Peers have called for a major overhaul of public inquiries—which they dub ‘frequently too long and expensive, leading to a loss of public confidence and protracted trauma’
An influential cross-party House of Lords Statutory Inquiries Committee heard evidence of people dying during the inquiry process, families feeling justice was delayed, and recommendations not being implemented, leading to the risk of a recurrence of a disaster.
Its report, ‘Public inquiries: enhancing public trust’, published this week, highlights that, while millions of pounds are spent on inquiries, ‘too little is done to ensure that the desired outcomes are achieved’. Moreover, the terms of reference are often too wide—inquiries need to collect sufficient evidence ‘rather than exhaustive quantities’.
The committee recommends inquiries work to a set timescale, to avoid unnecessary cost, and that a Parliamentary Public Inquiries Committee monitor the steps being taken to implement recommendations.
Another suggestion is that more inquiries be led by an expert or panel of experts rather than a judge. While judges can add weight to an inquiry, serving judges return to the Bench and may feel unable to comment on the government’s success or failures in implementing their recommendations, the report notes. Moreover, ‘there is a risk of the perception that an inquiry will mimic a court hearing, with a consequent loss of flexibility’.
Committee chair, Lord Norton 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.’
