| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
2.52 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Kate Hoey): I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, South-East (Dr. Iddon) for clearly setting out the background to this tragic case and the lessons that he considers should be drawn from it. I welcome the consistent work that he has put into the case and his dealings with all the authorities--I would expect no less from him as a Member of Parliament.
No hon. Member can really understand the pain and distress that David Cunliffe's family felt on learning of David's death eight months after it occurred and of his burial in an unmarked grave. I share the concern that the relevant authorities should learn from the case, even though, as my hon. Friend has said, it is not necessarily possible to apportion blame for what occurred.
It is a painful but necessary task, which the police perform, to trace and notify the next of kin of the death of their loved ones. We might expect that to be a straightforward task in a modern age of instant communication and computer databases, but that underestimates the difficulties that can occur in some cases, particularly with those who have perhaps distanced themselves from family, who lived on what can be seen as the fringes of society.
As my hon. Friend has said, David Cunliffe was found dead at his home in Openshaw, where he lived alone, on 2 October 1996. As in all suspicious deaths, the Greater Manchester police conducted initial inquiries into the circumstances of his death, and reported the case to the coroner. The cause of death was established as a drugs overdose.
Greater Manchester police say that they were unable to identify Mr. Cunliffe's next of kin and extensive inquiries were, therefore, conducted to trace them. To clarify a point that was raised by my hon. Friend, those inquiries were carried out by the officer designated locally to liaise with the coroner's office on such cases.
The police say that the local health bodies were contacted for assistance, but that, in accordance with their confidentiality policy, they were unable to provide the information requested to the police. Social services and the probation service were also contacted, but they were unable to provide any information that would assist in locating the next of kin.
An appeal for relatives of the deceased to come forward was included on the Greater Manchester police media line, which is an information line accessed by the local media. Unfortunately, there is no obligation on the press to carry such appeals and, as my hon Friend noted, this particular appeal was not picked up by either the Bolton Evening News or the Manchester Evening News although it might have helped to lead police to Mr. Cunliffe's family.
The unsuccessful outcome of those inquiries was reported to the coroner, who authorised the release of Mr. Cunliffe's body for burial. This was carried out on 4 December 1996, just after two months after he had been found dead. As my hon. Friend has said, he was buried in a common grave in Gorton cemetery. The cost of burial was met by Manchester social services in the absence of the next of kin.
However, it was not the end of the matter for the police. A second officer continued to make inquiries to trace David Cunliffe's next of kin. In June 1997, I understand that informal contact between the officer and a local hospital led the police to identify the address of David's mother and the police were finally able to break the news to her of her son's death the previous October. It should be noted that there had not been any inquiries to the police regarding Mr. Cunliffe's whereabouts in the intervening period.
It is clearly regrettable that it took so long to trace Mr. Cunliffe's family, but that does not necessarily mean that the police were somehow at fault in the way they carried out this task. Nor would I accept that the circumstances of Mr. Cunliffe's death meant that the police were not as rigorous as they should have been in this case. I remind my hon. Friend that police inquiries continued until Mr. Cunliffe's next of kin had been traced and informed of his death.
The actions and decisions taken by police officers in the course of their duties are an operational matter for the chief officer of the police force concerned. Following representations from the family, I understand that Greater Manchester police carried out an internal review of the case. It confirmed that the officers involved had followed normal police procedures in the attempt to trace Mr. Cunliffe's next of kin. As I have said, inquiries had been made of relevant local authorities and agencies, but without success. As part of their review, the police approached these authorities and agencies again to ask for the same details of next of kin. The review team received the same response as the original officers and concluded that there was no reason to criticise the officers involved in the initial investigation.
The review, however, did identify a lack of knowledge about the operation of the force's media line, which had been used in the unsuccessful attempt to place an appeal for information in the local press. Recommendations were made to improve awareness of the way the line operated and, as my hon. Friend indicated, police officers are now meant to follow up appeals on the media line if no response is received and, if necessary, specifically ask the local press to cover particular appeals.
The police were unable to obtain details of Mr. Cunliffe's next of kin when they initially approached local hospitals because of the confidentiality policy operated there. Decisions on disclosure are a matter for the NHS trust or other body which is being asked to
disclose, so it would not be appropriate for me to comment on the decision taken by those bodies. However, as my hon. Friend said, there are discussions on that.
In March 1996 the Department of Health issued guidance to the national health service on the protection and use of patient information. The guidance explains that personal information is protected by common law, the Data Protection Acts and the ethical responsibilities of health professionals. In general, any information given or received in confidence for one purpose may not be used for another or passed to anyone else without the consent of the provider of the information. That is unlikely to have been a problem as, on an earlier occasion, as my hon. Friend indicated, Mr. Cunliffe was admitted to hospital after a balloon containing drugs burst in his mouth and the police were able to contact his mother within two hours.
The duty of confidence continues to apply even after a patient's death. The Department of Health guidance makes it clear, however, that the duty is not absolute and it may give way to an overriding public interest. Further, although the guidance recognises that the duty of confidence may continue after death, disclosure in the public interest should be easier to justify in such circumstances. However, the responsibility for deciding whether to allow disclosure rests with the NHS body concerned, based on the circumstances of the request.
As my hon. Friend said, the Department of Health is aware of the need to raise awareness of protocols for information sharing between NHS and non-NHS bodies, and of the need to ensure that confidentiality requirements do not become a bar to the legitimate flow of information. All NHS organisations were asked to have in place, by April 1999, "guardians" of patient confidentiality to help improve the way in which the NHS handles confidential patient information. One of the guardians' responsibilities will be to oversee the development of information-sharing protocols and ensure effective liaison with non-NHS partner organisations. Each organisation's performance will be monitored by the Department of Health, and I hope that that will lead to more effective co-operation with the police service.
My hon. Friend has also mentioned the role of the coroner in this sad case. As he will know, it is not a function of the coroner to identify the relatives of those whose deaths are reported to him for investigation. However, as part of a coroner's inquiries, it will usually be necessary to make contact with the immediate family in case they are able to shed any light on the circumstances of the death, and so that they may, if they wish, exercise their rights in relation to any post mortem examination or at the inquest.
It is also a matter for the coroner to decide when and to whom he should release the body for burial or cremation. The normal practice is to release the body at the earliest opportunity, and in advance of the substantive inquest hearing. The body will normally be released to the executors or family of the deceased.
In the great majority of cases, relatives can be located readily, but occasionally there can be difficulties, and in some cases there will be no relatives to find. It will be a matter for the coroner's judgment to decide how much effort should be devoted to such inquiries in the light of all the circumstances known to him. When there appears to be no one else to make the funeral arrangements, the coroner may release the body to the local authority. That is what happened in David Cunliffe's case.
The Home Office has not issued guidance to coroners on how to proceed in those circumstances. I note, however, that the Manchester city coroner has decided that, in future, if his staff are told that the local authority is making the funeral arrangements, action should be taken to determine whether further inquiries could be made to establish the whereabouts of any relatives. I am not sure how much more effective that may be than police inquiries, but it clearly makes sense to make every reasonable effort to find the family of the deceased. We therefore propose to consider the matter with coroners generally, to determine whether there are some helpful lessons to be learned.
All hon. Members will have sympathy with the family's concern to have David's body exhumed for a family burial in Bolton. As my hon. Friend mentioned, when the problem of the location of David Cunliffe's grave was brought to my Department's attention, we explained that a Home Office licence under section 25 of the Burial Act 1857 would be needed to remove the body for reburial elsewhere, but also that, as there was another body in the grave, the agreement of that person's next of kin would be required. With the assistance of the burial authorities at Gorton cemetery, the next of kin of the other deceased person was traced and consent was duly given. On 7 May 1998, Home Office licences were issued.
Although, as my hon. Friend pointed out, the validity of those licences has now expired, I assure him that there should be no difficulty in principle in reissuing the licences for a further period, provided that there has been no material change in circumstances. However, I should say that, out of consideration for the other family involved, it might be best not to renew the application until there is some certainty that the exhumations can proceed.
My hon. Friend has suggested that Greater Manchester police should meet the costs of exhumation and reburial, presumably because of their failure to trace Mr. Cunliffe's next of kin at the time of his death. Although the force is sympathetic to the family's predicament, for the reasons I have explained, the force cannot accept that it was responsible for the delay that occurred, and therefore cannot agree to cover the costs involved in Mr. Cunliffe's
exhumation and reburial. That is the decision of the chief constable, and there is no discretion for me to intervene in the matter.
The House will recognise that there are circumstances in which it is appropriate for public funds to be used to provide a proper burial. That was clearly the case when, in the absence of the next of kin, the costs of the original burial were met by Manchester social services. It may be appropriate for the family to approach the social services department again, if there is a difficulty in finding the cost of reburial.
I understand how strongly my hon. Friend feels on this matter and I thank him for raising the case in the House today. We all have immense sympathy for Mr. Cunliffe's family and are concerned that it was not possible for the police to contact his parents earlier with the sad news of their son's death.
I hope that I have shown that the police do take seriously their responsibilities in this regard and that considerable efforts were made to trace Mr. Cunliffe's next of kin, eventually with success. For that reason, the chief constable is not prepared to meet the costs of exhumation and reburial, although my Department will look favourably on any application from the family to renew the licences.
My hon. Friend has made a number of important points about the police service, the coroners and other agencies, and how they could improve their procedures for dealing with such cases. I am pleased that, as he said, certain improvements have already been made. We can always look for new ways of ensuring that the co-operation between agencies makes a real difference in particular circumstances. I encourage the police, in particular, to continue to look for ways in which to apply the lessons learned from this and similar cases to improve the service that they provide.
I hope that my hon. Friend will find some comfort from what has been said in this short debate, and that Mr. Cunliffe's family will realise that his case has been discussed at the most senior levels of Government.
Question put and agreed to.
23 Jul 1999 : Column 1559Adjourned accordingly at six minutes past Three o'clock.
| Index | Home Page |