---

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have contributed to an interesting and illuminating debate. I had anticipated a number of the contributions, not least those of the noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe of Aberavon, whose evidence to the Public Administration Select Committee I have indeed read. However, the debate has been both effective and useful in that it has indicated the clear points of concern for noble Lords. Again, I might have predicted some of those. We may be able to deal them in the course of our deliberations in Committee, and some may even be capable of being dealt with in correspondence between now and that time. So I am extremely grateful for all the contributions, although undoubtedly more for some than for others.

I was particularly grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Fraser of Carmyllie, and the noble Lord, Lord Laming, who have both chaired inquiries and therefore have a great deal to offer to our deliberations today and at later stages. I thought the exposition of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Fraser of Carmyllie, of why Clause 14 is so important was extremely helpful and I am sure that noble Lords will reflect on it.

I think that a general welcome has been given to what the Bill seeks to achieve, although I recognise gaps in the opinion of many noble Lords. I want to say at the start that it seeks to strike a balance. We seek to ensure that we put the right powers in the hands of Ministers to make sure that inquiries take place, with an independent chairman operating appropriately in order to win public confidence, an aim which lies at the heart of the Bill. We also seek to consolidate the relevant legislation.

I did shake my head at the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, for which I apologise because it is awful when Ministers do that. However, what the Bill does not do is take away all the other forms of inquiry. It is quite possible that for many of the inquiries that need to take place on what may be described as a day-to-day basis, the provisions of the Bill would be inappropriate.

The purpose of this legislation is to address the kind of inquiries in which noble Lords have been involved. We heard, among others, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe of Aberavon, describe the conduct of the Aberfan inquiry, and the experience of the noble Lord, Lord Laming, with the Climbié inquiry. Above all else, the aim of all such inquiries is to seek and establish the truth. They are held in order to find out what happened and do what can be done to change it. Quite
 
9 Dec 2004 : Column 1013
 
often, that means systemic change. It is all about examining carefully whether the matters Ministers are responsible for are working effectively and if not, why not. To my mind, nowhere was that more evident than when I read the evidence and conclusions of the inquiry of the noble Lord, Lord Laming, into the Victoria Climbié tragedy.

As I said, dealing with the issue of public confidence is important. First, however, I shall address what was said by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe of Aberavon, and the noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth, about why the Bill has been brought forward at this time. The answer is simple: we have consulted and the Bill is ready to come forward. Moreover, we want to get on with it.

I recognise the fact that the Public Administration Select Committee has not yet reported. On the day of the Queen's Speech I wrote to the chairman of that committee with an offer to meet and discuss this. I trust that it will be of some comfort to noble Lords to learn that the Public Administration Select Committee will have reported before the Bill is considered in another place. Therefore I am willing to assume that we shall look carefully at the committee's conclusions before the Bill returns to your Lordships' House. It may be worth pointing out that originally we thought that the committee would report much earlier. However, we were ready to roll and we wanted to bring the Bill forward. It is not meant to do anything other than complement the deliberations of the committee; hence we are following carefully the evidence that has been brought forward.

I was interested in the evidence submitted to the committee by the noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth, which he has repeated in this House, about a checklist. I am not sure that I agree with him, but I look forward to discussing it. I do not agree partly because of the wide difference in the nature of inquiries. They are fundamentally different. Although the noble Lord expanded on the form his checklist would take, I am still not sure whether we would capture everything that needed to be considered. I was even concerned about his final point on whether it could be done better this way with public money. But even that might tilt the balance away from the inquiry. No doubt we shall debate the point.

I was also interested in the evidence given by the noble Lord about wingmen as described in the Public Administration Select Committee evidence, along with the role of assessors, which we have tried to indicate in the Bill. We have addressed this both from the Minister's point of view to ensure that we have the right kind of expertise, as well as with the chairman and/or panel. Experts must be available from the beginning. However, I take the point about ensuring that the chairman is able to bring together his own experts and the Bill is not meant to contradict that.

In response to the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, Parliament does hold inquiries to scrutinise government policy and legislation, and rightly so. They are important inquiries. But they are different from what is being proposed here. If Parliament wants to design or develop
 
9 Dec 2004 : Column 1014
 
other forms of inquiry, that is a matter for Parliament. I do not say that it should not do so. However, this Bill addresses serious inquiries of a public nature that conduct the necessary investigations to enable us to make the kind of changes we have seen. Again, we will debate the point on amendments that no doubt the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, will wish to table.

I agree with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe of Aberavon, about expertise in the Cabinet Office. Again, however, I am not sure whether I would go further. Of course I cannot respond to the comments of the eminent unnamed person, for obvious reasons. However, I hope that the eminent unnamed person becomes named so that I can do so.

It is also true that the chairman of an inquiry is subject to huge pressures, one of which is that one person's positively wonderful chairman may not be another's. We have sought to establish the independence of the chairman in the Bill, ensuring that the person is positioned so as to alleviate some of those pressures.

The noble Lord, Lord Norton, asked whether inquiries set up under the Bill could be supervised by the Council on Tribunals. The noble Lord knows that inquiries are not tribunals. The council has no role in relation to the 1921 Act as its main role at present is in relation to planning. However, I shall look at the point.

I shall read with care the contribution of the noble Baroness, Lady Park of Monmouth, but make only one response today. Clause 27 would mean that Northern Ireland Ministers would be able to set up inquiries only into devolved matters that were already devolved at the time of the occurrence. That may go some way to alleviating the concerns of the noble Baroness.

The noble Lord, Lord Maginnis, was concerned that witnesses in inquiries would not enjoy the same safeguards as witnesses in court. However, they will. Clause 20(1) provides that witnesses cannot be forced to produce or say anything that would not have to be declared in civil proceedings. As witnesses, they will have the same protections and privileges as those provided by a civil court.

The noble Lord was also concerned about restrictions on areas of responsibility. The noble Lord has highlighted a real issue: inquiries do not always fit neatly into one area of responsibility. For example, the noble Lord, Lord Laming, knows that the Climbié inquiry ranged over many different areas. However, the point about corporate responsibility is more a question of how the Northern Ireland Executive works; that is, it is an issue beyond the scope of the Bill, although I recognise the point.

Noble Lords were concerned about terms of reference. The Bill provides that the chairman will play a role with the Minister in considering the terms of reference and that, in a sense, will give the public confidence because they will be well known. I take the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland—it had already been made to me—about changing the terms of reference when new evidence comes to light and so on. I will look at the matter again. But the way
 
9 Dec 2004 : Column 1015
 
in which an inquiry is established under the Bill will give real clarity as to what it is set up to do. If the terms of reference were to be altered, that would, in a sense, change the nature of the inquiry. In that case, we would dissolve and reappoint immediately.

I have asked for advice from my officials to ensure that that would be a non-cumbersome process. Its purpose is to ensure that pressure cannot be put on a chairman—as undoubtedly in many inquiries it is—to widen, change or alter the inquiry in some way.

The noble Lord, Lord Laming, said that if there is a train crash, we want to be clear about what happened. Inquiries are not courts. If there is a train crash, we want to find out what happened and how it happened. At the end of an inquiry, blame may indeed be fairly and squarely placed on a process or an individual, and it is then for the due process of law to take its course. The Bill is clear that these are not courts of law but inquiries into fact and seekers after truth, which is very important.

The noble Lord, Lord Norton, referred to inquiries under subject specific legislation and not having the powers to convert, as in Clause 14. As the noble Lord knows, there is no power to convert in the 1921 Act and there are no specific powers within subject specific inquiries. But they have been used in that way. I draw the noble Lord's attention to the Clifford Ayling and Neale inquiries. They were converted under the NHS Act from Section 2 to Section 84, which gave them statutory powers. It is a technical point but it is of relevance none the less.

A number of noble Lords referred to the role of Parliament. I should say to noble Lords—particularly the noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe of Aberavon—that it has been the universal practice of Ministers in this Government and their predecessors to explain to Parliament the reason for causing a major inquiry whether or not it is under the 1921 Act. I expect this practice to continue. I am satisfied that the formal resolution power has not added anything.

I agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, said about the issue. In the past 15 years, only four inquiries have been set up under the 1921 Act following resolutions of Parliament. In three of those cases, the resolutions were passed as a formality. The noble Lord indicated that Shipman was the exception.

But written statements are important. Noble Lords referred to written statements both before and after. It is good practice—it happens now—and during our deliberations in Committee I will be happy to consider whether the procedure needs to be strengthened in any way.

The noble and learned Lord, Lord Fraser, and the noble Lord, Lord Laming, spoke with strength—as, indeed, did the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe of Aberavon—about the Salmon report. We want to consider the question of the procedural rules and, as I said, I shall be publishing information before the House rises for Christmas. I very much welcome the input of noble Lords to this issue. We intend to consult
 
9 Dec 2004 : Column 1016
 
widely on the rules to clarify or strengthen them, or indeed to change them if that seems to be the most appropriate course. Certainly it is an issue that needs to be thought through again and I am very happy to commit to doing that.

The noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, also referred to the terms of reference. I hope that I have given him some reassurance about the way in which we have considered the issue. I shall continue to look at it. The procedure is designed to alleviate pressure, which is important.

The noble Lords, Lord Maginnis and Lord Smith of Clinton, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Fraser, spoke from rather different angles about costs. Clause 16 makes it explicit that costs are one aspect—

---