Final Report > Chapter 2: The Conduct of the Inquiry > The purposes of a Public Inquiry

The purposes of a Public Inquiry

10 Lord Justice Clarke in the introduction to his Thames Safety Inquiry report [5] identified two principal purposes. First, a Public Inquiry should seek to restore public confidence by carrying out `a full, fair and fearless investigation into the relevant events'. [6] Nothing should be swept under the carpet. Secondly, a Public Inquiry should identify lessons to be learned. We broadly agree with these two purposes but wish both to put our gloss on Lord Justice Clarke's observations and to add what to us are other important purposes.

11 Lord Justice Clarke talks of identifying `the truth'. We would only remark that, in the sorts of circumstances giving rise to Public Inquiries, it may be rare for there to be `one truth'. There are often a number of `truths', all held with sincere conviction by those advancing them. This is particularly so, and particularly important to recognise, when looking back over a number a years to events which have since taken on an importance perhaps not recognised at the time. To cite one example, we heard on a number of occasions different accounts of what was said by a doctor to a parent about the risks and prospects for success of surgery. Sometimes the recollections are significantly at variance. We do not necessarily draw from this the conclusion that one person is not `telling the truth'. Rather, we recognise that both may be telling `their truth', which they are convinced is accurate, and are doing so in all sincerity. To understand this and to communicate this notion of truth and differing but honest beliefs, both to those involved in the Public Inquiry and to the public at large, is almost as important a task for the Inquiry as to seek to uncover and set out the story as we see it. And, of course, to recognise this complexity is not at odds with taking a robust view of the evidence when this is called for. Nor does it prevent an Inquiry from saying what went wrong, why, and what we must learn.

12 When Lord Justice Clarke talks of restoring public confidence, we would add from our experience that a Public Inquiry of itself cannot, and perhaps should not seek to restore public confidence. The public's confidence in any particular organisation's, or even government's, role in any particular area has to be won. Indeed, a Public Inquiry may reach the view that confidence is not deserved unless certain actions are taken. It is here, as Lord Justice Clarke observes, that learning the lessons of the past comes in, and, of course, the framing of recommendations to give effect to those lessons.

13 In addition to these purposes of a Public Inquiry outlined by Lord Justice Clarke, we draw attention to the other, more subtle, but in our view equally important, purposes referred to by Lord Howe in a paper he gave in 1998. Referring to a collection of essays published under the title `Inquiries after Homicide', [7] he states: `First of the many insights offered by this book is the identification of at least four functions that can be served by the process of inquiry: learning, discipline, catharsis, and reassurance.' He points out that `they can be, indeed often are, in conflict.' He refers to the process of seeking someone to blame as serving `to divert attention from what could be the most important cause of all, namely some underlying or pervasive managerial, administrative or financial failure.' He quotes Sir Cecil Clothier QC: `Whenever some great disaster befalls the human race, the instinctive reaction of most people is to seek its cause and try to prevent a recurrence. But behind this civilised response there lies a darker motivation as old as time - the urge to lay blame.'

14 Whatever its particular terms of reference, a Public Inquiry should attempt to promote understanding, not only of what may have gone on, but also what led to the events which are the subject matter of the Inquiry, and what may have been the motives and intentions of those involved. In this way, the complexities that surround all events and actions can be exposed and explored. The black and white certainties advanced by some may be shown to be illusory and unhelpful.

15 A Public Inquiry should aim, indeed it may be as much a duty as a purpose, to be a means whereby all those affected by the events under investigation can feel that their concerns have been aired and heard and that life can move on. It is commonly the case that events leave those touched by them in some kind of personal limbo, prevented by the past from creating a future. We found this to be particularly the case in our Inquiry: not just parents and doctors, but a hospital trust and even a city were caught up in the Inquiry. Thus, one purpose we saw the Inquiry as fulfilling was to allow everyone, in their own way, the opportunity to come to terms with the events at the UBH/T. In this way, the process of healing could begin.

16 Further, a Public Inquiry, whatever its formal terms of reference, offers the opportunity for a form of communal catharsis. The importance of this purpose should not be undervalued. It offers an opportunity for those in authority to be held to account; it allows for the public venting of anger, distress and frustration; it provides a public stage on which this can take place. Recognising this purpose has significant implications for the way in which the Public Inquiry is conducted: the more it is designed and organised to allow these objectives to be realised in a controlled and formal context, the more the public will feel that the Inquiry is acting in their interest. The more these objectives are frustrated, the less content the public will be. The more, for example, that a Public Inquiry is made to look like a court of law, and behaves like a court of law, in which certain professionals (particularly lawyers) feel comfortable, the more likely the public will feel excluded and conclude that the Inquiry was not really for them. The Inquiry must strive to be inclusive. It must strive to avoid designating groups or individuals as `parties'. That is to suggest adversaries and to invite adversaries. Instead, all who can assist should be enabled to do so and should be seen as `participants' in the process of seeking to understand.

Footnotes

[5] Thames Safety Inquiry Final Report, February 2000 (Cm 4558)

[6] Lord Justice Clarke

[7] Edited by Jill Peay, London: Duckworth, 1996