We still call for answers
Comment from The Northern Echo
16/03/2002

Through its affinity with spin, the Government has helped strengthen the perception that information released to the public cannot be trusted.

The regurgitation of statistics and the burying of bad news have become skills to be valued by political masters - until they are exposed.

It is hardly surprising, therefore, that we feel so uncomfortable with inquiries into disasters - whether they be medical, as in the case of Richard Neale, or economic, as in the case of foot-and-mouth - not being held in public.

It comes down to the fact that we lack trust in politicians to tell us the truth about what went wrong, why it went wrong, and who should be brought to book.

In the case of Richard Neale, it was public pressure which brought him before the General Medical Council and got him struck off.

The GMC has investigated the bungling of Richard Neale. It is the bungling of those who appointed him and gave him a reference to practise elsewhere which remains largely unchallenged.

The argument that an inquiry should be held in private because the attendance of the media would be disruptive is weak, to put it kindly.

Of course, the cost of public inquiries is an important consideration and we appreciate that selectivity is unavoidable. But the stench surrounding the Richard Neale case can only be cleared if the public can be completely satisfied that the full facts are out in the open.

It is easy to say 'it's time to move on and look to the future', but not while such important questions about the mistakes of the past remain unanswered.