Why reform is needed
The central challenge is that, once an inquiry concludes, the Chair has no ongoing authority to monitor the implementation of their recommendations. The Chair’s role effectively ends with the delivery of the final report. For example, following the Manchester Arena Inquiry, Sir John Saunders sought to establish a mechanism for public monitoring of implementation, but this was widely regarded as beyond the scope of his remit as Chairman. This gap has resulted in missed opportunities for meaningful change. For example, the Chairwoman of the Thirlwall Inquiry observed recommendations from healthcare inquiries dating back to 1981 have been repeated numerous times without being acted upon.
Calls for reform: Recommendations and Government response
In November 2024, the House of Lords Statutory Inquiries Committee published a report examining public inquiries under the Inquiries Act 2005. Some of the key recommendations include:
- Create a parliamentary committee to monitor implementation – To track what happens after an inquiry reports, monitor the government’s response to inquiry recommendations, hold ministers accountable for implementing accepted recommendations and analyse patterns across multiple inquiries and identify recurring policy failures.
- Introduce an online tracker for recommendations – To list recommendations from public inquiries (and possibly select committees and coroners), show government responses, and track progress on implementation.
- Set clearer timescales for inquiries – Including an indicative deadline in the terms of reference, requiring inquiry Chairs to seek ministerial permission to extend deadlines, and encouraging inquiries to produce interim reports or regular updates if they are lengthy.
The Government published its response to the House of Lords report in February 2025. The response only partially accepted its recommendations. The Government acknowledged ongoing criticisms concerning the costs, length, and implementation of inquiry recommendations and endorsed the recommendation that there should not be a "one-size-fits-all" approach to establishing public inquiries, confirming that Ministers should determine the format, Chair, and panel on a case-by-case basis, based on guidance from the Cabinet Office Inquiries Unit.
The Government further indicated that the structure and leadership of each inquiry should be tailored to the specific issues under examination. While some inquiries may require a judge or senior legal figure, others could be led by a non-legal chair with relevant experience. Additionally, the Government committed to publishing guidance for Ministers, Chairs, and Secretaries, drawing on lessons learned and best practice. Updates to Parliament on potential broader reforms to the inquiry framework were also promised.
However, the Government rejected the central recommendation to establish a joint parliamentary committee to monitor the implementation of inquiry recommendations, maintaining that existing mechanisms such as select committees already provide adequate oversight. The response also gave little emphasis to comparative international learning, and did not expand upon the committee’s suggestions in this area.
Lord Norton, who chaired the House of Lords committee on statutory inquiries, has emphasised the need for a robust mechanism to monitor the implementation of recommendations, arguing that such oversight is essential to “restore trust” and prevent a “downward spiral” in which “people will just lose trust in public inquiries.” The mechanism he proposes mirrors recent developments in the inquest context. Since January 2025, the Chief Coroner for England and Wales has adopted a policy of "naming and shaming" organisations that fail to respond to Prevention of Future Death (PFD) reports within 56 days. However, it remains to be seen whether this "badge of dishonour" will prove effective in driving accountability.
Changes to date
The Hillsborough Law: A Step Towards Transparency
One proposed reform aimed at addressing some of these challenges is the introduction of a statutory "duty of candour," also known as the Hillsborough Law (The Public Office (Accountability) Bill). This duty would legally require public officials and bodies to act with honesty and proactively cooperate with investigations, inquiries, and inquests.
While the Prime Minister committed to introducing this legislation by April 2025, as of April 2026, the bill has not yet been passed. Campaigners continue to push for a more robust approach to ensure the law’s effectiveness and the Government is working on amendments before continuing the bill through Parliament. In practical terms, this new duty would mark a decisive shift from a defensive, compliance-led approach to one requiring proactive, good faith engagement with inquiries. Public bodies and officials would be under a legal obligation to identify, preserve and disclose relevant information early, assist inquiries in establishing the full facts, and avoid shaping narratives to manage reputational risk, with potential personal and organisational consequences for falling short. The effect would be to embed transparency as a core governance requirement, rather than a matter of litigation strategy.
UK Covid Inquiry: Deliberate Design Choice
Rather than issuing one final report at the end, UK Covid Inquiry publishes separate reports for each investigative module. Publishing reports incrementally means that recommendations are issued years earlier than if the inquiry waited until the end, Governments could begin implementing reforms immediately, and the Chair can publicly press for action while the inquiry is still active. The Chairwoman, Baroness Heather Hallett, has explicitly encouraged the public and policymakers to push for implementation of her recommendations as the reports appear.
The evolving landscape of public inquiries presents both challenges and opportunities. Organisations and individuals should act now to prepare for heightened scrutiny and likely legal reform by reviewing internal governance and document retention practices, stress-testing incident response protocols, and ensuring clear lines of accountability for engagement with inquiries and inquests.
In particular, anticipating the proposed statutory duty of candour, organisations should embed a culture of early, proactive disclosure, supported by targeted training for senior leaders and legal teams, to ensure that transparency is treated as a core obligation rather than a reactive exercise. Those that take these steps will be better placed not only to manage legal and reputational risk, but to engage credibly and effectively in an environment where openness and accountability are under increasing and sustained focus.
The Inquiries team at Addleshaw Goddard have extensive experience in supporting clients through sensitive and high-profile inquiries, providing strategic advice and practical guidance at every stage of the process. Our expertise ensures clients are well-prepared to navigate the complexities of public inquiries while safeguarding their interests and reputation.
