Emily Barley: Child sexual exploitation is not just part of Rotherham’s past

6 Jan

Cllr Emily Barley is the Leader of the Conservative Group on Rotherham Council. She is a councillor for Hoober Ward.

In May 2021, after I was elected leader of a brand new group of Conservative Councillors in Rotherham, one of the first things I did was set up a small working group to assess the current situation regarding child sexual exploitation (CSE) in the Borough.

What we found was extremely worrying. In just a few short months, we discovered multiple examples of active grooming and other activities that indicated children are still being abused by organised gangs. Multiple members of the public talked about having seen suspicious things in a few key locations, and a picture emerged of Asian men buying children ice creams and mobile phones, and children getting into strangers’ cars at night in what looked like a network of pick-up locations. Through casework, we came across instances of children who were at risk, and possibly already being abused.

In each case, we reported everything we heard and found to South Yorkshire Police, and to Rotherham Council.

What happened next made the situation move from extremely worrying, to dire. In response to our reports, nothing happened. When we did get an acknowledgement of the information we had submitted, the tone of emails was hostile and the implication seemed to be that the authorities didn’t want to know. In the case of one at-risk child, it took three months of chasing around various people and departments at the council for anything to be done.

We went on to speak with survivors of historic child sexual exploitation, and then to professionals who support recent, and in some cases very young, survivors. When we heard stories from the past, then compared them to what we had seen and what recent survivors said in their statements, I was sickened.

By November, I felt it was time to go public with what we had found. Too many times in the past people in Rotherham have been pressured into remaining silent, and I wasn’t going to let that happen again.

I published a report summarising our findings, giving as much detail as I felt was safe to avoid identifying victims and damaging future police investigations.

The response from the public was dramatic and immediate: we received a flood of further information on suspicious activities and possible pick-up locations, some confirming what we had already heard from others, and some completely new. People shared stories of things they had seen, how they had likewise reported things to the police and been ignored, and more survivors came forward to tell us how they too had been failed by Rotherham Council and South Yorkshire Police.

The response from the authorities was different. We were accused of playing politics with the issue, supplying poor intelligence with the implication that we had wasted police time, and of not knowing what we were talking about. Chris Read, the Labour Leader of Rotherham Council, and Dr Alan Billings, the Labour South Yorkshire Police and Crime Commissioner, were both keen to say that they took child sexual exploitation seriously. They both were also anxious to say that grooming in Rotherham has changed, and it is now mostly done by white men, online.

In the Full Council meeting where we presented a motion calling for action on child sexual exploitation, Labour councillors took turns to deride our work, accuse us of ill-intent, and say that I personally had damaged confidence in the police. Again, we heard the claim that everyone in Rotherham takes child sexual exploitation seriously, but nevertheless we were wrong. Then, en-masse, the Labour group voted to amend our motion, taking out its teeth and deleting a passage that said: “While RMBC has performed well in Ofsted and other inspections, what matters is not that inspections are passed, but that children are protected from some of the most horrific crimes imaginable.”

To know the history of Rotherham – of dismissals and denials – and watch it happening again, was devastating.

Just a few weeks later, the Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC) published a report highlighting a number of continuing failings at South Yorkshire Police, including, among other things, the under-recording of crime against vulnerable children, the need for more training for specialist police officers, and failure to regularly update victims on their cases. The IOPC report quoted an expert who works with victims as saying that while things had improved in 2015-16, they had deteriorated since then.

The IOPC, not especially well-known for being critical of the police, said that they were “worried that despite multiple reports and recommendations, there are still areas of concern”.

Then, last week, The Times published details from South Yorkshire Police’s own internal report stating that in 67% of child sexual exploitation cases in Rotherham, the ethnicity of suspects is not recorded. The police report also said that Rotherham remains a hotspot for child sexual exploitation, and that fewer cases were being recorded possibly due to ‘competing demands’ to investigate other kinds of crime.

I know that the failings at South Yorkshire Police and Rotherham Council to tackle child sexual exploitation go much further than the limited scope of these two reports suggest.

Still, today, frontline police officers and council staff are not adequately trained to recognise when a child is being groomed and possibly sexually exploited – instead, abused children are often still treated as troublemakers. We have heard from council staff who are terrified of losing their jobs if they speak out about what is going wrong – they have been told by their managers not to talk about child sexual exploitation.

Proactive work to identify possible victims and perpetrators is practically non-existent here, and South Yorkshire Police only prosecute in 1 in 34 child sexual exploitation cases, one of the worst rates in the country.

It’s simply not good enough. These poor attitudes and constant failings are not good enough anywhere, but they’re especially not good enough in Rotherham. Children are being groomed, raped, and trafficked, because the authorities in Rotherham are still not doing their jobs properly.

I and my team are going to keep working to change that.

Never mind CCTV. A sign should greet Javid in his new office. Saying “Welcome to Hell”.

27 Jun

Some of Sajid Javid’s friends wanted him to return to the Government as Education Secretary.  This might have suited the meritocratic campaigner, whose leadership election pitch was: “I’m in this race because I want to level the playing field, to lower the ladder to everyone”.  And who also has a big interest in skills.

Others believed that he could come back as Foreign Secretary, thus completing an all-Asian line-up in the three great offices of state: Rishi Sunak at the Treasury, Priti Patel at the Home Office…and Javid.  It is just the sort of “eye-catching initiative” that might have found favour in Downing Street.

We wondered if a lower key, lower drama return might come at Work and Pensions, where Javid’s numeracy and Treasury experience would come in useful.  At any rate, there was no shortage of options for slotting The Saj back in – always likely, given the departure of Dominic Cummings, who doesn’t rate him, and the presence of Carrie Symonds, his former Special Adviser.

What neither he nor Boris Johnson may have anticipated was a recall to Health – a move necessitated by Matt Hancock’s defenestration, and the Prime Minister’s determination to keep Cabinet changes to a minimum.

Javid is becoming the John Reid of the Conservative Party, having now served at Cabinet level in the Treasury, the Home Office, the Business Department, Housing and Culture: the man one calls upon to fill a gap or fix a problem.

However, nothing will have prepared him for what he is about to experience.  The CCTV camera that doomed Matt Hancock has apparently been dismantled.  But never mind secret tape in the office – never likely to be a problem, in any event, for this most uxorious of politicians.  Rather, the new Health Secretary should be greeted by a three-word warning sign: “Welcome to Hell”.

Consider the challenges that confront him.

Housing produced the Grenfell horror; the Home Office, Shamima Begum; Business, Tata Steel.  All were one-offs – the equivalent of a jab with a sharpened stick.  The health job, by contrast, brings with it persistent pressure: like being squeezed tight by the coils of a giant python.

First of all, Javid has to establish a position on Covid.  His early hope that restrictions will be lifted “as soon and as quickly as possible” seems immediately to have been gutted by his department.

The odds are that the remaining elements of lockdown will end on July 19, only for pressure for shutdown to return in the autumn as Coronavirus and flu cases climb.  The new Health Secretary’s first task will be to get to grips with the issues.

But it’s after Covid that his problems really begin.  Whether or not Boris Johnson makes an early dash to the polls in the autumn of 2023, health is likely to dominate headlines in 2022, with over five million people waiting for treatment.  Labour won’t be able to help themselves trying to frame the next election as “a referendum on the NHS”.

Javid will find himself on the Today progamme, in the Commons, on the airwaves and in front of Andrew Marr on a regular rather than an occasional basis.  Even in his varied career, he won’t have experienced anything like it.  But making the case for the Conservative record on the NHS will be only the start of the new Health Secretary’s labours.

Read Robert Ede and Sean Philips’ recent piece on this site. (“The Government faces an election run-up monopolised by reports of NHS waiting times and delays”).  As if grappling with the Covid backlog were not enough, Javid faces no fewer than four other major policy challenges, at least three of which require legislation.

First, there is the plan to split up Public Health England into two new bodies – the UK Health Security Agency and the Office for Health Promotion.

Next, there is reform of the Mental Health Act, which will require a draft bill.

Penultimately, there is the NHS and Care Bill, due in this session, which “will provide the framework for a more integrated and joined-up healthcare system in England”.

And finally, there are the Government’s proposals for social care, whenever they emerge.

The third has the potential to rock Javid’s boat and the fourth to wreck it.  Competition and co-operation are the two main drivers of healthcare policy.  And there has been an apostolic succession of competition-based policy from Ken Clarke’s GP fundholding, through Alan Milburn’s partnership with private health care to create new capacity, to Andrew Lansley’s batttered reforms.

The right-wing think tanks will kick back against any attempt to water down competition, and there may be rumbling on the Conservative backbenches.  But if most Tory MPs are onside, as they can reasonably be expected to be, Javid can take opposition on the chin.

Social care is a horse of a different colour.  In opposition, Cameron’s Conservatives wrecked Labour’s potential reforms by labelling them a “death tax”.  In Government, Theresa May’s unprepared, unfloated policy did more than any other to lose her seats in 2017.

On the downside, Javid has no background in a health-related departments.  His recent areas of interests have included the economy after Covid, drawing on his Treasury experience; reducing child sexual abuse; raising the minimum marriage age to 18, and rough sleeping (see his ConservativeHome piece).

The last two campaigns were closely related to his experience at Housing, Communities and Local Government, and its to his credit that he kept going on both.

On the upside, the new Health Secretary knows his way round the Treasury – he is the first to be a former Chancellor, rather than the other way round – which will be invaluable during this testing period ahead.  And since Ministers are necessarily generalists, he is no more disadvantaged taking up the post than any other first-timer.

Javid is about to find himself the most publicised Health Secretary since Lansley.  He will hope that his tenure at health doesn’t end the same way.

Cummings Reborn – as the champion of Parliament. He has given MPs more power, so leaving the inquiry with less.

26 May

Dominic Cummings’ marathon evidence session was bad for Ministers, bad for the civil service, bad for government – and, not least, bad for Cummings, as he turned his gun on himself, so to speak, in the wake of his drive-by shooting.

That’s to say, it was bad for all of these if the public take any notice, rather than following Clark Gable: “frankly, my dear, I don’t give a damn”.  Should they?

Some will make snap judgements about what Cummings’ evidence said about how we’re governed, whether voters care or not.  Or sigh world-wearily instead, and say that it was ever thus.

Others will try to work out which politicians are damaged most.  Or which civil servants and government departments are.  Or whether Cummings was angling for a job under a Rishi Sunak or Michael Gove-led administration.

Others still will say that the Labour manifesto of 1983 can no longer claim the title of the longest suicide note in history.  Because Cummings’ evidence has overhauled it.

Whatever your view, the very length and density of the evidence defies an instant take.  Except that its core message was Martin Amis’ definition of entropy: Everything Fucks Up.

However, one point hits home immediately.  Yesterday, Cummings bent the passage of time.  That’s to say, he brought politics forward from the Covid inquiry – and dumped it on the floor of the Commons.

Did Boris Johnson so dismiss the virus’ threat as to suggest injecting himself with it on live TV?  Did Carrie Symonds act illegally in relation to an appointment?  Did Matt Hancock lie “on multiple occasions”?

Did Mark Sedwill, then Cabinet Secretary, propose “chicken pox parties” in order that as many people as possible catch the virus?  Did the Prime Minister “not want a proper border policy”?

Was there never a plan to shield care homes or test those entering – contrary to assurances from the Health Secretary? Aren’t the dead and their families owed so much better?  And is the key problem that haunts the British people or systems?

For on the one hand, Cummings said that the crisis required “a kind of dictator” with “close to kingly authority”.  On the other, he claimed that even Bill Gates or “the most competent people in the world…would have had an absolute nightmare”.

For better or worse, Cummings’ evidence will give MPs opportunities to put all these questions soon rather than later (i.e: after the next election, in all probability, when the inquiry at last reports – by which time some of them will no longer be in the Commons).

And not just in the chamber.  Whatever else can be said of today’s session, it was a triumph for the Select Committee system.  Greg Clark and Jeremy Hunt – an old double act that once wrote a pamphlet together – were sober, prepared and measured.

Pan the camera out a bit, and you can see how Select Committees are enjoying a revival.  Major inquiries have not usually been undertaken in Parliament during recent years.

Bloody Sunday, child abuse, the Iraq War: all the main ones in the last few decades, stretching all way back to the Franks Report on the Falklands War and beyond, have been farmed out by the Executive to judges (or lay experts).

But where Hunt and Clark walked today, they will continue tomorrow.  The Health Secretary faces an evidence session.  Parliamentary questions will be asked of him in the Commons today.  Johnson is to make a statement.

Other committees may get in on the act – just as they have over the Greensill collapse, over which a Treasury Select Committee inquiry is up and running.  The Business Committee has one coming.  The Public Administration Committee has already got one going.

Now have a think about who some of those committee chairmen are.  Hunt, Health Select Committee: Johnson’s leadership rival (and the man in charge of pandemic prep under previous governments).  Clark, Science Select Committee, who Johnson sacked from the Cabinet.

Mel Stride, Treasury Select Committee Chair, ditto.  (Well, almost: as Commons Leader under Theresa May, he had the right to attend.)  William Wragg, Public Administration: a persistent critic of the Government over lockdown.

What an irony it is that Cummings, who once refused to attend a Select Committee, and was threatened with a summons to the bar of the Commons, has been falling over himself in his eagerness to give evidence.

And that he, the razer of institutions – not least Parliament – has helped to restore it.  Or at least given it a chance to revive itself, and get ahead of an inquiry before its members have even been appointed.

Ben Monro-Davies: “I think when women cry, often they are angry.” On this day, 30 years ago, Margaret Thatcher resigned

22 Nov

Ben Monro-Davies is an Executive Producer at Sky News and has previously work at the BBC and Channel 4 News. He is the host of the podcast Big Ben History, which discusses the past at Westminster.

All remember it vividly. They arrived not entirely sure what was about to happen, awaiting her in the ante room. Her Principal Private Secretary, Andrew Turnbull, briefly panicked: he’d forgotten to tell ministers the right time, such was the silence as he and the soon to resign Prime Minister approached. But as they turned the corner – he and she saw them all there – in his words, “pressed back, looking at their shoes.”

The meeting was earlier than usual – bought forward not because of the end of an eleven year premiership – but for the memorial service for Libby Douglas Home, the wife of Alec. Many went straight to St Paul’s Cathedral afterwards – William Waldegrave remembers the surreal juxtaposition of them singing All Things Bright and Beautiful with the choir just an hour afterwards.

Some had anticipated what was about to happen. The Cabinet secretary, Robin Butler, realised the night before that it was all over. He was keen to “stage manage” proceedings. “I didn’t want there to be a hiatus with nobody knowing what to do.” On November 21st, he drafted a tribute on behalf of the Cabinet – and asked James Mackay, the Lord Chancellor, to read it. He chose Mackay as someone who was clearly not going to succeed her.

Lord Mackay – today still active in the Lords in his nineties – reflects that he, the son of railway signal man, had “strangely enough become number two in the cabinet, and I was sitting next to the Prime Minister.”

He remembers Thatcher reading her statement and breaking down. Cecil Parkinson spoke up, saying: “the Lord Chancellor will read it for you.” Two members of her staff, Barry Potter and Dominic Morris recall Parkinson adding “you don’t have to do this”. Mackay says he responded firmly: “no : the Lord Chancellor will not read it for you, The Prime Minister will read it herself.” Others recall her stumbling to the end – and then saying “I had better do that again”, and reliving the grief once more.

When I first became interested in this most dramatic of meetings, I’d assumed that was that. With a twenty-first century sensibility towards job termination, it already required imagination to grasp a scenario in which you’d have to read out your resignation to the men who’d called time on your career the day before.

But the meeting was not over. It was still a Cabinet gathering with an agenda. So with some ministers such as the Home Secretary, David Waddington, in tears, the meeting moved on – albeit with some constitutional as well as emotional awkwardness.

Her Party Chairman, Kenneth Baker, remembers a break for coffee, and a revived Iron Lady then telling the cabinet “on no account must Heseltine be elected” – an instruction he calls “inappropriate”. That was exactly what some of those in the meeting did want. Butler felt obliged to “soften” the Cabinet minutes to record a general exhortation to carry on the work of her government.

Tom King, then Defence Secretary, was moved by the scene. He’d found her very supportive during his time in Northern Ireland office, and remembers her kindly taking him aside after his mother died. By contrast, he doubts his previous boss, Ted Heath, ever knew his name. He also considered himself as the possible next Prime Minister. “The truth was at that moment four or five of us could have come through as her successor. That’s the reality. “

But he was also next on the Cabinet agenda – outlining the biggest military deployment since World War II to remove Saddam Hussein from Kuwait. This was effectively a war cabinet meeting, and the British machinery of government was navigating the defenestration of its leader and a massive military engagement at the same time.

The less historic was attended to as well. No-one understandably remembers, but in her memoirs Thatcher describes an item on “an unsuccessful Fisheries Council ruined by incompetent Italian chairmanship”. It’s confirmed in the minutes. The State was remorselessly executing the tasks in hand,

There were only two women in the room: Thatcher, and Caroline Slocock, then a private secretary in Downing St. She was not politically sympathetic to Thatcherism, and to her disappointment had been denied the position on a permanent basis. She later discovered that Thatcher had been behind this.

Nevertheless, she remembers the meeting as “pure torture. I was only the other woman in the room. To my shock I started to cry. I hadn’t even brought in a handkerchief. It was the extraordinary loss of power. “

But as a woman, there was another perspective. “It was also the anger. I think when women cry, often they are angry. I think she was probably very angry with these men. The scene has haunted me ever since.” By the end of that day, she recalls there being no tissue paper in the women’s bathroom.

Slocock was right. Thatcher was angry and made little secret of it afterwards. Peter Lilley thinks he was the only cabinet minister present at the launch of her memoirs which eviscerated her former colleagues as “men in lifeboats”.

As to how it had come to this, there are the common observations that longevity breeds detachment. Having so often been proved right at the ballot box, it became harder for her to accept she might be wrong, most notably on the poll tax. Lilley feared she might ask him to rescue it, and warned his wife he would have to return to the backbenches because he believed the policy wrongheaded.

But more bespoke episodes are identified. All bring up a cabinet meeting just a few days before, where she humiliated Geoffrey Howe needlessly over an issue of the parliamentary timetable. Malcom Rifkind says “he was the Deputy Prime Minister and she tore him into as if he were an errant schoolboy. That was a disgrace.”

Howe resigned shortly afterwards, triggering the events that led to a leadership challenge from Michael Heseltine. Charles Moore in his authorised biography of Thatcher concludes that Howe was going to resign anyway. But in two Cabinet meetings in November 1990 ministers spent much of it, in Kenneth Baker’s words, “staring at the blotters on their desks.”

And one name forgotten name comes up again and again. Peter Morrison was her Parliamentary Private Secretary who was tasked with her leadership campaign. Michael Howard says: “He was frankly hopeless. I remember ringing Peter up, and asking is there anything I can do to help? ‘No, no, no he said, it’s all under control old boy, there’s nothing you can do.’ It was a disaster.” Morrison was an alcoholic who died five years later, and the current Independent Child Sex Abuse inquiry has heard claims that he was also a sex offender.

Thatcher was forced into a fatal second ballot by a handful of votes – hearing the news In Paris at a conference with world leaders to mark the end of the Cold War. She’d played a crucial role in defeating the Soviet Union, but neglected to appoint the right general to deal with her own troops. Barry Potter blames a weakness for “posh men.” Andrew Turnbull adds she liked them also to be “tall.” Morrison fitted both categories.

And for all the drama of the final cabinet meeting , it’s worth noting the absence of three central actors. Michael Heseltine was of course challenging from the backbenches. Geoffrey Howe was there with him, for the first time since 1979. And the Chancellor of Exchequer was also missing. John Major was at home recuperating from having his wisdom teeth removed. The next cabinet meeting he attended was as Prime Minister.