Coroners and Justice Bill

I will also speak to Amendments 39 and 40. At Second Reading, I expressed my concern about the way in which Clause 14(6) drew on the definition of "active service" in Section 8 of the Armed Forces Act 2006—a section which deals solely with the offence of desertion. Surely it cannot be right—it is most inappropriate—to use that source of definition for those who have been killed on operational service. The Minister kindly wrote to me following Second Reading. His letter is in the Library. He said: ""I fully recognise the disquiet that the cross-reference to Section 8 may cause"." He went on to say that he would not table an amendment but that he was ready to look again at Clause 14 to see whether the definition of active service could be set out in full there rather than by cross-reference to Section 8 of the Armed Forces Act 2006. I thank him for that recognition but, as is clear from my amendment, I believe that we should not agree to a distinction being drawn between those on active service who were killed in action or died of wounds and other violent or unnatural deaths overseas of service personnel whose bodies will be repatriated and for which an inquest is required. In Command Paper 7424, to which I have referred before, all government departments and devolved Administrations undertook to treat fairly all members of the Armed Forces, their families, and veterans. It would blatantly breach that promise to attempt to draw some dividing line between those who died in one theatre and those who died elsewhere. Indeed, the Minister’s letter says as much. He says: ""The families of service personnel who have died abroad other than on active service are no less deserving of consideration"." The Committee should also note that only last week the MoD announced by Written Statement that it had amended its policy and that, in future, all fatalities suffered in operational theatres will be afforded a ceremonial repatriation; it is not just for those who have been killed in action or have died of wounds. The Minister explained in his letter to me that Clauses 14 and 15 were devised to meet calls from service families in Scotland and from MPs and MSPs to make provision for inquires to be held in Scotland if that would be nearer and more convenient for the deceased’s next of kin. The Minister mentioned the inquiry headed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Cullen, and said that it would be premature to pre-empt its conclusions, but do not Clauses 14 and 15 already do just that? The Minister went on to say that Scottish Ministers would consider whether provisions should be extended to service personnel deaths in non-operational circumstances. Does that not suggest to the Committee that these clauses are at best transitional and at worst an unnecessary limitation on the fair treatment of service personnel and their grieving families? I strongly recommend that Her Majesty’s Government think again and accept the thrust of my amendments, which would remove altogether the unnecessary distinction between those who died on active service and other members of the Armed Forces who suffered an untimely end overseas, while leaving in place the necessary flexibility over where the inquest would be held. I beg to move.