Suchergebnisse

AbstractOpportunities for engaging the public have changed over the fifty years since the inquiry into the Ely Hospital, Cardiff. NHS inquiries, and inquiries more widely, tend to be called where events have led to public concern and loss of public confidence. Involvement of the public could therefore be assumed to form a part of restoring that public confidence. This paper explores the mechanisms for public involvement in NHS inquiries over the past fifty years, assessing the roles played by the public. It uses the framework outlined by Geoffrey Howe to examine how members of the public have been involved in four NHS inquiries. Findings suggest that the roles and mechanisms have varied, but that understanding the extent of public involvement is a dimension to assessing each of the potential functions of an NHS inquiry.

Abstract
In countries with high levels of corruption, ruling elites rarely have an interest in meaningful anticorruption reforms. Thus, within state structures, the opposition is often key in controlling the government. At the same time, no state body has wider jurisdiction than parliament. Therefore, empowering the opposition to inquire into corruption (and other) scandals is a key factor in an integrity system. The German system of strong opposition rights in collecting evidence through parliamentary inquiry committees has been a unique selling point by global comparison until 2014, when it was emulated by Austria. An analysis of the 63 inquiry committees of the Bundestag since 1949 shows that a significant share concerned corruption cases. Had it not been for parliamentary inquiries, most of these cases would have remained without any follow-up by a state institution. In stark contrast to this finding, international anticorruption guidance more or less entirely ignores inquiry committees.