Counter-Terrorism Bill (Programme) (No. 2)

In a civilised society, every one of us, and the society itself, has an interest in the causes of the death of every one of its members. That point has been well rehearsed in the debate. The Bill is extraordinary, but I say to the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) that I am not surprised by anything that the Government bring forward from the Home Office or any of their security agencies to improve the lot of the British citizen. Who could imagine that a Bill about terrorism should suddenly incorporate an amendment of a Coroners Act to bring about a situation that repudiates the whole tradition of our open justice and our approach to the reinforcement of the citizen's right to know what happened in the circumstances of an unusual or exceptional death? That is why we support coroners courts. That is why they have been largely open and accessible to us. We spoke about closure and satisfaction of the individual families concerned, but we as a society have a wider interest. We want to know that the cause of death is explicable and whether it was criminal in its intent. Suddenly a Bill relating to terrorism contains an extraordinary and very nasty series of proposals. It states:"““The Secretary of State may certify in relation to an inquest that, in the opinion of the Secretary of state, the inquest will involve the consideration of material that should not be made public””," and then it lists the circumstances:"““in the interests of national security,""in the interests of the relationship between the United Kingdom and another country, or””—" the usual catch-all that the Government use—"““otherwise in the public interest.””" Defining the public interest is a matter not only for Government, but for the Chamber. It strikes at the basis of our principles. It is outrageous that it has been incorporated in the Bill. The provision can be retrospective. The clause goes on:"““Where a certificate has effect in relation to an inquest, the inquest must be held or (as the case may be) continued without a jury””" and so on. It is an assertion of the nervousness of the state. Let us be clear about that. Who in a democratic society would seek such far-reaching power to obscure something that we take as a routine part of our democratic exchanges? Yet there has been no justification. What do the Government mean by"““in the interests of the relationship between the United Kingdom and another country, or otherwise in the public interest””?" It is everything, is it not? The Government determine it. On the most basic and preliminary examination, this is unacceptable. I have heard all the calls for national security over the nearly 30 years that I have been in the House. The Conservative Government used to bait the Labour party because it opposed internment and the Northern Ireland terrorism Acts. This Government now try to bait the Conservative party on the basis that we are soft on terrorism. It is nonsense. This country is united in the belief that we want peaceful, lawful existence, and that the purposes of the state are to ensure that each and every one of us is secure. To stick in the middle of that the view that something nasty might be going on in a coroner's court hardly brings joy to the hearts of a free people when they listen to a Government bring forward what we all know are important measures in other areas of the Bill. I hope very much that the House—no one else has spoken in favour of it other than the Minister himself—