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

Lord Bichard Excerpts

Friday 25th April 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Bichard (CB)]

My Lords, as a former chair of a non-statutory inquiry, the Soham inquiry, more recently chair of an expert group advising the Infected Blood Inquiry, and a witness before four public inquiries, I was naturally very interested in reading the report. I very much welcome it and agree with the vast majority of the recommendations.

I want to touch upon two issues. The first is the importance of the independence of the chair of any inquiry. It is important to retain the trust of the public, if the inquiry is to look objectively at the events which led to it being set up. It is also key to it being able to make robust recommendations. Nothing in the report, or in the Government’s response, directly contradicts any of that. But we need to be careful that putting an emphasis on the importance of a community of practice, with which I agree, coupled with a stronger Inquiries Unit in the Cabinet Office, does not lead to excessive prescription. The proposal in the Government’s response for templates for secretaries sounded prescriptive to me. We should be careful about that.

I have similar concerns about the committee’s own recommendations that inquiries should

“use policy-making and Civil Service expertise to support chairs in making practicable recommendations”

that are implementable. I have to tell your Lordships that necessary changes in policy and practice do not always look practicable or implementable at the time that they are made. Sometimes they might even look a bit inconvenient to officials. Again, we need to be careful that there is no pressure brought to bear on chairs to produce recommendations that are convenient to Ministers, officials or even the Cabinet Office.

This may seem an odd point, but I am uneasy at the suggestion that guidance on inquiries should include advice on how to engage with the victims and who should lead on this. The relationship between a chair and the victims or their families is pivotal to the credibility of the inquiry and its effectiveness. Chairs should be left to lead on this. Sir Brian Langstaff at the Infected Blood Inquiry has done a magnificent job in difficult circumstances. Again, we should be careful not to, for example, encumber the situation by departmental officials developing their own relationship. They will often be seen as part of the problem, not part of the solution.

I am going to be inconvenient here, I am afraid, but my next point is on the implementation of inquiry recommendations. This is paramount and too often, as the report says, overlooked. That is why I included in my inquiry report not just a recommendation to reconvene in six months but a recommendation that the Government should at the same time report to Parliament. It seemed to work pretty well. Without it, I doubt that we would now have a vetting and barring scheme. I doubt that we would have a national police intelligence system. But, as the report says, too often the recommendations are ignored.

The committee considered a number of options. I have my doubts about both a Joint Committee and a House of Lords-sponsored committee, simply because they are too distant from the issues that are under consideration. I would prefer to see the Select Committees in the other place taking responsibility for this monitoring process and for them to be expected to report, not allowed to consider whether they report. It should be a mandatory part of their responsibilities.

By the way, finally—I am sorry about the time—I do not know why we suggest that chairs should be excluded from any role in monitoring or implementation. They certainly should not be campaigning, but the people who have the greatest knowledge and greatest investment in some good coming from often tragic circumstances are the chairs and we should retain their involvement.