[Mr. Win Griffiths in the Chair]

I beg to move,

That

(1)during proceedings on the Inquiries Bill [Lords] the Standing Committee shall, in addition to its first meeting on Tuesday 22nd March at 9.25 am, meet—

(a)on Tuesday 22nd March at 2.30 pm;

(b)on Thursday 24th at 9.25 am and 2.30 pm;

(2)the proceedings shall be taken in the following order, namely Clauses 1 to 48, Schedule 1, Clause 49, Schedule 2, Clause 50, Schedule 3, Clauses 51 to 54, new Clauses, new Schedules, remaining proceedings on the Bill;

(3)the proceedings shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at 5.30 pm on Thursday 24th March.

It is a pleasure to be a member of a Standing Committee under your august chairmanship, Mr. Griffiths. I am sure that you will conduct our proceedings efficiently and appropriately. We are about to consider an important Bill. The Programming Sub-Committee met yesterday and discussed the required time for debate. I accept that amendments have been tabled, but I hope that the programme motion is self-explanatory.

I, too, welcome you to the Chair, Mr. Griffiths. I know that you will use firm discipline, but in your usual courteous manner. All Committee members are looking forward to sitting under your chairmanship, and that of Mr. Gale in due course.

As for the programme motion, adequate time will be available to deal with the matters that need to be considered. There are important reasons why the arrangements for setting up inquiries should be changed. During recent years, they have been carried out in three basic ways. The Tribunals of Inquiry (Evidence) Act 1921 sets out the more informal procedure in which a Minister asks someone to undertake an inquiry. A recent example of that is the Soham murders inquiry. Sir Michael Bichard is genuinely thought to have done an excellent done job in conducting a relatively quick, effective and efficient inquiry, which went to the root of important matters.

Another course of action is that inquiries on specific subjects are allowed under various Acts of Parliament. For a considerable time, it has been thought that that system needs to be tidied up and that it would be good to have an over-arching statutory structure, which is something that we welcome. I refer, in particular, to the Saville inquiry. It has been long and, according to various estimates, has so far cost £155 million to £250 million. It is now seven years on, and we still do not   have a report. It is thought that the rather ponderous procedural progress that the inquiry is making is an example of the need to change to a more flexible and efficient system.

Improvements were made in another place. The Minister agreed to consult the chairman before appointing the panel and establishing the terms of reference. It was said that the terms of reference should be made available to Parliament by means of a statement. Other provisions were considered, such as securing the consent of the Lord Chief Justice before appointing a judge to a panel. The Minister agreed to consult the chairman about the appointment of assessors before suspending the inquiry. As for access to documents under the Freedom of Information Act 2000, it was agreed that public access should not be restricted because of the inquiry and that a reasonable belief that the interests of panel members would not affect the impartiality of the inquiry should be at the core of the appointments system.

Much progress was made in the other place, but my noble Friend Lord Kingsland said that the overall effect of the Bill would be to shift power from Parliament to the Executive and from the chairman of the panel to Ministers. I hope that there will be time to deal with other outstanding issues—I think the programme motion reflects that concern—including the idea that a resolution should be made available to Parliament to allow it to consider and approve the establishment of the terms of reference, the composition of the panel, and various rules about that.

There is room to improve the nature of the statement made to Parliament, if that is the route we follow. A written statement would not be adequate. We will argue that the Minister needs to clarify various issues to do with public interest and damage to the economy, and there should be a presumption of public access. We will also try to ensure that the Minister is not involved in the role of publication because the content and timing of the report is often extremely important. There will be adequate time to consider those matters.

As I said, I welcome you to the Chair, Mr. Griffiths, and I am sure that, as there is an experienced and caring Government Whip, the hon. Member for Lewisham, East (Ms Prentice), things will be accomplished with the co-operation and civility that has characterised our relationship over many years.

May I, too, welcome you to the Chair, Mr. Griffiths? This is the first time that I have served on a Standing Committee under your chairmanship, and I very much look forward to it.

Unfortunately, I was unable to participate in the Second Reading debate, so I am grateful to the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) for giving us a synopsis of the issues involved. As for the timetable motion, my party certainly takes the view that the time allotted is sufficient. The arguments have been rehearsed in the other place, and the Government have made significant movement on the main issue,   which, for my party as well as for the Conservatives, remains the involvement of Parliament in the whole process. I see no reason why, with a bit of good will and effort on all parts, we should not complete the business within the time scale offered.

Question put and agreed to.

I remind the Committee that there is a money resolution in connection with the Bill, and copies of it are available in the Room. I also remind hon. Members that adequate notice should be given of amendments. As a general rule, my co-Chairman and I do not intend to call starred amendments. I ask all Members to ensure that their mobile phones, pagers and so on are turned off or in silent mode.