Skip to main content

Proceeding contribution from Adam Ingram (Labour) in the House of Commons on Tuesday, 13 June 2006. It occurred during Ministerial statement on Deepcut Review.


Deepcut Review

My hon. Friend is right about the public inquiry. He is only too well aware that Mr. Blake did not, after all his examination, consider it necessary, assuming that a lot of other things take place. We are delivering on those. I gave a lot of thought to all the recommendations, but to recommendation 31 in particular because of the position that families find themselves in at coroners’ inquests. However, inquests are not adversarial, as my hon. Friend will know. If we inject a legal process into the arrangements, we could change their very nature. There are other ways in which individuals and families can seek legal remedy, given the circumstances. The process is about establishing the facts and getting as much background as possible on what happened. It is then left to others to judge whether a wrongdoing or whatever had taken place. The approach that we—society as a whole—take to supporting families at coroners’ inquests or fatal accident inquiries in Scotland is to give legal support only in exceptional circumstances. It is a matter for the Department with responsibility to consider whether it needs to change the scope and framework of inquests. A Coroners Bill is out for consultation. My hon. Friend may want to make representations accordingly.


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
447 c646-7 
Session
2005-06
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
Subjects
Disciplinary proceedings Death Army Coroners Families Misconduct Monitoring Military police Military bases Public inquiries Training Young people Suicide Government responses Deepcut Barracks Benton, Sean Gray, Geoff James, Cheryl Deepcut Review
Link
View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk