The Inquiries Act 2005 (c. 12) is an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom. According to the explanatory notes, published by the Department for Constitutional Affairs, the Act "is intended to provide a comprehensive statutory framework for inquiries set up by Ministers to look into matters of public concern".^[4]

The act repealed the entirety of the Tribunals of Inquiry (Evidence) Act 1921, a much shorter bill that also empowered Ministers to set up so-called statutory inquiries.^[5]

The act was motivated in part by the spiraling costs of the Bloody Sunday Inquiry and a desire to control the length and cost of future inquiries.^[6] The act has been criticised by a number of groups and individuals, generally concerned with the power ministers have over the remit of the inquiry and the publication of its final report.^[7][8]

The Parliament of the United Kingdom's Joint Committee on Human Rights has voiced concerns about certain aspects of the Act,^[9] as have the Law Society of England and Wales.^[10]

Amnesty International has asked members of the British judiciary not to serve on any inquiry held under the Act, as they contend that "any inquiry would be controlled by the executive which is empowered to block public scrutiny of state actions."^[7]

The family of Pat Finucane, a solicitor killed by loyalist paramilitaries in Belfast in suspicious circumstances, have announced they will not be co-operating with a forthcoming inquiry into the events surrounding his death if it is held under the terms of the Act.^[11]

The Canadian Judge Peter Cory, who was commissioned by the British and Irish governments to investigate the possibility of state collusion in six high-profile murders, is also a critic. He recommended public inquiries into four of the killings, but has strongly condemned the legislation that quickly followed. In a letter read at a hearing of the United States House Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on Africa, Global Human Rights and International Operations Subcommittee while the legislation was pending, Cory stated:

it seems to me that the proposed new Act would make a meaningful inquiry impossible. The Commissions would be working in an impossible situation. For example, the Minister, the actions of whose ministry was to be reviewed by the public inquiry would have the authority to thwart the efforts of the inquiry at every step. It really creates an intolerable Alice in Wonderland situation. There have been references in the press to an international judicial membership in the inquiry. If the new Act were to become law, I would advise all Canadian judges to decline an appointment in light of the impossible situation they would be facing. In fact, I cannot contemplate any self-respecting Canadian judge accepting an appointment to an inquiry constituted under the new proposed Act.

The chairman of the hearing, Representative Chris Smith, declared that "the bill pending before the British Parliament should be named the 'Public Inquiries Cover-up Bill.'"^[12]

Indeed, the Act repealed the entirety of the Tribunals of Inquiry (Evidence) Act 1921 which had allowed Parliament to vote on a resolution establishing a tribunal that had "all such powers, rights, and privileges as are vested in the High Court"^[13] and placed the power solely under the control of a Minister.^[14]

As of November 2021 there have been 29 inquiries established under the act with a further two announced. Of these, 17 have completed costing a total of £158m.^[15]

The Inquiries Act 2005 repealed or revoked all or part of the following acts of parliament or sections of acts:

• Public inquiry (public inquiries in different countries)