New
Clause
13
Applications
for inquests to be held without a
jury
‘(1) In section 8 of the
Coroners Act 1988 (c. 13) (duty to hold inquest), after subsection (7)
insert—
“(8) This
section is subject to section 8A (applications for inquests to be held
without a jury).”.
(2)
After that section
insert—
“8A
Certificate requiring inquest to be held without a
jury
(1) The Secretary of State may apply to the Lord
Chief Justice for an inquest to be held without a jury if it
is—
(a) in the interests
of national security,
(b) in
the interests of the relationship between the United Kingdom and
another country, or
(c)
otherwise in the public
interest.
(2) The Lord Chief
Justice may grant an application made under subsection (1) if he is
satisfied that any of paragraphs (a) to (c)
apply.
(3) Where an application
under subsection (2) has been granted, the inquest must be held without
a jury, so that—
(a) if
a jury has not been summoned, the coroner must not summon a jury,
and
(b) if a jury has been
summoned, the coroner must discharge the
jury.
(4) Accordingly, the
following do not apply in relation to the
inquest—
(a) the power
under subsection (1) or (4) of section 8 to hold the inquest or part of
the inquest with a jury,
and
(b) the duty under
subsection (3) of that section to hold the inquest with a jury in the
circumstances set out in that
subsection.
(5) If a jury is
summoned—
(a) the
coroner must proceed in all respects as if the inquest had not
previously begun, and
(b) the
provisions of this Act apply accordingly as if that were the
case.”.
(3) 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.’.—[Mr.
Grieve.]
Brought
up, and read the First
time.
Mr.
Grieve:
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second
time.
This is the last
of the new clauses that we have to consider. It follows on in many ways
from the debate that we had on Tuesday so I need not take up too much
of the Committee’s time. It offers the Government the
opportunity to look at a formula that provides, by relatively minor
tweaking of the Bill, for the Secretary of State to
make an application to the Lord Chief Justice for an inquest to be held
without a jury rather than a certificate being issued, as is proposed
by the Government. I hope that in the 48 hours since we last debated
this matter, the Minister will have been tempted into a greater
understanding of how important it is that any changes to the coroners
inquest process to allow the use of intercept and intelligence evidence
should be subject to judicial discretion.
If the Government are
right—and the Minister made a powerful case on Tuesday—as
to the necessity in some cases of abandoning the current inquisitorial
system with a jury because of the advantage of putting material in
front of a coroner that will be conclusive and very helpful, at least
to the coroner coming up with the right answers to what happened, then
persuading a court of the necessity of departing from the current
practice, appears to be the absolute foundation for doing
that.
I am perfectly
satisfied that the Government may be able to tell me, even today, that
the new clause is flawed in a number of technical respects—for
which I can only apologise, I did my best to redraft it as I
could—it nevertheless allows for such a model. If that model
were also linked to the obvious safeguards—which we were asked
for but which I have not sought to tackle in new clause
13—needed for the appointment of coroners themselves, that will
already start to go a very long way indeed to meeting some of the
anxieties expressed. I obviously reserve my position on this as to
whether we would have to continue our
opposition. I am aware
that there is one area in the course of the passage of this
Bill—42 days pre-charge detention—where I suspect that a
meeting of minds will remain absolutely impossible for a variety of
reasons. But I have to say that on this matter, which in a sense took
us by surprise, there is a danger of there being substantial
disagreement leading to us seeking to remove this part of the Bill
entirely on Report. Certainly I wonder whether it will survive in the
other place in its present form—I think it most unlikely. The
Government will have to take urgent steps to persuade the House of
Commons, and ultimately to persuade the House of Lords, that the
changes they are bringing about have adequate safeguards and will not
prejudice the complete review in the course of the coroners Bill,
which, since the Prime Minister’s announcement yesterday, we now
know we are going to be getting next year. It would be much better if
all of this could be put off until the coroners Bill, particularly in
light of what the Government have said. In that case, I would urge the
Minister not to go down the road of new clause 13, but simply to take
the opportunity on Report to remove the references to inquests in the
Bill with an assurance that the House will return to the matter in the
course of next year. That would be my preferred course. I have been
trying to show the Minister a common road that we can follow, because I
am mindful of the fact that the Minister has raised an important issue
here, and the Home Office briefing made me realise its importance. At
the same time, the protections afforded by coroners inquests and juries
should not be allowed to be forfeited or removed
lightly.
Mr.
Hogg:
I rise to support new clause 13. I really have only
three observations to make. First, I agree with what my hon. and
learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield said about the coroners
Bill. The changes in this part of the Bill are much better placed in
the context of a coroners Bill and I would be content if we did not
deal with it in this Bill at
all.
Secondly, and
differently, for the reasons that I previously advanced earlier, I do
not believe that the public will ever be content with a process whereby
the Secretary of State, acting alone and through certificate, can
prevent a hearing before a jury. I do not think that the public will
accept that, and I think the public would be right not to accept it.
That being so, if we are going to go down this road at all, we have to
find some other process whereby the certificate is issued.
I believe—it was in my
amendments that we discussed some time ago—that the role of the
Lord Chief Justice would provide the necessary reassurance. I think my
hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield is to be
congratulated on the way in which he has drafted his new clause,
subject to the third point that I am going to make.
I find it very difficult to
believe that I will ever be persuaded that the phrase “otherwise
in the public interest” should form part of the criteria. We
debated
this some time ago when I set out the reasons why I am against it and I
will not repeat them today. It is far too
wide. 3
pm
Mr.
Grieve:
I agree with my right hon. and learned Friend.
Having tabled the new clause, I rather regretted that I had not sought
further to change the original text.
There are strong arguments,
particularly in the context of this debate, for the criteria to be
either the interests of national security or some
other overwhelming reason, given the need to allow intercept evidence
to be adduced. The criteria should include nothing else, and certainly
not the interests of the relationship between the United Kingdom and
another country, which has always struck me as one of the more bizarre
aspects of the
proposal.
Mr.
Hogg:
I am grateful to my hon. and learned Friend for
making that point. We are as one on this matter.
I hope that the Minister will
take the matter away and examine whether another formula can be arrived
at, either for this Bill or the coroners Bill. I, and
I suspect most of my party, have enormous difficulty with any proposal
that allows the Secretary of State to issue the certificate or which
allows such
criteria.
Mr.
Llwyd:
I remind the Committee that the
Attorney-General’s general guidelines in respect of every
prosecution contain a public interest element. Why do we need the
provision expressly in the Bill? It seems unnecessary. Are we to take
it that there are different sets of public interest considerations from
the ordinary ones of the Attorney-General’s
guidelines?
Mr.
Hogg:
I suspect that the answer is that once the
provision is in the Bill it is capable of a wider
interpretation. The point is fairly raised, but I do not know the
answer. Perhaps the Minister does. The phrase is very wide and, as it
has such dramatic consequences, I would be reluctant to give it any
kind of tacit
support.
Mr.
Heath:
I was going to say that we had already
debated this new clause and therefore it was
unnecessary to replicate the arguments, save for a reservation, which
the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham has
now expressed. I still cannot be doing with subsection (1)(b) and
(c)—I regretted that it was included in the new clause, but
apparently the hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield does too, so we
are at one.
As the
hon. and learned Gentleman has said, we are capable of finding a
resolution on this issue if the Government are so disposed. If we do
not, it is unlikely that the provision will make it through both
Houses. There is still the option of using the coroners Bill as the
vehicle, which will occasion a delay, but perhaps not an insurmountable
one.
If we want to go
ahead now, two issues need to be addressed. One is the certification by
a Secretary of State that a matter can be held without a jury without
judicial oversight or involvement. The second, which I
find reprehensible, is the suggestion that a Secretary of State should
appoint a special coroner, rather than the appointment being subject to
judicial independence. If we can deal
with both issues—the hon. and learned Gentleman’s new
clause deals with one of them—then we are a long way towards a
meeting of minds. I hope that the Minister will accept the spirit of
the new clause as proposed and supported from the Opposition Benches,
and that he will find a suitable
resolution.
Mr.
McNulty:
No, I do not accept it, but I appreciate that
this mini-debate and our debate on Tuesday have shown that the
Committee recognises the need for a resolution. I said then that I
would take away part 6 and have a look at its architecture, and that
must continue to be my refrain. I take very seriously the notion that
we should be able to move forward on a consensual basis. I am told that
there is at least one and possibly other compelling cases that mean
that we should do this now rather than wait for the now publicly
flaunted coroners Bill in the next Session.
I also made the point—I
am not sure whether it was in Committee or outside it—that were
something of that order to pass in part 6, a very strong link would be
made to it eventually being subsumed into the coroners reform Bill.
That is perfectly logical. I am up for getting us all to a stage where,
having agreed that there is an issue, we can overcome it. I will
reflect on this and other sections of part 6 and potentially discuss
them further with Committee members before Report.
In that
context, I ask that the new clause be
withdrawn.
Mr.
Grieve:
I look forward to hearing in due course how the
Minister intends to tackle this difficult problem. I beg to ask leave
to withdraw the
motion.
Motion and
clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Schedule
2
Disclosure
and the intelligence services: consequential
amendments
Anti-terrorism, Crime
and Security Act 2001 (c.
24)
1 In section 19(2) of
the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 (disclosure of
information held by revenue departments), omit paragraph
(a).
Representation of the
People (England and Wales) Regulations 2001 (S.I.
2001/341)
2 (1) The
Representation of the People (England and Wales) Regulations 2001 are
amended as follows.
(2) In
regulation 45E (supply of record of anonymous entries to the security
services), omit paragraphs (3) and
(4).
(3) In regulation 102(6)
(supply of full register: general restrictions on use), for
“regulations 103 to 109” substitute “regulations
103 to 108 or 109”.
(4)
After regulation 108
insert—
“108A
Supply of full register etc to the security
services
(1) This regulation
applies to—
(a) the
Security Service;
(b) the
Government Communications
Headquarters;
(c) the Secret
Intelligence Service.
(2) For
the purposes of regulation 102(1) above the relevant part of the
documents listed in that provision is the whole of
them.”.
(5) In regulation 109 (supply of full register etc
to police force and other agencies and restrictions on use),
omit—
(a) paragraph
(1)(g) to (i);
(b) in paragraph
(4)(a), the words preceding paragraph
(i);
(c) paragraph (4)(b) and
the word “and” immediately preceding
it.
(6) In regulation 113 (sale
of full register to government departments and other
bodies)—
(a) in the
closing words of paragraph (1), after “other than” insert
“a department to which regulation 108A applies
or”;
(b) in paragraph
(3) for “regulation 109(1)(g) to (i),” substitute
“regulation
108A”.
(7) In regulation
115(2) (offences) omit
“45E(3),”.
(8)
For regulation 118(8) (provision of copies of documents open to public
inspection) substitute
insert—
“(8) The
relevant registration officer shall, on request, supply free of charge
copies of any documents open to public
inspection—
(a) to each
of the departments mentioned in regulation
108A;
(b) to a person who has
inspected those documents and who is entitled to be supplied with a
copy of the marked register or lists by virtue of being a person to
whom regulation 109
applies.”.
(9) In
regulation 119(3) for “regulation 118(8)” substitute
“regulation
118(8)(b)”.
Representation
of the People (Scotland) Regulations 2001 (S.I.
2001/497)
3 (1) The
Representation of the People (Scotland) Regulations 2001 are amended as
follows.
(2) In regulation 45D
(supply of record of anonymous entries to the security services), omit
paragraphs (3) and (4).
(3) In
regulation 101(6) (supply of full register: general restrictions on
use), for “regulations 102 to 108” substitute
“regulations 102 to 107 or
108”.
(4) After
regulation 107
insert—
“107A
Supply of full register etc to the security
services
(1) This regulation
applies to—
(a) the
Security Service;
(b) the
Government Communications
Headquarters;
(c) the Secret
Intelligence Service.
(2) For
the purposes of regulation 101(1) above the relevant part of the
documents listed in that provision is the whole of
them.”.
(5) In
regulation 108 (supply of full register etc to police force and other
agencies and restrictions on use),
omit—
(a) paragraph
(1)(g) to (i);
(b) in paragraph
(4)(a), the words preceding paragraph
(i);
(c) paragraph (4)(b) and
the word “and” immediately preceding
it.
(6) In regulation 112 (sale
of full register to government departments and other
bodies)—
(a) in the
closing words of paragraph (1), after “other than” insert
“a department to which regulation 107A applies
or”;
(b) in paragraph
(3) for “regulation 108(1)(g) to (i),” substitute
“regulation
107A”.
(7) In regulation
115(2) (offences) omit
“45D(3),”.
(8)
For regulation 118(8) (provision of copies of documents open to public
inspection) substitute
insert—
“(8) The
relevant registration officer shall, on request, supply free of charge
copies of any documents open to public
inspection—
(a) to each
of the departments mentioned in regulation 107A;
(b) to a person who has inspected those documents
and who is entitled to be supplied with a copy of the marked register
or lists by virtue of being a person to whom regulation 108
applies.”.
(9) In
regulation 119(3) for “regulation 118(8)” substitute
“regulation
118(8)(b)”.
Immigration,
Asylum and Nationality Act 2006 (c.
13)
4 In the Immigration,
Asylum and Nationality Act 2006, omit section 38 (disclosure of
information for security
purposes).
Statistics and
Registration Service Act 2007
(c.18)
5 In the Statistics
and Registration Service Act 2007,
omit—
(a) section
39(4)(g) (permitted disclosure of personal information: disclosure to
an Intelligence Service);
and
(b) in section 67 (general
interpretation), the definition of “Intelligence
Service”.—[Mr.
McNulty.]
Brought
up, read the First and Second time, and added to the
Bill.
| 
