Public Bodies Bill [Lords]

Memorandum submitted by INQUEST (PB 14)

A SHORT BRIEFING ON CORONIAL REFORM FROM INQUEST

In December 2010 the House of Lords removed the Chief Coroner and associated offices from the list of bodies to be abolished in schedule 1 of the Public Bodies Bill. The post remains on the statute book. In a WMS of 14 June 2011 the government announced its intention to press ahead with dismantling the Chief Coroner’s office, to distribute a small number of the post-holder’s statutory powers to the Lord Chancellor (currently Kenneth Clarke MP, the Secretary of State for Justice) and the Lord Chief Justice, and, in effect, shelve the other powers of the post. The government have said nothing about implementation or not of the rest of the reforms contained in the Coroners and Justice Act 2009.

Amendment 11 tabled before the Public Bodies Bill Committee would re-insert the Chief Coroner and associated offices into schedule 5 of the Bill, result in the dismantling of the post and, in effect, discard the fundamental reforms to the coroner’s service passed with overwhelming cross-party support less than two years ago.

As MPs meet in Committee, this briefing answers the questions that INQUEST is frequently asked about the government’s approach. Below is a summary of the questions and answers tackled in our full Briefing which can found at: http://inquest.org.uk/website/policy/reform-of-the-inquest-system/the-coroners-justice-act-2009/faqs-on-coronial-reform

Why do we need a Chief Coroner and fundamental reform of the inquest system?

The current system is fragmented, with no national leadership, and it is not accountable. Bereaved families currently face significant delays and a ‘postcode lottery’ of service. Tom Luce, the government-appointed independent reviewer concluded in 2003 that the system was "not fit for purpose." INQUEST welcomed the objective of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 "to put the bereaved at the heart of the process," as it has the potential to make remedy many of the problems in the current system. Essential to the success of the new model is the driving force and independent, judicial leadership of a Chief Coroner - a new role created by the 2009 Act. See paras 1-3 of full Briefing

Why is the government trying to include the Chief Coroner in the Public Bodies Bill?

It is difficult to justify why the post is included in the Public Bodies Bill as it does not meet the government’s own criteria for reform of public bodies to "increase transparency and accountability, to cut out duplication of activity and to discontinue activities that are simply no longer needed". The Chief Coroner was intended, for the first time, to bring transparency and accountability to the coronial service by providing judicial oversight and national leadership. The need for the post and the substantial reform the post-holder would lead has been recognised in numerous high-profile reviews, parliamentary reports or inquiries, and by Parliament itself in enacting the Coroners and Justice Act 2009. See paras 4-6 of full Briefing. The reason the government has given for including it in this Bill is cost.

What are the government’s arguments?

"We can’t afford it"

Dismantling the Chief Coroner’s Office is a false economy. The existing system results in huge financial costs to the public purse and human costs to bereaved families and others engaged in the system through delayed or postponed hearings, judicial reviews of coroners’ decisions and repeated investigations and inquests into similar deaths. The costings relied on by the Secretary of State for Justice do not take these fully into account and do not demonstrate that his proposal will result in significant savings or improvements.

INQUEST has questioned the Ministry of Justice’s reliance on the outdated December 2008 costings and, given the current economic climate, their refusal to re-evaluate their estimates of £11 million set up and £6 million running costs. Although Ministers have told MPs "we have looked at those figures and we agree with them" we would question whether it is necessary to spend £564,000 on publications and a public launch of the Chief Coroner’s Office or £3.85 million on a new IT system.

INQUEST believes the government’s refusal to establish the Chief Coroner’s post and implement the fundamental reforms contained in the 2009 Act simply reflects that insufficient political priority is being given to coronial reform and the interests of bereaved people - in stark contrast to the recent announcement that £250 million would be made available to local authorities to re-introduce weekly refuse collections. See paras 7-13 of full Briefing

"The Chief Coroner’s office was intended to be largely administrative and had few powers to formally govern the system"

This is inaccurate. The judicial office of Chief Coroner was designed to spearhead reform of the system and, through the Coroners and Justice Act, Parliament gave the post-holder specific and significant powers. Some of the statutory powers of the office are listed at paras 14-18 of full Briefing

"The functions of the Chief Coroner can be transferred to alternative bodies"

The Chief Coroner’s office is a single, senior judicial post with statutory powers. The government proposal to dismantle the office of the Chief Coroner, transfer some of the post’s powers to other judicial and political figures results in another fragmented structure where lines of accountability are opaque and clear leadership is absent. This will exacerbate the already fragmented structure where meaningful reform does not take place because, as the Secretary of State himself has acknowledged, "[no] individual will be responsible for the leadership, culture or behaviour of coroners". See paras 19-21 of full Briefing

"A Chief Coroner is not essential to reforming the inquest system" and "The most important outcomes can be achieved without a Chief Coroner"

The Coroners and Justice Act 2009 is a tightly crafted piece of legislation of inter-linked changes which would address the problems of the current system. Central to this model approved by Parliament, with overwhelming cross-party support, is the Chief Coroner’s role at the centre of the reformed system. Without the clear judicial authority of the Chief Coroner individual coroners will continue to operate in isolation and without the support and benefit of an overarching framework giving clear direction and leadership whilst they deal with their complex and important work. The proposal for a Ministerial Board on coroner issues which meets a few times a year, whilst a positive step, is no substitute for a single, dedicated, judicial office with statutory powers to implement changes.

The 2009 Act contains fifty-two sections relating to coronial reform including the Chief Coroner. The government has announced that it will attempt to transfer only ten of the powers or duties of the Chief Coroner in their entirety and to partially implement a further two. The government has remained silent on what it intends to do in relation to the all of the other clauses in Part 1 of the Act. This equates to no more than 23% of the original provisions and is a long way short of "all" or "the majority" of the provisions under the Act as Ministers have claimed. Some of the provisions that will not be implemented include those relating to a new system of appointment, retirement and discipline for coroners which would bring them in line with other judicial post-holders. See paras 22-29 of full Briefing

"The draft charter will improve people’s experiences of the current inquest system"

The charter which the Ministry of Justice recently consulted on is for all who interact with the coroners system (not specifically for bereaved people as previous version have been). Central to previous versions of the charter was the Chief Coroner’s role in resolving complaints and adjudicating in appeals. In the absence of a Chief Coroner, the Charter is toothless. The new version does not set out credible alternative proposals to ensure that the new document has any impact in improving the service offered to bereaved people who come into contact with the coroners courts and relies instead on already hard-pressed voluntary organisations such as INQUEST to "monitor" the implementation of the charter. See paras 30-33 of full Briefing

"We need to dismantle the Chief Coroner’s post if we are to take forward any reform" and "those who oppose our proposals are frustrating any reform of the system"

Over thirty years, INQUEST has supported tens of thousands of bereaved people facing an investigation and inquest. The proposals in the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 were the result of a consultation and parliamentary process which lasted over six years during which bereaved families freely shared their painful experiences of the inquest system with policy-makers. It is these experiences that directly inform the views expressed by INQUEST in this briefing. Our firm view is that the government has failed to propose a credible alternative to the provisions in the 2009 Act that guarantees implementation of all the substantial reforms that are needed.

INQUEST and the Royal British Legion have tried to engage constructively with the government and have put forward an alternative proposal which recommends the Ministry of Justice’s current costings are revised and then implemented over an elongated period so that the fundamental reform carefully laid out by Parliament in the Coroners and Justice Act (including establishing a Chief Coroner) can go ahead, even in the current economic climate. See paras 34-37 and Appendix 1 of full Briefing

INQUEST is urging MPs to encourage the Ministry of Justice to reconsider their proposals because we strongly believe that if the Chief Coroner’s office is dismantled and the reforms set out by Parliament in the Coroners and Justice Act are abandoned, a once in a generation opportunity to create an inquest system fit for the 21st Century which saves lives will be wasted.

 About INQUEST

INQUEST is the only organisation in England and Wales that provides a specialist, comprehensive advice service on contentious deaths and their investigation to bereaved people, lawyers, other advice and support agencies, the media, parliamentarians and the wider public. It has a proven track record in delivering an award-winning free in depth complex casework service on deaths in state detention or involving state agents. It works on other cases that also engage article 2, the right to life, of the European Convention on Human Rights and/or raise wider issues of state and corporate accountability. It monitors public interest inquests and inquiries into contentious deaths to ensure the issues arising inform our strategic policy and legal work.

INQUEST undertakes research and develops policy proposals to campaign for changes to the inquest and investigation process. Its overall aim is to secure an investigative process that treats bereaved families with dignity and respect; holds those responsible to account and disseminates the lessons learned from the investigation process in order to prevent further deaths occuring. INQUEST is represented on the Ministerial Council on Deaths in Custody and sat on the Ministry of Justice Coroner Service Stakeholder Forum until it was abolished in January 2011 .

INQUEST publications include: briefings on individual cases and on thematic issues arising; Inquest Law , the journal of the INQUEST Lawyers Group; specialist leaflets on deaths in prison and in police custody; a regular e-newsletter; and three groundbreaking books: In the Care of the State? Child Deaths in Penal Custody in England and Wales (2005); Unlocking the Truth – Families’ Experience of the Investigation of Deaths in Custody (2007) and Dying on the Inside – Examining Women’s Deaths in Prison (2008).

INQUEST was the Winner of the Longford Prize in 2009; Joint Winner of the Liberty/JUSTICE Human Rights Award in 2007 and Winner of a Campaign for Freedom of Information Award in 1999.

October 2011