However, a reason to suggest that judicial inquiries are effective in scrutinising the government is that they are the only true means of investigating the government’s activities. The fact that they judiciary is supposedly separate from the political system, then they, in theory, should feel under no obligation to look out for the government’s needs, or act in its best interests. They can publicly identify any problems within the government, or mistakes that they have made, and can provide key information into the behaviour of MPs. For example, Lord Frank’s inquiry in the Falklands War of 1982 exposed the blunders that Thatcher and her Government had made at the time. Furthermore, the Nolan Inquiry, set up to investigate into Standards and Privileges exposed the parliamentary sleaze and ‘cash for questions’ that was taking place. The report that was provided after this inquiry set up a Register of Members Interests to crackdown on the less than impressive government actions.
Another reason in support that Inquiries let the government off the hook, is that the government determines the Terms of Reference that the judge must adhere to. This means that the judge has no liberty to carry- out a full and accurate investigation. The conclusion may be biased and wrong and may easily let the government off the hook, not exposing their true accountability for the incident. For example, the Widgery inquiry into Bloody Sunday was instructed in the Terms of Reference to take evidence solely from the British Soldiers. Therefore the result that the soldiers were not responsible was somewhat absurd and even laughable. The inquiry was tainted and this eventually led to a new inquiry, the Saville inquiry being set up. In addition to this, the fact that these investigations cost so much money and time is also a detrimental factor to their effectiveness. It may effect the government’s decision to launch the inquiry in the first place. The new Saville inquiry has already cost 250 million pounds so far and was set up in January 1998 by Blair and is currently still running. In 2005 there were even conservative MPs pleading for the inquiry to finally be called off claiming that it is a terrible waste of money and that the efforts will be fruitless and also that because the new peace process has been effective, there is no longer a demand or want as there once was for it.
Then again, there is evidence suggesting that these inquiries are successful in holding the government to account. They have the ability to embarrass the government when they doing something wrong and show their mistakes therefore encouraging them not to do it again. For example, the Scott inquiry in 1996 proved that Britain broke an international agreement not to sell arms to Iraq or Iran during their ceasefire. This was awfully humiliating for the Executive though no ministers lost their jobs over it. This shows that judicial inquiries are not afraid to stand up against the government and expose their wrong-doings.
Another argument in favour of judicial inquires letting the government off the hook is that these inquiries are limited in their resources due to the Official Secrets Act. The government has the right to deny judges access to certain information, information that may be to their damnation, because it may disclose details that would affect National Security. Also, witnesses who may have public immunity certificates are eligible not to be questioned or give evidence. This proves that inevitably the government has a large amount of control over these cases and can interfere to their own effects.
In contrast, public bodies have been investigated and discrimination within them has been exposed. For example, the MacPherson inquiry commented that the police were institutionally racist, along with other government bodies. Also, the inquiries have served their purpose in the way that they have helped and technically can bring justice to those who have suffered due to the government. For example, the Taylor inquiry in 1989 helped recognise the problems that led to the disaster and why ninety-six people had died and some of his recommendations were implemented after to help protect others and prevent it from happening again in the future.
In conclusion, there is evidence to verify both sides of the argument, however, history has proven that the cases that have let the government off the hook clearly out weigh the cases that hold them accountable. This is also supported by the new reforms that are being made to the judiciary. The government has acknowledged that there are flaws in the system and are taking steps to help rectify the problems and make the judicial inquires much more credible in the future.
