Reports on the trial that lead to the death of Baby P shocked the nation. If another child could die in terrible circumstances at the hands of its carers after Lord Laming’s inquiry into the death of Victoria Climbie was supposed to have made things better, what was the point of having a public inquiry at all?
Does the fact that there is rarely any mechanism for overseeing the implementation of recommendations made by an inquiry for change mean that the system of public inquiries itself is inevitably flawed?
There are legal and practical problems. Once an inquiry chairman has delivered his report, he is “functus officio” and has no further role. Even where the chairman assumes this role for himself or perhaps negotiates terms of reference that allow him to come back to assess progress in making change after publication of his report, how can he in fact do so? Will the inquiry with all its administrative support, office space and staff have to remain in place for months to facilitate this? Who will pay and is it good value for money to keep a secretariat in place once the inquiry is over? Will the inquiry resume formal hearings to hear evidence again? If not, how can it assess whether change is really happening on the ground?
While many inquiry chairmen may wish to see their recommendations followed through, most accept that the practical reality is that this is not possible. Does this, then, mean inquiries are a pointless waste of time and money, serving only to feed the press with lurid stories and to line the pockets of the legal teams involved?
I would argue that it does not. The main point of an inquiry is to expose the facts that led to a given situation. This serves the public interest and may also be cathartic for the individuals involved – think for instance of those affected by the Bristol Inquiry or a rail disaster – however difficult they might find the inquiry process. Inquiries serve this purpose very well.
For example, whatever criticism there was of Lord Hutton’s conclusions following his inquiry into the death of David Kelly, few criticised the inquiry process. Indeed, the criticism he faced in the press was only possible because he had brought to public attention information and documentation that otherwise might never have seen the light of day; this allowed people genuinely to form their own conclusions.
The importance of fact finding should not be underestimated. Of course inquiries often also make recommendations for change. But it is simply not their job to implement these, to change the law or alter procedures and practice. For one thing, that would draw them into the fray of the process or system they are examining, with an inevitable impact on their independence. Implementation is the job of the executive, which is rightly tasked with juggling priorities and budgets, not focussing simply on one issue at a time, however important it might be.
If an inquiry’s recommendations are rejected by government, or accepted and then not implemented, the executive should be held to account and asked to explain its position. Ultimately, our legal inquiry system entails that politicians and senior public officials should carry the can for ongoing failures, not inquiry chairmen. Inquiry reports help create a reference point by which politicians and officials can be judged.
This is not ideal and may not be as efficient at implementing change as if an inquiry itself were to continue working on the matter after it has issued its report. However, it has one big advantage. It is at least a system that is democratic and permits accountability to lie in the place it should: the hands of those entitled to vote.
For more information on inquiries, see Practice note, Commissioning and conducting investigations and inquiries.