The
Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Bridget
Prentice): This has been a very intelligent and thoughtful
short debate on clause 1 and the two new clauses. In my response, I
hope that I can reassure the Committee that the new clauses themselves
are unnecessary. I accept the assurance of the hon. Member for
North-West Norfolk that new clause 9 is a probing new clause.
I will deal
first with situations where a death occurs abroad and the body is
returned to England or Wales. I believe that the powers suggested in
new clause 19 already exist in clause 1. What the hon. Member for Rugby
and Kenilworth said about subsection (4) being conjunctive is true.
However, once the coroner is made aware that the body of a deceased
person has arrived in his area—no matter where the death
occurred—then he has the duty to carry out an investigation. It
does not matter whether the death occurs abroad or even in another part
of the UK; if the body is returned to the jurisdiction of the coroner,
then the duty exists.
The
hon. Member for Daventry and my right hon. Friend the Member for
Knowsley, North and Sefton East have highlighted some of the problems
in cases overseas— in particular, getting the necessary
information to carry out the investigation. In that situation, the
chief coroner will have a central role in establishing relationships
with the relevant authorities overseas in order to act on behalf of the
senior coroners, where such information is required. At present, that
liaison is undertaken by the Foreign Office or sometimes by the UK
central authority.
I have spoken to
someone who was in the Foreign Office and who dealt with deaths
overseas, such as the tsunami in south-east Asia. That person was
involved in supporting families and was party to ensuring that inquests
took place
properly. 11
am
Mr.
Boswell: Does the Minister accept that although the
Foreign Office did an amazing job in the exceptional circumstance of
the tsunami, one of the difficulties about individual cases is that
they will be relatively rare? Therefore, with the greatest respect to
consular authorities, who have many other commitments, they might not
have day-to-day experience, so should they not simply refer people to
the relevant experts at headquarters who can advise
them?
Bridget
Prentice: The hon. Gentleman has made a good point. I
agree that the work done by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and
consular offices has been outstanding in those cases. However, he is
right—and that is why the chief coroner’s role is so
important. Apart from anything else, many overseas countries do not
have a coronial service or anything similar. Therefore the chief
coroner’s role would be central to acting on behalf of all
coroners in respect of deaths that occur abroad, and establishing
relationships with other countries in order to get the desired
information.
Mr.
Boswell: In a sense, this is an afterthought to my earlier
remarks: will the Minister consider the possibility that where a death
is reported to the consular authorities overseas and a death
certificate is issued, some notification should be made to the UK
authorities—perhaps to the chief coroner—so that there
could be some clearance to decide whether or not an inquest should take
place in the
UK?
Bridget
Prentice: I will certainly consider that. I will come to
some of the practicalities—I do not want to consider too many
“what if” questions, because we can find ourselves in
fantasy land if we go too far down that road. When I refer to the chief
coroner’s role of establishing relationships with foreign
authorities, I do not refer to military personnel on active service,
for whom we have properly established arrangements, which will continue
to operate as they do now.
Mr.
Bellingham: The Minister mentioned the tsunami. I quote
from page 21 of the explanatory notes on clause 5 of the
draft
Bill: “The
purpose of this clause and clause 6 is to get the balance right in
terms of sensitivity towards bereaved people while at the same time
making sure that coroners are not being asked to carry out
investigations which will add nothing to the knowledge of how someone
came by their death. An example of the latter could be those who
tragically died in the Asian tsunami in 2004 where the cause of death
was clear.”
Were the Government
thinking at the time that when you have a large number of deaths caused
by one natural disaster there should not be individual inquests? Is the
Minister saying that that train of thought has been replaced by the
current thinking, which is that all such deaths would probably have had
separate
inquests?
Bridget
Prentice: The latter is correct. It relates to the
comments of my right hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, North and
Sefton, East about the Hillsborough case. That would be an instance in
which the chief coroner could give direction as to whether inquests
should be held as a whole—considering many deaths
together—or individual deaths should be investigated separately.
For example, we want to use different jurisdictions to deal with
military deaths abroad, so that inquests take place closer to where the
family lives. That would be one example of the chief coroner being able
to intervene. When many deaths occur due to a natural disaster abroad,
the chief coroner could make that kind of
direction.
Mr.
George Howarth: I have listened carefully to my
hon. Friend. My concern about dealing with those who died in a disaster
as one event is that, although the cause of death might be
the same in every case, the circumstances might vary from case to case.
In the example of Hillsborough, everybody died as a result of the lack
of proper policing, as the Taylor inquiry established. However, had
medical attention been received earlier, some of them might have
survived. It is important for the bereaved that such issues are
explored, and that can only be done through individual cases, not by
treating them all as one class of
case.
Bridget
Prentice: I assure my right hon. Friend that I understand
exactly his point, which the chief coroner would have to take
cognisance of. In the investigation after such a disaster, it would be
important for the chief coroner to reflect on those kinds of issues,
and if appropriate to direct that individual inquests need to take
place.
I turn to
that part of the new clause that deals with deaths overseas where there
is no body or where it has been buried or cremated. In reference to the
hon. Member for Daventry’s intervention, there are already
arrangements in place to register deaths in order to accommodate the
circumstances in which a death has occurred but the body is
irrecoverable. The bereaved family could make an application for a
leave to swear death order, based on evidence. If the court makes that
order, probate can go forward. To some extent, that is part of the
closure procedure for a family. That is what was used in the 2004
tsunami. Special arrangements were made for consular death certificates
to be issued where the bodies were not recovered, on the basis of
evidence gathered by British police teams in their own special
investigation. If
the body is buried or cremated outside England and Wales and has never
been situated in England and Wales, obvious practical difficulties
could hamper a coroner’s investigation and certainly make it of
pretty dubious value. I am not convinced that that would not be a
recipe for further dissatisfaction for a bereaved
family.
Mr.
Boswell: I want to refer only briefly to my personal
experience. There was no question as to the immediately proximate
circumstances—viz, a head injury. The concern would be more with
the kind of narrative verdict that a coroner in Britain could now
generate about the alleged negligence or otherwise that led to the
circumstances in which the family member was injured. I am not at all
clear that an entirely satisfactory issuing of a foreign death
certificate would not be in order, but it precluded, or appeared to
preclude, a separate investigation as to the antecedent circumstances,
which were clearly more important as far as we were
concerned.
Bridget
Prentice: I take the hon. Gentleman’s point. I
hope, however, that that is covered under clause 1 by the different
duties that the senior coroners and the chief coroner have. The duty to
investigate “does
not arise because of the destruction, loss or absence of the
body”. Under
subsection (4), the senior coroner has a power to report to the chief
coroner if there is good evidence that a death has occurred. The chief
coroner could weigh up the evidence and decide whether to direct an
investigation into the
death.
Jeremy
Wright: I return to the point I made while interviewing my
hon. Friend the Member for North-West Norfolk. The provision to which
the Minister refers applies only if the death has occurred in or near
the coroner’s area—it does not deal with the point that
my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry raises about deaths that occur
abroad. The
Minister is right that there will be some occasions when the
investigation by the coroner of a death occurring abroad—where
the coroner does not have access to the body—will be
unsatisfactory. Could I ask her to consider subsection (3) of new
clause 9, which says that relatives of the deceased
may “apply
to the Chief Coroner for an investigation to be
held.” That
does not oblige the chief coroner to carry out such an investigation,
but it enables the chief coroner to consider such an application where
it is appropriate for him to do
so.
Bridget
Prentice: The hon. Gentleman is right. In the situation
described by the hon. Member for Daventry, the bereaved family can make
that application to the chief coroner. Depending on the circumstances,
he or she could then direct that an investigation be held. I think that
that covers as many cases as possible without allowing outlandish
ideas. We are trying to be as practical as
possible.
Mr.
Boswell: I am not sure whether the Minister wants to say
something about the final subsection of the new clause. It would help a
lot, and it would be entirely in the spirit of the charter for the
bereaved, if the consular authorities at least had the standard
practice of issuing to families a piece of paper explaining their
rights and recourse. They could bring that back with them and, on
reflection, consider whether or not they wished to take the matter
forward.
Bridget
Prentice: That is a practical suggestion, which I will
take forward. I strongly believe that we should give people as much
information about those situations as possible and allow them to take
responsibility for
making a decision that is best for them. All coroners will have to
provide statistical information to the chief coroner—further
information of that nature will be helpful to him—as will the
medical adviser, who will be able to interpret some of that statistical
information on behalf of the chief coroner. That will be helpful
too. 11.15
am I
understand that the hon. Member for North-West Norfolk tabled this as a
probing amendment. As he stated, the idea is to help bereaved families
whose loved ones have died overseas to find closure through the
coroner’s investigation. That is particularly the case where
there is no body or where the body has been buried or cremated
overseas. I hope that the procedures that I have set out provide that
reassurance.
On new clause
19 tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and
Penarth, the chief coroner already has the power, under clause 3, to
direct coroner resources to deal with delays and backlogs. In a case of
mass fatalities, a local authority can appoint further deputies to help
out. It is important to put on record that the changes made in this
clause that give that duty and responsibility to the chief coroner
rather than the Lord Chancellor are, as I hope that everyone would
agree, the right road to go down. As the chief coroner will have
overall responsibility for the day-to-day running of the coroner
service, he should be more aware of what the problems may be and how
best to allocate resources.
On the
comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend about psychological
autopsies, the charter explicitly states that the chief coroner will
set out minimum standards in relation to specific deaths. That could
include advice on the use of psychological autopsies—I do not
preclude that possibility in any way.
Mr.
Bellingham: I am grateful to the Minister for her
explanation. I want to clarify a couple of points. To recap quickly,
the clauses in the draft Bill prevented an inquest into a person killed
abroad unless certain circumstances applied, including, for example, if
they were serving in the armed forces. The draft Bill said that there
will not normally be an inquest into deaths occurring abroad unless
certain factors apply, and stated that the coroner had the power to
refer a death occurring abroad to the chief coroner, who could then
order an investigation. Is this Bill likely to lead to more inquests
into deaths abroad than would have been the case under the draft Bill?
All hon. Members have received correspondence from worried constituents
who want to know whether getting such inquests will become more
difficult. Can she explain to the Committee—she has not done
this so far—the difference between what is in the Bill before
us, and what was in the draft Bill? That would put our minds at rest,
and enable me to conclude that the new clause is not
necessary.
Bridget
Prentice: The provision in the draft Bill and in this Bill
is not different. As far as deaths abroad are concerned, where there is
no body returned to England or Wales, the policy is exactly the same.
The language is different—it is expressed slightly differently
in this Bill. To reassure the hon. Gentleman, deaths will be
investigated if they would have been investigated under the present
system. With the changes in the legislation and the widening in clause
1, there will probably be more inquests
on deaths abroad than has occurred up to now. However, it would not be
possible to put a figure on it. I reassure him and the Committee that
we are giving bereaved families more scope to have closure through the
inquest system than they have at the
moment.
Mr.
Bellingham: The Minister is therefore saying that the more
widely drafted wording of subsection (4)(b) replaces two whole clauses
in the draft Bill. The Government are looking for a more flexible,
easier-to-understand system, which provides more scope and flexibility
for the chief coroner.
Bridget
Prentice: Absolutely spot
on. Question
put and agreed
to. Clause
1 accordingly ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Clause
2Request
for other coroner to conduct
investigation Question
proposed, That the clause stand part of the
Bill.
| 
