Q
23Mr.
Henry Bellingham (North-West Norfolk) (Con): My first
question for Mrs. Prentice is about the new framework.
Obviously, broadly, we shall have national oversight—a national
coroner and a national service—but also, quite rightly, we shall
keep the best of the localism that is in place. One of the concerns
that local authorities or police authorities will have is funding and
resourcing. Expectations will be raised by the changes in the Bill, but
how are resources going to be made available to ensure that we have,
across the country, an effective and efficient
service? Bridget
Prentice: Mr. Bellingham makes an
important point about the national and localised parts of the new
coroner service. There has been a debate about whether it should all be
nationalised or localised. We think that having a national chief
coroner who can set standards and give guidance and direction will
raise standards across the board, because in the past there has been a
great differential in the different coronial areas. On the whole in the
consultations it was felt that keeping a localised service was still
what most people preferred. It will therefore be funded locally, as it
is now, by local authorities or police authorities. However—I am
pleased that Mr. Bellingham has raised that
question—money will be forthcoming from the Department in
setting up the service. There will be something in the region of
£10 million in set-up costs and another £6.5
million in annual running costs, so we shall be putting in a
substantial amount of money to ensure that the service makes the kind
of difference that we want it to make for bereaved
people.
Q
24Mr.
Bellingham: There are some detailed questions that we
shall come on to in Committee, but will you explain why you feel that
it has to be a lawyer—a barrister or a solicitor—who
fills those posts, rather than a suitably qualified medic? Some
coroners practising today are doctors, and they are doing a superb job.
I note that the Bill says that they will be able to continue, but that
there will be a phasing-out of the medics. My concern is that we may be
excluding a potential pool of good coroners in the future, if we do not
allow medics to fill such positions. I speak as a lawyer, so I have a
vested interest.
Bridget
Prentice: If you wish to become a coroner,
Mr. Bellingham, I am sure that we can arrange suitable
training. I am sure that you would be an excellent
coroner. This
is a balance of judgment again. The chief coroner and deputy chief
coroner will be High Court judges, so it is probably appropriate that
coroners are judicially trained, if I may put it that
way—legally trained. Yes, there have been some very good
coroners from a medical background but, alongside the coroner service,
medical advisers will be able to give that medical input and advice to
the coroners. In the consultation on this part of the Bill, of which
there was a lot, it was felt that it was appropriate that they should
be legally trained, because it would give them the understanding of the
justice system in a way that was perhaps not always available in the
past.
Q
25Mr.
David Kidney (Stafford) (Lab): If, in the future, a local
authority were unreasonably to starve a coroner’s service of
resources, would the Department back the local authority in undermining
the coroner service in that way? Do you accept that there are no
provisions in the Bill enabling you to do something about it, even if
you did not
agree? Bridget
Prentice: We certainly would not back a local
authority that starved the coroner service of funding. There is a
provision in the Bill that allows the chief coroner to investigate and
make recommendations, which will highlight where an authority is
under-resourcing the service. Through the whole panoply of Government
resources and communications with local authorities, we would make it
clear very quickly to a local authority that they could not continue to
behave in that way.
Q
26Mr.
Kidney: Should there be a power, eventually, for the
Ministry to step in if that is the case—especially if the chief
coroner is saying that that is
unacceptable? Bridget
Prentice: That is something that we would have to
consider. We would have to discuss the matter with colleagues in the
Department for Communities and Local Government, if a local authority
were to behave that badly, which would be similar to the situation
with, as I believe that you are suggesting, schools and other
services.
Q
27Mr.
Kidney: These things happen, Minister.
Bridget
Prentice: They do. It is certainly something that we
would have to consider for the future. But I would hope that, as a
result of this, local authorities would take their coronial service
very seriously—I believe that most of them
do.
Q
28Mr.
Kidney: I have a few more questions about resources. The
Secretary of State seemed quite sympathetic on Second Reading about the
limited access to representation currently at the inquest. He clearly
does not want to open the floodgates to every coroner’s court
hearing, with lots of lawyers being unnecessarily present.
Bridget
Prentice: Certainly not.
Q
29Mr.
Kidney: Would you be willing to consider an amendment that
widened the present discretion that the Legal Services Commission has
to grant legal aid to people with good reason for representation at an
inquest?
Bridget
Prentice: The discussion on Second Reading was a good
one, and we want to look at it more closely. It is also important to
put on the record that legal aid is available at inquests at the
moment. Admittedly, it is in a limited fashion, but it is available,
including at military inquests. That is not always as well known as it
ought to be. We would certainly look at further representation.
However, we must remember that inquests are not adversarial—they
are inquisitorial and involve findings of fact. I do not want to see
panoplies of lawyers at inquests, if we can possibly avoid that. It is
the job of the coroner to find the
fact.
Q
30Mr.
Kidney: That is a helpful answer. My last point is about
resources. On Second Reading, I mentioned the rule 43 reports that
coroners can make now to draw attention to ways in which we might
prevent similar deaths in the future. That is continued in schedule 4,
but Liberty says that at the moment it is a weedy
proposition—there is a report, but nothing seems to happen as a
result of it and no one takes any notice. Do you agree that there
should be some strengthening of the procedure to highlight the fact
that the coroners have made these recommendations and that someone,
somewhere should do something about
it? Bridget
Prentice: I am certainly open to strengthening it, if
it were felt that that was necessary. But the chief coroner will lay a
report before Parliament, so it can then be highlighted through the
parliamentary procedure. However, I would be happy to consider
strengthening that part, if it were felt that it was not going to
achieve what we want to achieve, which is a better service as a result
of a rule 43 investigation.
Mr.
Kidney: Again, that is helpful, thank
you.
Q
31Jenny
Willott (Cardiff, Central) (LD): I want to return briefly
to the issue of resourcing and pick up on the issues that
Mr. Kidney just raised. There seems to be potential for a
problem between lack of local resourcing and the implementation of
national standards. Are there any proposals to do things such as lay
down more prescriptive minimums for local authorities, taking account
of the funding already available, when doling out the money that the
Minister has mentioned in respect of the central subsidy to run
services? Some areas have problems with a lack of resources. Higher
standards are obviously to be welcomed, but what can be done to
guarantee
that? Bridget
Prentice: I think that one of the first things that
the chief coroner might do, although I do not want to pre-empt them, is
to look at resources across the country and see what is available and
what local authorities are providing. I know that there are examples of
coroners who do not have adequate offices or places to conduct an
inquest properly. There is a lot of work and discussion to be done to
ensure that we raise standards right across the board. I think that we
will probably find that some of that can be done without additional
finance. With a bit more imagination in the use of public buildings,
the quality of accommodation could be
improved. The
other thing that the chief coroner will be able to do is to look at
exactly how a local authority spends its resource for coroners and give
advice on how best to do that. As I have said, with the report to
Parliament and
the Department, we would have to have discussions with colleagues about
whether local authorities were funding the service
properly. Q
32Jenny
Willott: How does that relate to the introduction of the
proposed medical examiner system? It seems to me that it has been
widely welcomed, but it will build in some of the problems in the
coroners system. It will be locally funded but centrally monitored. We
already have local authorities and police authorities providing support
and resourcing to coroners. The ME provision will be resourced by local
health boards in Wales and primary care trusts in England. There seems
to be quite a lot of potential for nobody to fund it properly, for
everybody to think that someone else will put in the resources and for
us to end up with a gap. What can be done to ensure that that does not
happen? Bridget
Prentice: I feel as though I am burdening the chief
coroner with a great deal—indeed, I probably am—but part
of the reason why we are going to have one is to ensure that that
resourcing is available. You have mentioned the medical examiners,
which is an important point. The medical examiners will be able to look
at deaths and death certification in the process. As a result, there
will probably be a significant reduction in the number of cases that
have to go to the coroner. At the moment, there is a great deal of
confusion among some medical practitioners about whether they need to
report deaths to the coroner. With the medical examiner as the gateway,
fewer cases will go to the coroner, which will free up resources that
would otherwise be used on unnecessary
inquests.
Q
33Jenny
Willott: One thing that appears to have happened in the
past 10 years or so is that the number of inquests seems to have
increased by more than 40 per cent., so clearly reform is
needed.
I suspect
that the answer to my next question is, “It will be given to the
chief coroner.” Improved standards and higher quality
expectations are laid out in the Bill. Will there be any way to ensure
that the standards will be met, if the number of inquests rises
further? Will there be regulations concerning the number of coroners,
or will additional resourcing be tied somehow to ensure that quality
continues rather than dropping, if the number of inquests
increases? Bridget
Prentice: Yes. On the point about increasing
inquests, in recent years there has been in some parts of the country
an over-cautious response to sending cases to the coroner. One big
factor will be proper training for coroners, which will be funded
centrally to ensure that standards are raised and maintained. I hope
that you are assured that we will ensure that that happens. Again, if
we need more coroners, we will have to recruit more
coroners.
Q
34Jenny
Willott: My final question is about the posts of chief
coroner and deputy chief coroner. Why does the Bill make it clear that
coroners will not be able to apply for those posts, and that they will
have to be filled by High Court judges? It suggests that there is a
question about the ability of coroners, but that is unfair. The
Coroners Society has flagged up a concern that the expertise coroners
build up would be lacking from the central oversight.
Bridget
Prentice: We made the chief coroner and deputy chief
coroner posts open only to High Court judges after discussions with the
Lord Chief Justice, and it was felt that such people would have the
appropriate leadership skills and judicial experience. I understand the
Coroners Society’s concern that there now seems to be a ceiling
on whether they can become the deputy chief coroner, so I should like
to explore that matter further. We want to have high-quality coroners
and there ought to be a career path for them. At the moment, however,
there are some practical difficulties with opening the positions up to
senior coroners, but I should like to have further discussions with the
judiciary about whether there is a way for coroners to get other
judicial experience. The way in which the Bill is currently set out and
the system will work means that they would have to become district
judges, for example, get their experience that way and return to the
coroners system. I would look to see if there was another way of
achieving that, however, because I understand that there are some
excellent senior coroners, and it would be a shame if that expertise
were not kept and used in the whole system.
Q
35Mr.
Boswell: Briefly, Minister, I have three quick questions.
First, in carrying out investigations, the chief coroner will
presumably have the right either to do so privately or to make
conclusions public. You talked about transparency earlier, but I
imagine that there might also be cases whereby a coroner’s
competence to continue, whether because of medical illness or
otherwise, was raised. There might need to be discrete inquiries and a
retirement might take place. I presume that the default mode will be a
public investigation and a conclusion on the record both for you, as
Minister, and for us, as the general
public. Bridget
Prentice: Yes,
absolutely.
Q
36Mr.
Boswell: Secondly, on resourcing, you will be familiar
with the discussions about military inquests and the strain on the
coroners involved. That may not be the only case in which a particular
need arises, however. For example, there could be a rash of
industrial-induced deaths, from mesothelioma or whatever, and it might
concentrate in a cluster. Would it be for the chief coroner to make
public recommendations to you, and, ultimately, for you to resource
that spike in the workload in a coroner’s
area? Bridget
Prentice: There was a problem with the
military inquests and we resourced that by putting extra money into the
two areas where they were being held. Under the new system, such
inquests will not necessarily be concentrated in Oxford or Wiltshire,
as there will be the opportunity for bodies to be repatriated closer to
their families. That is one change.
The example
that you gave—or a terrorist attack, or something big that could
be termed a national emergency—would put great strain on a
particular coroner. We are in discussions about how that could be
resourced and funded.
| 
