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

Lord Carter of Haslemere Excerpts

Friday 25th April 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Carter of Haslemere (CB)]

My Lords, what a privilege it is to follow such a distinguished line-up of speakers. I commend the noble Lord, Lord Norton, on his brilliant report and his committee. I have two points—although my second point will inevitably echo some of what others have said.

First, the Statutory Inquiries Committee recommends that Ministers should keep in mind the option of holding a non-statutory inquiry and then converting it if witnesses fail to co-operate. I agree—but is this not a golden opportunity to be bolder and to go slightly further than that? As witnesses, including Bishop James Jones, said to the committee, the biggest difficulty is the prioritisation of statutory inquiries over non-statutory inquiries. The 2005 Act has given a sense of hierarchy, based mainly on the fact that only statutory inquiries have the power to compel evidence.

This could easily be overcome by legislative change. The more inquisitorial approach of non-statutory inquiries, with less formality and with swifter and less legalistic processes—I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, that statutory inquiries have become too formalistic and almost adversarial; I say that with respect to the noble Lord, Lord Hendy—could then make them the norm for most inquiries, instead of being perceived as the inferior option by victims. Statutory inquiries would then be reserved for exceptional cases, such as Covid. This would, as the title of our debate says, enhance public trust in non-statutory inquiries.

In their response to the committee three months ago, the Government said that they are

“actively considering whether there is scope for wider reforms to the frameworks within which inquiries are set up, run and concluded”.

That is excellent, but that was three months ago. Have they reached a conclusion? I am looking forward to hearing the Minister’s answer.

Secondly, the Statutory Inquiries Committee’s report chimes with a recent report by the Committee on Standards in Public Life, which emphasised the need for public bodies to learn lessons so as to respond better to early warning signs about emerging risks. There can be no better way to learn lessons than from recommendations of public inquiries. Only two weeks before the report we are now debating was published, the recommendations from phase 2 of the Grenfell inquiry were released, which the Government said must be a

“catalyst for long-lasting, systemic change”,—[Official Report, Commons, 26/2/25; col. 777.]

to prioritise the safety of high-rise blocks. That is so true, but what a pity that was not done following a very similar recommendation, three years earlier, from the inquest into the Lakanal House fire disaster. That was just three years before the Grenfell refurbishment, which resulted, as we know, in the most awful, but tragically avoidable, loss of life.

There are many examples one could point to. This is not about the Government being compelled to implement inquiry recommendations; it about putting in place a system for holding the Government robustly to account for any refusal to accept a recommendation or a failure to implement those they have accepted. The Statutory Inquiries Committee hits the bull’s-eye by recommending a new Joint Select Committee of Parliament: what an excellent and long-overdue change that would be. Ideally, it would also include prevention of future deaths reports by coroners within its remit, which are as serious as many recommendations of inquiries.

So far, in response to the Grenfell inquiry, the noble Lord, Lord Khan, and the Government have agreed only to publicly accessible records of inquiry recommendations and annual reporting to Parliament. That is not remotely the same thing. It is very likely to mean that important inquiry and inquest recommendations, often costing tens or hundreds of millions to produce, will fall through the implementation net. As the Committee on Standards in Public Life noted, valuable lessons will not be learned which could prevent future tragedies.