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

Lord Faulks Excerpts

Friday 25th April 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Faulks (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I declare an interest as a member of the committee and as a participant in a number of public inquiries, whether as a witness, a lawyer or indeed a chair.

Why do we have more and more of them? What do they achieve? Setting up a public inquiry can be a useful political tool, kicking into touch an issue which is uncomfortable for the Government of the day. By the time the inquiry reports, the issue may well have become less politically salient than it was.

Inquiries almost always take longer than was intended. I say this not to impugn the integrity of chairs or other participants, but it is undoubtedly the case that the very notion of a public inquiry carries with it the expectation that it will leave no stone unturned and provide an answer to questions that courts or the normal political processes have insufficient time or resources to do. It needs a strong chair to keep the length of an inquiry under control.

The choice of that chair is crucial. Judges are frequently selected, and such inquiries are often very lawyer heavy, with the result that they can often mimic a particularly lengthy and thorough civil trial. Of course, they are very expensive. I therefore particularly endorse the recommendation of the committee that very careful thought should be given as to the identity of the chair—a judge is not always the answer—and restricting the terms of reference in such a way as to result in shorter and, we hope, cheaper inquiries.

I respect the role of lawyers in the important role they play, but the optics of serried ranks of lawyers at an inquiry and the impression that this is a great bonanza for the legal profession can be unfortunate. The choreography of these things matters.

The report suggests that a chair with specialist knowledge may well be suitable, rather than a judge. I am also impressed by the argument that a commissioning Minister should suggest an indicative deadline in terms of reference. The purpose of the inquiry may make it particularly important that it reports in time, so that it has maximum impact. Restricting recommendations to a manageable number is much more likely to result in legislation—if it is necessary—and command respect from all interested parties.

At the centre of the recommendations is the need for lessons to be learned and the sharing of good practice between inquiries. We heard of the Inquiries Unit, which provides advice and guidance to departments, but it did not seem to be quite as well known as it ought to be. We made various recommendations as to how it could be better and to make sure that the knowledge that has been acquired is sufficiently disseminated.

As others have done, I pay tribute to our chair, the noble Lord, Lord Norton, who followed our own recommendations by keeping the inquiry very much under control and making sure that our recommendations were short but highly focused. I also pay tribute to Andrea Dowsett, Matthew Burton and Emily Tallentire, who played such an important role.

I know that the Minister will respond to this report when she winds up. I am afraid I have one rather difficult question for her. It may be a question she cannot immediately answer. I posed it to the Inquiries Unit during the various hearings we had with witnesses but received no reply. It is something I have heard about from a number of those who take part in public inquiries on a regular basis. Very often, particularly in high-profile cases, a witness will give evidence to a public inquiry and that witness will already have given evidence before a Select Committee. They may say something to the inquiry inconsistent with what they said before the committee, or they may add or subtract something in a way that is perhaps significant. But the practice has grown up that no reference can be made to evidence given in Select Committees because it is regarded by those advising various chairs that this would impugn proceedings in Parliament in such a way as to violate the Bill of Rights. I invite the Minister to respond to this, because this practice, which I do not think is sound in law, is inhibiting the proper inquiry into a number of important issues.