Coroners and Justice Bill

I thank everyone who has taken part in the debate on this group of amendments, and not least the noble Lord, Lord Bach, who has shown great patience in dealing with these complex questions. Ten amendments have grouped together and we have heard some very perceptive contributions during the debate, not least from my noble friend Lady Finlay and from the noble Lords, Lord Alderdice and Lord Thomas of Gresford, who through the powerful story he used caused us all to pause and consider what it is that we are trying to achieve. Although the noble Lord, Lord Bach, has been generous in making commitments to the Committee about guidance that may be given and that he will reflect on some of the direct questions raised, I should like to go back for a moment to the issue that principally divides us. The issue is whether or not we should incorporate the words set out in Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights. In my own amendment I sought to remove the word "how" and replace it with the rubric, ""in what circumstances the deceased came by his or her death"." That gives us a wider canvas on which to paint the circumstances. When the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, said that the present wording in the Bill is a narrow interpretation of the convention and that there is an opportunity here to be rather more generous in how we set out the legislation, he got the point right. He was also right to remind us that the purpose of any coroner’s inquiry is to get to the bottom of what occurred. He said that we had to do this in the interests of justice and to expose systemic failings. I strongly agree with that. One of the problems is that our failure to interpret a duty that has been imposed on us not just by the convention but also by jurisprudence in our country—I referred to the Middleton case earlier—may lead to some practical consequences. I hope that between now and the Report stage the Minister and the Bill team will reflect again on how we would make retrospective the commitment the noble Lord gave us when he said that during the course of a coroner’s inquiry the coroner himself could invoke, as it were, the terms of Article 2. How could we know retrospectively whether it would have been right to invoke Article 2 at, for instance, the beginning of the proceedings and what would that do to the proceedings themselves if this was only belatedly referred to as they went on? That is a recipe for confusion and would prevent us bringing about the kind of justice we want to see and the rooting out of systemic failure that I referred to in my opening remarks and which was referred to by other noble Lords. We have a lot to reflect on when we read the Official Report tomorrow and consider what the Minister has said. For the time being, however, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment 7 withdrawn. Amendments 8 to 12 not moved. Clause 5 agreed. Clause 6 : Duty to hold inquest Amendments 12A and 13 not moved.