Mr.
Bellingham: I am pleased to say that members of the royal
family do not die very often, thank goodness; but, when one of them
does die, presumably, the death will now be dealt with by the local
coroner, along with many others. At the moment, if a member of the
royal family dies, the death is dealt with by the coroner of the
Queen’s household. It is an ancient, ceremonial office, and I
believe in keeping such offices in place. There is a good reason for
doing so, and I hope that the Minister will listen to our
argument.
Alun
Michael: The hon. Gentleman has tabled a piece of
nonsense.
Mr.
George Howarth: My right hon. Friend said to me a moment
ago that he could not resist it. May I suggest to him that he
might?
Alun
Michael: The Opposition, having tabled a serious
provision, should be taken seriously and challenged. The chief coroner
is a regulator, and he or she will have oversight of training,
standards and so on. He will not undertake coronial duties as such,
apart from the responsibility that the Opposition seek to move on to
him. Could we imagine Ofcom running a radio station, even if it was
known as the royal radio station? Could we imagine Ofwat running a
small, royal water company, or something like that? The new clause may
be exploratory, but the hon. Member for North-West Norfolk did not say
that; he suggested that it was serious. If he had suggested that the
post be retained and attached to a local coroner, as it currently is,
some degree of tradition would have been retained, but what he suggests
does not seem logical.
Bridget
Prentice: When we reach the end of a subject, the debate
always becomes lively again.
The most
recent example of an inquest requiring the post of the Queen’s
coroner was the inquest into the death of Diana, Princess of Wales,
which, as was mentioned, was opened by the current coroner of the
Queen’s household, Michael Burgess. Dr. Burgess is also the
coroner for Surrey. Owing to the complexity of that case, which
required almost full-time attention in the run-up to, and throughout,
the inquest, the proceedings were eventually conducted by Lord Justice
Scott Baker. Before that inquest, the last time that a case required
the involvement of the coroner of the Queen’s household was in
the 1980s, and I really cannot see the merit in retaining a post when
there is work only every 15 to 20 years.
Under the
Bill, a death that currently falls within the jurisdiction of the
Queen’s coroner will simply be dealt
with by the coroner for the area where the body lies. As with any case,
excepting certified inquests, the chief coroner will have the power to
transfer the case to another senior coroner, to investigate it himself
or herself, or to require the Lord Chief Justice to nominate a judge to
conduct the investigation. That seems perfectly satisfactory and,
indeed, the many people whom we have consulted about the Bill since it
was published in draft have not objected to the proposal in any way. I
do not know what Tom Luce said in his report, but I suspect that it was
very little, as he will have considered it a relatively minor matter.
He is unlikely to have commented on it at all. I must say to the hon.
Member for North-West Norfolk that, until now, no single person has
raised any concern with us about these plans. The abolition
of the office of coroner of the Queen’s household is one of two
provisions in the Bill which require Her Majesty’s consent, and
that will be signified
in the normal way on Third Reading. It would not therefore be
appropriate for me to say any more on the matter, given Her
Majesty’s constitutional position. Mr.
Bellingham: I am grateful to the Minister for that
explanation. We reserve our right to look at the issue when it comes up
later.
Question
put and agreed to.
Clause 35
accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses
36 to 38 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 9
agreed to.
Ordered,
That further consideration be now
adjourned. —(Ian
Lucas.) 9.15
pm
Adjourned
till Thursday 26 February at Nine
o’clock.
| 
