhanced evidence gathering
(the gathering of evidence which could be used to prosecute even
if the victim did not want to give evidence) could be used in
court, and overseeing the collation of data and its input into
an ICT system. She would also be expected to produce a report
on the pilot study outlining the development of ten young women's
case studies and the targeting of six 'pimps'.[6]
8. In April 2002, the researcher submitted some data
and statistical information to the Home Office evaluators, at
the request of the evaluators, who were expected to provide a
report to the Home Office on the progress of the pilot.[7]
The draft report contained severe criticisms of the agencies in
Rotherham involved with CSE. The most serious concerned alleged
indifference towards, and ignorance of, child sexual exploitation
on the part of senior managers. The report also stated that responsibility
was continuously placed on young people's shoulders, rather than
with the suspected abusers, with a "high prevalence of young
women being coerced and abused through prostitution."[8]
The researcher told us that an unknown individual subsequently
gained access to her office and removed all of the data relating
to the Home Office work. There were no signs of a forced entry
and the action involved moving through key-coded and locked security
doors. She was also subjected to personal hostility at the hands
of Council officials and police officers, and was unable to complete
the last part of the research.[9]
9. On 2 September 2014, the Home Secretary confirmed
that the Home Office had been "looking at the files to ascertain
exactly what happened", including the suggestion that the
researcher informed the Home Office about her concerns at the
time.
10. The Home Office is looking into this issue internally,
and has asked Peter Wanless CB, Chief Executive Officer of the
NSPCC, and Richard Whittam QC, First Senior Treasury Counsel,
to assess the process in order to make sure that it has been conducted
properly. Mr Wanless and Mr Whittam are currently looking at how
the Department handled material relating to allegations of child
sexual exploitation in the 1980s, submitted by the late Geoffrey
Dickens MP and others, so work on the Rotherham files will not
begin until October.[10]
The Committee will be following this review closely.
11. 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.
WHO KNEW?
12. The Jay Inquiry found that the Risky Business
project was the first public service in Rotherham to identify
and support young people involved in child sexual exploitation.
It operated on an outreach basis, working with large numbers of
young people, both victims of sexual exploitation and those at
risk. Professor Jay concluded that although the Council was to
be commended for its financial commitment to the project and its
work for most of its existence, Risky Business was "too often
seen as something of a nuisance, particularly by children's social
care", and there were many tensions between the two.[11]
13. Jayne Senior, the former project manager at Risky
Business, told us that the Project passed information, risk-assessments
and intelligence to people at "the highest level" in
the police and the council from 2003 onwards, including
how many young people we were working with, how
old they were and an explanation of what they were involved in,
who they were involved with, and any intelligence including: car
registration numbers, mobile telephone numbers, dates of birth,
names and addresses.[12]
Dr Angie Heal of Sheffield University completed research
projects in Rotherham between 2002 and 2006. Her first report
looked at crack cocaine use and supply in South Yorkshire, which
identified the scale of the problem of "on-street" grooming,
and noted that those perpetrating it were often connected with
the illegal drugs trade.[13]
Dr Heal's reports went to South Yorkshire Police and also to the
Drug Action Team, to the Community Safety Unit and, in some cases,
to the Government Office in Leeds, the Crime Reduction Team at
that time.[14]
14. 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.[15]
15. The Committee called for the resignation of the
Police and Crime Commissioner, Shaun Wright, Executive Director,
Martin Kimber, and Strategic Director for Children, Young People
and Families, Joyce Thacker. They have belatedly declared their
resignations, but there are still questions to be answered.
16. 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.
Accountability of PCCs
17. Before his election as Police and Crime Commissioner
for South Yorkshire in November 2012, Shaun Wright was Rotherham
Council's cabinet member responsible for services for children
and young people. In 2009, following an unannounced inspection,
Ofsted downgraded Rotherham's children's services from "good"
to "performs poorly". Ofsted concluded that:
The overall effectiveness of only a small minority
of inspected services, settings and institutions is good or better
and there are significant weaknesses in the front-line delivery
of social care. The recent unannounced inspection of its contact,
referral and assessment arrangements noted three areas for priority
action which are of sufficient concern that the safety of children
cannot be assured.[16]
Mr Wright stood down from his Cabinet position in
May 2010,[17] though
he served as Mayor of Rotherham the following year and became
a candidate for the Police and Crime Commissioner election the
year after that.
18. Following the publication of the Jay Report,
there were calls for Mr Wright to resign from, among others, the
Home Secretary, the Leader of the Labour Party, South Yorkshire
Police and Crime Panel, Sheffield City Council, Rotherham Metropolitan
Borough Council, and his own deputy, Tracey Cheetham. On 27 August,
Mr Wright announced that he was resigning from the Labour Party,
but remained committed to, and intended to remain in, his role
as an Independent Police and Crime Commissioner for South Yorkshire.[18]
On 3 September, Sheffield City Council unanimously passed a vote
of no confidence in Mr Wright.[19]
South Yorkshire Police and Crime
Panel indicated that it would support emergency legislation to
be enacted to enable the urgent removal of Police and Crime Commissioners.[20]
19. On 9 September, Mr Wright told us that he would
not resign because he felt duty-bound to serve out the fixed-term
for which he had been elected by the voters of South Yorkshire.
He said that no criticism had been made of his attempts to tackle
localised grooming in his capacity of PCC and he was happy to
"stand on [his] record" in that post.[21]
He also said that he had received more than 100 "individual
letters and texts of support from a range of individuals"
including from councillors, MPs and others. Unfortunately, he
had not sought prior permission to name any of these supportive
individuals.[22] He later
clarified that the number of messages of support received by his
office had not exceeded 17. At the same time, the number of messages
asking, inviting or calling for him to resign had reached 123.[23]
20. On 16 September, Mr Wright announced that he
was resigning "for the sake of those victims, for the sake
of the public of South Yorkshire and to ensure that the important
issues outlined in the report about tackling child sexual exploitation
can be discussed and considered in full and without distraction".[24]
21. The saga of Mr Wright's resignation highlights
the fact that Police and Crime Panels have no power to dismiss
a Commissioner. A Panel may suspend a PCC charged with an offence
which carries a maximum sentence above two years' imprisonment.
Any PCC found guilty of an imprisonable offence (whether or not
a custodial sentence is handed down) is immediately disqualified
from holding office.
22. The Home Secretary told us that, while she believes
the current system of accountability for PCCs is "effective",
she agrees with the Committee that there is a debate to be had
regarding recall of PCCs. She told us that the Government had
decided in 2011 that it would not be appropriate to introduce
recall of PCCs through the 2011 Act, as that would have created
an anomaly with other elected individuals such as MPs. This position
will change if the Recall of MPs Bill introduced on 11 September
2014 receives Royal Assent. The Government has promised that it
will reflect carefully on these suggestions and recommendations,
and those of Parliament, and the public more generally.[25]
23. We are concerned that at present there is no
mechanism at all to suspend or remove a Police and Crime Commissioner
for behaviour which falls short of criminal. This is clearly anomalous
when compared to Members of the House of Commons, who may be suspended
or expelled by the House for breaches of the Code of Conduct.[26]
Local authorities had, until June 2012, the power to disqualify
or suspend councillors following investigation by the standards
committee.[27]
24. 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.
1 Home Affairs Committee, Child sexual exploitation and the response to localised grooming,
Second Report of 2013-14, HC 68 Back
2
Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council, Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Exploitation in Rotherham (1997 - 2013),
p. 3 Back
3
Qq 173-249. The former Home Office Researcher gave evidence anonymously,
although her identity is known to the Committee. Back
4
Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council, Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Exploitation in Rotherham (1997 - 2013) Back
5
Submission by 'Former Home Office researcher' Back
6
Submission by 'Former Home Office researcher' Back
7
Submission by 'Former Home Office researcher' Back
8
Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council, Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Exploitation in Rotherham (1997 - 2013),
p. 83 Back
9
Submission by 'Former Home Office researcher' Back
10
Theresa May MP, Hansard, 2 September 2014, col. 167 Back
11
Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council, Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Exploitation in Rotherham (1997 - 2013),
p. 4 Back
12
Q 180 Back
13
Q 208 Back
14
Q 179 Back
15
Letter, David Crompton QPM to Keith Vaz MP, 1 October 2014 Back
16
Letter, Juliet Winstanley to Joyce Thacker, 9 December 2009 Back
17
Q 500 Back
18
Office of Shaun Wright, Statement from the South Yorkshire Police and Crime Commissioner,
28 August 2014 Back
19
ITV News, Sheffield Council passes vote of no confidence in Shaun Wright,
3 September 2014 Back
20
Letter, Councillor Harry Harpham to Keith Vaz MP, 25 September 2014 Back
21
Q 493 Back
22
Q 514 Back
23
Letter, Shaun Wright to Keith Vaz MP, 12 September 2014 Back
24
South Yorkshire Police and Crime Commissioner, Shaun Wright resignation statement,
16 September 2014 Back
25
Letter, Home Secretary Theresa May MP to Home Affairs Select Committee, 17 September 2014 Back
26
The power to expel a Member has not been exercised since 1947 Back
27
The power was removed by the Localism Act 2011 Back
|
