Supplementary evidence submitted by Mrs
Pip Finucane, trustee, Victims' Voice
RESPONSE TO
ORAL EVIDENCE
GIVEN BY
RT HON
HARRIET HARMAN
QC MP
Q238 "Pre-legislative scrutiny"
by panel of bereaved people.
Mr Vaz pointed out that if a Panel was used,
it should have been before the draft Bill was published and not
once the Bill is in the Commons. And, the selection of members
for a Panel should not be done by coroners—the sample would
not be random.
Would a Panel serve any useful purpose anyway?
The Home Office was proposing a National Coroner Service, but
the draft Bill's proposals mean continued dependence on local
authority and police priorities for their spending and bereaved
people continuing to suffer the problems widely reported to the
Fundamental Review.
Q246 Consistency of service across the coronial
system?
The Minister refers to minimum standards—the
aim should be high standards subject to some form of quality assurance
accreditation of the roles involved and the management of the
Service.
Why is it that if government departments are
tendering for a service, a would be contractor will have to demonstrate
a level of competency, for example an ISO certification ? The
opposite seems to apply when government is responsible for the
service and in the case of the Coroner Service, the failure to
recognise the Coroner's Officer role and adequately fund it demonstrates
this. Difficulties between Coroners' Officers and police Family
Liaison Officers, because the status and role of Coroners' Officers
is not recognised and clear, are still being reported.
Q256 Appeals
At present people do not seek judicial review
or quashing of an inquest because of the cost and difficulty in
obtaining legal aid. Appeals may increase, especially with more
people able to make them for a wider range of complaints or issues.
Next-of-kin may object to less close relatives
or friends being included as "properly interested persons".
Disputes occur at present about who is next of kin or who is to
be the relatives' spokesperson. Coroners can at present, under
Rule 20(2), accept people they consider "properly interested"
but not listed under the Rule.
Ms Harman feels it will be "very interesting
to see what people do appeal or complain about". We know
what suddenly bereaved people complain about and unless front-line
performance is improved, the same complaints will be made. Wait-and-see
what happens feels like treating the limited reform as an experiment,
rather than aiming for a well resourced National Service that
should reduce the need to complain.
Q275 Coroners' Officers
Ms Harman agrees that coroners' officers "will
have the most contact with bereaved relatives and their job is
very important indeed" and that "the training for Coroners'
Officers is very important indeed." But, in spite of the
views of those working in the present Service and the recommendations
of the Luce Review and Third Shipman Inquiry, Ms Harman stated
that if she "was given a tonne of money by the Treasury"
she would not do things differently. This does not suggest any
real understanding of what bereaved people experience or the difficulties
of those working in the Service.
A lot is expected of a Chief Coroner who, without
executive authority, is expected to ensure consistent performance.
Would anyone apply for the job of Chief Executive of a commercial
company if told that key staff would be employed by another company
and the CE would not have direct control of them?
Q272 Death Certification
There are complaints about inaccurate death
certification, but how common are entry omissions on the Medical
Cause of Death Certificate? A bereaved person has contacted Victims'
Voice about MRSA being left off the certificate and there seems
to be confusion about whether MRSA is a notifiable disease. How
will this kind of query be dealt with under the proposed reform?
Pip Finucane
Trustee
Victims' Voice
July 2006
| 
