Simon Jenkins writes that public inquiries don’t give victims their lives back, and suggests that they only serve to line lawyers’ pockets while all that the victims want is compensation (Subpostmasters betrayed, contaminated blood victims forgotten: why is Britain so bad at righting wrongs?, 26 October).
As a lawyer who is privileged to act on behalf of a number of victims of the infected blood scandal, I can assure Mr Jenkins that the most important thing for those I represent is uncovering the truth which has been hidden from them for decades; compensation is important, but it is only one aspect of delivering justice to those infected and affected.
Inquiries are a vital vehicle for getting to the bottom of the worst tragedies and scandals involving the state. Inquiries are able to examine an issue in a level of detail that is beyond the resources of the civil and criminal justice systems; while this can be a lengthy process, it also provides the best chance of avoiding similar tragedies or scandals in the future.
The greatest problem with public inquiries is the lack of a body to enforce the implementation of their recommendations. The nub of Mr Jenkins’s complaint is that governments delay and procrastinate over the implementation of inquiry recommendations, and that is something with which most involved with public inquiries would agree. The solution, though, is not to avoid public inquiries, but to ensure that recommendations cannot be allowed to sit on the shelves of Whitehall.
Finally, to the charge that lawyers line their pockets, those who are granted public funding are typically working for a fraction of their commercial rates and do so for the cause.
Ben Harrison
Head of public law, Milners Solicitors
• Have an opinion on anything you’ve read in the Guardian today? Please email us your letter and it will be considered for publication in our letters section.
