Reform of Public Inquiries: an update on the Government's initial response

Following on from Kingsley Napley’s event in January which discussed the recent House of Lords Statutory Inquiries Committee’s report, the Government has now published its eagerly-awaited response.
 

The Committee was set up to consider whether the Inquiries Act 2005 provides an effective framework for public inquiries. In its report of 16 September 2024, it made a series of recommendations on improving the efficacy of the law and practice relating to public inquiries, focusing on several areas where the governance structure could be improved, including (i) the design and establishment of inquiries; (ii) the monitoring and implementation of recommendations; and (iii) enhancing the role of the Cabinet Office’s Inquiries Unit. The Committee also considered recommendations made by a House of Lords Committee in 2014 and endorsed most of its conclusions and recommendations.

The response recognises the value of public inquiries while also acknowledging “that there is serious and growing criticism of their cost, duration and effectiveness”. Although it responds to each of the Committee’s recommendations, it also states that the Government is actively considering “whether there is scope for wider reforms to the frameworks within which inquiries are set up, run and concluded”, including within the context of both the Independent Public Advocate and a statutory duty of candour. It indicates that the Government will give a further update to Parliament in due course.

The exact scope of this wider review is unclear, but there are a number of recommendations which remain under consideration. These include recommendations relating to the appointment of judges and assessors, amendments to the Inquiry Rules 2006 enabling an inquiry to take written evidence directly from a witness, changes to the costs regime, and the management of inquiry records beyond the conclusion of the inquiry.  

Arguably the most significant Committee recommendation whose future is uncertain is the establishment of a new Parliamentary Select Committee which would monitor and scrutinise the implementation of inquiry recommendations. The Government’s position is that this is a matter for Parliament, but also that it is “committed to providing a further update to Parliament on its intentions for any wider reforms of the frameworks around Inquiries”. At present, no timeframe is given for when this further update might be expected, but it is notable that the Government is due to respond to the Grenfell Inquiry Report by 4 March 2025, which made its own recommendations relating to monitoring and implementation (§113.40).

While we await further information about the Government’s direction of travel in certain areas, there are many recommendations that have been accepted. The Government has committed to publishing guidance for Ministers, chairs and secretaries, which will reflect these recommendations. This will include guidance relating to the establishment of inquiries, including their format, ensuring appropriate consultation with victims and survivors on the terms of reference, and inclusion of indicative deadlines or requirements for interim reports where appropriate. Notably, the Government has agreed with the Committee that there should not be a “one-size-fits-all” approach to establishing inquiries, observing that a statutory inquiry led by a judge or senior legal figure should not be regarded as a “gold standard” and that a non-statutory inquiry “can be an effective and more flexible model, and may achieve its terms of reference more swiftly and at lower cost”.

In addition, the guidance will cover matters relating to the practicalities of running an inquiry, including the writing of “Lessons Learnt” papers. The Government has also agreed with the Committee that inquiries should be inquisitorial rather than adversarial, and that “it is important witnesses should be able to speak candidly to inquiries.”

Finally, there a few recommendations that have not been accepted. These include recommendations directed at maintaining the independence of inquiries, such as amending the 2005 Act so that a minister needs the consent of the chair to change the terms of reference once it is underway, and removing the Minister’s power to restrict public access to an inquiry or dismiss a panel member without first seeking the permission of the chair. In addition, while the Government has agreed that its response to inquiry reports should be published as swiftly as possible, it has also pushed back on the recommendation that this should be within three months, noting that “the design and costing of policy, and the seeking of cross-Government agreement on complex areas of reform, can take longer than three months.” Six months has been suggested as a more realistic timeframe.

Overall, it is clear that this response is merely the opening stage of the Government’s proposed answers to the Committee’s concerns. However, ongoing consideration of these complex matters is clearly under active consideration and further clarification will hopefully emerge in the coming months.

Further information

If you have any questions regarding this blog, please contact Kirsty Cook in our Public Law team.

About the author

Kirsty Cook joined the Public Law team in October 2024, as an Associate Barrister. Prior to joining Kingsley Napley, Kirsty worked at the Government Legal Department for several years as both a litigator and an advisory lawyer.