Luckily, I do not think that Hansard will catch the full flavour of the hon. Gentleman’s interjection—at least I hope that it does not.

I understand the rationale behind Amendment No. 38, but it does not add anything because if Ministers consider such consultation is appropriate, they will consult, as is the current practice. I expect that they will generally consult, because it is important to get terms of reference that are workable and supported at the outset. Indeed, in the consultation paper “Effective Inquiries”, which we published last May, the   Government acknowledged that sometimes there would be a good case for allowing a period of time between the announcement of an inquiry, and the naming of a chairman and the settling of the terms of reference, and that during that period some consultation on the draft terms of reference with interested third parties might be appropriate. That view was supported in responses and the structure of clauses 4 and 5 reflect it.

However, it is important to remember that ultimately an inquiry has higher purposes than just involving those most directly related to it. It is not set up just to serve the interests of a particular person, but to serve the interests of the public at large. Those affected by distressing events, particularly the survivors and relatives of persons killed in an event that is subsequently being inquired into, will often have very strong views on the proposed form and conduct of an inquiry, including its panel membership and terms of reference. Although it is important to the success of an inquiry to listen and to try as far as possible to address some of those concerns, it is also important for the inquiry to restore public confidence in general and to provide a measure of closure. The Minister should take those views into account as far as possible, but ultimately he should proceed in the interests of wider public policy. We would do no good if we created an expectation among those involved that the inquiry must be conducted, and the terms of reference drawn up, exactly in accordance with the wishes of those most closely involved.

Amendment No. 36 is of slightly more concern because it would compel a Minister to consult. That returns us to the potential delay to the commencement of an inquiry and also possibly opens up the issue of inviting legal challenges at the start of an inquiry if there is a dispute about whether there had been sufficient consultation. That would not be desirable.

Similar amendments were tabled in Another place and withdrawn, because concerns were expressed by a number of noble Lords that there could be a propensity to go to judicial review. The Government have examined the matter in detail and agree that carefully considered terms of reference are the key to a successful inquiry, and that the need to consult will vary from inquiry to inquiry. However, as I said in relation to a couple of other things, the final decision must rest with the Minister so that we can make progress as soon as possible with timely investigations.

I do not deny that there are good, sound sentiments behind the amendments, but it would not be appropriate to include them.