This article is from the source 'bbc' and was first published or seen on . It will not be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/rss/-/1/hi/uk_politics/8356434.stm

The article has changed 2 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
Secret inquests battle continues Secret inquests battle at an end
(about 4 hours later)
The Conservatives say they still want to change proposals for "secret inquests" despite criticism that they have backed down on the issue. Inquests into some deaths could be held in secret in future after Parliament approved the controversial proposal.
The Lib Dems attacked Tory peers for abstaining in a vote on the issue in the House of Lords on Wednesday. It went through the Commons on Thursday after a series of concessions led to Tory peers dropping their opposition in the House of Lords on Wednesday.
MPs are now discussing the issue again in the Commons - with ministers wanting it approved before Parliament ends its current session on Thursday. The concessions include giving the lord chief justice the power to veto any requests for private inquests and also the power to decide who the judge is.
Shadow justice spokesman Dominic Grieve said he still wanted to amend the bill. Ministers say secrecy may be needed in some cases for national security.
Controversial proposal They want the option of a secret inquest when evidence obtained by intelligence gathering is likely to play a prominent role in the inquest.
However, he admitted this might not be possible due to the "archaic and stupid" nature of parliamentary procedure which made it difficult to pass amendments to bills at later stages of their passage. Safeguards
Many MPs and peers are unhappy with the proposal to allow some inquests into deaths to be held in secret before a judge, as opposed to before a jury as now. But many MPs remain worried that holding some inquests in private rather than in public and in front of a jury gives the government too much power.
Ministers want the option to do this when evidence obtained by intelligence gathering, which could potentially damage national security, is likely to play a prominent role in the inquest. The measure, contained in the Coroners and Justice Bill, was formally approved by MPs on Thursday - the last day of the current parliamentary session - and will now go for Royal Assent.
The plan was dropped amid opposition last year but was resurrected in a different form several weeks ago as part of the Coroners and Justice Bill being considered by Parliament. The Conservatives abstained in a key vote on the bill in the Lords on Wednesday, meaning that a proposal for a public inquest to be held at the same time as a secret one was defeated.
I am still not happy with the way the bill stands Shadow justice secretary Dominic Grieve And in final discussions over the bill in the Commons, the Tories failed in a last-minute effort to insert an additional legal safeguard.
Ministers insist secret inquests will only happen in a "tiny number" of cases and there will be sufficient safeguards in place to protect the public interest and the interests of the families. The Lord Chief Justice has an absolute veto on this Justice Secretary Jack Straw
Justice Secretary Jack Straw said ministers would have to justify why it was "necessary" to hold a secret inquest to a judge and that the courts would have the "final say" over the decision. A Tory amendment which would have required the lord chief justice to formally suspend an existing public inquest before agreeing to a private one instead was defeated by 57 votes.
After previously opposing the proposals in the Lords, the Tories abstained in a vote on Wednesday. Justice Secretary Jack Straw said this was unnecessary since Labour had already conceded that the lord chief justice would have an "effective veto" on beginning an inquest behind closed doors.
"If you have got a serious intent to form a government you can't sit in Parliament on important issues like this and simply not vote," Lib Dem peer Baroness Miller said of the Tory position. The secret inquest plan was dropped amid opposition last year but was resurrected in a different form as part of the Coroners and Justice Bill.
But Mr Grieve said the Tories decided not to support the Lib Dem amendment in question because it did not offer a solution to the problem and risked worsening the deadlock between the Lords and Commons. Ministers insist secret inquests will only happen in a "tiny number" of cases and that, in these cases, both the public interest and the interests of the families concerned will be protected.
On Monday, MPs narrowly rejected a proposal which would have required public inquests to be held at the same time as a secret one - effectively backing the government position. Shadow justice secretary Dominic Grieve said he was "not happy" with the bill as it stood but believed critics had won a "substantial concession" over the authority given to the lord chief justice.
'Concessions' "It effectively gives the most senior judge in the country a veto not just over the appointment of the judge but over whether this process takes place," he said.
Mr Grieve said his priority was to get the government to introduce as many safeguards into the bill as possible before it became law and not to engage in a game of "ping-pong" between the two chambers. 'Limbo'
"I am still not happy with the way the bill stands," he told the BBC. "If I can do anything to improve it still I will do so". The Lib Dems said they were unconvinced by the concessions and argued the government would still be able to set an inquest's terms of reference while restricting who can attend and what information was published.
Ministers had granted a "substantial concession" in agreeing that the Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales must examine the reasons for any secret inquest and choose which judges should oversee them. "It will affect those really sensitive cases, where for example police shoot somebody dead or somebody dies in very strange circumstances in prison," Lib Dem peer Baroness Miller said.
"It effectively gives the most senior judge in the country a veto not just not just over the appointment of the judge but over whether this process takes place," he said.
The Lib Dems say they are unconvinced by the concessions and say the government will still be able to set the terms of reference of an inquest while restricting who can attend and what information is published.
"It will affect those really sensitive cases, where for example police shoot somebody dead or somebody dies in very strange circumstances in prison," Baroness Miller said.
"These are the very cases that society as a whole and the families need to have confidence that actually the process has not gone horribly wrong.""These are the very cases that society as a whole and the families need to have confidence that actually the process has not gone horribly wrong."
And some Labour MPs have warned of problems in the new legislation.
"My main concern is that you could end up in limbo in that, on one hand, you have got the Lord Chancellor saying 'we want to have a secret inquest' and, on the other hand, the Lord Chief Justice saying you can't have a judge for it'," said Andrew Dismore.