Re-imagining Public Inquiry
Statutory public inquiries called in the wake of some scandal or disaster have a long history in the UK. They’re seen by many as the only way of forensically holding public institutions to account, of getting to the truth and learning lessons, enabling some catharsis for those harmed and recommending ways to put things right. But there are many critics too. Often viewed as a political device, designed to forestall or deflect condemnation of state actors and institutions, many think they cost too much as well as take too long, unlikely to hold individuals accountable or achieve systemic change, and whose recommendations can, and often are, ignored by government. Through their appointment and design, their restricted terms of reference, and their heavily legalistic procedures, some people and communities most affected by the alleged wrongdoing, as well as the general public, can feel excluded from the process. Inquiry reports and findings can also seem inaccessible.
The Reimagining Public Inquiry project has brought together many people who have experienced one or more public inquiry and wish to see if this form of justice could be better conceived and better operated. We start with the premise that despite its drawbacks, public inquiry as an ideal benefits from many features which are valuable for society as a whole and those affected by a significant wrong.
Our aims are to
1. construct principles that should apply to the formation and operation of all and any public inquiries,
2. assess recent public inquiries to identify good and bad practices,
3. propose amendments to legislation and Cabinet Office guidance to develop a public inquiry model that will fulfil its varied aims in a more just way, and
4. consider alternative processes which could achieve public inquiry aims in a more radical and effective way
We also aim to establish a Centre for Public Inquiry that could act as a home for guidance, information and analysis of public inquiries past and present.
