25 June 2004
Senior civil servants this week warned that more needs to be done to follow up public inquiry recommendations, or Whitehall and governments will never learn the lessons from events such as Dr David Kelly's death.
The sentiment was timely, coming on the day Sir Michael Bichard published the findings of his inquiry into the Soham murders investigations, which heavily criticised methods employed by police forces and recommended major changes.
Speaking at a June 22 Commons' public administration select committee hearing into the use of public inquiries after major events, the secretaries to two investigations said they were concerned that recommendations were rarely followed up with political vigour.
Committee members had expressed fears that some inquiries merely served to placate clamour for authority figures to be seen to do something about major incidents, while the costly, often lengthy, processes simply pass into history once they are concluded.
Alun Evans, former secretary to the Foot and mouth – lessons learned study into the outbreak of the disease in 2001, warned that 'something has got to happen as a result of [an] inquiry – because that is where the track record of inquiries has not been good'.
'There's a case for saying that the government and centre must be much more robust in following up… recommendations,' he added.
Evans claimed that had the conclusions of the 1969 Northumberland inquiry into foot-and-mouth disease been absorbed, the 2001 outbreak would not have been so damaging.
Tim Baxter, secretary to the 1999 Ashworth Hospital Inquiry, said an inquiry was only successful if it 'set the way forward'.
Both civil servants backed the establishment of a Whitehall unit to provide full-time back-office support to either independent or government inquiries. Those functions, Baxter said, could include IT support and financial management.
The government has floated this idea recently and civil servants believe it would allow independent chairs and their secretariat to focus on the content of their studies and speed up inquiries.
But Baxter warned that 'we must balance this with the need to be seen to be independent'.
Scottish committee upset by 'snub' from UK ministers
Members of a Scottish Parliament committee claim they have been snubbed by the chancellor and other UK ministers who declined invitations to help them with an inquiry into the future of European structural funds.
In a report, all members of the Labour-led European and external affairs committee claimed the refusal of UK ministers to meet them was unreasonable and hindered the inquiry.
The committee called for further clarification from the UK government of its plans to overhaul the European Union's regional development policy, which is due to provide Scotland with more than £1bn between 2000 and 2006.
Committee convener Richard Lochhead said that members were disappointed that ministers from the UK Treasury and Department for Trade and Industry were not prepared to accept their invitation to address the committee in Edinburgh or even meet informally in London to clarify uncertainty over funding.
'We feel this hindered our inquiry and was unreasonable on the part of UK ministers, given the flexibility shown by the committee in offering to meet them in any place and at any time,' Lochhead said.
The committee members were concerned about the effect of the UK government's plans to alter the way in which regional development is funded after 2006. Regional funds will diminish as a result of the enlargement of the EU.
Chancellor Gordon Brown wrote to the committee last December declining the invitation because of pressures on his diary, as did Trade and Industry Secretary Patricia Hewitt.
Ruth Kelly, financial secretary to the Treasury, told the MSPs that her primary accountability was to Westminster and that she did not consider it would be helpful for her to accept the invitation.
Arculus calls for 'one in, one out' strategy
The government should ease the regulatory burden on Whitehall and the public by taking a 'one in, one out' approach to new legislation, Britain's anti-red-tape expert has suggested.
David Arculus, chair of the Better Regulation Task Force, recommended this in his annual study, published on June 21.
In order to build momentum into the deregulation drive, he suggested that 'when ministers impose a new piece of law they also get rid of one – ideally the same size or even larger'.
Arculus also warns ministers that some Whitehall departments have not fully adopted a sensible system to reduce regulation – including consulting on new laws, appraising all alternatives and undertaking impact assessments.
'This new annual report shows that departments can do it – but they don't yet do it all the time or as a first instinct,' the study says.
In response to continued bad practice, Arculus has referred nine Regulatory Impact Assessments to the National Audit Office for review. Three have also been referred as examples of best practice.
PFjun2004
