This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/mar/26/public-inquiries-vital-healing-holding-account

The article has changed 2 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
Despite the doubts over Leveson and the Mid-Staffs report, public inquiries still play a vital role Despite the doubts over Leveson and the Mid-Staffs report, public inquiries still play a vital role
(6 months later)
Yesterday, after the government gave its official response to the Francis inquiry into care at Mid-Staffs hospital trust, patients' campaigners were still arguing that no one has been held accountable for the failures which led to so many deaths. Meanwhile, after weeks of to-ing and fro-ing over media regulation following Lord Justice Leveson's report into press standards, there is still no agreement on which way to proceed. You could be forgiven for asking: are public inquiries worth the money?Yesterday, after the government gave its official response to the Francis inquiry into care at Mid-Staffs hospital trust, patients' campaigners were still arguing that no one has been held accountable for the failures which led to so many deaths. Meanwhile, after weeks of to-ing and fro-ing over media regulation following Lord Justice Leveson's report into press standards, there is still no agreement on which way to proceed. You could be forgiven for asking: are public inquiries worth the money?
Public inquiries come in many shapes and sizes. They can be judge-led, like the Leveson inquiry, the Hutton inquiry into the death of David Kelly, the Scott inquiry into arms to Iraq or the Francis inquiry; they can be held in public by panels of privy counsellors, like the Chilcot inquiry into the Iraq war; or in private, like the review I led on weapons of mass destruction. They can be conducted by select committees or joint committees of parliament, like the joint commission on the banking bill or the Commons committee on culture, media and sport; or they can be carried out by legally qualified individuals, like the de Silva inquiry into the murder of Northern Ireland solicitor Pat Finucane.Public inquiries come in many shapes and sizes. They can be judge-led, like the Leveson inquiry, the Hutton inquiry into the death of David Kelly, the Scott inquiry into arms to Iraq or the Francis inquiry; they can be held in public by panels of privy counsellors, like the Chilcot inquiry into the Iraq war; or in private, like the review I led on weapons of mass destruction. They can be conducted by select committees or joint committees of parliament, like the joint commission on the banking bill or the Commons committee on culture, media and sport; or they can be carried out by legally qualified individuals, like the de Silva inquiry into the murder of Northern Ireland solicitor Pat Finucane.
What the past couple of years tell us (post Hillsborough, the North Wales inquiry into child abuse, Francis and Leveson) is that inquiries, for all their flaws and costs, are crucial parts of the United Kingdom's system of accountability and are here to stay. Yet after the dust settles and the government and politicians have thrashed out an agreed response to a report, very few ask whether an inquiry itself worked well or was worth the money and effort involved.What the past couple of years tell us (post Hillsborough, the North Wales inquiry into child abuse, Francis and Leveson) is that inquiries, for all their flaws and costs, are crucial parts of the United Kingdom's system of accountability and are here to stay. Yet after the dust settles and the government and politicians have thrashed out an agreed response to a report, very few ask whether an inquiry itself worked well or was worth the money and effort involved.
On Wednesday the Institute for Government is holding a seminar about public inquiries, asking what works and what doesn't; why some forms of inquiry have been more successful than others; and what lessons can be learned. As someone who has been concerned with setting up inquiries, leading them and being the subject of them, I will be taking part.On Wednesday the Institute for Government is holding a seminar about public inquiries, asking what works and what doesn't; why some forms of inquiry have been more successful than others; and what lessons can be learned. As someone who has been concerned with setting up inquiries, leading them and being the subject of them, I will be taking part.
Inquiries can have four purposes. The first is to establish the truth of what happened; the second, when there has been wrongdoing, is to decide who is culpable; the third is to distil recommendations about what should be done in the future; and the fourth, which may be as important as the first three, is to provide a lightning conductor for the anger of the public, and particularly of those who have been bereaved or suffered personally.Inquiries can have four purposes. The first is to establish the truth of what happened; the second, when there has been wrongdoing, is to decide who is culpable; the third is to distil recommendations about what should be done in the future; and the fourth, which may be as important as the first three, is to provide a lightning conductor for the anger of the public, and particularly of those who have been bereaved or suffered personally.
In cases which may involve criminality, the police and justice system must have first bite. This may involve frustration for the public, the media and parliament. While police inquiries continue – and they may take a long time – the issues disappear from public view. If eventually no charges result, those who suffered may feel deprived of any satisfaction.In cases which may involve criminality, the police and justice system must have first bite. This may involve frustration for the public, the media and parliament. While police inquiries continue – and they may take a long time – the issues disappear from public view. If eventually no charges result, those who suffered may feel deprived of any satisfaction.
But where culpability is an issue, it is essential to have a fair process in which those whose reputations are on the line are made aware of what may be alleged against them and have a chance to put their side. In such cases it is natural to turn to judges. Judge-led inquiries under the Inquiries Act 2005 have the advantage that witnesses can be compelled to attend and can be required to give evidence under oath.But where culpability is an issue, it is essential to have a fair process in which those whose reputations are on the line are made aware of what may be alleged against them and have a chance to put their side. In such cases it is natural to turn to judges. Judge-led inquiries under the Inquiries Act 2005 have the advantage that witnesses can be compelled to attend and can be required to give evidence under oath.
The flip side is that, when lawyers are involved, the process can become very protracted and expensive. The Saville inquiry into Bloody Sunday, although its outcome satisfied the injured parties and promoted peace in the meantime, is an object lesson.The flip side is that, when lawyers are involved, the process can become very protracted and expensive. The Saville inquiry into Bloody Sunday, although its outcome satisfied the injured parties and promoted peace in the meantime, is an object lesson.
Inquiries' terms of reference are crucial in this respect. My review on weapons of mass destruction showed me how important this is. Its terms were limited to intelligence and, although they extended to all "countries of concern" (where do you stop?), readers were only interested in Iraq and the lead-up to war. So, by concentrating on Iraq, we managed to finish the review in a reasonable time. Even so, we had to give the government an opportunity to put their side before we published our findings and, if they had cavilled more or reached for their lawyers, we might have taken much longer.Inquiries' terms of reference are crucial in this respect. My review on weapons of mass destruction showed me how important this is. Its terms were limited to intelligence and, although they extended to all "countries of concern" (where do you stop?), readers were only interested in Iraq and the lead-up to war. So, by concentrating on Iraq, we managed to finish the review in a reasonable time. Even so, we had to give the government an opportunity to put their side before we published our findings and, if they had cavilled more or reached for their lawyers, we might have taken much longer.
People comment that the Chilcot inquiry, launched in 2009, is taking a long time to report. Since the terms of reference covered everything connected with the Iraq war between 2001 and 2009, it is not surprising it has taken so long. The report text already runs to more than a million words. When Gordon Brown announced the inquiry to the House of Commons, he said, "Its scope is unprecedented." True, but the corollary is that inquiries with very wide terms of reference take a long time to complete.People comment that the Chilcot inquiry, launched in 2009, is taking a long time to report. Since the terms of reference covered everything connected with the Iraq war between 2001 and 2009, it is not surprising it has taken so long. The report text already runs to more than a million words. When Gordon Brown announced the inquiry to the House of Commons, he said, "Its scope is unprecedented." True, but the corollary is that inquiries with very wide terms of reference take a long time to complete.
In my view, the Chilcot inquiry has already proved its worth by giving the bereaved and others with a grievance the opportunity to see those responsible for decisions held to account in public. Public inquiries can be part of the healing process. The same could be said of the Hutton and the Leveson inquiries. The conclusions of some public inquiries can be less important than the fact that they happen at all.In my view, the Chilcot inquiry has already proved its worth by giving the bereaved and others with a grievance the opportunity to see those responsible for decisions held to account in public. Public inquiries can be part of the healing process. The same could be said of the Hutton and the Leveson inquiries. The conclusions of some public inquiries can be less important than the fact that they happen at all.
Finally, there is the question of whether the inquiry conclusions are acted on. As the events following the Leveson report show, this cannot be assumed. History is littered with expensive reports left to gather dust upon shelves. In 1999 I served on the Wakeham royal commission on House of Lords reform, which is still notoriously unfinished business.Finally, there is the question of whether the inquiry conclusions are acted on. As the events following the Leveson report show, this cannot be assumed. History is littered with expensive reports left to gather dust upon shelves. In 1999 I served on the Wakeham royal commission on House of Lords reform, which is still notoriously unfinished business.
So public inquiries serve multiple objectives and, although they may fail in one respect, they can succeed in others. At any rate they are here to stay. But those calling for public inquiries and those deciding about them should take into account the cost and time likely to be involved. Like holy matrimony, public inquiries should not be embarked upon lightly or wantonly.So public inquiries serve multiple objectives and, although they may fail in one respect, they can succeed in others. At any rate they are here to stay. But those calling for public inquiries and those deciding about them should take into account the cost and time likely to be involved. Like holy matrimony, public inquiries should not be embarked upon lightly or wantonly.
Our editors' picks for the day's top news and commentary delivered to your inbox each morning.