*/
With terminology often used loosely in this arena, Kate Brunner KC and Lana Murphy – fresh from their experience in the Isle of Man COVID Review – examine the principal differences as well as ongoing criticism of the existing inquiries regime
While the UK COVID-19 Inquiry marches on, a much smaller investigation into the handling of the pandemic by a government of the British Isles has been completed. The Independent Isle of Man COVID Review, of which the authors of this article were the chair and lead researcher, was a wide-ranging investigation which was completed within 15 months, and cost just over £1.5 million.
Terminology is often used loosely in this arena. Reviews and inquiries are both independent processes to investigate an event or situation. A statutory inquiry is a specific type of investigation set up by a government minister under the Inquiries Act 2005. The term ‘independent review’ is used for any other independent investigation, whether instigated by a government, a company or organisation. The term ‘non-statutory inquiry’ is sometimes used to describe a large independent review which has been set up by a government.
The principal differences between an independent review (like the Independent Isle of Man COVID Review) and a statutory inquiry (like the UK COVID-19 Inquiry) are set out below:
Although the number of statutory inquiries is increasing, there has been unease about the regime under the Inquiries Act 2005 for years. Scrutiny of the Act by the House of Lords led to a report published in 2014 with 33 recommendations, of which 19 were accepted by government – although some have still not been implemented.
Concerns raised then are being aired again, a decade later, in a current review of the inquiries regime. The House of Lords Statutory Inquiries Committee was set up in January 2024 to ‘consider the efficacy of the law and practice’ relating to inquiries under the Inquiries Act 2005. Issues which are likely to be at the forefront of that committee’s considerations include:
The Lords Committee will no doubt evaluate the advantages of non-statutory inquiries or reviews. Reviews are generally faster because the procedure is flexible, does not require sequential witness evidence, and is not slowed down by legal interventions. Perhaps as a direct result, there is no government presumption that a statutory inquiry should be the preferred model: as an example when setting up the Sarah Everard non-statutory inquiry the Home Secretary made explicit reference to ‘the need to provide assurance as swiftly as possible’. Reviews are also cheaper: partly because they are faster, partly because there are no core participants who can bring associated costs to the public purse, and partly because they can operate with less space and smaller teams.
Plainly there are some instances where the public and formal nature of a statutory inquiry trumps all other methods. A review can seek to be as transparent as possible, as we did in the Isle of Man (see box), through public engagement and publishing a large volume of material including transcripts of interviews, but ultimately it was not an exercise carried out in the public sphere.
UK government investigations, whether statutory or not, share a limitation which is out of the control of any chair. There is no formal and transparent system for following up recommendations and holding governments to account. The NAO reported in 2018, having analysed both statutory and non-statutory inquiries, that an estimated 55% of inquiry recommendations in UK and devolved administrations had not been accepted by government. Many recommendations had been rejected without explanation or acknowledged with Delphic phrasing such as ‘accepted in principle’ but not implemented. The Lords Committee will no doubt tackle that issue. It remains to be seen whether its recommendations gain more traction than previous attempts to regularise and streamline the inquiries process.
While the UK COVID-19 Inquiry marches on, a much smaller investigation into the handling of the pandemic by a government of the British Isles has been completed. The Independent Isle of Man COVID Review, of which the authors of this article were the chair and lead researcher, was a wide-ranging investigation which was completed within 15 months, and cost just over £1.5 million.
Terminology is often used loosely in this arena. Reviews and inquiries are both independent processes to investigate an event or situation. A statutory inquiry is a specific type of investigation set up by a government minister under the Inquiries Act 2005. The term ‘independent review’ is used for any other independent investigation, whether instigated by a government, a company or organisation. The term ‘non-statutory inquiry’ is sometimes used to describe a large independent review which has been set up by a government.
The principal differences between an independent review (like the Independent Isle of Man COVID Review) and a statutory inquiry (like the UK COVID-19 Inquiry) are set out below:
Although the number of statutory inquiries is increasing, there has been unease about the regime under the Inquiries Act 2005 for years. Scrutiny of the Act by the House of Lords led to a report published in 2014 with 33 recommendations, of which 19 were accepted by government – although some have still not been implemented.
Concerns raised then are being aired again, a decade later, in a current review of the inquiries regime. The House of Lords Statutory Inquiries Committee was set up in January 2024 to ‘consider the efficacy of the law and practice’ relating to inquiries under the Inquiries Act 2005. Issues which are likely to be at the forefront of that committee’s considerations include:
The Lords Committee will no doubt evaluate the advantages of non-statutory inquiries or reviews. Reviews are generally faster because the procedure is flexible, does not require sequential witness evidence, and is not slowed down by legal interventions. Perhaps as a direct result, there is no government presumption that a statutory inquiry should be the preferred model: as an example when setting up the Sarah Everard non-statutory inquiry the Home Secretary made explicit reference to ‘the need to provide assurance as swiftly as possible’. Reviews are also cheaper: partly because they are faster, partly because there are no core participants who can bring associated costs to the public purse, and partly because they can operate with less space and smaller teams.
Plainly there are some instances where the public and formal nature of a statutory inquiry trumps all other methods. A review can seek to be as transparent as possible, as we did in the Isle of Man (see box), through public engagement and publishing a large volume of material including transcripts of interviews, but ultimately it was not an exercise carried out in the public sphere.
UK government investigations, whether statutory or not, share a limitation which is out of the control of any chair. There is no formal and transparent system for following up recommendations and holding governments to account. The NAO reported in 2018, having analysed both statutory and non-statutory inquiries, that an estimated 55% of inquiry recommendations in UK and devolved administrations had not been accepted by government. Many recommendations had been rejected without explanation or acknowledged with Delphic phrasing such as ‘accepted in principle’ but not implemented. The Lords Committee will no doubt tackle that issue. It remains to be seen whether its recommendations gain more traction than previous attempts to regularise and streamline the inquiries process.
With terminology often used loosely in this arena, Kate Brunner KC and Lana Murphy – fresh from their experience in the Isle of Man COVID Review – examine the principal differences as well as ongoing criticism of the existing inquiries regime
Efforts continue on gender equality, support for the Bar, meaningful reform for the sector and advocating for the rule of law
To mark International Women’s Day, Louise Crush of Westgate Wealth Management looks at how financial planning can help bridge the gap
Casey Randall of AlphaBiolabs answers some of the most common questions regarding relationship DNA testing for court
Leading drug, alcohol and DNA testing laboratory AlphaBiolabs has made a £500 donation to Beatson Cancer Charity in Glasgow as part of its Giving Back campaign
Girls Human Rights Festival 2025: a global gathering for change
Exclusive Q&A with Henry Dannell
Patrick Green KC talks about the landmark Post Office Group litigation and his driving principles for life and practice. Interview by Anthony Inglese CB
Desiree Artesi meets Malcolm Bishop KC, the Lord Chief Justice of Tonga, who talks about his new role in the South Pacific and reflects on his career
Sir Nicholas Mostyn, former High Court judge, on starting a hit podcast with fellow ‘Parkies’ after the shock of his diagnosis
Exclusive QA with Henry Dannell
Once you submit your silk application, what happens next? Sir Paul Morgan explains each stage of the process and reflects on his experience as a member of the KC Selection Panel