Lessons for Good Public Inquiries: The Problem of the Scapegoat for the Performance of the Public Sector

Public Inquiries are often the last resort in a crisis. Proponents argue that they find facts, learn lessons and reestablish public trust in the public sector. However, in previous research we have suggested a number of... [ view full abstract ]

Public Inquiries are often the last resort in a crisis. Proponents argue that they find facts, learn lessons and reestablish public trust in the public sector. However, in previous research we have suggested a number of drivers for the establishment of public inquiry in the UK. These stringent requirements necessitate a full statutory investigation of the public sector but, in reality, fail to coalesce on a regular basis. Building upon this work, we have shown that a public inquiry does not always induce successful results in the area and should not automatically be hailed as a mode of performance improvement for the public sector. Using comparative domestic examples such as the Macpherson report and Mid Staffs, we highlight the often ineffectual nature of public inquiries in dealing with wicked social problems such as racism or the treatment of whistle blowing in the policing and healthcare sectors respectively. Tacking these deficiencies instead demands a comprehensive web of instruments, in order to avoid the scapegoating of individuals and the protection of the organization more generally. This paper therefore traces three key trends observed in the course of reporting - namely inadequate staffing and/or training, inappropriate conduct of senior officials and micro-level attribution of blame – and acknowledges the overriding factor that the results of public inquiries tend to favour the reproach of bad apples rather than bad barrels. This reporting, although partially restoring public confidence in the matter and providing so-called ‘knowledge’ of the issue for society at large, provides only limited scope for improvement for the public sector.