Coroners and Justice Bill

It would be not only otiose but rather self-indulgent of me to rehearse the arguments so skilfully advanced by the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, in support of this amendment. Your Lordships will recall that yesterday evening I spoke to Amendment 46, which sought to promote the alternative solution, which was to take the Government’s preferred objective of using the Inquiries Act occasionally to deal with these difficult matters, but to cut down the Secretary of State’s powers under the Act in such a way as to provide a balance between the interests of all parties involved that was fair in all circumstances. The Minister did not give my amendment a very warm welcome. As a matter of principle, the Opposition would much prefer a solution in the coronial context to one in the context of the Inquiries Act. I entirely agree with the reasons for the question of the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, to the Minister at the end of his remarks. I submit that if the Minister does not accept the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, he ought to tell us why it does not provide sufficient safeguards in relation to intercept evidence. We know that, in the de Menezes inquest, the judge—to, I believe, everybody’s satisfaction—produced a balance that was appropriate in all circumstances. I know of no particular security interest that was thought to be compromised. At least I have not heard of any. Not to know is, perhaps, not quite the same as not to have heard. Nevertheless, it is widely accepted that the inquest was handled with discretion and immense competence. If what is in Amendment 30 does not satisfy the Minister’s concerns about the admission of such evidence, what additional ingredients should the amendment have to pass the Minister’s test?