header-logo header-logo

Inquiries under scrutiny

24 May 2018
Issue: 7794 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-detail

Little evidence that recommendations are being implemented

Despite spending at least £239m since 2005 on inquiries the government makes no attempt to oversee whether objectives have been achieved or recommendations implemented, according to a National Audit Office (NAO) report published in the week the Grenfell Inquiry began hearing from victims’ families.

The report, Investigation into government-funded inquiries, published this week, found that departments vary in how transparent they are about actions taken in response to recommendations. For example, of the eight inquiries examined by the NAO that made recommendations, readily accessible information on progress was only available for half of these.

The report found that all inquiries face the challenge of maintaining public confidence and keeping within an acceptable timescale and cost. The average duration of the 26 inquiries completed since 2005 was 40 months. According to the report, departments were not able to provide evidence that they had consistently monitored and scrutinised the cost and progress of the inquiries they sponsored.

Moreover, no single department is responsible for running inquiries across the government and there are no formal criteria to determine the type of inquiry. Following two parliamentary select committee reports, the Cabinet Office and Ministry of Justice have committed to various actions to improve the effectiveness of inquiries but none of these commitments have been fulfilled. The NAO report cites, as an example, the recommendations to share best practice from inquiries and publish guidance for inquiry chairs.

The costs for the ten inquiries examined by the NAO ranged from £0.2m to £24.9m. Legal staff costs were the biggest expense—an average of 36% of an inquiry’s cost, although this varied from less than 1% for the Morecambe Bay Investigation to 67% for the Mid Staffordshire Inquiry.

The Grenfell Tower Inquiry, led by retired Court of Appeal judge Sir Martin Moore-Bick, opened in September 2017. It will look into the deaths of 72 people in the fire and aims to determine: what happened, why, and what can be done to prevent anything similar happening again. The first part of the inquiry will look at how the fire developed, and the second part will look at how the tower became exposed to the risk of a major fire.

Issue: 7794 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Pillsbury—Lord Garnier KC

Pillsbury—Lord Garnier KC

Appointment of former Solicitor General bolsters corporate investigations and white collar practice

Hall & Wilcox—Nigel Clark

Hall & Wilcox—Nigel Clark

Firm strengthens international strategy with hire of global relations consultant

Slater Heelis—Sylviane Kokouendo & Shazia Ashraf

Slater Heelis—Sylviane Kokouendo & Shazia Ashraf

Partner and associate join employment practice

NEWS
The government’s plan to introduce a Single Professional Services Supervisor could erode vital legal-sector expertise, warns Mark Evans, president of the Law Society of England and Wales, in NLJ this week
Writing in NLJ this week, Jonathan Fisher KC of Red Lion Chambers argues that the ‘failure to prevent’ model of corporate criminal responsibility—covering bribery, tax evasion, and fraud—should be embraced, not resisted
Professor Graham Zellick KC argues in NLJ this week that, despite Buckingham Palace’s statement stripping Andrew Mountbatten Windsor of his styles, titles and honours, he remains legally a duke
Writing in NLJ this week, Sophie Ashcroft and Miranda Joseph of Stevens & Bolton dissect the Privy Council’s landmark ruling in Jardine Strategic Ltd v Oasis Investments II Master Fund Ltd (No 2), which abolishes the long-standing 'shareholder rule'
In NLJ this week, Sailesh Mehta and Theo Burges of Red Lion Chambers examine the government’s first-ever 'Afghan leak' super-injunction—used to block reporting of data exposing Afghans who aided UK forces and over 100 British officials. Unlike celebrity privacy cases, this injunction centred on national security. Its use, the authors argue, signals the rise of a vast new body of national security law spanning civil, criminal, and media domains
back-to-top-scroll