Reviewed and updated 20 August 2026 against the final terms of reference for the Independent Inquiry into Grooming Gangs.
By Aneeta Prem MBE
The Independent Inquiry into Grooming Gangs is now a statutory public inquiry.
Its final terms of reference were published on 31 March 2026, and the inquiry was formally established under the Inquiries Act 2005 on 13 April 2026.
It is chaired by Baroness Anne Longfield and covers England and Wales. Its purpose is to examine group-based child sexual exploitation and abuse, failures by institutions and individuals, missed opportunities to protect children and what needs to change.
The inquiry has statutory powers to obtain evidence and testimony. It cannot itself determine criminal or civil liability.
Why the inquiry was created
The inquiry follows Baroness Casey’s 2025 National Audit on Group-Based Child Sexual Exploitation and Abuse.
That audit recommended a time-limited, targeted inquiry into areas where statutory services may have failed or obstructed effective responses to grooming gangs.
The Government accepted that recommendation and established a three-year statutory inquiry.
The final report is due to be submitted to the Home Secretary by 31 March 2029. The inquiry may publish interim reports and local findings before then.
What the inquiry means by grooming gangs
The terms of reference define the inquiry’s focus as group-based child sexual exploitation and abuse involving two or more connected perpetrators who are involved in or facilitate the sexual exploitation or abuse of children.
That can include introducing children to other perpetrators, trafficking children for sexual exploitation, taking payment for sexual activity with a child or allowing premises to be used for exploitation.
The inquiry is therefore focused on a particular form of child sexual abuse rather than using “grooming gangs” as a general label for all abuse involving more than one person.
Victims and survivors are supposed to be central
The terms of reference require a strong victim-and-survivor focus.
The inquiry must engage people with different experiences and backgrounds and recognise that exploitation may occur in person, online, through trafficking or alongside criminal exploitation.
It must also consider the particular vulnerabilities of children in care and residential settings.
That matters because institutional learning becomes distorted if survivors are treated only as sources of evidence rather than people whose experience should shape how systems change.
Local investigations
The inquiry can conduct local investigations across England and Wales.
For each selected area, it can examine the adequacy and timeliness of statutory-service responses, missed opportunities for intervention, the treatment of people who reported concerns, leadership failures and whether previous learning actually changed practice.
The inquiry can consider education, youth services, police, social care, religious organisations, voluntary organisations and other bodies where relevant.
It can use public hearings, written evidence, research, data analysis and other forms of investigation.
Ethnicity, religion and culture are explicitly within scope
The final terms of reference say local investigations may examine whether ethnicity, religion or culture played a role in the causes of offending and in the response of institutions.
That wording needs care.
It would be wrong to exclude those factors from scrutiny because they are politically uncomfortable. It would be equally wrong to assume that ethnicity, religion or culture caused offending before the inquiry has examined the evidence.
The inquiry’s task is to investigate what role, if any, those factors played in particular settings and whether fear of being accused of racism, cultural misunderstanding, stereotyping or other institutional behaviour affected safeguarding decisions.
Evidence should decide the conclusion, not the politics surrounding the subject.
Institutional failure is a central question
The inquiry is not only about individual perpetrators.
Its remit includes the response of the organisations that were supposed to protect children.
That means asking whether police, social care, education, health and other services recognised exploitation; whether professionals shared information; whether children were believed; whether language such as “making choices” or “putting themselves at risk” disguised abuse; and whether institutional reputation was ever placed above child protection.
Those questions should be asked without assuming the answer in every local area.
The inquiry and criminal investigations are separate
A public inquiry cannot convict offenders.
The terms of reference make clear that allegations or evidence of criminality arising from the inquiry can be referred to Operation Beaconport, the national law-enforcement operation overseen by the National Crime Agency.
This separation matters.
The inquiry examines systems, institutional conduct and lessons. Police and prosecutors investigate and prosecute criminal offences. Courts determine criminal guilt.
Public accountability is strongest when those roles remain clear.
What the inquiry should not become
Child sexual exploitation should not be used to stigmatise whole communities.
Nor should fear of stigma prevent professionals from recording what the evidence shows about particular perpetrators, networks, institutions or local patterns.
Both failures damage safeguarding.
Children need professionals who can discuss sex, race, ethnicity, religion, culture, class, disability, care experience and other relevant factors accurately without turning a risk assessment into a stereotype.
What meaningful accountability would look like
A three-year inquiry will produce a large amount of evidence. Its value will depend on whether that evidence changes practice.
Useful outcomes would include:
- clear findings about missed opportunities and institutional failures;
- local recommendations with named responsibilities and timescales;
- better data on group-based child sexual exploitation;
- stronger information-sharing and professional challenge;
- action where misconduct or criminality is identified;
- evidence that previous recommendations have actually been implemented; and
- continued involvement of victims and survivors in evaluating change.
Why this matters to safeguarding
My work through Freedom Charity has repeatedly shown the importance of recognising coercion and abuse even when family, community or cultural pressure makes professionals hesitant.
The subject matter is different, but the safeguarding principle is familiar: a child should never carry the burden of making adults comfortable with what is happening to them.
Professionals need to be able to name risk accurately, challenge one another and act on evidence.
Final word
The Independent Inquiry into Grooming Gangs has now moved beyond political argument about whether an inquiry should exist.
It has statutory powers, a defined remit and a deadline.
The test is what it establishes about past and present failures — and whether institutions make the changes needed to stop children being failed again.
The inquiry should follow the evidence wherever it leads, without fear, prejudice or institutional self-protection.
Sources and further reading
- GOV.UK: Independent Inquiry into Grooming Gangs — terms of reference
- Home Secretary letter on the final terms of reference
- Baroness Casey: National Audit on Group-Based Child Sexual Exploitation and Abuse
