CHAPTER 9: overview of the inquiries
act
291. We have made a number of recommendations,
some of them significant, for amendment of the Act. We have not
however heard any suggestion that the Act as a whole requires
radical surgery. The major criticisms of it at the time it was
a Bill, suggesting that the powers of ministers under the Act
would be so excessive that no self-respecting judge would consider
appointment as chairman of an inquiry under the Act,[428]
have proved unfounded. On the contrary, the judges who have chaired
inquiries under the Act have described it as "good legislation"[429]
which "did provide me with adequate powers to conduct the
inquiry in a way that was efficient and as effective as I could
make it."[430]
292. There has been criticism of some inquiries
under the Act, especially on grounds of length and cost, but it
seems that the public generally have confidence in inquiries under
the Act—certainly more confidence than in those non-statutory
inquiries where much of the evidence has been given in private.[431]
But no inquiry has been set up under the Act since the Leveson
Inquiry in July 2011.[432]
Why is it that ministers are so reluctant to set up inquiries
under an Act that broadly had the support of all the main parties
when it was passed nine years ago?
293. The answer is not that there have been no
matters of public concern. As we explained in chapter 3, even
in the time this Committee has been working we have been informed
of over 30 serious calls for inquiries to be set up. We do not
suggest that all of these would have justified an inquiry; perhaps
none of them would. But in that time the only reasons given for
not holding inquiries are the statement by the Secretary of State
for Northern Ireland in relation to the Omagh bombing,[433]
and the Home Secretary's letter to the coroner declining to convert
the Litvinenko inquest into an inquiry.[434]
The Statement of the Secretary of State for Health regarding the
setting up of the non-statutory Morecambe Bay inquiry does not
give reasons why the inquiry was not established under the Act[435];
and nor does the letter from Lord Faulks QC in relation to the
independent review into self-inflicted deaths of young adults
in custody.[436]
294. We believe the reason may be an assumption
that inquiries, and especially statutory inquiries, are necessarily
lengthy and expensive. This certainly seems to have been taken
for granted by the Divisional Court in its judgment in Ali
Zaki Mousa (No. 2),[437]
and there is no doubt that some inquiries have been inordinately
lengthy and expensive. In his statement to the House of Commons
on 15 June 2010 on the report of the Bloody Sunday Inquiry the
Prime Minister said: "Of course, none of us anticipated that
the Saville Inquiry would take 12 years or cost almost £200
million … let me reassure the House that there will be no
more open-ended and costly inquiries into the past."[438]
295. However inquiries do not have to be lengthy.
The Leveson Inquiry received over 1,000 submissions and heard
oral evidence from some 350 witnesses, yet it reported within
16 months of being set up, and might have reported weeks or even
months earlier if it had not had to undertake "literally
thousands of hours of work"[439]
on warning letters to comply with the requirements of rules 13-15
of the Inquiry Rules, which we have recommended should be revoked.[440]
296. Nor do inquiries have to be costly. The
Leveson Inquiry had a large staff—essential if it was to
complete its task in that time. The cost, £5.4 million, was
considerable, but not excessive for the work it had to undertake,
and would have been significantly less but for the work on warning
letters. Other less wide-ranging inquiries have cost substantially
less.[441]
297. Our recommendations, in particular those
on the setting up and administration of inquiries, and on a more
flexible procedure, will make it easier to control both the length
and the cost of inquiries under the Act. In particular, revocation
of rules 13-15 should alone cut months off the length of inquiries,
and reduce their cost proportionately. We see no reason why,
if our recommendations are accepted and implemented, an inquiry
set up under the Act should be longer or more costly than one
with another statutory basis, or no statutory basis.
298. We are fortunate to live in a parliamentary
democracy where the public in general trust the executive and
the organs of the state. We believe that such trust is not often
misplaced. This makes it the more important that, where trust
has been shaken, it should be restored. Where there is public
concern, we believe the inquiry process is well placed to allay
it, and to make recommendations which may help to restore trust.
299. This will not happen if ministers are reluctant
to set up inquiries where these are justified. Disaster Action
told us that
"a campaign by family groups over many years,
and through many changes of government, is the only way to achieve
what should have occurred in the first place … It is unfortunate,
however, that [the setting up of the Hillsborough Independent
Panel] should only have occurred when the bereaved or survivors
have been willing and able to sustain exhausting and costly campaigns
over decades." [442]
It should not have taken "a small group of mostly
elderly people [who] had to stand out in the wind, snow and rain
for nearly two years following ministers round"[443]
before ministers agreed to set up the Mid Staffordshire inquiry.
300. Ministers have at their disposal on the
statute book an Act and Rules which, subject to the reservations
we have set out, in our view constitute a good framework for such
inquiries. Ministers should be ready to make better use of these
powers, and should set up inquiries under the Inquiries Act unless
there are overriding reasons of security or sensitivity for doing
otherwise.
428 Paragraph 198. Back
429
Lord Gill, Q 192. Back
430
Sir Brian Leveson, Q 101. Back
431
See evidence of Professor Adam Tomkins: "I know of
no evidence that suggests that there is a problem with public
confidence in the context of Inquiries Act inquiries. Indeed,
it would seem to me that if and insofar as there is a problem
of public confidence in inquiries it is in non-statutory inquiries
that have been established since 2005 rather than in statutory
inquiries, the obvious examples being the Iraq inquiry and the
Detainees inquiry." (Q 29) Back
432
And only two non-statutory inquiries: the Morecambe Bay
investigation; and the independent review into self-inflicted
deaths of young adults in custody. Back
433
See Box 4, paragraph 97. Back
434
Ibid. Back
435
Paragraph 64. Back
436
Paragraph 65. Back
437
See paragraph 74. Back
438
HC Deb, 15 June 2010, col 741. Back
439
Sir Robert Jay, Q 125. Back
440
Paragraph 251. Back
441
See paragraph 181. Back
442
Written evidence, paragraphs 4.3 and 13.2. Back
443
Julie Bailey, Q 152. Back
| 
