Clause
65
Specially
appointed
coroners
6.30
pm
Mr.
Heath:
I beg to move amendment No. 178, in
page 46, line 6, leave out
‘Secretary of State’ and insert ‘Lord Chief
Justice’.
The
Chairman:
With this it will be convenient to discuss the
following amendments: No. 220, in
page 46, line 7, after
‘inquest’, insert
‘provided that such a person has been
specifically approved for the purpose by the Lord Chief Justice of
England and
Wales’.
No.
179, in page 46, line 9, leave out from
‘coroner’ to end of line 11 and insert
‘and
(b) is included in a list of
coroners prepared by the Lord Chief Justice for that
purpose;
(2A) Any coroner may
apply to the Lord Chief Justice to be added to a list prepared under
subsection
(2).’.
No.
181, in page 47, line 23, leave out
‘Secretary of State’ and insert ‘Lord Chief
Justice’.
No.
221, in page 47, line 23, after
‘State’, insert
‘, with the
consent of the Lord Chief Justice of England and
Wales,’.
No.
182, in page 47, line 25, leave out
‘Secretary of State’ and insert ‘Lord Chief
Justice’.
No.
183, in page 47, line 31, leave out
‘Secretary of State’ and insert ‘Lord Chief
Justice’.
No.
184, in page 47, line 32, leave out
‘Secretary of State’ and insert ‘Lord Chief
Justice’.
Mr.
Heath:
We now move on to the way in
which, when a certificate has been issued for there to be no jury in a
coroner’s court, a coroner can be specially appointed to
displace the coroner who would have heard the inquest at the behest of
the Secretary of State. The
purpose of this group of amendments is to say that that simply will not
do, and that it is inappropriate for the Secretary of State to appoint
the person who heads the court—the coroner—instead of it
being a judicial appointment. That runs counter to any principle of
judicial independence that we may have. It simply cannot be right that
in the first instance the Secretary of State decides that it is
inconvenient for an inquest to be held with a jury and for certain
matters to be put before an open court, and then to decide who will sit
in judgment on that closed matter in the coroner’s
court.
I
am not unsympathetic to some of the Government’s arguments, but
I am totally unsympathetic to the view that any Secretary of State
should take that responsibility on himself or herself. I am looking for
an alternative way in which to ensure that as near as possible, within
the constraints that the circumstances require, an ordinarily appointed
coroner leads the inquest and hears the evidence. It is clear that for
that to be the case, the coroner must be vetted if they are to look at
material that is not available to the general public. There must be a
vetting process, and then there must be a process to indicate which
coroner in those circumstances should preside in a case when there
would usually be a territorial requirement but that requirement has
been
displaced.
Mr.
McNulty:
I am broadly with the hon. Gentleman, but we do
not have a national coroner system at the moment. We may have, after
the reform Bill, but we do not at the moment. If the hon. Gentleman
shuts up now and withdraws his amendment, I shall happily, with him or
without him, go away and consider the matter. I am not terribly
bothered whether it is the Secretary of State, Lord Chief Justice or
whoever, but I want to explore the matter further. I just need a device
to get said individuals in place to do what I want them to do under
clause 64, and I fear that the longer the hon. Gentleman goes on, the
more I am
dissuaded.
Mr.
Heath:
I am not going to be dissuaded from making the
case, Mr. O’Hara, during the Committee stage of a
Bill. The Minister’s response is what I anticipated. I do not
believe that he can be wedded to the idea, which is so corrosive to the
principle of an independent judiciary, that the Secretary of State
should decide who should be the coroner. First, if it were possible for
the Lord Chief Justice to take that responsibility, that would put it
into the judicial sphere rather than the political sphere. Secondly, it
should be possible for any coroner on the coroners’
list—I agree that we do not have a national coroner system at
the moment—to be able to apply to be included on the list,
subject to the vetting procedure. Many will not want to go through that
procedure because it is onerous, and they may be happy not to be on
that list and not to hear such inquests, but they should have the
opportunity to do so and to be on the list. Once we have a list, the
Lord Chief Justice should be able to select the coroner who is most
appropriate to hear the case, having regard to the geographical
situation and any other circumstances that might apply. I think that we
can trust the Lord Chief Justice to do that in a dispassionate way and
to take an appropriate decision, and that is what I intend by my group
of
amendments.
Mr.
Llwyd:
In the interest of brevity and mindful of the
Minister’s stark warning, I just say I
agree.
Mr.
Hogg:
I am going to say a bit more than “I
agree”. It is extremely important that we should substitute
somebody such as the Lord Chief Justice for the Secretary of State,
because after all, we want to go back to where we start. Where we start
from is that the Secretary of State has certified that in his or her
opinion, the matter should not be heard with a jury. We are then going
on to the next stage of contemplating a specially appointed coroner to
determine an inquest that has already been the subject of the Secretary
of State’s certificate. The public has got to have confidence in
the procedure and I should have thought that the public would be very
concerned if, in such a situation, the Secretary of State were then to
nominate a specifically appointed person.
There is a further dimension to
this that arises out of the European convention on human rights. This
Committee will have in mind that there has been a growing recognition,
as a result of the European convention, that the Executive has to be
distanced further than was the case from judicial actions. I have in
mind two matters—for example, the fact that the Lord Chancellor
is no longer able to sit on appeals. That arose because the Government
understood, in my view rightly, that this was incompatible with the
European convention because, it was said, it was wrong for the
Executive to have any role in a judicial process.
Another
consideration that comes into play is perhaps closer to this one. The
Committee, or some of it, will keep in mind that there was a process
for appointing assistant recorders. The status of assistant recorders
has, I think, been wholly abolished and replaced by full-time recorders
and the reason for that, in my understanding, was that it was felt in
Government, and I think again correctly, that it was incompatible with
the European convention to have a judicial process conducted by
somebody appointed ad hoc, that is to say without certainty as to the
term of his or her appointment. Once you have got yourself a specially
appointed coroner, you are in precisely that position and therefore not
only as a matter of perception, but I think as a matter of substantive
law, it is extremely important that the Secretary of State is not the
appointing authority, or at least is not the sole appointing
authority.
I am
grateful to the Minister for saying he is not wedded to this particular
concept, because if he is, he will probably lose it, if only on
judicial review. I hope he will come forward with some solution along
the lines put down in the various amendments. I personally think it
best of all to have the appointment of the specially appointed coroner
by the Lord Chief Justice, and that is something that I would be
content
with.
Mr.
Grieve:
I agree with the points that
have just been made by my right hon. and learned Friend. In fairness to
the Government, when we had the briefing at the Home Office, it became
clear to me that in their intention of having specially appointed
coroners, the Government were not attempting, as I said earlier, to put
in functionaries who would do their bidding, but that primarily they
would be looking to existing coroners and to having a small specialist
panel who had been specially vetted for the purpose. In addition, it is
not unheard of—it has just happened with the inquest on the
Princess of Wales—to appoint a High Court judge or a Lord
Justice of Appeal as a coroner. All those things provide flexibility in
the system, which I would not wish to see removed.
The
fact remains, however, and I am pleased the Minister seems to have
taken this point on board, that the appointment ought to be by the Lord
Chief Justice. Indeed, the argument in favour of the Lord Chief Justice
appointing coroners is even stronger than that in favour of him
deciding on what the interests of national security may be, and it
would be very much easier for him to do. That might be one of the
reasons why the Minister seems to be more attracted to that proposal
than to the others for the Lord Chief Justice’s role. I strongly
urge the Minister to consider his role in both circumstances, but
particularly in the appointment of
coroners.
Mr.
Heath:
I shall take the Minister’s earlier
intervention as an expression of his firm intention to reconsider the
matter before Report. I think that he is very wise to do that. If left
uncorrected, Members will continue to feel strongly about it on Report,
and I am absolutely certain that those in another place will amend it
to provide for the Lord Chief Justice to have this role, if it is not
commended. On that basis only, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the
amendment.
Amendment,
by leave,
withdrawn.
Mr.
Grieve:
I beg to move amendment No. 190, in
clause 65, page 46, line 7, after
‘inquest’ insert
‘subject to
ratification by vote in both Houses of
Parliament’.
The
Chairman:
With this it will be convenient to discuss the
following amendments: No. 192, in
clause 65, page 46, line 16, leave
out ‘whether’ and insert
‘unless’.
No.
180, in
clause 65, page 46, line 37, at
end insert—
‘(c) the inquest
must be held in the place in which it would have been held if no
coroner had been specially appointed under section
18A.’.
No.
194, in
clause 65, page 47, line 8, leave
out subsection (4).
No.
228, in
clause 65, page 47, line 13, leave
out subsection (5) and
insert—
‘(5) Any such
statutory instrument shall be subject to an affirmative resolution of
both Houses of
Parliament.’.
No.
195, in
clause 65, page 47, line 16, leave
out subsection
(6).
Mr.
Grieve:
The amendments are mainly of a probing nature,
although some are more specific than others. I shall run through those
of particular interest to me. Amendment No. 190 would provide that in
the exceptional circumstance of the issuing of a certificate, it would
have to be subject to a ratification by both Houses of Parliament. That
is a rather ponderous process. I think that the system of having a Lord
Chief Justice is probably preferable, but if it is to be used in highly
exceptional circumstances only, the amendment might provide for an
alternative way forward.
I do not think
that amendment No. 192 adds anything to the substance of the
discussion, but amendments Nos. 194, 228 and 195 are important to the
latter part of clause 65. I shall begin with amendment No. 194.
Proposed new section 18B(4) to the Coroners Act 1988
states:
“The
Secretary of State may by regulation made by statutory instrument
provide for this Act and the law relating to
coroners
and coroners’ inquests to have effect in relation to specially
appointed coroners with such modifications as may be specified in the
regulations.” I
appreciate why that might be required, but the power is far too
sweeping to be given to the Secretary of State. If we are to have
regulations, I would expect them to be like rules of court and approved
by the Lord Chief Justice, even if they are put forward by the Lord
Chancellor. That would be a better way to do it. Furthermore, we will
obviously require the opportunity to vote on the regulations. The
system cannot simply provide for a vote on annulment. It must be
decided on a positive vote by both Houses of Parliament, so I would
expect it to be decided by affirmative
resolution.
Finally,
amendment No. 195 is a probing amendment that would leave out proposed
subsection
(6):
“The
Secretary of State may pay a specially appointed coroner such
remuneration and allowances as the Secretary of State thinks
fit.”
I would expect
procedures to be in place to ensure that that is not done on an ad hoc
basis, as the provision seems to imply it would be. I am not sure how
Lord Justice Scott Baker was remunerated for his work as the coroner in
the inquest into the death of Diana, Princess of Wales, but I assume
that it came out of his salary for sitting as a Lord Justice of Appeal.
I would not expect there to be a special remuneration and allowances
rate as is the case if a coroner is specially vetted by a
panel—although, I suppose that it could be argued that he
receives an enhanced salary for having undergone that process.
Otherwise, however, it should all be part of a day’s
work.
6.45
pm
Mr.
Heath:
Amendment No. 180 is an attempt to ensure that
where these special procedures apply, an inquest is held in the place
in which it would normally have been held. That is to say that, if it
were a matter coming before the coroner in London, the inquest would be
held in London. If it would normally have been held in Somerset, it
would be held in Somerset. That is important for the victim’s
family and other witnesses.
It would not
be appropriate simply because of the circumstances of the case for the
inquest to be whisked away to Paddington Green or somewhere in order to
be held even more remotely from the normal arrangements. I hope that
the Minister can give me an assurance as to how guidance will be issued
to the various authorities that determine where an inquest is held, and
that the normal circumstances and arrangements for an inquest will be
as I
suggested.
Mr.
Hogg:
I will comment on two matters which fall within this
group of amendments. First, on the regulations, I agree with my hon.
and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield that it is highly
desirable that the regulations should be subject to the affirmative
resolution procedure and not to any other.
Secondly,
remuneration. It is very important that we should keep in mind public
confidence, and it would be very undesirable in those terms if the
specially-appointed coroner were paid a remuneration out of kilter with
that paid to ordinary coroners, especially if the specially-appointed
coroner were paid a great deal more. I can see the
public—Mr. al-Fayed, for example—complaining
like anything and suggesting that the specially-appointed coroner was
being bribed, or something of the kind. What is required is something
like that which is provided for in my amendment No. 233, which has not
been selected, namely that the level of remuneration should be agreed
prior to the appointment by the Lord Chief Justice. If that were the
case, I think it would be extremely difficult to make the criticism
that might otherwise be made, but I do think that we have to address
the question of remuneration and put in place some mechanism to prevent
anybody crying
foul.
Mr.
Llwyd:
I agree with what has just been said, and with what
the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome said about inquests taking place
where they would have done under an ordinary coroner, if I might put it
that way. It goes to public confidence, and I think it is very
important that we have a geographical spread of these coroners
throughout England and Wales. That is
key.
In Wales, we must
also consider the ability to speak the Welsh language. As a Welsh
first-language speaker, I have practised many times in coroners’
courts and conducted proceedings in Welsh without the need for
translation. We must look at both the geographical spread and the
linguistic differences. In Wales, there will occasionally be a need for
a Welsh-speaking coroner. I agree with the purport of the amendments
and hope the Minister will give some reassurance in due
course.
Mr.
McNulty:
On amendment No. 180, it is not our intention
that the inquest should be anywhere other than the appropriate
location. Given that I have said that these will be cases that are few
and far between and very small, even with a cadre of six to eight
specially appointed coroners it should not be beyond wit or
practicability to ensure that that prevails. I hope that gives the hon.
Member for Somerton and Frome the reassurance he
seeks.
On the wider
points made by the hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield, much of
what he has discussed relates to what we were talking about before in
terms of whether the Secretary of State, the Lord Chief Justice or
whomever should be party to the appointments. I would prefer that we
take that away and look at it in the same spirit as I have suggested,
save for a couple of points. As I understand it, members of my office
are developed vetted over the course of six months. They have to be,
because of my responsibilities. It is quite a tortuous process—I
am not sure whether their friends talk to them again—and it does
not involve any increase in their remuneration. They then go back and
get on with their job.
The point about remuneration is
included because of cases such as Diana. That is not an appropriate
example, because the coroner was judge-appointed, but in such cases
there is an extraordinary level of travel and other costs additional to
the regular remuneration. It is not about paying some inflated fee to
special coroners because they are lapdogs and lickspittles of the
Government, which of course they will not
be.
The broad spirit of
the amendments, including amendment No. 178, which we have discussed,
is about who should make the appointment and whether it should be an
Executive role. I am happy to consider the matter and return to it on
Report. In that context, I ask that the amendment be
withdrawn.
Mr.
Grieve:
As these are probing amendments, I am happy not to
press them. I am grateful to the Minister for saying that he will
reconsider. On an optimistic note, I hope that he will have seen from
the debate that we have the foundations for agreement on the issue.
That might well require the Government to redraft the clauses in
question radically to get them in a form that would command general
acceptance. I hope that he will take that on board. I beg to ask leave
to withdraw the
amendment.
Amendment,
by leave,
withdrawn.
Question
put, That the clause stand part of the
Bill:—
The
Committee divided: Ayes 10, Noes
6.
Division
No.
10
]
Question
accordingly agreed to.
Clause 65 ordered to stand
part of the
Bill.
Clause 66
ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
| 
