---

Coroners and Justice Bill

Amendment to the Motion A1: Leave out ““Amendment 1B”” and insert ““Amendments 1C and 1D””. 1C: Page 115, line 28, leave out paragraph 3 1D: Page 117, line 14, leave out paragraph 8 My Lords, I beg to move Motion A1 as an amendment to Motion A, to leave out Amendment 1B and insert Amendments 1C and 1D. Our motion would have the effect of removing that part of Schedule 1 that empowers the Lord Chancellor to suspend an inquest. We sent this Bill to the other place having inserted into it the ability for intercept evidence, with precautions as regards national security, to be made available to an inquest when needed. Last Monday the other place held an excellent debate which has given this House a clear steer on the two deep concerns that are shared on all sides: first, whether intercept evidence should be made available; and secondly, if such evidence is to continue to be unavailable, whether the Government should have a power under the Inquiries Act to substitute an inquiry for an inquest. I shall address the first concern, the question of whether intercept evidence should be admissible. The honourable Dominic Grieve summed up the feelings of most MPs when he said, ““that to allow intercept evidence would be very difficult at this stage””.—[Official Report, Commons, 9/11/09; col. 60.] He was absolutely right to identify the anxiety we in this House feel about the Government’s approach to these issues which was manifested in the vote we called for on intercept evidence. I am grateful to the honourable Dominic Grieve for identifying so clearly the problem we had with it. I am also grateful to the honourable Andrew Dismore for retabling in the other place the amendment we brought forward at earlier stages. It is the amendment we are now debating, and I believe that it allows us to consider the heart of the issue. I thank the Minister for spelling out the detail of how an inquiry would work and for giving us a number of reasons why the Government feel that the route of an inquiry is the right one to take. He has not mentioned today that unless we change the law, in the Government’s opinion certain inquests cannot be held. However, on Monday the honourable Frank Dobson was concerned and puzzled that in the de Menezes case, where some of the evidence was clearly related to national security, the existing law worked well. He went on to say that: ““We should bear in mind that we were told by Ministers that there was no chance of an inquest in the de Menezes case unless we change the law—but we did not change the law, there was an inquest, and it was carried out quite satisfactorily””.—[Official Report, Commons, 9/11/09; col. 64.] The question now before the House is whether it is reasonable in such sensitive cases to give the Government the right to order an inquiry under the Inquiries Act instead of holding an inquest. As I thought the Minister would in moving the government amendment, he prayed in aid the fact that at the Committee stage Lord Kingsland tabled some probing amendments to see if the inquiries route could be made more acceptable. But the Minister has forgotten how he concluded that he was uneasy about using the Inquiries Act for this purpose because its procedures are initiated by an executive act of the Secretary of State and the investigation flows from that act. By contrast, coroners are centuries-old, well established public figures who are independent of the Executive. As a matter of principle, one would wish that all inquests were conducted through the coronial system. I appreciate the Lord Chancellor’s remark that the Government have been up hill and down dale on this matter, and we sympathise with that because it is not an easy issue. But the one case over which he and these Benches have tussled is not a reason for blowing a hole through the entire inquest system. The honourable Bob Marshall-Andrews said in the other place: ““The problem that this draconian measure seeks to remedy either does not exist or is so infinitesimally small that it would be a grotesque misuse of the House’s power to hand to the Executive such a very large extension to their powers””.—[Official Report, Commons, 9/11/09; col. 69.] I know that the Lord Chancellor said, in effect, ““Trust me. There is no reason not to trust me””. However, if this provision was introduced on to the statute books, we would have to trust not only him but as yet untried and unknown Lord Chancellors. If a less trustworthy one started to misuse the power, he would certainly not take it away from himself. Further, the Lord Chancellor said that it would be used only in exceptional circumstances, but the Government would judge what circumstances were exceptional and they would have the power to decide whether to substitute an inquiry for an inquest. The Lord Chancellor said that he and the Home Secretary will bring forward a protocol to set out the circumstances in which such an inquiry would take place, but such a protocol could have been before us for discussion months ago if it was considered useful. It could have been in the Bill if the Government had felt it was so valuable. Once the concept that the Government can order an inquiry instead of an inquest has been established and has gained a statutory footing, we will have taken a big step down a road where the public will lose all trust that we have maintained adequate defences against state impunity. The Lord Chancellor has underestimated the deep distrust and suspicion that is aroused when the Government try to circumvent the centuries-old, trusted system of inquests, with its independent coroners and juries, which is essential for society. This House is the guardian of long-term good over short-term expediency. I beg to move Motion A1.