The national inquiry into grooming gangs in England and Wales, announced with high hopes in June, is now at the center of a storm as three prominent survivors have resigned from its liaison panel, alleging a toxic environment and accusing officials of trying to dilute the investigation’s focus. The resignations—first Fiona Goddard and Ellie Reynolds on October 20, followed by a third survivor known as Elizabeth on October 21—have cast a shadow over the process, raising questions about the inquiry’s credibility and future direction.
Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood, facing mounting pressure, has vowed that the inquiry “will never be watered down on my watch” and promised it will leave “no hiding place” for those responsible for the abuse. Writing in The Times, Mahmood didn’t mince words: “We must call them what they were: evil child rapists.” She insisted the inquiry’s scope “will not change” and pledged it would focus on how “some of the most vulnerable people in this country” suffered at the hands of “predatory monsters.” According to Sky News, Mahmood acknowledged frustrations about the slow pace but insisted the probe would be both “robust and rigorous,” with the power to compel witnesses and examine the ethnicity and religion of offenders.
But for the survivors who quit, those assurances ring hollow. Fiona Goddard, who grew up in a Bradford children’s home and was abused by gangs, cited a “toxic, fearful environment” and “condescending and controlling language” used towards survivors as reasons for her resignation. Ellie Reynolds, abused by a gang of Pakistani brothers in Barrow, pointed to the “final turning point” being a push to widen the inquiry’s remit “in ways that downplay the racial and religious motivations behind our abuse.” Elizabeth, from Rotherham, described the process as feeling like “a cover-up” and said it had “created a toxic environment for survivors.”
In her resignation letter, Elizabeth wrote, “This sense of control and stage-management has left many of us questioning whether our voices truly matter, or whether we are being used to legitimise decisions that have already been made.” She further told the BBC that the process felt “scripted and predetermined, rather than emerging from honest, open dialogue with survivors.” She also highlighted that “selective narratives are being promoted—ones that appear to serve particular agendas, especially around issues of race and the narrative of widening the scope.”
The panel’s composition and the selection of the inquiry’s chair have been particularly contentious. Goddard and Reynolds objected to candidates with backgrounds in policing or social work, arguing these sectors “contributed most to the cover-up of the national mass rape and trafficking of children.” According to the BBC, the two leading candidates were former police chief Jim Gamble and social worker Annie Hudson. Hudson withdrew from consideration after recent media coverage, and Gamble met with survivors to hear their concerns. Still, survivors like Reynolds argued that having “establishment insiders representing the very systems that failed us” as potential chairs was a clear conflict of interest. Elizabeth said she wanted a chair who was “legally trained and impartial.”
The government’s approach to the inquiry’s remit has also been a flashpoint. Survivors have accused officials of trying to water down the investigation by broadening its scope beyond grooming gangs to include wider issues of child sexual abuse and exploitation. Goddard claimed that “many” members of the survivors’ panel were not victims of grooming gangs but of other forms of child sexual abuse, and that only these individuals were pushing for a broader inquiry. Reynolds echoed these frustrations, saying the move to widen the inquiry “downplays the racial and religious motivations behind our abuse.” Elizabeth warned of “selective narratives being promoted, especially around race and the narrative of widening the scope.”
Safeguarding Minister Jess Phillips has pushed back hard against these allegations, denying claims of a cover-up and insisting the government is “committed to exposing the failures” to tackle “these appalling crimes.” In the House of Commons, Phillips said it was “untrue” that the government is seeking to dilute the inquiry’s focus, promising its scope will remain “laser-focused” on grooming gangs. Phillips acknowledged the resignations with regret, stating, “My door is always open to them,” but also insisted “not all victims are of the same opinion” and that she would continue engaging with all survivors. She further clarified that the inquiry panel was managed not by the government, but by a grooming gang charity.
Despite these reassurances, criticism has mounted. Conservative shadow home secretary Chris Philp declared the inquiry was “descending into chaos,” arguing that ministers had been “forced” into holding the inquiry in June and that “months later, the government has said nothing substantive publicly.” The Conservatives have called for the inquiry to be chaired by a senior judge to guarantee impartiality and restore faith in the process. Phillips, however, rejected the idea of a traditional judicial-led inquiry, noting that Baroness Casey—who led a previous inquiry—had said she did not want such an approach. Phillips also stressed the difficulty of finding a chair “not attached to an institution that didn’t fail these girls over the years, including our courts who took the children away from grooming gang victims, who criminalised some of them.” As she put it, “There is no institution in our country that hasn’t failed.”
Frustration over delays in appointing a chairperson has only added to the tension, with some survivors viewing the drawn-out process as a delay tactic designed to avoid uncomfortable truths. The government, meanwhile, is under intense pressure to develop a plan that satisfies survivors and restores confidence in the inquiry. A Home Office spokesperson told the BBC that the inquiry “will remain laser-focused on grooming gangs,” as Baroness Casey had recommended. “In order to meaningfully consult with victims and survivors about the terms of reference, we need to ask them questions and listen to their responses. That is not expanding the scope—it is ensuring their voices shape the inquiry.”
As the debate continues, one thing is clear: the path to justice for survivors of grooming gangs remains fraught with obstacles and deep mistrust. The government’s next moves will be closely watched by all sides, with the credibility of the entire inquiry—and the hopes of countless survivors—hanging in the balance.
