Coroners and Justice Bill

Before the noble Baroness responds, would the Minister consider two propositions? The first, with which I am sure he would agree, is that judges are very good at making the kind of decisions to which he referred. I would say to the noble Lord: "Trust the judge". Secondly, as a fallback position—and I am not suggesting that this is one we would advance on Report—there may be room for both these solutions to the problem. There may be room for an amendment that advances the possibility that, in certain circumstances, intercept evidence could be used in a traditional coronial context, with appropriate safeguards. However, if it is considered that the security nature of that evidence is such that relevant matters should be withheld from the jury, the Government could go to the second stage and initiate an inquiry—as long as the amendments that we tabled to the inquiry system were accepted by the Government. I am thinking on my feet here. If not, what will happen is that the moment there is an issue that involves intercept evidence, the Government will automatically go for an inquiry without thinking hard about whether the matter could be considered under a coronial solution, as it was ably by the de Menezes inquiry. I put these two thoughts to the Minister, in a spirit of trying to produce a creative result from the evening’s discussions.