Final Report > Chapter 2: The Conduct of the Inquiry > Features of a Public Inquiry > Statutory powers

Statutory powers

4 In conducting our Inquiry we were aided by the fact that we were appointed under a statute [1] and, as a consequence, had powers which that statute conferred on us. In particular, we had the power, if necessary, to compel witnesses to attend hearings and require that documents be produced, powers which we only used once (although on two further occasions we had to remind witnesses that we could and would use them). Secondly, we had the power to take evidence on oath or affirmation. We found these powers, particularly the former, essential (if only to be held in reserve). Their existence assured us of compliance, without our having to use them. We are aware that other Public Inquiries have been conducted without such powers (Lord Justice Scott's Inquiry and the BSE Inquiry). [2] We take the view, however, that the powers which we enjoyed are essential for at least two reasons. First, Public Inquiries are almost always established to look into a matter of grave public concern. We think it most important in the process of addressing that concern to be able to show that stones will not be left unturned. In this way confidence in the Inquiry can be more readily obtained. Secondly, we are convinced that, in the circumstances which we were faced with, our having these powers, albeit in reserve, allowed us to achieve the very high level of co-operation which we believe would not otherwise have been the case.

Footnotes

[1] The National Health Service Act 1977; see Annex A, Chapter 1

[2] The Inquiry into exports of defence equipment to Iraq, 1996 (Cmnd HC 115 ); The Inquiry into BSE and variant CJD in the United Kingdom. House of Commons, October 2000. In each of these Inquiries assurances were given that, if statutory powers were needed, they would be granted