Clause 36 - Offences
Inquiries Bill [Lords]
9:45 am
Mr Christopher Leslie (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs; Shipley, Labour)
The clause provides sanctions for non-compliance with an order of the inquiry or for actions that are likely to hinder the inquiry. If an inquiry has formal powers to compel information, there must be a sanction consequent on that for anyone who fails to comply with an order made under those powers. Although experience of past inquiries shows that sanctions are rarely likely to be needed, it is nevertheless important to have them. The recent example of Lord Laming successfully bringing a prosecution against a witness who refused to comply with the inquiry into the death of Victoria Climbié demonstrates that, on occasion, some sanctions are necessary.
The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland asked why the offence is made summarily only. The offences created in the Bill are similar to those in section 250 of the Local Government Act 1972, which is the model used in many subject-specific inquiry powers. We decided to take that precedent and use it in this case. I understand that an argument can be made for stronger powers and I take his point, but that is our rationale for drawing up the provisions in that way.
Subsection (1) makes it an offence not to comply without reasonable excuse with a request under clause 19. It is for the chairman to decide whether to institute a prosecution under that subsection. He also has the alternative option of using the enforcement route under clause 37. It is important that the inquiry has access to all available evidence, subject to clause 23 on privileged information.
Subsections (2) and (3) make it an offence deliberately to distort or conceal evidence. Those sanctions can be applied only to actions taken after an inquiry has been set up and are framed so that a person could not unwittingly commit an offence. The clause also ensures that actions authorised by the panel are not offences.
We do not want a situation in which anybody can bring a private prosecution simply because they disagree with particular evidence, which is why prosecutions under subsections (2) and (3)—to answer the query from the hon. Member for Huntingdon—can be brought only by or with the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions or, in Northern Ireland, by the DPP for Northern Ireland. Since it would be possible for prosecutions to be brought following an inquiry—although only for actions that had occurred during it—it is not appropriate for the decision about whether to prosecute to be taken only by the chairman.
Essentially, the hon. Gentleman asks why there is a difference between those things. Our concern is that offences might come to light after the end of an inquiry, at which point it would not be appropriate for the chairman to have a role in those proceedings because the inquiry would have concluded. That was how we framed the clause.