Grooming Gangs Inquiry: A Process in Collapse — and a Better Way Forward
Government Inquiry delivers nothing of value - Quelle Surprise
The government’s promised national inquiry into grooming gangs is already collapsing. Five months after its announcement, it has achieved almost nothing — and now five women have resigned from its victim liaison panel. Confidence is draining away, patience is running out, and survivors are being failed yet again.
In response, Nigel Farage has proposed an alternative approach — one that is faster, tougher, and transparent — because it is now painfully clear that the current inquiry is dead in the water.
An Inquiry Going Nowhere
Five months on, the inquiry cannot even agree on who should chair it. No meaningful work has begun. No witnesses have been called. And now, survivors themselves are walking away.
That alone should tell us everything we need to know.
An inquiry without the confidence of victims has no moral authority. When those it is meant to serve feel ignored or marginalised, the process has already failed.
Kicking the Can Down the Road — Again
There is a growing sense that the government’s preferred outcome is delay. Drag this inquiry out for years. Let it become so slow, so procedural, and so expensive that it delivers little of substance before the next general election.
We have seen this tactic before.
The COVID inquiry has already cost £192 million, with no clear end in sight. The Bloody Sunday inquiry dragged on for years, becoming one of the most expensive and protracted investigations in British history. Survivors of grooming gangs — and the wider public — are rightly asking whether this inquiry is heading the same way.
This is not an abstract policy issue. Grooming gangs represent a very specific, deeply troubling pattern of abuse that has persisted for decades. It demands focus, urgency, and courage — not endless process.
A Faster, Tougher, Transparent Alternative
Reform UK is backing a better solution: a cross-party parliamentary commission, established by Parliament, with senior involvement from the House of Lords, where there is deep legal and institutional expertise on this issue.
This approach has several crucial advantages:
Speed: It can be set up quickly and begin work immediately.
Transparency: Proceedings would take place in Parliament, in the open.
Authority: A parliamentary commission can summon witnesses suspected of collusion or cover-up.
Accountability: Those who refuse to appear can be sanctioned.
Focus: It would conclude in weeks or months — not years.
Most importantly, it would re-establish public confidence that the truth is being pursued — not managed.
Why the Change of Approach?
Some have asked why Nigel Farage previously supported a national inquiry and is now proposing an alternative.
The answer is simple: the government has demonstrated it is incapable of delivering a credible inquiry. Survivors are losing faith. The public is losing trust. And time is being wasted.
Reform UK does not believe Parliament should routinely act like a court. But these are not routine circumstances. This is one of the most shameful episodes in modern British history — involving institutional failure, fear of speaking out, and allegations of systematic cover-up.
Extraordinary times demand extraordinary measures.
Justice Delayed Is Justice Denied
Survivors do not need another sprawling inquiry that absorbs millions of pounds and produces thousands of pages few will ever read. They need truth, accountability, and consequences — now.
A parliamentary commission is the best, fastest, and most open route to getting answers. It puts the focus back where it belongs: on victims, not process; on responsibility, not reputation; and on action, not delay.
Britain cannot afford to look away from this scandal any longer. If the current inquiry cannot deliver, it should be replaced — and replaced quickly.