Public Inquiries: Enchancing Public Trust (Statutory Inquiries Committee Report)

Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent Excerpts

Friday 25th April 2025 Lords Chamber

[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.