The Minister’s main argument seemed to be that, without the amendments, Parliament could still play a role in approving the setting up of inquiries and the way in which they are pursued. I am not satisfied with that response. How does the hon. Gentleman propose that that will happen? He referred to the Adjournment debate obtained by my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks about the inquiry under the National Health Service Act 1977 into Mr. Neale in Yorkshire. The fact that my right hon. Friend obtained that Adjournment debate was a random chance; it is a shuffle. Sometimes we are lucky to obtain such a debate and sometimes we are not. In one or two instances, Mr. Speaker may agree to give us a debate, but that is not guaranteed. We have no right to it; it is a matter of luck or a person’s persuasive powers.

An Opposition day is another possible route. Let us say that the matter was not one about which the official Opposition—who are delegated most of the Opposition days—were particularly concerned. For example, there was some controversy about a forthcoming inquiry that the Government have promised, which is of interest to hon. Members who represent Northern Ireland constituencies. Given how little time is available to them on the Floor of the House, could they really force an Opposition day debate in such circumstances?

Is the Minister promising to give Government time to such matters? No. Whether such a debate would happen is not a moot point. Unless some provision is made under the Bill that requires parliamentary approval, it is most uncertain whether a debate would be held on such matters at all.

The Minister said that many inquiries are held into matters of second-order importance. He referred to the Mr. Neale, Clifford Ayling and the Michael Kerr inquiries and said that such inquiries did not necessarily need a debate. I shall make two points on that. Those inquiries were quite important, but let us say that there was an inquiry of less importance. Should we not then examine the question that Lord Justice Salmon raised: is there really a case for a public inquiry? If the matter is so minor that the Minister feels that it does not deserve even a debate in the House of Commons, is it of such public concern that it warrants a public inquiry?

Turning to the inquiries mentioned by the Minister, I think that the cases of alleged medical negligence and misconduct to which he referred raised an important series of issues that Parliament should have debated. It was very important that those allegations were thoroughly examined, and the same is true of the Shipman inquiry. It would have been a good thing if Parliament had been required to debate those issues.

The Minister says that only four MPs attended the debate on Mr. Neale’s case, but one has only to think of Government Adjournment debates to see that there   are plenty of debates that the Government want to have but which attract little interest in the House. An example is the truancy debate that we had not long ago, which I think attracted seven hon. Members to the Chamber. Plenty of debates that we should have are not necessarily well attended. That may be a slight reflection on MPs. Perhaps they should attend such debates; certainly that is what The Times said.

Saying that it could be awkward to have to do what is proposed in the recess was a bit feeble. We have to pass laws in the recess and we manage to do so because we have procedures that enable us to do the formal parliamentary approval later. I would be perfectly happy to talk to the Minister about agreeing to have the approval of the setting up of an inquiry take place at a later date if setting it up was a matter of urgency in the recess. We can certainly reach an accommodation on that, but it is a pity that it has to be by virtue of work done at the other end of the building. When MPs make reasonable suggestions at this end, it is a rather sad and pitiful reflection on the Government that we then have to go through processes whereby the measure goes to the other end of the building, amendments are tabled there and then they come back here, and that amendments are often accepted there even though they were denied here. Should Ministers not consider more carefully arguments advanced in the House of Commons?

Is not the Minister saying overall that his principle as far as parliamentary scrutiny is concerned is, “If in doubt, cut it out”? That was a great maxim of surgeons at one time. If he is saying that, does he really think that it fits in with what we are trying to achieve in our parliamentary democracy? If he is saying that there is a class of cases in which approving the inquiry should not be the subject of resolutions of the House, or in which an oral statement might not be required but a written statement could be made, why will he not propose that the general rule is that there will be an oral statement or a parliamentary debate on resolutions, but that agreement can be reached between the parties by the usual channels not to have that in certain cases?

It seems sad that we have to lose the ability to debate such matters in all cases and that we are left like humble supplicants saying to the Minister, “Oh, could we please have a debate about this inquiry?”, and hoping that we will get it. If we do not, we have to try to persuade Mr. Speaker, and if that does not work, we have to go for a ballot. Why can we not say that Parliament is entitled to debate such matters unless the parties agree in the House that that is not necessary? I would have thought that we could find such a way forward.

Interestingly, I recently visited the Finnish Parliament, which works on a much more consensual basis. It seems to find the time and the ability to debate quite a lot of issues on a consensual basis without the Government feeling that they have to act in a heavy-handed way the whole time. Therefore, I do not accept what the Minister has said so far. I hope that he will   comment further on some of the points that I have made, but if he does not, I will seek to divide the Committee on amendment No. 1.