Statutory public inquiries…a growing trend?

Introduction

In recent years the number of public inquiries in the U.K has increased significantly. Several high-profile scandals have generated significant public interest in an independent investigation to provide answers and accountability. James Camidge - a solicitor in Weightmans’ Regulatory and Public Inquiries Team - explores the growing use of statutory public inquiries and what this tells us about the future of public investigations.
This article explores the factors contributing to this rise in public inquiries, explains the differences between a statutory and non-statutory inquiry and examines examples where non-statutory inquiries have been converted and what this tells us about the future of public investigations.

Increase in public inquiries

Over the past two decades, inquiries have become a prominent feature of public life. Often dominating news cycles and public discourse, the public appear more engaged in demanding scrutiny of institutions. In this context, the decision to establish a public inquiry can serve as a powerful political tool—allowing governments to acknowledge public concern and appear responsive, while deferring substantive policymaking until after the inquiry’s findings are published.

Public opinion plays a central role in whether an inquiry is established and how it is conducted. In the age of social media, the voices of victims and campaigners can reach a national audience quickly.  Stories that may once have been overlooked can now rapidly rise to the top of the political agenda, placing pressure on ministers to act. This environment has helped fuel a significant increase in inquiries: between 2017 and 2025, 19 inquiries were announced, the same number as announced between 1960 and 1990. Today there are more ongoing concurrent inquiries than ever before.

Although inquiries are a legal process, they are bound up in politics. Inquiries are established by government ministers (or the relevant secretary of state for a statutory inquiry) who oversee  the scope of the investigation through the setting of the terms of reference. The question of whether an inquiry should be held can also be politicised, as seen with recent calls for a national inquiry into grooming gangs. There is therefore a link between inquiries and the political climate. 

Statutory vs non-statutory

While both statutory and non-statutory inquiries aim to uncover the truth and provide recommendations for the future, they differ significantly in their legal frameworks and the powers conferred to judges. Statutory inquiries established under the Inquiries Act 2005 offer much stronger legal powers. The chair can compel witnesses to provide oral and written evidence, with a criminal sanction in the event of non-compliance. Witnesses at a statutory inquiry take an oath and can face contempt of court proceedings should they make a deliberately false statement in evidence. Although the chair has broad discretion in how evidence is heard, they must operate within the confines of the inquiry rules. 

Non-statutory inquiries operate outside of the procedural framework of the Inquiries Act. They allow for private hearings, and lack the power to compel evidence from witnesses, who do not take an oath during evidence. This means they rely entirely on the co-operation of parties. It is for this reason that family representatives and campaigners will often push for the rigorous powers that can only be accommodated by a statutory inquiry. 

There are numerous examples of inquiries beginning as non-statutory before being converted to statutory, often in response to public pressure. Examples include :

• Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse (IICSA): this inquiry was established in 2014 as non-statutory to examine how institutions handled their duty of care to protect children from sexual abuse. It was converted to a statutory footing in 2015 after demands from victims’ groups that it should have the power to compel witnesses to give evidence
• Post Office Horizon IT Inquiry: the inquiry into the Post Office scandal was announced in 2020 as non-statutory. However, in 2021 the chair requested the inquiry be converted to facilitate a proper assessment of the facts and ensure that parties were compliant with disclosure obligations
• Lampard Inquiry: this inquiry is investigating mental health inpatient deaths in Essex and was established in January 2021 as a non-statutory inquiry. It was converted in June 2023 due to concerns from the previous chair that the inquiry would not be able to meet its terms of reference with non-statutory status, due to the low level of witness engagement it had received
• Thirlwall Inquiry: this inquiry was established after the conviction of former neonatal nurse Lucy Letby and examined the events at the Countess of Chester Hospital. Originally announced as non-statutory in August 2023, it was made statutory within weeks after concerns were raised from the bereaved families about the adequacy of a non-statutory investigation.

Such examples suggest that the role of a judge-led, non-statutory inquiry, is diminished in an age in which families and the public demand more transparent and robust investigations into issues of serious public concern. The trend also indicates a lack of confidence in the ability of a non-statutory inquiry to fulfil its core purpose.

Conclusion

The rising frequency of inquiries reflects a shift in the public’s expectations of transparency and how governments respond to matters of public concern. In the modern age of technology, we can expect inquiries will continue to shape the UK’s political landscape. Recent high-profile cases suggest an unwillingness of the public and family groups to accept an inquiry without a statutory framework.

 
Any preparation for a future inquiry should therefore consider the evidential requirements imposed by a full statutory inquiry, even if the process begins within a non-statutory framework. Effective preparation would ensure that parties are aware at an early stage of the potential requirements in producing disclosure that are imposed by the statutory framework.