Jenny
Willott: Does the Minister accept that the amendments
would not do that, because such matters would still be subject to
clause 10? Clause 10(2) makes it
clear that the coroner cannot determine criminal or civil liability.
Therefore the coroner or the jury will be able to provide more detail,
but not to accord
blame.
Bridget
Prentice: Amendments 112 to 114 would tempt a coroner down
that route. That is a problem with those amendments. However, a coroner
can properly give their views in any report to prevent further deaths,
which is an important part of what they do. That point is covered in
paragraph 6 of schedule 4. The changes made last year under rule 43
gave coroners much wider discretion to make whatever comments they
think are necessary to ensure that improvements are made as a result of
their
investigations. Amendment
35 would introduce a duty to report to the relevant person, whereas it
is currently discretionary. I see some merit in that point and will
reflect on it. Amendment 48 would give the coroner the power to request
that the relevant person submit an update on their actions within three
months. It would also introduce a duty on the coroner to forward all
updates to the chief coroner at the end of each year, who would lay
them before Parliament. There is merit in that, and I will reflect
further on it.
The same
point applies to amendments 121 and 122 and the last part of amendment
93, which was tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford. The
public expression of coroners’ findings is important in ensuring
that deaths do not occur as a result of nobody taking cognisance of
what a coroner has found. Those amendments would strengthen the
obligations on coroners and on the relevant persons to prevent future
deaths. I
will give an example of something that happened under rule 43 and the
current discretionary system. A coroner issued a rule 43 report into a
death from injuries incurred on a railway line. He asked for a response
to ensure that the issues found in the investigation did not recur.
British Transport police responded and outlined the action that it had
taken in relation to the circumstances of the case. It also listed a
further six actions that it had taken over an 18-month period to
improve its investigations of deaths on railways. It was keen to keep
in touch with coroners to improve investigative processes. Even under
the rule 43 system, we are seeing improvements in how people respond to
causes of death reported by
coroners. I
understand the reasoning behind the amendments that I have mentioned.
They would not only ensure that coroners and organisations take
seriously the responsibility of preventing further deaths, but would
give the public confidence that that is the case. In this area, as in
many others, people express the view that the hon. Member for Daventry
gave: they understand that they cannot bring their own loved one back,
but they do not want to see the same thing happen to someone else. If
they can see that the response is taken seriously, it helps them to
obtain closure and get through the bereavement
process. I
will reflect further on the amendments that I have outlined, including
the last part of amendment 93 tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for
Stafford. I cannot commend the idea of the criminal sanction at this
stage. I am not yet convinced that even the threat of a level 5 fine
would be a sufficient deterrent. However, the indication
from the changes in rule 43 show that organisations and the relevant
authorities are beginning to take their responses
seriously. Mr.
Kidney: After listening to the debate, does my hon. Friend
like the idea that the coroner could summon someone to court, if they
did not answer the
report?
Bridget
Prentice: Yes, I do, but I am not sure whether it can be
put into the Bill and will have to consider the matter. Coroners need
to be given all possible tools to ensure that their investigations are
thorough and can reach a proper conclusion. That is something that we
might consider further. On that basis, I ask the hon. Member for
North-West Norfolk to withdraw the amendment and the hon. Members for
Cardiff, Central and for Cambridge to decide which ones they wish to
vote
on.
Mr.
Bellingham: I am mindful of the time. I am grateful to the
Minister for her explanation of the ECHR and the Human Rights Act 1998.
Obviously, the Opposition will have to return to AndrĂ(c) Rebello
and take further advice on that. In the meantime, I am happy to
withdraw the
amendment. I
am delighted by what the Minister said about amendments 35 and 48. We
are certainly not trying to pretend that amendment 48 is absolutely the
best way to achieve those ends. If she can pick out the best of the
Liberal Democrats’ amendment 121 and of amendment 93,
tabled by the hon. Member for Stafford, the Committee will achieve
exactly what it wants to achieve, which is to ensure that lessons are
learned. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the
amendment. Amendment,
by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment
proposed: 70, in
clause 5, page 4, leave out lines 3 to
9.—(David
Howarth.) Question
put, That the amendment be
made. The
Committee divided: Ayes 6, Noes
9.
Division
No.
1] Question
accordingly negatived.
Clause
5 accordingly ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Clause
6Duty
to hold
inquest
Mr.
Boswell: I beg to move amendment 103, in
clause 6, page 4, line 14, at
end insert— ‘(2) Subject to
subsection (1), the senior coroner responsible for the inquest must
notify any interested person as soon as practicable that they are
entitled to be assisted at all times by a legal
representative.
(2B) Any legal representation shall be fully funded
by the Legal Services
Commission.’.
The
Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss the
following: amendment 98, in clause 7, page 4, line 37, at
end add— ‘(5) In all cases
where a jury is required for the purposes of an inquest, any interested
person will be entitled to legal representation at the inquest, funded
by the Legal Services
Commission.’. Amendment
102, in
schedule 4, page 129, line 28, at
end insert— ‘(1A) Where the
senior coroner considers that a report under this paragraph is likely
to result from the inquest, the family of the deceased shall be
entitled to legal representation funded by the Legal Services
Commission.’. Amendment
99, in
clause 30, page 16, line 21, at
end insert— ‘(k) a decision
not to allow legal representation funded by the Legal Services
Commission to assist anyone falling within section
36(2)(a).’. Amendment
101, in
clause 36, page 20, line 18, at
end insert— ‘(aa) a legal
professional, if one has been appointed for the purposes of assisting
the
family;’. New
clause 11—Community Legal
Service— ‘(1) The Access
to Justice Act 1999 (c. 22) is amended as
follows. (2) In Schedule 2,
paragraph 2(1), after sub-sub-paragraph (e)
insert— “(ea) any
coroner’s
court”.’. New
clause 12—Legal representation of bereaved
families—
‘Where— (a)
the inquest is to be held with a jury;
or (b) the deceased died whilst
in custody or otherwise detained by the state;
or (c) the deceased died at a
centre for provision of medical treatment, and the coroner has a duty
to investigate the death under section 7(2);
or (d) any other parties
participating in the inquest are assisted by a legal
professional, legal
representation for bereaved families shall be funded by the Legal
Services
Commission.’. New
clause 13—Legal representation of bereaved families (No.
2)— ‘Means testing shall
be waived for legal representation of bereaved families
if— (a) the inquest is
to be held with a jury; or (b)
the deceased died whilst in custody or otherwise detained by the state;
or (c) the deceased died at a
centre of provision for medical treatment;
or (d) the deceased died whilst
serving in the armed forces;
and (e) any other parties
participating in the inquest are assisted by a legal
professional.’.
1
pm The
Chairman adjourned the Committee without Question put (Standing Order
No. 88).
Adjourned
till this day at Four
o’clock.
| 
