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

Baroness Finn Excerpts

Friday 25th April 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Finn (Con)]

My Lords, public inquiries are supposed to shine a light into dark corners. Too often they resemble a candle flickering in a drafty room—costly, slow and easily extinguished. When they work, they deliver truth, justice and change. When they fail, they become a bureaucratic cul-de-sac, a place where answers go to die, as the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, pointed out.

Therefore, I thank my noble friend Lord Norton of Louth and all the members of the committee for their excellent report. As my noble friend set out so eloquently, the report provides clarity on what many of us have long suspected: while inquiries remain essential to good governance, their delivery too often falls short—on speed, cost, follow-through and, above all, accountability.

I also thank the Government for their constructive response to the report, but there is a wide gap between agreement in principle and reform in practice, and there are too many areas where the answer remains, “Not now, not yet”. We agree with much of the committee’s report, and we are grateful to the committee for taking evidence from the then Cabinet Office Minister, the Member for Brentwood and Ongar in the other place, as part of its inquiry. While in government, we took important steps in the right direction, not least in establishing the Cabinet Office Inquiries Unit in 2019, in line with the recommendation of a 2014 report. We are pleased that the Government have engaged positively, but we have some questions that I shall come to later.

For 84 years, public inquiries in this country were given legislative force by the Tribunals of Inquiry (Evidence) Act 1921. The entire Act is less than two pages in length; under its provisions, it was Parliament that established a public inquiry and it was to Parliament that the tribunal of inquiry submitted its findings. Reports issued under these inquiries were perfectly capable of causing difficulty and embarrassment for Governments of whatever persuasion. These inquiry tribunals enjoyed many of the powers of the High Court in compelling the production of documents and witnesses. The noble Lords, Lord Carter and Lord Faulks, have pointed out that we do not always need statutory inquiries to achieve that.

Fast-forward to 2005 and, against significant opposition from NGOs and judges, the previous Labour Government replaced the two pages of the 1921 Act with the 35 pages of the Inquiries Act 2005. Those 35 pages place exclusive power in the hands of Ministers to establish public inquiries, select a chair and panel, set the terms of reference, restrict public access to evidence and redact the content of any report ultimately produced. This remarkable Act was justified on the grounds that the expense and delay in conducting inquiries under the 1921 Act had become unacceptable. Yet here we are, 20 years later, as the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, said, and all sides of the House largely agree that the more restricted inquiries under the 2005 Act are just as slow, expensive and cumbersome as those undertaken before its enactment.

Indeed, the Government now accept that inquiries established under the 2005 Act take too long and are too expensive. In the financial year 2023-24, the direct public cost of ongoing UK inquiries had exceeded £130 million, and, on average, inquiries are taking nearly five years to complete their work, as we have heard today. They are often ineffective. Recommendations accepted by Ministers are not routinely implemented or even tracked—I was struck by how many noble Lords emphasised that point today, including the noble Baronesses, Lady D’Souza and Lady Grey-Thompson, and the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare. My noble friend Lady Sanderson has demonstrated the practical problems that she has encountered, and my noble friend Lady Bottomley highlighted the failure to follow up a number of recommendations from previous health inquiries. Despite this, and as the committee highlighted in its report, public inquiries can be an effective way to establish facts and identify where mistakes are made and who is accountable for them.

I suggest to the House that a successful inquiry requires three things. The first is the autonomy, authority and coercive powers to establish the facts surrounding a matter of public concern. We have seen all too many instances of public inquiries struggling to establish the facts of the matter as relevant documents, in a manner all too convenient for those under scrutiny, simply disappear.

The second is the capacity to draw meaningful conclusions from the facts it discovers and to offer useful recommendations based on those conclusions. It is vital that the public policy recommendations are of a kind that Ministers can act on. The noble Lord, Lord Faulks, talked about the role of lawyers in inquiries, but lawyers are not always best placed to make such recommendations.

The third is the willingness of Ministers to consider and, if they agree, implement the inquiry’s recommendations. Here, I fully recognise that successive Governments must accept their share of responsibility for not being as expeditious in accepting recommendations as they ought to have been—this implementation point has been repeatedly raised today.

Inquiries should always seek to conduct their work in timely way, so that lessons can be learned as quickly as possible and costs can be kept to an acceptable level to protect taxpayers’ money. Ministers should also seek to respond to inquiries in a similar timely way, so the public can have trust that inquiries are being taken seriously. When Ministers accept recommendations or make commitments to consider them, they should be held to their commitment.

We therefore welcome the Government’s decision to accept many of the committee’s recommendations, including on the format of future inquiries, proper consultation of victims and survivors, and stronger Cabinet Office capability. The Government have said that they will implement these recommendations through updated Cabinet Office guidance. Can the Minister confirm when this work will be complete and commit to updating the House with the full guidance at that point?

The Government have also committed to better resourcing of the Cabinet Office Inquiries Unit. This is a welcome step; Ministers must not treat each new inquiry as though it is the first. My noble friend Lady Berridge correctly identified the need to monitor the cost of inquiries. Can the Minister confirm what the cost of this additional resource will therefore be, and how many additional staff members will be allocated to the Cabinet Office Inquiries Unit to deliver these improvements? I am sure she can. Will those staff also be spared from the much-publicised staff cuts currently taking place in the Cabinet Office? The noble Lord, Lord Bichard, raised the risk of a potential conflict of interest or potential overreach with the independence of the chair and the inquiry itself, so how will this actually be managed?

We very much welcome the Government’s acceptance of the need to produce proper “lessons learned” papers at the end of each inquiry. Will the Minister please confirm whether these will be published and provided to Parliament?

On the proposed Joint Committee on statutory inquiry, strongly endorsed by a number of noble Lords today, including the noble Baroness, Lady D’Souza, and the noble Lords, Lord Aberdare and Lord Hendy, we agree that this is a matter for Parliament. However, it is worth considering the scope of such a committee; there is a danger that it could become a forum for relitigating issues already settled by an inquiry and government response. One alternative would be to narrow its focus to tracking the implementation of accepted recommendations—I would welcome the Minister’s reflections on this point.

The Government have disagreed with the committee’s recommendation that legislative reform is needed at this time, and there is no explanation for this in the Government’s response. I am not certain whether it is the Government’s view that parliamentary time is too limited to deliver this, but I note that the Government are already planning legislative reform in this area through the Hillsborough law—a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester. Can the Minister explain why the Government have not taken the opportunity of that legislative vehicle to implement the committee’s recommendations?

Let us not forget what is at stake. The infected blood inquiry laid bare not only the scale of the tragedy but the failure of government to respond with candour, urgency or responsibility. As Sir Brian Langstaff explained, the Civil Service’s repeated reassurances that patients had received the best care amounted to cruelty for those who knew they had been failed. That failure must not be repeated: not in Grenfell, not in the Post Office and not in any future crisis yet to come.

I conclude by once again commending the excellent and thoughtful report and urge the Government not just to agree with the report but to implement it. Do not just publish guidance: do so transparently and soon. Do not just nod to Parliament’s role: give it teeth. Public inquiries must not become the graveyards of accountability. Let them be what they are meant to be: engines of justice, vessels of truth and proof that this country knows how to learn from its mistakes.