Coroners and Justice Bill

I have considerable sympathy with the amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, but tonight is certainly not the time to make a final decision about these matters. I have tabled Amendment 46, which sets out what we require as the minimum amendments necessary to the Inquiries Act to make it a viable vehicle for the purpose that the Government appear at the moment to intend. I am uneasy about using the Inquiries Act for this purpose because its procedures are initiated by an executive act by the Secretary of State, and the investigation flows from that act. By contrast, coroners are centuries-old, well established public figures who are independent of the Executive; and, as a matter of principle, one would wish that all inquests were conducted through the coronial system. If the Inquiries Act is to play some role in future, however, then in my submission at least four amendments to it are needed, to Sections 3, 5, 13 and 19. The amendment to Section 3, in our submission, requires that where an inquiry is to be used as an inquest, it will always be chaired by either a High Court judge or a more senior judge. Section 5 permits the Minister, believe it or not, to change the terms of reference of an inquiry in the course of the inquiry. I remember that, at the time when the Inquiries Act was before your Lordships’ House in the form of a Bill, that power was much fought over. Surely, whatever value it might give to some inquiries in future, it cannot possibly have a role in an inquiry that, in effect, is performing a coronial function. It would be outrageous if the Secretary of State attempted, in the course of an inquiry looking into the death of someone under Clause 5 of the Bill, to seek to change the terms of reference of that inquiry. Section 13, which gives the Secretary of State the power to suspend an inquiry at any point, ought to be amended in the case of inquiries investigating deaths that fall into the category of Clause 5 of the Bill. Any attempt to seek to suspend the inquiry should have the consent of the judge who is chairing it. Section 19 gives wide powers to the Secretary of State to restrict public access to the documentation of the inquiry. We believe that any restrictions placed on such documentation should be placed on it only with the consent of the chairman of the inquiry, the High Court judge or more senior judge. From our point of view, those would be the minimum changes necessary if the issue of an inquiry under the Inquiries Act should be pursued any further.