Clause 11

Part of Coroners and Justice Bill – in a Public Bill Committee at 12:30 pm on 24 February 2009.

Alert me about debates like this

Photo of Bridget Prentice Bridget Prentice Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Ministry of Justice 12:30, 24 February 2009

That is correct. First, I shall ask the hon. Member for North-West Norfolk to withdraw his amendment, because I want to reflect on the issue further—today’s debate highlights the concerns clearly. I hope that that is helpful. We will come back on Report with more detail, which I hope to be able to discuss with Opposition Members between now and Report stage, so that we can reach a positive and satisfactory conclusion. With all due respect to the Committee, I felt that it was important that I set out in some detail why we are where we are.

On the question of balance, I accept the point that the hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth makes, but it can also be argued that, although the rights of the bereaved family have to be taken into account, the public and national security interests may outweigh those rights. It is on that point that we have to discover how we move forward.

The hon. Member for Cambridge talked about the importance of having a jury and drew a comparison with juries in criminal trials, but as has been reflected in today’s debate, that is not an exact comparison because—I will not repeat the argument in detail—it is possible in a criminal trial for the prosecution to drop the case if it feels that it cannot protect the sensitive material, whereas that is not the case here. He also talked about authorised jury checks. Those can take place exceptionally with the permission of the Attorney General, but the level of vetting in those cases is limited in some ways—more limited than full, developed vetting. In order to view the type of sensitive material that might be relevant in the one case that we are talking about, juries may have to be security-cleared to a higher level; that is simply not feasible, and it may not be appropriate.