Rape gang victims deserve better than our broken inquiry system
The debate over whether or not Britain needs a national inquiry into rape gangs is a classic example of asking the wrong question, says Emma Revell
Before the start of the year, grooming gangs were probably an issue most people were aware of, but didn’t give day-to-day thought to. Fast forward through a furious bout of posting and reposting by Elon Musk and suddenly the issue shot up the political agenda, the public were outraged and the government was on the back foot.
Ministers are arguing that a national inquiry (as called for by Musk) isn’t needed because several local authorities have conducted their own already. Some voices do agree, adding that the government should get on with implementing the recommendations of the recent, independent review into child sexual exploitation. Professor Alexis Jay, who chaired that inquiry, told the BBC that victims “clearly want action” and that “we’ve had enough of inquiries, consultations and discussions”.
The majority opinion, however, seems to side with Musk: something must be done. According to YouGov, 76 per cent of Brits back a new inquiry. The Conservative Party have been using parliamentary process to try and force one through, and even Labour Mayor of Manchester Andy Burnham now backs a “limited” inquiry.
The government has dug its heels in, presumably keen to avoid the perception that policy can be changed on the whim of an erratic foreign billionaire. Given the strength of feeling and scale of the abuse, a U-turn definitely remains on the cards. But what would a new public inquiry actually mean?
What would a public inquiry look like?
Well, here are some numbers: £173m, seven years; £100m, seven years; £50m, two years; £108m, two years and counting.
That is the cost and length of the public inquiries into the Grenfell Tower fire, the infected blood scandal, the Post Office Horizon debacle, and the Covid-19 pandemic. Even the Jay inquiry mentioned above took seven years and cost £186m, and has been criticised in the current context for failing to fully acknowledge, never mind address, grooming gangs in which the victim’s race and religion appear to be a factor – as well as failing to cover many of the towns where the rapes were taking place.
You could argue, of course, that a hundred million here or there is pennies down the back of the sofa when compared to the almost incomprehensible bulk of public spending in Britain today, or the scale of the loss felt by the victims. But given finances are so tight, we have every reason to ensure public inquiries – when they need to happen – are focused, efficient, and deliver concrete recommendations which contribute to ensuring similar errors are never made again.
It is understandable why some public inquiries take place. Serious failings across national and local government and the public sector require investigation. But our current format of judge-led and lawyer-heavy inquiries – carried out in accordance with a formula set by the statute books – results in huge costs, a huge amount of time taken, and often unrealistic headline-grabbing recommendations, which governments of all stripes seldom seem to actually put into practice. Too often they are either a talking shop, a show-ring for lawyers wishing to castigate policymakers who chose the wrong course, or an excuse for politicians to avoid making difficult decisions ‘while the inquiry is ongoing’.
Too often, public inquiries are either a talking shop, a show-ring for lawyers wishing to castigate policymakers who chose the wrong course, or an excuse for politicians to avoid making difficult decisions ‘while the inquiry is ongoing
Does anyone truly believe for example, that when the Covid-19 Inquiry finally concludes, however many years and millions of pounds from now, that the government of the day will make significant changes? Or will the time taken to get to a conclusion mean politicians and civil servants will be able to shrug their shoulders, blame it all on Boris Johnson and change absolutely nothing?
Another problem with government-by-review is that these reviews often recommend astronomical compensation packages for those affected. But inquiry chairs have no obligation to take into consideration the state of the public finances when making their recommendations. They are given free rein to make recommendations in the tens of billions, forcing the government to either find the money – take the £11.8bn set aside for the infected blood victims – or deny the claims and risk public wrath, as has happened with Waspi campaigners. (Although they seem to have found out that they had rather less public support than they imagined, largely because their arguments are woefully poor.)
No one is going to argue infected blood victims don’t deserve recompense for their suffering. But the public purse is tight and too many people default to calling for a public inquiry as a way of appeasing an outcry over an issue without any intention of addressing the actual problem.
No sensible person can look at the scale of the cover-up of grooming gangs across recent years and deny that something fundamental has gone wrong with our institutions. But in this issue, as in so many, we already have evidence of deliberate wrongdoing, of errors made, of cover-ups instituted, and we know much of what needs to change to ensure this never happens again.
Rather than spend unknown years and countless millions on another broken inquiry, public money would be better spent on implementing structural change now than on lawyers, hearings and kicking the can down the road.
Emma Revell is external affairs director at the Centre for Policy Studies