In a week marked by resignations, heated debate, and mounting distrust, the UK government’s national inquiry into grooming gangs has been thrown into turmoil. On October 23, 2025, four survivors who had previously resigned from the government’s grooming gangs inquiry panel issued a striking ultimatum: they would only consider returning if Safeguarding Minister Jess Phillips stepped down. Their demand, delivered in a letter to Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood, underscored a crisis of confidence in the inquiry’s leadership and direction—a crisis that has only deepened as key candidates to chair the probe have withdrawn amid accusations of political point-scoring and a toxic environment.
The survivors’ letter, reported by Sky News and the BBC, minced no words. “Being publicly contradicted and dismissed by a government minister when you are a survivor telling the truth takes you right back to that feeling of not being believed all over again. It is a betrayal that has destroyed what little trust remained,” the letter read. The signatories, all women who had endured the trauma of grooming gangs, insisted that Phillips’ conduct rendered her “unfit to oversee a process that requires survivors to trust the government.” Their demands included keeping the inquiry’s scope “laser-focused” on grooming gangs, replacing the current victim liaison lead with an independent mental health professional, and ensuring that victims could speak freely to support networks without fear of reprisal.
Leaked consultation documents and private texts between Phillips and survivor Fiona Goddard, revealed by Sky News, confirmed that survivors’ concerns about the inquiry’s scope expanding beyond grooming gangs were indeed valid. This revelation fueled further anger among those who felt their lived experiences were being sidelined or dismissed for political expediency.
The survivors’ mistrust was compounded by the backgrounds of the two leading candidates to chair the inquiry. Both Jim Gamble, a former police chief and child protection specialist who once headed the Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre, and Annie Hudson, a former social worker, were seen by some as emblematic of the very institutions that had failed to protect them. As survivor Ellie-Ann Reynolds explained to Sky News, learning of the candidates’ ties to police and social services “raised red flags,” given those agencies’ historical failures. “Victims were gaslit and manipulated during the process and had very little faith in authorities and systems,” Reynolds said.
Gamble, who withdrew his candidacy on October 22, 2025, cited the “highly charged and toxic environment” and what he described as political opportunism. “Regrettably, the reaction to the appointment process has been defined more by the vested interests of some, as well as political opportunism and point-scoring, rather than by the cross-party consensus required to address such a serious national issue,” he wrote in his resignation letter to the home secretary. Speaking to the BBC, Gamble reflected, “I worry that victims and survivors who watch this are left with the feeling that this is never going to be resolved.” He emphasized that, despite his two decades of experience working with abuse survivors, some panel members lacked confidence in him due to his policing background.
Hudson, the other frontrunner, also stepped aside earlier in the week, citing intense media scrutiny. With both lead candidates gone, the government is now scrambling to find a new chair for an inquiry that Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer had launched after Baroness Louise Casey’s audit revealed the staggering scale of the grooming gang problem.
The Home Office, for its part, has maintained a public commitment to a “full, statutory, national inquiry to uncover the truth,” calling the grooming gang scandal “one of the darkest moments in this country’s history.” A spokesperson expressed disappointment over the candidate withdrawals and stressed the need to appoint the best possible person for the role, given the sensitivity of the issue.
The political fallout has been swift and severe. At Prime Minister’s Questions on October 22, Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch pressed Sir Keir Starmer on the inquiry’s effectiveness, relaying survivors’ fears that the probe would “downplay the racial and religious motivations behind their abuse” and asking, “aren’t the victims right when they call it a cover-up?” Badenoch accused the government of waging a “briefing war against survivors” and called for Phillips to be sacked. Starmer, in response, insisted, “The inquiry is not and will never be watered down. Its scope will not change. It will examine the ethnicity and religion of the offenders and we will find the right person to chair the inquiry.” He invited those who had quit to rejoin, but added, “we owe it to them” to address their concerns, emphasizing that survivors would be at the heart of the process.
Yet, the survivor community itself is far from unified. While four have resigned, two others—Samantha Walker-Roberts and Carly—told the BBC they would remain on the panel and disagreed with the calls for Phillips’ resignation. Walker-Roberts, herself a survivor of a grooming gang and other forms of sexual abuse, argued for a broader inquiry scope: “This is a one-of-a-kind type of inquiry where survivors are in control and it’s wrong that certain survivors get special treatment to be part of this. It’s wrong certain survivors can’t see past their own trauma because everyone deserves to be part of this and deserves justice… Survivors like us need to be part of this, so the scope needs to be widened otherwise we’re going be silenced.”
Carly, from Huddersfield, echoed this sentiment, stating that “the most effective way to drive meaningful change is from within” and expressing hope that the raised concerns would lead to constructive improvements. “Survivors should be at the centre of this inquiry, and political debates must be left at the door,” she said.
The debate over the inquiry’s scope is not merely academic. Survivors such as Jess (not her real name), who was sexually abused as a child in Kirklees, West Yorkshire, described feeling “deeply shocked” at the prospect of police or social services officials chairing the process. “How can we expect truth and accountability when those overseeing the process are connected to the systems that enabled the cover-up?” she asked. Jess also criticized any effort to steer the inquiry toward broader issues of child sexual abuse and exploitation, insisting, “While all forms of child abuse are abhorrent and deserve their own dedicated inquiry, this particular inquiry was meant to focus on grooming gangs. That issue alone is vast, deeply-rooted, and has been covered up not just for years, but for decades. It deserves to stand alone and be addressed with the seriousness it warrants.”
Meanwhile, Marlon West, whose daughter Scarlett was a grooming gang victim, also called for Phillips’ resignation, telling Sky News that the minister had “lost any kind of faith from the public, and more importantly with survivors and families.” West emphasized the need for family perspectives on the panel, noting that “it’s the parents who are dealing with the police, every single day, and social services. It’s really important that they get family perspective. I think they should start again.”
As the government searches for a new chair and survivors remain divided on the inquiry’s direction, the path forward is anything but clear. The wounds left by years of institutional failure and public mistrust are still raw, and the challenge of restoring faith in the process looms large. Whether the inquiry can deliver the truth and accountability survivors demand remains an open question—but the stakes, for them and for the nation, could hardly be higher.
