---

Lord Laming: My Lords, I warmly welcome the Bill. As the noble Lord, Lord Norton, has said, it is a relatively short Bill, but I hope that your Lordships will agree that that in no way diminishes its importance. Indeed, sometimes there are those who question the need for inquiries. "After all", they say, "Parliament has put in place a wide variety of mechanisms through which the actions and decisions of others can be rightly challenged".

However, it must also be acknowledged that within both the public services and private enterprises, great powers and responsibilities are exercised and sometimes issues arise that go well beyond the interests of the individual and rightly excite serious and general concern. In my view, in a modern democratic society, there is a distinctive and important place for an inquiry to be held in circumstances in which there are general concerns that are unlikely to be addressed satisfactorily by any other means to secure public confidence.

Therefore, I support the Bill for three main reasons. First, it really is time that the legislation was brought up to date. We need to learn the lessons of previous experience and ensure that the legislative framework serves current needs and expectations. Secondly, experience shows that there is a need to establish inquiries to address a very wide range of issues. Therefore, the style and nature of an inquiry must be relevant to the particular matter and circumstance. Thirdly, it is absolutely essential that each and every inquiry must be seen to be independent of all special interests, which must include the government of the day.

It is on that latter point that I wish to raise some concerns on which I hope the Minister will be able to reassure the House. I do so because I suspect that in our society there is a long history of governments who, in seeking to tackle problems, take more powers unto themselves as a first reaction. On the issue of inquiries, governments have to exercise restraint so as not to put in jeopardy the independence of inquiries.

Perhaps I may touch on a few of my concerns. You will not be surprised that some of them have already been highlighted. First, in Clause 1 it is for the Minister to establish an inquiry. Parliament is deliberately excluded both in the setting up of an inquiry and in the publication of the report. That issue is important because I suspect that in a number of inquiries, when the spotlight has veered towards the activities of central government, it has somehow been deflected elsewhere. Even when central government have been at the centre of the storm, somehow matters turn out to be all right in the end. I believe that it is absolutely essential that the activities of central government are subjected to the same degree of scrutiny as are local operational services. That being so, I have real concerns about Parliament being excluded and all the powers being given to the Minister.

Secondly, the Bill enables the Minister to settle the terms of reference without even consulting the person who will chair the inquiry, despite the fact that experience shows that it is not unusual for the terms of
 
9 Dec 2004 : Column 1004
 
reference of an inquiry to attract critical comment. Often the chair has to explain or even to defend the terms of reference. In my view, it is essential that there is a clear understanding and a meeting of minds between the Minister and the chair on this vitally important matter, which goes beyond the form of words, but embraces an understanding of their interpretation.

Thirdly, the Minister can appoint the panel of advisers without reference to the chair. In my view, that both fails to recognise that the chair and the advisers have to work as a team and undermines the independence of the inquiry—a factor of immense importance.

Fourthly, the Minister can determine when the inquiry is to begin and when it is to end. However, experience shows that sometimes inquiries have to take evidence from many more witnesses, or study many more documents, than was initially envisaged by the Minister, solely to satisfy the terms of reference.

Fifthly, the Minister is given powers to publish the report and, in doing so, can withhold material that he decides should be excluded in the public interest. It may be tempting in some circumstances for the Minister to interpret "the public interest" rather widely. I hope that the noble Baroness will be able to assure the House that that does not encompass such matters as possible embarrassment to the government of the day. I am surprised that the Minister is not required to publish the report to a prompt timescale and I hope that some reassurance can be given on the point.

Sixthly, although it is entirely right that inquiries should not trespass on civil or criminal liability—that is absolutely right—I could not help but note that the statement from the department that accompanied the Bill indicated that:

"The purpose of an inquiry is not to apportion blame".

I make it plain that if a train crashes because the driver has gone through a stop light and he is then proved to be drunk while on duty, I would expect the blame to be stated very clearly, although further issues must be followed up elsewhere.

Seventhly, your Lordships will have noticed that the Minister has been given power to suspend an inquiry without having to consult the chair. That illustrates an important principle and a matter of concern, which is that Parliament must ensure that Ministers do not exert undue influence over inquiries. Indeed, a principal task of a Minister is to appoint someone capable of conducting an independent inquiry. That person must be accountable for the management of the inquiry and its conclusions.

I readily accept that the Minister cannot give, as it were, a blank cheque, but there has to be proper recognition, both of the responsibilities of the Minister and those of the chair. I hope that the Minister will be willing to look to see whether the balance has yet been achieved between the responsibilities of the Minister and the chair of the inquiry.
 
9 Dec 2004 : Column 1005
 

I touch briefly now on a point of omission already referred to, which is the report by Lord Salmon and, in particular, the so-called "Salmon principles". I agree entirely with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Fraser, that anyone who has had to try to manage informing people about potential criticism will know of the complexities and of the potential for delay and added expense in an inquiry.

The present arrangements seem to me to hold out the possibility that inquiries are almost never ending. That being so, I hope the Minister can give an assurance that the issue will be tackled and these principles brought up to date.

Lord Howe of Aberavon: My Lords, perhaps the noble Lord will forgive me if I intervene to ask him a question on that. I suggest that the Salmon principles, properly applied—and I fully take the point made by my noble and learned friend Lord Fraser—can accelerate the conclusion, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers, for example, demonstrated in the BSE Inquiry. There has to be a balance between the two. But to discard the Salmon principles altogether would be to jeopardise the interests of individuals.

Lord Laming: My Lords, I am extremely grateful to the noble and learned Lord for that intervention. I did not intend to imply that the Salmon principles should be abandoned. Far from it; there are issues of justice and fairness that have to be properly taken into account. But the way the Salmon principles are framed can lead to inquiries being reopened, new witness statements being taken, new evidence received and witnesses being recalled. The list can go on and on unless these matters are addressed. I make the point because inquiries have interestingly devised different ways in which to handle the Salmon principles and it seems to me that there should be some consistency in the matter.

Finally, I repeat that I very much welcome this Bill; indeed, I welcome any Bill that is intended to strengthen and make more efficient the conduct of inquiries. The concerns I have expressed are not intended in any way to imply that we do not need a Bill of this kind or that it is not important; indeed, I believe that inquiries are essential, not only to recover public confidence but also to ensure that the public can be guaranteed that matters of this kind will be handled in an independent, thorough, careful, robust and fair way. The issue of the independence of the inquiry is my principal concern.

Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, I speak only of the implications of the Bill for Northern Island. I begin by saying that although some of the concerns I am expressing may now prove premature, they are none the less valid.

Sinn Fein/IRA is well versed in the art of brinkmanship. Its latest statements are part of the war of nerves. It will now sit back and wait for more concessions. As the Independent Monitoring
 
9 Dec 2004 : Column 1006
 
Commission pointed out, it has never stopped recruiting in this past year while negotiations have been going on, and it has never disciplined the so-called dissidents whom it has done much to arm.

The Cory inquiry, with its flawed redaction, was not a reassuring example of an inquiry set up by Ministers. The Bill we are about to debate provides that Ministers from the devolved administration will have the power to establish such inquiries into matters within their remit.

Under Clause 27 an inquiry established by a Northern Ireland Minister must not receive evidence or make any recommendation in matters concerned with national security. I assume that that was the position before devolution. That should be a safeguard against the disgraceful exposure seen in the Cory report of a number of servants of the state who were not questioned or given any opportunity to defend themselves.

However, the timetable given in annex A of the proposal for a comprehensive agreement provides that by early summer 2005 the British Government will introduce legislation giving effect to the devolution of criminal justice and policing. Indeed, there were to be—and no doubt still will be—shadow assembly committees as early as January 2005 to consider modalities for the devolution of those areas of power.

In annex F of the proposals for agreement, Sinn Fein engages,

"in the context of the enactment of the British Parliament of the legislation to give full expression to this transfer of powers on policing and justice away from London",

to,

"decide on the issue of policing as soon as the legislation is enacted".

Its commitment remains conditional even at the height of the honeymoon.

In the context of the Northern Ireland negotiations, the timing of the Bill is significant. It is a very nice sop to Cerberus. Sinn Fein/IRA, if and when it becomes a part of power sharing, will undoubtedly use the legislation in due course to attack the security forces, despite all the reassurance that ought to be given by Clause 27, for by that time it will have a presence on the police force and a strong hand in rewriting the rules. It has the agreement of both the DUP and the British Government to the transfer of powers on policing and justice to the Assembly. I think that we can expect more inquiries, although none, I fear, on the 1,800 murders committed by the IRA over the years and no inquiry either on behalf of the families of the disappeared.

Incidentally, I do not see why, since the inquiries have no power to convict and none to determine any personal civil or criminal liability, the IRA should not be, in the period before devolution, publicly exposed in such inquiries—it is the only good thing about the idea so far as I can see—and those who have committed this crime named.

Once the powers in the Bill have been devolved, however, it is very doubtful whether a Northern Ireland Minister in a devolved Assembly would ever
 
9 Dec 2004 : Column 1007
 
do anything so contentious as to arraign the IRA or indeed the protestant paramilitaries who have committed crimes. They will probably only go for the police and, retrospectively—since by that time the Armed Forces will be being usefully employed by a sorely overstretched Army somewhere else—the military.

In the statement on the Cory report in April, the Secretary of State said that wrongdoers would be brought to justice. I cannot but wonder whether such inquiries ordered by a devolved administration, and expressly precluded in Clause 2 from ruling on or determining any person's civil or criminal liability, may prove to be just the thing to solve the problem for the Government of how to get the "on the runs" back home unpunished for their crimes. That is what was promised at Weston Park—that there would be a brief judicial process which would immediately set the OTRs free.

Will the mechanism for inquiries in the Bill offer a useful way of appearing to arraign them, while at the same time ensuring that no action could be taken against them? Is that why Sinn Fein/IRA is ready, once the legislation on the devolution of police and criminal justice is secure, to decide on the issue of policing? Incidentally, nothing has been said in the proposals about either the OTRs or about the right of those arbitrarily exiled by paramilitaries to return.

In due course, although perhaps not by the Minister today, as that would be inappropriate, I should be glad to be assured that the IRA's Stormont operation and the Special Branch break-in, which put so many police officers and others at risk of their lives, will have been brought before the courts and justice done, as the Secretary of State promised that it would be. Once Sinn Fein/IRA is on the police board and enjoying the powers that the Bill will give Ministers to set inquiries going at will, three guesses as to who will be the targets. Not Sinn Fein/IRA.

Relentless public exposure of the forces of law and order, in the guise of inquiries, who will, on the Cory model, be given no chance to defend themselves, will serve very well to demoralise public servants. I fear that the interesting reason why the Bill has been introduced now is the context of Northern Ireland and the Government's need to offer concessions.

---