Public Inquiries – what are they and should they be reformed?

Public inquiries are official investigations often set up to respond to key events or examine matters of public concern. The dust is just about settling on some of the controversies in recent public inquiries; notably Grenfell, Covid-19 and the Post Office, so before the next one gets underway - likely into the Nottingham grooming scandal - we have a chance as a society to stand back and think about their worth. 

They undoubtedly serve an important role in the UK’s democratic framework but are rightly subject to some criticisms that may be the subject of reform, for instance, the cost, the time taken to reach any kind of output and the failure to implement recommendations. But even with these criticisms, they play an important role in analysing the causes of failures across the United Kingdom, maintaining transparency, accountability, and public trust in governmental and institutional operations. 

Reform in some form seemed possible when the Labour Government announced during its 2024 election campaign that it would introduce the Hillsborough Law into Parliament by 15 April 2025. The Hillsborough Law would reform the way in which public bodies co-operate with inquiries, attempting to increase their engagement with a statutory duty of candour. However, for reasons discussed below, the deadline for the introduction has now been missed.

This article therefore delves further into the current state of play; what is involved in an inquiry, what are the criticisms and is there value in seeking reform?

How are public inquiries set up, and how can you engage in one?

A non-statutory public inquiry may be established by any organisation but will not have the powers available to a statutory inquiry. The inquiries that feature heavily in the media will, for the most part, be statutory public inquiries. These are commissioned by a government minister (usually in response to a high-profile event or policy), though in practice they operate independently of government. The decision of a Minister to hold or not hold a public inquiry can be challenged by interested parties. In 2014, a challenge against the Secretary of State’s decision not to hold a public inquiry into Alexander Litvinenko’s death was successful, and an inquiry was subsequently established.

Statutory public inquiries are usually convened under the Inquiries Act 2005, which is supported by rules for how the inquiry is run and a suite of powers for the Chair (who is appointed to run the inquiry and draft the final report). The powers include compelling individuals and organisations to give evidence to the inquiry. 

The key stages in the setup of each Inquiry are likely to be the announcement of the Chair (chosen by the Minister who initiates it) and the Terms of Reference (TORs). These set the tone and the purpose or scope of the inquiry, and so are vital to the process going forward. 

Key to statutory public inquiries are the rights given to those designated as core participants. The Chair may, at any time during the inquiry, designate individuals and organisations to be a core participant if they (i) played a direct and significant role in the events in question, (ii) have a significant interest in the events, or (iii) could face criticism during the proceedings or from interim or final reports of the inquiry. Those designated as a core participant must always consent to that designation. 

Core participants receive an enhanced status and consequential benefits during an inquiry. For instance, they will be able to view the inquiry’s evidence and have certain rights in the procedure, such as questioning witnesses, making submissions through their lawyers and being able to suggest lines of questioning to be pursued. However, a core participant would need to instruct legal representation and may receive increased publicity and public scrutiny. There are alternative ways to taking part in an inquiry other than having the spotlight status of core participant, including in providing witness statements. The Chair may also consult individuals and groups affected on the TORs, which is an opportunity to engage less formally in the process.

The importance of public inquiries

1. Establishing Facts and Accountability
2. Restoring Public Confidence
3. Driving Policy and Legislative Reforms

Public inquiries entail a detailed examination of circumstances surrounding significant events. This process ensures that those responsible are held to account and that lessons are learned to prevent similar occurrences. One way that a public inquiry secures the rigour of its fact-finding process is through the imposition of a criminal offence on those who do not comply with a statutory notice from an inquiry, or impede evidence reaching the inquiry. 

In the aftermath of tragedies or scandals, public trust in institutions can be severely undermined. One rationale behind conducting thorough and transparent investigations is to help rebuild confidence in public bodies and ensure proper recommendations for addressing the issues are reached.

A public inquiry produces a report setting out the summary of the factual findings and a set of recommendations. The recommendations from public inquiries often lead to significant changes in policies, practices, and legislation. For example, the recently concluded Grenfell Tower Inquiry, initiated after the devastating fire in 2017, scrutinised the circumstances leading to the tragedy and recommended reforms to building regulations and fire safety protocols and the procurement process for construction contracts. In contrast to the criminal sanctions faced in the evidence-taking process, recommendations have no binding force; the extent to which they are implemented can vary.

Recent public inquiries in the UK

As of April 2025, there are 20 inquiries ongoing or announced, which is the most ever at one time. Recent public inquiries in the UK have focused on major events such as the Post Office Scandal, in which the Post Office pursued a number of postmasters for apparent faults caused by the Horizon IT accounting software; the UK Covid-19 Inquiry, set up to examine the UK’s response to and impact of the Covid-19 pandemic; and the Grenfell Tower Inquiry, looking at the causes of, and response to, the fires at Grenfell Tower in 2017.

On 20 January 2025, the Prime Minister announced a public inquiry into the tragic Southport murders which have featured prominently in the media since they happened in August. The Government has chosen to establish the inquiry on a non-statutory basis, though this does not preclude it being turned into a statutory inquiry, a conversion at which the Home Secretary has hinted.

The Government has allocated £10 million to initiate local inquiries into child sexual abuse gangs. However, these are also non-statutory inquiries and proponents of a national inquiry argue that the lack of powers afforded to statutory inquiries, including the power to compel evidence, mean that local inquiries often only form a piecemeal set of facts, and this can hinder outcomes.

Challenges, considerations and potential reforms

Even without reform, public inquiries are indispensable in addressing events that cause widespread public concern in the UK. They serve as mechanisms to uncover the truth, hold individuals and institutions accountable, and recommend reforms. By doing so, they help to restore public confidence and contribute to the continuous improvement of societal structures and governance.

Whilst public inquiries are vital tools for accountability and reform, they are not without challenges. Critics often point to the lengthy durations and substantial costs associated with these investigations. Many inquiries take years to conclude; the hyponatraemia-related deaths inquiry took over 13 years, and between 1990 and 2017, the UK Government spent approximately £639 million on public inquiries. In 2023/24 alone, the direct public cost of live UK inquiries was more than £130 million. 

Currently, there is no obligation on the Government to adopt a report’s recommendations, and monitoring implementation of recommendations it does accept is not always systematic, leading to calls for more robust follow-up mechanisms to ensure that inquiries lead to tangible changes. For example, the House of Lords found that if the 2013 Lakanal House fire investigation recommendations had been adopted, the Grenfell Tower fire could have been prevented. In 2024, the House of Lords Statutory Inquiries Committee reviewed the Inquiries Act 2005 and recommended that a joint committee of both Houses of Parliament should be established to monitor the implementation of inquiry recommendations. Such a change would follow similar inquiry reform in other jurisdictions. In particular, Australia uses “implementation monitors”. These are dedicated professionals whose role is to oversee the process of converting inquiry recommendations into meaningful change. In a non-committal response, the Government stated that it is committed to providing further updates to Parliament on its intentions for any wider reforms of the inquiries framework. This issue also arose in the 2024 report of the Grenfell Tower Inquiry, where one of the report’s recommendations was that it “be made a legal requirement for the Government to maintain a publicly accessible record of recommendation made by select committees, coroners and public inquiries together with a description of the steps taken in response”, including the reasons why rejected recommendations have not been accepted. Somewhat cyclically, there is no obligation on the Government to take on this recommendation itself about other recommendations, and it remains to be seen what the Government’s response is to this suggestion. 

A further proposed reform that seeks to reduce the length and, by implication, the costs of inquiries, in the forthcoming introduction of a statutory “duty of candour”. This is otherwise known as the Hillsborough Law, arising from the inquiry into the Hillsborough Disaster. In brief, this duty on public officials and bodies would be a legal obligation to tell the truth and proactively cooperate with investigations, inquiries, and inquests. The Prime Minister last year said that he would introduce this legislation into Parliament by 15 April 2025. Recently however, the news broke that the Hillsborough Law faces delays, and this deadline will not be met, and indeed has been surpassed, due to disagreements between the Government and campaigners regarding the strength of its proposed safeguards against dishonesty by public servants, with campaigners arguing for a more robust approach.

Being involved in an inquiry

Public inquiries are complex, involving intricate legal frameworks, evidence-gathering processes, and the navigation of sensitive issues. If you, your organisation, business, or community group wants to be or is involved in or impacted by a public inquiry, including where you consider the legality of the decision to hold or not hold a public inquiry could be questioned, having expert legal advice is critical to ensuring your interests are represented and protected. As public inquiries often have lasting implications, it’s crucial to act promptly and with the right expertise. Stone King’s Public and Regulatory Team are experts in providing comprehensive legal support for those participating in public inquiries. Whether you are giving evidence, seeking clarity on your rights, or require representation throughout the process, our experienced team can guide you through the process. For questions or enquiries relating to public inquiries, please contact Melanie Carter (MelanieCarter@StoneKing.co.uk).