Inquiries Bill [Lords] – in a Public Bill Committee at 4:15 pm on 22 March 2005.
Jonathan Djanogly
Shadow Minister (Home Affairs)
4:15,
22 March 2005
I beg to move Amendment No. 19, in page 8, line 34, at end add
‘(b)the fact that any person or organisation who may have cause to apprehend the possibility of criticism in course of or as a result of the proceedings may reasonably wish to be legally represented at the inquiry’.
We continue to steam through the clauses of the Bill. This is an important issue, which was discussed at some length in the other place, and which relates to legal representation if there is a risk of criticism during the inquiry. It might be helpful if I explained where the phraseology of the amendment comes from.
On 5 February 1998, a document was produced by the Phillips inquiry on BSE, under the signature of Sir Nicholas Phillips, as he then was. The following words are drawn from his closing paragraph, in which he describes the protection of individual interests and discusses the role that lawyers may perform. He says that the first stage of the inquiry may be devoted exclusively to obtaining evidence of fact, but that then one turns to the point where witnesses or others face criticism. He states:
“At this point, those who are invited to answer potential criticism may reasonably wish to be legally represented in order to protect their interests. Indeed, it may well be that, even before this stage, individuals may have cause to apprehend the possibility of criticism and wish to be legally represented. If a Department at any stage forms the view that an individual ought to have independent legal assistance, it is likely to be proper and desirable for the Department to fund such assistance. Equally it will, at any stage, be open to any individual to ask the Inquiry to recommend the funding of obtaining legal assistance. It will, of course, be for the inquiry to decide what part, if any, a legal representative will play in the hearings themselves.”
The Committee will see that the amendment draws heavily on the sentence
“It may well be that, even before this stage, individuals may have cause to apprehend the possibility of criticism and wish to be legally represented.”
In the other place, Lord Howe of Aberavon said:
“I emphasise that the right to legal representation does not consist simply of having someone stand up and spout for you; nor does it consist simply of having someone sit beside you, having given you preliminary advice, and holding your hand but not being heard. At the other extreme, it does not mean the right for your legal representative to reach out for unrestricted verbosity and prolixity.”
What marvellous use of language. He continues:
“However, it does embrace the right to advice, the right to presence before the inquiry and the right to represent, and be heard on behalf of, the individual so far as is necessary. It is a question of the highest possible importance in the context of inquiries as a whole.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 19 January 2005; Vol. 668, c. GC267]
I would also like to point out the Council on Tribunals report, which stated:
“It should not be assumed that hearing legal representatives will necessarily add significantly, or at all, to the length of the inquiry, provided the inquiry itself retains overall control. Opening statements and the like from lawyers can help to distil issues and eliminate misunderstandings, and may also enhance fairness. Oral testimony can give ... a better understanding of the matters under the inquiry’s consideration, and may assist in allaying public concerns. Being taken through evidence in chief can put a witness at ease, enabling him to give of his best when being questioned by the inquiry. Cross-examination of other witnesses may sometimes be the most effective way of resolving conflicts of evidence. Re-examination can be a much quicker way of clarifying outstanding points than the submission of additional written statements. In short, although legal representation should not be regarded as an automatic right, and the inquiry should prevent any abuse of the opportunity to be heard, it may be counterproductive to start from the position that legal representations will only be heard exceptionally. The inquiry should be ready to exercise its discretion in favour of hearing legal representatives and oral testimony and allowing cross-examination whenever it seems appropriate.”
Lord Howe went on to say:
“I repeat that it may be counterproductive to start from the position that legal representatives will be heard only exceptionally. I would strengthen the position myself by saying not merely that it ”may not” be counterproductive; it would be so.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 19 January 2005; Vol. 688, c. GC271.]
Those are strong words from the Lords on this issue, which is why we thought it important to reintroduce the amendments. I am interested to hear the Government’s comments on them.
Mr Paul Tyler
Shadow Leader of the House of Commons
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.
Chris Leslie
Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Department for Constitutional Affairs)
How interesting it is, to use the description of the hon. Member for North Cornwall, that the nanny state should appear in the form of an Amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Huntingdon.
I understand why the hon. Member for Huntingdon advocates the amendment, but it is not necessary. It is an interesting spending commitment on legal costs from the Conservative party, on which it might be worth putting a figure at some point in order to send a little note to the Shadow Chancellor of the exchequer in case he is worried about spending commitments made by his Front-Bench colleagues.
That point aside, I think that the hon. Member for Huntingdon is trying to incorporate one of the Salmon principles into the legislation. There was general agreement in the other place that accepting the amendment would take inquiries in the wrong direction. Indeed, their lordships were concerned that it could lead to more costly proceedings. The principle that the amendment would put into the Bill has been cited by commentators as one of the main factors increasing the cost and length of inquiries. The Public Administration Committee recommended that the time had come to reformulate the Salmon principles in general and to ensure fairness
“whilst minimising the adversarial, legalistic element of inquiries.”
Several distinguished former inquiry chairmen in Another place echoed those arguments.
The nub of the issue is that, although there will be cases when people need to be represented, it is important to remember that inquiries are not trials, are not about civil or criminal liability and should not be adversarial. Decisions about representation are rightly for the judgment of inquiry chairmen, but if we introduce general principles about entitlement to legal representation, we need to consider carefully whether they are at odds with the role of inquiries as inquisitorial, not adversarial, processes. In general, some substantial bodies might not need to have recourse to public funds to represent their views at inquiries, but the amendment might break with that and place extra cost on the taxpayer, and it is not necessary.
The Government amended Clause 18 in another place to ensure that the chairman must act fairly throughout the proceedings, and that presages some of the changes that we might be able to make to the procedure rules that will be brought forward under a statutory instrument in the usual way, when we might be able to create a balance between fairness and expediency that is more closely and precisely defined so that the chairman can be better informed about guidance on such issues. For those reasons, it would not be wise to accept amendment No. 19. It was not accepted in the other place and we should not accept it here either.
Jonathan Djanogly
Shadow Minister (Home Affairs)
4:30,
22 March 2005
This is not a question of the nanny state. The Amendment is a way to improve representation at inquiries. As I said, legal representation can often reduce the time taken by inquiries or other procedures in which lawyers can become involved. A good lawyer will facilitate and speed up a process, not delay it—as the popular press might have us say.
Cost estimates should include the likely costs of such legal representation. That will be consistent with what I said earlier, but it will not necessarily increase costs as a result. I disagree with what has been said. However, this is not an issue that I intend to press to a Division, so I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment
A parliamentary bill is divided into sections called clauses.
Printed in the margin next to each clause is a brief explanatory `side-note' giving details of what the effect of the clause will be.
During the committee stage of a bill, MPs examine these clauses in detail and may introduce new clauses of their own or table amendments to the existing clauses.
When a bill becomes an Act of Parliament, clauses become known as sections.
The house of Lords is the upper chamber of the Houses of Parliament. It is filled with Lords (I.E. Lords, Dukes, Baron/esses, Earls, Marquis/esses, Viscounts, Count/esses, etc.) The Lords consider proposals from the EU or from the commons. They can then reject a bill, accept it, or make amendments. If a bill is rejected, the commons can send it back to the lords for re-discussion. The Lords cannot stop a bill for longer than one parliamentary session. If a bill is accepted, it is forwarded to the Queen, who will then sign it and make it law. If a bill is amended, the amended bill is sent back to the House of Commons for discussion.
The Lords are not elected; they are appointed. Lords can take a "whip", that is to say, they can choose a party to represent. Currently, most Peers are Conservative.
The House of Lords. When used in the House of Lords, this phrase refers to the House of Commons.
As a bill passes through Parliament, MPs and peers may suggest amendments - or changes - which they believe will improve the quality of the legislation.
Many hundreds of amendments are proposed by members to major bills as they pass through committee stage, report stage and third reading in both Houses of Parliament.
In the end only a handful of amendments will be incorporated into any bill.
The Speaker - or the chairman in the case of standing committees - has the power to select which amendments should be debated.
The Second Reading is the most important stage for a Bill. It is when the main purpose of a Bill is discussed and voted on. If the Bill passes it moves on to the Committee Stage. Further information can be obtained from factsheet L1 on the UK Parliament website.
Ministers make up the Government and almost all are members of the House of Lords or the House of Commons. There are three main types of Minister. Departmental Ministers are in charge of Government Departments. The Government is divided into different Departments which have responsibilities for different areas. For example the Treasury is in charge of Government spending. Departmental Ministers in the Cabinet are generally called 'Secretary of State' but some have special titles such as Chancellor of the Exchequer. Ministers of State and Junior Ministers assist the ministers in charge of the department. They normally have responsibility for a particular area within the department and are sometimes given a title that reflects this - for example Minister of Transport.
The chancellor of the exchequer is the government's chief financial minister and as such is responsible for raising government revenue through taxation or borrowing and for controlling overall government spending.
The chancellor's plans for the economy are delivered to the House of Commons every year in the Budget speech.
The chancellor is the most senior figure at the Treasury, even though the prime minister holds an additional title of 'First Lord of the Treasury'. He normally resides at Number 11 Downing Street.
During a debate members of the House of Commons traditionally refer to the House of Lords as 'another place' or 'the other place'.
Peers return the gesture when they speak of the Commons in the same way.
This arcane form of address is something the Labour Government has been reviewing as part of its programme to modernise the Houses of Parliament.
A parliamentary bill is divided into sections called clauses.
Printed in the margin next to each clause is a brief explanatory `side-note' giving details of what the effect of the clause will be.
During the committee stage of a bill, MPs examine these clauses in detail and may introduce new clauses of their own or table amendments to the existing clauses.
When a bill becomes an Act of Parliament, clauses become known as sections.
The shadow cabinet is the name given to the group of senior members from the chief opposition party who would form the cabinet if they were to come to power after a General Election. Each member of the shadow cabinet is allocated responsibility for `shadowing' the work of one of the members of the real cabinet.
The Party Leader assigns specific portfolios according to the ability, seniority and popularity of the shadow cabinet's members.
The House of Commons votes by dividing. Those voting Aye (yes) to any proposition walk through the division lobby to the right of the Speaker and those voting no through the lobby to the left. In each of the lobbies there are desks occupied by Clerks who tick Members' names off division lists as they pass through. Then at the exit doors the Members are counted by two Members acting as tellers. The Speaker calls for a vote by announcing "Clear the Lobbies". In the House of Lords "Clear the Bar" is called. Division Bells ring throughout the building and the police direct all Strangers to leave the vicinity of the Members’ Lobby. They also walk through the public rooms of the House shouting "division". MPs have eight minutes to get to the Division Lobby before the doors are closed. Members make their way to the Chamber, where Whips are on hand to remind the uncertain which way, if any, their party is voting. Meanwhile the Clerks who will take the names of those voting have taken their place at the high tables with the alphabetical lists of MPs' names on which ticks are made to record the vote. When the tellers are ready the counting process begins - the recording of names by the Clerk and the counting of heads by the tellers. When both lobbies have been counted and the figures entered on a card this is given to the Speaker who reads the figures and announces "So the Ayes [or Noes] have it". In the House of Lords the process is the same except that the Lobbies are called the Contents Lobby and the Not Contents Lobby. Unlike many other legislatures, the House of Commons and the House of Lords have not adopted a mechanical or electronic means of voting. This was considered in 1998 but rejected. Divisions rarely take less than ten minutes and those where most Members are voting usually take about fifteen. Further information can be obtained from factsheet P9 at the UK Parliament site.
As a bill passes through Parliament, MPs and peers may suggest amendments - or changes - which they believe will improve the quality of the legislation.
Many hundreds of amendments are proposed by members to major bills as they pass through committee stage, report stage and third reading in both Houses of Parliament.
In the end only a handful of amendments will be incorporated into any bill.
The Speaker - or the chairman in the case of standing committees - has the power to select which amendments should be debated.
