Column Number: 1
Standing Committee B
The Committee consisted of the following Members:
Chairmen:
Mr. Roger Gale, †Mr. Win Griffiths
†Atkinson, Mr. Peter (Hexham) (Con)
†Campbell, Mrs. Anne (Cambridge) (Lab)
†Carmichael, Mr. Alistair (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
Connarty, Mr. Michael (Falkirk, East) (Lab)
†Davies, Geraint (Croydon, Central) (Lab)
†Djanogly, Mr. Jonathan (Huntingdon) (Con)
†Hall, Mr. Mike (Weaver Vale) (Lab)
†Heald, Mr. Oliver (North-East Hertfordshire) (Con)
Jones, Mr. Kevan (North Durham) (Lab)
†Leslie, Mr. Christopher (Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs)
Liddell-Grainger, Mr. Ian (Bridgwater) (Con)
McDonagh, Siobhain (Mitcham and Morden) (Lab)
†Pound, Mr. Stephen (Ealing, North) (Lab)
†Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham, East) (Lab)
†Rooney, Mr. Terry (Bradford, North) (Lab)
Tyler, Mr. Paul (North Cornwall) (LD)
Frank Cranmer, John Benger, Committee Clerks
† attended the Committee
Column Number: 3
Tuesday 22 March 2005
(Morning)
[Mr. Win Griffiths in the Chair]
9.25 am
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs (Mr. Christopher Leslie): I beg to move,
(1) during proceedings on the Inquiries Bill [Lords] the Standing Committee shall, in addition to its first meeting on Tuesday 22nd March at 9.25 am, meet—
(a) on Tuesday 22nd March at 2.30 pm;
(b) on Thursday 24th at 9.25 am and 2.30 pm;
(2) the proceedings shall be taken in the following order, namely Clauses 1 to 48, Schedule 1, Clause 49, Schedule 2, Clause 50, Schedule 3, Clauses 51 to 54, new Clauses, new Schedules, remaining proceedings on the Bill;
(3) the proceedings shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at 5.30 pm on Thursday 24th March.
It is a pleasure to be a member of a Standing Committee under your august chairmanship, Mr. Griffiths. I am sure that you will conduct our proceedings efficiently and appropriately. We are about to consider an important Bill. The Programming Sub-Committee met yesterday and discussed the required time for debate. I accept that amendments have been tabled, but I hope that the programme motion is self-explanatory.
Mr. Oliver Heald (North-East Hertfordshire) (Con): I, too, welcome you to the Chair, Mr. Griffiths. I know that you will use firm discipline, but in your usual courteous manner. All Committee members are looking forward to sitting under your chairmanship, and that of Mr. Gale in due course.
As for the programme motion, adequate time will be available to deal with the matters that need to be considered. There are important reasons why the arrangements for setting up inquiries should be changed. During recent years, they have been carried out in three basic ways. The Tribunals of Inquiry (Evidence) Act 1921 sets out the more informal procedure in which a Minister asks someone to undertake an inquiry. A recent example of that is the Soham murders inquiry. Sir Michael Bichard is genuinely thought to have done an excellent done job in conducting a relatively quick, effective and efficient inquiry, which went to the root of important matters.
Another course of action is that inquiries on specific subjects are allowed under various Acts of Parliament. For a considerable time, it has been thought that that system needs to be tidied up and that it would be good to have an over-arching statutory structure, which is something that we welcome. I refer, in particular, to the Saville inquiry. It has been long and, according to various estimates, has so far cost £155 million to £250 million. It is now seven years on, and we still do not
Column Number: 4
have a report. It is thought that the rather ponderous procedural progress that the inquiry is making is an example of the need to change to a more flexible and efficient system.
Improvements were made in another place. The Minister agreed to consult the chairman before appointing the panel and establishing the terms of reference. It was said that the terms of reference should be made available to Parliament by means of a statement. Other provisions were considered, such as securing the consent of the Lord Chief Justice before appointing a judge to a panel. The Minister agreed to consult the chairman about the appointment of assessors before suspending the inquiry. As for access to documents under the Freedom of Information Act 2000, it was agreed that public access should not be restricted because of the inquiry and that a reasonable belief that the interests of panel members would not affect the impartiality of the inquiry should be at the core of the appointments system.
Much progress was made in the other place, but my noble Friend Lord Kingsland said that the overall effect of the Bill would be to shift power from Parliament to the Executive and from the chairman of the panel to Ministers. I hope that there will be time to deal with other outstanding issues—I think the programme motion reflects that concern—including the idea that a resolution should be made available to Parliament to allow it to consider and approve the establishment of the terms of reference, the composition of the panel, and various rules about that.
There is room to improve the nature of the statement made to Parliament, if that is the route we follow. A written statement would not be adequate. We will argue that the Minister needs to clarify various issues to do with public interest and damage to the economy, and there should be a presumption of public access. We will also try to ensure that the Minister is not involved in the role of publication because the content and timing of the report is often extremely important. There will be adequate time to consider those matters.
As I said, I welcome you to the Chair, Mr. Griffiths, and I am sure that, as there is an experienced and caring Government Whip, the hon. Member for Lewisham, East (Ms Prentice), things will be accomplished with the co-operation and civility that has characterised our relationship over many years.
Mr. Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD): May I, too, welcome you to the Chair, Mr. Griffiths? This is the first time that I have served on a Standing Committee under your chairmanship, and I very much look forward to it.
Unfortunately, I was unable to participate in the Second Reading debate, so I am grateful to the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) for giving us a synopsis of the issues involved. As for the timetable motion, my party certainly takes the view that the time allotted is sufficient. The arguments have been rehearsed in the other place, and the Government have made significant movement on the main issue,
Column Number: 5
which, for my party as well as for the Conservatives, remains the involvement of Parliament in the whole process. I see no reason why, with a bit of good will and effort on all parts, we should not complete the business within the time scale offered.
Question put and agreed to.
The Chairman: I remind the Committee that there is a money resolution in connection with the Bill, and copies of it are available in the Room. I also remind hon. Members that adequate notice should be given of amendments. As a general rule, my co-Chairman and I do not intend to call starred amendments. I ask all Members to ensure that their mobile phones, pagers and so on are turned off or in silent mode.
Clause 1
Power to establish inquiry
Mr. Heald: I beg to move amendment No. 1, in clause 1, page 1, line 3, at beginning insert ‘Subject to subsection (2A)’.
The Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 2, in clause 1, page 1, line 13, at end insert—
‘(2A) Any inquiry established under subsection (1) must be subject to approval by a resolution moved by the Minister in the relevant Parliament or Assembly.’.
No. 6, in clause 6, page 3, line 11, leave out from ‘section’ to end of line and add ‘must be oral’.
No. 12, in clause 14, page 6, line 37, at end add—
‘(c) make an oral statement to the relevant Parliament or Assembly’.
No. 13, in clause 15, page 7, line 16, at end insert—
‘(c) make an oral statement to the relevant Parliament or Assembly’.
Mr. Heald: The purpose of amendments Nos. 1 and 2 is to place Parliament firmly at the centre of the establishment of an inquiry by requiring a resolution of approval of the arrangements. The amendments are worded so that they would apply equally to the Welsh Assembly or the Scottish Parliament, if either body were involved.
We fully accept the need to reform the patchwork of provisions. That includes the 1921 Act, which was the basis for the Saville inquiry and the inquiry into the activities of Dr. Shipman, and other statutes such as the Police Act 1996 and the National Health Service Act 1977, which were used in the inquiry into the death of Stephen Lawrence and the Kennedy inquiry into the Bristol Royal infirmary. There is also the informal, Hutton-style inquiry, although that was perhaps thought not to be the best example, and the Soham murders inquiry, which was generally thought a very good example.
The 1921 Act requires parliamentary resolutions. Lord Justice Salmon, in his royal commission, said that there were safeguards to prevent the procedure from being too readily invoked because Parliament
Column Number: 6
had to make that resolution. Equally, on the other side of the argument, the Public Administration Committee said that it was
“deeply concerned that the Government’s Inquiries Bill threatens the last remaining role for Parliament in the inquiry process. Nonetheless it also provides an opportunity to update the current provision contained in the 1921 Act”.
It is worth also reflecting on what was said by Lord Justice Clarke, who undertook the Thames safety inquiry in 2000:
“the time has come when it would be desirable to set up a statutory framework for Inquiries generally. There is at present no generally applicable statute which covers public inquiries. The 1921 Act has been shown over the years to be much too restricted and cumbersome. In my view a statute should be enacted to give power to the appropriate Secretary of State to order a public inquiry.”
There is a mood both for change and for putting Parliament at the centre of what we do.
I fully accept that the purpose of the Bill is to provide a cost-efficient and effective way to conduct inquiries, but in a sense it consolidates the 1921 Act within it, so there is no need to remove parliamentary involvement. Why does the Minister want to do that? There is no doubt that Parliament is often concerned about the issues that give rise to public inquiries. Members of Parliament often call for a public inquiry. [Laughter.] I notice the hon. Member for Croydon, Central (Geraint Davies) laughing, and MPs do sometimes call for public inquiries because they cannot think what else to do. None the less, there are very serious incidents and issues that give rise, rightly, to public inquiries, and it is hard to understand why the Minister would want to cut Parliament out of the loop. What is he afraid of?
The Bill strengthens the Executive’s position by enabling Ministers not only to decide on the form of the inquiry and the personnel, but to influence the inquiry during its operation. Clauses 12 and 13 allow the Minister to suspend or terminate the inquiry. The Public Administration Committee suggested continuing the parliamentary role and said that, where public concern about the conduct, actions or inactions of Government Ministers or officials was involved, there was, at a minimum, a very strong case for resolutions to be passed. Clause 7, which was added in the other place, reflects that.
My noble Friend Lord Norton explained his concern that Parliament was being sidelined, describing it as being excluded from the process. He went on to describe his discussions with Ministers, saying that he had seen a copy of a letter from the noble Baroness Ashton in which she justified the exclusion of Parliament on the grounds that inquiries under the 1921 Act are the exception, rather than the rule. She made the point that there have been only 24 inquiries under the 1921 Act, so it would be wrong to involve Parliament if we are consolidating and putting together a structure for all inquiries.
My argument is the other way around. Just because the 1921 Act has proved cumbersome and its procedures expensive and long-winded does not necessarily mean that that is the fault of Parliament. It is much more likely to be the fault of the procedures.
Column Number: 7
It is often said that the Bichard inquiry into the Soham murders was extremely effective and efficient although it was informal. However, it was not a good, successful and effective inquiry because Parliament was excluded from the purpose of setting it up—far from it. The success of the Bichard inquiry is a tribute to the excellent public servant who was in charge of it and took a grip of its procedures and moved it forward.
Mrs. Anne Campbell (Cambridge) (Lab): I, too, was impressed with Sir Michael Bichard’s inquiry and report. One of the very good things about it was that he said in his report that he would reconvene the inquiry after six months to consider the progress that had been made on implementing his recommendations. Does the hon. Gentleman think that that is good practice and one that other people could follow?
Mr. Heald: Yes, it is an excellent precedent to say, “Here are my recommendations. Let’s see what’s been done about them after a particular period of time.” Parliament does not do that anywhere near enough. We pass legislation and assume that all is well. There is a strong case for better post-legislative scrutiny of what we do. I am sure that there are many Acts of Parliament that could even be the subject of, dare I mention it, a sunset clause. We would have to re-enact them after a period of time to avoid adding to the dense archaeology of law.
Funnily enough, on the Administration Estimate Audit Committee, which I chair, I recently suggested that when we make recommendations to the House authorities, we should return after a period to see how they have operated. In almost all walks of life it is standard management practice and an excellent thing to do to revisit recommendations and see what has been done. I applaud that. It shows that an inquiry does not necessarily have to be conducted by a lawyer, although I am one. One can often get a very good result by using someone who understands the system. Michael Bichard, having had a very distinguished career in public service, understands the system better than almost anyone. I do not think that there is any reason to think that Parliament would deplore the way in which Michael Bichard ran his inquiry or want to change it in any way. We would almost certainly welcome that more efficient approach.
My noble Friend Lord Kingsland identified two concerns in the other place. The first is the shift from Parliament to the Executive and the second is the shift away from chairmen to Ministers. The 1921 Act has proved expensive and cumbersome. I mentioned the Saville inquiry, but it also led to the Shipman inquiry, which many would say was an excellent and detailed inquiry that uncovered a great deal more than was originally thought had occurred. Some important lessons have been learned about the governance of general practitioners and the medical profession in general.
Column Number: 8
We do not want to lose the ability to have a detailed, thorough inquiry of the sort that was conducted on the case of Dr. Harold Shipman. I hope that Parliament could look at the terms of reference and decide the proper way forward. I hope that the Minister can accept amendments Nos. 1 and 2. An amendment accepted in the other place obliges Ministers to make statements when setting up inquiries. Amendment No. 6 would ensure that it was an oral statement so that Ministers could be questioned about the terms of reference and the conditions under which the inquiry would take place.
Amendments Nos. 12 and 13 would require oral statements on suspension or termination of an inquiry. Ministers are being given important powers to interfere in the running of inquiries and it is only right that they should be accountable. Our concerns are that we should have an effective and efficient inquiry system, but that Parliament should retain a role at the heart of the process, particularly given the shift of power away from the chairman to Ministers.
Mr. Carmichael: In broad terms, I am in agreement with the hon. Gentleman and commend him for tabling the amendments. I shall be interested to see whether he presses them to a Division as this strikes at a part of the Bill where the Government made some concessions in the other place. His party in the other place had the same basic concern as mine: the bypassing of Parliament. We wanted to ensure that the changes did not concentrate too much power in the hands of Ministers.
To that extent, the Government made a most welcome concession in the other place by accepting that the Minister should consult the chairman in drawing up the terms of reference for the inquiry. That notwithstanding, there is a lot to be said for the amendments. The hon. Gentleman said that Members of Parliament often ask for public inquiries. We follow a fairly well-established process: MPs demand a public inquiry, which we damn for running up excessive costs and, when it reports, we damn its conclusions as a whitewash. That is perhaps because the 1921 Act has been rather cumbersome, although some exceptionally fine pieces of work have been done under its aegis. One that springs to mind is the Cullen inquiry following the explosion of Piper Alpha in 1988, which had profound and long-lasting implications for health and safety practices in the offshore oil and gas sector.
9.45 am
However, even with the concessions that were made in the other place, Parliament is still a bit player in this Bill. If we remove the element of parliamentary scrutiny simply because the 1921 Act as a whole has been problematic, we risk throwing out the baby with the bathwater. What the hon. Gentleman proposes is fairly succinct and quite modest and I hope that the Minister will look favourably on it.
Mr. Leslie: Amendments Nos. 1 and 2 two are slightly different from amendments Nos. 6, 12 and 13. The proposal that all inquiries would need a resolution of Parliament goes a long way beyond the provisions
Column Number: 9
in the wide array of legislation on the establishment of inquiries.
The Bill replaces more than 30 pieces of legislation on inquiries on a wide range of subjects; only one—the 1921 Act—contains a requirement for resolutions of Parliament. There have been more than 30 substantial inquiries since 1990 and the 1921 Act has been used in only four cases. The amendment is not about retaining a role for Parliament per se; it would extend to every inquiry a procedure that now applies only to a small minority of inquiries and which, in any case, has not necessarily resulted in more debate about the terms of inquiry than would have been so without that formal resolution.
Mr. Heald: Equally, however, what the Minister proposes would remove the last vestiges of parliamentary control over inquiries. Given that he is an enthusiastic parliamentarian, it is difficult to understand why he thinks that that is a good way to proceed. Surely it would be better to allow Parliament to have a say.
Mr. Leslie: We would be in difficult territory if we tried to legislate specifically on how Parliament should conduct its debates and affairs, make up its mind and make resolutions. If Parliament wants to express its will on any matter, including an inquiry that has been set up, in theory it can generate, debate and agree to such a motion. Incidentally, it is the nature of the 1921 Act that an inquiry is set up by a Minister, following which a resolution is made. In a statutory context, we need to consider refining and improving the nature of parliamentary scrutiny as it exists in inquiries legislation. That is the proposal in the Bill.
Mr. Heald: At the moment, Parliament could generate such a resolution, apart from under the 1921 Act, only if the Government chose to table one and gave time to it. Is the Minister prepared to agree to a new system under which Parliament at large, or a Select Committee, could trigger such a resolution and have time provided for it?
Mr. Leslie: How Parliament and the House of Commons in particular makes its mind up about whether it debates a resolution and allocates time is a matter for Parliament. It is not for me to put that into legislation today. If Parliament wants to find a way of doing that, it will do so. Moreover, debates do not always take place solely at the instigation of the Government; there are many other ways in which they can take place.
Mrs. Campbell: I agree that Parliament could set up a commission, as my hon. Friend describes; there is nothing in law to prevent that. However, does he not agree that, in reality, it would be almost impossible to find the parliamentary time or to get agreement on such inquiries unless the Government chose that route? Inquiries carry large costs, and consideration would need to be given to how a freestanding parliamentary system divorced from statute would work in terms of financial control.
Column Number: 10
Mr. Leslie: I do not think that the provisions of the 1921 Act necessarily help or constrain Parliament in its scrutiny of any proposals by the Executive, particularly on the setting up of inquiries. Parliament is capable of having a debate if it so wishes, and has the resources to do so.
We need to examine the history of debates and resolutions in Parliament on inquiries. We should bear in mind the formality of some of those and the fact that only a small minority of the total number of inquiries have not required parliamentary resolutions. There are flaws in the current system that need addressing, and one of the proposals in the Bill is to improve the nature of parliamentary scrutiny of proposals to establish inquiries. One argument against the amendments is that in many instances specific parliamentary resolutions might not be desirable or necessary. It is a moot point whether hon. Members would really want formally to have approved every inquiry that might have been held from the Regulation of Railways Act 1871 to the Fire and Rescue Services Act 2004.
Some inquiries will, of course, raise important issues that many hon. Members will want to discuss and debate. That is why the Bill requires a statement to be made to Parliament, which can be oral and followed by debate where appropriate. Hon. Members have many ways of raising issues as normal; there is nothing in the Bill to prevent their asking for wider parliamentary debate through the usual channels.
However, some inquiries will be on a smaller scale, and on matters which, although important, do not necessarily generate widespread interest in Parliament. Not all inquiries have the public profile of, for instance, the Hutton inquiry or the Bloody Sunday inquiry. One could take as an example the inquiry into the actions of the Yorkshire gynaecologist, Richard Neale, which was set up in 2002. That inquiry was conducted under the National Health Service Act 1977—one of the pieces of legislation being repealed by the Bill—and its terms of reference were
“to assess the appropriateness and effectiveness of the procedures operated in local health services to deal with complaints about Richard Neale.”
One might also consider the inquiries into the actions of Dr. Clifford Ayling, Dr. William Kerr and Dr. Michael Haslam, which were established in the same year.
I do not suggest that any of those inquiries were not of great importance—they were. They referred to matters of great concern and that had resulted in great suffering. However, I recall the newspaper coverage at the time. I believe that The Times ran the headline, “Hague comes home to an empty house” about the Adjournment debate secured by the right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague) on the establishment of the Neale inquiry, which was attended by only four MPs. That demonstrates two points: first, that hon. Members already have means of introducing debates on issues concerned with inquiries; and, secondly, that on some occasions widespread parliamentary debate is not necessary,
Column Number: 11
particularly if there is a lack of interest among hon. Members, because that might send undesirable messages.
Although I understand the arguments made by hon. Members, parliamentary approval carries potential dangers. For instance, if we have to seek parliamentary support for the establishment of an inquiry, there is a risk that it will be delayed because Parliament is in recess. If we needed to move forward quickly with an inquiry in such circumstances, there could be significant difficulties if a resolution were required but Parliament was not available to debate and make a expedient decision.
Mr. Carmichael: Can the Minister name a single inquiry of those that he has listed that would have been materially affected by a delay arising from waiting for Parliament to return, even from a long recess?
|
