Coroners and Justice Bill

Following the announcement on 15 May by my right honourable friend the Lord Chancellor, the government amendments in this group, of which Amendment 14 is the first, intend to remove from the Bill the provisions in respect of certified coroners’ investigations. I take some comfort from the fact that, while there has not yet been a meeting of minds on the solution, there is a general recognition that, under the law as it currently stands, there is a real practical problem. There will be very rare cases where a coroner is obliged to summon a jury, but where there is sensitive material which is relevant to ascertaining the circumstances of the death but which cannot be disclosed publicly, including to the members of a coroner’s jury or to the family of the deceased. If the sensitive matters are central to the determination of the issues it may therefore be impossible for an Article 2-compliant inquest to proceed. This includes those cases where the material concerned is intercept material, the use of which in legal proceedings of any kind is strictly limited, as the Committee knows, by the provisions of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000. That, in a nutshell, is the problem that the Government have tried to address and which Clauses 11 and 12 were intended to deal with. However, the problem remains with us, with or without Clauses 11 and 12. Existing safeguards such as public interest immunity certificates, anonymity for witnesses, heavily redacted and other material may be appropriate for some inquests, such as the inquest into the death of Jean Charles de Menezes, but there will continue to be very rare and exceptional cases where even these measures will not be sufficient to enable an inquest which must be held with a jury to satisfy the requirements of Article 2 while, at the same time, ensuring that protected material is not made public or unlawfully disclosed. We have acted in good faith in seeking to find an acceptable and workable solution within the framework of both the current coroner system and our reform model. We responded positively with further amendments of our own when concerns were expressed about these provisions, both in the other place and by those outside Parliament who share everyone’s commitment to ensuring that families get the fullest answers to questions they have about the death of a loved one. However, it is clear that none of these amendments has commanded the level of confidence and cross-party support that we wished for. In the light of this we need to find an alternative way forward. In future, for those rare investigations into deaths when an Article 2-compliant inquest cannot take place because the inquest must be held with a jury and there is sensitive material which is central to the investigation but cannot be publicly disclosed, the Government will consider establishing an inquiry held under the Inquiries Act 2005. So the death will be investigated in that way rather than by way of a coroner’s inquest. The Committee will be anxious to know what the terms of reference of such an inquiry would be. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, spoke on this in the Second Reading debate. As those who have read the provisions of the Inquiries Act will know better than I, this is a matter to be agreed between the Secretary of State establishing the inquiry and the chairman appointed to lead it. However, when an inquiry is held instead of an inquest, the terms of reference are almost certain to include the matters to be ascertained by a coroner set out in Clause 5, which we have just debated. Inquiries are not a lesser form of inquest and a death will be investigated just as thoroughly at an inquiry as at an inquest. Most campaigners would regard the kind of detail it can delve into as being at the very top end of an investigation into a death, an event or a series of events. It is not unusual for inquiries to be sought after an inquest has been held in order that further and wider matters can be considered. This proposal is not a second best for families but a genuine alternative. It is in that context that I move Amendment 14, which is consequential on the eventual removal of Clauses 11 and 12. It is appropriate that I should stop there and allow the other amendments in the group to be spoken to, and then come back and try to answer some of the points that are raised.