Public Inquiries: Enchancing Public Trust (Statutory Inquiries Committee Report)
Lord Norton of Louth
That this House takes note of the Report from the Statutory Inquiries Committee Enhancing Public Trust (HL Paper 9).
Lord Norton of Louth (Con)
My Lords, it is a particular honour to move this Motion. The Select Committee on Statutory Inquiries was appointed last year as a special inquiry committee to review the report of the committee appointed in 2014 to engage in post-legislative scrutiny of the Inquiries Act 2005. The committee met throughout the year and I pay special tribute to its members for their commitment and support; to the clerk, Andrea Dowsett, for her superb clerkship; and to our policy analyst, Matthew Burton, whose capacity for data research was outstanding
Public inquiries are a notable feature of public life. Whenever there is a tragedy in which people suffer some catastrophic loss, be it physical or financial, there are calls for a public inquiry to investigate the circumstances and report on the causes—and, not unusually, to recommend what needs to be done to avoid a repetition. Ministers are empowered under the 2005 Act to establish inquiries with the power to take evidence under oath, although it is also possible to set up non-statutory inquiries, be they in the form of independent departmental reviews, independent panels or ad hoc inquiries.
Public inquiries are notable nowadays for the number, as well as the range, of subjects being examined. At their best, they undertake forensic examinations and establish the facts, the lessons to be drawn and the necessary actions to prevent a recurrence. They can also provide catharsis for those most closely affected by a tragedy. That may apply as much to non-statutory inquiries as to statutory ones. Implementing their recommendations may prevent further tragedies.
However, the fact that they are long drawn-out and costly attracts public criticism. As the Government noted in their response to the report:
“In the financial year 2023/24, the direct public cost of live UK inquiries was more than £130 million”
and, of those
“that have produced their final report in the last five years”,
it
“took on average nearly five years to”
produce a report. Also drawing notable criticism—a point to which I shall return—is the fact that they can produce recommendations that are not acted on.
Awareness that public inquiries are not engendering public trust to the extent that they are designed to do provides the underpinnings to our inquiry. To provide a clear focus, we addressed the extent to which public inquiries could be rendered more efficient in process and more effective in implementation. Although those calling for inquiries tend to favour statutory and judge-led inquiries, it was clear from the evidence that there was no optimum template for an inquiry. Non-statutory inquiries can produce benefits not found in statutory inquiries. They can engender candour and provide a means for greater and more informal involvement by victims and survivors. Judges may be good at being detached and able to weigh evidence, but they may be more used to adversarial than inquisitorial proceedings. On occasion, appointing a specialist in the field may prove more appropriate. It may also be appropriate to appoint a panel rather than a single chair.
However, the most notable and most troubling feature, and one that clearly most engaged witnesses who had been involved in inquiries, be it as chairs or officials or as victims and survivors, was that there is no means of ensuring that recommendations are acted on—and, indeed, no means of monitoring what has happened to recommendations. Once an inquiry has reported, it ceases to exist. It relies on others to act. The problem is that there may be no action. This clearly has the potential to undermine trust in the process, a potential that appears to have been realised.
The most egregious failure is where recommendations that could result in preventing a repetition of a disaster are not implemented. We heard of instances where, if recommendations had been acted on, deaths may have been avoided. It was clear from the evidence we received that if inquiries were to fulfil the purposes for which they were established, there had to be some change both to the process of establishing them and to monitoring what happens once they have reported. We therefore made recommendations, both in our own right and as a follow-up to recommendations made in the 2014 report.
To render the process more efficient, we recommended, where appropriate, consulting and involving victims and survivors in determining the terms of reference and providing guidance to those setting up inquiries on options for involving such groups. We recommended including in the terms of reference an indicative deadline for the final inquiry report, with ministerial approval possible to extend the deadline, and including a requirement that inquiries provide regular public updates on their work and consider issuing interim reports, especially in cases where inquiries are expected to be lengthy.
We also favoured enhancing the role of the Cabinet Office inquiries unit to ensure the sharing of best practice. All too often, chairs are left to reinvent the wheel when it comes to setting up an inquiry. We regarded sharing best practice and learning from past inquiries as essential. We therefore recommended that inquiry terms of reference include an obligation to produce a lessons learned paper and a working paper on what worked well and what could be improved—these to be submitted to the inquiries unit. All this will require the inquiries unit to be adequately resourced. We wanted to see the wider creation of a community of practice for all public inquiries.
These recommendations, we believe, will enhance the efficiency of inquiries. In terms of effectiveness, it is crucial that an inquiry’s recommendations are the start, not the end of a process. Presently, too many reports constitute the end product, with no action taken on many or any of the recommendations and with no systematic means of monitoring the Government’s actions in the light of the report.
The Government are legally obliged to respond to a report from an inquiry established under the 2005 Act, but they are not required to accept any recommendations or to provide a detailed explanation as to why not. When an inquiry into a tragedy makes recommendations designed to prevent a recurrence and no action is taken on those recommendations, not only is it a body blow to victims and survivors but it undermines public trust and calls into question the point of holding inquiries.
We, therefore, focused on how inquiry recommendations can be monitored and, if necessary, pursued when no action is taken by government. We recommended the appointment of a Joint Select Committee on public inquiries. If a Joint Committee is not agreed by both Houses, we propose the appointment by this House of a sessional Select Committee. As we record in the report, a parliamentary committee is superior to other options because it plays to the strengths of the existing committee system.
We recommend that its functions include monitoring the implementation of accepted public inquiry and major inquest recommendations and maintaining a publicly available online tracker. It would be able to conduct thematic research and meta-analysis of recommendations, enabling it to identify systemic policy failures and prevent future disasters. As a result of its work, it would also be able to make recommendations to the Inquiries Unit on best practice for establishing and running inquiries. If necessary, of course, it could hold its own parliamentary inquiry. The 1999 House of Lords inquiry into the 1994 Chinook helicopter crash shows that a parliamentary inquiry can fulfil the same purpose as a public inquiry and bring redress, even when the Government decline to establish a statutory inquiry.
Vesting power in a single committee would reduce duplication and ensure more systematic and comprehensive scrutiny than if spread among committees. It would, as we record, be constitutionally sounder to vest Parliament with this responsibility to hold the Government to account than to vest it in an independent arm’s-length body. If it is a sessional committee of this House, it will play to the strengths of the House in terms of its membership.
The fundamental point is the need to have a body to monitor and report on the implementation of recommendations accepted by the Government. If it is a parliamentary committee, it will also have the capacity to pursue Ministers if they fail to act. There are obvious resource implications, but, as I have stressed, the need to achieve public trust in public inquiries is paramount.
Given our remit, we also tracked what happened to the recommendations made in the 2014 report. Of the 33 recommendations, which we list in Appendix 4, the Government at the time accepted 19. However, as far as we can tell, none has been implemented. In its response to the 2014 report, the Government committed, where appropriate, to legislate when parliamentary time allowed—but it has not been allowed, so there has been no change. In our report, we reiterate 26 of the recommendations made by the committee.
The Government’s response to our report was much delayed, for reasons that are unclear, but in content it is very welcome. In a meeting I had with the Minister for the Cabinet Office, he made clear that the Government took the issue seriously. That is reflected in their response. It is especially pleasing to see the word “accept” appear so many times. Of the recommendations that derived from our investigation, they have accepted all those related to the efficiency of inquiries. They have also accepted nine of the 26 recommendations that we reiterated from the 2014 report; one has been partially accepted and eight are marked as under consideration.
On effectiveness, the Government acknowledge that our key recommendation—that a parliamentary committee be established—is a matter for Parliament. However, they state that, given the importance of the issues identified by the committee, they are
“actively considering whether there is scope for wider reforms to the frameworks within which inquiries are set up, run and concluded”.
They expand on that point, including examining
“how best to ensure more effective transparency and accountability around the response to inquiry recommendations and the implementation of those which are accepted”.
Given that, it will be especially valuable today to hear from the Minister on how far the Government have advanced in undertaking their examination and when we may expect their active consideration to bear fruit.
Such plans do not detract from the need for a parliamentary committee on public inquiries, for both the constitutional and practical reasons embodied in our report. The two developments—the reform of the inquiries process by the Government and the establishment of a parliamentary committee—are complementary, not conflicting, and together can help to deliver public inquiries that enhance public trust. For that neat reason, we need to pursue the Government on their proposals for reform and to press both Houses to establish a Joint Committee.
We have the potential to ensure that public inquiries more effectively meet the needs of victims and survivors and enhance public trust in the process. It is incumbent on us to realise that potential. I commend the report to the House, and I beg to move.
Lord Grantchester (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth, for his introductory remarks and his clear, disciplined leadership of the committee. With no experience in this field on joining the committee, I was struck by how an industry has grown up around inquiries, where government action and follow-up can be haphazard in their implementation. I strongly support the main recommendation that government behaviour has to improve, with the setting up of a parliamentary committee with oversight to monitor the Government’s responses and to hold the Government to account in implementing the accepted recommendations. As the Government agreed in their response, inquiries must become effective, cost efficient and trusted to make a difference. I emphasise “trusted to make a difference” in relation to Hillsborough, which was some 35 years ago.
I had hoped that the committee would have examined the duty of candour a little deeper. However, as reported, the disciplined approach of the committee’s examinations precluded that—perhaps wisely, as it remains part of the controversial make-up of the Hillsborough law. The previous Conservative Government, in their response to Hillsborough in December 2023, ruled out acceptance of a duty of candour, which was confirmed by their rejection of Labour’s amendment to the then Victims and Prisoners Bill. Our party’s election manifesto states:
“Labour will introduce a ‘Hillsborough Law’ which will place a legal duty of candour on public servants and authorities, and provide legal aid for victims of disasters or state-related deaths”.
As discussed at Questions on Tuesday this week, implementation becomes entangled with the aspect of legal aid and the independent public advocate. I apologise to my noble friend the Minister for bringing up the duty of candour today, as it is not really part of the committee’s report, but can she say whether a way through to make progress could be made to separate the duty of candour from these other aspects and to introduce it through guidance? The Government’s response makes extensive reference to wider reforms to the framework of inquiries: on page 1; on page 4, when committing to publishing guidance; and repeatedly in annexe A and on later pages. It is difficult to name specific paragraphs when they are not numbered and there are no page numbers to the response.
The Minister will be aware that the NHS has operated under a duty of candour following the Francis report on Mid Staffs, with regulations in 2014 followed up by a National Health Service evaluation last year by Jess Hornsby. The guidance on duty of candour in the NHS was updated in October 2020. It can be debated how effective this has been; culture change can be difficult.
My contention to the Government is that this experience could inform a similar introduction on all public servants and authorities. The previous Government sought to address this by laying on chief constables of each police force a duty of candour. I pay tribute to the Reverend Bishop James Jones for his extensive work, enhanced by the Welsh Government signing the Hillsborough charter in March this year, followed by a further 50 public bodies. This complements the proposed Hillsborough law and could be replicated here in incremental steps along the way, following implementations of this committee’s accepted recommendations.
I look forward to hearing other contributions today. The encouraging aspect to reforms in this area is that they remain bipartisan through continuous improvement. As the committee’s report states at paragraph 49, it adds insult to injury if recommendations are not subsequently implemented.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
My Lords, the Statutory Inquiries Committee, under the chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth, who introduced this debate, has done parliamentarians, the Government and the public a great service through this excellent report, and I commend it on that.
It is a fitting review, 20 years after the Inquiries Act 2005, of how and whether the system is working. I normally refrain from self-congratulation about how wonderful the House of Lords is—and I had no involvement in this report—but I think this report is an exemplary example of what a second Chamber can, and does, do: deploying wisdom, experience and expertise to consider important matters of public policy.
One of the themes that most resonates with me is that of reinventing the wheel: losing sight of previous experience, conclusions and actions by failing to have a record or register of lessons learned or best practice. This report’s concern for reducing costs and delays in new inquiries by learning from previous ones is entirely justified, since the suffering of victims, families and survivors is simply prolonged not only by procrastination in setting up an inquiry but by unnecessarily extended timeframes and failure to implement recommendations.
When I was a local councillor 30 years ago in the 1990s, I would rage against the lack of corporate memory. For instance, when the power failed in a 23-storey housing block, was there an emergency generator and, if so, where was it? The local council neighbourhood office had no plans or records. Thank heavens there were a few elderly tenants around who had lived there since it was built in the 1960s, and we were able to get the lift put back on, which was crucial. Ever since, I have hated haphazard reliance on a few personal recollections in place of the rigorous central record-keeping and follow-up systems that ought to exist. I am therefore especially grateful for the very wise and important recommendations the committee has made about lessons learned, a bank of information and community of practice.
The report’s title includes the words “Enhancing public trust”, and that is the key issue. Pollsters regularly report findings of loss of trust in politicians but, while some individuals undoubtedly behave badly, I think it is more about loss of trust in governance and institutions, with promises broken, pledges unfulfilled, mistakes repeated and long delays in recognition of harms caused, let alone any accountability for failure, redress or compensation.
We have had all too many examples of failures to deliver adequate or timely accountability, redress or restitution. When inquiries lead to real change or justice—like the Hillsborough inquiry, which overturned decades of cover-ups—public faith can grow. Conversely, if recommendations are ignored or the process feels like a stalling tactic or kicking the issue into the long grass, cynicism festers. The Post Office scandal, on which we had a debate two months ago, is outrageously still dragging on because the Post Office and Government have failed to deliver fair compensation, despite an interim report on that topic nearly two years ago from inquiry chairman Sir Wyn Williams.
Public disillusion and loss of trust are very damaging to maintenance of our liberal democracy. I think the core proposals of this report, for a new joint parliamentary Select Committee—a parliamentary inquiries committee—to undertake formal implementation monitoring, and an accompanying beefing up of the Inquiries Unit in the Cabinet Office to share best practice and learn from past inquiries, are vital.
In my experience, although the victims, survivors and family members who have experienced failings, mistakes, incompetence and disasters certainly want accountability—and, if appropriate, apologies, redress and compensation—they have an overwhelming altruistic desire to try to make sure that no one else suffers the agonies that they have suffered. The content of this report, which is possibly slightly dry on the surface, is about individuals and personal suffering. Trust depends on how independent, transparent and effective each inquiry proves to be. We can aspire to a better system, and this report, if implemented, would make a big contribution to achieving that ambition.
Baroness D'Souza (CB)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Norton, for his wise, inclusive and perceptive chairmanship. I note the expertise of colleagues on the committee and the truly marvellous committee staff, most especially Andrea Dowsett and Matthew Burton.
The noble Lord, Lord Norton, has already outlined our main concerns and conclusions on the processes and the output of public inquiries. I will focus briefly on the value of setting up a public inquiries committee of Parliament to act on what was one of our most pressing concerns: the lack of implementation of recommendations arising from the House of Lords 2014 Select Committee report on the Inquiries Act 2005. This review, as we have heard, concluded with 33 recommendations, focusing largely on mechanisms to improve implementation.
The setting up of a dedicated unit, preferably within the Courts & Tribunals Service, was a key recommendation, the rationale being that an institutional memory of public inquiry forms and processes was lost following the closure of inquiries. As we know, this did not happen. In the interim, there have been significant ongoing and new inquiries on Manchester Arena, the Grenfell Tower fire, the Post Office Horizon scandal and the long-running use of infected blood, as well as the child sexual abuse tribunals. If the purpose of inquiries, whether statutory or not, is to insist that all measures possible must be taken in future to prevent catastrophic public disasters, the safeguards currently in place do not fulfil this duty. However, it was stated time and again that the failure to capture the experience of a given inquiry with a mandatory “lessons learned” report, preferably by the chair, was a leading factor in what some witnesses have referred to as reinventing the wheel each time and, more problematically, committing the same elementary errors in setting up and running an inquiry.
Many inquiries failed to meet their own aims because the recommendations were not implemented. The main obstacles cited by the majority of our witnesses included the absence of, among others, updated and easily available guidelines, ready advice on the more practical aspects of establishing an inquiry, and a forum especially for chairs to reflect on the long-term successes and failures of previous inquiries.
The committee believed and believes that a joint parliamentary committee should be established, the main purpose of which would be to conduct post-legislative scrutiny on implementation. Recommendations might in turn exert some pressure on government, help to shorten the length of future inquiries and possibly also bring down the costs of inquiries.
The second major recommendation on strengthening public inquiries is to boost support for the existing Cabinet unit, which we all agreed does a good job. There is an obvious need for a repository of good practice, ranging from the practical details of setting up an inquiry to engaging more effectively with expert opinion, including non-governmental experts. Some of the mechanisms might include insisting on a “lessons learned” report on what went well and not so well, commissioning further research, updating the 2012 guide, establishing a forum for chairs, further online promotion of the unit and its services, and liaising with the Civil Service and policymakers to arrive at doable recommendations.
The changes our report suggests are not in themselves radical but more a deepening of what already exists. Improvement in both the efficiency of future inquiries and the outcomes would contribute to the purpose of inquiries, which is to take all measures to prevent the catastrophic conditions that provoke an inquiry in the first place.
Lord Faulks (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I declare an interest as a member of the committee and as a participant in a number of public inquiries, whether as a witness, a lawyer or indeed a chair.
Why do we have more and more of them? What do they achieve? Setting up a public inquiry can be a useful political tool, kicking into touch an issue which is uncomfortable for the Government of the day. By the time the inquiry reports, the issue may well have become less politically salient than it was.
Inquiries almost always take longer than was intended. I say this not to impugn the integrity of chairs or other participants, but it is undoubtedly the case that the very notion of a public inquiry carries with it the expectation that it will leave no stone unturned and provide an answer to questions that courts or the normal political processes have insufficient time or resources to do. It needs a strong chair to keep the length of an inquiry under control.
The choice of that chair is crucial. Judges are frequently selected, and such inquiries are often very lawyer heavy, with the result that they can often mimic a particularly lengthy and thorough civil trial. Of course, they are very expensive. I therefore particularly endorse the recommendation of the committee that very careful thought should be given as to the identity of the chair—a judge is not always the answer—and restricting the terms of reference in such a way as to result in shorter and, we hope, cheaper inquiries.
I respect the role of lawyers in the important role they play, but the optics of serried ranks of lawyers at an inquiry and the impression that this is a great bonanza for the legal profession can be unfortunate. The choreography of these things matters.
The report suggests that a chair with specialist knowledge may well be suitable, rather than a judge. I am also impressed by the argument that a commissioning Minister should suggest an indicative deadline in terms of reference. The purpose of the inquiry may make it particularly important that it reports in time, so that it has maximum impact. Restricting recommendations to a manageable number is much more likely to result in legislation—if it is necessary—and command respect from all interested parties.
At the centre of the recommendations is the need for lessons to be learned and the sharing of good practice between inquiries. We heard of the Inquiries Unit, which provides advice and guidance to departments, but it did not seem to be quite as well known as it ought to be. We made various recommendations as to how it could be better and to make sure that the knowledge that has been acquired is sufficiently disseminated.
As others have done, I pay tribute to our chair, the noble Lord, Lord Norton, who followed our own recommendations by keeping the inquiry very much under control and making sure that our recommendations were short but highly focused. I also pay tribute to Andrea Dowsett, Matthew Burton and Emily Tallentire, who played such an important role.
I know that the Minister will respond to this report when she winds up. I am afraid I have one rather difficult question for her. It may be a question she cannot immediately answer. I posed it to the Inquiries Unit during the various hearings we had with witnesses but received no reply. It is something I have heard about from a number of those who take part in public inquiries on a regular basis. Very often, particularly in high-profile cases, a witness will give evidence to a public inquiry and that witness will already have given evidence before a Select Committee. They may say something to the inquiry inconsistent with what they said before the committee, or they may add or subtract something in a way that is perhaps significant. But the practice has grown up that no reference can be made to evidence given in Select Committees because it is regarded by those advising various chairs that this would impugn proceedings in Parliament in such a way as to violate the Bill of Rights. I invite the Minister to respond to this, because this practice, which I do not think is sound in law, is inhibiting the proper inquiry into a number of important issues.
Baroness Bottomley of Nettlestone (Con)
My Lords, I agree with all those who have warmly commended the noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth, and of Hull University, for his characteristically rigorous, accessible, practical report, and the other members of the committee.
The noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, said that in this place we are allowed to draw on our experience, knowledge and expertise, so, I thought I would. When I became a Minister, having a public inquiry was thought to be cowardly—kicking it into the long grass and creating trouble for your successors; you were not going to do anything about it, so “Let’s have an inquiry and forget about it”. Looking at the figures—the Institute for Government, of which I am a great fan, has a wonderful chart—we see that when I was a Secretary of State, there were two public inquiries in government at that time; there are now around 20. The big offenders were in the years 2000 and 2010. I am afraid that when Tony Blair was Prime Minister, there were 15, and when Gordon Brown was Prime Minister, there were 16—I do not wish to be politically partisan; I am simply making a comment.
My experience, having been to any number of child abuse inquiries before I was a Member of Parliament, was that they always said the same thing. Louis Blom-Cooper was my great friend; I am sorry that the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, is not here. The situation was always that nobody wanted to believe the unbelievable, so the child had fallen between the cracks, nobody had picked up the bruises and nobody had recognised that the child was never seen at school or at home. There was nothing new; it was always the same; we had been through all the misery in the court and then had to go through it all in an inquiry.
What professional is really going to spill the beans in a public inquiry? If you have an inquiry in private, they are much more likely to explain why they did not follow up, what went wrong that day and what the institutional issues were. Of course, judges know nothing about these matters. That is why I support those who think you should have an expert. Louis Blom-Cooper, although a judge, was an expert in the subject.
In my case, there was a subject which was new—Christopher Clunis murdered Jonathan Zito; he was a psychiatric patient and, as with the child abuse story, nobody had followed up; he was okay in hospital and okay when he came out, but not okay when he stopped taking his medication. To me, this was an issue which we had to really ram home and reinforce to people. Since that very good inquiry—a QC, Jean Ritchie, did a very good job; I am not against lawyers on all occasions—we have had any number of inquiries on the same subject. We do not need to have the same inquiry time and again.
When it came to Beverley Allitt, the nurse who was murdering patients, I asked Sir Cecil Clothier, a QC and former health service ombudsman, to have an inquiry in private. He did it in nine months and the recommendations were excellent. We do not need to have a judge-led inquiry for Lucy Letby—there is very little new there; we have had a court case—but the key point that my noble friend Lord Norton makes is that there was no follow-up. When people talk to me about Lucy Letby, they ask, “What happened to your recommendations?” I say, “I don’t know”, because I had moved on.
The chair of an inquiry is critical—this is a serious point—and I am so pleased that the noble Lord, Lord Bichard, is going to speak shortly. He is not a QC, I understand, or a distinguished judge. He did a brilliant report on Soham, as have so many others. Currently, Sir Jonathan Michael, a very distinguished doctor who was chief executive of Saint Thomas’ and of the Radcliffe, is investigating David Fuller and the appalling Tunbridge Wells and Maidstone hospital cases. Our colleague, the noble Baroness, Lady Lampard, has done some extremely good inquiries. So let us get a chair who knows what they are doing, and not fourth time lucky as in the ridiculous child sex abuse case, which should be used as an example of bad practice—who wants a QC from New Zealand to do this?—and not like the Infected Blood Inquiry, where we should have had a panel with people on it who actually knew about health. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Phillips, had a geneticist and a public servant with him.
I know that cannot speak any longer, although I really want to. I commend the report. There is so much more to say—please, can we have a longer debate next time?
Lord Aberdare (CB)
My Lords, it was a pleasure to serve on this committee, which was brilliantly chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth. I echo the tributes to our clerk and policy analyst.
The committee was set up against the background of widespread concern about the effectiveness of statutory inquiries—as well as their efficiency, but I am going to concentrate on their effectiveness. They are growing in number; they take too long; they cost too much; they lack consistency, and, at the end of the day, their recommendations are often not implemented. The committee addressed all these issues, but I will only add my voice to the question of how recommendations made by statutory inquiries should be monitored and enforced. I am afraid I am bound to repeat some of my colleagues and earlier speakers.
The evidence was clear that, at present, recommendations are often implemented inadequately, or indeed not at all. As the noble Lord, Lord Norton, pointed out, the result of not learning those lessons could be further disasters. If the Government, having accepted the recommendations of an inquiry, do not actually deliver on them, how should they be held to account? The phrase “Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?”—who will guard the guardians—occurs to me from my days of learning Latin.
We looked at a range of options for this monitoring. Inquiry chairs might have a continuing role in monitoring implementation. Some chairs have indeed tried, but many might not be available or willing to undertake such a commitment and, of course, there would not be continuity or consistency between different inquiries. We looked at the idea of victims and survivors playing a role in implementation monitoring, and it is interesting we have not heard much about that aspect so far. However, inevitably, that would be informal and might raise questions of objectivity. We looked at the Australian model of independent implementation monitors reporting to Parliament, which works well. But again, these monitors work only on individual inquiries. We considered other things, including the National Audit Office, a national oversight mechanism, or upgrading the role of the Cabinet Office Inquiries Unit. However, as we have already heard, the inevitable conclusion was that effective monitoring needed to be done by Parliament.
It has always been possible for parliamentary Select Committees to review the implementation of inquiry recommendations, but this has happened for only six out of 68 inquiries since 1990. Something more is needed, as proposed in our recommendation for the Liaison Committee of this House. The Government, in their response, note that these are “for Parliament” to address, but that should not let them—or the Minister in her response—off the hook of explaining how they propose to improve the frameworks around inquiries and, in particular, in terms of monitoring. We recommended that the Liaison Committee should both monitor the implementation of our report and look to establish a new committee—either a Joint Committee of both Houses or a Lords committee—to monitor implementation.
I will end with a question and a rallying cry. First, I ask the Minister: how and when will the Government act upon the recommendations they have accepted, including undertaking a wider reform of the frameworks around inquiries as they said in their response? It would be more than a pity if a further committee has to be set up some time in the 2030s to explore why the recommendations of this one have not been implemented.
Secondly, I look to our chair, the noble Lord, Lord Norton, to promote, drive, and co-ordinate a campaign to persuade the powers that be on the Liaison Committee that a new public inquiries committee is not only badly needed but would represent an important way for Parliament and this House to contribute to the greater effectiveness of statutory inquiries, both in meeting the reasonable expectations of the public and, even more, in avoiding the potentially catastrophic result of lessons not being learned from findings.
Baroness Berridge (Con)
My Lords, it was a privilege to serve on the Select Committee. I note that I have appeared before one public inquiry, the IICSA inquiry, and I hope it is not two as I stand ready for the Covid inquiry. Last business on a Friday is an antithesis to the importance that public inquiries play in the public mind. In a 2014 report to your Lordships’ House, there were 33 recommendations, of which 19 were accepted by the Government. None of those accepted recommendations was implemented. It is ironic that so many recommendations of public inquiries suffer the same fate. This is causing harm, as noble Lords have mentioned, to the reputations of inquiries, to victims and to the taxpayer.
Victims are harmed first by the difficulty in getting a public inquiry, involving years of campaigning and fighting through every avenue you can think of—media, multiple layers of politicians who come and go, even celebrities. The evidence to our committee on this issue from Bill Wright of Haemophilia Scotland was compelling and exhausting even just to listen to. Therefore, calling for a public inquiry would be an important function of the new public inquiries Select Committee that our report recommended to Parliament. It would also be an important go-to place for MPs and Peers who are being lobbied. I join the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, in saying that, while the decision to create such a committee is for Parliament, I would be interested to know His Majesty’s Government’s views on the matter, as I expect that they will be consulted.
Then, of course, victims go through the years of an inquiry. For many, that is cathartic and healing, but then too often, as has been mentioned, they see recommendations that they believe will prevent future harm being accepted but ignored. So, for many, further campaigning then begins. What was supposed to be the end of the road is not. This is no way to treat already injured people, so if His Majesty’s Government do not support the recommendation for the public inquiries Select Committee, what mechanism will they put in place to ensure that recommendations that are accepted are implemented, or explanations given as to why implementation is no longer possible? Of course, even if a recommendation is enacted, such as that for compensation, schemes currently being run by the Government can be cumbersome, causing further harm—the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, recognised that. At the moment, there are similar concerns about the infected blood scheme: will His Majesty’s Government provide an update on progress?
The committee heard much evidence that, even with an Inquiries Unit, lessons are not learned from one inquiry to the next. Besides leading to time delays and duplication, this is a waste of public money. The financial cost, we have heard, is affecting the reputation of inquiries. So, in addition to the committee’s recommendations, is the Minister aware of any efforts to compare the costs of various inquiries across the different government departments? Are they learning from each other on better value for money, monitoring lawyers’ fees and infrastructure costs? Are former chairs and counsel ever asked how money could have been saved? Could the use of AI limit the costs? While the process to allow Covid health workers, the bereaved and victims of Covid to tell their experiences, in a process similar to IICSA’s Truth Project, is valuable, is that really within the scope of a statutory inquiry, as Sir Brian Leveson told us in written evidence?
Finally, I believe that His Majesty’s Government should not shy away from narrowing the terms of reference and giving indicative time limits and indicative budgets that are extendable only with ministerial approval. Enough of these inquiries have now been done to know approximately how long one will take. Also, in accordance with some of the evidence we took from former inquiry chairs, I do not think that parliamentarians should shy away from asking Questions of Ministers in Parliament. These are not civil or criminal proceedings with chairs that can be influenced by such Questions or Answers. These inquiries should not, I believe, be the long grass through which parliamentary scrutiny cannot peek.
Baroness Grey-Thompson (CB)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth, and his committee for this report. I agree with the committee’s view that inquiries can be cathartic for victims, survivors and their families. However, I am not always optimistic that such inquiries necessarily reassure them that similar tragedies are less likely to occur again. There have been countless public inquiries, national and local, into child sexual abuse in this country, yet there remains a profound lack of confidence that such tragedies will not be repeated. For years, we have witnessed a cycle of failure, apology and inaction.
I decided to speak in today’s debate because I have a Private Member’s Bill, the Regulated and Other Activities (Mandatory Reporting of Child Sexual Abuse) Bill, which has progressed through Second Reading. I do not generally think that such matters should be dealt with via a Private Member’s Bill, but it is a way to debate the topic and shine a light on the issues. I and other noble Lords have made several attempts to get this on the statute books.
On 20 October 2022, the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse published its final statutory report, which was presented to Parliament. I and others were hoping that this would be taken up quickly. I was able to speak to Professor Alexis Jay before my Second Reading: she and others have been exceptionally helpful in moving the discussion on. I thank Mandate Now, which I have been working with over a number of years to help progress this issue. My concern is that nearly three years passed before the Government issued an adequate response to IICSA’s findings, and action on its recommendations remains even further behind. The current Government have said they will enact the recommendations in full, but that is still a long way off. I know that I and others will push for the full recommendations to be accepted.
Over the Christmas Recess, there were countless reports and column inches on child sexual abuse, which gave my Private Member’s Bill some coverage, but it should not be down to that to move the debate on. So much work goes into these inquiries; there is so much trust from people. Trust in due process must be restored for victims and the wider public, who expect accountability and change.
Your Lordships have held several debates—we have just come from one—about trust in the media. So much of that holds true to this debate: inquiries and legislation are always playing catch-up—just look at the online abuse legislation. The Internet Watch Foundation published data that shows that AI-generated sexual abuse is massively on the rise and 97% of victims are girls. Inquiries look at what happened years ago, not what is happening now and certainly not what will happen in the future, so we have to make them work better. If we do not reform, we will never catch up.
I welcome the establishment of a joint parliamentary committee. As many other noble Lords said, we need to look at how we monitor recommendations.
I and, I am sure, a number of other noble Lords have had our names on reports that have sat on shelves and not gone very far. I authored one in 2017—a report, not an inquiry—about duty of care in sport. Since then, a number of governing bodies have been through the same process and come up with the same recommendations. We need to do better. I look forward to supporting the noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth, in his continued work.
Lord Hendy (Lab)
My Lords, I too had the pleasure of serving on this committee and add my tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Norton, chair of the committee, and Andrea Dowsett, clerk to the committee, and her team for conducting this inquiry—as exemplary as an inquiry into inquiries should be.
Over some 40 years of practice at the Bar, I have appeared as counsel in inquiries, usually for the bereaved and injured. I seek to make four points—two by way of footnote and two of more substance. The first footnote is that we had a discussion in the committee about the role of an inquisitorial, as opposed to adversarial, process. This is uncontroversial: an inquiry is obviously an inquisitorial process, conducted by the chair with his or her counsel within the terms of reference; as opposed to an adversarial process, which occurs in the courts and tribunals of the country, where the parties define the issues, and decide what evidence to call, what questions to ask and so on.
However, I turn to the slight misunderstanding there was among some witnesses, who appeared to think that cross-examination was a technique appropriate only in an adversarial process. I remind the House that the techniques of examination-in-chief, cross-examination and re-examination are used in forensic inquiries of all kinds. In an inquiry nowadays, although the rules usually say that the questions are put by counsel for the inquiry, we heard evidence that pointed to a discretion on the part of chairs to allow counsel for parties to ask questions under some circumstances. I remind the House of that area of discretion.
The second footnote is to take up a point made by my noble friend Lord Grantchester about the duty of candour. He explained the utility of that duty in various fora. I remind the House that the duty of candour emerged in the administrative law context of judicial review. All it means is that public authorities have a duty to lay all the cards on the table and not just those that support the decision that is being impugned in the proceedings. It would be advantageous to adopt that in future public inquiries.
My third point is to endorse recommendation 6 of the committee, which is that the Liaison Committee of this House should supervise the implementation of the recommendations of the committee. This leads me to my fourth and final point. Recommendation 7, that there should be a joint public inquiries committee to supervise the implementation of the recommendations of public inquiries, seems such a good suggestion. However, I am unclear about the mechanism for the establishment of such a committee. Will the Government do everything that they can to implement whatever that mechanism is so that we end up with such a Joint Committee?
Lord Bichard (CB)
My Lords, as a former chair of a non-statutory inquiry, the Soham inquiry, more recently chair of an expert group advising the Infected Blood Inquiry, and a witness before four public inquiries, I was naturally very interested in reading the report. I very much welcome it and agree with the vast majority of the recommendations.
I want to touch upon two issues. The first is the importance of the independence of the chair of any inquiry. It is important to retain the trust of the public, if the inquiry is to look objectively at the events which led to it being set up. It is also key to it being able to make robust recommendations. Nothing in the report, or in the Government’s response, directly contradicts any of that. But we need to be careful that putting an emphasis on the importance of a community of practice, with which I agree, coupled with a stronger Inquiries Unit in the Cabinet Office, does not lead to excessive prescription. The proposal in the Government’s response for templates for secretaries sounded prescriptive to me. We should be careful about that.
I have similar concerns about the committee’s own recommendations that inquiries should
“use policy-making and Civil Service expertise to support chairs in making practicable recommendations”
that are implementable. I have to tell your Lordships that necessary changes in policy and practice do not always look practicable or implementable at the time that they are made. Sometimes they might even look a bit inconvenient to officials. Again, we need to be careful that there is no pressure brought to bear on chairs to produce recommendations that are convenient to Ministers, officials or even the Cabinet Office.
This may seem an odd point, but I am uneasy at the suggestion that guidance on inquiries should include advice on how to engage with the victims and who should lead on this. The relationship between a chair and the victims or their families is pivotal to the credibility of the inquiry and its effectiveness. Chairs should be left to lead on this. Sir Brian Langstaff at the Infected Blood Inquiry has done a magnificent job in difficult circumstances. Again, we should be careful not to, for example, encumber the situation by departmental officials developing their own relationship. They will often be seen as part of the problem, not part of the solution.
I am going to be inconvenient here, I am afraid, but my next point is on the implementation of inquiry recommendations. This is paramount and too often, as the report says, overlooked. That is why I included in my inquiry report not just a recommendation to reconvene in six months but a recommendation that the Government should at the same time report to Parliament. It seemed to work pretty well. Without it, I doubt that we would now have a vetting and barring scheme. I doubt that we would have a national police intelligence system. But, as the report says, too often the recommendations are ignored.
The committee considered a number of options. I have my doubts about both a Joint Committee and a House of Lords-sponsored committee, simply because they are too distant from the issues that are under consideration. I would prefer to see the Select Committees in the other place taking responsibility for this monitoring process and for them to be expected to report, not allowed to consider whether they report. It should be a mandatory part of their responsibilities.
By the way, finally—I am sorry about the time—I do not know why we suggest that chairs should be excluded from any role in monitoring or implementation. They certainly should not be campaigning, but the people who have the greatest knowledge and greatest investment in some good coming from often tragic circumstances are the chairs and we should retain their involvement.
Baroness Sanderson of Welton (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Bichard. He has just ably demonstrated why his Soham inquiry is so regularly cited as one of the best examples of how inquiries can effect real and far-reaching change.
I am afraid that today I am going to repeat the main points that everybody else has made—you can definitely see a theme here. It became very clear very quickly that the severe and biggest weakness in the inquiry system is the lack of any formal structure for monitoring. I have worked on and helped with inquiries over the years and it came as quite a surprise to me that I had not actually thought about this before.
I have been involved in trying to deliver inquiry recommendations, both the interim reports for IICSA and for Grenfell. That experience has taught me that it is really hard to get inquiry recommendations over the line. They span different departments, which means that it is very difficult to get people to take responsibility. It requires a political will and a political momentum. As has been said, inquiries take quite a long time, so the person who called the inquiry in the first place tends to have moved on.
Even when you get over those hurdles and to the point where you have delivered recommendations, you are then reliant on GOV.UK to communicate that to those affected. Frankly, GOV.UK is not up to the task. It is very dry, you cannot isolate or identify a recommendation that you might be interested in and see where it is in the process, and people just give up, frankly—and I do not really blame them.
When I was working in this area, we found a lot of complaints that it was taking too long, with people asking when it was going to get done, etcetera. They were completely justifiable complaints. We did not ever hear a doubt that it would get done; we just heard that it was taking too long. Something has changed in recent years. I do not know if that is because of the number of inquiries or the nature of the inquiries and the programmes they have led to, but what has undeniably happened is that we now have a backlog of undelivered recommendations across a range of inquiries. That is a problem.
As well, more recently, we are seeing a bit of a problem in that people are accepting recommendations because they want to show that they are accepting them. However, they accept in principle and they do not give any pathway or any sense of how these recommendations will be delivered.
Back to the victims and survivors affected, we are left with people losing trust in the process. I am hearing from people, “Well, what’s the point, because they’re never going to implement the recommendations anyway”. That really is a problem because, as others have said, public inquiries are expensive and long but are a hugely important part of our democratic process, because they step in when the worst thing has happened. They are there to find out what happened and to prevent it from happening again.
As our very able chair, my noble friend Lord Norton of Louth, said, the point is to not repeat the mistakes, but the problem is that if we are not implementing the recommendations, there is a danger that we are repeating the mistakes. In the territory of public inquiries, I am afraid that those mistakes are very often literally fatal mistakes.
As others have asked, I would be really grateful to hear what the Minister has to say about what they are looking at. There are other alternatives: there is Inquest and the national oversight mechanism, and there is the independent public advocate. But we need something in place to put right this wrong before it threatens trust in the whole system.
Lord Carter of Haslemere (CB)
My Lords, what a privilege it is to follow such a distinguished line-up of speakers. I commend the noble Lord, Lord Norton, on his brilliant report and his committee. I have two points—although my second point will inevitably echo some of what others have said.
First, the Statutory Inquiries Committee recommends that Ministers should keep in mind the option of holding a non-statutory inquiry and then converting it if witnesses fail to co-operate. I agree—but is this not a golden opportunity to be bolder and to go slightly further than that? As witnesses, including Bishop James Jones, said to the committee, the biggest difficulty is the prioritisation of statutory inquiries over non-statutory inquiries. The 2005 Act has given a sense of hierarchy, based mainly on the fact that only statutory inquiries have the power to compel evidence.
This could easily be overcome by legislative change. The more inquisitorial approach of non-statutory inquiries, with less formality and with swifter and less legalistic processes—I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, that statutory inquiries have become too formalistic and almost adversarial; I say that with respect to the noble Lord, Lord Hendy—could then make them the norm for most inquiries, instead of being perceived as the inferior option by victims. Statutory inquiries would then be reserved for exceptional cases, such as Covid. This would, as the title of our debate says, enhance public trust in non-statutory inquiries.
In their response to the committee three months ago, the Government said that they are
“actively considering whether there is scope for wider reforms to the frameworks within which inquiries are set up, run and concluded”.
That is excellent, but that was three months ago. Have they reached a conclusion? I am looking forward to hearing the Minister’s answer.
Secondly, the Statutory Inquiries Committee’s report chimes with a recent report by the Committee on Standards in Public Life, which emphasised the need for public bodies to learn lessons so as to respond better to early warning signs about emerging risks. There can be no better way to learn lessons than from recommendations of public inquiries. Only two weeks before the report we are now debating was published, the recommendations from phase 2 of the Grenfell inquiry were released, which the Government said must be a
“catalyst for long-lasting, systemic change”,—[Official Report, Commons, 26/2/25; col. 777.]
to prioritise the safety of high-rise blocks. That is so true, but what a pity that was not done following a very similar recommendation, three years earlier, from the inquest into the Lakanal House fire disaster. That was just three years before the Grenfell refurbishment, which resulted, as we know, in the most awful, but tragically avoidable, loss of life.
There are many examples one could point to. This is not about the Government being compelled to implement inquiry recommendations; it about putting in place a system for holding the Government robustly to account for any refusal to accept a recommendation or a failure to implement those they have accepted. The Statutory Inquiries Committee hits the bull’s-eye by recommending a new Joint Select Committee of Parliament: what an excellent and long-overdue change that would be. Ideally, it would also include prevention of future deaths reports by coroners within its remit, which are as serious as many recommendations of inquiries.
So far, in response to the Grenfell inquiry, the noble Lord, Lord Khan, and the Government have agreed only to publicly accessible records of inquiry recommendations and annual reporting to Parliament. That is not remotely the same thing. It is very likely to mean that important inquiry and inquest recommendations, often costing tens or hundreds of millions to produce, will fall through the implementation net. As the Committee on Standards in Public Life noted, valuable lessons will not be learned which could prevent future tragedies.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Norton, for chairing the committee. I was one of its members who did not have a legal background, and I was not made to feel too much like I was running to keep up the whole time. It was an interesting process, because we looked at something for which agreement was established pretty early on: that the committee itself might have been a moment in the process of solving something, but action after it had reported was the important thing. If we lost sight of that, there was absolutely no point in meeting in the first place.
The way to do this—we spent a great deal of time looking at this; I will not repeat words that have already been said or are presented in the report—was as efficiently as possible and to pay attention to the lessons learned before. We also had a very interesting discussion about the most appropriate ways of getting at the truth—ones that we should all pay attention to. The fact that distinguished lawyers said, “It’s not always the way lawyers traditionally do it that is important”, is something that everybody should listen to.
When an organisation criticises itself and its brethren, pay attention. Organisations know their own faults, even if they do not admit them very often. The same is true about making sure that something happens here. This has to be something that affects Parliament. A committee of both Houses would be best because, at the start of a Government, the Government may feel that they have all the time in the world, but they will not do so in three years’ time.
We also have a huge backlog of things to go through. If the Government are going to be brave, as we understand they will be, we must get down something that states what the priorities are and what is standing. The first phase will be the most difficult because there is a huge backlog of recommendations to bring into law. It may only be smaller adaptations to bits of law going through and an emphasis going down—we have all played this game long enough to know that—but it is about how you get a structure that says you are addressing things. Indeed, it is about looking back and saying, “We’ve subsequently covered this”; proving it and going through are important.
Those things will happen only if the Government are under pressure from Parliament to make sure that they are happening. We all know that all Governments have their own wonderful schemes they have thought out and that, really, nothing should get in the way. In effect, that is saying, “Things have gone wrong”, and correcting on the way through. By the way, in my experience, no one party is removed from this process. They all have a series of priorities. This is a break to say, “No matter what your priorities are, something has gone wrong. We’ve got to address this now”. I hope that, when the Government respond, they will bear that in mind. It is not an easy thing to do; if the Government are going to do something about it, I salute their bravery, because they have to do it.
This will not happen if we continue to kick it into the long grass. The noble Baroness, Lady Bottomley, who does not seem to be in her place, gave us a good example of the long-grass punt that is going on. If we are to get away from that, including structurally, we need from the Government undertakings that once again refer back to this monitoring committee that will come about. The noble Lord, Lord Bichard, came up with another way of doing it, but it is still the same thing; it is still the same input into Parliament to say that we will not go back to that way of saying, “Well, we’ve done something, but it will be somebody else who has to deal with it—and who knows what will be happening by then?”. That is clearly the underlying message around what has happened, or has in effect ended up happening, in the past.
I hope that the Government would have no objections to some of the things about gathering good information on how you run a committee. It was sometimes the case that people sat there and said, “You mean you don’t do this? You mean you disregard what others have done?”. I had never been through this before. People were nodding and saying, “Yeah, this is how it happens. I thought it was ridiculous that we weren’t doing that”. I hope we can have a happy “yes” on that.
I could go on, but I would end up repeating myself. We must make sure that the process of a public inquiry is something that leads to action. We must make sure that the recommendation about time becomes very important in that process; and that the interim reports, which are a spur to action, are also used. If we do those things, we can give a bit of faith back to the process whereby we look at real problems and come up with solutions that we in Parliament have identified.
Baroness Finn (Con)
My Lords, public inquiries are supposed to shine a light into dark corners. Too often they resemble a candle flickering in a drafty room—costly, slow and easily extinguished. When they work, they deliver truth, justice and change. When they fail, they become a bureaucratic cul-de-sac, a place where answers go to die, as the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, pointed out.
Therefore, I thank my noble friend Lord Norton of Louth and all the members of the committee for their excellent report. As my noble friend set out so eloquently, the report provides clarity on what many of us have long suspected: while inquiries remain essential to good governance, their delivery too often falls short—on speed, cost, follow-through and, above all, accountability.
I also thank the Government for their constructive response to the report, but there is a wide gap between agreement in principle and reform in practice, and there are too many areas where the answer remains, “Not now, not yet”. We agree with much of the committee’s report, and we are grateful to the committee for taking evidence from the then Cabinet Office Minister, the Member for Brentwood and Ongar in the other place, as part of its inquiry. While in government, we took important steps in the right direction, not least in establishing the Cabinet Office Inquiries Unit in 2019, in line with the recommendation of a 2014 report. We are pleased that the Government have engaged positively, but we have some questions that I shall come to later.
For 84 years, public inquiries in this country were given legislative force by the Tribunals of Inquiry (Evidence) Act 1921. The entire Act is less than two pages in length; under its provisions, it was Parliament that established a public inquiry and it was to Parliament that the tribunal of inquiry submitted its findings. Reports issued under these inquiries were perfectly capable of causing difficulty and embarrassment for Governments of whatever persuasion. These inquiry tribunals enjoyed many of the powers of the High Court in compelling the production of documents and witnesses. The noble Lords, Lord Carter and Lord Faulks, have pointed out that we do not always need statutory inquiries to achieve that.
Fast-forward to 2005 and, against significant opposition from NGOs and judges, the previous Labour Government replaced the two pages of the 1921 Act with the 35 pages of the Inquiries Act 2005. Those 35 pages place exclusive power in the hands of Ministers to establish public inquiries, select a chair and panel, set the terms of reference, restrict public access to evidence and redact the content of any report ultimately produced. This remarkable Act was justified on the grounds that the expense and delay in conducting inquiries under the 1921 Act had become unacceptable. Yet here we are, 20 years later, as the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, said, and all sides of the House largely agree that the more restricted inquiries under the 2005 Act are just as slow, expensive and cumbersome as those undertaken before its enactment.
Indeed, the Government now accept that inquiries established under the 2005 Act take too long and are too expensive. In the financial year 2023-24, the direct public cost of ongoing UK inquiries had exceeded £130 million, and, on average, inquiries are taking nearly five years to complete their work, as we have heard today. They are often ineffective. Recommendations accepted by Ministers are not routinely implemented or even tracked—I was struck by how many noble Lords emphasised that point today, including the noble Baronesses, Lady D’Souza and Lady Grey-Thompson, and the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare. My noble friend Lady Sanderson has demonstrated the practical problems that she has encountered, and my noble friend Lady Bottomley highlighted the failure to follow up a number of recommendations from previous health inquiries. Despite this, and as the committee highlighted in its report, public inquiries can be an effective way to establish facts and identify where mistakes are made and who is accountable for them.
I suggest to the House that a successful inquiry requires three things. The first is the autonomy, authority and coercive powers to establish the facts surrounding a matter of public concern. We have seen all too many instances of public inquiries struggling to establish the facts of the matter as relevant documents, in a manner all too convenient for those under scrutiny, simply disappear.
The second is the capacity to draw meaningful conclusions from the facts it discovers and to offer useful recommendations based on those conclusions. It is vital that the public policy recommendations are of a kind that Ministers can act on. The noble Lord, Lord Faulks, talked about the role of lawyers in inquiries, but lawyers are not always best placed to make such recommendations.
The third is the willingness of Ministers to consider and, if they agree, implement the inquiry’s recommendations. Here, I fully recognise that successive Governments must accept their share of responsibility for not being as expeditious in accepting recommendations as they ought to have been—this implementation point has been repeatedly raised today.
Inquiries should always seek to conduct their work in timely way, so that lessons can be learned as quickly as possible and costs can be kept to an acceptable level to protect taxpayers’ money. Ministers should also seek to respond to inquiries in a similar timely way, so the public can have trust that inquiries are being taken seriously. When Ministers accept recommendations or make commitments to consider them, they should be held to their commitment.
We therefore welcome the Government’s decision to accept many of the committee’s recommendations, including on the format of future inquiries, proper consultation of victims and survivors, and stronger Cabinet Office capability. The Government have said that they will implement these recommendations through updated Cabinet Office guidance. Can the Minister confirm when this work will be complete and commit to updating the House with the full guidance at that point?
The Government have also committed to better resourcing of the Cabinet Office Inquiries Unit. This is a welcome step; Ministers must not treat each new inquiry as though it is the first. My noble friend Lady Berridge correctly identified the need to monitor the cost of inquiries. Can the Minister confirm what the cost of this additional resource will therefore be, and how many additional staff members will be allocated to the Cabinet Office Inquiries Unit to deliver these improvements? I am sure she can. Will those staff also be spared from the much-publicised staff cuts currently taking place in the Cabinet Office? The noble Lord, Lord Bichard, raised the risk of a potential conflict of interest or potential overreach with the independence of the chair and the inquiry itself, so how will this actually be managed?
We very much welcome the Government’s acceptance of the need to produce proper “lessons learned” papers at the end of each inquiry. Will the Minister please confirm whether these will be published and provided to Parliament?
On the proposed Joint Committee on statutory inquiry, strongly endorsed by a number of noble Lords today, including the noble Baroness, Lady D’Souza, and the noble Lords, Lord Aberdare and Lord Hendy, we agree that this is a matter for Parliament. However, it is worth considering the scope of such a committee; there is a danger that it could become a forum for relitigating issues already settled by an inquiry and government response. One alternative would be to narrow its focus to tracking the implementation of accepted recommendations—I would welcome the Minister’s reflections on this point.
The Government have disagreed with the committee’s recommendation that legislative reform is needed at this time, and there is no explanation for this in the Government’s response. I am not certain whether it is the Government’s view that parliamentary time is too limited to deliver this, but I note that the Government are already planning legislative reform in this area through the Hillsborough law—a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester. Can the Minister explain why the Government have not taken the opportunity of that legislative vehicle to implement the committee’s recommendations?
Let us not forget what is at stake. The infected blood inquiry laid bare not only the scale of the tragedy but the failure of government to respond with candour, urgency or responsibility. As Sir Brian Langstaff explained, the Civil Service’s repeated reassurances that patients had received the best care amounted to cruelty for those who knew they had been failed. That failure must not be repeated: not in Grenfell, not in the Post Office and not in any future crisis yet to come.
I conclude by once again commending the excellent and thoughtful report and urge the Government not just to agree with the report but to implement it. Do not just publish guidance: do so transparently and soon. Do not just nod to Parliament’s role: give it teeth. Public inquiries must not become the graveyards of accountability. Let them be what they are meant to be: engines of justice, vessels of truth and proof that this country knows how to learn from its mistakes.
Baroness in Waiting/Government Whip (Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent) (Lab)
My Lords, it is a privilege to respond to today’s debate. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth, and his committee for their work on this important subject, and many of the noble Lords in your Lordships’ House today for the work they have done in and on public inquiries to date. We truly have a House of experts, and that is no less the case on this matter.
The report is a valuable contribution to the wider discussion about the efficacy of public inquiries and the adequacy of the Government’s response to them. The Government’s response to the recommendations by the noble Lord, Lord Norton, was later than it should have been, and I repeat the Government’s apologies. The recommendations contained in the committee’s report deserve very careful consideration, and we want to get this right. My response today will reflect on many of your Lordships’ comments, but this is an ongoing and iterative process, and we want to work with all noble Lords to make sure that we get it right. At the heart of what we do are the people who have experienced these issues, and it is to them we need to deliver answers. I propose to answer the general themes and then I will come to the specifics that have been raised during the debate.
The Government are clear that, when done well, public inquiries serve as an independent, legitimate and trusted method of investigating complex issues of significant public concern. They play an important role in shedding light on past injustices, giving victims and survivors a voice and rebuilding trust in our national institutions. They also play a crucial part in providing answers, vindication and the opportunity for catharsis for those who have been deeply wronged by failures of the state. Having recently met with some survivors of the Omagh bombing—the inquiry is ongoing—I am aware of the impact and importance of these processes for the people, survivors and their families touched by the initial tragedy. As the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, highlighted, we do this work to help people. It is with their testimony and stories that I speak today.
However, the Government acknowledge the concerns regarding the cost and duration of inquiries, and the importance of ensuring they are as effective as possible, as highlighted by the committee and in the valuable contributions made in this debate. Too often, inquiries take too long and cost too much, as the noble Baroness, Lady Finn, highlighted. In 2023-24, we exceeded £130 million and the average inquiry length is now in excess of five years. These timeframes are undermining public trust in the process and, allied to the all-consuming nature of inquiries for victims and survivors, can be incredibly retraumatising—a key factor that we should never forget, as was so articulately laid out by the noble Baroness, Lady Sanderson.
The response of Governments to the recommendations of inquiries has too often been inadequate, incomplete, opaque and slow to materialise. In some instances, it has led to appalling tragic events; as the noble Lord, Lord Carter, noted, Sir Martin Moore-Bick has highlighted that important recommendations affecting fire safety were ignored in the years leading up to the Grenfell Tower fire. The government response to the recommendations made by the Lakanal House coroner was inadequate. Had those recommendations been addressed at the time, the terrible loss of life could have been avoided and we would be much further along in helping those who are still suffering.
In response to these concerns, the Government agree with the committee’s finding that the Inquiries Act 2005, the broader governance structure of public inquiries and the way the Government respond to recommendations must be improved. We are committed to examining potential reforms to enhance the framework within which inquiries are established, operated and concluded—although the noble Baroness, Lady Finn, will not be surprised if I do not yet give a timeframe or say which legislative vehicle we may or may not use. This includes considering the roles of the independent public advocate and a statutory duty of candour, both of which are crucial for the administrative justice system.
A commitment to publish a record of recommendations of current and future inquiries was an underlying theme of several contributions from your Lordships. The noble Baroness, Lady Bottomley, argued it would not only change operations in terms of current day-to-day activity but also ensure how and why we reflect on whether a future public inquiry is necessary.
In response to the recommendation from the Grenfell Tower Inquiry, we committed to publishing a record of recommendations made by inquiries since 2024 and the Government’s responses to them. We plan to quickly develop this public record so that it captures the recommendations made by future inquiries as well as recommendations made by recent inquiries that remain outstanding. They will be updated regularly and will provide a means of tracking the implementation process so that recommendations can never again be lost or overlooked. The judiciary already maintains a publicly accessible record of prevention of future deaths reports made by coroners, and the Government are now working with the Chief Coroner to improve their transparency and availability, as well as to improve accountability for responses to them. Select Committee recommendations are, of course, routinely published and responded to by the Government.
As highlighted by the noble Lord, Lord Carter, we also fully acknowledge that the approach to establishing public inquiries should not be a one size fits all. For that reason, it is important that Ministers are given a suite of options and select the appropriate inquiry format, chair and panel on a case-by-case basis, guided by the Cabinet Office Inquiries Unit. Non-statutory inquiries can be both flexible and effective, often achieving their objectives more swiftly and at a lower cost. They are certainly not the poor cousin of statutory inquiries, and there will be many circumstances where a non-statutory inquiry is the best format. Given the work that I have done supporting colleagues in Northern Ireland, I am also very aware that investigations such as Operation Kenova are another effective option for considering issues of concern and are very much supported by some of the survivors associated.
We will soon be publishing the inquiry practitioners’ handbook, as we have committed to do in our response to the recommendations of the noble Lord, Lord Norton. I hope that will be reassuring to the noble Baroness, Lady Finn. The handbook, a guide for new inquiry chairs, secretaries and officials establishing and sponsoring inquiries, has been significantly revised in the light of these recommendations. It includes guidance on the different options available to the Government when considering an inquiry.
It is important that inquiries engage with those directly impacted. The practitioners’ handbook will include advice on how best to involve victim and survivor groups from the inception of an inquiry, ensuring that their perspectives are considered and supported throughout the process. The Truth Project, established by the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse, is an example of a way to offer victims and survivors the chance to share their experiences and be heard in a respectful way, outside of the often stressful formalities of a witness statement or oral hearing.
Moreover, we agree that indicative deadlines, where appropriate, may enhance the efficiency of inquiries. Although it is acknowledged that determining the duration of an inquiry at the outset can be challenging, we will strengthen advice that chairs maintain transparency regarding their process.
Interim reports have been recognised as beneficial tools for ensuring that lessons are learned swiftly and public confidence is maintained. We will publish guidance encouraging Ministers to include provisions for interim reports where suitable and highlight the merits of dividing an inquiry into phases—as the Grenfell Tower Inquiry did, enabling it to produce its first report in two years—or adopting a modular approach to covering multifaceted areas, such as the UK Covid-19 Inquiry.
The Government are also committed to strengthening the sharing of lessons learned from inquiries. We will require secretaries to produce lessons learned papers and, to this end, the Cabinet Office inquiries team has developed more comprehensive templates to assist—not restrict, I hope—the production of these papers. Furthermore, the Cabinet Office has helped to establish an active community of practice among inquiry teams across government to facilitate the sharing of best practice and professional development. This includes 10 separate networks covering the range of professions on inquiry teams, including inquiry secretaries, communication, finance, procurement, and knowledge and information management. These networks meet regularly to share best practice, tackle common issues, provide mutual support and, on occasion, share resources. Given the typical nature of the issues that require a public inquiry, the Cabinet Office continues to champion the development of the cross-government inquiry community.
At this point, I also want to acknowledge the stresses experienced by inquiry teams and the importance of ensuring resilience by providing an effective duty of care for inquiry teams and the civil servants who work hard to implement the recommendations of inquiries. They are exposed to details that are heartbreaking and extremely personally challenging. I thank them for undertaking this incredibly important but challenging work.
Importantly, we also agree that inquiries should be inquisitorial rather than adversarial, ensuring that the process remains fair and proportionate. Our handbook reflects the committee’s recommendations, and we will strive for swift and considered publication of responses to inquiries to enhance accountability.
In response to the noble Lords, Lord Norton and Lord Aberdare, the noble Baroness, Lady D’Souza, and my noble friend Lord Hendy with regard to the recommendation for a parliamentary committee, it will come as no surprise that I am going to say that is a matter for Parliament, but the Government would seek to actively engage and build a co-operative relationship with such a committee. We think it could potentially be a very strong force for good.
The noble Lords, Lord Norton and Lord Aberdare, asked about timings. We are actively considering reforms. This is a complex area, and we want to get it right. We will be keen to update Parliament as this works develops. As has been a theme of the day, the role of Parliament is to hold the Government to account, so I look forward to being in front of your Lordships on a regular basis to ensure that this work is progressing.
My noble friends Lord Grantchester and Lord Hendy asked about a duty of candour. As outlined in the King’s Speech, we will deliver on our manifesto commitment to implement a Hillsborough law. We remain fully committed to bringing forward this legislation at pace, but having consulted campaigners over the past few weeks, we believe more time is needed to draft the best version of a Hillsborough law. We are very aware that those families have waited a very long time, and we want to get it right for them. Our engagement with victims, families and survivors is essential to getting this right, and we will continue to engage with them in the coming weeks.
In response to my noble friend Lord Grantchester’s interesting point regarding how we can progress with some of the recommendations but not others, I would happily meet him to discuss this further—of course, that offer goes to all noble Lords with regard to some of their specific issues.
The noble Lord, Lord Faulks, asked me a very interesting question about the reach of parliamentary privilege—there are some occasions in your Lordships’ House where I get all the easy questions. If the noble Lord will bear with me, I will write to him, because I will need to seek advice from lawyers.
The noble Lords, Lord Faulks and Lord Bichard, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bottomley, asked me about the role of the chair. Senior members of the judiciary have professional skills which make them well qualified to chair inquiries, but we agree that non-legal chairs with relevant experience can be extraordinary chairs and are appropriate to have in place. Inquiries often take too long, and this is a key area, along with cost and the implementation of recommendations, that we will seek to improve in our reforms.
In response to the noble Baroness, Lady Berridge, given that I am now responsible for the issue of infected blood in your Lordships’ House, I am very grateful that she has given me the opportunity to update on progress. The Government are working closely with the Infected Blood Compensation Authority to ensure that compensation is paid as swiftly and compassionately as possible. The noble Baroness will be aware that we passed a SI just before recess to ensure that we can now move from compensation for infected people to compensation for affected people. Following the compensation scheme becoming law on 31 March, IBCA now has the powers it needs to press ahead and make payments to all those eligible for compensation. It began making compensation payments in December 2024, and as of 24 April, it has invited 475 people to start a claim, with 77 people having accepted their offers, totalling more than £78 million.
With regard to AI and general learning and how we can ensure that we are moving forward, AI could genuinely reduce costs, and we are actively considering its use as part of our reform work, both in this area and across government. On general learning, the Cabinet Office Inquiries Unit collects lessons learned documents. Through its networks, it commissions discrete lesson-learning documents from different inquiries on specific issues, and those will be used going forward.
The noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, raised a genuinely valid point; I think every Member of your Lordships’ House has been involved in drafting a report that has sat on the shelf and gone no further. It is a responsibility on us all, especially Members of your Lordships’ House, to make sure that that is not the case when we are talking about such heart-rending issues that we need to ensure are fixed.
I assure my noble friend Lord Hendy that we support the more inquisitorial approach, but that should not stop cross-examination. That will definitely be part of our efforts going forward.
I think I have only one further question to respond to from the noble Baroness, Lady Finn, but obviously I will look at Hansard and come back to her if I have missed any of her questions. With regard to costs and staffing, the noble Baroness would like to tempt me into areas where she knows I am not going to go. I appreciate the effort. I am sorry, but that is not a matter that I can reflect on and respond to today. I thank the noble Baroness for the work she did in her previous roles in getting us to where we are today, with the efforts of the Cabinet Office and the cross-departmental operations for how we can now move forward in public inquiries. There is still clearly some distance to go, and I look forward to working with her as we reflect on them in this House. I will come back to her on the matter of overreach.
While we cannot commit to immediate legislative changes, we are actively considering wider reforms and will provide updates to Parliament on our progress. The publication of the handbook and other information on a new GOV.UK inquiries page—I hope it will be slightly more accessible than previously—will underscore our commitment to effective and transparent inquiries that rebuild trust in our institutions and deliver just outcomes for all those affected.
On a personal note, it is easy for us to consider these matters dry; they are how we set up legal fora to discuss issues about where the state has not performed well. But I know, and I think all noble Lords know, that we do this because they are so incredibly important to the people who are going to go through the process and have experienced heartbreak that is beyond the comprehension of many of us. So I look forward to working alongside all colleagues in your Lordships’ House to further these objectives and enhance the inquiry process for the benefit of the public to make sure that we do them justice.
Lord Norton of Louth (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to all those who have spoken. It has been an excellent debate. I am especially grateful to the Minister for her detailed response. I appreciate enormously what she said about a Joint Committee, and I know we look forward to her updates on the progress of the implementation of the commitments that the Government have made in their response to the committee’s report.
I am also grateful to fellow members of the committee, not least those who have spoken today. The report is very much the product of a collective endeavour, drawing on a range of experience and expertise. As the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, said—the Minister endorsed this—the report demonstrates the strength of this House. I commend the resilience of the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, who I believe is speaking in her third debate of the day.
I commend the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Bichard, on the importance of the independence of the chair of an inquiry. That points to the need for a very effective process for the selection of the chair. I hear what he said about the responsibility of the Commons Select Committees—he would like to give them responsibility for monitoring inquiry report recommendations—but I fear the problem is that the Select Committees in the other place are already overburdened with the tasks that they have to undertake, and I think finding time to do this would be a little too much.
My noble friend Lady Finn made some important points about the 2005 Act. As the noble Lord, Lord Carter, stressed, statutory inquiries should not be seen as the gold standard. There is a range on offer and it really is horses for courses, selecting the method that is most appropriate to deal with the particular problem.
As I said in opening, reports from public inquiries should be seen as the start of a process, not the end of one, and that applies to Select Committee reports. This report is the basis for action to ensure that public inquiries deliver on what is expected of them. That entails some action on the part of the Government. It also entails action on the part of this House—ideally, as we have discussed, on the part of both Houses, and the Minister will have heard the near-unanimous view of the House on that subject.
I think we are agreed that public inquiries need to be more efficient and more effective; I hear the rallying cry of the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare. We owe it to victims and survivors to deliver these outcomes.