69. A note on the terms
of reference and the procedures adopted for this inquiry is at
Annex 1. It reflects the fact that this is a Parliamentary, not
a judicial, inquiry. It does not seek to replicate the procedures
which would exist in a court action or which might be adopted
for an inquiry under the Tribunals of Inquiry (Evidence) Act,
1921.
70. In deciding on procedure,
I had regard to the practices both of Select Committees and of
inquiries outside Parliament. The approach was inquisitorial,
not adversarial.
71. Witnesses were given
every opportunity to consider and respond to allegations and supporting
material, but not to question others or to be represented by lawyers.
Evidence was tested by Counsel to the inquiry and myself at oral
hearings, as well as by further investigation. At the end of
each oral hearing, witnesses were offered the chance, whilst the
inquiry team and the shorthand writers withdrew, to reflect on
their evidence and, if they were accompanied by a legal adviser,
to consult with him or her, before, if they wished, making a closing
submission.
72. Although, as described
in paragraph 51(a) above, the Select Committee had agreed to facilitate
the taking of evidence before me under oath, I decided on practical
grounds not to exercise this option. It had, in any case, been
rendered unnecessary by the Committee's decision, as set out in
paragraph 51(d), that any witnesses summoned by them would be
required to give sworn confirmation as to the fullness and accuracy
of their evidence to me. All witnesses to my enquiry were formally
cautioned to that effect.
73. In my view the procedures
I adopted achieved the objectives of being fair to all parties,
while allowing the inquiry to be completed within a reasonable
timescale.
|