---

How could public inquiries be reformed?

Public inquiries are investigations set up by government ministers. Most inquiries are statutory and are governed by the Inquiries Act 2005.

The Inquiries Act 2005 was the last major reform to the public inquiries system in the United Kingdom. It replaced the Tribunals of Inquiry (Evidence) Act 1921 and other subject-specific legislation that had evolved during the 20th century.

More information about how inquiries operate can be found in the Commons Library research briefing on Public inquiries. Key facts about each inquiry can be found in the Commons Library data dashboard on Public inquiries established under the Inquiries Act 2005.

Previous reforms

Reform came at a time when the Tribunals of Inquiry (Evidence) Act 1921 was rarely used, with ministers more often establishing non-statutory inquiries or statutory inquiries under specific legislation. It also came after growing concern about the length and cost of public inquiries such as the Bloody Sunday Inquiry, which took over 12 years and cost £192 million (or £287 million in 2026 prices). The Bloody Sunday Inquiry lasted longer than all but one inquiry established under the subsequent 2005 act (the Robert Hamill Inquiry) and it remains more expensive in real terms than any inquiry established under the 2005 act.

The 2005 act set much more specific rules than the 1921 act for how inquiries should operate. It also removed the role of Parliament in establishing a public inquiry. While under the 1921 act both Houses of Parliament needed to pass an affirmative resolution to establish a statutory inquiry, under the 2005 act only a minister can establish an inquiry.

However, the 2005 act did not explicitly provide for ministers to limit the total cost and duration of an inquiry. The 2005 act does not prevent a minister from setting a budget and a timeline for an inquiry, but until the Independent Inquiry into Grooming Gangs was established in 2026, no minister had set a budget for a statutory inquiry in its terms of reference.

Current proposals for reform

Since the Inquiries Act 2005 was passed, there have been a number of reports examining how the public inquiries system operates. These reports have drawn out some common recommendations for reforming public inquiries.

Giving Parliament a role in establishing inquiries

Since the Inquiries Act 2005 was passed, Parliament has had no role in the decision to establish an inquiry. While ministers must announce to Parliament when a new inquiry is being set up, the decision about whether to set up an inquiry is one for the minister alone. A 2017 report by the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee (PACAC) recommended a new parliamentary procedure for establishing public inquiries. Under its proposal, an ad-hoc select committee would take evidence, hold a pre-appointment hearing for the chair and make recommendations to the House of Commons, before a full debate in the chamber and a vote on the terms of reference, an estimated timeframe and a proposed budget for the inquiry.

The final report of the Infected Blood Inquiry suggested PACAC itself should have a role in establishing public inquiries. While the report recommended that ministers should retain the power to establish an inquiry, it suggested that PACAC should have the power to review the need for an inquiry and make recommendations to ministers where there was concern about a given issue.

Sharing best practice through an inquiries unit

The House of Lords Select Committee on the Inquiries Act 2005 recommended a central unit in government to handle the practical details of setting up an inquiry, including assistance with premises, infrastructure, IT, procurement and staffing.

 While an inquiries unit was established in the Cabinet Office in 2019, the House of Lords Statutory Inquiries Committee reported in 2024 that many stakeholders were not aware that the unit existed and that “opportunities to learn from shared best practice are being missed”.

Using interim reports to make urgent recommendations

The Institute for Government recommended that inquiries should publish interim reports where recommendations could not wait until the final report. This has since been done in the case of the Infected Blood Inquiry, which published two interim reports on compensation for victims who may not have had long to live. In recent years it has become increasingly common for inquiries to publish interim reports: the UK Covid-19 Inquiry, for example, plans to publish reports for each of its ten modules. The House of Lords Statutory Inquiries Committee suggested that ministers could use the terms of reference for an inquiry to require the chair to publish an interim report, if needed.

Scrutinising the government on public inquiries

Currently, there is no formal mechanism for assessing whether the government has implemented an inquiry’s recommendations, although since 2025 the government has begun publishing trackers showing recommendations by public inquiries, the government response, and any progress of implementation.

The Institute for Government recommended making it a core task of select committees to scrutinise the government’s response to inquiry findings, while the House of Lords Statutory Inquiries Committee suggested a new joint select committee to assess implementation of recommendations from all public inquiries. The final report of the Infected Blood Inquiry recommended that following up on inquiry recommendations in this way should be a task for PACAC.