Public inquiries: an overview of key recommendations for reform and next steps

In September 2024, a cross-party House of Lords Committee - the Statutory Inquiries Committee - set up to consider whether the Inquiries Act 2005 (the Act) provides an effective framework for public inquiries, published its report, ‘Public inquiries: Enhancing public trust’ (the Report).

Although the Committee recognised the positive role that public inquiries play in delivering justice and change for victims, survivors and the public, it found the Act and wider governance structure must be improved. It called for significant reform and urged a major overhaul to the way public inquiries are set up and conducted. The Report follows earlier work in this sphere and echoes previous calls for change.

In February 2025, the Government Response to the Committee’s report was published. In the Response the Government agreed that the governance structure of inquiries must be improved and provided a detailed response to each of the recommendations (accepting all those related to the efficiency of inquiries). The Government committed to examining whether there is scope for wider changes to not only improve efficiency but ensure more effective transparency and accountability around the response to Inquiry recommendations and implementation of those which are accepted by government. 

In April 2025 the House of Lords engaged in lengthy debate reiterating and building on the content of the Report and, having welcomed the Government response, called for an update from the Government on how far its promised work has advanced, and for further debate on the topic.  

Recommendations and Government response

Set out below (by way of a summary only) are some of the key recommendations from the Report, together with the Government’s response, and observations made in the House of Lords.

• Implementation monitoring and lessons learned

The Committee recommended the establishment of a Public Inquiries Committee to see Inquiry recommendations through to completion to help prevent the recurrence of disasters, and a publicly-accessible online tracker showing how, and when, inquiry recommendations have been put in place. Further benefits, and potential alternatives, to such a committee were a focus of the recent House of Lords debate, which involved a suggestion that Prevention of Future Death reports by Coroners also be included in the  remit of a Public Inquiries Committee.

Government response: The Government indicated the creation of such a committee is a matter for parliament, but committed “to providing a further update to Parliament on its intentions for any wider reforms of the frameworks around inquiries.”

• Timescales and interim reporting

The Committee warns against inquiries investigating too widely and collecting too much information, and encourages Ministers to “resist the temptation to charge an inquiry with the responsibility of investigating wider policy areas”. It promotes the inclusion of a deadline in the terms of reference, confident that not only would a defined timescale be more cost-effective, but that it would avoid protracted trauma for victims and survivors.

The Committee also suggested that in cases of lengthy inquiries, a modular structure should be mandated, with regular interim reporting.

Government response: The Government agreed that setting an indicative deadline will sometimes be appropriate but recognises the need for flexibility. It also acknowledged previous success of interim reporting and committed to publishing guidance ensuring this approach is considered.

• Chair selection

The Committee suggest that more inquiries could be chaired by an expert or panel of experts, rather than defaulting to judges, with such approach offering less of a court hearing setting and the added benefits of subject matter, professional expertise and input.

The Committee also highlights advantages of appointing a panel rather than a single chair, such as offering differing perspectives and division of labour.

Government response: With regard to the approach to establishing public inquiries, the Government agrees that this should not be a “one size fits all”. The chair and/or panel should be decided on a case-by-case basis, with specialist input from the Cabinet Office Inquiries Unit. The Government observe that whilst sometimes “it will be appropriate to establish a statutory inquiry led by a judge or senior legal figure” this “should not be regarded as a “gold standard””. 

• Good practice for inquiries

The Committee recognises how the design of an inquiry “can have a considerable impact on the experience of the victims and survivors, including whether they are able to access and contribute to the proceedings.” The Committee also acknowledged that appropriate boundaries are essential to ensure that an inquiry does not lose focus on the initial purpose, and become too generalised.

Government response: The Government included in its response that engagement of those directly impacted is crucial to the success of an inquiry and committed to publishing guidance which will advise on engaging victim and survivor groups where appropriate, and to ensure that support for them is explicit in an inquiry’s work from its inception.

• Approach: statutory or non-statutory, and inquisitorial versus adversarial

Overarching the above changes, the Committee considers the benefits of both statutory and non-statutory inquiries, recognising that “both confer on the chair a wide discretion to direct the inquiry as they see fit.”

The Committee also highlights that chairs should aim to find “an appropriate balance between inquisitorial and adversarial approaches”. The Committee observes this “means that the inquiry is seeking to establish why a disaster occurred and how it could be avoided in future, rather than simply seeking to apportion blame or advance a pre-conceived view". Adding that “seeking accountability and establishing responsibility for disasters is a legitimate aim of an inquiry”, and “no inquiry should lose sight of their primary role as an investigatory body”.

Government response: The Government supports flexibility in approach as to the statutory footing of an inquiry, including transitioning from non-statutory to statutory when required, and reiterated that inquiries should be inquisitorial rather than adversarial, using the chair’s wide discretion in this area and it has stated it will be part of their efforts going forward.  

Comment

The Government response to the Committee’s report provides that it will “examine how best to ensure more effective transparency and accountability around the response to inquiry recommendations and the implementation of those which are accepted”.

Ahead of changes being implemented on the ground, we can expect further guidance to be published by the Government implementing the position taken in its response.  This is to include the publication of an inquiry practitioners’ handbook guide for new inquiry chairs, secretaries and officials establishing and sponsoring inquiries, significantly revised in the light of the recent recommendations and following similar guidance published eleven years ago. The Government has also committed to a new GOV.UK inquiries page with additional information.