Part of Inquiries Bill [Lords] – in a Public Bill Committee at 2:30 pm on 22 March 2005.
Jonathan Djanogly
Shadow Minister (Home Affairs)
2:30,
22 March 2005
Amendment No. 36 specifies that before the setting-up date for the inquiry, as well as setting out the terms of reference and stating the number of panel members, the Minister must
“consult, as appropriate, on the terms of reference.”
However, as the Minister is already required to consult the chairman on the terms of reference, it could be argued that the amendment is superfluous. Also, we argued that the chairman should have to agree to the terms of reference, so the wording would not fit in with the way in which we look at the world in general. However, our agreement-type amendment was defeated, and if were to accept the need to consult the chairman, we could support the amendment for three reasons. First, it would reaffirm the importance of consulting the chairman. Secondly, it specifies that any consultation must take place before the setting-up date of the inquiry. Thirdly, it would allow the consultation of other appropriate persons or bodies before the inquiry began. Having said that, I shall make one small, pernickety point: it may be more desirable to position the new provision before, instead of after, subsection (1)(b)(i), because in its current position it does not reflect the chronology of events.
Amendment No. 38 is permissive, not prescriptive. It would allow the Minister to consult
“any other person or bodies as he considers appropriate” before setting out or amending the terms of reference. As there is nothing to the contrary in the Bill, the Minister always had that option open to him, so the amendment would not change anything. It would, however, underline his option to consult elsewhere, and therefore might encourage him to do so, thereby having some, albeit negligible, advantage. Although the amendment is not objectionable per se, it could be argued that the express option to consult other people could distract from the obligation to consult the chairman. As we are arguing for more chairman involvement, we would want to avoid any amendment that would compromise what little influence the chairman currently possesses.
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.
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.
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.
