*/
The Government’s approach to public inquiries wastes expert knowledge and makes inquiries longer and more costly, according to a House of Lords Committee.
The Inquiries Act 2005: post-legislative scrutiny report, published in March, found the overall framework of the Act to be good but that the Government is not using the legislation enough, and is setting up inquiries with “inadequate powers”. It recommends that a specialist unit be set up within the Courts and Tribunals Service of the Ministry of Justice to assist all public inquiries and pass on best practice.
Commenting on the report, Committee Chairman Lord Shutt of Greetland said: “Every time there is a new inquiry in this country it’s as though the previous ones had never happened. We really need to make the most of any lessons learned from past inquiries, and make the most of our collective knowledge and proficiency in this field.”
The report recommended that a Central Inquiries Unit be set up to form “a new centre of expertise” to “enable future inquiries to hit the ground running” and be “more efficient, more streamlined and less costly to the public”. Other suggestions were that inquiry panels should have a single member, rather than a panel, and that victims and families should routinely meet with inquiry chairmen and their needs “handled sensitively”.
Further, an inquiry’s recommendations should be formally accepted or rejected by those bodies to whom they have been directed, with a three-month deadline in which to respond and if accepted, there should be a formal implementation plan.
Non-statutory inquiries do not have the powers to compel the production of documents and the attendance of witnesses, and to require witnesses to give evidence on oath. The report found “three instances where those involved in the setting up of inquiries seem either not to be aware of this simple fact, or to be prepared to attempt to devise a way to circumvent it”.
Justice Minister Simon Hughes said: “I welcome the Committee’s report, and its finding that The Inquiries Act 2005 has worked well. The Coalition will carefully consider its recommendations.” Support in establishing and running inquiries is currently provided by the Ministry of Justice and the Cabinet Office.
Commenting on the report, Committee Chairman Lord Shutt of Greetland said: “Every time there is a new inquiry in this country it’s as though the previous ones had never happened. We really need to make the most of any lessons learned from past inquiries, and make the most of our collective knowledge and proficiency in this field.”
The report recommended that a Central Inquiries Unit be set up to form “a new centre of expertise” to “enable future inquiries to hit the ground running” and be “more efficient, more streamlined and less costly to the public”. Other suggestions were that inquiry panels should have a single member, rather than a panel, and that victims and families should routinely meet with inquiry chairmen and their needs “handled sensitively”.
Further, an inquiry’s recommendations should be formally accepted or rejected by those bodies to whom they have been directed, with a three-month deadline in which to respond and if accepted, there should be a formal implementation plan.
Non-statutory inquiries do not have the powers to compel the production of documents and the attendance of witnesses, and to require witnesses to give evidence on oath. The report found “three instances where those involved in the setting up of inquiries seem either not to be aware of this simple fact, or to be prepared to attempt to devise a way to circumvent it”.
Justice Minister Simon Hughes said: “I welcome the Committee’s report, and its finding that The Inquiries Act 2005 has worked well. The Coalition will carefully consider its recommendations.” Support in establishing and running inquiries is currently provided by the Ministry of Justice and the Cabinet Office.
The Government’s approach to public inquiries wastes expert knowledge and makes inquiries longer and more costly, according to a House of Lords Committee.
The Inquiries Act 2005: post-legislative scrutiny report, published in March, found the overall framework of the Act to be good but that the Government is not using the legislation enough, and is setting up inquiries with “inadequate powers”. It recommends that a specialist unit be set up within the Courts and Tribunals Service of the Ministry of Justice to assist all public inquiries and pass on best practice.
The Chair of the Bar reports back
By Kem Kemal, CEO, Henry Dannell
By BSK Financial Planning
Mário Barroso, Head of R&D and Method Development at AlphaBiolabs
Susie Griffin on the admin that keeps barristers from billable work
Clement Cowley, Partner at The Penny Group, explains how global events can influence the performance of pensions and ISAs, and why taking a long-term approach to investing is often the most effective strategy
Kick off your career at the Bar Council’s Pupillage Fair this October – it’s one of the most valuable opportunities for aspiring barristers, says Amelia Clegg
Join us on Saturday 21 November 2026 at Leeds Beckett University and see for yourself why the North continues to be an exceptional place to build a career at the Bar
The golden age of advocacy? David Langwallner pays homage to the filmic if contentious barrister Sir Edward Carson and some of his contemporaries
Henry Fingerhut outlines what the Bar Standards Board AI guidance means for early career barristers
Not yet, says Jacob Turner. Regulation, unlike the technology itself, is a domain the legal profession can still control
