Public inquiries are cathartic for grieving families but often fail to address the very failings they identify.

In recent years, public inquiries have become part of the fabric of our political life. Their recommendations are often the platform for major public policy changes.

When powerful organisations and government agencies appear to fail in carrying out their responsibilities, sometimes causing catastrophic human tragedy, there has to be a mechanism in place to effect change. Usually such inquiries follow a major disaster or matter of controversy, where there is suspicion on the part of the community involved – such as the parents whose babies died at Bristol Royal Infirmary and the families whose relatives were murdered by Harold Shipman. They are looking for the truth to be discovered in a wholly independent forum where lessons will be learned and recommendations will be made to make sure something similar cannot possibly happen again.

But most importantly they want complete transparency – for the search for the truth to be conducted in public with proper scrutiny open to all. And while inevitably part of that truth will be attributable to some human failing or misdemeanour, it is the exposure of evidence of systemic failure which is vital to identify where and how change must occur.

And there must be change if a similar tragedy is to be prevented. Believe it or not, before the Laming Inquiry into the death of Victoria Climbie, there had been a staggering 70 public inquiries into recent child abuse cases, producing thousands of recommendations. Yet scandalously children were still dying. often in horrific circumstances. How many of those deaths could have been avoided?

So how effective is our public inquiry system? Could it be more effective and, if so, how might it be improved?

As a clinical negligence lawyer, I acted for families involved in a number of inquiries, most notably Shipman. In that case the families even had to judicially review a government decision to hold the inquiry behind closed doors. And yet the subsequent inquiry, chaired by Dame Janet Smith, concluded that Shipman had killed more than 215 of his patients and identified extensive failings in the systems in which general practitioners operate – loopholes which Shipman had used to escape detection.

I am often asked what the point of a public inquiry is and whether the millions of pounds spent are justified. Recently, I interviewed a number of people who have worked on or ran inquiries to find out how they work, whether they really do work, and whether lessons are learned and changes implemented.

Lord Laming told me that a balance must be struck between thoroughness, fairness and efficiency. After all, while individuals will be open to criticism, an inquiry is a means of strengthening the accountability that we should expect of individuals and organisations that have power over the lives of others.

But after the government has considered the weighty reports and reflected on the evidence taken, what then? As former health secretary Frank Dobson told me, that’s all they are: recommendations.

In a Radio 4 documentary, I have explored not only the emotional dimension of dealing with major human tragedies, but also the search for truth. And while, for many, a public inquiry is undoubtedly cathartic, what still needs to be done?

Since the Shipman Inquiry, I know that the government has still not implemented many of Dame Janet Smith’s recommendations, even though it formally accepted them. And there isn’t even a timetable to do so. There are some reasons for this: ministers are reshuffled from department to department; inquiry chairmen have no continuing responsibility and will in any event have moved on in their lives. I ask whether a mechanism must be put in place to make sure that, after the media spotlight dims, something is done to ensure those institutional and systemic failings are a relic of the past.

• Public Inquiries, researched, written and presented by Ann Alexander and produced by Jim Frank, will be broadcast as part of the Analysis series for Radio 4 on Thursday 30 October at 8.30pm, repeated on 2 November at 9.30pm. To comment, visit www.publicinquiries.org.uk after the broadcast.

Ann Alexander, formerly senior partner of Alexander Harris, now runs a media and communications training consultancy (www.alexandermacdonald.co.uk.)

A surge in the numbers of companies putting employees through crisis training is thought to be a reaction to the credit crunch.

Ann Alexander of Alexander Macdonald, a media training consultancy, said: “There is a real paranoia in certain sectors that their firm’s failings will be highlighted in the media and they will be tainted by a Northern Rock-style media trial.

“A perception that a company is struggling or has even gone under is a real threat to businesses and management teams know it. We’ve seen a threefold increase in the number of clients who are requesting crisis management training to protect themselves as best as they can from hostile probings by business journalists.”

Macdonald offers the following 10 tips for managing a credit crunch crisis:

1. Don’t crawl under a stone hoping the issue will go away. Equally, don’t make any hasty defensive comments.

2. Investigate quickly to establish if the story is true. Ensure you know all the facts before responding but remember speed is of the essence.

3. Make sure someone is available to speak to the press – ideally someone with seniority and not a press officer, as this will show that the issue is being taken seriously. Ensure that they are fully briefed and know how to deal with the media.

4. Don’t ever try to outsmart the media with smart or facetious comment and never, ever say ‘no comment’. You’ll only make things worse.

5. Acknowledge public concern, even if you think it is misplaced. In a media crisis, the public is always right.

6. Actions speak louder than words. The public does not want statements and press releases so always respond decisively – you must be seen to take swift action.

7. Make sure that you communicate with your key audiences – the customers and clients who will be affected by the story – on a more personal basis than through the press.

8. Discover which areas of your business are vulnerable to negative press coverage and prepare a plan in advance.

9. Have a crisis management plan ready that deals with the practical side of coping under the media spotlight. The plan should detail who will make the decisions and who will take calls from the media. Can your current press or publicity officer cope? Do you need extra help?

10. If you do have a plan, make sure you get it – common sense and intuition are fine but they need to be backed up with experience and expertise from a professional.