Lords committee calls for major overhaul of public inquiries

Its report, Public Inquiries: Enhancing Public Trust, calls for significant improvements to the inquiry system, to make them more efficient and effective and to avoid the costly and wasteful process of inquiries “reinventing the wheel”.

Among the main recommendations of the House of Lords Statutory Inquiries Committee are:

• A timescale for inquiries, to avoid unnecessary and excessive costs
• A newly-created Parliamentary Public Inquiries Committee to monitor and report on the steps being taken to implement inquiry recommendations
• A publicly-accessible online tracker showing how, and when, inquiry recommendations have been put in place
• More inquiries could be led by an expert, or panel of experts, rather than reliance on a judge – and more consideration be given to making some of them non-statutory

The committee also recommends that:

• The Inquiries Unit of the Cabinet Office be strengthened to ensure “best practice” is shared between inquiries, including on how best to involve victims and survivors
• Lengthy public inquiries produce interim reports, and others provide regular public updates
• Victims and survivors should be consulted where appropriate on an inquiry’s scope

Chair of the House of Lords Statutory Inquiries Committee, Lord Norton of Louth, said:

“’Lessons learned’ is an entirely vacuous phrase if lessons aren’t being learned because inquiry recommendations are ignored or delayed. Furthermore, it is insulting and upsetting for victims, survivors and their families who frequently hope that, from their unimaginable grief, something positive might prevail.

“So the monitoring and implementation of inquiry recommendations is essential. Additionally, public trust is lost where inquiries are unnecessarily protracted, and costs perceived to be excessive. The findings of this report aim to make inquiries as effective, cost-efficient and trusted as possible.”

There are currently two types of public inquiry – statutory and non-statutory, with the former able to compel witnesses or evidence, and often seen by the public as superior as a result.

But while public inquiries needed to be thorough and often wide-ranging, they were also perceived as “frequently too long and expensive, leading to a loss of public confidence and protracted trauma”, the committee says.

“Currently, millions of pounds are spent on public inquiries yet too little is done to ensure that the desired outcomes are achieved,” the report says. Often their terms of reference were too wide, with the committee told by one expert that inquiries needed to collect sufficient evidence “rather than exhaustive quantities”.

“Many of the witnesses we heard from spoke of inquiries taking too long to report and costing too much,” the report says. The committee was told of “people dying during the process, families feeling justice was delayed and other similar incidents happening before the inquiry reports”.

There was also a perception that inquiries were established by ministers to “kick a problem into the long grass”, peers said. Other criticisms heard by the committee were that there were widespread problems with recommendations not being implemented, leading to the risk of a recurrence of a disaster.

The committee says delays and cost could be minimised by the sharing of best practice between inquiries, by their chairs, academics and legal experts.

When establishing an inquiry, the Minister should consider including a “deadline in the terms of reference … to concentrate the efforts of the inquiry. Inquiry chairs should aim to report within this time and must seek the permission of the Minister if they wish to exceed it”, the committee states. Peers added: “There is a danger that inquiries investigate too widely and collect too much information.”

In evidence, the committee heard there were “many benefits” to non-statutory inquiries - including speed, cost, and more flexibility for families to ask questions, with witnesses feeling more able to give frank and open evidence. The committee’s report concludes that while neither the statutory or non-statutory inquiry was inherently superior, and the inquiry format should be decided by a Minister, a non-statutory inquiry could be converted to statutory if witnesses failed to co-operate.

On implementing inquiry recommendations, the committee says: “We recommend formal implementation monitoring should be undertaken by a new joint select committee of Parliament.”

The committee added that it was “telling and unfortunate that around 10 witnesses recommended to us that an Inquiries Unit should be established, because this implies that they are not aware that it in fact exists”. It was also “regrettable” that academic and legal experts on public inquiries were not being asked to share knowledge and best practice – “with current inquiry chairs and secretaries unaware of each others’ existence”.

A new Public Inquiries Committee could publish inquiry reports, recommendations and responses on one online site. Crucially, it could also compare and analyse multiple inquiry reports, to identify common failures and make further recommendations for improvement.