Lord Michael Gove has admitted claims made by Dominic Cummings that Whitehall officials attempted to hinder journalists’ attempts to report on the grooming gangs scandal in 2011. Cummings made the claims earlier this week, alleging that he rejected advice from Department for Education officials who floated the idea of blocking journalists from publishing reports of abuse in Rotherham.

Gove said: “We contacted Rotherham Council and said we do want to intervene in this case, but on behalf of The Times, because it is absolutely vital that the truth be told.” Earlier this week, the Government agreed to hold an inquiry into the grooming gangs scandal following the release of a report by Baroness Louise Casey into the abuse and its handling by authorities. The announcement comes despite the Prime Minister Keir Starmer and senior government ministers rejecting calls for a national inquiry earlier this year.

Confirming the allegations made by Cummings, Gove told GB News: “Dominic’s account is broadly absolutely correct.

“So Andrew Norfolk, the very brave and sadly deceased reporter at the Times who was responsible more than anyone for initially uncovering the grooming gang scandal, had been investigating Rotherham.

“It was the case that he wanted to publish details that related to one particularly tragic case. Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council at the time didn’t want the full details revealed.”

He added: “They approached the Government and the Department for Education, where I was Secretary of State at the time, asked us to join them in a legal case in order to prevent the Times publishing.

“I looked at the material alongside Dominic and some other people in the department, and we contacted Rotherham Council and we said, yes, we will intervene in this case, but on behalf of The Times, because it’s absolutely vital that the truth be told.”

Gove claims that some officials in the Department for Education were against the decision to side with The Times, claiming that it could have had an adverse effect on other potential victims.

He continued: “The documents in question revealed some details about one particular victim, and it was argued by the council and by some officials who were sympathetic to their case, that revealing everything about the case might mean that other potential victims, other family members, might be adversely affected.

“There was also an argument that the council itself was making improvements, and as a result of these improvements being made, that would be imperilled, potentially if there were adverse publicity.”

The Department of Education has been contacted for comment.