APPENDIX 1: LETTER FROM THE CLERK OF
THE CONSTITUTION COMMITTEE TO THE RT HON THE LORD FALCONER OF
THOROTON, LORD CHANCELLOR AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR CONSTITUTIONAL
AFFAIRS
I have been asked by Lord Holme of Cheltenham, the
Chairman of the Constitution Committee, who is abroad, to write
expressing his concern at the far-reaching implications, form
and timing of the Inquiries Bill, which receives its second reading
tomorrow. He very much regrets that, because of his absence abroad,
he is unable to take part in the debate on second reading.
The Queen's Speech states that the Bill will provide
"a modern and comprehensive framework for statutory inquiries
into matters of public concern". In seeking to do so, the
Bill raises many detailed questions concerning matters of constitutional
principle as well as proposing the repeal of legislation that
has been in place for over 80 years. It was not however preceded
by a white paper or other full statement of the Government's proposals,
but only by a paper outlining the response to the Department of
Constitutional Affairs' consultation, carried out while the Public
Administration Select Committee's inquiry into the same subject
is still in progress.
In its recent report, Parliament and the Legislative
Process,[1] the Constitution
Committee welcomed the recent extent of pre-legislative scrutiny,
paying special tribute to the work done on the Draft Civil Contingencies
Bill by the Joint Committee appointed for the purpose. The Committee
pointed out that pre-legislative scrutiny should lead to better
legislation and, potentially, save time during the later legislative
stages of a bill. The Committee stated that it wished to see the
practice of pre-legislative scrutiny improved and extended. In
an earlier report, Changing the Constitution: the Process of
Constitutional Change,[2]
the Committee examined the procedure that should be followed
in regard to bills of constitutional significance, stating that
such bills would benefit in the same way as all other measures
from changes designed to strengthen parliamentary scrutiny.[3]
Lord Holme is of the view that it would be wholly
consistent with these sentiments for the Inquiries Bill, as a
measure of constitutional significance, to have been the subject
of pre-legislative scrutiny. Since that is not now a realistic
option, he hopes that appropriate means can be found to ensure
that it is fully scrutinised during its passage through Parliament,
including taking into account the findings of the Public Administration
Select Committee's inquiry into the subject.
At Lord Holme's request, I am sending copies of this
letter to the leaders of the principal parties in the House, to
the Convenor of the Cross Bench peers and to the Chairman of the
Public Administration Select Committee, as well as to members
of the Select Committee on the Constitution.
8 December 2004
1 14th Report, 2003-04, HL Paper 173-I. Back
2
4th Report, 2001-02, HL Paper 69. Back
3
Ibid, para 65. Back
|
