Public inquiries under scrutiny: Learning lessons from past inquiries and enhancing public trust

At a time when the Thirlwall, Grenfell Tower, Infected Blood, Post Office Horizon IT system and other public inquiries are regular headline news, the House of Lords Statutory Inquiries Committee, which was convened to examine the efficacy of the law and practice of statutory public inquiries, has published its report, ‘Public inquiries: Enhancing public trust’.

The findings

The report recognises the important role that public inquiries play in society, whilst also addressing widely held concerns over their cost and length, and the experience of participants, particularly survivors and the bereaved, when engaging with them. The report finds it ‘inexcusable’ that there are frequent failures to implement public inquiry recommendations that have been accepted by the government. It concludes that this, and inadequate sharing of public inquiry best practice to inform future inquiries, has made public inquiries less effective, and is damaging their reputation and undermining public trust.

This is the second House of Lords select committee review of public inquiries convened under the Inquiries Act 2005. This committee endorses the overall findings of the previous 2014 committee and most of its conclusions and recommendations and is highly critical of government failure over the last ten years to implement those recommendations.

Like the previous select committee report, this report calls for improved ministerial decision-making about an inquiry’s form, and the choice of the inquiry chair and any panel members, when setting up a public inquiry. It highlights the need for greater efficiencies to reduce the cost and duration of inquiries, and for better engagement with inquiry participants. It also highlights the risk of major failings and disasters recurring due to failures to implement inquiry recommendations and emphasises the need for a formal process to monitor the implementation of public inquiry recommendations, calling for parliamentary committee oversight and the appointment of implementation monitors.

What is notable about this select committee’s report is that it particularly highlights the importance of recognising that every public inquiry is different and, therefore, flexible decision-making is essential. It stresses the need for ministerial decisions regarding the setting up and running of a public inquiry to be made on a case-by-case basis, tailored to the inquiry’s specific purpose and requirements. It also acknowledges the value of the inquiry chair’s broad discretion to determine the procedure of an inquiry, and to conduct the inquiry as the chair sees fit.

Sharing best practice

The quality of decisions made by the minister, inquiry chair and other members of the wider team is inevitably affected by the information available to them. Whilst there is significant expertise and knowledge within public inquiry practice, and many examples of good public inquiry practice, there is no formal central mechanism for collating and disseminating lessons learnt from it. Institutional knowledge is being lost every time an inquiry concludes. Lessons in best practice are being missed, and there is a constant risk of instances of poor practice being repeated and inefficient reinvention of the wheel.

The report is highly critical of the fact that there is little sharing of best practice between inquiries, and that academic and legal experts on public inquiries are not being asked to share knowledge and best practice with inquiry chairs and secretaries. It recommends a mechanism for enforcing the requirement that every inquiry produce a full ‘lessons learned paper’ from which public inquiry best practice can be collated and updated.

There is currently an inquiries and investigations team, based in the Cabinet Office, which supports inquiries sponsored by the Cabinet Office, as well as inquiry secretaries and sponsor teams of other inquiries. The report recommends expanding its remit and funding to create a central inquiries unit whose role will include disseminating lessons learnt in best practice to inquiry chairs, teams, and practitioners; having an online presence to provide information more widely; and assisting in promoting the public understanding of public inquiries.

Significantly, it also calls for the establishment of a wider ‘community of practice’ made up of academic, legal and policy experts on public inquiries; civil servants; former inquiry chairs and secretaries; and representatives of victims and survivors, to share learning on best practice, to inform and improve public inquiries going forward and to enhance public trust.