*/
The Government’s approach to public inquiries wastes expert knowledge and makes inquiries longer and more costly, according to a House of Lords Committee.
The Inquiries Act 2005: post-legislative scrutiny report, published in March, found the overall framework of the Act to be good but that the Government is not using the legislation enough, and is setting up inquiries with “inadequate powers”. It recommends that a specialist unit be set up within the Courts and Tribunals Service of the Ministry of Justice to assist all public inquiries and pass on best practice.
Commenting on the report, Committee Chairman Lord Shutt of Greetland said: “Every time there is a new inquiry in this country it’s as though the previous ones had never happened. We really need to make the most of any lessons learned from past inquiries, and make the most of our collective knowledge and proficiency in this field.”
The report recommended that a Central Inquiries Unit be set up to form “a new centre of expertise” to “enable future inquiries to hit the ground running” and be “more efficient, more streamlined and less costly to the public”. Other suggestions were that inquiry panels should have a single member, rather than a panel, and that victims and families should routinely meet with inquiry chairmen and their needs “handled sensitively”.
Further, an inquiry’s recommendations should be formally accepted or rejected by those bodies to whom they have been directed, with a three-month deadline in which to respond and if accepted, there should be a formal implementation plan.
Non-statutory inquiries do not have the powers to compel the production of documents and the attendance of witnesses, and to require witnesses to give evidence on oath. The report found “three instances where those involved in the setting up of inquiries seem either not to be aware of this simple fact, or to be prepared to attempt to devise a way to circumvent it”.
Justice Minister Simon Hughes said: “I welcome the Committee’s report, and its finding that The Inquiries Act 2005 has worked well. The Coalition will carefully consider its recommendations.” Support in establishing and running inquiries is currently provided by the Ministry of Justice and the Cabinet Office.
Commenting on the report, Committee Chairman Lord Shutt of Greetland said: “Every time there is a new inquiry in this country it’s as though the previous ones had never happened. We really need to make the most of any lessons learned from past inquiries, and make the most of our collective knowledge and proficiency in this field.”
The report recommended that a Central Inquiries Unit be set up to form “a new centre of expertise” to “enable future inquiries to hit the ground running” and be “more efficient, more streamlined and less costly to the public”. Other suggestions were that inquiry panels should have a single member, rather than a panel, and that victims and families should routinely meet with inquiry chairmen and their needs “handled sensitively”.
Further, an inquiry’s recommendations should be formally accepted or rejected by those bodies to whom they have been directed, with a three-month deadline in which to respond and if accepted, there should be a formal implementation plan.
Non-statutory inquiries do not have the powers to compel the production of documents and the attendance of witnesses, and to require witnesses to give evidence on oath. The report found “three instances where those involved in the setting up of inquiries seem either not to be aware of this simple fact, or to be prepared to attempt to devise a way to circumvent it”.
Justice Minister Simon Hughes said: “I welcome the Committee’s report, and its finding that The Inquiries Act 2005 has worked well. The Coalition will carefully consider its recommendations.” Support in establishing and running inquiries is currently provided by the Ministry of Justice and the Cabinet Office.
The Government’s approach to public inquiries wastes expert knowledge and makes inquiries longer and more costly, according to a House of Lords Committee.
The Inquiries Act 2005: post-legislative scrutiny report, published in March, found the overall framework of the Act to be good but that the Government is not using the legislation enough, and is setting up inquiries with “inadequate powers”. It recommends that a specialist unit be set up within the Courts and Tribunals Service of the Ministry of Justice to assist all public inquiries and pass on best practice.
Chair of the Bar sets out a busy calendar for the rest of the year
Why Virtual Assistants Can Meet the Legal Profession’s Exacting Standards
By Louise Crush of Westgate Wealth Management
Examined by Marie Law, Director of Toxicology at AlphaBiolabs
Time is precious for barristers. Every moment spent chasing paperwork, organising diaries, or managing admin is time taken away from what matters most: preparation, advocacy and your clients. That’s where Eden Assistants step in
AlphaBiolabs has announced its latest Giving Back donation to RAY Ceredigion, a grassroots West Wales charity that provides play, learning and community opportunities for families across Ceredigion County
Despite increased awareness, why are AI hallucinations continuing to infiltrate court cases at an alarming rate? Matthew Lee investigates
The proscribing of Palestine Action under the Terrorism Act is an assault on the English language and on civil liberties, argues Paul Harris SC, founder of the Bar Human Rights Committee
Come in with your eyes open, but don’t let fear cloud the prospect. A view from practice by John Dove
Anon Academic explains why he’s leaving the world of English literature for the Bar – after all, the two are not as far apart as they may first seem...
Review by Stephen Cragg KC
.tmb-carlisting.png?sfvrsn=c60e2f3d_1){kind=logo}
