Inquiries Act 2005 (Select Committee Report)

Baroness Stern Excerpts

Thursday 19th March 2015 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Stern (CB)]

I begin, if I may, with a word about the noble Viscount, Lord Tenby. He may remember that when I arrived here 16 years ago I felt totally bewildered and utterly overwhelmed by it all. It is absolutely thanks to the noble Viscount and how he looked after me that I found my feet—I think I found my feet—and I have never forgotten his kindness and understanding.

I felt very privileged to have been a member of this Select Committee; it contained a vast wealth of wisdom and we have heard much of that today. The staff were hugely impressive and we had a chairman who held it all together, kept us in order, made us laugh, and got out of us what I feel is a very important report. We say in our summary:

“Inquiries into matters of major public concern are now an integral feature of the governance of this country”.

Indeed, they are a very important part of the arrangements we make to respond to and to resolve wrongs, disasters and failures. I appreciate the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Soley, which spelt that out in some detail.

In my remarks I want to concentrate on the significance of inquiries to good governance in relation to their role in giving satisfaction to injured parties, helping to lay matters to rest so that they do not fester for years, and giving to people who have suffered a sense that justice has been done. The word “justice” can be used in different ways. It can mean that someone is convicted and punished or blamed and shamed. It can also mean that injured parties find out the truth of what happened. I am sure that some noble Lords heard on the BBC a woman whose son had died at Hillsborough talking about the effect on her of hearing the truth that came out at the inquest about what really happened on 15 April 1989. After all those years of waiting it was very forceful.

We explored this aspect with most of our witnesses and we conclude in paragraph 9 that one of the purposes of having public inquiries is “catharsis”, which we define as,

“an opportunity for reconciliation between those affected by an event and those whose action caused it or whose inaction failed to prevent it”.

We heard much interesting evidence on this theme. Liberty told us:

“Inquiries provide a means for the truth about an event or series of events to be reached by an independent and authoritative body, but in a manner which is more inclusive and restorative than litigation”.

The words, “inclusive” and “restorative” are significant in this context.

Ashley Underwood QC told us that if you did not have the cathartic element you were likely to fail. You simply will not have allayed the public concern if you do not get reconciliation and do not have people thinking they have had their voices heard. Robert Francis QC, now Sir Robert, told us that the cathartic effect of being heard is a very important part of the inquiry. Hazel Shaw of Inquest said that the standing of the victims or bereaved families in an inquiry was very important. She said that often they are asking some of the most searching and difficult questions and performing a function in the wider public interest. That point is worth stressing. Although the victims—those who have suffered wrong—are at the centre or core of an inquiry, which is why we call them “core participants”, the outcome is of much wider importance for the public as a whole.

I want to thank those who gave evidence who have suffered some grievous wrong, and were prepared to put effort and commitment into making a success of the inquiry that looked into what had happened to them. I think, for example, of Christopher Jefferies who had been vilified by the press, mistakenly as a murder suspect—he gave evidence to the Leveson inquiry—and Julie Bailey who was such a leading figure in the Mid Staffordshire inquiry. We considered in some depth how such core participants were dealt with in the inquiry process, and whether it was appropriate. We heard about good practice from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Cullen, who spoke earlier and who, as an inquiry chairman, had meetings with the bereaved before the inquiry started,

“so they have a chance to see what I am like”.

The noble Lord, Lord Gill, who also chaired an inquiry told us that he met the core participants in advance. He said:

“You have to make it clear to them at the outset that everything is coming out in the open, that nothing is being held back”.

These are very useful examples of good practice.

The committee recommended that interested parties, particularly victims and victims’ families, should be given an opportunity to make representations about the final terms of reference. The Government, in their response—that most unfortunate document that we have been talking about for much of the time throughout this debate—accepted that recommendation very half-heartedly. The response states that it is,

“accepted to the extent that it may be helpful in certain instances”.

One of the elements of the inquiry that is important for public confidence and for core participants in particular so that they feel that they will be treated fairly and nothing will be swept under the carpet, is independence. Our committee made recommendations about independence from government. The noble Lord, Lord Trimble, referred to those, as did the noble and learned Lord, Lord Cullen. For example, we recommended that the Minister should appoint a panel member only with the consent of the chairman. That was rejected. The Government response rejected that recommendation because,

“there may be occasions when the minister and chair have different views”.

We recommended that the Minister should get the consent of the chairman to appoint assessors. That was rejected. We recommended that,

“the Act should be amended so that the consent of the chair is needed before the minister can set or amend the terms of reference”.

That was also rejected because,

“ministers will wish to retain control of the details”.

Recommendation 19, which is that,

“the power of the minister to issue a restriction notice under section 19, restricting public access to an inquiry, should be abrogated”,

was also rejected. The Government said that Ministers must keep this power because:

“They will understand the nature of national security and other sensitive material”.

We must draw from that the unavoidable conclusion that, in the view of the Government, a learned judge chairing a public inquiry will not understand such matters.

Recommendation 21 was that,

“where the minister wishes to terminate the appointment of a panel member other than the chair”,

the Act,

“should be amended to require the chair’s consent”.

That was rejected.

In light of the rejection of these recommendations and particularly in light of the reasoning given, I hope that the Minister will affirm the Government’s commitment to the independence of public inquiries. I hope that this debate will convince your Lordships’ House and the wider public who follow our proceedings that public inquiries are of considerable importance in ensuring transparency, accountability, truth finding and catharsis, and that our recommendations deserved a more thoughtful and intelligent response than they received.