---

Mr. McFall: Substantive points have been made in the debate, and I shall try to answer them.

I understand the argument advanced by the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg). I shall try to clarify the Government's intent in the Bill. We are dealing with relevant information provided to a commissioner. The information will be passed to the police or Garda, and an inquest will take place. We have given protection for information that comes forward. Only the coroner will be able to test how, where and when a person died and put that on the public record. I understand the right hon. and learned Gentleman's point and I shall reflect on it, but I see an illogicality in his proposition concerning the Bill's intent.

The hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) spoke about information forthcoming. With regard to criminal admissibility, once the information that the coroner has is on the public record as a result of an inquest, it can be used by anyone.

Rev. Martin Smyth: I thank the Minister for that information. If there was no criminal prosecution by the Crown, would the evidence be available for a civil case?

Mr. McFall: Yes. The information would be a matter of public record. I hope that that reassures the hon. Gentleman.

There have been some comments on the coroner's role, and it might be helpful if I described it. The coroner has powers derived from the Coroners (Northern Ireland) Act 1959. He has a duty to hold an inquest if a body found in his jurisdiction has died in suspicious circumstances. That information will have been provided by the relevant police authorities, who inform the coroner where the body is. The coroner directs the police to take possession of the body and orders a post-mortem.

Paragraphs (a) to (f) in clause 4(1) provide that no one else--for example, a state pathologist--goes into the detail of how, when and where a person died. It is for the coroner to do that. The state pathologist carries out the post-mortem and sends the report to the coroner,

12 May 1999 : Column 363

who arranges for a hearing. The coroner can summon anyone as a witness, other than a person alleged to have caused a death.

The coroner's duty is to make a finding concerning the identity of the body and how, when and where the person died. To that end, he calls the police, the pathologist and family members. The coroner's role vis-a-vis the family is obviously sensitive. Anyone who is likely to be able to give evidence that bears on who the person was and where and when he or she died can be called.

The proceedings are entirely a matter for the coroner. He has complete control. His court is a civil court. The ordinary rules of procedure apply regarding evidence given orally or by lay document. The post-mortem report will usually be read out in open court and questions put to the pathologist. After the hearing of all the evidence, the coroner will make a finding as to the identity of the body and when, where and how the person died. That will be made public.

The question was asked whether information made public after an inquest could be used in criminal proceedings. That can be done only by the defence, not by the prosecution.

Like clause 3, clause 4 is an essential element of the Bill to ensure that information is forthcoming to the commission. The construction of the clause is similar to the equivalent provision in the decommissioning legislation, as I mentioned. Subsection (2) provides that forensic testing for the purpose of the inquest is allowed. The inquest tests may determine the identity of the deceased, and how, when and where he or she died. Subsection (1) provides that testing for other purposes is not allowed. The other purposes are listed in paragraphs (a) to (f). Subsection (3) allows an item to be tested to determine whether it can be safely removed.

6.45 pm

Mr. Hogg: This will be my final intervention on the point, as I do not seem to have persuaded the Minister as much as I would like. We must focus a little more closely on what is suggested.

Our purpose in the Bill--much as I disagree with most of it--is to enable an accused person to defend himself or herself by relying on the forensic evidence. However, his or her ability to do that may depend on an ability to test the forensic evidence. That ability is restricted by clause 4, subject to the inquest procedure. The inquest procedure is contained in subsection (2).

The purpose of an inquest, at least in the present context, is to identify the deceased person and how, when and where he or she died. It is not the purpose of the inquest to identify the killer or to examine the weapon--in this case, the bullet--used. Under the subsection (2) powers, the coroner will not test, for example, the bullet to identify the gun from which it came, but that precise piece of information may be critical to a defendant--an accused--or to an appellant, and it will be denied to him or her because of the provisions of clause 4.

I am trying to persuade the Government that if it is right to give an accused person the ability to rely on the forensic material, it must be right to give to the accused

12 May 1999 : Column 364

person a right to apply to the court to have the material tested; otherwise it is nugatory. I am asking the Minister to understand that and to reflect on it.

Mr. McFall: I thank the right hon. and learned Gentleman. He has made the same point nine or 10 times. It usually takes me two or three times to understand. I have had seven extra opportunities, and I really do understand. I wonder whether the right hon. and learned Gentleman will understand the issue from our point of view. He wants to extend the forensic testing. He wants to make it open season not just for the defence, but for the prosecution.

The fact of the matter is as laid down in the Bill--there are defined limits to that information, for very good reasons. I come back to the point that relevant information provided to the commissioner is passed on for the simple purpose of locating a body. I well understand the point made by the right hon. and learned Gentleman, and I will reflect on it, but I think that he understands where I am coming from on that issue.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 4 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 5

Restrictions on disclosure of information

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Dr. Godman: I want to impress on my right hon. Friend the Minister of State my view on the relationship of subsection (2) to subsection (1). I am running the risk of sounding heavy handed in respect of the commissioners, but the provision of information to members of a victim's family must be treated with extreme sensitivity. Subsection (2) states:

"Subsection (1) does not prohibit the disclosure to members of a victim's family of--


(a) the fact that relevant information has been provided to the Commission".

I have no quarrel with that, but it adds:

"(b) the place where, according to the information, the victim's remains may be found."

A number of Northern Ireland Members have made the point that the IRA is more than capable of supplying disinformation in such matters. The subsection refers to where

"the victim's remains may be found."

It is important that the disclosure of such information is handled with sensitivity so that the hopes of a victim's family are not dashed because the remains of their loved one are not found where the information claimed that they were located.

The families have a right to such information--that goes without saying--but this whole question must be handled with extreme sensitivity in case the IRA gets up to its vicious games of disinformation. I make that plea to my right hon. Friend on the issue of the location of victims' remains.

Rev. Martin Smyth: I appreciate the hon. Gentleman giving way on that point, because I raised it earlier. The Minister said that the money will have been well spent if

12 May 1999 : Column 365

a body is found, but the harsh reality is that money could be wasted. I share the hon. Gentleman's concern that a relative's expectations that a victim's body has been found may be raised, and such information should not be released until we are sure of a body's location.

Dr. Godman: My concern, which the hon. Gentleman mentioned, is that the interests of the families are not damaged. To my mind, the question of cost--speaking as a Back Bencher, not as a Minister--is inappropriate, if not irrelevant, in such cases. I agree with him that, if the family can be contacted only when the evidence is definitive concerning the location of their loved one--

Mr. Maginnis: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way, because he may wish to consider a point arising from that. Clause 5 states:

"No relevant information provided to the Commission shall be disclosed to any person",

but we should project that proviso to a situation in which information is provided on which action is taken, only to discover that it is inaccurate. Are we not to be told, as members of the public, that the very families for whom the Bill is designed--so we are told--are being held to ransom by the tendering of false information?

Dr. Godman: That is a fair comment. Given the terrible suffering of the families over many years, they may be willing to gamble, but let me give the hon. Gentleman an example.

I spoke to a young woman whose father was abducted in Crossmaglen. His car was found south of the border. That young woman told me that neither she nor anyone else in her family has any idea of where her father's body may lie. My suggestion may be entirely inappropriate, but might not it be better to contact the family once the body has been found? That may be difficult--after a few years, the identity of a body may require verification, perhaps through personal possessions such as a wedding ring or a wallet found on it--but, in my view, the family could best be approached when verification was sought through personal possessions found on or near to a body.

I know that my right hon. Friend will take my views on board as a genuine attempt to help the families in such circumstances. We must avoid, at all times, the raising of their expectations only for them to be dashed by the authorities themselves.

---