| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Amendments made: 94, page 6, leave out lines 3 to 16 and insert—
‘( ) The Secretary of State may certify an investigation under this Part into a person’s death if—
(a) an inquest will be held as part of the investigation,
(b) the inquest will (if the investigation is not certified) be held by a senior coroner with a jury,
(c) the Secretary of State is satisfied that the investigation will concern or involve matters (referred to below as “protected matters”) that should not be made public in order to protect the interests of—
(ii) the relationship between the United Kingdom and another country, or
(iii) preventing or detecting crime,
or in order to protect the safety of a witness or other person, and
(d) the Secretary of State is of the opinion that it is necessary for the inquest to be held without a jury in order to avoid protected matters being made public or unlawfully disclosed.’.
Amendment 95, page 6, leave out lines 28 and 29 and insert—
‘(4) Where the Secretary of State has certified an investigation under this section—
(a) the Secretary of State must as soon as possible inform the senior coroner of the certification;
(b) the senior coroner must as soon as possible inform all interested persons whose name and contact details are known to the coroner that the investigation has been certified.
A reference in this subsection to the senior coroner is to the senior coroner who is responsible for conducting the investigation, or would be but for subsection (3).’.
Amendment 96, page 6, line 34, at end insert—
‘(5A) Where a certification under this section has effect, the Secretary of State must inform the judge responsible for conducting the investigation what are the protected matters.’.
Amendment 97, page 6, leave out lines 35 to 38 and insert—
‘(6) The judge holding an inquest as part of a certified investigation must hold it without a jury if—
(a) there is a protected matter that would need to be revealed to the jury (if there was one)—
(i) in order for the jury to be able properly to discharge its duty under section 10(1), and
(ii) in order to avoid a breach of any relevant Convention rights (within the meaning of the Human Rights Act 1998 (c. 42)),
(b) the judge is satisfied that it is necessary to hold the inquest without a jury in order to avoid the matter being made public or unlawfully disclosed.
If the judge decides to hold the inquest with a jury, the judge must not allow any protected matter to be revealed to the jury unless it is a matter within paragraph (a).’.
Amendment 98, page 6, line 40, leave out from ‘effect’ to end of line 42 and insert ‘—
(a) as if references in it to the Chief Coroner were references to the Court of Appeal;
(b) with the omission of subsections (8) and (9).’.
Amendment 99, page 6, line 43, leave out lines 43 to 45 and insert—
(a) a reference to conducting an investigation, in the case of an investigation that has already begun, is to be read as a reference to continuing to conduct it;
(b) a reference to holding an inquest without a jury, in the case of an inquest that has already begun, is to be read as a reference to continuing the inquest without a jury.
Where by virtue of subsection (6) an inquest begun with a jury has to be continued without one, the judge holding the inquest must discharge the jury.’.— (Bridget Prentice.)
Amendment made: 3, page 7, line 1, leave out Clause 12.— (Bridget Prentice.)
Amendments made: 101, page 7, line 21, at end insert—
‘“( ) a disclosure made by the Secretary of State to a judge of the High Court in pursuance of section 11(5A) of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009;’.
Amendment 102, page 7, line 31, leave out ‘or’ and insert—
‘( ) a disclosure made by the Secretary of State to a coroner in pursuance of section 18A(2)(a) of the Coroners Act (Northern Ireland) 1959; or’ .— (Bridget Prentice.)
Amendment made: 109, page 19, line 35, leave out from ‘provision’ to ‘from’ in line 37 and insert
‘conferring power on a person holding an inquest as part of an investigation that has been certified under section 11 to give a direction excluding persons’.— (Bridget Prentice.)
Amendment made: 110, page 20, line 39, at end insert—
‘( ) in the case of an investigation that has been certified under section 11, the Minister who certified the investigation;’ .— (Bridget Prentice.)
Amendments made: 111, page 23, line 26, at end insert—
‘( ) In section 13 of the Coroners Act (Northern Ireland) 1959 (c. 15) (coroner may hold inquest), in subsection (1), for the words from “a coroner within whose district” to “an unexpected or unexplained death” substitute “a coroner—
(a) who is informed that the body of a deceased person is lying within his district; or
(b) in whose district an unexpected or unexplained death”.’.
Amendment 112, page 23, line 28, leave out ‘sections 11 and 12’ and insert ‘section 11’.— (Bridget Prentice.)
Amendment made: 113, page 126, line 32, leave out ‘, 3 or 12(3)(a)’ and insert ‘or 3’. — (Bridget Prentice.)
Amendment made: 120, page 141, line 21, leave out from beginning to end of line 19 on page 142 and insert—
‘“18A Certified inquest without jury where interests of national security etc require
(1) The Secretary of State may certify an inquest if—
(a) the inquest will (if it is not certified) be held with a jury;
(b) the Secretary of State is satisfied that the inquest will concern or involve matters (referred to below as “protected matters”) that should not be made public in order to protect the interests of—
(ii) the relationship between the United Kingdom and another country, or
(iii) preventing or detecting crime,
or in order to protect the safety of a witness or other person; and
(c) the Secretary of State is of the opinion that it is necessary for the inquest to be held without a jury in order to avoid protected matters being made public or unlawfully disclosed.
(2) Where the Secretary of State has certified an inquest under this section—
(a) the Secretary of State shall as soon as possible inform the coroner of the certification and of the protected matters;
(b) the coroner shall as soon as possible inform every person—
(i) who in the coroner’s opinion is a properly interested person, and
(ii) whose name and contact details are known to the coroner,
that the inquest has been certified.
(3) There shall be no proceedings on an inquest certified under this section—
(a) until the end of the period of 14 days beginning with the date of the certification, or
(b) if proceedings for judicial review of the certification are brought within that period, until the conclusion of the proceedings.
(4) The coroner shall hold a certified inquest without a jury if—
(a) there is a protected matter that would need to be revealed to the jury (if there was one)—
(i) in order for the jury to be able to make a proper decision on their verdict as to the particulars mentioned in section 31(1), and
(ii) in order to avoid a breach of any relevant Convention rights (within the meaning of the Human Rights Act 1998);
(b) the coroner is satisfied that it is necessary to hold the inquest without a jury in order to avoid the matter being made public or unlawfully disclosed.
If the coroner decides to hold the inquest with a jury, he shall not allow any protected matter to be revealed to the jury unless it is a matter within paragraph (a).
(5) A reference in subsection (4) to holding an inquest without a jury, in the case of an inquest that has already begun, is to be read as a reference to continuing the inquest without a jury; and where by virtue of that subsection an inquest begun with a jury has to be continued without one, the coroner shall discharge the jury.”’.— (Bridget Prentice.)
Amendments made: 127, page 215, line 22, leave out ‘sections 11 and 12’ and insert ‘section 11’.
Amendment 128, page 215, line 25, leave out ‘sections 11 and 12’ and insert ‘section 11’. — (Bridget Prentice.)
‘(1) This section applies to the death outside the United Kingdom of a person within subsection (2) or (3).
(2) A person is within this subsection if at the time of the death the person was subject to service law by virtue of section 367 of the Armed Forces Act 2006 (c. 52) and was engaged in—
(b) activities carried on in preparation for, or directly in support of, active service, or
(c) training carried out in order to improve or maintain the effectiveness of those engaged in active service.
(3) A person is within this subsection if at the time of the death the person was not subject to service law but—
(a) by virtue of paragraph 7 of Schedule 15 to the Armed Forces Act 2006 (c. 52) was a civilian subject to service discipline, and
(b) was accompanying persons subject to service law who were engaged in active service.
(a) the person’s body is within Scotland or is expected to be brought to the United Kingdom, and
(b) the Secretary of State thinks that it may be appropriate for the circumstances of the death to be investigated under the Fatal Accidents and Sudden Deaths Inquiry (Scotland) Act 1976 (c. 14),
the Secretary of State may notify the Lord Advocate accordingly.
(a) the person’s body is within England and Wales, and
(b) the Chief Coroner thinks that it may be appropriate for the circumstances of the death to be investigated under that Act,
the Chief Coroner may notify the Lord Advocate accordingly.
(6) In this section “active service” has the same meaning as in section 8 of the Armed Forces Act 2006 (c. 52).’ .—(Bridget Prentice.)
Brought up, and read the First time.
Bridget Prentice: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Government new clause 34— Death of service personnel abroad: investigation in England and Wales despite body being brought to Scotland.
Government new clause 35— Amendments to the Fatal Accidents and Sudden Deaths Inquiry (Scotland) Act 1976.
Bridget Prentice: The new clauses respond to the calls from service families in Scotland, as well as Members of the House—particularly my right hon. Friend the Member for East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow (Mr. Ingram), who has pressed us in this regard—for action to enable fatal accident inquiries into the deaths of service personnel killed abroad to be held in Scotland when their families are based there. The new clauses will do that by amending the Fatal Accidents and Sudden Deaths Inquiry (Scotland) Act 1976 to allow fatal accident inquiries to be held in Scotland for those who are killed abroad while on active service, or while supporting, or involved in the training of, those on active service. This means that in most cases their families will not need to travel to England to attend an inquest.
We have been examining this issue for some time with colleagues in the Ministry of Defence and the Scotland Office and with the Scottish Executive. These discussions were still ongoing at the time of the Bill’s introduction, which is why these provisions were not included earlier. I am very grateful for the support of my ministerial colleagues and others, and for the co-operative and constructive way in which this matter has been dealt with.
There is currently no legislative basis under Scottish law for the Lord Advocate to investigate any death abroad. Current arrangements enable investigations to be held in England and Wales into deaths of all service personnel killed on operations, because fatalities from Iraq and Afghanistan are repatriated via either RAF Brize Norton or RAF Lyneham. Therefore, the inquests have been carried out by the local coroners in either Oxfordshire or Wiltshire. Families based in Scotland, however, have had to travel to England for inquests, which has caused them extra difficulties when they already have to cope with the burden of bereavement and concern about the circumstances of their loved ones’ deaths. These new clauses will rectify that problem, and put Scottish families in the same position as other families in England and Wales, where, when it is appropriate, the investigation is transferred to the coroner closest to the family’s home.
Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP): Is there any reason why Scottish families cannot secure a fatal accident inquiry in Scotland for Army deaths that occurred in England? This is a main recommendation of Nicholas Blake in his Deepcut review; it is suggested that there should be easy access for Scottish families in this respect, too. Is there any reason whatever why this cannot happen for Army deaths that occur south of the border?
Bridget Prentice: The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. There has been that anomaly because there are no inquest provisions in Scotland, but he will know that Lord Cullen is currently investigating the whole panoply of fatal accident inquiry principles in Scotland, and I suspect he will address that in the inquiry.
Mr. Adam Ingram (East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow) (Lab): I thank my hon. Friend for her kind reference to me and the effort I have put into this matter. When we deploy forces, they are now deployed on the basis of a comprehensive approach, so there could be personnel from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office or the Department for International Development, or civilian police or prison officers, alongside armed forces personnel. Will the proposed change to the law include such other personnel, because it seems to me there should be no differentiation? I appreciate that my hon. Friend may not be able to answer that question now, but if she were to give some thought to it and provide a response later, I would appreciate that.
Bridget Prentice: Again, my right hon. Friend makes an important point, and he has been campaigning on this issue for some time. My understanding is that the Bill is drafted in such a way that a person in that situation would be subject to this change in the law if they were a civilian subject to service discipline. If there are issues beyond that, I will write to my right hon. Friend about those outwith that range.
Mr. Bellingham: I am very grateful to the Minister for her succinct and clear explanation of the new clause. As she points out, we discussed this in Committee, and she mentioned at the time that there is still work to be done on it and that she would come back to the House on Report.
I want to clarify a couple of points. If the body of a deceased serviceman or woman from Scotland is repatriated to the UK, that would probably be through RAF Brize Norton or RAF Lyneham and, as the hon. Lady pointed out, it makes a great deal of sense for the body then to be moved to Scotland to be repatriated to the family. Presumably there would then be a fatal accident inquiry in Scotland—that is what the Bill allows for. One also presumes that increasingly in such tragic circumstances the body would be flown straight to Scotland. Will there be reciprocity under the new clauses? For example, if the body of an English serviceman or woman is repatriated to Scotland, would, as I presume, the arrangements work in reverse? I believe that that is covered by new clause 34, but perhaps the Minister could clarify that particular point. Presumably new clause 35 is consequential, because most of it appears to flow from the earlier new clauses and most of it is of a technical nature.
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |