It is vital that the government evaluates and shares the lessons from these cases on a timely and consistent basis, regardless of whether the case resulted in government intervention. We have previously found that much of government activity and spending is not evaluated robustly, or at all. Government interventions in distressed companies can involve significant amounts of taxpayer money, and yet it is not evident that these interventions are being evaluated consistently and transparently, or that lessons are being shared across government. There are also many cases where the government ultimately decides not to intervene, or finds other non-financial ways to support the distressed company or manage the situation. It is important that the government documents its rationale and learning from these cases too. The government does not appear to be routinely learning from other countries and their processes for intervening in distressed companies, although it has expressed an interest in doing so. A lack of institutional memory across government coupled with a lack of systematic evaluation puts government at risk of not learning what works for future cases. 8 Monitoring and responding to companies in distress Recommendation 6: HM Treasury should set out in its Treasury Minute response how it will update its approach to evaluating company distress cases (including those that have not resulted in government intervention), and how lessons are shared across sectors. Alongside its Treasury Minute response HM Treasury and UK Government Investments should also provide some examples of lessons learned reports or evaluations from recent cases. Monitoring and responding to companies in distress 9 1 Preparedness for company distress situations