Implementation of Inquiry Recommendations: Déjà Vu?

The government’s response to the Enhancing Public Trust report of the House of Lords Statutory Inquiries Committee of 16 September 2024[1][2] (“the 2024 report”) was published on 10 February 2025[3]. The long-standing issue of how to achieve implementation of the recommendations of the 2024 report itself and also of inquiry recommendations in general remains live and resolution of the issue has certainly not been “swift”.

The government accepted six of the nine recommendations. In summary, these are – the recommendation that ministers should consider the legal basis and chair of the inquiry on a case-by-case basis (Recommendation 1), victims and survivors should be consulted on terms of reference where appropriate (Recommendation 2), indicative deadlines should be considered (Recommendation 3), an interim report requirement should be considered for inquiries likely to be of long duration (Recommendation 4), lessons-learnt papers should be produced (Recommendation 8) and the Inquiries Unit should be sufficiently resourced and should establish a wider community of practice for public inquiries (Recommendation 9). A further two recommendations as to implementation of the 2024 report (Recommendation 6) and implementation monitoring after inquiries (Recommendation 7) are “for Parliament”.

The remaining 2024 report recommendation (Recommendation 5) was for swift implementation of a further 26 reiterated (and sometimes slightly amended) recommendations from an earlier House of Lords select committee report of 2014[4] (“the 2014 recommendations”), including many which were accepted by the government at the time, but which have mostly not yet been implemented.

The 2024 report set out a straightforward sounding blueprint for implementation of the 2014 recommendations – introduce primary legislation where required, identify and draft changes to the Inquiry Rules where required, swiftly implement any recommendations not requiring any primary or secondary legislation. Whilst the government thinks that many of the remaining 2014 recommendations still have “merit in principle” it has expressly said that it cannot commit to making primary or secondary legislative changes at this time but is “actively considering whether wider changes are needed to the frameworks around inquiries and will clarify whether it intends to implement these recommendations alongside wider reforms in due course”.  It also responds separately to each of the 26 reiterated recommendations – ten of them are accepted or partially accepted, a further eight are “under consideration” (most of these the government said either that they were already standard practice or that it is “minded to accept”), two are said to be already implemented and the government is “unable to accept” the remaining six.

The 2024 recommendations which were stated to be matters for parliament are Recommendations 6 and 7. Recommendation 6 attempts to grapple with the monitoring of implementation of the 2024 report recommendations by proposing that the Liaison Committee of the House of Lords should monitor their implementation (because the Statutory Inquiries Committee itself ceased to exist upon publication of its report and so could not itself monitor the implementation). Recommendation 7 suggested the establishment of a new joint select committee of Parliament – the Public Inquiries Committee – which would be resourced to do various eminently sensible-sounding things – including to publish inquiry reports in one place online, to monitor the implementation of accepted public inquiry and major inquest recommendations, to conduct research and make recommendations to the Inquiries Unit of the Cabinet Office on best practice.  The government response to both recommendations 6 and 7 includes the wording – “The Government is committed to providing a further update to Parliament on its intentions for any wider reforms of the framework around Inquiries.”  There is no timescale given for this, and thus the monitoring of implementation which the Statutory Inquiries Committee was hoping to create is at best suspended. There is also déjà vu here – the same problem was identified by the 2014 Select Committee and the steps by which they attempted to ensure follow up might be said to have failed given that over 10 years later many accepted recommendations have not been implemented.

The government response also stated, “The Government will publish guidance on inquiries for Ministers, chairs and secretaries, including the appropriate considerations around their establishment, drawing on the helpful work of this Committee.”.  There is no timescale given for this in the response.  The government made consistent statements in its response to the Grenfell recommendations[5] at the end of February this year with reference to a “wider review of measures to strengthen the public inquiries system as a whole in the year ahead” and a “wider consideration of reforms to the frameworks around inquiries which is currently underway, led by the Minister for the Cabinet office.”  A new Public Inquiries Division has been set up around three months ago[6], which may be an encouraging sign.

The 2014 recommendations which the government is “unable to accept” all relate to the balance of power between the inquiry chair and the minister.  Recommendation 9 suggest that the minister should need the consent of the chair to change the terms of reference once the inquiry is under way, but the government view is that “it remains appropriate for ministers to retain the final say”. Recommendation 10 suggests that initially only draft terms of reference should be published with the final terms of reference agreed with the chair and then announced – this would give time for interest groups and parliamentarians to consider the terms of reference.   The Government responded, “having two formal sets of terms of reference risks confusion when clarity is key”.  Recommendation 19 suggests removal of the minister’s power to restrict public access to the inquiry, the chair’s power being sufficient.  The Government responded “Ministers remain best placed to understand the nature of sensitive information and to assess accurately the potential impact of its public release. It is not appropriate, or advisable, that this duty is delegated.”  Recommendation 20 suggests that the power to withhold information from publication (apart from cases of national security) should rest with the chair rather than the minister – the government said “…Ministers remain best placed to understand the nature of sensitive information …it is not appropriate or advisable that this duty be delegated”.  Recommendation 21 suggested that if the minister wishes to dismiss a panel member, they must first seek the permission of the chair.  Per the response “…the Government continues to be of the view that ministers should retain some flexibility to make and terminate appointments”.  Recommendation 23 is that only the chair would be able to appoint counsel to the inquiry – the Government response suggest that ministers should retain their influence here to ensure value for money.

A common thread through each of these unaccepted recommendations is the balance of power between the chair and the government.  The persuasive force of these recommendations is perhaps slightly diluted by the limited rationale given in respect of most of them in the 2024 report – often little more than “The Committee has heard some new evidence on the importance of inquiry independence generally.”   However, the 2014 report has a chapter on inquiry independence – Chapter 6[7] – which provides the reasons for each of these recommendations for those who are interested in this topic. Obviously, the general theme is that an inquiry must retain its independence from the government especially where the actions of the executive may come under scrutiny. It seems, however, that there is little or no prospect that any of these recommendations will be implemented.

The 2024 and 2014 reports are each both detailed and thoughtful. Whilst it is encouraging that so many of each of their recommendations are accepted or under consideration, the need for concrete action to follow the words is great.  As written in the introduction to their response “the Government is actively considering whether there is scope for wider reforms to the frameworks within which inquiries are set up, run and concluded”.  It will be interesting to read and then see the fruits of that active consideration in due course, and it is hoped that action will be timely.

[1] Public inquiries: Enhancing public trust.

[2] See here for Laura Stephenson’s analysis of the recommendations – Public Inquiries | Enhancing Public Trust: Key recommendations from the House of Lords Statutory Inquiries Committee report – 2 Hare Court | London Barristers Chambers.

[3] Government Response to the House of Lords Statutory Inquiries Committee report: Enhancing public trust (HTML) – GOV.UK.

[4] House of Lords – The Inquiries Act 2005: post-legislative scrutiny – Select Committee on the Inquiries Act 2005 – however it’s easiest to find their recommendations and the government response at Appendix 4 to the EPC report – pp52-59.

[5] Grenfell Tower Inquiry Phase 2 Report: Government response (HTML) – GOV.UK

[6] Source: LinkedIn – (8) Post | Feed | LinkedIn

[7] House of Lords – The Inquiries Act 2005: post-legislative scrutiny – Select Committee on the Inquiries Act 2005