Jenny
Willott: In response to the Minister’s comments
about deputy chief coroners, this is an important point for senior
coroners, who are clearly upset by the suggestion that it is not
appropriate for them to progress in their career to become deputy chief
coroners. I
want to flag up a couple of points made to me by a coroner of
significant years’ experience who raised a number of concerns
from his personal perspective, particularly regarding the suggestion
that coroners who operate in the courts do not have the appropriate
judicial experience to become a deputy chief coroner. He pointed out to
me that he is the part-time president of the Mental Health Tribunal and
a part-time chairman of the Appeals Service. He gained considerable
experience as an advocate and a solicitor in private practice before
becoming a coroner. He has dealt with more than 100 jury inquests and
used remote video link and voice distortion equipment. He has dealt
with witness intimidation, anonymity and special measures. Those are
all matters that coroners deal with daily, just like other members of
the judiciary, although coroners are not recognised in the same way as
having judicial experience. That is reflected in the Bill’s
current
measures. I
understand that the Minister will come back on Report with proposals to
make the arrangements fairer, so that senior coroners can progress in
their careers, but I would like to flag up one other issue. I
understand her point about the chief coroner being a High Court judge,
and I know that the Coroners Society believes that, especially at the
beginning, the post needs to be held by someone in a significantly high
office, so that it is well respected and has the clout to make the
necessary changes. However, if the reforms are successful, resulting in
improved standardisation and funding across the UK and so on, and if
the coroner service is held in higher regard and given more
recognition, at some point a very experienced senior coroner with a lot
of experience as a deputy chief coroner might be the most appropriate
person to become the chief coroner. It seems unwise to rule out that
possibility completely, even though I understand that perhaps nobody
would wish to take up that option for a while. However, I am glad that
she will reconsider the point about the deputy chief coroner, and I
look forward to hearing her proposals on
Report.
Mr.
Bellingham: I am grateful to the Minister for giving us
some hope that some of the more technical amendments will be considered
and that she will return with the necessary changes on
Report.
Returning to
a point that the Minister made about doctors also serving as coroners,
I appreciate that there will be a five-year phasing out period, but it
would make sense to have doctors serving as coroners as long as they
were told to get at least some basic legal qualification as well. It
would be a great pity to exclude doctors completely from the career
structure, because they could have a great deal to offer. Perhaps she
could reconsider that point, but on the basis of the commitments that
she has given, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the
amendment. Amendment,
by leave,
withdrawn.
Mr.
Bellingham: I beg to move amendment 32, in
schedule 3, page 124, line 41, leave
out ‘are not’ and insert ‘will
continue’.
The
Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss
amendment 260, in schedule 3, page 124, line 41,
leave out
‘not’.
Mr.
Bellingham: I have already made my points about freehold
office, and I would just like the Minister to
comment.
Bridget
Prentice: All I have to say is that if any member of the
public is aware that coroners are freehold office holders, I suspect
that very few know what it means. It is an historical throwback and the
Bill provides us with an opportunity to remove it. I do not think that
by so doing we will undermine coroners’ independence, which is
referred to throughout the Bill. I therefore resist the
amendment.
Jenny
Willott: Amendment 260, which is in my name, would do
precisely the same thing as the amendment moved by the hon. Member for
North-West
Norfolk.
Mr.
Bellingham: I plan to return to this point on Report,
because we feel strongly about it. We believe that it goes to the
essence of independence. I hope that the Minister will reconsider. She
has said on many occasions that she believes in the total independence
of the coroner’s office and the coronial system, and I hope very
much that she will reflect on what I have said. We do not want to be
too persistent, however, and divide the Committee. However, we do feel
strongly and reserve the right to return to the matter. On that basis,
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the
amendment. Amendment,
by leave, withdrawn.
Jenny
Willott: I beg to move amendment 259, in
schedule 3, page 126, line 23, at
end add ‘in accordance with
standards and guidance produced by the Chief
Coroner’.
The
Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss the
following: amendment 258, in clause 28,
page 14, line 33, leave out
‘may’ and insert
‘shall’. New
clause 28—Regulations about senior coroner
standards— ‘The
Chief Coroner may, from time to time, with the consent of the Lord
Chancellor, publish minimum standards relating to the service to be
provided by senior
coroners.’. New
clause 29—Guidance about salaries and
fees— ‘The Chief
Coroner may, from time to time, with the consent of the Lord
Chancellor, publish guidance for local authorities regarding the level
of salary for senior coroners and area coroners, and of fees for
assistant
coroners.’. 7
pm
Jenny
Willott: The amendments and new clauses go together quite
well as a group. They are designed to introduce standards for coroners
in various ways. Amendment 259 relates to the terms and conditions on
coroners; amendment 258 would mean that the coroner must publish
regulations on training for senior coroners; new clause 28 would enable
the chief coroner to publish minimum standards that should apply to all
senior coroners in the UK; and new clause 29 would enable the chief
coroner to publish guidance on salaries and fees.
This matter
has been raised a number of times already, so I shall be brief. There
are concerns about the inconsistencies in the United Kingdom, both on
standards of service delivery and on the terms and conditions,
salaries, equipment, staffing and support that is provided to coroners
by local authorities. The proposals would improve the uniformity of the
service that is delivered to bereaved families. New clause 28 would
mean that the chief coroner would be able to publish minimum standards
by which local authorities would have to be guided when funding
offices—accommodation and staff—to ensure that coroners
have the basic minimum of support that they need to fulfil their jobs.
Because those standards would be laid out by the chief coroner, it
would not be so much in the hands of local authorities to decide what
they believe is appropriate. Instead, a basic minimum standard would be
applied, which would help coroners in their dealings with local
authorities. We
have already highlighted the issue of training. The Government accept
that there is a need for improved consistency in training in the UK to
ensure that there is better uniformity in different coroners’
areas. The Bill states that the chief coroner may publish regulations
about training, but amendment 258 would ensure that such guidance is
published. Given that we all accept the need for it, it seems somewhat
surprising that the Bill enables rather than ensures. That is clearly
important for coroners and for all of us.
I accept that
the proposal on terms and conditions and on salary guidance is slightly
contentious. However, a key issue in some areas is that coroners are
not in a strong position when negotiating with local authorities. For
example, the area that the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South and
Penarth and I represent is covered by the coroner for Cardiff and Vale
of Glamorgan, who is employed only on a part-time basis, despite the
fact that she works full-time hours. The local authority has decided
that it only wants a part-time coroner despite the fact that her work
load is far too large. Laying down central standards and guidance for
local authorities on salaries and fees would rule out such anomalies.
The guidance could take into account such things as the number of
inquests, investigations and deaths reported, and the size of an area.
It could also consider transfers between areas, and generally take into
account a coroner’s overall work
load. Clearly,
the chief coroner is in a much better position to consider such things,
because they gather information and can see the bigger picture
throughout the UK, whereas local authorities see a very small part of
the picture and are not in the best position to make decisions on how
much coroners should be paid for how many hours, and what support staff
they need to do their jobs. Currently, as we all accept, there is
significant
inconsistency. I
hope that the four proposals provide a solid basis to enable coroners
to do their job with the resources that they
need.
Bridget
Prentice: I understand that at present, the mechanism for
determining coroners’ salaries nationally is an annual
negotiation between the Coroners Society and local government employers
on behalf of local authorities. If that arrangement is discontinued, it
would
be up to the Local Government Association and the Coroners Society to
decide what alternative machinery should be put in place. Frankly, they
are probably better placed to make the decision, and the Coroners
Society should represent coroners’ interests rather than the
chief coroner. I therefore resist the
amendment. On
training, subject to the agreement of the Lord Chancellor, the chief
coroner will be responsible for setting national standards and ensuring
that coroners and those who work with them have the training that they
need to meet those standards. There will also be requirements for
specialist training in coronial law and, as the hon. Members for
Cambridge and for Daventry pointed out in earlier debates, there will
be a need for training on the application of the Human Rights
Act.
I can assure
the hon. Lady that improved training arrangements will be high on the
chief coroner’s list of priorities. I do not think that they
would be any higher on the agenda if they were there purely through
compulsion. In any event, as an independent judicial appointee, it
would not be appropriate for the Government to compel the chief coroner
to do any particular thing, however essential we may see it as
being.
Finally, new
clause 28 would allow the chief coroner to publish minimum standards
that coroners must meet after consultation with the Lord Chancellor.
That replicates clauses 32 to 34, which already provide for the Lord
Chancellor to issue guidance on the services to be delivered to
bereaved families. Those of us who have looked at the draft charter
know that it includes at paragraph 44 an example of the types of deaths
where specific standards might be set. We would therefore expect
coroners’ rules and regulations to deal with such
matters—for example in relation to post-mortems, suspension and
resumption of investigations, disclosure of information, the release of
bodies for funerals and the operation of the appeals system. Such
secondary regulation would have added
force. I
hope that on that basis, while much of what the hon. Lady has said
about the way the system works is sensible, she will see that it is
already covered in the Bill. Those other areas, relating to employment
and salary negotiation, are best left to those who will be doing the
negotiation.
Jenny
Willott: To clarify, the amendment about salary guidance
is not so much about the amount that an individual should be paid, as
forums are already in place to deal with that. The issue is more to
look at the guidance for what work there is in a particular area and
what needs to be funded there. At the moment, although the guidance is
provided centrally, it clearly does not work as some areas are
significantly underfunded, and the volume of work is far greater than
the hours for which the coroners are paid. The system is not operating
efficiently at the moment, so the suggestion is that there is a better
way to ensure that areas get the resources that they
need.
Bridget
Prentice: Other parts of the Bill give the chief coroner
the powers to look at how local authorities resource the system.
Therefore the reports that the chief coroner will be able to make will
give them the leverage to deal with the overall resource issue as far
as local authorities are concerned.
Jenny
Willott: I tabled the amendments because I am not
convinced that the existing powers are strong enough to enable the
chief coroner to do that. We clearly agree in this Committee on what
the outcome needs to be in terms of adequate funding and the resources
to enable coroners to do their job, but we do not necessarily agree on
how to achieve
that. My
final point concerns minimum standards. I accept that the issue of
coroners’ rules and regulations relates to a lot of their work,
but my concern about the publishing of minimum standards is that they
relate to work load and so forth—the practicalities of running
the office and the service that will be delivered to all families that
come into contact with that service, rather than the way in which an
inquest will operate and so on. There are certain areas that are
already covered by the measures in the Bill, but there are areas where
it is not clear enough. We shall return to the issue on Report, and I
look forward to hearing the Minister’s comments
then. Amendment,
by leave,
withdrawn. Schedule
3 agreed
to.
Clause
23Provision
of staff and
accommodation
Jenny
Willott: I beg to move amendment 117, in
clause 23, page 13, line 36, at
end insert— ‘(1A) In making
provision under subsection (1), the authority must ensure that the
minimum standards laid down from time to time by the Chief Coroner are
fulfilled.’.
The
Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss the
following: amendment 261, in clause 23, page 14,
line 4, leave out ‘(b) and
(c)’. Amendment
92, in
clause 23, page 14, line 6, at
end insert— ‘(4A) A senior
coroner may report to the Lord Chancellor any failing by a relevant
authority to discharge its duties under subsection
(1). (4B) The Lord Chancellor
may from time to time publish guidance about the procedure for
resolving any matter of dispute relating to a report made to him
pursuant to subsection
(4A). (4C) The Lord Chancellor
may give a direction requiring the senior coroner, and the relevant
authority to take action within a period specified in the direction to
resolve any matter of dispute relating to a report made to him pursuant
to subsection
(4A).’.
| 
