Coroners and Justice Bill

In what I have said so far, I have spoken solely about the proposal of the hon. Member for Hendon, without considering the wiretap point, to which I will come separately. Both situations involve the same sort of judgment, although different levels of risk might be involved, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman says. I can understand the point made by the hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) about waiting for Chilcott, and the Secretary of State's argument that we cannot just insert the Chilcott criteria into the Bill; in fact, that probably would not produce the result that my noble Friend was looking for. However, some of the things I have been hearing about the legal objections to which Chilcott referred elliptically in his last report do not make any sense to me. If there are human rights objections or any sort of objections to schemes of partial disclosure, how much more do they apply to schemes of no disclosure at all? That is the argument I have been unable to follow throughout the entire debate. I also cannot understand why anyone on the Government side, as the Secretary of State has rightly acknowledged, says that we must wait for Chilcott, because the original version of clause 13 included a scheme that would allow an inquest—admittedly a juryless inquest—to hear wiretap evidence. There are other examples of wiretap evidence being used by various tribunals—for example, in control order and financial restriction proceedings—so the Government have not waited for Chilcott and have done those things already. This issue comes down to not trusting jurors—and, by the way, not trusting coroners. The idea is that there is some security risk specifically in the coroner's court and in the jury. The problems one hears about, such as fishing expeditions and certain information coming out if some forms of wiretap were admissible, already apply in the cases where wiretap evidence is already admissible, and would also apply under the original clause 13. It comes down to whether the Government are right to distrust the jury in the coroner's court so much, and whether the risks arising simply from the jury are worth taking. The Government have not yet proved their case on that. How do we know that juries are so unreliable? My view is that the House should support the amendments put forward by the hon. Member for Hendon. I do not want to take up the House's time with a Division on the Government motion to disagree, because we have already heard that the official Opposition will not be opposing it, so there is no chance of defeating the Government. However, there is a serious chance of defeating them on the hon. Gentleman's amendments, and I urge all my right hon. and hon. Friends to support those amendments in a few moments.