Public inquiries: Enhancing public trust—report by the House of Lords Statutory Inquiries Committee

Approximate read time: 10 minutes

On 25 April 2025, the House of Lords is due to debate a motion in the name of Lord Norton of Louth (Conservative), the chair of the House of Lords Statutory Inquiries Committee, to take note of the committee’s report, ‘Public inquiries: Enhancing public trust’ (16 September 2024).

1. Public inquiries

1.1 Types of public inquiry

There are two main types of public inquiry.^[1] They are:

• Statutory inquiries. These inquiries are established with the authority of a specific act of Parliament. This is most commonly through the Inquiries Act 2005, although certain other statutory provisions may also be used to provide ministers with the power to establish inquiries under specific circumstances.^[2] The 2005 act includes powers to compel witnesses to attend inquiries and give evidence under oath. It extends to Scotland. Statutory inquiries must also abide by certain procedural rules, outlined in the Inquiry Rules 2006 and the Inquiries (Scotland) Rules 2007.
• Non-statutory inquiries. These inquiries include independent departmental reviews, independent panels and ad hoc inquiries. They are not established under the authority of an act of parliament and do not have the power to compel witnesses to provide evidence. However, some non-statutory inquiries can be converted to a statutory inquiry. For example, in 2021, when the then Conservative government placed the Post Office Horizon IT inquiry on a statutory footing.^[3]

Under the 2005 act, there is a requirement placed on ministers establishing the inquiry to outline the terms of reference in writing when appointing the chair or “within reasonable time afterwards”. Section 5 of the act details what should be included in the terms of reference.^[4] This includes:

1. the matters to which the inquiry relates
2. any matters as to which the inquiry panel is to determine the facts
3. whether the inquiry panel is to make recommendations
4. any other matters relating to the scope of the inquiry that the minister may specify

1.2 Participants in a public inquiry

Public inquiries tend to involve several participants.^[5] Typically, this involves the following participants:

• Chair. Appointed by the sponsoring minister, the chair is responsible for overseeing the inquiry and drafting its final report.
• Counsel to the inquiry. The counsel serves as the chair’s chief legal advisor and is tasked with cross-examining witnesses.
• Inquiry secretary. The secretary heads the inquiry’s administration and oversees all logistical and policy support functions.
• Solicitor to the inquiry. The solicitor instructs counsel, liaises with witnesses and manages oral hearings and evidence collection.
• Inquiry secretariat. The secretariat comprises policy specialists, technicians and administrative assistants who support the inquiry’s daily operations. This includes setting up inquiry hearings, briefing the chair and providing human resources and IT services. Secretariat members are often seconded civil servants.
• Core participants. These are individuals or groups who are officially designated by the inquiry chair, who are often those impacted by the public concern examined by the inquiry or subject to potential criticism by the inquiry. Core participant status “confers access to private briefings on the inquiry’s proceedings and the right to legal representation at the inquiry”. Victims and survivors are often, but not always, designated as core participants.

1.3 Review in 2014 by the House of Lords Select Committee on the Inquiries Act 2005

In March 2014, the House of Lords Select Committee on the Inquiries Act 2005 published a report reviewing the operation of the Inquiries Act 2005.^[6] The report highlighted concerns regarding the formation of inquiries, noting that there was “no consistency” in ministerial decisions on their establishment.^[7] The committee stated that inquiries were often established “when there is irresistible public or parliamentary pressure”, and that ministers did not provide explanations when declining to establish an inquiry. Additionally, the committee identified that a “major cause” of the “unnecessary length and cost of inquiries” had been that the secretariat of every new inquiry had to “start from scratch”. This included tasks such as appointing staff, creating a website, preparing budgets and organising arrangements for electronic handling of documents and evidence. The committee noted that some inquiries had chosen to purchase custom-made IT systems “costing millions of pounds more than the systems used by other inquiries of comparable length”. The committee also raised concerns about limited sharing of best practices between inquiries.

The committee made 33 recommendations aimed at improving the operation of statutory inquiries under the 2005 act.^[8] It proposed that inquiries into matters of public concern should generally be conducted as statutory inquiries under the act. To address operational challenges, the committee recommended that the government should make resources available to create a unit within HM Courts and Tribunals Service. This unit would manage practical aspects of inquiries, such as premises, infrastructure, IT, procurement and staffing. It would also ensure that, at the conclusion of an inquiry, the secretary publishes a “lessons learned paper” from which best practice could be “distilled and continuously updated”.

The then government responded to the committee’s report in June 2014.^[9] It noted that the act “gives ministers the option of using [the act] or not” and stated that it was “important to adopt the most suitable approach given the particular circumstances of the matter to be investigated”.^[10] Addressing the recommendation to establish a dedicated inquiries unit, the government rejected this proposal, arguing that such a unit was “not appropriate or necessary […] given the relative infrequency of the establishment of new inquiries and their duration”.^[11] Instead, it highlighted that the Cabinet Office and Ministry of Justice provided support to departments in establishing inquiries and that rather than creating a new unit to share best practices, it proposed strengthening existing Cabinet Office processes and forming a practitioners’ forum to facilitate regular sharing of best practices. A dedicated inquiries unit was subsequently established within the Cabinet Office in 2019.^[12]

2. House of Lords Statutory Inquiries Committee inquiry and report

2.1 Inquiry

In January 2024, the House of Lords Statutory Inquiries Committee was appointed to examine the effectiveness of the law and practice governing statutory public inquiries under the Inquiries Act 2005.^[13]

In February 2024, the committee launched a call for evidence.^[14] In an article explaining the context of the inquiry, the committee outlined several concerns regarding the inquiries system. These concerns included:

• the duration of inquiries
• their associated costs
• the absence of a formal system for following up on inquiry recommendations for improvement
• the lack of a central team responsible for establishing and operating inquiries

To address these issues, the committee sought feedback on the following areas:

• potential improvements to the Inquiries Act 2005
• the overall effectiveness of statutory inquiries
• challenges and risks encountered during inquiries, in addition to possible recommendations for improvements
• the suitability of the system established under the 2005 act, in addition to the consideration of alternative approaches

The committee held eight oral evidence sessions and received 27 pieces of written evidence.^[15]

2.2 Report

On 16 September 2024, the committee published its report, ‘Public inquiries: Enhancing public trust’. The committee highlighted the positive impact of public inquiries, noting that, “at their best”, public inquiries conduct “detailed” investigations into major failures and disasters, establish facts, find where mistakes have been made and identify who is accountable for them.^[16] This information is then used to establish what lessons must be learned, in addition to recommending measures to the government to “prevent disasters from recurring”. The committee also noted that inquiries “can provide catharsis for those most closely affected by a tragedy”, such as victims, survivors and their families, “giving them confidence that a similar tragedy is less likely to be repeated”.

However, the committee criticised the existing public inquiries system, stating that many inquiries were “failing to meet their aims” because accepted recommendations were often “not subsequently implemented”.^[17] The committee described this as “inexcusable”, as it “risks the recurrence of a disaster and undermines the whole purpose of holding an inquiry in the first place”. For example, the committee stated that it heard during its evidence sessions that had the recommendations from the inquiry into deaths at the Bristol Royal Infirmary in 2001 been implemented, then patient deaths investigated by the Mid-Staffordshire Hospitals Inquiry in 2013 “may have been less likely to occur”. Therefore, the committee concluded that the 2005 act and the wider governance structure of public inquiries “must be improved”.

The committee proposed several recommendations to improve public inquiries and the implementation of inquiry recommendations.^[18] This included:

• Establishment of a public inquiries committee. The committee recommended that the House of Commons Liaison Committee facilitated the formation of a joint committee of Parliament to ensure that inquiry recommendations were followed up and implemented.^[19] The committee would oversee public inquiries, monitor the publication of government responses to inquiry recommendations and hold the government to account for implementing accepted recommendations.
• Inquiry format. The committee emphasised that the format of an inquiry, including its statutory basis, identity and panel or chair, should be chosen based on its nature and requirements and be outlined in its terms of reference. Therefore, it recommended that ministers should consider holding non-statutory inquiries, with the option to convert them into statutory inquiries if witnesses failed to cooperate.^[20] Additionally, the committee called on the government to consult victims and survivors, where appropriate, on the terms of reference and include an indicative deadline. The committee noted that inquiry chairs should aim to publish a report within this deadline, seeking ministerial approval should they wish to exceed it; for example, if the inquiry discovers new evidence which leads to new lines of inquiry.
• Resourcing the Cabinet Office’s inquiries unit. The committee called for the inquiries unit to be “sufficiently resourced”, so that it could establish a wider “community of practice” involving academic, legal and policy experts, civil servants, former inquiry chairs and secretaries, and representatives of victims and survivors’ groups.^[21] The committee stated that this would help ensure that there was a bank of information to support inquiry chairs and secretariats.

3. Government response to the committee’s report

The government responded to the committee’s report in February 2025.^[22] It acknowledged the “serious and growing criticism” surrounding the cost, duration and effectiveness of public inquiries.^[23] It highlighted that, during the financial year 2023/24, the direct public cost of ongoing UK inquiries had exceeded £130mn. Additionally, inquiries that had published their final report within the previous five years had taken an average of nearly five years to complete their work.

The government also noted that “too often”, there had been “insufficient transparency and accountability” regarding the implementation of inquiry recommendations accepted by previous governments.^[24] Therefore, it agreed with the committee’s findings that the 2005 act and the wider governance structure for inquiries required improvement.

The government also addressed the committee’s recommendations and outlined its actions in response:

• Establishment of a public inquiries committee. The government stated that the recommendation would be for Parliament.^[25] However, it committed to providing Parliament with a further update on its intentions regarding potential “wider reforms” to the policy and operational frameworks governing public inquiries.
• Inquiry format. The government agreed that non-statutory inquiries could be an “effective and more flexible model” and “may achieve [their] terms of reference more swiftly and at lower cost”.^[26] Therefore, the government stated that it would publish guidance for ministers, inquiry chairs and secretaries, addressing “appropriate considerations” for establishing inquiries, “drawing on the helpful work of this committee”. Discussing the committee’s recommendation of including an “indicative deadline” in the terms of reference, the government stated that this “may be appropriate, taking into account the circumstances and potential scope of the inquiry”. It also acknowledged that the duration of an inquiry was “difficult to determine with accuracy” at the outset, prior to evidence being collected and assessed and the number of witnesses being known. Therefore, the government stated that deadlines “may need to be revised” and emphasised that an inquiry chair should ensure that there was sufficient public transparency regarding the progress of inquiries in delivering their objectives.
• Resourcing the Cabinet Office’s inquiries unit. The government agreed that there should be an “active ‘community of practice’” for teams involved in working on public inquiries.^[27] It committed to building the networks and systems that enabled the sharing of best practice between and across inquiry and sponsor teams, stating that this would “remain a priority” for the unit.

4. Read more

• House of Commons Library, ‘Statutory public inquiries: The Inquiries Act 2005’, 10 March 2025
• Shaina Sangha and Rebecca McKee, ‘Public inquiries’, Institute for Government, 13 February 2025
• Lord Norton of Louth, ‘An inquiry into inquiries: Why the House of Lords has established a statutory inquiries committee’, Constitution Unit, 11 April 2024

---

Cover image from UK Parliament website.