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

Carey Olsen—Kim Paiva

Carey Olsen—Kim Paiva

Group partner joins Guernsey banking and finance practice

Morgan Lewis—Kat Gibson

Morgan Lewis—Kat Gibson

London labour and employment team announces partner hire

Foot Anstey McKees—Chris Milligan & Michael Kelly

Foot Anstey McKees—Chris Milligan & Michael Kelly

Double partner appointment marks Belfast expansion

NEWS
The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) has not done enough to protect the future sustainability of the legal aid market, MPs have warned
Writing in NLJ this week, NLJ columnist Dominic Regan surveys a landscape marked by leapfrog appeals, costs skirmishes and notable retirements. With an appeal in Mazur due to be heard next month, Regan notes that uncertainties remain over who will intervene, and hopes for the involvement of the Lady Chief Justice and the Master of the Rolls in deciding the all-important outcome
After the Southport murders and the misinformation that followed, contempt of court law has come under intense scrutiny. In this week's NLJ, Lawrence McNamara and Lauren Schaefer of the Law Commission unpack proposals aimed at restoring clarity without sacrificing fair trial rights
The latest Home Office figures confirm that stop and search remains both controversial and diminished. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Parpworth of De Montfort University analyses data showing historically low use of s 1 PACE powers, with drugs searches dominating what remains
Boris Johnson’s 2019 attempt to shut down Parliament remains a constitutional cautionary tale. The move, framed as a routine exercise of the royal prerogative, was in truth an extraordinary effort to sideline Parliament at the height of the Brexit crisis. Writing in NLJ this week, Professor Graham Zellick KC dissects how prorogation was wrongly assumed to be beyond judicial scrutiny, only for the Supreme Court to intervene unanimously
back-to-top-scroll