Mr.
Bellingham: Clause 2 is similar to section 14 of the
Coroners Act 1988, which allows a coroner in one district to ask a
coroner from another district to assume jurisdiction over an
investigation—in effect, to take over. One of the discussions
that has been going on relates to the costs of transferring inquests to
another coroner area. Will the Minister tell the Committee the
situation regarding costs? Will they be paid entirely by the coroner
area where the inquest takes place after the transfer, or will the
original coroner area pay some of those costs?
This clause
is good news as far as military inquests are concerned, because we have
all been concerned about the situation relating to the bodies of
tragically deceased servicemen and women who have been flown into RAF
Lyneham in Wiltshire and RAF Brize Norton in Oxfordshire. Military
inquests have been taking place within Wiltshire and Oxfordshire and
carried out by the local county coroners. They have been carried out
extremely effectively, but the problem is that significant delays have
built up, and that has been a concern to both the coroners in those
areas and the families involved. Why can the families not—as a
matter of course—elect to have the inquest in their home town?
Under clause 2, according to my reading of it, families could speak to
the coroner, and the coroner could decide to request that another
coroner carries out the investigation. That coroner could be the
coroner for the home town or city of the families involved. The inquest
would therefore take place, probably as a matter of course, in either
Wiltshire or Oxfordshire, but when pressures build up and delays take
place, there could be an easy transfer to another city or
area.
Members on
both sides of the Committee will have dealt with situations in which
families who have lost loved ones in either Iraq or Afghanistan have
found it extremely inconvenient and difficult to get to Wiltshire or
Oxfordshire. Recently, a family wrote to me to ask why an inquest could
not have taken place in Norfolk; I was sympathetic to that. Does the
clause make that eventuality more likely and more easily brought about,
and will the Minister answer my question about
costs?
Mr.
Boswell: Briefly, may I support my hon. Friend in his
queries? Two relevant cases have affected me, as it happens, because of
the strange geographical situation I find myself in. I live in the
extreme south-west of Northamptonshire. I sometimes have difficulty
persuading my constituents that I have lived in my constituency for 40
years, which I have, because I have an Oxfordshire post code. In
addition, a motorway immediately adjacent to where I live is policed
not by Northamptonshire police, but, by arrangement, by Thames Valley
police, because it would clearly be stupid to break up the
responsibility for a two-mile stretch of somebody else’s
jurisdiction. On one occasion, less than a mile from my home, a
fatality took place in which a cyclist fell from the motorway down on
to the road below. That created a jurisdiction issue. Subsequently, a
former employee—whom we took on part time to look after
livestock on my farm, which goes right down to the county boundary and
crosses it at one point—was sadly afflicted, after a life of
perfect health, by a sudden heart attack. We found him dead in the
field, and it was difficult not only in personal
terms—obviously—but in terms of sorting out the coronial
jurisdiction. Everybody was helpful, but the body was removed to
Northampton because the death had occurred in Northamptonshire,
notwithstanding that the widow lived within two miles in Oxfordshire
and all the interests were down there. Within the spirit of
what the Minister seeks to do, I seek an understanding—not in
those circumstances, because it is a matter of judgment—that
such provision should become more frequent than it has been in the
past. To stray briefly into clause 3, if there are difficulties and the
coroner is stroppy and reluctant to forgo jurisdiction, the chief
coroner might wish to address that matter.
If there is
to be a transfer, it is terribly important that the process is cleared
quickly for the families involved, so that they, and all the various
authorities, know whom they are dealing with—with regard to
receiving permission to dispose of the body, issuing death certificates
and so forth. We do not want, as we have occasionally had from the
Government—I will not stray into that now—a commitment to
an administrative system that gives rise to further delay and distress.
I hope that the Minister can assure us that the provision will work
seamlessly and swiftly to ensure that the inquest and inquiries are
carried out in the most convenient and expeditious
place.
Bridget
Prentice: Clause 2 will allow the senior coroner, who has
the duty to conduct the investigation under clause 1, to ask another
senior coroner to conduct such an investigation.
I want to
touch briefly on military inquests, and endorse the comments of the
hon. Member for North-West Norfolk about Oxfordshire and Wiltshire,
which have done an outstanding job in clearing the backlog of inquests
on our servicemen and women who have died in Iraq, Afghanistan or on
other active service overseas. Along with the Ministry of Defence, I
report regularly to the House on how those inquests are
progressing.
Mr.
Boswell: The Minister gives me the opportunity of putting
on the record—if she will accept it—my thanks to her for
the report she gave in a written answer on 2 February. It would be fair
to say that, at least on the coronial side, the Government are
beginning to get their act together. This will be a good token, and, I
hope, the precursor of a constructive debate
later.
Bridget
Prentice: I appreciate the hon. Gentleman’s
comments. The MOD has also moved a great deal in trying to be far more
supportive and flexible in getting the information that we need for
those investigations to be carried
out. I
hope that I can give both hon. Gentlemen the assurances that they need.
There are a number of reasons why a senior coroner might ask another
coroner to take on an investigation. The most common reason will likely
be that the family so wishes it. If the death occurred in one
jurisdiction and the body lies there, but the family lives in an
entirely different part of the country, it would be appropriate. I
assume that the coroner would be perfectly entitled to ask a colleague
to take on that investigation. There might be other reasons. The
coroner might know the deceased person and therefore feel that it would
not be appropriate to conduct the investigation. The important thing is
that the coroner should come to such arrangements so that bereaved
families receive the service they deserve and, as the hon. Member for
Daventry asked, the inquest is conducted as quickly as possible. The
clause replicates broadly section 4 of the Coroners Act
1988. 11.30
am I
am confident that coroners will act reasonably, accommodate requests
from their colleagues and help where they are able; they do that at the
moment. However, the fact that the chief coroner must be informed that
a request has been made will ensure that such requests are monitored,
and he will be able to see whether anyone is—or appears to
be—misusing the system. Therefore, the chief coroner will be
able to intervene, as under clause 3, at an early stage if there are
disputes; that will be part of his leadership role.
I turn to the
issue of cost. Who will pay will depend on the circumstances; generally
it will be the transferring area. However, that will not apply to
military inquests, where the local area will be expected to pay. In
general, the policy on military deaths is that single deaths will be
transferred but multiple deaths will not, for reasons that will be
obvious to the Committee.
Mr.
Bellingham: I want to ask the Minister one final question
about military deaths. Is it fair to say that, hitherto, families have
had problems getting the inquest transferred to their home cities? If
that has been the case, is the Minister confident that her good offices
will have prevailed on the relevant authorities to ensure
that if families now want a transfer, that will always be
allowed? The Bill makes clear exactly what the procedure
is.
Bridget
Prentice: Certainly, families have had problems in getting
cases transferred, because the law did not allow for it. The law states
that the inquest must take place in the jurisdiction where the body is
held. That is one of the difficulties in Scotland regarding military
deaths of Scottish personnel. It has a ridiculous situation whereby
aeroplanes must touch down at Brize Norton or Lyneham for an inquest of
a Scottish serviceman or woman to be held—Scotland simply does
not have a coronial system in the same way that we do. Clause 2 is
therefore important.
Question
put and agreed to.
Clause 2
accordingly ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Clause
3Direction
for other coroner to conduct
investigation Question
proposed, That the clause stand part of the
Bill.
Mr.
Bellingham: Clause 3 gives the chief coroner the power to
direct another senior coroner to conduct investigations. I would be
grateful if the Minister will give us examples of where this might be
needed. Certainly, one can think of appalling accidents and disasters
such as Hillsborough or Hungerford, where there was a tragic mass
shooting in 1988. In those cases, the chief coroner would want to make
sure that the inquests were moved to different areas—perhaps out
of that particular county. Will the Minister give examples where a
chief coroner might use the powers? Also, who will bear the cost of
transfers? The chief coroner might direct an inquest which takes place
away from the area in which a disaster happened; there would be
substantial cost. Would the transferring coronial area pay, or would
that fall to the area to which the inquest was transferred? The
implications are significant, because we might be talking about an
inquest lasting for many weeks and costing a large amount of
money.
Jenny
Willott: Clause 3 gives chief coroners the power to
co-ordinate work in different coronial areas. I would like to highlight
the fact that, although this is a welcome provision—as was
clause 2—it is only needed because the Government have dropped
the proposal to have a centrally co-ordinated national coronial
service. I would be grateful if the Minister were to respond to a
number of concerns about that
element. This
clause allows for a sharing of burdens and workload across coronial
areas, if there is an issue with workload, backlog and so on. There
have clearly been significant problems in the past in certain
areas—in some areas, there is still a significant problem. I
asked a parliamentary question in December 2006—I do not have
more up-to-date figures—when some outstanding cases had been
awaiting an inquest for more than five years, and some had been waiting
for 10 years. That causes severe stress and distress for the
victims’
families. Although
the provisions in this clause would make a difference, I am
disappointed that the Government have not decided to go ahead with a
single, national coroners service. A properly co-ordinated service
would enable fair sharing of the burden of work, so backlogs would
arise less frequently. It would also be able to tackle the significant
issue of funding for coroners’ areas—we heard evidence on
that in the sittings that we held last week. It is clear that funding
and the provision of resources other than funding—space, offices
and services for witnesses attending an inquest—are patchy
across the country. We heard evidence from the coroner from Liverpool,
who clearly has palatial suites and is very happy with his lot in life.
However, I have visited the Cardiff coroner’s offices in the
court in my constituency, which is, I would say, probably closer to the
other end of the scale, given that it is located in a city centre and
has a significant workload.
The coroner
in Cardiff is a paired operation between the Vale of Glamorgan and
Cardiff county council. Most deaths occur in Cardiff, and the Vale of
Glamorgan
is reluctant to provide a lot of resources from which its residents will
not benefit. The provision in Cardiff is in the central police station.
The way in which you are greeted and how welcome you are made to feel
depends on the desk sergeant. There are no toilet facilities for the
jurors, no proper waiting area for the witnesses, very cramped offices
for the coroners and so on. The provision would tackle some of the
backlog issues, but it will do nothing to tackle that, because the
power for the chief coroner to do so is not provided in this
clause. Regarding
the backlog that clause 3 would tackle, serious issues are built into
the system by the funding being provided on a local basis by local
authorities. For example, the coroner in Cardiff is employed on a
part-time basis, despite the fact that she actually works full time off
her own bat—she is only paid to work part time. That is the only
way that she has been able to manage the backlog. Clearly, the
provisions in clause 3 would tackle that in some way, but I would be
grateful if the Minister were to answer why the Government decided not
to implement a fully national coroners service. Some of the fundamental
problems that are built into the current system are not being tackled
by this Bill and will therefore
continue.
Bridget
Prentice: First, let me give some examples of when or why
the chief coroner may direct that an inquest be held in a different
area. One will be to deal with localised backlogs. I was a bit worried
about what the hon. Member for Cardiff, Central was saying. I hope that
she is not trying to give the impression that backlogs are springing up
all over the country, because I do not believe that that is the case.
However, backlogs and unexpected demand can occur—the hon.
Member for North-West Norfolk gave the example of a multiple shooting.
That might create a backlog and could be a case where a chief coroner
directs that investigations be held in another
area. Another
example is when the inquests took place into the deaths in the London
bombings. They were taken by one coroner, which means that the
coroner’s other work may have to be sent elsewhere. The main
reason for that is to make sure that backlogs do not occur and that
bereaved families get prompt investigations. A further example is where
several deaths occur but the families live in different areas. In this
case, the chief coroner may decide to allocate the inquest to a
particular place that is most convenient for the families
involved.
Mr.
David Kidney (Stafford) (Lab): A moment ago, we heard
about resources and backlogs. Should we not assert as a matter of
principle that in the main the inquest should be in the place where the
body is and where the death has occurred? That is the position in the
Bill, and it has been the case in the history of the coronial service
for ever. It should never simply happen for administrative convenience.
In relation to clause 2, the hon. Member for North-West Norfolk asked
about families that say, “We think the inquest should be here,
where we and a lot of the witnesses are, rather than there, where the
death occurred.” Is that a case where the chief coroner might be
asked to step in, if the senior coroner did not agree to the
family’s
request?
Bridget
Prentice: That is a very good example of exactly the role
that the chief coroner would have under clause 3, and given that
direction—
Mr.
Boswell: Will the Minister confirm to the Committee that
any one of these decisions on an instruction would be judicially
reviewable, if somebody felt that that were
appropriate?
Bridget
Prentice: Yes, such decisions would be judicially
reviewable. The chief coroner will have the power to make those
directions, irrespective of the views of the receiving coroner. That
brings me to the issue of costs. I do not wish to repeat what I said
earlier—basically, my position is the same as stated in a
previous debate.
I want to
turn to what the hon. Member for Cardiff, Central said about the
relationship between different local authorities. I know we will come
to this in greater detail under clause 23, when we will specifically
discuss resources. I suggest to the hon. Lady that, as Cardiff city
council is run by the Liberal Democrats, she might want to have a word
about properly funding the coroners’ service in that area. I am
sorry to bring party politics into it, but I could not help
it.
| 
