Public inquiries, what do they achieve?
Discussion
Public inquiries appear to be Britain’s only growing industry, certainly a very lucrative one for the legal sector, what do they achieve?
Quite often the published cost of these inquiries, does not reflect the actual cost, take to PO inquiry as an example,
“Post Office Inquiry costs top £50 million.”
“A Freedom of Information request made by The Lawyer to the Post Office has revealed £256.9m was paid to 15 law firms and two barristers’ chambers between September 2014 and March 2024.
The figure is nearly equal to the total paid out to victims of the Horizon scandal so far, which was £261m as of July 2024 according to UK Government statistics.”
The actual cost, in excess of £300 million, to find out what we already knew.
Yes a few people got a little sweaty under cross examination, possibly some sleepless nights were had, alterations to working practices made; but beyond that, what has this and other public inquiries achieved?
Quite often the published cost of these inquiries, does not reflect the actual cost, take to PO inquiry as an example,
“Post Office Inquiry costs top £50 million.”
“A Freedom of Information request made by The Lawyer to the Post Office has revealed £256.9m was paid to 15 law firms and two barristers’ chambers between September 2014 and March 2024.
The figure is nearly equal to the total paid out to victims of the Horizon scandal so far, which was £261m as of July 2024 according to UK Government statistics.”
The actual cost, in excess of £300 million, to find out what we already knew.
Yes a few people got a little sweaty under cross examination, possibly some sleepless nights were had, alterations to working practices made; but beyond that, what has this and other public inquiries achieved?
They create the appearance that "something is being done."
If we're lucky, they will produce coherent and workable recommendations.
If we're luckier, those recommendations will be translated into practice and/or regulation.
Usually over a decade or so while the underlying issue remains unaddressed.
They are also the primary mechanism by which politicians absolve themselves of any need to make decisions - they kick the can down the road.
If we're lucky, they will produce coherent and workable recommendations.
If we're luckier, those recommendations will be translated into practice and/or regulation.
Usually over a decade or so while the underlying issue remains unaddressed.
They are also the primary mechanism by which politicians absolve themselves of any need to make decisions - they kick the can down the road.
Generally a huge waste of money IMO and, as the saying goes, never call a PI unless you already know the answer (and terms of ref are tightly buttoned down - see Covid inquiry where cost of lockdowns was not considered)
That said the post office inquiry did seem to get to the core of the issues
That said the post office inquiry did seem to get to the core of the issues
I think they're essentially a resetting of the rules for the way we govern (not me and you personally... the way our government governs)
All parties come to the table, swear to be truthful and have an honest conversation as best we can on a very significant matter.
The overriding result is one which all involved and close observers understand a fresh where the boundaries are, what people expect, how to conduct yourself in public office.
As mentioned above, some heads roll, some get a little hot around the collar... but primarily I think the truest of outcomes is as stated above. Just a new agreement on how we all behave.
All parties come to the table, swear to be truthful and have an honest conversation as best we can on a very significant matter.
The overriding result is one which all involved and close observers understand a fresh where the boundaries are, what people expect, how to conduct yourself in public office.
As mentioned above, some heads roll, some get a little hot around the collar... but primarily I think the truest of outcomes is as stated above. Just a new agreement on how we all behave.
What if we had no public inquiries? The public would be outraged. We live in a time when everyone seems to want to hold someone accountable, for everything.
Some inquiries contain tens of thousands of documents, have hundreds or even thousands of witnesses. They need to house all the processes physically, have security, even going down to the cost of tea and biscuits. Over the course of years to get through all this yes its expensive. A lot has been made of the legal costs, but they are what they are because its a legal process - if you build a house, it costs a fortune paying the builders.
Some inquiries can be expensive so you have to look at the cost-benefit equation of it. The problem is that the equation is not as simple as cost of inquiry vs compensation payout. For instance, if you asked a widow what the value is of her husbands murderer being caught tried and sent to prison, they might say that's priceless or doesn't have a value.
Its a growth industry because of the general public demanding more accountability, we see it in these types of forums, every time something goes wrong we have voices screaming for their heads. This cannot be done over a beer at the pub.
Some inquiries contain tens of thousands of documents, have hundreds or even thousands of witnesses. They need to house all the processes physically, have security, even going down to the cost of tea and biscuits. Over the course of years to get through all this yes its expensive. A lot has been made of the legal costs, but they are what they are because its a legal process - if you build a house, it costs a fortune paying the builders.
Some inquiries can be expensive so you have to look at the cost-benefit equation of it. The problem is that the equation is not as simple as cost of inquiry vs compensation payout. For instance, if you asked a widow what the value is of her husbands murderer being caught tried and sent to prison, they might say that's priceless or doesn't have a value.
Its a growth industry because of the general public demanding more accountability, we see it in these types of forums, every time something goes wrong we have voices screaming for their heads. This cannot be done over a beer at the pub.
Tango13 said:
They give us all a good chuckle when they inevitably roll out the 'Lessons will be learned' line of bulls
t knowing full well nothing will actually change.
This.t knowing full well nothing will actually change. They come up with inconclusive conclusions.
No one is ever found to be culpable or responsible - it's always "Institutional failings".
Important lessons are learned, new robust procedures are put into place.
Cost a small fortune.
Roll on a few years and "oh dear, here we go again".
Im sure some do, but many dont. The blood transfusion inquiry for instance even set up an interim compensation fund part way through as it was so obvious money was needed urgently for clearly wronged people, and lessons were learned from that.
Some may be poorly implemented in terms of outcomes, but others do have good implementation, to say ALL of them blanket dont is fundamentally incorrect.
Some may be poorly implemented in terms of outcomes, but others do have good implementation, to say ALL of them blanket dont is fundamentally incorrect.
over_the_hill said:
Tango13 said:
They give us all a good chuckle when they inevitably roll out the 'Lessons will be learned' line of bullst knowing full well nothing will actually change.
This.t knowing full well nothing will actually change. They come up with inconclusive conclusions.
No one is ever found to be culpable or responsible - it's always "Institutional failings".
Important lessons are learned, new robust procedures are put into place.
Cost a small fortune.
Roll on a few years and "oh dear, here we go again".
They are always flawed. The terms of reference normally miss the primary issues so things that matter don't get review. (Hutton inquiry was a classic).
There always seems a gap between the inquiry and criminal charges, they never seem to follow even when there seems a case to answer. Has any inquiry seen prosecutions follow?
You then have the time. From the time of the event that leads to it, to clearing up, to then ordering and inquiry to starting the inquiry to it finally reporting is normally several years. By this time things have moved on, people, jobs and legislation have changed so the outcome is almost irrelevant unless there is evidence of the problem still occurring (like grooming gangs).
As others say, they make it look as though something is being done. I'm sure there is a sir Humphrey on the issue somewhere.
There always seems a gap between the inquiry and criminal charges, they never seem to follow even when there seems a case to answer. Has any inquiry seen prosecutions follow?
You then have the time. From the time of the event that leads to it, to clearing up, to then ordering and inquiry to starting the inquiry to it finally reporting is normally several years. By this time things have moved on, people, jobs and legislation have changed so the outcome is almost irrelevant unless there is evidence of the problem still occurring (like grooming gangs).
As others say, they make it look as though something is being done. I'm sure there is a sir Humphrey on the issue somewhere.
I would imagine a lot of the lessons learned are invisible to most, unless you take a proper interest.
Like I said, if they did nothing the public response would be 'this is an outrage they are getting away with it'
If they do it cheap the response would be 'typical government, do a cheap and dirty superficial look at it and not uncover anything'
You really cant win.
Like I said, if they did nothing the public response would be 'this is an outrage they are getting away with it'
If they do it cheap the response would be 'typical government, do a cheap and dirty superficial look at it and not uncover anything'
You really cant win.
When I was in the police, there were a few enquiries where I met socially with some of those involved.
There was one officer whose role in an incident was heavily criticised, gave rise to a number of recommendations, and resulted in changes. I spoke with the officer, who was from another force, during a course i was on, this was about two years after the enquiry concluded. Theywas still bitter about it and willing to talk.
The officer, part of a specialised unit, went to the home address of the victim's NoK a day or two after the crime where, by all accounts, they got on well with the parents, if not others there. The following day they returned only to find bouncers on the door who refused to let them in or take a message. As per normal, they reported to a supervisory officer, who pushed it higher. The officer was told to stand down for the time being. They never returned, the NoK refusing to have anything to do with them or a replacement. It happens. It's their right.
I asked the officer what happened at the enquiry. They stated they were not called, nor were they asked for a statement, not even a duty statement. Yet they were one of the few officers criticised for not returning to the NoK, yet there was nothing else they could have done.
Two officers in a vehicle who were highly critical of how the initial incident was run were not asked to give evidence at their enquiry, despite submitting statements, which included their criticisms.
Many might feel the enquiry sifted the evidence to suit a conclusion decided on.
In another incident, this time involving lots of officers, many of whom were only too willing to talk of their experiences, there were a number of enquiries, a couple of which were 'independent'. Some statements were made in the conclusion which all those involved I spoke with, were designed to confuse. Any officer involved in day to day policing of similar events would be able to identify these misleading statements but, of course, they would, and have been, ignored or criticised for whitewashing the police.
Such manufactured conclusions are criminal to my mind. They ensure, almost as if it was the main intention, no fundamental changes are made to structures and procedures which would lower the chances of such things happening again. All that happens is that courses are created, officers are required to attend/sit in front of computers, and the myth is created that it is all resolved. But it ain't and will not be.
But people are satisfied. There's someone to blame, but in these two major incidents, the cause could not be levelled at individuals. Indeed, the second one was a clear systems failure yet everyone has an opinion about the sole cause of the catastrophe. I don't know why it is easier to blame a person when, rather obviously, if that person is replaced, their replacement is less likely to be as experienced, as tested.
Nothing changes.
Actually, that's not strictly the case. Individual officers, at least up to middle management, become more careful in similar incidents, if only to ensure blame can't be attached to them or the officers they are responsible for, so that lowers the chances of repetition. Well, slightly.
I never trust the conclusions of public enquiries, How could I when I know that some with useful information are stopped giving evidence.
There was one officer whose role in an incident was heavily criticised, gave rise to a number of recommendations, and resulted in changes. I spoke with the officer, who was from another force, during a course i was on, this was about two years after the enquiry concluded. Theywas still bitter about it and willing to talk.
The officer, part of a specialised unit, went to the home address of the victim's NoK a day or two after the crime where, by all accounts, they got on well with the parents, if not others there. The following day they returned only to find bouncers on the door who refused to let them in or take a message. As per normal, they reported to a supervisory officer, who pushed it higher. The officer was told to stand down for the time being. They never returned, the NoK refusing to have anything to do with them or a replacement. It happens. It's their right.
I asked the officer what happened at the enquiry. They stated they were not called, nor were they asked for a statement, not even a duty statement. Yet they were one of the few officers criticised for not returning to the NoK, yet there was nothing else they could have done.
Two officers in a vehicle who were highly critical of how the initial incident was run were not asked to give evidence at their enquiry, despite submitting statements, which included their criticisms.
Many might feel the enquiry sifted the evidence to suit a conclusion decided on.
In another incident, this time involving lots of officers, many of whom were only too willing to talk of their experiences, there were a number of enquiries, a couple of which were 'independent'. Some statements were made in the conclusion which all those involved I spoke with, were designed to confuse. Any officer involved in day to day policing of similar events would be able to identify these misleading statements but, of course, they would, and have been, ignored or criticised for whitewashing the police.
Such manufactured conclusions are criminal to my mind. They ensure, almost as if it was the main intention, no fundamental changes are made to structures and procedures which would lower the chances of such things happening again. All that happens is that courses are created, officers are required to attend/sit in front of computers, and the myth is created that it is all resolved. But it ain't and will not be.
But people are satisfied. There's someone to blame, but in these two major incidents, the cause could not be levelled at individuals. Indeed, the second one was a clear systems failure yet everyone has an opinion about the sole cause of the catastrophe. I don't know why it is easier to blame a person when, rather obviously, if that person is replaced, their replacement is less likely to be as experienced, as tested.
Nothing changes.
Actually, that's not strictly the case. Individual officers, at least up to middle management, become more careful in similar incidents, if only to ensure blame can't be attached to them or the officers they are responsible for, so that lowers the chances of repetition. Well, slightly.
I never trust the conclusions of public enquiries, How could I when I know that some with useful information are stopped giving evidence.
over_the_hill said:
This.
They come up with inconclusive conclusions.
No one is ever found to be culpable or responsible - it's always "Institutional failings".
Important lessons are learned, new robust procedures are put into place.
Cost a small fortune.
Roll on a few years and "oh dear, here we go again".
That's because you are looking for a nice easy "that person is guilty/wrong/bad" conclusion when usually the sort of situation a public enquiry is called to investigate is a messy and complicated morass of poor decisions based on poor data or knowledge. It is rare that one person, company or gov department is responsible for most of these, they are just a mix of human and technological failures.They come up with inconclusive conclusions.
No one is ever found to be culpable or responsible - it's always "Institutional failings".
Important lessons are learned, new robust procedures are put into place.
Cost a small fortune.
Roll on a few years and "oh dear, here we go again".
Have a read here of all the outcomes, work and data required to produce something from the infected blood scandal.
Compensation schemes are under way as part of 12 recommendations, many others are already devolved and being rolled out. Three rounds of compensation claims have been made and paid.
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/governm...
Dont get me wrong, some stuff never happens and its far from perfect, but if we didn't have an inquiry, nothing at all would happen.
Compensation schemes are under way as part of 12 recommendations, many others are already devolved and being rolled out. Three rounds of compensation claims have been made and paid.
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/governm...
Dont get me wrong, some stuff never happens and its far from perfect, but if we didn't have an inquiry, nothing at all would happen.
boyse7en said:
That's because you are looking for a nice easy "that person is guilty/wrong/bad" conclusion when usually the sort of situation a public enquiry is called to investigate is a messy and complicated morass of poor decisions based on poor data or knowledge. It is rare that one person, company or gov department is responsible for most of these, they are just a mix of human and technological failures.
Yes. Example being Manchester Arena Bombing inquiry resulted in a range of measures for public venues to undertake to improve security along with how emergency services respond to these events.mac96 said:
All to often it seems that at great cost they merely make public what the interested parties and where relevant everyone in the industry already knew.
Perfect example : Grenfell.
The very fact that all these things that everyone already knew is being starkly laid out (helped by a large dose of grandstanding lawyers being involved) is itself I suppose the whole point of the things - it then (hopefully anyway) ensures that they don't get repeated because there is sufficient will and motivation to make sure it doesn't and if it doesn't prove to be the case, perhaps people then need to be reminded again of all those failings.....Perfect example : Grenfell.
I understand the reasons for having public inquiries; I also recognise the positive outcomes that can result from them.
However, it’s quite clear that those taking part have received legal council/coaching, irrespective of the need for such intervention, this somewhat defeats the objective.
I think at a certain level, what they achieve is to reinforce the ‘public's’ opinion, that politicians/officials are more interested in saving their bacon, than finding resolutions to the shortfalls.
The ‘Covid 19 inquiry’ came out with a clear set of guidelines on how a future response should be enacted if such a situation occurs again.
However, to get to that, we had to go through hours of obfuscation from elected member/officials, which is now de rigueur for such inquiries.
“Here we go, what the list of excuses/lies this time?"
A serious simplification of the process is needed!
However, it’s quite clear that those taking part have received legal council/coaching, irrespective of the need for such intervention, this somewhat defeats the objective.
I think at a certain level, what they achieve is to reinforce the ‘public's’ opinion, that politicians/officials are more interested in saving their bacon, than finding resolutions to the shortfalls.
The ‘Covid 19 inquiry’ came out with a clear set of guidelines on how a future response should be enacted if such a situation occurs again.
However, to get to that, we had to go through hours of obfuscation from elected member/officials, which is now de rigueur for such inquiries.
“Here we go, what the list of excuses/lies this time?"
A serious simplification of the process is needed!
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff