1. An understanding of child sexual exploitation first began to emerge in the early 1990s. In 1994, Barnardo’s set up the UK’s first child sexual exploitation programme in Bradford. It began as a pilot project working with “child prostitutes”, as they were then called. Ms Kay Kelly, who worked for the Bradford Project (a child sexual exploitation programme) for 12 years, reported in 2014 that in the early years the reality of the problem was not recognised. Young people were not seen as victims but were treated as perpetrators, as prostitutes. This was despite the fact that they were below the legal age of consent.[1]
2. This coincided with a growing appreciation of the phenomenon of teenage girls in particular absconding and becoming involved in prostitution. For example, this was reported by Nottinghamshire County Council’s social services in 1991. It was also the focus of the Coalition for the Removal of Pimping (now known as Parents against Child Exploitation) which was founded in West Yorkshire in 1996. Between 1996 and 1998, further work was done by Nottinghamshire County Council, which included the production of guidance in 1997 stating that all children involved in prostitution were “being sexually exploited and are physically, emotionally and sexually at risk”, emphasising the need for an assessment to be undertaken.[2]
3. Between 1989 and 1995, almost 4,000 police cautions were given to children aged between 10 and 18 for offences relating to prostitution, with most given to those aged between 14 and 18 years.[3]
4. Supplementary statutory guidance to Working Together to Safeguard Children (1999) was issued by the Department of Health in 2000, entitled Safeguarding Children Involved in Prostitution. This explained that the primary law enforcement effort in such cases should be on taking action against those who coerced or abused children and that children involved in prostitution should be treated “primarily as the victims of abuse”.[4] It made links between children going missing and becoming involved in prostitution and drew particular attention to heightened risks for children in care who were going missing and care leavers. However, sexually exploited children could still be prosecuted. In these circumstances, the supplementary guidance recommended that children be processed through the criminal justice system in the same way as other young offenders – after the practitioners concerned had satisfied themselves that the young person was not being forced into prostitution by another.[5]
5. In December 2000, the Home Office announced funding under its Crime Reduction Programme (CRP) for 11 multi-agency projects which aimed to reduce the number of children and women involved in prostitution, reduce crime and disorder associated with street-based prostitution and find out which interventions helped women to leave prostitution. An evaluation of the projects was published in 2004.[6] In respect of the exploitation of children, its recommendations included: greater involvement of the police and Crown Prosecution Service, addressing the lack of prosecutions of men for abusing young people and working to encourage early identification of children at risk so as to allow preventative and diversionary work to take place.
6. The Sexual Offences Act 2003 replaced older sexual offences laws with more specific and explicit wording. It stipulated that a child under 13 is unable to consent to sexual intercourse, redefined sexual assault and provided for sexual offences protection orders (now sexual harm prevention orders) and sexual harm orders. It also created sexual exploitation offences, including arranging or facilitating the commission of a child sexual offence, paying for the sexual services of a child, causing or inciting the sexual exploitation of a child, arranging or facilitating the sexual exploitation of a child and controlling a child subject to sexual exploitation.[7]
7. By 2010, in addition to the Home Office crime reduction projects, the problem of the sexual exploitation of children had become more visible.
7.1. In 2002, the National Children’s Bureau, working with the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children (NSPCC), published a study exploring the experiences of 55 young women who had been sexually exploited.[8]
7.2. In 2003, a young teenager, Ms Charlene Downes, disappeared in Blackpool. She was believed to have been a victim of sexual exploitation and killed by her abusers. A subsequent investigation revealed endemic sexual abuse in the town and Project Awaken was set up involving professionals from licensing, social services, education and the police.[9]
7.3. Also in 2003, the police in Keighley, West Yorkshire, interviewed 33 girls aged between 13 and 17 years. Up to 50 men were suspected to have been involved in exploiting them. Charges were brought against ten men and two were convicted. The mothers of some children aged 12 and 13 had approached their local MP, Ms Anne Cryer, to ask for help because their children were being exploited by gangs of Asian men in their 20s and 30s. The MP began to campaign for the police and children’s social care to take action.
7.4. In 2005, the Coalition for the Removal of Pimping published a series of reports highlighting the plight of sexually exploited children and their parents and campaigning for action to end it.[10]
7.5. In 2006, there was a prosecution in Blackpool of four men for the rape of a 16-year-old girl. The victim and a friend were given alcohol in an Indian restaurant before being taken to an attic and assaulted. One victim said she was abused by four men. Two men were convicted.
7.6. In 2007, 20 men were arrested and 3 were charged with rape in relation to the grooming and abuse of 20 girls in the Oldham area. Two convictions for abduction were secured.
7.7. In 2010, 5 men were convicted of sexual offences against girls aged 12 to 16 in Rotherham. Mr Andrew Norfolk, a journalist, began what would become a four-year investigation into allegations of grooming and sexual exploitation in Rotherham and other towns, by mainly Asian perpetrators. His first investigative piece was published in 2011.
8. From 2010 to 2016, there were various high-profile prosecutions involving child sexual exploitation. These included:
9. In August 2009, the Department for Children, Schools and Families published statutory guidance, Safeguarding Children and Young People from Sexual Exploitation.[11] This guidance provided a definition of child sexual exploitation for the first time. Key guiding principles were set out for how public bodies and other organisations should approach the issue of child sexual exploitation (for example, the need for a child-centred approach, being proactive in tackling the problem and the need for an integrated approach).
10. In January 2011, Barnardo’s published its report into child sexual exploitation, Puppet on a string: The urgent need to cut children free from sexual exploitation, which recorded concern that child sexual exploitation was prevalent but noted that it was very difficult to say how many children and young people were being exploited in the UK because the hidden nature of the issue made it difficult to identify.[12] Barnardo’s observed that practitioners often did not recognise child sexual exploitation, and young people frequently did not recognise that they had been exploited.
11. In November 2011, the Department for Education published its Tackling Child Sexual Exploitation: Action Plan in the wake of Operation Receiver and Operation Chalice. An important part of this action plan was to educate children and young people, and their parents, on the risks of child sexual exploitation and how to combat them. The report considered the link between children going missing and running away and child sexual exploitation. In addition, it noted concern that a lack of reported cases of child sexual exploitation may be due to people not looking for or reporting it.[13]
12. In June 2013, the Home Affairs Committee published a lengthy report which found evidence that child sexual exploitation was a “specialised” form of abuse to which older children were particularly vulnerable.[14] The report found that those involved in child protection were more used to dealing with cases of familial abuse and so professionals often failed to recognise localised child sexual exploitation as a form of abuse. They were therefore unable to “piece together the different parts of a puzzle” in order to create a clear picture of what was happening.[15] The Home Affairs Committee also concluded that there had been a cultural and attitudinal failing in relation to child sexual exploitation. Too many professionals referred to victims and survivors as being “promiscuous”, engaging in “risky behaviour” or having “consented” to sexual activity.[16] Professionals were observed to be lacking in compassion and agencies were failing to work effectively together. Early warning signs often went unnoticed – grooming often took place in informal settings such as parks, streets, restaurants and taxi offices. The important role played by the voluntary sector was emphasised.[17] The Home Affairs Committee also considered a widespread perception that the majority of perpetrators were of Asian, British Asian or Muslim origin. It reported that the issue of race, and the fear of being seen as racist, may have hindered the detection and intervention in some cases of child sexual exploitation throughout the country for a number of years.[18] Indeed, upon arrest, some of those in Rochdale alleged that the prosecution was motivated by race.[19] The Home Affairs Committee found that it was essential that professionals were able to raise their concerns freely and without fear of being labelled racist.[20] However, many of those involved in investigating child sexual exploitation cases warned against citing race as a key factor and a number of child sexual exploitation cases involving groups of offenders from other ethnic backgrounds were identified.[21]
13. In November 2013, the Office of the Children’s Commissioner produced a report following an inquiry into child sexual exploitation in gangs and groups. It found that, whilst the picture remained inconsistent, no part of the country had a fully joined up, multi-agency, child-centred approach to addressing child sexual exploitation in gangs and groups. In addition, too many local authorities were still failing to comply with the Working Together to Safeguard Children guidance on child sexual exploitation.[22]
14. In October 2013, following a public consultation, the Crown Prosecution Service published guidance for prosecutors looking at child sexual abuse. This was intended to cover similar cases to those seen in Operation Span and Operation Bullfinch.[23] Prosecutors were told to focus on the overall credibility of an allegation rather than the perceived weakness of the person making it and to facilitate early consultation with police investigators to advise on strategy. A Rape and Serious Sexual Offences (RASSO) unit was established as a specialist unit within the Crown Prosecution Service to provide a central point of expertise. A number of recommendations were made about the need to support victims and witnesses from the outset of the investigation and throughout criminal proceedings.
15. In August 2014, the Chair of this Inquiry, Professor Alexis Jay OBE, authored a report which identified the sexual exploitation of at least 1,400 children and young people in Rotherham between 1997 and 2013. The report analysed 66 children’s case files, many of which showed classic evidence of grooming, including children being picked up from school, and given presents, mobile phones, free alcohol and sometimes drugs. The nature of the abuse perpetrated against the victims involved children being raped by multiple perpetrators, trafficked to other towns and cities in the north of England, and being abducted, beaten and intimidated. The report concluded with a number of key recommendations including, among others: improving the quality of risk assessments; improving how looked after children were dealt with; improving multi-agency working; and the need for more direct engagement with women and men from ethnic minority communities on the issue of child sexual exploitation and other forms of abuse. The report found no evidence of children’s social care staff within Rotherham Council being influenced by concerns about the ethnic origins of suspected perpetrators when dealing with individual child protection cases, including child sexual exploitation.[24] In the broader organisational context, however, it found a widespread perception that the message conveyed by some senior people in the Council, and also by the police, was to “downplay” the ethnic dimensions of child sexual exploitation.[25] Unsurprisingly, frontline staff appeared to be confused as to what they were supposed to say and do and what would be interpreted as “racist”.[26]
16. Following the publication of Professor Jay’s report, South Yorkshire Police invited the National Crime Agency to lead an independent investigation. By 2021, Operation Stovewood had secured 20 convictions and expected that number to rise. Those convicted have received prison sentences totalling around 250 years.
17. In October 2014, an independent report, Real Voices: Child sexual exploitation in Greater Manchester, was produced by Ms Ann Coffey MP.[27] This examined the work which had been undertaken to disrupt and respond to child sexual exploitation since the events in Rochdale. The report was largely prepared by speaking to victims and survivors of child sexual exploitation and other young people. It concluded that, whilst there had been a shift away from talking about child prostitution to child protection, a culture persisted in some areas that child sexual exploitation was the norm. A key to fighting against a culture of acceptance was to give young people the tools to fight back against child sexual exploitation themselves. The report also raised a number of concerns and recommendations about the criminal justice system.
18. In February 2015, the Oxfordshire Serious Case Review (SCR) was published following the events highlighted by the Operation Bullfinch trial, in which 20 young people were identified as potential victims of child sexual exploitation.[28] The SCR once again identified that assessing the scale of child sexual exploitation was a very difficult task but that there had been some improvements in Oxfordshire over the previous three to four years.
19. In March 2015, Ms (now Baroness) Louise Casey produced a report for the Department for Communities and Local Government, Reflections on child sexual exploitation. In this report, she concluded that a dual approach was needed in which support for victims of child sexual exploitation ran alongside a vigilant and zero-tolerance policy.[29] Further efforts needed to be directed towards the perpetrators, both in order to detect, prevent and disrupt abuse at the earliest stages and to ensure their successful prosecution. The report emphasised the availability of civil remedies which specifically related to sexual offences or grooming and other wider nuisance and anti-social behaviour injunctive and closure powers. The report concluded that key warning signs of child sexual exploitation were still being missed and commented on a lack of professional curiosity as to what was happening to the children concerned.
20. In July 2015, Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary published a report into the role of the police in keeping children safe. It noted that there was no specific offence of child sexual exploitation and found that the quality of investigation of cases of child sexual exploitation was very mixed – practice tended to be better in those areas where there had been a big case and where, previously, mistakes had been made and lessons learnt.
21. In February 2017, the Department for Education published non-statutory guidance, Child sexual exploitation: Definition and a guide for practitioners, local leaders and decision makers working to protect children from child sexual exploitation.[30] This updated the definition of child sexual exploitation in light of concern that the previous definition had given rise to inconsistencies in risk assessment and data collection. It also gave guidance on how to spot children who may be particularly vulnerable to sexual exploitation.
22. In 2017, local safeguarding children boards (LSCBs) were replaced by local safeguarding children partnerships (under the Children and Social Work Act 2017). The partnership model placed an equal duty on the chief of police, the head of the clinical commissioning group and the chief executive of the local authority to work together to make arrangements to safeguard and protect the welfare of children in their area. These changes were required to have been implemented by 30 September 2019.
23. The year 2018 saw the culmination of the Child Sexual Abuse and Exploitation (CSAE) Prevention Programme, which was delivered in partnership between various agencies and charities with the aim of scoping needs and trends in child sexual exploitation across the 10 policing regions in England and Wales.[31] This Programme produced numerous resources, including on appropriate language, the night-time economy, parents and carers, people from an ethnic minority and LGBTQ+ young people. The CSAE Strategy for England focussed on education, multi-agency working, return home interviews (RHIs), perpetrators, and children aged 16–18, among other themes.
24. In April 2019, the Home Office published its Child Exploitation Disruption Toolkit with the purpose of providing frontline professionals with information about the legislative opportunities at their disposal, ranging from warning notices to offence charges and care orders, to target specific risks.[32]
25. At the same time, Public Health England published guidance on how public health can support prevention and intervention in child sexual exploitation.[33] It explained that contraception and sexual health (CASH) services have a significant role to play in child sexual exploitation. Public Health England found that most services had screening and risk assessment processes in place but many needed to improve in order to be effective.
26. The effectiveness of RHIs for missing children was considered in a report from the Children’s Society and the NSPCC, published in 2019.[34] Its key findings included that an RHI should be seen as part of a continuum of responses when a young person is reported as missing and that RHI provision for children in out-of-area placements was a particular challenge – including a lack of detailed data and issues with information-sharing. A similar analysis was conducted by the charity Missing People in June 2019.[35] Its report noted that serious harm and ongoing risks were not confined to the minority identified as high risk but were regularly disclosed by young people assessed to be at medium or low risk by the police while missing. It stressed the importance of also providing RHIs to this latter group.
27. In September 2019, the Children’s Commissioner for England called for the use of unregulated accommodation to be banned for all under 18s in care. Her report noted that one in eight children in care spent some time in unregulated placements in 2018/19 and that this number was increasing due to the lack of capacity in children’s homes and a belief that children aged just 16 should be ready to become independent. Additionally, it referred to children who became victims of exploitation and abuse whilst living in unregulated accommodation.[36]
28. December 2019 saw the publication of part one of the Independent assurance review of the effectiveness of multi-agency responses to child sexual exploitation in Greater Manchester. This examined local agencies’ responses to the systematic sexual exploitation of young girls in the Rochdale area in 2004–5 (Operation Augusta). It found, in summary, that:
“although there was significant information held by both Manchester City Council and Greater Manchester Police on some individuals who potentially posed a risk to children, we can offer no assurance that appropriate action was taken to address this risk. We found very little evidence of professionals considering the risk these perpetrators presented to their own children and the children they met throughout their daily activities.”[37]
29. In a 2020 triennial review of Serious Case Reviews carried out between 2014 and 2017, it was noted that child sexual exploitation was a persistent theme, being recorded as an issue in 9 percent of reports. The review noted that:
“Despite many public documents related to the issue and previous SCRs, there was evidence that practitioners were still slow to recognise vulnerabilities to child sexual exploitation and respond to risks, particularly if the child was male”.[38]
30. In 2005, Barnardo’s published a report, Out of sight out of mind: Child sexual exploitation, which noted that there was, at that stage, no service provision for child sexual exploitation in Wales. The report identified at least 184 separate cases of children being sexually exploited, or with concerns of sexual exploitation, across 20 of the 21 Welsh local authorities. Only eight of these local authorities were identified as having protocols on children abused through prostitution – something that the guidance in force at the time required them to have.[39] The report concluded that “the development of systems to safeguard sexually exploited children and young people in Wales has to date been insufficient”.[40]
31. In 2007, Barnardo’s conducted a pilot study into the use of the Sexual Exploitation Risk Assessment Framework (SERAF) in Newport.[41] Out of a total 367 children, 186 were found to be not at risk, 60 at mild risk, 54 at moderate risk and 67 at significant risk. Of the total sample, 54 percent were male but the analysis suggested that females were more at risk than males (60 percent of those at significant risk were females).
32. In 2008, a follow-up report extended the SERAF trial into two additional local authority areas. Overall, the report recognised “considerable progress” in Wales over the past three years in increasing professional awareness of child sexual exploitation.[42]
33. In 2010, the Welsh Government produced guidance to help:
“police, teachers, social workers and health workers amongst others to rise to the challenge of identifying children at risk of sexual exploitation and taking steps to protect them and in ensuring that action is taken against perpetrators”.[43]
All LCSBs were told to take account of the guidance and local authorities were required to comply with it unless there were exceptional reasons for not doing so.
34. In June 2011, the All Wales Protocol for Missing Children was produced.[44] This explained that incidents of children going missing should be taken seriously and set out how agencies should work together to deal with such incidents. When a child returned, the protocol set out that an interview/debrief should take place as soon as possible but at least within three working days.
35. In November 2013, the All Wales Child Protection Procedures Review Group, which had a mandate and representation from all the LSCBs and partner agencies in Wales, published the All Wales Protocol on Children at Risk of Abuse Through Sexual Exploitation.[45] This Protocol was designed to be used in conjunction with SERAF and to offer operational support for field practitioners and managers in child sexual exploitation work. It set out the formal procedures to be used “where there are concerns that a child is at risk of, or is abused through, sexual exploitation”. Among other things, the Protocol sought to define sexual exploitation and provide frameworks for the handling of cases and exchange of information between agencies. LCSBs were also told to ensure that they had adequate monitoring systems in place.
36. The next significant development was the publication of the 2015/16 National Action Plan to Tackle Child Sexual Exploitation (Wales).[46] This exhorted LCSBs to ‘prepare’, ‘prevent’, ‘protect’ and ‘pursue’. It set out a number of actions which were to be completed in 2016, including: an evaluation of the effectiveness of the SERAF tool; the development of a national dataset to capture the profile, prevalence and response to child sexual exploitation in Wales; and the development by LCSBs and partners of mechanisms to assess risk, develop best practice approaches to placements, and monitor and ensure consistency of practice.
37. A review of child sexual exploitation statutory guidance was commissioned in 2017. This established that there was still variance in the way in which child sexual exploitation was defined. It also found confusion over the function of SERAF and concern that it was being relied on at the expense of professional judgement. The overarching recommendation of the review was that the statutory guidance should be updated, although it made 26 separate recommendations, including replacing the definition of child sexual exploitation with a broader, bullet-point approach listing various factors and the establishment of a national child sexual exploitation group led by the Welsh Government.[47] Subsequently, the Welsh Government removed references to SERAF from its safeguarding procedures. The Welsh Government no longer prescribes a risk assessment template (such as SERAF) but allows local authorities or safeguarding boards to use SERAF or other assessments.[48]
38. The CSAE Prevention Programme also produced a National Child Sexual Abuse and Exploitation Prevention Strategy: Wales.[49] It identified a need for more age-appropriate and consistent education of children on issues such as consent and boundaries and how to prevent child sexual exploitation. It suggested that education and support should also be provided to perpetrators and potential perpetrators to prevent further offending. It further recommended that RHIs and debriefs be placed on a statutory basis and made consistent across Wales.
39. In 2019, researchers at Cardiff University published Keeping Safe? An analysis of the outcomes of work with sexually exploited young people in Wales. This tracked the outcomes for young people identified as being at risk of child sexual exploitation over a 10-year period. It aimed to explore how best to support young people when responding to child sexual exploitation and the challenges involved in doing so. One of the key findings from this research was that there are problems with the current risk-based approach to tackling child sexual exploitation, which focusses on managing young people’s so-called risky behaviours. Additionally, it found that a larger proportion of those who were at high risk of or who were being sexually exploited had negative outcomes at and after case closure.[50]
40. In July 2019, the Welsh Government published its National Action Plan: Preventing and Responding to Child Sexual Abuse: Working Together to Safeguard People. Child sexual exploitation was defined as a form of sexual abuse, involving a child, which “involves some form of exchange”. It was noted that:
“The exchange can include the giving or withdrawal of something; such as the withdrawal of violence or threats to abuse another person. There may be a facilitator who receives something in addition to or instead of the child who is exploited. Children may not recognise the exploitative nature of the relationship or exchange. Children may feel that they have given consent.”[51]
41. Dr Sophie Hallett described this as not amounting to a definition of child sexual exploitation but rather as an observation about child sexual exploitation being a form of child sexual abuse, occurring to those under 18 years old, involving a form of exchange.[52]
42. In February 2020, the Welsh Government confirmed that each of the six safeguarding children’s boards had submitted evidence that they had put in place measures to ensure that partners were aware of the actions contained in the National Action Plan and had agreed arrangements for evidencing their implementation.[53]