Page 98 - When Things Go Wrong

taken by addressees of interim recommendations. INQUEST has written to
the Grenfell Inquiry asking that it be employed in the Phase II hearings. 274

6.13 However, this form of scrutiny is only available to those inquiries whose
lifespan allows for the formulation of interim recommendations and a period
for their implementation (IICSA was announced in 2014 and converted to a
statutory inquiry in 2015). It may not be feasible in shorter inquiries. 275 In one
frequently cited example, Sir Michael Bichard reconvened the Soham Inquiry
276
six months after it reported, to monitor the progress of his recommendations ,
which demonstrates that it may be possible to encapsulate an element of
review. Nevertheless, while the Working Party strongly supports scrutiny of
the implementation of recommendations by the inquiry team where feasible,
longer-term scrutiny is very likely to require external oversight.

External oversight

6.14 It is perhaps unsurprising that inquiries often fail to bring about change, as
“there is no routine procedure for holding the Government to account for
promises made in the aftermath of inquiries”. 277 Quite apart from those
instances where Government has indicated that recommendations will be
implemented, there is no routine procedure for Ministers to explain why they
have rejected inquiry recommendations. After initial investigations, several
rounds of written and oral evidence, analysis and a final report, there is little
to prevent inquiry recommendations vanishing into the ether where the
political will to implement is lacking.

274 Deborah Coles, Letter to Sir Martin Moore-Bick (17 January 2020).
275 This form of scrutiny may be possible in a long or delayed inquest, if the coroner decided to exercise
powers under Coroners and Justice Act 2009 sch 5, para 7 before the conclusion or indeed before the
final hearing. But this would be unlikely – see Coroners (Investigations) Regulations, reg 28(3): “A
report may not be made until the coroner has considered all the documents, evidence and information
that in the opinion of the coroner are relevant to the investigation”. However, if a report were issued, the
response would be required within 56 days from the date the report was sent. The coroner could receive
further evidence during the course of the inquest to ascertain whether the circumstances still exist and
whether a further report is required.
276 Sir Michael Bichard, The Bichard Inquiry Report (HC 2003-04, 653), para 78.
277 Norris and Shepheard, supra note 21, pp. 3-4, citing Department for Constitutional Affairs,
‘Memorandum by the Department for Constitutional Affairs’ (HC 2003-04, 606-ii).

91