Proceeding contribution from Lord Beith (Liberal Democrat) in the House of Commons on Monday, 26 January 2009. It occurred during Debate on bill on Coroners and Justice Bill.
Coroners and Justice Bill
I hope that the Justice Committee will carry out just the kind of post-legislative scrutiny to which the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Kidney) has referred. We did a great deal of pre-legislative scrutiny on the Bill, and I want to refer to that in moment, particularly in the context of the short report on the Bill that the Committee produced for the assistance of Members on Second Reading and in Committee. It will be an aide-mémoire for some of the issues that we have raised, and for the Government's response to them. I shall deal mainly with the coroners' system when referring to the report. The coroners' system is greatly valued in this country. As the hon. Gentleman pointed out, it has been around for 700 years, and families attach a great deal of importance to it—so much so that it is now used in circumstances that were previously not envisaged. For example, deaths in military service are now the subject of inquests. That was not the case at the time of the Falklands war, and still less so during the first and second world wars. Imagine—the entire system would have collapsed if it had been expected to cope with the horrific number of deaths of service personnel in either of the two world wars. We have now placed that new responsibility on the service, however. The coroners' system does not operate in Scotland at all, and I have found no appetite in England or Wales to move to the Scottish pattern, in which only the most significant and unusual deaths are the subject of a fatal accident inquiry. Any other deaths that require further scrutiny are examined by the procurator fiscal, who decides whether any criminal proceedings should follow, or whether to secure a fatal accident inquiry, which is itself rare. Whereas there is no appetite in England and Wales to move away from coroners and inquests, there does appear to be an appetite in Scotland to hold inquests, at least in respect of military deaths. That is the subject of an ongoing consultation with the Government. If people are brought back from Afghanistan—following the Nimrod crash, for example—some of them might have been based in Scotland and others in England. The secondary decision of where the plane lands seems a pretty poor determinant of whether there should be an inquest or not. That is an illustration of the importance that people attach to inquests, especially when the state, in the form of our armed services, is relevant to the death.
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 487 c85
- Session
- 2008-09
- Chamber / Committee
- House of Commons chamber
- Subjects
- Children Disclosure of information Data protection Bail Administration of justice Armed forces Death Certification Coroners Juries Electronic surveillance Homosexuality Evidence ICT Incitement Homicide Health professions Internet Discrimination Ethnic groups Freedom of expression Personal records Prisons Mental capacity Pornography Offences against children Sentencing Registration Young people Security Witnesses Victims Technology Suicide Sentencing Council for England and Wales Information sharing
- Legislation
- Coroners and Justice Bill 2008-09
- Link
- View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk
Librarians' tools
- Timestamp
- 2025-01-04 09:28:42 +0000
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_522963
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_522963
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_522963