Coroners and Justice Bill

I am afraid that the conclusion that I have come to is that that is right. I will come back to that point later, when I address how the Government have changed their proposals, because the changes have not dealt with that precise point. The fourth reason why the Government's original proposals were objectionable was that the family were excluded. A situation in which the family hear only the bare verdict and no explanation of what has gone on, after having been removed from the proceedings, is completely unsatisfactory. The family will not feel that any explanation of what happened was available to them, and are sure to have very little confidence in what happened. The Government have changed their proposals to some extent. The Secretary of State will still decide on the matter of the certificate. When the certificate is issued, it will still have the effect of removing the coroner—it is interesting to ask why Governments do not trust coroners, to come back to the point made by the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer)—but it will replace the coroner with the supposedly more trustworthy High Court judge. The Government have made a concession, which means that at that point, instead of the jury being removed automatically, the High Court judge will consider whether to remove the jury. That is the first change. Secondly, the grounds on which a certificate can be issued by a Secretary of State have changed slightly. The catch-all""real harm to the public interest"" provision has been scrapped, but the other four grounds are still there.