Memorandum by Sir Michael Bichard (GBI
21)
THE BICHARD INQUIRY
1. Although the Inquiry I chaired dealt
with issues about which the public felt justifiably angry, it
was not as complex as some other recent inquiries not least because
it lacked a strongly political dimension. In that sense my task
was considerably easier than others faced. However, in so far
as the Inquiry did meet the expectations of the public and the
Home Secretary, the sponsor, I think that the following issues
were critical.
(i) The terms of reference—Time
was taken to ensure that the terms of reference were focused but
at the same time allowed some space in which to draw conclusions
and make recommendations about local and national policy systems
and performance. In the period before publication when drafts
were circulated to individuals criticised in the report I received
several challenges to the conclusions. A number of these sought
to establish that the terms of reference were not broad enough
to allow me to comment in the way I had. These challenges were
resisted successfully because of the way in which the terms of
reference had been drafted.
(ii) Momentum—The Inquiry was
established on 17 December; requested evidence in early January
for return by end January; met to outline the issues on 26 February
and heard witnesses between 1 and 30 March (15 working days).
The final report was published on 22 June. A sense of urgency
was maintained throughout which helped to persuade the parties
to avoid wherever possible bureaucratic approaches. Legal representation
was kept to a reasonable level. When the report was published
public interest remained high which helped ensure support for
the recommendations.
(iii) The Team—Although I sat
alone and took sole responsibility for the Report a small team
of officials and two outstanding Counsels supported me. In fact,
the selection of the team in particular was serendipitous. We
were, however, able to build strong commitment, which was reflected
in the long hours worked by many members and their determination
to work to very high standards. A strong supporting team is vital
to a successful Inquiry.
(iv) Accommodation and Technology—We
were able quickly to negotiate excellent accommodation not fully
occupied for a temporary period by the Independent Police Complaints
Commission. We also took care to obtain high quality technology,
which enabled the Inquiry to quickly file and reference the 2,000
documents received and to ensure that evidence was simultaneously
transcribed for the benefit of the Inquiry team, the media and
other observers. The Chairman, Counsel and Inquiry team members
were also able to communicate confidentially during the oral evidence
using the available technology. All this, I hope gave the impression
of professionalism and was, I know, especially welcomed by the
media who were able to absorb more easily the considerable amounts
of material referred to during the oral hearings. It also meant
that we were able to respond quickly throughout the Inquiry to
requests for information and were quick to redirect documents
where necessary eg to maintain individual's privacy.
(v) Media—We took seriously
our responsibilities to the media as important purveyors to the
public of the thoroughness and fairness with which the Inquiry
went about its business. I judged that it was important that they
should receive a professional service without at any time pandering
to them or causing any risk of unfairness to witnesses.
(vi) Criticised Parties—As is
I think the norm, I allowed criticised parties an opportunity
to see relevant (but only relevant) parts of the Report in advance
of publication so long as they signed a confidentiality agreement.
Only one party refused that offer and the process helped ensure
that the final Report was entirely accurate as well as reassuring
the parties that the Report was fair. This was an important part
of the process.
(vii) Recommendations—The Report
contained only 31 recommendations of which five were highlighted
as priorities. This focus enabled the media and the public to
understand better the most significant issues and build support
for action. Each recommendation was also allocated to a department/organisation
to lead an implementation. I used the period from the completion
of a first draft report (mid April) to publication trying to ensure
that all the recommendations were feasible and that wherever possible
there was support for them. This helped create considerable consensus
when the report was published.
(viii)
Review—I decided
that I should review the progress on recommendations six months
after publication. I am not sure that has happened before but
seemed sensible if the objective was to achieve real change. I
have this week, therefore, written to the parties seeking a report
on progress and will publish a report on this in February/March.
I have no specific power to do so but all parties have indicated
that they will respond. I have been told by Senior Civil Servants
that the prospect of a public review has concentrated minds since
June and I hope to be able to report positively on progress.
Sir Michael Bichard
|
