Coroners and Justice Bill

I, too, support the amendments that have been proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, and the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland. The problem is that the sensitive cases which cause understandable concern to the Minister are precisely the ones where it is most important that the proceedings to determine the circumstances of death, whether it is an inquest or inquiry, are transparent, independent and are seen to have those qualities. Schedule 1(3), the subject of Amendment 33, requires the senior coroner to suspend his investigation if the cause of death is to be "adequately investigated" under the Inquiries Act. That is the Government’s proposed solution. Yet Schedule 1(3) begs the essential question because the Inquiries Act procedure is simply not adequate in this context. It has serious defects, as the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, suggested, by reason of the powers that it confers on the Minister to both institute and intervene in the work of the work of the inquiry. Amendment 46 identifies some of those defects, in particular the power to suspend the inquiry and the power to restrict public access. Would the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, and the Minister reflect on further provisions in the Inquiries Act which also need amendment if that Act is to be used in Clause 5 cases? Under Section 14 of the Inquiries Act, the Minister has a power to bring an inquiry to an end at any time he so wishes. Under Section 25, the Minister has power to withhold the publication of any part of the report if he considers it to be in the public interest to do so. Those powers, as well as those in Sections 5, 13 and 19 which Amendment 46 addresses, are quite impossible to reconcile with a judicial procedure which is independent, seen to be independent, and commands public confidence in these sensitive cases. I hope the Minister will be able to tell us tonight that the Government will reflect on this important matter.