Third survivor quits UK grooming gangs inquiry
BBC News reports that a third abuse survivor has resigned from the government’s inquiry into grooming gangs. ‘Elizabeth’ (a pseudonym) left the victims and survivors liaison panel, joining Fiona Goddard and Ellie Reynolds. In her letter, she described a ‘toxic’ process that felt like a ‘cover-up’.
Safeguarding Minister Jess Phillips rejected the cover‑up claim and said ministers are committed to exposing failures in how agencies handled these crimes. As readers, we can hold both statements in mind: the lived reality of survivors feeling sidelined, and a government promising rigour.
Prime Minister Keir Starmer announced in June a national inquiry covering England and Wales, with a survivors’ panel to help guide the work. The chair has not yet been confirmed, a delay that now sits at the centre of distrust.
According to BBC News, former senior social worker Annie Hudson, previously in the frame to chair the inquiry, has withdrawn after media coverage of her candidacy. Another name under consideration is former deputy chief constable Jim Gamble; survivors met him recently, with both sides described as listening to each other.
Two panel members, Goddard and Reynolds, argued the chair should not come from policing or social work because those services were part of the failures they want examined. Elizabeth told the BBC she wants someone legally trained and impartial, fearing a process that feels scripted rather than led by open conversation with survivors.
The three women also say officials are trying to broaden the inquiry beyond grooming gangs into wider child sexual abuse and exploitation, which they believe risks watering down the focus. Phillips has said that is untrue and insists the scope will stay tightly focused.
Reynolds, who has spoken about being abused by a gang in Barrow, says the final straw was a proposed widening that, in her view, downplays racial and religious drivers. This is a sensitive area, and we should read it with care: survivors are entitled to describe what happened to them, and those experiences should not be used to fuel racism or target whole communities.
Goddard has publicly challenged the minister’s denial, calling it a ‘blatant lie’. She also said many on the panel were not themselves victims of grooming gangs but of other forms of child sexual abuse, and that it was these members who favoured a broader inquiry. Phillips told MPs she regretted the departures, said not all victims agree, and stressed she would keep engaging.
Phillips also said the survivors’ panel that Goddard and Reynolds left is not run by the government but by a grooming gang charity. That matters for accountability: it may help keep survivor involvement at arm’s length from ministers, but it can also create confusion about who controls the process day to day.
Why does chair independence matter so much? A credible inquiry needs to be seen as fair by survivors and by the public. Candidates with deep sector experience can bring insight, but they may also carry perceived conflicts if they worked in services under scrutiny. Survivors this week pushed for a legally qualified chair as a signal of impartiality.
A quick explainer for your classroom or study group: inquiries in the UK can be statutory or non-statutory. Statutory inquiries under the Inquiries Act 2005 can compel documents and witness evidence under oath; non-statutory inquiries cannot compel in the same way but are often quicker. The choice affects trust, scope and timelines.
At Westminster, Conservative shadow home secretary Chris Philp said the process is ‘descending into chaos’ and called for a senior judge to lead it. Phillips rejected that, pointing to previous advice that a traditional judge‑led model may not be right here and noting that every institution, including courts, has failed victims at times.
As you read claims from all sides, try three questions: Who sets the scope and can change it? Who picks the chair and how are conflicts handled? What power will the inquiry have to get evidence? These shape whether survivors feel heard.
Next steps are practical but important. A chair must be appointed, terms must be clarified in plain English, and survivors need safe, meaningful involvement. Phillips said her door remains open to the women who resigned; whether trust can be rebuilt will depend on visible choices made in the coming weeks.
If you are a survivor and this story is difficult to read, consider reaching out to a trusted support service in your area or a safeguarding lead you already know. You are not alone.