What’s on the horizon for the conduct of public inquiries?

On 16 September 2024, the Statutory Inquiries Committee of the House of Lords published Public inquiries: enhancing public trust.[1] Established to consider “the efficacy of the law and practice relating to statutory inquiries under the Inquiries Act 2005”, the Committee has made a number of recommendations relating to the future conduct of public inquiries which will be of interest both to practitioners and public bodies which may find themselves under scrutiny.

The report follows one published a decade earlier in 2014.[2] A major feature of the Committee’s conclusions relate to the “inexcusable” and “unacceptable” failure of successive Governments to implement the recommendations of that previous report. The Committee notes a current neglect of implementation monitoring, and suggests scrutiny from a new, joint Public Inquiries Committee in Parliament to remedy this lacuna. It is suggested that this new select committee will also have a role to play in identifying topics which should be the subject of a public inquiry.

One recommendation of the 2014 report which was originally rejected – the establishment of an Inquiries Unit within Government – has since been implemented, but the Committee noted that many of the expert witnesses who contributed to its investigation were unaware of the Unit’s existence. As a result, the report recommends greater resource for said Unit, so that it is able to establish a wider “community of practice”, involving non-governmental experts, and a new forum for inquiry chairs to share best practice (in addition to one which already exists for inquiry secretaries). Generally, the Committee considered it was inappropriate to attempt to dictate to chairs the best practice to be followed in day-to-day decision making, but did include in Appendix 5 useful pointers gleaned during its evidence-gathering.

That emphasis on flexibility being of value to public inquiries is mirrored somewhat in the Committee’s approach to the distinction between the statutory and non-statutory models, the differences between which will be familiar to practitioners (most notably, the ability to compel evidence in the former). Despite the more limited powers available to a non-statutory inquiry, the Committee praised the flexibility inherent in that format, and suggested that a non-statutory inquiry could always be converted to one on statutory footing if witnesses failed to cooperate. Generally, the Committee considered that both formats had their benefits, and that Ministers should continue to be able to select the model which best fits the topic under investigation.

The Committee suggested that selecting judges to chair an inquiry (often the standard approach) may not always be correct: concerns were cited about serving judges who returned to the Bench following the completion of an inquiry feeling unable to publicly comment on the Government’s failure to implement recommendations made. It was further suggested that in certain cases, a panel of experts would be preferable to an independent chair.

It is a frequent criticism of public inquiries that they overrun and costs spiral (though it is to be noted that polling conducted in 2023 indicates that 75% of the public believe that events should be investigated as thoroughly as possible, even if this results in the inquiry overrunning or costs spiralling).[3] The Committee suggested that an indicative deadline for reporting should be included by Ministers in the Terms of Reference for a given inquiry, with a requirement to seek permission from the Minister to delay reporting if necessary. Similarly, it recommended that an obligation should be included in both the Terms of Reference and a chair’s terms of appointment to produce a lessons-learnt paper on legal and policy challenges and a working paper on logistics, detailing successes and possible areas for improvement. Such papers could then be shared to increase the efficiency and effectiveness of public inquiries in the future. Interim reports – such as those produced in the Grenfell Tower Inquiry, the Manchester Arena Inquiry, and the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse – were considered to be useful, and it was suggested that at the very least inquiries should publish regular, public updates.

[1] https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld5901/ldselect/ldstatinq/9/9.pdf

[2] https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201314/ldselect/ldinquiries/143/14313.htm

[3] https://www.crestadvisory.com/post/the-publics-view-of-public-inquiries-2023-results

---

Related barristers

Edmund Garnett

Call 2021

Related areas

Public Inquiries

---