header-logo header-logo

Inquiry follow up under scrutiny

14 December 2017
Issue: 7774 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-detail
nlj_7774_news

Calls for public inquiries to publish interim reports

The follow-up process to public inquiries is nearly always inadequate, a major study has reported this week, as hearings began in the Grenfell Tower Inquiry.

Since 1990, the government has spent £639m on 68 public inquiries, including the 12-year £190m Saville Inquiry into the events of Bloody Sunday, the seven-year Chilcot Inquiry into the UK’s role in the Iraq war and the 2011 Leveson Inquiry into phone hacking.

There are currently eight public inquiries underway. Lord Moore-Bick held a two-day procedural hearing in the Grenfell Tower Inquiry this week, nearly six months after the tragedy, and is due to begin hearing evidence early next month. The inquiry has obtained more than 230,000 documents from contractors, suppliers and others.

However, a report by the Institute for Government, ‘How public inquiries can lead to change’, casts a worrying shadow on the process. It found that only six public inquiries have been fully followed up by select committees to see what government did as a result.

One in seven public inquiries took at least five years before a final report was released. And while some have led to reform—such as gun law reform after the Dunblane massacre or the creation of the Rail Accident Investigation Branch after the Ladbroke Grove and Southall rail crashes—there are no formal checks or procedures in place to make sure they lead to meaningful change.

The report calls for reform, including: greater scrutiny from MPs, with select committees examining progress on implementation of recommendations each year; expert witness involvement in developing recommendations; and government being made accountable for its response to inquiry recommendations. To counter the effect of inquiries that drag on for years, the report calls on public inquiries to publish interim reports in the months, rather than years, after events.

The Institute’s programme director and report author, Emma Norris (pictured) said: ‘Our report finds that the aftermath of inquiries is being neglected.

‘The implementation of findings is patchy and there is no proper procedure for holding government to account for change. Government needs to systematically provide a full and detailed response to inquiry findings and select committees need to make the follow up to inquiry recommendations a core part of their work.’

Issue: 7774 / 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