(1Â week, 6Â days ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Hoey
To ask His Majesty’s Government what criteria are used when deciding on which subjects to carry out public inquiries.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, and Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Baroness Twycross) (Lab)
With apologies to your Lordships’ House, it is me again. Public inquiries can establish facts about what happened in order to learn from events and reduce the likelihood of recurrence. When deciding whether to establish an inquiry, Ministers consider a number of factors including its objectives, whether and why alternatives are not appropriate, the inquiry’s likely duration, the likely costs—including those that are deliverable and realistic—and whether the public interest outweighs those costs.
Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)
My Lords, why does the Ministry of Defence continue to oppose the requests for a public inquiry from the 29 bereaved families of the Chinook helicopter crash on the Mull of Kintyre? The Ministry of Defence stated that the evidence had already been considered and no further investigation was warranted. However, it is now reviewing thousands of documents and asking the families themselves to help identify the evidence relating to airworthiness. Will His Majesty’s Government please tell the families how this can be reconciled with a Government committed to a duty of candour in the Hillsborough law? Does this not demonstrate precisely why the MoD should not be left to investigate its own conduct, and why an independent review is now necessary to restore the families’ and the public’s confidence? Surely, seeking justice should have no expiry date.
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
I agree with the noble Baroness that seeking justice should not and must not have an expiry date. The hearts of all of us across your Lordships’ House go out to them, and we extend our sympathy. I understand there have been ongoing discussions and that my noble friend Lord Coaker has met with some of the bereaved families, and I think that there are ongoing discussions within the MoD as well.
Captain of the Honourable Corps of Gentlemen-at-Arms and Chief Whip (Lord Kennedy of Southwark) (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, we will hear from the Cross Benches next.
Lord Carter of Haslemere (CB)
My Lords, given that statutory inquiries are held when events have caused public concern, and often cost tens of millions—if not hundreds of millions—of taxpayers’ money, does the Minister agree that reasons should always be given by Ministers for rejecting inquiry recommendations, so as to ensure due openness and accountability to the public?
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
The noble Lord is right in the sense that we think that it is really important that people understand when and why the Government would accept the need for a public inquiry. They are a really important way to investigate issues of concern, particularly around state failures, so that we learn lessons and that events do not happen again. As was reflected in the work of your Lordships’ House’s the Statutory Inquiries Committee, a public inquiry is not always necessarily going to provide the answers and resolution that people expect. One of the things that the Government are doing through the Public Office (Accountability) Bill, in particular through the duty of candour, is to make sure that, among the different types of reviews and inquiries, a statutory inquiry is not the one that has protected characteristics in relation to the responsibility of public servants to tell the truth. The Bill will extend the duty, and we hope this means that people will not necessarily see the need to have a full public inquiry to get answers.
Lord McColl of Dulwich (Con)
My Lords, can the Minister explain the way that people are chosen to sit on these various inquiries? The reason I ask this is that we had a Select Committee on obesity, which is very much a medical problem. Yet, although there were eight medical Peers available at the time, not one of them was asked to sit on the committee. Would the Minister look into ways of correcting that sort of anomaly, so that rather more balanced outcomes could be produced?
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
That is generally a matter for the House, but I think that your Lordships’ House has noted the point.
Lord Pack (LD)
My Lords, for decades the compensation schemes that have flowed from the issues that triggered public inquiries have often had a poor track record. The most recent scheme for victims of infected blood, for example, had to be created because of the many failings of four previous schemes over 40 years, and it seems there is no consistent learning from past mistakes. My noble friend Lady Brinton has campaigned to set up a single compensation body that would oversee schemes and would have that institutional memory, which would indeed save time and money as well as get compensation to victims more quickly. Would the Minister agree to look at that proposal?
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
I would be very happy to meet the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, about the proposal. I understand her concerns about some of the issues that happened with the infected blood compensation schemes and the support schemes previously, having been briefed on those since I became a Minister in the Cabinet Office. We share the ambition of your Lordships and of the Infected Blood Inquiry that fair compensation is delivered as quickly as possible to every eligible person. That has not always felt as easy when there have been compensation schemes, and we want to actively look at ways we can make that feel more victim-centred rather than too bureaucratic.
Lord Doyle (Non-Afl)
My Lords, given recent scandals, it is perhaps not surprising that the public regard judge-led statutory public inquiries as the necessary standard. However, this is not always proportionate. Have the Government given consideration to how they can build confidence in other routes for the public, so that people can still get to truth and justice?
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
We have an inquiry team within the Cabinet Office that has a formal role advising departments and Ministers both on potential new inquiries and terms of reference, and it also gives advice across government on different routes. We are keen to look at what more we can do to advise the public and campaigners of the different options available. I would be happy to update your Lordships’ House at a future date when we have made more progress with this work.
Baroness Finn (Con)
My Lords, the Government accepted a number of recommendations from the Statutory Inquiries Committee’s report, Public Inquiries: Enhancing Public Trust, including on the format of future inquiries, proper consultation of victims and survivors and stronger Cabinet Office capability. When will the Government implement those commitments, and will the House be updated at that point?
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
I am very happy to update the House on progress. Since the work of the House of Lords Statutory Inquiries Committee, we have undertaken a number of different actions, including launching a publicly accessible tracker reporting progress on delivering inquiry recommendations. We have also amended the Ministerial Code to ensure that Cabinet Office policy expertise informs decisions on establishing public inquiries, and we are looking further at what additional changes can be made to improve the inquiry system. That includes publishing guidance, which is a priority. This will take account of the changes to inquiries that will come into effect following the passage of the Public Office (Accountability) Bill.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, on the earlier question about the importance of publishing a public audit of inquiry recommendations that will and will not be implemented and why, does the Minister agree that, without such a duty of candour, it could fuel mistrust in inquiries, which start to look like expensive ways of shutting down public debate and kicking concerns into the long grass, with no action, no accountability and no transparency?
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
We are determined that the duty of candour will address some of the concerns that people have had about public inquiries in the past. The length of some public inquiries causes additional trauma for some of the people involved in what are often huge injustices and sometimes major state failures. We are clear that we need to make sure that people get the truth. There have been some issues in the past: for example, some people lied to the Kerslake review into the Manchester Arena attack, but, obviously, the statutory inquiry that followed got answers. We need to make sure that people get the answers, and that is what we think the duty of candour will deliver.
Lord Robathan (Con)
My Lords, when looking at public inquiries, could the Minister also look at the issue of the veterans Bill that will come forward? This is the same sort of thing, as it is exposing veterans of conflict in Northern Ireland to inquiries 30 and 40 years later. There is something very odd about this. Could she please look at that as well, because most of us feel that it is unwarranted and disreputable?
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
I will speak to my noble friend Lady Anderson and my noble friend Lord Coaker regarding the point that the noble Lord raised.