Counter-Terrorism Bill
1:00 pm
Lord Carlile: The coroners’ provisions were introduced in the Bill after I was asked to report on the proposals in the draft Bill. I am not completely happy about the coroners’ proposals because they have reduced too far the transparency of inquests. Having said that, it is clear that national security must be protected. There are some cases and inquests in which having a jury is not a realistic option because of the public interest and the national security aspects that might arise. The relevant clause in the Bill is drawn rather more widely than it needs to be. I am also firmly of the view that a special advocate procedure needs to be inserted if inquests are to take place in the broad parameters that were introduced into the Bill at a fairly late stage, so that the interests of families, the deceased and others will be protected as special advocates protect people in judicial hearings of control orders, with a sight of all the closed material. Special advocates have proved peculiarly useful and successful recently in control orders cases in the High Court, and that could be replicated in coroners’ inquisitions.
I have a sense of disappointment that the proposals of the independent committee that looked into inquests have been so heavily diluted by the Government that they bear little resemblance to the committee’s conclusions. The add-ons in the Bill leave me feeling slightly uncomfortable. There is certainly room for amendment.