This week, nothing happened. Or at least, nothing happened in relation to two delayed public inquiries. The chair of the Chilcot Inquiry, established under the last Labour government to identify what “lessons could be learned” from the government's conduct over the Iraq war, confirmed that it would not be reporting before the general election in May. Meanwhle, Labour were up in arms over Conservative Home Secretary Theresa May's inquiry into historical child sex abuse, pointing out that six months after it was announced it still had no chair, powers or clarity.

Is all of this bother worth it? Do public inquiries provide important answers to the people? Or are they just a waste of time and money which change the minds of nobody?

Still not satisfied

The Chilcot inquiry should never have been set up. Gordon Brown did it only to try to appease anti-war opinion. Every twist and turn of the evidence and processology of its long-delayed completion has been used by the antis to simplify and exaggerate the public mythology of Britain's part in the Iraq war. No one has paid the slightest attention to Mr Brown's announcement when it was set up that its task was not to apportion blame. The report itself will be valuable, and far from a waste of time. The more contemporary history we have, the better. But it will not satisfy those people who believe that the decision to join the US invasion was a conspiracy against reason, humanity and the universe. John Rentoul, Columnist for the Independent

Send in the lawyers

Inquiries can be enormously helpful if they are properly run—there are often lessons to be learned. The best inquiries are those where the judge or chair lays down a plan or a pattern, and is ready to deal with any efforts to slow the process down. The other thing that is important is to appoint counsel to the inquiry; that means the questioning can be much more rational and systematic, and you don't have the situation we had in Chilcot where you have five people who are not necessarily experienced in asking questions. I may be arguing a case for the lawyers, but lawyers do often have the skills which can ensure an inquiry is pursued expeditiously and comes to conclusions which are understandable and capable of being implemented. Menzies Campbell, MP and former leader of the Liberal Democrats

Not what it says on the tin

We need public scrutiny and accountability in government, but the current  “public inquiry” system does not do what it says on the tin. In fact, it has often led to an obscuring of the truth, endless delays and high levels of secrecy. Chilcot was the third inquiry into the Iraq war, and is already widely regarded as a whitewash. Inquiries are tremendously costly. The average person in the street is well able to judge what she thinks about a particular issue. Why do we need knights, lords and lawyers to spend years taking evidence, and then more years allowing those criticised to rebut the evidence? Perhaps because public inquiries are a way of hiding the facts, not revealing them. Lindsey German, Convener of the Stop the War Coalition

Too wide from the start

Public inquiries can be useful provided their terms of reference and procedures are clearly defined from the start. The problem with Chilcot is that its remit was too wide from the start. It substantially  underestimated the resources required and has appeared to be  submerged by a sprawling mass of evidence and assertions. The same risk applies to the prospective child sex abuse inquiry. Problems also  occur when inquiries are set up at the same time as the police are conducting investigations (which constrained  the Leveson inquiry into the press and caused the abandonment of the Detainee inquiry before it was launched), or when secret and confidential material are involved. The Soham inquiry was successful because it was set up after the criminal cases, was tightly focused on a limited number of issues and closely engaged those affected. Peter Riddell, Director of the Institute for Government

Inquries aren't enough

Inquiries are not a waste of time—but they need to actually happen first.  In 2010, the Prime Minister promised an independent, judge-led inquiry into UK involvement in CIA torture. But he has since u-turned, and denied the public the inquiry he pledged. He must reconsider, especially in light of the recent Senate report that revealed the horrific details of the CIA’s programme.  But inquiries alone will never be the whole answer—we also need a strong, open, independent system of courts.  Unfortunately, Government measures to roll out greater secrecy across the justice system are putting this key method of accountability at risk. Clare Algar, executive Director of Reprieve

This week's big question is edited by Josh Lowe, Harry Davies and Serena Kutchinsky