Coroners and Justice Bill

My Lords, I speak to Amendments 8, 11 and 12 in my name. The substantive issue is in Amendment 11. These three amendments to Clause 7 make provision for inquests to be held into the deaths of individuals undergoing military training, or that of a young person while training or serving with Her Majesty’s Armed Forces, where the death is violent or unnatural or the cause of death is unknown. The House will be aware that any death of a young person in the Armed Forces is a matter of great sensitivity. The Royal British Legion and others who assist the bereaved in such circumstances report that the relatives of the deceased very much want a formal inquest and to be kept as fully informed as possible. In 2007 the Blake report, following the deaths of four young servicemen at Deepcut barracks, recommended that the recruitment age of the Armed Forces be increased to 18, due to the inherent risks involved. Where such recommendations cannot be taken forward, surely additional protection must be necessary. Young adolescents and those undertaking training are particularly vulnerable as they come to terms with their new careers. The Government’s duty of care has increased and if, sadly, something goes wrong, there should be additional scrutiny. Clause 7(2)(b) already makes provision for deaths resulting from an act or omission of a police officer or service police officer. My amendments would ensure that, were the death of a youth to occur under training in the Armed Forces, additional scrutiny into the circumstances and lessons learned can be followed up and implemented. These safeguards would help to ensure fair treatment for the youngest members of the Armed Forces, in line with the undertaking in last year’s Command Paper 7424, The Nation’s Commitment: Cross-Government Support to Our Armed Forces, their Families and Veterans. Indeed, in the foreword to that Command Paper, the Prime Minister gave an explicit assurance to the Armed Forces. He was, he said, ""determined to ensure that they are fairly treated"." In Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Oldham, responding for the Government, said that, ""areas that cause significant public concern will be an issue"." He went on to say that, ""in due course and during the course of the Bill, we will seek to be more explicit".—[Official Report, 10/6/09; col. 698.]" I urge the Minister now to accept these amendments which are important to safeguarding the interests of young personnel who enter the Armed Forces, or to indicate what explicit steps are to be taken to ensure that the interests of the victims and that of their relatives are fully protected.