Coroners and Justice Bill

Of course, we are delighted that the Government have decided that Clauses 11 and 12 should not stand part of the Bill. However, Amendments 30, 31 and 221 take us back to a particularly thorny problem. Last night we debated the Government’s intention in this Bill to circumvent the inquest process by moving some inquests to a parallel inquiry system under the Inquiries Act. The reason why the Government want to do this is to fulfil the need to have a process to examine deaths at the hands of the state that cannot currently be, in the Government’s opinion, dealt with by an inquest because of the information and methods of gathering such information, which fall under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act. These amendments offer an alternative approach, which respects the independence of the inquest process from the Government. We do not believe that we can have a situation in which the state, for whatever reason, however justifiable, shoots people, appoints someone under the Inquiries Act to investigate and sets the remit for the inquiry, when there is no jury and little or no openness. In other countries, we would criticise that as impunity. Indeed, I understand that the UK is the only country in the world to maintain a ban on RIPA evidence. So my amendments would allow RIPA material to be part of an inquest and would create special provisions to be brought on to the statute book to protect the national interest in matters of true national security. When we debated this first in relation to the Counter-Terrorism Bill in 2008, I moved some amendments that did not adequately cover matters of national security. Before the Bill came back from the House of Commons, we tabled further amendments that did address those issues. I was very grateful at that time for the support from the Conservative Front Bench. The noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Jones, said: ""There is widespread support for this measure across your Lordships’ House and in another place. It will address an anomaly in RIPA and ensure that all inquests comply with Article 2 of the ""ECHR. The point is not simply that inquests should be institutionally independent, but that they should be prompt. Part of the problem here is that we are delaying justice in several cases, which is not good for the reputation of British justice". —[Official Report, 24/11/08; col. 1298.]" We addressed the shortcomings at that time in those amendments and I will go through my amendments now in detail to explain their purpose in this Bill. The first amendment is to Section 15 of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 to require that a copy of any of the intercept material or data is not destroyed before an inquest, because it may be necessary in the investigation. Without this amendment, current law and practice mean that intercept material that may be relevant to an inquest is likely to be destroyed as soon as an investigation is complete. The second amendment, which I think is the key to the big issue, would amend RIPA to remove the prohibition on intercept material being made available to a judge, counsel, jury members or other interested persons in an inquest, when the judge considers it necessary to do so in the circumstances of the case. The third amendment would simply amend Schedule 20, which contains the transitional provisions, to ensure that the measures in the second amendment apply to current and future inquests. Given the Government’s very thorny problem over one delayed inquest, that is entirely necessary. These amendments have been drafted by the organisations Inquest, Liberty and Justice. They, like us, are very pleased that the proposal for secret inquests has been dropped, but we still believe that a change in the law is required so that inquests that involve intercept material are not unnecessarily stalled. The Minister will by now be fully seized of the fact that we do not think that implementing the inquiries system is an adequate substitute. What was originally Clause 13 amended Section 18 of RIPA to allow intercept material to be admissible in inquiries in certified investigations. That was a tacit acceptance by the Government that intercept material could and should be made admissible in coronial proceedings. In fact, there is a piecemeal removal of the general bar on the use of intercept material; as the Minister will be aware, such material is admissible in, for example, certain civil proceedings, such as those on control orders. The fundamental flaw in the Government’s proposal was that there was no principled reason why the removal of the general bar on intercepts at inquests needed to be restricted to a new breed of certified inquests. With my amendments, it would be possible for a judge conducting an investigation to ban or restrict the jury’s or the public’s access to material that would be contrary to the interests of national security. Rule 17 of the Coroners Rules 1984 enables a coroner to direct that the public be excluded from an inquest or any part of an inquest if he considers that it would be in the interests of national security to do so. A judge sitting as a coroner can be appointed to head such an inquest, if it is particularly sensitive, and public interest immunity certificates can be issued if necessary. These powers are maintained in the Bill. The recent inquest into the death of Jean Charles de Menezes is a case in point. It involved very sensitive material including details such as the Metropolitan Police’s operational response to the threat posed by suicide bombers—it is hard to think of anything more sensitive—the assistance that the police had from countries such as Israel and the USA in developing it and all sorts of other aspects of undercover and surveillance operations. Despite all that, the inquest went ahead. That was achieved in several ways. A High Court judge was appointed as coroner and was able to consider PII applications by the police in respect of highly confidential policies and documents. Where discussions in open court touched on the contents of any such protected documents, agreements were reached in the absence of the jury and the public about what could be explored. Although some aspects were regarded as too sensitive to be investigated publicly, overall a reasonably fair exploration of the issues was allowed, while national security was protected, as were other policing concerns. Suitable arrangements were made for the protection of witnesses without the need for certification. That inquest went ahead as an inquest, not as an inquiry. With that recent example in front of the Government, they should be able to see that these amendments are a practical way forward without destroying the tradition of inquests and going for the parallel system of inquiries for such sensitive cases that it looks as though they are attempting to put on the statute book. I beg to move.