Sir Keir Starmer will face questions over the grooming gang scandal (Image: Getty)
Former Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer will be summoned to give evidence to the national grooming gangs inquiry, it has emerged. Sir Keir, who has repeatedly defended his role in the scandal, has been listed as a core participant. The hearings will start with the experiences of victims and survivors. But the probe, led by Baroness Anne Longfield, will then examine institutional responses amid widespread fears of cover-ups.
A list published by the inquiry also reveals the Metropolitan Police Commissioner, Sir Mark Rowley, will give evidence, as will Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood, Communities Secretary Angela Rayner and Health Secretary Yvette Cooper. The inquiry team said in a statement: “In awarding Core Participant status, the Chair of the Inquiry considers whether a person played, or may have played, a direct and significant role in relation to the matters to which the inquiry relates, whether they have a significant interest in an important aspect of the matters to which the inquiry relates, or whether the person may be subject to explicit or significant criticism during the inquiry proceedings or in the report, or in any interim report.”
It is expected that Sir Keir will give evidence in the second phase of the inquiry.
Other core participants include Greater Manchester Police whistleblower Maggie Oliver and Rotherham whistleblower Jayne Senior.
Baroness Anne Longfield CBE, Chair of the Inquiry, said: “Over many years, inquiries, reviews, inspections and investigations have identified serious failings in how children were protected from sexual exploitation by grooming gangs and made recommendations for change.
“Reviews have been held before. Reports have been written. Recommendations have been made. Yet victims and survivors tell us that too many of those recommendations did not result in meaningful change, lessons were not learned, and organisations are still failing to act.
“We are determined to establish the truth about these horrific crimes, understand why children were failed for so long, and ensure that those responsible for protecting them are held properly to account.
“These hearings are not simply about identifying what needs to change. They are about understanding why change did not always follow, who was responsible, and what must now happen to make sure these failures are not repeated.”
Zoë Billingham CBE, Panellist on the Inquiry, said: “For too long there has been a gap between what previous inquiries and reviews identified and what happened afterwards.
“These hearings will examine what action was taken, what progress was made, who was responsible for delivering change and why recommendations did not always result in meaningful improvements.”
Sir Keir faced fury from victims after a major Daily Express investigation revealed he oversaw the use of “paedophile Asbos” that allowed suspects to get off with a warning.
Our probe found documents from Sir Keir’s time as Britain’s top prosecutor describing how the CPS was “drafting and agreeing” warning notices with police chiefs that whistleblowers say have been given to suspected child rapists.
The warning notices were drawn up as part of the CPS’s national strategy to tackle violence against women and girls.
But our investigation found that the “early intervention tool” was often used instead of evidence gathering and no research was ever conducted into their effectiveness.
The Statutory Independent Inquiry into Grooming Gangs confirmed London, Oldham and Bradford and Keighley will be the first areas to face local investigations, following multiple Daily Express investigations.
The inquiry will explore “the wider network of grooming gangs across London’s satellite towns and cities”.
And it will focus on the capital’s role “in the national network of grooming gangs”. They admitted there needs to be an “early investigation” because London “has the highest rate of referrals for child sexual exploitation” in the country and extensive transport links.
Keir Starmer Summoned to Give Evidence to Grooming Gangs Inquiry: Pressure Mounts on the Prime Minister
The prospect of Keir Starmer being summoned to give evidence to an inquiry into grooming gangs would represent a major moment in Britain’s continuing struggle to confront one of the most disturbing scandals in its recent history. The issue has haunted successive governments, damaged public confidence in institutions and raised serious questions about whether vulnerable children were adequately protected when warning signs of organised sexual exploitation emerged.
For the Prime Minister, any appearance before an inquiry would carry significant political and personal consequences. Starmer’s previous career as Director of Public Prosecutions has placed his record under particular scrutiny, with critics asking what he knew about historic cases, how decisions were made and whether the criminal justice system responded effectively to victims. An inquiry examining these matters would be expected to focus on evidence, institutional responsibilities and the experiences of those who suffered abuse.
The distinction between political accusation and established fact is crucial. Being asked or required to provide evidence would not, by itself, mean that Starmer had committed wrongdoing. Instead, the significance would lie in the questions put to him, the information he could provide and the extent to which his testimony helped establish what happened and why opportunities to protect children were missed.
A scandal that continues to demand answers
Grooming gangs and other forms of organised child sexual exploitation have exposed profound failures across parts of Britain’s safeguarding and criminal justice systems. In several towns and cities, victims were abused over extended periods while warning signs were reportedly ignored, mishandled or inadequately investigated. Survivors have described experiences of being disbelieved, blamed or treated as unreliable when they attempted to report what had happened to them.
These failures have fuelled anger that extends well beyond party politics. Families and survivors have demanded an honest account of how institutions responsible for protecting children could fail so badly. They want to know why some reports were not acted upon, why investigations sometimes stalled and why concerns about the treatment of victims did not always result in decisive intervention.
For many people, the central issue is not which political party suffers the greatest damage. It is whether the country can finally establish a clear record of the decisions, attitudes and organisational weaknesses that allowed abuse to continue.
A credible inquiry must therefore be prepared to examine uncomfortable evidence wherever it leads. That includes the conduct of police forces, prosecutors, local authorities, safeguarding services and national political leaders. No institution should be shielded from legitimate scrutiny simply because its reputation or senior personnel may be affected.
Starmer’s record under renewed scrutiny
Starmer’s background in the Crown Prosecution Service has made his role in discussions about historic grooming cases particularly sensitive. As Director of Public Prosecutions between 2008 and 2013, he was responsible for leading the prosecution service during a period when concerns about child sexual exploitation were receiving increasing attention.
However, responsibility for the prosecution service should not automatically be confused with direct responsibility for every decision in every case. A fair examination would need to distinguish between national policies, local prosecutorial judgments, decisions taken by police investigators and actions undertaken by individual officials.
The important questions are specific. What information reached senior officials? What procedures were in place for reviewing allegations? Were prosecutors given the evidence they needed? Were concerns about victims’ credibility handled appropriately? And, where failures occurred, did the organisations involved identify and correct them?
If Starmer is required to address such matters, his answers should be assessed against documentary evidence and the findings of the inquiry rather than political rhetoric. Supporters may argue that his experience could help explain how the prosecution system operated. Critics may contend that the same experience makes detailed questioning about historic institutional failures essential.
Either way, transparency would be vital. Survivors and the wider public deserve more than broad assurances that lessons have been learned. They need a clear explanation of what went wrong, who was responsible for particular decisions and whether meaningful changes followed.
Victims must remain at the centre
One danger in any politically charged inquiry is that the experiences of victims become secondary to arguments about party leaders. Headlines about Starmer’s future may attract attention, but they should not overshadow the people whose lives were affected by sexual abuse and institutional neglect.
Survivors have often had to contend with long delays, repeated questioning and the emotional burden of revisiting traumatic experiences. Some have spent years trying to persuade authorities to take their accounts seriously. For them, an inquiry is not merely a political event. It is an opportunity to have their experiences acknowledged and to receive answers that may have been withheld for far too long.
That responsibility places a demanding obligation on those conducting the inquiry. Evidence must be gathered carefully, witnesses treated fairly and conclusions supported by the available facts. The process should avoid turning survivors into instruments in a political contest or exposing them unnecessarily to further distress.
It must also be clear about the limits of its findings. Where evidence establishes failures, those failures should be identified plainly. Where allegations cannot be substantiated, that should be explained honestly. A process that promises accountability but reaches conclusions unsupported by evidence would risk undermining the very confidence it is intended to restore.
Political consequences for Labour
The controversy could nevertheless create a serious challenge for the Labour government. Starmer came to national leadership with a reputation shaped partly by his legal career. If questions arise about the handling of historic exploitation cases during his time at the Crown Prosecution Service, opponents are likely to argue that he should be held to a particularly high standard of accountability.
Conservative politicians and Reform UK figures could use the issue to challenge Labour’s claims of competence and integrity. They may demand fuller disclosure, stronger safeguarding measures and assurances that similar failures cannot be repeated. Within Labour itself, MPs may face difficult questions from constituents who believe that the party has not done enough to address the scandal.
But the political implications will depend on what the evidence actually shows. A witness being questioned is not proof of misconduct, and a political controversy should not be treated as a substitute for a proper investigation. If the inquiry identifies failings, the government will need to respond substantively. If particular allegations are not supported, that too must be acknowledged.
Starmer’s handling of the process will matter. Attempts to dismiss legitimate questions as partisan attacks could deepen public suspicion. Conversely, a clear commitment to cooperate, disclose relevant information where legally appropriate and implement recommendations could help demonstrate that accountability applies to people at the highest levels of government.
The need for a consistent national response
The scandal also raises questions that extend far beyond one prime minister or one government. Effective protection requires police officers, social workers, teachers, health professionals and prosecutors to recognise warning signs and act when children may be at risk.
Authorities need clear procedures for sharing information, escalating concerns and challenging decisions that appear inadequate. Victims must be able to report abuse without being dismissed because of their background, personal circumstances or previous experiences with public services. Investigations should be thorough and impartial, and criminal proceedings must respect both the rights of victims and the requirements of a fair trial.
Public debate must also remain precise. Organised exploitation can involve different patterns of offending in different places. Authorities should investigate the facts of each case, identify perpetrators and examine institutional failures without relying on stereotypes or allowing political arguments about ethnicity, religion or immigration to replace evidence. Consistent standards of protection and justice are essential for every child.
Any inquiry should assess whether existing safeguards are sufficient, whether recommendations from previous investigations were implemented and whether those responsible for oversight can be held accountable when they fail. Publishing findings is only the beginning. The real test is whether institutions change their practices and whether those changes make children safer.
Accountability must lead to action
If Keir Starmer is called upon to give evidence, the inquiry will face high expectations. His testimony may help clarify aspects of the prosecution system’s response to historic cases, but no single witness can provide the entire explanation for a complex national scandal. A comprehensive account will require evidence from officials, investigators, political leaders, local authorities and survivors themselves.
The public should expect difficult questions, careful examination of records and conclusions that distinguish clearly between proven facts and unresolved allegations. The process must be independent enough to investigate powerful figures, but fair enough to avoid treating suspicion as proof.
Ultimately, the measure of success will not be the embarrassment of a particular politician or the advantage gained by an opposition party. It will be whether survivors receive meaningful recognition, whether the failures that enabled abuse are fully exposed and whether practical reforms prevent other children from suffering similar harm.
Britain has heard repeated promises that lessons have been learned. For survivors, those words mean little unless they are followed by evidence of change. If the inquiry is to restore confidence, it must demonstrate that no institution is beyond scrutiny and that the protection of children takes precedence over political reputation.
Starmer’s position may make this a defining test of his leadership, but the wider responsibility belongs to the entire system. The country needs answers that stand up to scrutiny, accountability based on evidence and safeguards that work in practice. Above all, it needs a lasting commitment to ensuring that the failures of the past are neither concealed nor repeated.