Clause 18 - Evidence and procedure
Inquiries Bill [Lords]
4:15 pm
Mr Paul Tyler (Shadow Leader of the House of Commons; North Cornwall, Liberal Democrat)
I have listened with care to the hon. Gentleman. As I said earlier, I am not a lawyer. Indeed, as I said in a statutory instrument Committee last night, my usual approach is the Shakespearean one: I cannot remember which Shakespearean character it was, but one of them basically said, “Hang the lawyers.” No doubt my hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland disagrees.
My experience of inquiries has always been non-legal; I have appeared at various inquiries and I have sought to help constituents at inquiries. I am not sure how compatible the amendment is, in the way in which it is written, with the subsection it seeks to amend, but no doubt the Minister can deal with that. My concern about the amendment is that the presumption should be that legal representation is not necessary, and that anything that pushes too far in the direction of making legal representation not obligatory, but encouraged, is unhelpful.
On Second Reading, I mentioned the inquiry that was eventually set up into the Lowermoor water poisoning episode, which took place just before water privatisation. No doubt that was why the Government of the day were so anxious to avoid an inquiry. What was ideal about that inquiry was that there was no legal representation. As a result, it was much less formal, much less expensive and much more effective. There should not be a presumption that legal representation should be encouraged, or that it would improve the quality of exchanges or the presentation of the information.
I shall listen with care to the Minister’s response, but my hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland and I feel that to pass the amendment would mean to employ the nanny state excessively.