The report The Inquiries Act 2005: Post-legislative Scrutiny (HL143) finds that the government is not using the legislation passed in the Inquiries Act 2005 enough, and is setting up inquiries with inadequate powers. The Committee urges the government to set up a Central Inquiries Unit to make the most of any lessons learned from past inquiries, and make the best use of collective knowledge and proficiency in this field. The unit would be a new center of expertise, which would enable future inquiries to hit the ground running while also being more efficient, more streamlined and less costly to the public. Overall the Inquiries Act 2005 is robust and effective, but the government is not using it in the way it should be. By setting up public inquiries outside of the Act, the government is creating inquiries which have inadequate powers to do their job. On 6 March 2014, the Home Secretary announced a judge-led inquiry into undercover policing, but did not say
This memorandum provides a preliminary assessment of the Inquiries Act 2005 (2005 c. 12). The 2005 Act gave effect to the proposals contained in the then Department for Constitutional Affairs consultation paper "Effective Inquiries". To date thirteen inquiries have been conducted under the Act for this assessement a review of all of these was made. In conclusion it is believed that overall the Act has been successful in meeting its objectives of enabling quiries to conduct thorough and wide ranging investigations, as well as making satisfactory recommendations. The overwhelming evidence, however, is that the Inquiries Rules 2006 (SI 2006/1838, ISBN9780110748313) and the Inquiries (Scotland) Rules 2007 (SSI 2007/560, ISBN 9780110801865) as currently drafted are unduly restrictive and do not always enable the most effective operation of the Act
The Inquiries Bill (HLB 7, ISBN 0108418863) was published in November 2004, with the aim of creating a comprehensive statutory framework for the setting up of formal, independent inquiries by Ministers to examine matters of public concern. The Committee's report details correspondence written in relation to concerns about the constitutional implications of the Bill, comprising of two letters written by the Select Committee on the Constitution and a letter setting out the Government's response.
The report The Inquiries Act 2005: Post-legislative Scrutiny (HL143) finds that the government is not using the legislation passed in the Inquiries Act 2005 enough, and is setting up inquiries with inadequate powers. The Committee urges the government to set up a Central Inquiries Unit to make the most of any lessons learned from past inquiries, and make the best use of collective knowledge and proficiency in this field. The unit would be a new center of expertise, which would enable future inquiries to hit the ground running while also being more efficient, more streamlined and less costly to the public. Overall the Inquiries Act 2005 is robust and effective, but the government is not using it in the way it should be. By setting up public inquiries outside of the Act, the government is creating inquiries which have inadequate powers to do their job. On 6 March 2014, the Home Secretary announced a judge-led inquiry into undercover policing, but did not say
In this report the Liaison Committee conducts a brief review of House of Lords policy committees, in advance of the appointment of those committees in the new Parliament
Recent public inquiries established by Government Ministers to investigate events of public concern have included the Hutton and Butler inquiries into issues surrounding the decision to go to war in Iraq, the Saville inquiry into 'Bloody Sunday', and the Budd inquiry into the events surrounding the resignation of David Blunkett as Home Secretary. This report examines the effectiveness of such inquiries and makes recommendations for improvements to the scope for parliamentary scrutiny, including possible changes to the Inquiries Bill (HL Bill 7, session 2004-05; ISBN 0108418863) currently before Parliament. Recommendations made include: Ministers should justify their decisions whether to hold an inquiry on the basis of a published set of criteria; the Lord Chief Justice or the Senior Law Lord should be equally involved with Ministers in all decisions about the use of judges in inquiries; the need for a new mechanism to enable Parliament to initiate inquiries in cases where Ministers may be unwilling to do so, including the establishment of a Parliamentary Commission of Inquiry, composed of parliamentarians and others; and the use of the Parliamentary Ombudsman in the investigation of breaches of the Ministerial Code.
In this report the Liaison Committee conducts a brief review of House of Lords policy committees, in advance of the appointment of those committees in the new Parliament
This report considers the case for Parliament to be able to initiate and conduct inquiries into serious and significant matters of public concern. It takes up the recommendationmade by this committiee's predecessor Committee (in the Government by Inquiry Report) that there should be a parliamentary mechanism for initiating inquiries. These would take the form of Parliamentary Commissions of Inquiry, composed of parliamentarians and others. In the Report, the committee examines the justification for creating Parliamentary Commissions of Inquiry in particular, that they would enable Parliament to hold the Executive to account more effectively. Then it covers some of the practical issues involved in setting up inquiries of this nature: how Parliament could instigate an inquiry, its composition, and its operation and powers. The committee concludes that it is crucial, in constitutional sense, that Parliament has the necessary powers and abilities to scrutinise the Executive and hold it to account. Proper parliamentary scrutiny should include the ability to establish and undertake inquiries into significant matters of public concern. Parliament has, in the past, conducted investigationsof this kind and as the great forum of the nation, should be expected to do so. The committee's recommendation for Parliamentary Commissions of Inquiry would promoteeffective parliamentary accountability by creating a process for Parliament to initiate inquirieswhere it rather than the Executive sees fit.
Parliamentary privilege ensures that Members of Parliament are able to speak freely in debates, and protects Parliament's internal affairs from interference from the courts. Following (failed) attempts by some MPs to use parliamentary privilege to avoid prosecution for expenses fraud, the Government felt the time was right for a comprehensive review of the privileges of Parliament. Freedom of speech is arguably the most important privilege: a member must be able to speak or raise a matter without fear of a criminal or civil liability. The Government does not feel it necessary to change the protection of privilege in civil cases, nor in relation to injunctions or super-injunctions. But it is open to question whether parliamentary privilege should ever prevent members being successfully prosecuted for criminal offences. The paper consults on whether privilege should be disapplied in cases of alleged criminality, though not in respect of speeches in Parliament. The second major privilege is that of exclusive cognisance: the right of each House to regulate its own proceedings and internal affairs without interference from any outside body including the courts. This includes the conduct of its Members, and of other participants such as witnesses before select committees. Recent court judgments make clear that statute law on employment, health and safety etc do apply to Parliament providing the law would not interfere with Parliament's core functions. The green paper also consults on extending and strengthening select committee powers. A final section covers other miscellaneous privileges.
On 7 July 2014, the Home Secretary announced the establishment of an Independent Panel Inquiry to consider whether public bodies and non-state institutions had taken seriously their duty to protect children from sexual abuse. Baroness Butler-Sloss, former President of the Family Division of the High Court, was appointed Chair of the panel on 8 July, but she stepped down on 14 July after MPs and survivor groups expressed concerns about the possibility that the inquiry might have to consider decisions taken by her late brother, Sir Michael Havers, as Attorney General in the 1980s. Fiona Woolf CBE JP, the Lord Mayor of London, was appointed Chair on 5 September, but stepped down on 31 October after concerns were raised about her social contacts with Lord and Lady Brittan. On 4 February 2015, the Home Secretary announced plans to appoint Justice Lowell Goddard, a judge of the High Court of New Zealand, as the new Chair of the inquiry. She also announced that she would be dissolving the existing Panel and establishing a new, statutory inquiry under the Inquiries Act 2005. Prior to the announcement of the new proposed Chair, the Committee took oral evidence about the panel inquiry During those evidence sessions witnesses' views were heard on the Home Office's process for selecting candidates for the new chair. There were well-publicised problems with the appointment of the Panel, which resulted in the early resignation of two previous Chairs. It is important that a Chair is now appointed who will command the confidence of survivors
This publication contains the Standing Orders of the House of Lords which set out information on the procedure and working of the House, under a range of headings including: Lords and the manner of their introduction; excepted hereditary peers; the Speaker; general observances; debates; arrangement of business; bills; divisions; committees; parliamentary papers; public petitions; privilege; making or suspending of Standing Orders.
The role of the Committee is to examine the constitutional implications of all public Bills coming before the House and identify questions of principle that arise from the proposed legislation. Although this report states that all of the provisions of the Terrorism Bill are of constitutional significance and merit close scrutiny, it highlights some of the key issues (such as the new offence of encouragement to terrorism, the extension of the time a suspect may be detained and compliance with the European Convention on Human Rights), which need special attention.
These notes refer to the Inquiries Act 2005 (chapter 12, ISBN 0105413054) which contains provisions to establish a comprehensive statutory framework for the setting up of formal, independent inquiries by Ministers to examine matters of public concern. It applies throughout the UK and contains 53 clauses and three schedules relating to issues including the constitution, conversion and proceedings of inquiries; inquiry reports; the respective powers of ministers in the UK government, the Scottish Executive, Northern Ireland and Welsh Assembly governments.
Thank you for visiting our website. Would you like to provide feedback on how we could improve your experience?
This site does not use any third party cookies with one exception — it uses cookies from Google to deliver its services and to analyze traffic.Learn More.