*/
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.
Update from the Chair of the Bar
By David Green
Mário Barroso, Head of R&D and Method Development at AlphaBiolabs, examines the forensic science underpinning hair drug testing, its evidential scope and limitations, and why it remains the gold standard for evidencing patterns of drug use in family proceedings
Unlocking your aged debt to fund your tax in one easy step. By Philip N Bristow
Clement Cowley, Partner at The Penny Group, discusses the upcoming changes to pensions and Inheritance Tax and the potential impact on your financial future
Save the Children UK is the latest charity to benefit from a £500 donation from AlphaBiolabs via the company’s Giving Back initiative
James McNeill Whistler at Tate Britain until 27 September Rothko in Florence at Palazzo Strozzi until 23 August Reviewed by Stephen Cragg KC
The Chief Legal Officer to the Metropolitan Police, barrister Brett Welch, tells Anthony Inglese CB about his mission and the work to turn the Met around
Barrister apprenticeships – shortly to provide the fourth pathway to the Bar – are an ideal opportunity to support local talent and ‘grow your own’, say Tim Coulson and Dr Jane Dennehy
Grok around and find out – or not? Mariya Peykova investigates the nudification scandal, what the law has to say about sexually explicit deepfakes, and whether stronger regulation is needed
Oliver Lewis spotlights an overlooked yet rapidly evolving area of law – coercive and controlling behaviour within care contexts
.tmb-carlisting.jpg?sfvrsn=9ca7ad96_1)
