---

Counter-Terrorism Bill

moved Amendment C1, as an amendment to the Motion, at end insert ““but do propose Amendments Nos. 106B and 133B in lieu: "106B: Insert the following new Clause-" ““Inquests: intercept evidence "(1) In section 18 of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (c. 23) (exceptions to section 17), after subsection (7)(c) insert-" ““(d) a disclosure to a coroner or to a person appointed as counsel to an inquest or to members of a jury or to any properly interested person where- (i) the coroner holding the inquest is a judge of the High Court; and (ii) the coroner has ordered the disclosure to be made to- (a) the coroner alone; or (b) the coroner and, if he is satisfied that the disclosure will not prejudice national security, the person appointed as counsel to the inquest or to members of a jury or to any properly interested person; or (c) the coroner and, if he is satisfied that it is necessary to avoid prejudice to national security, in redacted form to the person appointed as counsel to the inquest or to members of a jury or to any properly interested person.”” "(2) In that section, after subsection (8A) insert-""““(8B) A coroner shall not order a disclosure under subsection (7)(d) except where the coroner is satisfied that the exceptional circumstances of the case make the disclosure essential to enable the matters that are required to be ascertained by the inquest to be ascertained.””""(3) In that section, after subsection (11) insert-""““(11A) References in this section to a coroner apply only where the coroner is a judge of the High Court.””""(4) This section has effect in relation to inquests that have begun, but have not been concluded, before the day on which it comes into force as well as to inquests beginning on or after that day.””""133B: Line 6, after second ““to”” insert ““inquests and””" The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the Minister has summed up the issue. This amendment addresses the rights of families and society that an inquest be held within a reasonable time. The UK has been proud to fulfil that right since long before the Human Rights Act existed. As the noble Baroness, Lady Stern, reminded us on Report: "““The obligation under Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights to have a prompt inquiry into a death at the hands of an agent of the state is a heavy one. It is a vital part of the state’s accountability to its citizens””.—[Official Report, 11/11/08; col. 600.]" I remind the House of the urgent need for this amendment. It has been highlighted by two cases in particular, one of which has been outstanding for three and a half years, apparently due to the fact that the coroner might be faced with sensitive intercept material. We also heard about the work programme dealing with the outcome of the Chilcot review and it seems that any comprehensive solution to the use of intercept material evidence is some way off. In the mean time, these inquests must be held or we will simply not be Article 2 compliant, nor doing right by the families of these people and society as a whole. The amendment is the solution. Since we last debated this issue in your Lordships’ House, it has been the subject of an especially well informed and interesting debate in another place. Richard Shepherd MP there said that, "““there is a wider public interest, which is that everyone should be assured that the processes are above board and clear. We all have an interest in an examination of the facts surrounding the death. In arguing the case for national security, the Minister is effectively saying that he is unable to give us any understanding or take us into any confidence as to how conclusions in such cases are reached or whether they are justifiable. That is the dilemma that we all face in this society. Our uncertainties about those who make judgments on these issues make some of us extremely cautious about permitting secrecy of that nature””.—[Official Report, Commons, 19/11/08; col. 276.]" That sums up the dilemma very well. Those honourable and right honourable Members who contributed to the debate in the other place made some very helpful points which I have today incorporated into my original amendment. In particular, the contribution of the right honourable Mr Douglas Hogg MP was very valuable. He has had the experience of being responsible for GCHQ for a number of years. He said that the amendment, which he strongly supported, would be further improved if it was amended to the effect that the disclosure would not be injurious to the national interest, a point supported by my friend David Heath, who felt that further refinement is required. That is what we have done. Indeed, the Minister himself, the noble Lord, Lord West of Spithead, said on Report that: "““Disclosure of intercept capabilities would have a real and damaging impact on our ability to gather the intelligence that is vital to our national security””.—[Official Report, 11/11/08; col. 602.]" In response to this, we have added proposed new paragraph (d)(ii)(a), (b) and (c), which is a graded disclosure menu from which the judge sitting as a coroner can choose. The Government no longer rely on the reason for rejecting this—that there is no mechanism to appoint a judge as a coroner—which the Minister originally claimed in this House. We corrected the record here but it was repeated in the other place by the Minister, Vernon Coaker. I therefore put on record again that under Section 14 of the Coroners Act 1988 coroners can apply for the jurisdiction of an inquest to go to a circuit or High Court judge. I remind the House that a judge is sitting on the ongoing inquest into the Jean Charles de Menezes case. We can dispose of that government objection and it then comes down to the national security issue. We accept that there are strong reasons for dealing with the issue of national security and our amendment now meets those concerns. In the interests of speeding up these inquests, which the Government will have to do, they will not need to invent a whole new mechanism. I hope that they will listen to the wise words of so many in the other place, which were summed up by Mr Edward Garnier when he said: "““There are practical solutions that enable us to comply as best we can with article 2 and to allow the bereaved to have the necessary information to understand why their loved ones were killed or died. There is sufficient goodwill across this House and between the two Chambers of Parliament to enable us to arrive at a sensible solution””.—[Official Report, Commons, 19/11/08; col. 289.]" That is what I am asking for today. The Government must trust the judges. If they accept the amendment, that is what they will be doing. If they fail to accept the amendment, they are saying that they do not trust the judges, and that is a very serious state of affairs. If they feel that the amendment could be further improved—that it has technical flaws or is grammatically imperfect—they have time to address that when they take it back to another place. What cannot continue is a situation where inquests such as those now outstanding run for more than three years. We accept that there is a balance between the right of the bereaved in society to know why somebody has been killed or has died at the hands of the state, and the need to maintain a level of confidentiality. We accept that our original amendment did not emphasise sufficiently the issue of national security. However, I believe that the amendment now fully meets Commons concerns that sensitive material should not be disclosed to the public, while requiring that inquests be held in a timely manner. I beg to move. Moved, Amendment C1, as an amendment to the Motion, at end insert ““but do propose Amendments Nos. 106B and 133B in lieu””.—(Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer.)