Part of Inquiries Bill [Lords] – in a Public Bill Committee am 10:00 am ar 22 Mawrth 2005.
Mrs Anne Campbell
Llafur, Cambridge
10:00,
22 Mawrth 2005
I am a member of the Select Committee on Public Administration, which discussed the Bill at length. Our discussions were preceded by an investigation here and in the United States to discover the best form of conducting inquiries.
The Public Administration Committee’s conclusion was that since the 1921 Act, Parliament had to a large extent contracted out its responsibility to conduct inquiries. However, the 1921 Act still gives Parliament a role relating to Ministers’ conduct. It is important not to confuse the word “conduct” with “misconduct”, because there is a role for Parliament to examine the conduct of Ministers not when there has been misconduct but when their conduct is considered to be politically sensitive.
The Select Committee felt that since the 1921 Act, in a gradual process that has continued for many years, Parliament had relinquished its responsibility for, and its involvement in, inquiries. Many members felt that it was time for Parliament to grasp the reins and take back some control of the inquiry process, especially for inquiries into politically sensitive matters. We suggest that there should be a parliamentary commission of inquiry, perhaps modelled on Privy Council inquiries such as the Falklands review in 1983 or the Butler inquiry.
The new Clause would address two distinct but complementary issues. The first is the extent of parliamentary involvement in some, but not all, inquiries and the second is the form that they should take. I confess that the proposal was suggested by the Select Committee, not by me, although I am the only member who signed it. The new clause would provide for inquiries into the conduct of Ministers of the Crown by means of an Order in Council, subject to a resolution of both Houses. That addresses the first issue, which is parliamentary involvement.
The new clause suggests that Parliament should have a role in deciding the form that the inquiry takes, and should be able to debate and decide on
“the appointment of the chairmen and members of the inquiry panel,
(b)prescribe the terms of reference of the inquiry,
(c)make such other provision in respect of the setting-up date and for other purposes ...
(d)make such modification and adaptations of this Act as may appear necessary or expedient for the purpose of giving effect to the Resolution” already passed by the House.
Many of the arguments were explored in the previous debate, and I do not want to spend a long time going through many of them again. I understand that the Government remain opposed to the Committee’s proposals for amending the Bill and using parliamentary commissions. It is true that my Amendment and new clause would make it mandatory for Ministers to call an inquiry once a parliamentary resolution was passed. Also, the Government have complained that my proposals are ambiguous, in that there would still be pressure for inquiries from those hoping to influence terms of reference or membership; however, that could be overcome by parliamentary debate. It is true that the proposals may slightly delay the setting up of an inquiry, but I am sure that there are parliamentary procedures that could be used to overcome the delays that would occur if the House refused to pass the necessary resolutions or wished to argue about them. The Government have also argued that the proposals are excessive, in that they go beyond the provisions of the 1921 Act.
I am surprised that the Government have not taken this opportunity to do something more radical than simply tidy up the legislation. Baroness Ashton said in a letter to the Committee:
“I confess I had not seen this Bill as one of substantial constitutional significance. It is very much a consolidation measure. It does not introduce any new constitutional ideas, but is designed to provide a single, UK wide framework that would be suitable for any future statutory inquiry into events that have caused public concern.”
If we accept that that is what the Bill is about, we are missing an opportunity to involve Parliament in the inquiry process in a way that it has not been involved since the 1921 Act. In proposing the new clause, I suggest that Parliament be involved in the examination of ministerial conduct, because I believe that that is our role. We are here to hold the Executive to account, and we would be relinquishing that responsibility if we allowed the Bill to be passed in its current form. I shall listen carefully to what the Minister and Opposition Members have to say, and I hope to reply to some of their arguments.
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 Privy Council goes back to the earliest days of the Monarchy, when it comprised those appointed by the King or Queen to advise on matters of state.
As the constitution developed into today's constitutional monarchy, under which The Sovereign acts on the advice of Ministers, so the Privy Council adapted. Its day to day business is transacted by those of Her Majesty's Ministers who are Privy Counsellors, that is all Cabinet Ministers and a number of junior Ministers. Membership of the Privy Council brings with it the right to be called "Right Honourable".
The Privy Council still meets regularly, on average once a month, but, as with the Cabinet, most of its business is transacted in discussion and correspondence between its Ministerial members and the Government Departments that advise them. The Privy Council Office (which is itself a Government Department) provides a secretariat for these discussions, as the Cabinet Office does in relation to the business of Cabinet and Cabinet Committees. Councils are held by The Queen and are attended by Ministers and the Clerk of the Council. At each meeting the Council will obtain Her Majesty's formal approval to a number of Orders which have already been discussed and approved by Ministers, much as Acts of Parliament become law through the giving of the Royal Assent after having been debated in Parliament.
Meetings are reported in the Court Circular, along with the names of Ministers attending (usually four in number). The Orders made at each Council are in the public domain, and each bears the date and place of the Council at which it was made. There is therefore nothing at all "secret" about Privy Council meetings. The myth that the Privy Council is a secretive body springs from the wording of the Privy Counsellor's Oath , which, in its current form, dates back to Tudor times. It requires those taking it to "keep secret all matters...treated of in Council". The Oath (or solemn affirmation for those who cannot take an Oath) is still administered, and is still binding; but it is only in very special circumstances nowadays that matters will come to a Privy Counsellor on "Privy Council terms". These will mostly concern matters of the national interest where it is important for senior members of Opposition parties to have access to Government information.
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.
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 Opposition are the political parties in the House of Commons other than the largest or Government party. They are called the Opposition because they sit on the benches opposite the Government in the House of Commons Chamber. The largest of the Opposition parties is known as Her Majesty's Opposition. The role of the Official Opposition is to question and scrutinise the work of Government. The Opposition often votes against the Government. In a sense the Official Opposition is the "Government in waiting".
