A lecture given to the Public Management & Policy Association (PMPA) - Effective Inquiries by Michael Bichard

By Sir Michael Bichard KCB FInstCPD (Hon)
Rector of the University of the Arts London and a member of the Institute's Advisory Group.

28th February 2005

The Bichard Inquiry
The Bichard Inquiry was set up following the conviction of Ian Huntley for the murders of Holly Wells and Jessica Chapman in Soham, Cambridgeshire. Huntley was a school caretaker at Soham Village College and had been subject to vetting for the post, including police checks. These revealed no relevant information about him. Huntley had previously lived for some time in Humberside and after the verdict, Humberside Police disclosed that between 1995 and 1999 there had been a series of incidents involving allegations of sexual offences committed by Huntley.

The Inquiry examined the effectiveness of Humberside and Cambridgeshire police forces' relevant intelligence-based record keeping, vetting practices and information sharing with other agencies. The Bichard Inquiry Report draws conclusions on these matters and makes recommendations that are relevant for police, social services, education establishments, vetting departments and the Government to protect children and the vulnerable nationally.

EFFECTIVE INQUIRIES

Although the Inquiry I chaired last year dealt with issues about which the public felt justifiably angry, it was not as complex as some other recent Inquiries, not least because it lacked a strongly political dimension. In that sense my task was considerably easier than others I have faced. Nonetheless there were, I think, lessons, some of which at least have wider relevance to the successful management of other Inquiries. This article gives a brief overview:

The Terms of Reference
Time was taken to ensure that the terms of reference were focused, but at the same time allowed some space in which to draw conclusions and make recommendations about local and national policy systems and performance. In the period before publication, when drafts were circulated to individuals criticised in the Report, I received several challenges to the conclusions. A number of these sought to establish that the terms of reference were not broad enough to allow me to comment in the way I had. We were able to resist these challenges successfully because of the way in which the terms of reference had been drafted.

Momentum
The Inquiry was established on the 18 December 2003; requested evidence in early January for return by end of January 2004; met to outline the issues on 26 February 2004 and heard witnesses between 1 and 30 March (15 working days). The final Report was published on 22 June 2004. A sense of urgency was maintained throughout, which helped to persuade the parties to avoid wherever possible bureaucratic approaches. Legal representation was kept to a reasonable level. When the Report was published, public interest remained high which helped ensure support for the recommendations.

The Team
Although I sat alone and took sole responsibility for the Report, a small team of officials and two outstanding counsel supported me. In fact, the selection of the team in particular was serendipitous. We were, however, able to build strong commitment, which was reflected in the long hours worked by many members and their determination to work to very high standards. A strong supporting team is vital to a successful Inquiry.

Accommodation and Technology
We were able quickly to negotiate excellent accommodation not fully occupied for a temporary period by the Independent Police Complaints Commission. We also took care to obtain high-quality technology, which enabled the Inquiry to quickly file and reference the 2000 documents received and to ensure that evidence was simultaneously transcribed for the benefit of the Inquiry team, the media and other observers. The chairman, counsel and Inquiry team members were also able to communicate confidentially during the oral evidence using the available technology. All this was intended to give the impression of professionalism and was, I know, especially welcomed by the media who were able to absorb more easily the considerable amounts of material referred to during the oral hearings. It also meant that we were able to respond quickly throughout the Inquiry to requests for information and were quick to redirect documents where necessary, for example to maintain individual's privacy.

Media
We took seriously our responsibilities to the media as important purveyors to the public of the thoroughness and fairness with which the Inquiry went about its business. I judged that it was important that they should receive a professional service without at any time pandering to them or causing any risk of unfairness to witnesses.

Criticised Parties
As is I think the norm, I allowed criticised parties an opportunity to see relevant (but only relevant) parts of the Report in advance of publication so long as they signed a confidentiality agreement. Only one party refused that offer and the process helped ensure that the final Report was entirely accurate, as well as reassuring the parties that the Report was fair. This was an important part of the process.

Recommendations
The Report contained only 31 recommendations, of which five were highlighted as priorities. This focus enabled the media and the public to understand better the most significant issues and build support for action. Each recommendation was also allocated to a department/organization to lead an implementation. I used the period from the completion of a first draft Report (in mid April 2004) to publication trying to ensure that all the recommendations were feasible and that wherever possible there was support for them. This helped create considerable consensus when the Report was published but could have led to criticism because of a perceived loss of independence.

Review
I decided that I should review the progress on recommendations six months after publication. I am not sure that has happened before but seemed sensible if the objective was to achieve real change. Therefore I wrote recently to the parties seeking a report on progress and will publish a report on this in March. I have no specific power to do so but all parties have indicated that they will respond. I have been told by senior civil servants that the prospect of a public review has concentrated minds since June 2004 and I hope to be able to report positively on progress.

None of this is rocket science, but the success of an Inquiry depends on getting the basics right - and there is precious little to help new chairmen in that task.

The PMPA is a national membership organisation dedicated to helping managers, policy makers and academics keep in touch with and understand the wider cross-cutting developments in public policy making. The above lecture is one of a series featuring leading figures from across the sectors and focusing on the key issues of the day. Corporate and Individual membership is available - see the website for details of benefits of membership.

Public Management and Policy Association
The Bichard Inquiry