SPEAKER_01: 0:03

Hello and welcome again to the Bench Report, where we discuss recent debates and briefings from the benches of the UK Parliament. A new topic every episode. You're listening to Amy and Ivan.

SPEAKER_00: 0:14

Today we're looking at UK public inquiries, what they are, how they work, and uh some of the big challenges they seem to be facing, all based on recent parliamentary research.

SPEAKER_01: 0:24

So when something really major happens, a national scandal, a large-scale failure, the government's tool for getting to the bottom of it is the public inquiry.

SPEAKER_00: 0:33

It's set up by a government minister, but only for events of major public concern.

SPEAKER_01: 0:38

Aaron Powell And we're talking about very serious issues here.

SPEAKER_00: 0:40

Absolutely. Things like a large-scale loss of life, or a really serious health and safety crisis, or perhaps a catastrophic failure in regulation. Things that are just too big for any other kind of review.

SPEAKER_01: 0:51

Aaron Powell That's a key point, isn't it? The guidance for ministers is that they should only set up an inquiry when other options, like a select committee or an independent review, just aren't enough.

SPEAKER_00: 1:00

And they have to weigh the benefits against the well, the considerable costs and time and money.

SPEAKER_01: 1:04

What are those benefits considered to be?

SPEAKER_00: 1:06

Aaron Powell It's about establishing the facts, learning lessons for the future, ensuring accountability, and also providing a kind of catharsis, a sense of reassurance for the public.

SPEAKER_01: 1:17

Aaron Powell But one thing that often gets confused is their legal power.

SPEAKER_00: 1:21

The crucial distinction: a public inquiry is not a legal proceeding. You can't find someone guilty or innocent.

SPEAKER_01: 1:28

So no criminal or civil liability.

SPEAKER_00: 1:32

None at all. Its job is to find facts and recommend changes. It creates a factual record that other legal actions might then draw on, but that's it.

SPEAKER_01: 1:40

So how do they operate? The research shows there's a big divide, a core split between two types.

SPEAKER_00: 1:45

That's right. You have statutory inquiries, which are governed by the Inquiries Act 2005, and then you have non-statutory ones, which are a bit more flexible.

SPEAKER_01: 1:52

And the main difference is power, isn't it?

SPEAKER_00: 1:54

It's all about power. A statutory inquiry gives the chair the ability to compel witnesses to give evidence and to produce documents.

SPEAKER_01: 2:02

Which is huge if you think an organization is trying to hide something.

SPEAKER_00: 2:05

It's essential. And evidence can be taken under oath, but as you said, they are bound by much stricter rules.

SPEAKER_01: 2:13

So that's the trade-off. Power for flexibility. What does the flexibility of a non-statutory inquiry give you?

SPEAKER_00: 2:20

Well, because they lack those compulsory powers, they can be a bit more creative operationally. For instance, victims and bereaved families might be able to address the chair directly or have more freedom to question witnesses themselves.

SPEAKER_01: 2:32

The Post Office Horizon IT inquiry is a perfect example of this in action, isn't it? It started out as non-statutory.

SPEAKER_00: 2:39

It did. But it was converted to a statutory inquiry.

SPEAKER_01: 2:42

Why?

SPEAKER_00: 2:42

Because the chair realized they needed those compulsory powers. After the subpostmaster's convictions were quashed, it became clear that getting to the truth would require forcing people and organizations to provide evidence and documents they might not have volunteered.

SPEAKER_01: 2:56

So that shows the system can adapt, and yet there's still a lot of criticism.

SPEAKER_00: 3:00

Oh yes. Despite that 2005 act, there are some pretty common complaints that come up again and again.

SPEAKER_01: 3:06

And two seem to really stand out in the parliamentary scrutiny. The first is just the sheer length of time they take.

SPEAKER_00: 3:12

It's a massive problem. Reports can take years, sometimes decades, when you have urgent recommendations that are needed now.

SPEAKER_01: 3:19

Is there an example of that?

SPEAKER_00: 3:20

Really tragic one is the Infective Blood Inquiry. They actually had to issue interim reports in 2022 and 2023.

SPEAKER_01: 3:28

Just to get things moving.

SPEAKER_00: 3:29

Exactly. Specifically to make urgent recommendations on compensation. The inquiry itself said that waiting for the final report would have just added to decades-long delays.

SPEAKER_01: 3:40

And the second major flaw that comes up is implementation. It feels like even when an inquiry finishes, the job isn't done.

SPEAKER_00: 3:47

You're right. There's this perception that best practice isn't shared between different inquiries, and more critically, there's very little scrutiny on whether the government actually implements the recommendations it accepts.

SPEAKER_01: 3:58

Which raises the question of whether the whole thing is worthwhile if nothing changes at the end.

SPEAKER_00: 4:02

And this leads to an important final thought for you to consider. Given this frequent criticism about implementation, should Parliament maybe take on a stronger role, a formal role in monitoring the government's response to an inquiry for several years after the report is published?

SPEAKER_01: 4:18

As always, find us on social media at bench report UK. Get in touch with any topic important to you. Remember, politics is everyone's business. Take care.