Coroners and Justice Bill

I am extremely grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken. There have been a plethora of constructive suggestions that will move us forward towards Report. I am particularly grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, who, with his normal forensic ability, got to the heart of the point when he said, absolutely correctly, that the opposition parties are looking for a solution in the coronial context and not one in the inquiries context. I am also grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Alton of Liverpool, for expanding on why we see an immense difference between the two. I recognise that the noble Baroness, Lady Ramsay of Cartvale, is puzzled as to why I have brought this matter forward. Indeed, I think that she used the word "cavalier", but I refute that. We discussed this at length during the passage of the Counter-Terrorism Bill. I had meeting after meeting with the noble Lord, Lord West of Spithead, and his final invitation was that we should debate this issue further during the Coroners and Justice Bill. That may have been because he thought that we would be nearer to having the Chilcot review solutions in place by now; however, they are not. I am responding to that invitation because I think that it would have been extraordinary if we had ignored the opportunity offered by this Bill to come back and approach a solution. The suggestion put forward by the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay—that we could work towards a solution with a sunset clause in the Bill that would come into effect if the Chilcot review came up with anything better—was another constructive idea that we might well want to think about between now and Report. The noble Lord, Lord Pannick, was right: what we are really looking for here are powerful safeguards in relation to evidence that should not be disclosed, as I think the Minister has recognised. We have not debated vetted juries tonight, although that it is something that we could have talked about. The noble Lord, Lord Pannick, is right: this issue will involve rare, very sensitive cases, but I remind him and the Committee of one very sensitive case that apparently could not proceed—that of Terry Nichols, which is now on the public record. Despite the long delay, because of the intercept evidence, that case was eventually heard by a coroner, who redacted everything necessary. She still felt that a meaningful inquest could be held. It was and it was concluded, despite a lot of feeling beforehand that it could not be held and that it would have to come under this special procedure. Therefore, we always have to question whether these are rare cases that truly cannot go before an inquest or whether it is a case of not having the right safeguards in place. I think that the majority opinion in the Committee this evening is that we need to work on the safeguards, and I remind the doubters that the UK is the only country in the world not to accept intercept evidence. There must be a way that other countries are getting a solution to this issue of inquests and intercept evidence. However, I am grateful to the Minister for his positive attitude and the depth of expert opinion in the House that there is something to build on here. I look forward to discussing it and perhaps proceeding towards a solution on Report. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment 30 withdrawn. Amendment 31 not moved. Clause 13 agreed.