Memorandum submitted by the Department
for Constitutional Affairs
CORONER REFORM
Thank you for your letter of 13 March, following
up on points that I did not have time to cover during the Westminster
Hall Debate. Since you wrote, I (and Lord Hunt) have accepted
your invitation to give evidence to the Committee on 8 May. Lord
Hunt and I will therefore deal with the questions you ask about
proposals for additional scrutiny of death certificates by medical
professionals in our written memorandum to the Committee.
Firstly, you asked about the basis for our estimate
of between 60 to 65 whole time coroners in a reformed system.
At present there are about 225,000 cases referred to coroners
each year. We do not expect this figure to rise after reform—in
fact, it is more likely to decrease as there is greater clarity
about the type of cases which should be referred to coroners.
However, some of these cases are likely to increase in complexity.
It is generally recognised that in the current system, a whole-time
post equates to approximately 4,000 cases each year. With the
improvements, we have planned—with national standards and
leadership from a Chief Coroner, who will have powers to reallocate
work between areas we believe that 60 to 65 coroners, supported
by a pool of assistant locum coroners as necessary, is a sufficient
number to deal with about 200,000 referrals each year. It is also
likely that some of these 60-65 full time equivalent coroner posts
will be made up of part-time appointments to better meet, for
example, the requirements of rural communities. Therefore, there
may well be more than 60-65 actual coroners in post.
Turning now to post mortems and, in particular,
religious objections to them. Quite clearly, the need of the coroner
to establish the cause of an unnatural or violent death is an
overriding need. However, as the draft Charter, issued with the
draft Bill, sets out in paragraph 2, the coroner will "comply,
where possible, with individual, family, and community wishes,
feelings and expectations, including family and community preferences,
traditions and religious requirements relating to mourning and
to funerals, and respect for individual and family privacy".
This will include an explanation from the coroner—to why
a post-mortem is required, and advice to the pathologist, or other
specialist carrying out examinations, as to the wishes of the
family in relation to the timing of the funeral or the least invasive
technique of examination. As far as the latter is concerned, the
Government is paying particular attention to the trials of non
invasive post mortems currently taking place in Oxford and Manchester
and, for children, at Great Ormond Street. Results of these trials
should be available in the next 12-18 months. The abolition of
restrictions on where a body can be transported for a post mortem
(under the current law, within their own area or an adjoining
one) will give more scope for coroners to meet the wishes of families.
Finally, you ask about the timetable for publication
of the revised Bill. Unfortunately at this time I am unable to
predict the timetable for introduction, other than saying that
it will be as soon as parliamentary time allows. In my response
to the public consultation on the draft Bill, published on 27
February, I said that further disclosures would be taking place
on a number of particular policy issues, including reporting restrictions,
sharing of information between coroners and other authorities,
disclosure of material to bereaved people, improved support for
families at inquests, new coroner areas, improved working relationships
between coroners and registrars, post-mortems, and medical support
to the coroner service. We have already made good progress, and
my officials and I will continue to work with relevant stakeholders,
including those across Government, to come to agreement on all
of these issues.
It is not my intention to publish a further
draft Bill prior to a Bill proper being introduced, but I will
make a statement, probably in the autumn, as to how we intend
to move forward in those areas where I have not yet announced
the Governments plans.
Rt Hon Harriet Harman, MP, Minister of State, Department
for Constitutional Affairs
April 2007
|
