AG°Ù¼ÒÀÖÔÚÏß¹ÙÍø

Sarah Kincaid, a policy adviser for the Home Office, is also appearing before the Home Affairs Committee with Baroness Casey this morning.

She was asked about gaps in data, and whether these had an impact on her team's ability to put together their report on grooming gangs.

Kincaid says: "Our job was to assess the scale of group-based child sexual exploitation, and in that we have not been able to provide an answer because of the data systems.

"We don't know how much sexual abuse there is in the country."

She says there are a few "reasonably educated estimates", but nothing conclusive.

"We don't have anything up to date," she adds.

Baroness Casey is now explaining why she decided to back a national statutory inquiry, after initially being reluctant to do so.

She explained she was initially of the view that "perhaps we ought to implement the recommendations of [Alexis Jay's] report before we start thinking about anything else.

"I was definitely there, and I own that."

But, she says, while conducting her review it became "abundantly clear on a number of fronts that if we didn't have a national inquiry, as opposed to just a series of local inquiries, then we wouldn't get to the issue of accountability".

Baroness Casey said she "is pretty tough on crime", explaining she "likes finding criminals and I like locking them up".

She explained that during her audit, a "few things came to light very clearly".

"First of all, when they made an announcement in January that they had the money for at least five areas to do local inquiries... only Oldham bit the bullet and said yep we want to do a local inquiry," she says.

"My understanding is that no one else did that."

Baroness Casey says: "That tells you something, doesn't it?"

Baroness Casey went on to explain that the data on child sexual exploitation suspects points disproportionately to people of Asian heritage.

However, she adds: "If you look at the data for child abuse it is not disproportionate and it is white men.

"Let's just keep calm here about how you interrogate data and what you draw from it."

Baroness Casey goes on to insist that responsibility for tackling child exploitation should not just fall on the Home Office - but the departments of health, education and local government.

She urges better sharing of data between services and agencies, asking how this can be made mandatory.

She adds that the Home Office should not "drag their feet" on looking at police intelligence systems - "given we live in the 21st century".

"None of the issues in the audit sadly are new," Baroness Casey says. "I felt that other colleagues possibly could have found that, if they looked harder before us.

"We didn't do anything particularly clever, we just put together the facts as best we could and presented them."

She says: "This always causes me a bit of concern."

Baroness Louise Casey, who published her report into grooming gangs yesterday, has said she is "fairly sure" that grooming gangs are still active in the UK.

Addressing the Home Affairs Committee, she said children should be "at the heart of any discourse going forward".

She said: "What is called group-based child sexual exploitation... is thankfully still rare. 

"It may be at the most heinous end of crimes, but we have to get a sense of proportionality of where it fits in the 100,000 crimes of child abuse that have been reported in the last 12 months.

"I'm fairly sure that it's still  happening today. I think that we can explain that if necessary later, I think people don't necessarily look hard enough to find these children in particular."

Baroness Casey later reiterated that from the evidence that she saw while putting together her report, "it is clear that it is still happening".

She adds that she is calling for a national criminal operation, led by the National Crime Agency, to address these issues.

Baroness Casey goes on to say that data around race should be collected in full.

"My view is collect something or don't collect it - for God's sake don't half collect it. That's a bloody disaster."

The author of a report into grooming gangs - published yesterday - is appearing before the Home Affairs Committee this morning.

Baroness Louise Casey is facing questions from senior MPs on the topic of child sexual exploitation, largely relating to the findings of her report.

We'll bring you any major updates in the Politics Hub - or watch in the stream above.

Yesterday, Baroness Louise Casey - the author of a new report into grooming gangs - spoke to Sophy Ridge on the Politics Hub.

She said there was a particular issue with some British Asian men that was "abundantly clear" in data analysed from three police forces; West Yorkshire, South Yorkshire and Greater Manchester; which showed a "disproportionately" in child sexual exploitation.

But she added: "Just to give some sort of balance, in Greater Manchester I asked for data on child sexual exploitation that took me to Asian heritage. I asked for data on child abuse and that took me to the general population, which is largely white."

As we wait for her to appear at the Home Affairs Committee, here are the highlights of her interview with Sky News:

Later today, members of the House of Commons will likely vote on decriminalising abortion in what could be a historic moment for the UK.

Two Labour MPs - Tonia Antoniazzi and Stella Creasy - have put forward amendments to the Crime and Policing Bill around the issue of terminating pregnancies.

Speaker Lindsay Hoyle could pick one - or perhaps both - of the amendments to be debated, but it is likely only one will be voted upon.

Under current law in England and Wales, abortion is allowed up to the first 24 weeks of pregnancy - and beyond that in certain circumstances.

However, abortion is still considered a criminal offence under the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 and the Infant Life (Preservation) Act 1929 - and it has to be approved by two doctors.

So what do these two amendments propose?

The Antoniazzi amendment hopes to prevent women from being investigated, arrested, prosecuted or imprisoned for ending their pregnancies.

The MP claims that criminal investigations can be "dehumanising and prolonged and the women forced to endure them are often extraordinarily vulnerable".

Antoniazzi told the BBC that more than "100 women have in the last five years been put into the criminal system and it's not in the public interest".

She said: "It isn't in the public interest of the public purse either, and it’s caused greater distress, financial and emotional distress, to these women and to their lives."

Her amendment - which has been backed by 176 MPs - would keep punishments for medical professionals and violent partners who end a pregnancy outside of the existing law.

Meanwhile, the Creasy amendment goes further, aiming to enshrine abortion access as human right.

The MP also hopes to prevent women who have terminated their own pregnancies from being investigated.

She claims her amendment offers "protection to all those involved in ensuring that women can access safe and legal abortions" - while Antoniazzi's does not.

Creasy's amendment has been backed by 108 MPs but not abortion providers - while Antoniazzi's has.

Ignoring the ethnicity of grooming gang perpetrators gives racists "more ammunition", the author of a new report has said.

Baroness Louise Casey told Sky News' Politics with Sophy Ridge there was a particular issue with some British Asian men that was "abundantly clear" in data analysed from three police forces; West Yorkshire, South Yorkshire and Greater Manchester; which showed a "disproportionately" in child sexual exploitation.

But she added: "Just to give some sort of balance, in Greater Manchester I asked for data on child sexual exploitation that took me to Asian heritage. I asked for data on child abuse and that took me to the general population, which is largely white."

Baroness Casey said "if we just establish the facts, then you can take the pain out of this".

"I think you've got sort of do-gooders that don't really want this to be found because, you know, 'Oh, God, then all the racists are going to be more racist'," she added.

"Well, actually, people that are racist are going to use this anyway. All you're doing with the hate mongers and the racists is giving them more ammunition."

Yesterday, US President Donald Trump declared that a trade deal between the UK and the US is officially "done" as the two leaders attended a G7 summit.

But what exactly does that mean?

The government says the US "has committed" to removing tariffs (taxes on imported goods) on UK aerospace goods, such as engines and aircraft parts, which currently stand at 10%.

That is "expected to come into force by the end of the month".

Tariffs on car imports will drop from 27.5% to 10%, the government says, which "saves car manufacturers hundreds of millions a year, and protects tens of thousands of jobs".

The White House says there will be a quota of 100,000 cars eligible for import at that level each year.

But on steel, the story is a little more complicated.

The UK is the only country exempted from the global 50% tariff rate on steel - which means the UK rate remains at the original level of 25%.

That tariff was expected to be lifted entirely, but the government now says it will "continue to go further and make progress towards 0% tariffs on core steel products as agreed".

The White House says the US will "promptly construct a quota at most-favoured-nation rates for steel and aluminium articles".

Other key parts of the deal include import and export quotas for beef - and the government is keen to emphasise that "any US imports will need to meet UK food safety standards".

There is no change to tariffs on pharmaceuticals for the moment, and the government says "work will continue to protect industry from any further tariffs imposed".

The White House says they "committed to negotiate significantly preferential treatment outcomes".

Sky News' Sam Coates and Politico's Anne McElvoy serve up their essential guide to the day in British politics.

President Donald Trump's made a hasty exit from the G7 conference in Canada leaving questions about collective diplomacy and his promise to bring peace to an increasingly violent Middle East.

The White House insists his return is to deal with "important matters", while Mr Trump himself has hinted his swift exit is for something “big�.

How will Keir Starmer and allies navigate talks following the US president's departure?

Progress has been made on car tariffs and aerospace, but where does this leave the rest of the US-UK trade deal?