---

Coroners Bill

I declare an interest as vice-president of the War Widows Association and I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff, for introducing the debate. We, too, were disappointed that the coroners Bill was not in the Queen’s Speech. We had hoped that it would be because there were a number of issues that we needed to bring forward. We now have a situation where service personnel are being killed in operations—that is not new, but the numbers are new in our times—and members of the dead personnel’s families are having to wait a long time for the inquests to take place and may have to travel long distances to attend when they do. There are also a number of other issues. We had a meeting with the Minister at the Ministry of Defence. I know that this subject does not strictly come under its remit but, nevertheless, understandably the Armed Forces look to the MoD to assist them with their issues and problems. We hoped we were going to carry on and discuss the coroners Bill. That is no longer there for us to discuss but we cannot leave matters as they are. I know that there has been additional funding and that in the past year the backlog has reduced, but there is still a substantial backlog of inquests to be heard. Can the Minister give an indication of what the Government are going to do in this area? There are a number of problems. It seems obvious that the inquest should take place in the area where the deceased’s family live—it would be better for them and more convenient—but that may not always be the right way of doing it because of a shortage of expertise. Local coroners may deal with a military death only once in their whole career and there needs to be some expertise. We believe that, for the different reasons that have been mentioned, that expertise could be gathered and made available under a chief coroner. Multiple-death cases will still be heard in Oxfordshire because the aeroplanes bringing the bodies back go into Lyneham, with Swindon and Wiltshire also involved. There have been cases where a deceased’s home is in Scotland and the family has had to travel from there. That cannot be the best thing. On the other hand, if people with the relevant expertise are not available to go to Scotland to carry out the inquest, it may be the only answer. We would welcome a debate on the delay and where the inquest is to be carried out. There is also the issue of legal representation at the inquest for the families. These personnel have been killed on Her Majesty’s business and we believe that the state has a responsibility to assist their families. In my view, looking at the backlog, at what has happened and at reports in the press, one of the most heart-rending aspects is the lack of transparency and lack of information. Families are told that there is a delay or that the inquest will not be heard yet. Also, families do not have the detail to which, in our view, they are entitled. Transparency and information are absolutely key. If we had had a Bill, that would probably have formed the basis of an amendment. Costs are a problem for families. These families do not have huge incomes and, at a time of huge trauma and stress for them, they then have to find travel costs. I know that they can apply for travel costs, but the system needs to be much more upfront and proactive in the way that the families are looked after. It is possible to do that because the Armed Forces’ welfare services are very good and very well developed, but perhaps we could ensure that their concerns for families in the services extend also to those who are faced with a member of the family who has paid the ultimate price in performing their duty to their country. That would certainly be of great assistance. A whole range of issues could have been aired in a very healthy and straightforward way had we had a Bill. I confess that I am not absolutely sure where we take these issues now. I am not making a special pleading to the Minister, but I ask the Government for a joined-up approach, with the Ministry of Justice and the MoD coming together. We would certainly welcome meetings about this because we feel that we have made a little progress. The additional legal resource put in has helped to reduce some of the backlog but it is by no means anywhere near enough. I am sure that neither the Government nor we want this issue to continue to make headlines in the press, as it does from time to time. We would welcome an indication from the Minister that the Government are prepared to take this forward, even if we do not have a Bill, to see what can be done to improve the situation for families who have lost their loved ones. They have paid the ultimate price in serving their country.