Clause 42 - Rules
Inquiries Bill [Lords]
10:00 am
Mrs Anne Campbell (Cambridge, Labour)
I am not.
The Select Committee discussed consultation on the terms of reference at some length, and some years ago the Salmon commission said that the terms of reference should be drawn as precisely as possible.
In the course of taking evidence, we found that negotiation appeared to take place between the Lord Chancellor and the chairman of an inquiry. Lord Falconer told the Committee that if Lord Hutton had said:
“in order to get to the truth of what happened leading up to Dr Kelly’s death, I need different ... terms of reference,”
he—the Lord Chancellor—would have agreed. That is a strong indication that the Government are open to such negotiation between the Lord Chancellor and chairmen. In such circumstances, it would be sensible to enable more public consultation on the terms of reference. There is little public trust in politicians at the moment, so it is sensible for us to be as open and transparent as possible about the ways in which we do our business.
The terms of reference are extremely important when setting up an inquiry. Indeed, when the Government gave evidence to the Committee, they conceded that there could often be a case for announcing terms of reference after a set period—perhaps a few weeks—to allow for discussion and preliminary investigation, and to allow individuals to make representations to the Minister setting up the inquiry.
In its conclusions and recommendations, the Select Committee said:
“It is essential that the terms of reference enjoy broad consensus and are drawn up in a way which allows full and proper examination of the facts and do not fetter the inquiry in its task. We recommend that the chair of an inquiry should have the ability to negotiate the precise terms of reference before agreeing to undertake the inquiry. We also recommend that the Inquiries Bill should provide specifically for a short period of consultation after any announcement to ensure that the final terms of reference meet the expectations of a particular inquiry. This should include appropriate parliamentary involvement.”
I am conscious that the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland tabled an amendment on this point, relating to an earlier clause, which he withdrew after some discussion, but I am giving the Minister the opportunity to reconsider the issue and, perhaps, make us all happy by saying that he agrees after due consideration that the amendment is sensible.
Paragraph (b) of the amendment refers to costs. The hon. Member for Huntingdon tabled a similar amendment, which we debated earlier in our proceedings, when there was some discussion about the procedures and who would be responsible for keeping the costs under control.
Under the Bill, the chairman is obliged to have regard to the need to avoid unnecessary costs in considering how to conduct the inquiry, but the Select Committee was struck by the way in which the US Congress conducts its inquiries, which is very different. It may involve congressional legislation, which may not only establish the inquiry but determine its budget. For example, the Act that established the 9/11 commission provided for a budget of $3 million.
Obviously, we have a different legislative framework, and I do not suggest that we need to go as far as placing a limit on the expenditure, but the Select Committee recommended that Ministers should announce a broad budget figure fairly early on, at the start of the inquiry, and that any increase on the announced figure would need to be publicly explained at the end of the inquiry, when final costs were publicised. That approach would not unnecessarily constrain the work of the inquiry. I do not foresee any unnecessary difficulty for the Government in taking that course. However, in a time when there are, perhaps, concerns about the way in which we spend public money, it is right that the Government should be seen to have due regard to costs in that way. It would not seem difficult to make an announcement at the start of the inquiry about the broad costs, as well as the length of the inquiry—something that of course relates to the cost—and, at the end, to announce the actual cost and provide an explanation if the inquiry has run over budget.
I hope that the Minister will be prepared to accept amendment No. 37.