Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

The power to convert one inquiry into another inquiry under this proposed legislation is important. It was discussed at length in the other place. Lord Kingsland noted:

“After the Bill became an Act, it would give a power to the Minister, in effect, to close down ongoing inquiries and replace them with inquiries under the Bill. That would give rise to two issues, one of which is far more important than the other.

The first is that it would provide a new procedure to an ongoing inquiry. We could see the force of doing that, if formal procedures were not proving to be satisfactory in dealing with the matter under review. Our other concern was that an inquiry might be closed down and replaced in order to get rid of members who were saying and doing inconvenient things and replace them with placemen.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 8 February 2005; Vol. 669, c. 699.]

The Government answered those concerns by requiring consultation with the chairman. However, we still have some worries.

The Bill has a retrospective effect, and I ask the Minister why that is necessary—and if it is necessary, it should occur only in the most extreme circumstances. Also, a Minister can convert an inquiry and change its panel and terms of reference, or even terminate it. Apart from there being too much ministerial involvement in that, it must go against the legitimate expectations of the chairman in starting the inquiry. Finally, is starting a new inquiry an alternative?

To answer that last point, the alternative of starting a fresh inquiry would exist, but there may be good reasons why one would want to convert an existing inquiry into one that had the powers granted to it by this legislation—for instance, the reason of not wanting to lose valuable evidence sessions that have previously been heard. This Clause is intended specifically to enable Ministers to convert an existing inquiry into one that has the extra powers in this   legislation. The ability to convert could be helpful in providing an inquiry panel with formal powers that are valuable to the effectiveness of its work. For instance, as Lord Fraser noted in the other place, conversion could have provided him with a valuable power to require the production of evidence in the Holyrood inquiry that he chaired, and he would have liked to have had that.

The power can be used to convert inquiries set up before or after this legislation comes into force; however, it should be emphasised that by virtue of clause 45 any inquiries currently under way can continue unchanged after the Bill comes into force. The Government have no plans to convert any existing inquiries, but we cannot rule out the possibility of doing so if an inquiry panel considers that that would beneficial. The clause contains these wide provisions in case they are needed in the future.

A Minister might convert an inquiry provided that he is satisfied that the subject matter of the original inquiry falls within the defining scope of clause 1(1)(a) and (b). The person who caused the original inquiry to be held must consent to the conversion, and the chairman must also be consulted. The Minister is required to advise Parliament or the relevant Assembly that an inquiry has been converted, and to provide the usual statement required under clause 6 about the terms of reference and appointments to the panel. The provision is sensible. We are taking the Bill through its legislative stages precisely because we feel that there are extra powers and scope that we can give to enhance the work of inquiries. It would therefore be sensible and prudent to allow for the conversion of inquiries in that way. I hope that the clause will stand part of the Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 16 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 17 ordered to stand part of the Bill.