Proceeding contribution from Shaun Woodward (Labour) in the House of Commons on Wednesday, 3 November 2010. It occurred during Debate on Bloody Sunday Inquiry (Report).
Bloody Sunday Inquiry (Report)
The right hon. Gentleman will know that the Government brought forward what would become the Inquiries Act 2005. The purpose of that was to try to control costs. The issue of Lord Saville's report touches on the crucial issue of the independence of inquiries. The House must seriously consider whether it would wish to compromise the independence of a judicial inquiry by saying, for example, that witnesses would not be allowed legal representation. That would have saved half the cost of Lord Saville's report, but would we have got the truth if legal representation had not been allowed? By the same token, if we were to say to judges in future inquiries that we wanted to limit the number of witnesses and the amount of evidence that they could take, would that compromise their independence? It is a proper question for the right hon. Gentleman to ask and I take my share of responsibility for allowing this inquiry to go ahead as it did so that its independence was not compromised. That is why I make the careful distinction between the price and the value of the inquiry.
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 517 c956-7
- Session
- 2010-12
- Chamber / Committee
- House of Commons chamber
- Subjects
- Armed forces Costs Inquiries Homicide IRA Northern Ireland Bloody Sunday Tribunal of Inquiry Historical Enquiries Team
- Link
- View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk
Librarians' tools
- Timestamp
- 2023-12-15 13:33:19 +0000
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_677099
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_677099
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_677099