I thought Sarah didn’t know until August 2014?

Yet here she is, displaying her detailed knowledge and understanding of the Child exploitation scandal?

Did she not win a libel case, on the grounds she did not know, until August 2014?

If readers have an explanation for this discrepancy, we would love to hear it?

Hansard 12 Sep 2013 : Column 1231

children. We cannot afford to have voluntary sector organisations become so frightened about what they can and cannot do and so unsure about how to raise suspicions that they pack it all in. A little bit of knowledge can made a difference to the life of a child. Rather than merely saying that each organisation should have a child protection officer in place, we should be making available the training to ensure that all those who work with children know the signs and the next steps to take.

I see my constituents who lovingly give up their time to work with children, and that little bit of attention can make all the difference to a shy child. It can help with their education and make them feel loved. We should ensure that the voluntary sector has all the help and support it needs to help and support children. This House shines better when we agree on issues. Today we all agree on this, and we will agree on a strategy. I urge everyone to put their shoulders to the plough and see that we get the work done for the safety and protection of child and adult alike.
2.41 pm
Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab): I start by echoing everything my colleagues on both sides of the House have said and hope that the Government will listen to our recommendations, because there is so much agreement on the themes that have been discussed and the changes that need to be made.
I am hugely proud to be the MP for Rotherham. The town has an esteemed industrial history, a strong sense of community and many reasons to proclaim its civic pride. We have a multitude of success stories in manufacturing and small business, as well as three leading further education colleges. However, for some time a shadow has been cast across the town in the form of persistent allegations of failures by key institutions to protect our children. The allegations have been coupled with prosecutions for child sexual exploitation in the town.
The term “child sexual exploitation” is used to cover a broad range of illegal activity, from seemingly consensual relationships or informal exchanges of sex for attention, gifts or cigarettes through to very serious organised crime. Young people can be subject to physical and sexual violence and can be put at risk of unwanted pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases. Their families can suffer threats, violence and significant psychological distress, disruption and even fragmentation.
Peer-on-peer child sexual exploitation happens too and can take various forms. For example, young people are sometimes used to “recruit” others by inviting them to parties where they will then be introduced to adults or forced to perform sexual acts on adults. Technology can also play a significant role, with young people being cajoled into using mobile technology as a way of distributing images of abuse.
It is vital to understand that both perpetrators and victims can come from a variety of ethnic and cultural backgrounds. Child sexual exploitation is not a crime restricted to British Pakistani males or white British girls, despite the media coverage of high-profile cases. Indeed, recent findings have highlighted the fact that girls of Asian origin are frequently the subjects of this heinous crime themselves.
12 Sep 2013 : Column 1232

There is also a perception that child sexual exploitation only affects children in care. Looked-after children do account for a disproportionate number of the victims of sexual exploitation and can be particularly vulnerable. An estimated 20% to 25% of victims are looked-after children, with only 1% of the child population being in care. However, the majority of children who are exploited are still living at home when it happens.
Another false perception is that it only affects young women. In truth, boys and young men are also targeted. The full extent is not known as boys, in particular, are highly reluctant to come forward. Nevertheless, one in 10 of the young people receiving support from Barnardo’s for this crime are boys, and in some services the proportion is significantly higher.
It is also important to acknowledge that women can be perpetrators of this crime. For example, in a case currently being tried in Sheffield the alleged gang leader is a woman. Although such examples are rare, it is more common that female involvement is in facilitating the abuse. The inquiry led by the Office of the Children’s Commissioner found that when women and girls were identified as perpetrators, their role was primarily, although not exclusively, to procure victims. The sad and hidden truth behind such activity is that there is often a cycle of abuse at work, with many of those women and girls having been sexually exploited themselves.
There are no reliable figures for the total number of children experiencing sexual exploitation. The collection of data is a huge issue and there is no standardised system for data collection, something on which the Home Affairs Committee has made several recommendations. However, child sexual exploitation is being unearthed wherever it is being investigated. Further work by the Government is required to determine the full extent of the problem. In addition, the importance of all agencies sharing information in the interests of child safeguarding must be addressed. Currently, children are vulnerable because information is not always shared between them. We must move away from the excuse of confidentiality when it comes to protecting children. A child’s safety must be the priority.
Much has been written in the press about how Rotherham is not doing enough to protect its young people from this horrendous crime. I can assure the House that since being elected I have worked closely with South Yorkshire police and Rotherham metropolitan borough council to find out whether our young people are getting the protection they deserve. It is totally inaccurate to say that Rotherham is doing nothing to prevent this crime and prosecute abusers. Although more can always be done, and by the council’s own admission it has not handled historical cases well, I now believe that there is a commitment and drive by the services in Rotherham to protect every child, and I welcome the fact that the council has commissioned an independent inquiry.
Lisa Nandy: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way despite the short time available. I just want to reflect on the fact that sometimes it is the areas that have experienced these horrific crimes that are getting to grips with the problem and becoming leaders in dealing with it. Perhaps a lesson for the House and for Ministers is that we need to look closely at those areas
12 Sep 2013 : Column 1233

where such awful cases have not come to light and ensure that they are doing the same things that my hon. Friend talks about in relation to her constituency.

Sarah Champion: I appreciate my hon. Friend making that case. As I have mentioned, wherever we look we find such crimes, but a lot of people are not looking, and that is my worry.
It is important that services are open to external scrutiny and are accountable to the people they serve. From my research, it seems clear that the only way to tackle child sexual exploitation is by services working collaboratively. The key focus must be on preventing, protecting and pursuing: preventing young people from becoming a victim; protecting those who show signs of being at risk of becoming a victim; and pursuing those who commit such horrific crimes. Realistically, local authorities, the police, the voluntary sector and health and education services all need to share their experience, data and resources if they are effectively to tackle and prevent this crime.
Rotherham works collaboratively. Its child sexual exploitation service includes specialist child abuse police officers, social workers, specialist health workers, parents, youth workers and voluntary sector representatives. Its aim is to reduce sexual exploitation through deterrence and prosecution, and it significantly enhances the effectiveness of all agencies through joint information sharing, planning of assessments and investigations. I am pleased that Rotherham has adopted that working method but extremely concerned that it is not a requirement across the country. The current situation means that whether a local area has a good support team is genuinely a postcode lottery. That is not good enough, because it means that children are being put at risk unnecessarily. I urge the Government to make multi-agency safeguarding hubs a requirement in every area.
I have spoken about data collection, collaborative working and statutory requirements, but what this debate is really about is children and young people being abused. The effect of sexual exploitation on a child or young person can be long term and highly damaging. It can lead to difficulties in making and sustaining relationships with others, feelings of worthlessness and shame, loss of confidence and low self-esteem. It is essential that we always remember the victims of these crimes and do all that we can to support them. These are young people whose childhood has been stolen from them, and their future, if handled incorrectly, could be damaged too.
We need to ensure that the process of addressing the crime does not become another form of abuse. I was horrified to find out that a Rotherham victim had been on the stand for seven weeks during the court process. That is unimaginable to me, and it should never be allowed to happen. The victims should automatically be given counselling and as much support as they require. Indeed, I would extend that to ensure that the whole family received support, as the damage caused by this crime can spread widely.
On a personal level, I am interested in determining whether existing legislation is appropriate for tackling the crime, and I will be working with Barnardo’s on this topic in the coming months. I am also supporting the campaign led by Paula Barrow and assisted by the @Mandatenow coalition calling for a “Daniel’s law”, which would make it mandatory for professionals working
12 Sep 2013 : Column 1234

with children to report signs of possible abuse. As my colleagues have mentioned, four-year-old Daniel Pelka was starved and beaten over a period of months before his death. Staff, teaching assistants and others at his school observed his desperate attempts to forage for food, his severe weight loss and the numerous bruises and injuries he suffered. There is currently no legal requirement for anyone working with children in the UK to report suspected or known abuse either to the appropriate local authority officer or to the police. Without such a law in place to support staff and protect children, effective safeguarding will never be achieved. However, this is not only the responsibility of professionals. Local communities play an essential part in identifying not only those at risk but those who have the potential to commit these crimes. We all have a duty of care to be diligent and to report suspicious behaviour to the police. Unless we do so, this vile crime will continue unchecked.

2.50 pm

31 thoughts on “I thought Sarah didn’t know until August 2014?

  1. Once the Norfhfolk articles started appearing, everyone knew something bad was happening in Rotherham. I have always believe she knew more than what she was letting on and that her shock and horror at the industrial scale of the abuse was fake. But then again, she’s like most Labour MPs, they only want to know what they want to know, hence her apparent ignorance of how people felt about the EU.

    Like

      • I’m glad people are starting to doubt all these saints and whistle blowers they knew all along and chose to jump ship to avoid sinking with it they are using victims for there own self promotion and money it’s about time listened to the victims

        Like

  2. So, nobody knew, I guess the victims did. And the perpetrators and the police might have known. because they ermm arrested people.

    But over 16 years the MP’s didn’t know. Andrew Norfolk knew, the world might have known. But , the dear local MP’s may or may not have known. How can we prove it.

    Did one person in Rotherham report this to an MP before Jay? Or before 2012?

    I have one person who says he/she did.

    It’s not just those in positions knowing. It’s about what they did about it.

    John Healey MP wrote two questions to the Secretary of State on 12th September 2013.

    The questions he asked were or appeared to be answered by the respondent who pointed to documents available on the 10th of September.

    Did any person attend a quarterly MP’s meeting at RMBC before 2012 regarding CSE?

    I’m afraid the truth will not come out, unless the people force it out.

    Like

    • It is likely that CSE would be just one of the agenda items at the meetings.
      The make up of the attendees would be consistent and apart from the usual (Thacker etc) it can be assumed that Jason Harwin Superintendent for Rotherham was an attendee. I understand that there were were Police ‘projects’ set up that would need to be reported on.

      Like

    • It isn’t a magic date. Its 26th August 2014 which was the daate of the Jay report going public. MPs have said on oath they knew nothing before this.

      Like

      • What about The Star 8 December 2009 “eight men charged with sexual offences” seven from Rotherham – this is CSE and local MPs.must surely have been made aware of the 18 sexual offences against four girls aged 13 to 17 years .

        Like

  3. Ex part time councillor Dalton formed http://gangsandgroomingeducation.vpweb.co.uk/Courses-and-Events.html in 2010. (The website appears to have been taken down) but the email address is still live:
    info@gangsandgroomingeducation.vpweb.co.uk.

    Dalton and St.John were very close (St.John attended the 2005 seminar) and it is not unreasonable to suggest the subject of CSE must have been raised at least at CLP level prior to the Jay report.
    “John Healey MP wrote two questions to the Secretary of State on 12th September 2013”

    The smell will just not go away…..

    Like

    • Perhaps Mr Vines could seek redress based on this information. An appeal in the hands of a competent brief who is prepared to act pro bono might really upset the applecart. Lying and perjury, if proven, would sink even Labour MPs, wouldn’t it?

      Like

  4. Pingback: Last weeks top ten 9th July | Rotherham Politics

  5. Pingback: Sarah Champion: “Abuse is always about power” | Rotherham Politics

  6. So Sarah Champion says
    It is important that services are open to external scrutiny and are accountable to the people they serve.
    Then why if she believes this does she and her two amegos sue people who have the guts to publicaly challenge them
    Or does she think it should not include elected politicians who were elected to represent the people don’t they have a duty of care to their constituents
    so if their is a legal person willing to act pro bono the evidence is their lies were told in court

    Like

  7. The MPs in my case say they did not know of CSE before late in 2012 after Times article but did not know really until the Jay report
    Barron said he only knew of one case in 2003 and it stayed with him ever since ??
    And he said he never spoke to his daughter or brother either
    They said no one ever told them until the Jay report was published

    Like

Leave your comment

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.