Local Inquiries: What do they mean and what might they do?

In January 2025, the Home Secretary Yvette Cooper announced a plan to fund work on five inquiries to explore allegations into failures by local services and police forces to adequately address child sexual exploitation and other sexual abuse.[1] These were described as “victim-centred locally-led inquiries”, to be based on the work done by the Telford Inquiry chaired by Tom Crowther KC, and implemented at Oldham Council and four other pilot areas. in mid-March 2025, the Government advised that an update would be coming soon and likely pre-Easter.[2]

What does a local inquiry look like in practice and in general, what are the benefits of inquiries at all? Inquiries have faced public scrutiny and attention for their effectiveness,[3] with increasing inquiries in the public eye, from the high-profile Post Office Inquiry to the Covid Inquiry, to the long-running Undercover Policing Inquiry, and the recently completed Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse (“IICSA”) amongst many others. Clearly, an inquiry is not a substitute for a full criminal trial; nor is it a means of achieving compensation as in a civil trial. However, what an inquiry offers is an opportunity to methodically investigate issues without the constraints of the legal rules and processes of civil or criminal litigation - and at times challenging the very adequacy and appropriateness of those legal systems.

Inquiries: what forms are there and what can they do?

There is significant flexibility about the structure of inquiries. 

A statutory inquiry is created formally by the Government under the Inquiries Act 2005 and subject to the associated rules and processes in the Inquiry Rules 2006. As a general overview, a statutory inquiry has specific legal powers under the Act and Rules such as the power to compel witnesses to attend hearings, give evidence under oath and produce relevant documents (ss 17 and 21)[4] with sanctions for non-compliance (s 35). Public inquiries usually have publicly accessible hearings.

Another important element of public statutory inquiries is the ability to designate people with particular interest or roles in relation to the subject matter of the inquiry as core participants (Inquiry Rules 2006, rule 5). Core participants have rights within the inquiry process and are generally legally represented. They are entitled to make opening and closing statements to an inquiry (Rule 11) and usually are provided with information gathered by the inquiry, can suggest or even ask questions of witnesses, and often receive advance notice of the inquiry’s report. Core participants can receive public funding to engage in the inquiry (see e.g. rules 20-34). The Inquiries Act and Inquiries Rules therefore provide some baseline provisions to allow (and compel, where needed) engagement by key actors relevant to an issue.

A non-statutory public inquiry by contrast is an inquiry established by the Government but not made under the Inquiries Act (or other relevant Act). The establishment and concomitant rules and processes for an “ad hoc” non-statutory public inquiry differ on a case-by-case basis. For example, following recent judicial review proceedings challenging the use of a non-statutory inquiry for an investigation into immigration detention facilities at Manston, the Home Secretary has committed that the inquiry will nevertheless include funded representation, providing access to documents and other information to individuals participating in the inquiry where necessary for compliance with Article 3 of the ECHR, and for some level of public hearings.[5]

Fundamentally, local inquiries will be functionally equivalent to a non-statutory public inquiry. There is similarly no set model and each local authority may ultimately decide on a slightly different structure which best fits local processes. There will be no statutory power to compel witnesses and other statutory powers of a Chair or panel but any other processes may be adopted.

Under any model, what is crucial to an inquiry that there is sufficient time, capacity and support provided for a dedicated panel or Chair to methodically investigate the matter in issue and sufficient independence for that panel or Chair to come to full and fearless findings. While there has been a tendency toward implementing public inquiries in recent years,[6] and they offer obvious benefits, in principle non-statutory inquiries can reach extensive and critical conclusions (for example, the Daniel Morgan Inquiry). It is also crucial that there is scope for affected people to properly engage and on a fair basis to other inquiry participants, particularly state bodies who are therefore state funded. As is clear from the Manston Inquiry, albeit not without requiring challenge, a a non-statutory inquiry may adopt elements of a statutory inquiry (such as public funding) where necessary to comply with other legal duties and in the interest of fairness. 

Criticisms of inquiries

A general criticism posed at inquiries is to query what value they add, particularly given their cost, the extended timelines and when other criminal investigations or extensive media reporting has already taken place. However, a core benefit of an inquiry is the ability to look at a wide range of intersecting public systems and their impacts collectively. That allows a much wider focus than more limited organisation-specific investigations or in criminal proceedings. For example, in the Lucy Letby inquiry, the Chair is able to explore issues about hospital management which range well beyond what could have been explored in the criminal trial. Unsurprisingly, a systems analysis often highlights issues of concern well beyond the decisions or failures of individual criminal actors and requires sufficient time to work through.

One important feature of an inquiry is also to query fixed rules and assumptions about seemingly well-established processes, including any inadequacies in the criminal or civil legal system. Assumptions or rules may be baked into the legal system or charging processes themselves and which need to be challenged or reconsidered. Again, the recent decision to change the time limits for bringing civil proceedings for child sexual abuse emerged from the IICSA findings;[7] in an international context, senior Government legal decision-makers have come under serious criticism in inquiries for taking formal and legalistic approaches to historic sexual abuse litigation including by overly relying on limitation defences.[8] 

Another common criticism, particularly given the plethora of inquiries in recent years, is how the recommendations of these careful reviews are acted on by the Government of the day (or other relevant decision-maker). There has been understandable consternation that many of the recommendations from the IICSA report were left unaddressed until there had been considerable public outcry. These are reasonable concerns and there is clearly a need for better accountability mechanisms to ensure that Parliament is actively considering and responding to the conclusions of reports from inquiries of all types. In this respect, it is notable that the Home Secretary, announcing the “locally-led inquiries” has confirmed that as part of developing these inquiries, the Government will work to “bolster the accountability mechanisms that can support and follow up local inquiries”. What this looks like in practice remains to be seen but it is encouraging that decision-makers have recognised the need to ensure robust scrutiny and accountability after any inquiry concludes.

Locally-led inquiries

Given the subject matter of these intended local inquiries, there is a real need to ensure that victims and their families are at the heart of the process. These are victims of incredibly serious sexual abuse, potential failures by police and other local authority actors, all of which likely engages their rights under Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights and the Human Rights Act 1998. There is both a moral and legal obligation to ensure their voices are fully heard.

Meeting those obligations will require a process of consultation and negotiation before final forms of these local inquiries are determined. That is crucial in terms of the state’s legal obligation to conduct Article 3 compliant investigations. As was (belatedly) recognised in the Manston Inquiry, it is also likely that will require allowing victims and in particular to seek funded legal representation to help them receive advice navigating no doubt complex bureaucratic systems. It will require ensuring systems of disclosure are in place and robust plans are established for ensuring the frank and open participation of decision-makers. 

Perhaps equally importantly, that same consultation and negotiation with affected groups is also crucial to ensuring that these processes have the legitimacy they need to be effective. Unless the affected communities and victims have trust and confidence in the processes to give them a fair hearing and chance to explore the potentially systemic failures they have experienced, no inquiry can be successful. The need for consultation and engagement is all the more so when an ad hoc process outside the rigours of the Inquiries Act 2005 is being developed. Again, these principles may have to some degree been recognised in the Home Secretary’s announcement that these local inquiries will be developed in a “victim-centred” manner. Precisely what that looks like in process, and the extent to which it gains public support and legitimacy, therefore remains to be seen.

_______________________________________________________________________

[1] Yvette Cooper Oral Statement to Parliament, https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/next-steps-to-tackle-child-sexual-exploitation

[2] Rhiannon James, ‘Locations of grooming gang inquiries to be revealed ‘very soon’ – minister’ (19 March 2025) The Independent, https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/mims-davies-jess-phillips-labour-government-oldham-b2718049.html

[3] See, for example, The Spectator, ‘What’s the Point of Public Inquiries’ (11 January 2025), https://www.spectator.co.uk/podcast/whats-the-point-of-public-inquiries/; Haroon Siddique, ‘Do public inquiries work? What comes after Grenfell and other UK disasters’ (6 September 2024), https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/article/2024/sep/06/do-public-inquiries-work-what-comes-after-grenfell-and-other-uk-disasters; and Kate Whannel, ‘Public inquiries not delivering change, report warns’ (16 September 2024), https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cy767y0y6dzo.

[4] The extent of those powers were recently tested in the Covid Inquiry’s request for WhatsApp messages between ex-Prime Minister Boris Johnson and his advisers in Cabinet Office v Chair of the Covid Inquiry [2023] EWHC 1702 (Admin).

[5] See in more detail Jed Pennington, ‘Home Office settles Manston inquiry judicial review’ (17 January 2025), https://freemovement.org.uk/home-office-settles-manston-inquiry-judicial-review/.

[6] A Commons Library research briefing from January 2024 indicates that, while 10 of the 37 public inquiries announced between 2005 and 2017 were non-statutory, only one of those non-statutory inquiries was launched after 2014 as opposed to nine new 2005 Act inquiries. See https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/sn02599/.

[7] See Rajeev Syal, ‘‘Watershed moment’ as three-year time limit on child rape claims scrapped in England and Wales’ (5 February 2025), https://www.theguardian.com/law/2025/feb/05/watershed-moment-as-three-year-time-limit-on-child-claims-scrapped-in-england-and-wales.

[8] See the apology issued by Crown Law (the Government’s legal department) in New Zealand, available at https://www.crownlaw.govt.nz/home/apology-to-survivors-of-abuse-in-care.