Inquiries Bill [Lords]


[back to previous text]

Mr. Tyler: The words that the Minister uses do not accurately reflect what the amendment says. The amendment says “may” make provision. It does not demand, insist or prescribe.

Mr. Leslie: I understand what the hon. Gentleman says, but I cannot envisage circumstances in which we would want such rigid rules. Even if rules were made, they may have implications for, and be misinterpreted by, other inquiries. Inquiries can cover a vast array of territory on any number of issues. As is normally the case, to answer my hon. Friend the Member for
 
Column Number: 101
 
Falkirk, East, there can be confrontation with interested parties about the terms of reference of an inquiry. Sometimes there will be circumstances in which Ministers must react exceptionally swiftly in the public interest—perhaps to a major crisis—and they will need to move very fast. There is also a requirement to consult the inquiry chairman, and we debated wider consultation. To a certain extent, we are repeating some of the issues raised then.

10.30 am

Mr. Connarty: The Minister knows that when people come to discuss what interpretation to place on the Act, they will read the Official Report to determine what he said. So is he saying that he would expect the person who makes the rules of the inquiry to consult the person who will be its chairman, if time allows?

Mr. Leslie: Indeed, past practice has been that there has been wide consultation on most inquiries, and we expect that to continue—I give that assurance to my hon. Friend—but we cannot specify it for absolutely every situation, as we cannot predict what eventualities will arise. However, there is a requirement for the Minister to consult the chairman in such circumstances, and that will be helpful.

Nothing in the current wording would prevent estimates of cost or duration from being included in the rules, as they fall within the definition of “evidence and procedure” under clause 42. Indeed, as I said when we debated some of these issues on Tuesday, my noble Friend Baroness Ashton made a commitment to the other place that there would be consultation on things such as estimates. I am happy to repeat her commitment, but I do not wish to pre-empt the consultation on the rules.

The Government said in their response to the Public Administration Committee report that they were sympathetic to the idea of publishing estimates of costs and duration. However, we must consider carefully whether that can be done in a meaningful way, particularly bearing in mind the debate about the drawbacks of including rigid requirements for estimates in the Bill. That is why we want to consult on that point.

On the other hand, I am not clear what would be achieved by rules on consulting on the terms of reference. The Minister must consult the chairman, as I said, and there is nothing to prevent wider consultation if the Minister considers it appropriate, but some of the same objections to including an obligation for consultation in the Bill apply to including one in the rules. It is not possible to come up with a meaningful definition of how widely the Minister is expected to consult which does not create false expectations and increase the possibility of challenge, perhaps right at the outset of an inquiry. That would be undesirable.

Mrs. Campbell: Does my hon. Friend agree that much more public consultation in the case of the Hutton inquiry, for example, would have been useful? There was a great deal of controversy about the way in
 
Column Number: 102
 
which it was set up and the narrowness of its remit. I am sure that there was private consultation between the Lord Chancellor and Lord Hutton, but would not it have been better to have had the public debate before the inquiry got under way rather than afterwards? There was a great deal of criticism, particularly in the media and from politicians, about the narrowness of the inquiry. It is always better to get such things out of the way beforehand rather than have them come back to bite one afterwards.

Mr. Leslie: With the greatest of respect to my hon. Friend, it is slightly unfair to say that in all circumstances there must be a particular period for consultation before a Minister sets up an inquiry or sets out its terms of reference. Consider what the public might expect from a Minister, particularly if a crisis arises or an emergency situation develops. They naturally look to the Government to take a lead, to set up an inquiry and to get on with an investigation and make progress in finding out what went wrong in a particular situation, rather than having a protracted fixed period for consulting on whether and when the edges of the terms of reference might or might not be defined. I am not saying that consultation might not be a good thing in normal circumstances, but it would not be right to set it out in fixed and rigid rules.

Mrs. Campbell: My hon. Friend makes two points. The flavour of the amendment is permissive, in that it says “may” rather than “shall” or “must”. It would therefore be up to the Government of the day to decide whether to follow the rules suggested. It is perfectly possible that they would have good reasons, including urgency, for not following them.

In their evidence to the Select Committee, the Government conceded that there could be a case for announcing terms of reference—perhaps a few weeks after the inquiry had been set up—to allow for discussion of the preliminary investigation. So an inquiry could be set up, and much of the preliminary work could be done, without the terms of reference, which would still be at the stage of public consultation.

Mr. Leslie: Again, I am not convinced of the wisdom of taking that course of action. I hear what my hon. Friend says about “may”, but my understanding is that it is used quite frequently in clauses dealing with rule-making powers, where it is often given more weight than might be the case in normal parlance. That could leave an inquiry’s terms of reference open to challenge and lead to protracted court discussions, which would not necessarily be appropriate.

I also remind my hon. Friend that rules in such legislation normally relate to the evidence and procedure involved in running an inquiry, not to the decision to set up an inquiry in the first place. So, again, I have my doubts about whether clause 42 is the right place to deal with the problem. The idea that there should be full consultation in normal circumstances might be an appropriate topic for guidance, and we might be able to consider it in a
 
Column Number: 103
 
different context, but I do not necessarily agree that we should always put these things in legislation.

It can often be helpful to have time for consultation, and clause 5 is drawn up in a way that makes that possible. However, the need for consultation varies from case to case, which is why it would be wrong to go for the rigidity suggested in the amendment. I understand my hon. Friend’s case, but it is not appropriate to the rules clause and it would not be desirable to have rigid rules setting out how consultation must be carried out. However, I thank her for at least raising the issue. In the general consultation that we shall have on the rules, we shall want to go into such things in more depth. I urge her to consider those comments and withdraw the amendment.

Mrs. Campbell: I must confess to being disappointed that my hon. Friend is not prepared to accept this reasonable amendment. Setting out the proposed framework in the Bill would provide for a Minister to take different action if that was considered necessary at the time. It would also provide a good practice framework under which inquiries could be conducted.

I completely take my hon. Friend’s point that a Minister may need to act quickly to prevent undue public concern. However, in the light of the advice that the Lord Chancellor gave the Select Committee, there could be a case for announcing the terms of reference after a set period—perhaps a few weeks—to allow for discussion of the preliminary investigation and to allow individuals to make representations to the Minister setting up the inquiry. There is no reason why the inquiry should not be started and some preliminary work done while the terms of reference are being agreed.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 4, Noes 8.

[Division No. 7]

AYES

Atkinson, Mr. Peter
Campbell, Mrs. Anne
Djanogly, Mr. Jonathan
Tyler, Mr. Paul

NOES

Connarty, Mr. Michael
Davies, Geraint
Hall, Mr. Mike
Jones, Mr. Kevan
Leslie, Mr. Christopher
Pound, Mr. Stephen
Prentice, Bridget
Rooney, Mr. Terry

Question accordingly negatived.

Clause 42 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 43 to 48 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 1 agreed to.


 
Column Number: 104
 

Clause 49 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 2 agreed to.

Clause 50 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 3 agreed to.

Clauses 51 to 53 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 54

Short title

Mr. Leslie: I beg to move amendment No. 41, in clause 54, page 26, line 9, leave out subsection (2).

This is a technical amendment, which removes the Lords privilege amendment that was inserted on Third reading in the other place. The Committee will be aware that the House of Lords cannot consider matters of money or charges on public funds, so the subsection was therefore inserted in the other place. Following Second reading in the Commons, we passed the money resolution, so we can now remove that provision.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 54, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Question proposed, That the Chairman do report the Bill, as amended, to the House.

Mr. Leslie: I thank you, Mr. Gale, and your co-Chairman, Mr. Griffiths, for your safe and efficient stewardship of the Bill through Committee. We have scrutinised its clauses rigorously, and have given it good and effective consideration.

I thank the Clerks and those who ensured safe and good order in the Room. I also thank my officials for helpfully providing me with inspiration when required. Finally, I thank my hon. Friends for their support. It has been a great pleasure, and this is another Bill Committee under our belts.

Mr. Djanogly: At the conclusion of what has been a brief but interesting and important Committee, I thank you, Mr. Gale, for your expert and fair chairmanship and your good humour. The same is true of your co-Chairman, Mr. Griffiths.

I thank Committee members for working well together to a tight timetable. We finish with no outstanding issues, but we certainly wasted no time identifying them. Finally, I thank the support staff—the Clerks, the Doorkeepers and police—for allowing it to happen.

Mr. Tyler: I endorse everything that has been said by the Minister and the hon. Member for Huntingdon, and say the same on behalf of my party. As I said, I hope that this will be my swansong. At least I can leave with the happy memory of a well ordered Committee under your chairmanship, Mr. Gale, and that of Mr. Griffiths. I thank you for that.


 
Column Number: 105
 

The Chairman: I thank hon. Members for their fine comments. I am sure that Mr. Griffiths’s attention will be drawn to them. This may prove to be the last Standing Committee on which hon. Members sit under his chairmanship.

I express my own appreciation for the work of the Officers of the House, without whom our proceedings would be well-nigh impossible. I am not at liberty to
 
Column Number: 106
 
comment on what might happen in April or May. That is a matter for conjecture. However, I think that it is in order for me to wish all hon. Members a happy Easter and a safe return on 4 April.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill, as amended, to be reported.

Committee rose at sixteen minutes to Eleven o’clock.

                                                                                           
 
Previous Contents
House of Commons 
home page Parliament home page House of 
Lords home page search page enquiries ordering index

©Parliamentary copyright 2005
Prepared 29 March 2005