Skip to main content

Proceeding contribution from Lord Alton of Liverpool (Crossbench) in the House of Lords on Wednesday, 10 June 2009. It occurred during Committee of the Whole House (HL) and Debate on bill on Coroners and Justice Bill.


Coroners and Justice Bill

I support the amendments that have been so ably moved this evening by the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, and supported by my noble friends Lord Pannick and Lady Finlay. I would like to pursue a point that my noble friend has just made concerning the change from secret inquests to secret inquiries, as she put it. All of us, I think, supported the Government’s deletion of Clause 11; we were very pleased that the Government responded to the concerns that were made at earlier stages of the Bill concerning the whole question of secret inquests. However, is replacing those inquests with secret inquiries not a move that could be said to be less transparent? It will involve no jury and may involve greater secrecy than even the original proposal. It is fair to say that it was only during the Minister’s remarks last night that we were able to get a clearer picture of what the Government had in mind. He said that in future, in those rare investigations into deaths where an Article 2-compliant inquest cannot take place, because the inquest must be held with a jury and there is sensitive material that is central to the investigation but cannot be publicly disclosed, the Government will consider establishing an inquiry under the Inquiries Act 2005. So the death will be investigated in that way rather than by way of a coroner’s inquest. The Minister also stated that such an inquiry would be established wherever the Secretary of State decided that it was necessary to do so. The Secretary of State will set the terms of reference and decide whom to appoint as the chair of the inquiry. The only safeguard proposed is the Government’s word that they would expect to appoint a High Court judge. Will the Minister say, when he comes to reply, whether that is Article 2 compliant? Article 2 under the Human Rights Act 1998 requires that, where a death occurs in state custody, or where the death is alleged to have resulted from negligence on the part of state agents, the investigation must be independent, effective, prompt and open to public scrutiny and it must support the participation of the next of kin. It is clear that an inquiry will not be independent. The Government will set the terms of reference. An inquiry will not focus exclusively on the cause of death of an individual; by its nature, its focus must be on matters more generally of public concern. The Government could run into a real difficulty here. I hope that, before the Committee leaves this subject tonight, through the amendments that the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, has placed before us, we will have the chance to explore that question further.


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
711 c723 
Session
2008-09
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
Subjects
Children Disclosure of information Codes of practice Devolved matters Administration of justice Armed forces Death Accidents Certification Coroners Custodial treatment Families Inquiries Juries Electronic surveillance Evidence Intelligence services Legal aid scheme Ethnic groups Mental illness National security Police Powers Public interest Prisons Newspaper press Minority groups Relatives Post-mortems Lord Advocate Psychiatric hospitals Scotland Registration Young people Road traffic Suicide Secure psychiatric units
Legislation
Coroners and Justice Bill 2008-09
Link
View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk