Coroners and Justice Bill

With the leave of the House, I wish to reply to the debate. I thank the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) for his remarks. I wondered how he would conclude, because I understand his discomfort in abstaining or not supporting those on his Front Bench. He went in for some wonderful casuistry to move from the position that he had adopted to the position that he now supports. I say to my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore) and others who spoke that I am glad that there is a profound difference between the view of this House and that of the other place. The view from all parts of this House—my hon. Friend added his name to my amendment to delete the additional provisions put forward by Baroness Miller in the other place—is that everybody accepts that there have to be circumstances where intercept evidence is kept from a jury hearing an inquest, so that at least is progress. Then we hear suggestions that there are ways round that. My hon. Friend the Member for Hendon and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Medway (Mr. Marshall-Andrews) say, "Well, we can do it through the existing measures." We have been through that. There are some cases—I assure my hon. Friend that they are indeed few and far between—where having a jury trial will result in an injustice, because there will be key evidence that cannot go before the jury as a finder of fact. With respect, where he is wrong is in suggesting that an inquiry headed by a senior judge would not be article 2 compliant. What would not be article 2 compliant in those circumstances would be the inquest jury, which would not be able to conduct a proper examination. There is another important point that I would make to the House, as the Opposition, as well as my hon. Friends, need to apply themselves to that which they seek to vote on in a moment, although I would advise my hon. Friends not to do so. My hon. Friend the Member for Hendon proposes that we delete paragraphs 3 and 8 of schedule 1. Paragraph 3 allows for a suspension of an inquest where there is an inquiry appointed under the Inquiries Act 2005 and where a judge has been appointed to hear that inquiry. I have already made it clear that in practice—I am happy to put this on the record again, and everybody who knows the practice knows this to be true—there could be no such appointment without the consent of the Lord Chief Justice, and his consent would be forthcoming only where he was satisfied about the circumstances and the discretion available to the learned judge. Those undertakings are absolutely clear. I should also make it clear that if we were to pass the proposed amendments, that would not result in there being no inquiry under the Inquiries Act 2005. Rather, it would simply result in an inquest, which could not hear the evidence, running in parallel with an investigation that could hear the evidence. I suggest that that is the worst of all possible worlds—[Interruption.] I am being told to keep speaking. I am always happy to keep speaking. Although I appreciate his motives, I would ask my hon. Friend to appreciate what exactly he is proposing. He would end up with a muddle, where there would still be a requirement— One and a half hours having elapsed since the commencement of proceedings on consideration of Lords amendments, the debate was interrupted (Programme Order, this day). The Deputy Speaker put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair (Standing Order No. 83F), That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 1. Question agreed to. Lords amendment 1 accordingly disagreed to. The Deputy Speaker then put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that time (Standing Order No. 83F). Lords amendment 2 disagreed to. Lords amendment 216 disagreed to.