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

Baroness Berridge Excerpts

Friday 25th April 2025 Lords Chamber

[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.