House of Lords Report on Public Inquiries

As part of the Inquiries and Inquests Practice Group Winter Series, Dermot Keating KC and Clementine Simon analyse the recent House of Lords report on Public Inquiries and question whether this will lead to any changes in 2025.

The profile of public inquiries has arguably never been higher. 15 public inquiries have operated in 2024. Live streaming of hearings has brought greater public interest and awareness. Greater interest brings greater scrutiny and there’s a common perception that inquiries are too costly and too slow. This autumn, the House of Lords’ Statutory Inquiries Committee published its report ‘Public Inquiries: Enhancing Public Trust’ with the headline ‘Lords committee calls for major overhaul of Public Inquiries’. Will this report herald a sea change or will its recommendations, like those of many past inquiries, fade into the background?

The Committee was appointed to consider the efficacy of the law and practice relating to statutory inquiries under the Inquiries Act 2005. It called for evidence in January 2024 and its 63-page report was published in September 2024. The report could have been titled ‘Ensuring lessons are learned’ - with those lessons applying firstly to the setting up and operation of a public inquiry and, secondly, to the implementation of recommendations made by an inquiry in its report.

The implementation of recommendations

The report should be essential reading for practitioners in this field and the Committee had the benefit of evidence from an array of distinguished and respected experts from all aspects of inquiries. The transcripts of the oral evidence are illuminating. A common theme emerges. Deep frustration that recommendations of a public inquiry are not accepted or even when accepted, not implemented.

At the heart of any public inquiry is the quest to ensure lessons are learned and recommendations made to limit a re-occurrence. The public perhaps are less aware that there is no obligation on the government to act on those recommendations. If it says it accepts them, there is no systematic means of monitoring implementation. If it rejects them, it doesn’t have to give reasons for doing so. It is the Achilles heel of the inquiry process. Why have a search for the truth, invest precious time and resources in getting the best evidence from the best witnesses, and at the end, do little or nothing?

The Committee was told by numerous witnesses that there were needless repetitions of similar recommendations made by inquiry after inquiry. The Chair of the Committee, Lord Norton of Louth stated: “ ‘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”.

Evidence presented to the Committee suggested that, had the recommendations from the inquiry into deaths at the Bristol Royal Infirmary been comprehensively implemented, the events investigated by the Mid-Staffordshire Hospitals Inquiry may have been less likely to have occurred. The same rang true for inquests. Deborah Coles, the executive director at INQUEST, gave what she called a ‘very poignant example’. Had the recommendation following the Lakanal House fire in 2009 been implemented, the disaster at Grenfell Tower may not have occurred.

Even where a recommendation is accepted, there is no legislative framework for monitoring whether they are actually implemented. Sir Brian Leveson, who chaired the inquiry into the culture, practices, and ethics of the British press following the News International phone hacking scandal, stated that this lack of monitoring makes it more likely that an inquiry recommendation could be accepted by the Government, yet subsequently “wither on the vine”.

The Committee recommended formal implementation monitoring to be undertaken by a new, joint, select committee of Parliament: The Public Inquiries Committee. The stated aim to provide victims, survivors, and members of the public with clear reassurance that everything has been done to prevent recurrence of a disaster.

Expedition and cost

The fundamental tension in any public inquiry is the trade-off between time and the obtaining, analysing and hearing of evidence. To go too quickly is to risk superficiality and missing key evidence. To go too slowly risks public confidence and even another similar disaster.

The Committee recommends better decisions at the start of an inquiry to expedite its work, reduce costs, and ensure victims and survivors are properly involved. It warns there is a perception that inquiries are frequently “too long and expensive”, undermining their credibility and prolonging trauma for those affected. It suggests that public trust would be boosted by ministers setting an indicative deadline for each inquiry, with permission required to extend it.

Hardwiring time limits into the terms of reference may set expectations and increase accountability. Whilst initially attractive, it is unlikely this will be a panacea to the perception of delay. Often at the outset, the nature and extent of the evidence and list of issues is unknown. The dye is often cast for delay with terms of reference which are far too wide. It is here that greater focus and particularity can save time. This comes at a price. Terms of reference are at times expanded to encompass the concerns of the public and other interested parties. Indeed, one of the Committee’s recommendations is that ministers should consult with victims and survivors on the overall terms of reference. A laudable course as public confidence and trust in a public inquiry is an essential ingredient especially at the outset when it starts its work. A streamlined approach can undermine public confidence if it is considered to be narrow.

Public inquiries bring together a cadre of skilled civil servants, lawyers and experts. An independent organisation is created from scratch and at considerable financial cost. The committee recommends sharing best practices so that a new inquiry chair and their team have easy access to a bank of information offering proven options in starting and running an inquiry to ensure that each is properly tailored to be as effective and efficient as possible. The Committee has recommended that the work started by the Inquiries Unit in the Cabinet Office should be built on to help ensure that there is a bank of information from which chairs and inquiry secretariats can be offered proven approaches.

Many of the Committee’s recommendations when analysed are not groundbreaking and merely set out what many inquiries do routinely: provide updates on their work, publish interim reports.

There is a missed opportunity in failing to grapple with the issue of evidence gathering and disclosure. Delays in providing material to inquiries, then the subsequent disclosure and hosting of that material is hugely time consuming and costly. This is often the battlefield when it comes to delay.

Conclusion

So, will this report herald change in 2025? It makes a number of evidence-based recommendations that should be implemented. However, there is a painful irony when one considers that the Committee’s last report, ten years earlier, in 2014 contained a number of recommendations. These are reproduced in Appendix 4 together with the government response. Many of those recommendations were accepted back then. Many remain outstanding and are re-affirmed in this report. It is this inaction and seemingly lack of political will to implement real change that is diminishing public trust.

Public inquiries should not have to be fuelled by public and media interest generated by live streaming of hearings to remain important and relevant. Ultimately, it may be that this public interest will be the only driver to ensure there is political will to make recommendations binding and monitor their implementation.

Dermot Keating KC is Head of the Inquires and Inquests Practice Group at 25 Bedford Row. He was Counsel to the Inquiry for the Grenfell Tower Public Inquiry (2018-2024) and Counsel to the Inquiry for the Covid 19 Public Inquiry (Module 2: core political decision making) (2022-2024).