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

Birketts—trainee cohort

Birketts—trainee cohort

Firm welcomes new cohort of 29 trainee solicitors for 2025

Keoghs—four appointments

Keoghs—four appointments

Four partner hires expand legal expertise in Scotland and Northern Ireland

Brabners—Ben Lamb

Brabners—Ben Lamb

Real estate team in Yorkshire welcomes new partner

NEWS
Robert Taylor of 360 Law Services warns in this week's NLJ that adoption of artificial intelligence (AI) risks entrenching disadvantage for SME law firms, unless tools are tailored to their needs
The Court of Protection has ruled in Macpherson v Sunderland City Council that capacity must be presumed unless clearly rebutted. In this week's NLJ, Sam Karim KC and Sophie Hurst of Kings Chambers dissect the judgment and set out practical guidance for advisers faced with issues relating to retrospective capacity and/or assessments without an examination
Delays and dysfunction continue to mount in the county court, as revealed in a scathing Justice Committee report and under discussion this week by NLJ columnist Professor Dominic Regan of City Law School. Bulk claims—especially from private parking firms—are overwhelming the system, with 8,000 cases filed weekly
Charles Pigott of Mills & Reeve charts the turbulent progress of the Employment Rights Bill through the House of Lords, in this week's NLJ
From oligarchs to cosmetic clinics, strategic lawsuits against public participation (SLAPPs) target journalists, activists and ordinary citizens with intimidating legal tactics. Writing in NLJ this week, Sadie Whittam of Lancaster University explores the weaponisation of litigation to silence critics
back-to-top-scroll