Coroners and Justice Bill

My Lords, like the noble Lord, Lord Patel, I view the Bill with great gravity. My late father, who was a psychiatrist, was also a deputy coroner in Lincoln many years ago, and some of the issues before us were, even then, a subject of family discussion. Your Lordships’ Select Committee on the Constitution, as mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, issued a report on the Bill last Thursday, 14 May, and I should like to mention three points. First, the committee expressed the view that the ability of Parliament to examine the many provisions of the Bill risks being made less effective by the inclusion in a single Bill of so many issues. I acknowledge the political realities animating the support of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, for so-called Christmas tree Bills. This Bill, however, ""makes provision for: reform of homicide; possession of pornography and other offences; a framework for witness anonymity and protection in investigations and trials; a new institutional framework for sentencing; reform of legal aid; and new controls on proceeds from the sale of criminal memoires"." Your Lordships’ committee took the view that the, ""constitutionally important process of legislative scrutiny is hindered by omnibus bills, such as this one, which include too wide a range of proposals, all inherently significant in their own right"." Secondly, it says: ""Clause 11 of the bill makes provision for inquests without juries where the national interest would seem to preclude public examination of all the circumstances surrounding a death"." Your Lordships’ committee recommended that it should be clear on the face of the Bill that a High Court judge, when faced with a certificate, is not merely to accept a ministerial assertion that the national interest is at stake but that the Secretary of State should be expected to demonstrate to the satisfaction of the judge that such a national interest does in fact exist. I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Bach, for his correspondence, and I welcome the Government’s decision to table amendments to the Bill, withdrawing provisions in respect of certified coroners’ investigations by removing Clauses 11 and 12. Thirdly, Part 8, ""deals with proposed amendments to the Data Protection Act 1998 … Clause 156 amends the DPA to give the Information Commissioner powers to carry out an assessment to determine whether a public body complies with the data protection principles. There is a list of excluded bodies ... The clause allows the Commissioner to enter premises to inspect documents and other material, and to view the data processing activities. These new powers have been welcomed by the Information Commissioner, but they stop short of those called for by both his office and by"," your Lordships’ committee in the, ""recent report Surveillance: Citizens and the State in that they do not provide for comparable powers to inspect the activities of private-sector data controllers"." Your Lordships’ committee welcomed, ""the Government’s decision to provide a statutory basis for the Information Commissioner to carry out inspections without consent of public sector organisations which process personal information systems, but regret the decision not to legislate for a comparable power with respect to private sector organisations"." The committee recommended that the Government reconsider the matter and stated: ""Organisations which refuse to allow the Commissioner to carry out inspections are likely to be those with something to hide … the protection of citizens' data may in the absence of legislation be vitiated"," in the light of, ""the growing exchange of personal data between the public and private sectors"." The report says that it is disappointing, ""that the Government have not taken this opportunity to provide the Information Commissioner with powers to assess whether private sector organisations are complying with data protection principles"." The committee said that, ""clause 156 does not provide procedures for sanctions in case of non-compliance with an Assessment Notice"." It added: ""The failure to provide any sanctions for non-compliance by public sector bodies with Assessment Notices calls into question the efficacy of the power that is created"." I hope that your Lordships' House will return to this point during later consideration of the Bill. The committee said that, ""the Government’s decision to withdraw the very broad powers on data sharing between departments that had initially been included in the bill"," is welcome, and that, ""the principle of minimisation of data-sharing as expressed in paragraphs 274-5"," of the report of your Lordships’ committee, Surveillance: Citizens and the State, which I hope will be debated soon, is of considerable importance. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Bach, will address the issues raised in this debate, including, I hope, those on which I have touched, with his invariable wisdom.