An Independent Commission on Grooming Gangs

A statutory Inquiry was announced by Keir Starmer in June this year.  He said, “it will take a bit of time to set up”[1].  Those words turned out to be particularly prescient as we near the end of the year, with not even a chair appointed and the whole process of doing so apparently firmly back at square one, unlikely to conclude anytime soon now that all the candidates have withdrawn.

In abstract, a Statutory Inquiry seems like such a good idea: a fearless, independent chair examining a catastrophic event with the aim of finding out what happened and why, and making recommendations designed to prevent recurrence.  The Inquiries Act 2005 gave Inquiry chairs real powers to compel evidence, with proper sanctions at their disposal for those who do not comply.  Yet somehow, the current state of Inquiries appears to be an increasing state of paralysis.  The effectiveness of Inquiries in terms of implementation of their recommendations is one end of the problem, and the Inquiry getting going at all is the other end.

The power to appoint a Chair rests with the Minister (section 4 of the Inquiries Act), as does the power to set terms of reference (section 5(1) of the Inquiries Act), albeit that any subsequent amendment requires the minister to consult with the Chair (section 5(4) of the Inquiries Act 2005).  There are, of course, problems associated with these powers lying solely with the Minister – obvious conflicts of interest where state bodies might be scrutinised and potentially criticised.   However, the experience of trying to appoint a Chair and set terms of reference for the Grooming Gangs inquiry suggests that there are no easy solutions. Here, attempts to involve victims and/or survivors in the establishment process spectacularly backfired when more and more of them resigned from the consultation, resulting ultimately in no candidates remaining prepared to assume the position of Chair.

The problem lies in the difficulty of obtaining consensus when naturally victims and/or survivors do not all have one voice, one perspective, or one opinion. On this occasion, the problem centred around the candidates’ backgrounds in the police and in social services.  Some of the victims and/or survivors involved on the consultation panel felt that those backgrounds were inappropriate when there are serious allegations that these institutions’ reactions and/or inaction was part of the problem and enabled the abuse.  That, of course, is a valid point of view – as is the contrary one that a background in one or other of those institutions could itself be valuable, enabling the chair to have insight into how and why these organisations reacted as they did and how best to achieve change to prevent this happening in the future.  It all depends on whether you trust the individual Chair’s independence, and it is easy to understand why victims and/or survivors might not be minded to trust anyone with such a background.

If a Minister appointing without consultation does not work (because no one trusts the process, so the Chair is starting on the back foot) and appointing a chair in consultation doesn’t work (because consensus cannot be reached), then what are the possible solutions?

One option is to consult and address head-on the criticisms made by any consultees who disagree with the final position, and leave the Chair to win the confidence of the victims and/or survivors by conducting an effective inquiry, making sensible recommendations, and doing what they can to try to get those recommendations acted upon. However, that requires a determination in the face of negative media attention, for which few politicians and/or prospective chairs have a stomach. Another option is not to consult at all, leaving the task of liaison with victims and/or survivors with the Chair – arguably that is better than consulting and then being perceived as ignoring the views of those with whom you consulted, but it gives the Chair an uphill battle.

Of course, panels and assessors can help educate a Chair and/or assist with public perception.  It is hard now to remember quite how revolutionary it was to have Sir William Macpherson, a white retired judge perceived as part of the establishment, conclude that the Metropolitan Police Service was institutionally racist at the end of the Stephen Lawrence Inquiry.  It is impossible to know whether he would have reached that same conclusion without his three advisors[2].

What is clear is that Sir Macpherson himself found his advisers enormously helpful – “Their advice has been invaluable to the Chairman.  Their contributions to the Report and to the conclusions and recommendations made have been imaginative, radical and of incalculable worth.  Without their advice and support the Inquiry would have been infinitely less effective.”   It is well-remembered that two of the advisers were Dr John Sentamu and Richard Stone, but perhaps less well-remembered is that the other adviser was Dr Tom Cook, retired Deputy Chief Constable for West Yorkshire – ensuring a set of advisers with a useful and confidence-inspiring range of perspectives and backgrounds.   It was no mean achievement that Sir Macpherson’s report set out “the unanimous views of the Chairman and his three advisers” given their diverse backgrounds.

However, even more of an achievement was perhaps the respect for him which Baroness Lawrence expressed to Channel 4 news at the time of Sir Macphersons’s death in February 2021[3].   In that interview, she was candid that she had been concerned about his appointment because of his background as an immigration judge and said that she didn’t think he would be the right person.  She described the evidence as an eye-opener for him and felt that the Lawrence Inquiry had led to real change in the investigation of racist murder.

The two most obvious examples of this significant change achieved after the Stephen Lawrence report recommendations are perhaps the establishment of independent investigation of complaints against police officers and the change to the rule on double jeopardy[4].  8. “That consideration should be given to the Court of Appeal being given power to permit prosecution after acquittal where fresh and viable evidence is presented.” (Rec 38).

Perhaps the answer is a transparent process of recruitment and appointment, and then full support for the Chair to win round the different groups by conducting a transparently fair and diligent inquiry.

[1] Sir Keir Starmer announces national inquiry into grooming gangs – BBC News

[2] the Lawrence Inquiry of course took place before the Inquiries Act came into existence hence the description adviser rather than member of panel.

[3] https://www.facebook.com/Channel4News/videos/baroness-doreen-lawrence-says-sir-william-macpherson-changed-the-country/351734929522026/

[4] See recommendation 38 and recommendation 58.