 House of Commons |
Session 2008 - 09 Publications on the internet General Committee Debates Coroners and Justice Bill |
The Committee consisted of the following Members:Celia Blacklock, Committee
Clerk † attended the
Committee Public Bill CommitteeTuesday 10 February 2009(Morning)[Frank Cook in the Chair]Coroners and Justice BillWritten evidence to be reported to the HouseCJ 11
NSPCC CJ 12
Magistrates
Association
Clause 1Duty
to investigate certain
deaths 10.30
am Question
proposed, That the clause stand part of the
Bill.
The
Chairman: With this it will be convenient to take the
following: new clause 9—Deaths occurring
abroad— ‘(1) The
following provisions shall have effect in connection with the
investigation of deaths of British subjects occurring
abroad. (2) When the body is
returned to a coroner’s area, the senior coroner must conduct an
investigation, when one is appropriate, under the Coroners
Act. (3) When there is no body,
or when the body has been buried or cremated outside England or Wales,
the relatives of the deceased may, within six months of the death (or
the presumed date of the death), apply to the Chief Coroner for an
investigation to be held. (4)
It shall be the duty of the UK consular authorities for the country
where the death occurred to draw the attention of anyone reporting the
death to them to the arrangements for investigation, and to liaise with
local public agencies to ensure that all material facts connected with
the death are ascertained and
communicated.’. New
clause 19—Investigations into deaths: special
circumstances— ‘Where
there are specific circumstances which make it unlikely that a senior
coroner will be able to conduct an investigation or a series of
investigations quickly and effectively, bearing in mind the concerns of
the victim’s family or the wider community, the Chief Coroner
shall draw the circumstances to the attention of the Lord Chancellor
who shall make appropriate arrangements to meet the specific
circumstances.’. Mr.
Henry Bellingham (North-West Norfolk) (Con): A warm
welcome to you, Mr. Cook. It is a pleasure to serve under
your
chairmanship. I
would like to say a word or two about clause 1, which mirrors the
requirements of section 8(1) of the Coroners Act 1988. The requirement
to investigate deaths in prison has been altered to apply to deaths
where the deceased died while in custody or otherwise in state
detention, which makes sense. It is also sensible as it clarifies the
situation where the death is in a police station, a mental hospital, an
immigration hostel, or
whatever. Obviously, there is a requirement that the death be sudden.
All in all, clause 1 is a good start to the
Bill. We
have identified a problem appertaining to deaths occurring abroad. That
is why we have tabled new clause 9, more as a probing exercise than
anything else. Obviously, losing a loved one abroad can be incredibly
traumatic. We have all come across constituency cases where a family
have had a loved one travelling abroad—perhaps on a gap year or
working abroad—who has had a sudden, appalling accident and a
tragic and perhaps unexplained death has occurred. That causes a huge
amount of grief. It is dreadful enough to lose a loved one,
particularly a young child, but to lose a young child abroad in a
strange jurisdiction, with all the problems that might occur as a
result, is even more dreadful for the family involved.
I am
concerned that there is nothing in the Bill that covers deaths abroad.
I accept that clause 1(4)(b) is perhaps a
catch-all: “the
circumstances of the death are such that there should be an
investigation into
it”. It
does not say that it does not cover deaths abroad. I would like to draw
the Committee’s attention to the draft Bill, which the then
Department for Constitutional Affairs published in 2006. A number of
clauses in the draft Bill related to deaths outside the United
Kingdom. Jeremy
Wright (Rugby and Kenilworth) (Con): Does my hon. Friend
agree that the difficulty with subsection (4) is that
paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) are conjunctive? They relate to a senior
coroner who has reason to believe that, first, a death has occurred in
or near their jurisdiction; secondly, that the circumstances of that
death are such that there should be an investigation; and thirdly,
there is a duty to conduct an investigation. Therefore, a death that
occurs abroad would almost certainly not be covered by that catch-all
in paragraph
(b).
Mr.
Bellingham: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I was
perhaps getting carried away in suggesting that the provision might
cover
that. Clause
5(1) of the draft Bill addressed deaths outside the United
Kingdom: “The
duty of a senior coroner to conduct an investigation into the death of
a person under section 1 does not arise where the death occurred
outside the United
Kingdom”. Clause
6 of the draft Bill was supplemental, and it explained exactly what
should happen when a death occurs outside the United Kingdom. That is
why new clause 9 makes it crystal clear that in that circumstance there
will be a proper
investigation: “(1)
The following provisions shall have effect in connection with the
investigation of deaths of British subjects occurring
abroad. (2)
When the body is returned to a coroner’s area, the senior
coroner must conduct an investigation, when one is appropriate, under
the Coroners
Act. (3) When
there is no body, or when the body has been buried or cremated outside
England or Wales, the relatives of the deceased may, within six months
of the death (or the presumed date of the death), apply to the Chief
Coroner for an investigation to be
held.” It
spells out what should happen when a death occurs abroad.
We have all
come across tragic constituency cases. I had one recently that involved
a constituent whose son was murdered in India while carrying out aid
work for a charity of which he was a founder member. My constituent
contacted to me to press for
action: “We
have had a total lack of information from the Indian police...the
only information we have had is the post mortem result, which was very
badly carried out. Our one source of information has been the coroners
office, & even they have had a lack of co operation from the Indian
police. So I hope you can understand my concern. Without the coroners
office & the inquest (which has yet to be held) we would know
nothing.” I
feel very strongly that when one loses a loved one abroad, the United
Kingdom should make every conceivable effort to ensure that some
closure is brought to the family. Although my constituent,
Mrs. Mary Whitford, points out how competent and
understanding the Foreign Office was, she feels that the Bill should
spell out what should
happen. The
Minister may well point us to provisions in the Bill that allow such
inquests to take place as a matter of course. I feel, however, that
although clause 1 is a good start to the Bill, new clause 9 is needed
to complement it and to clarify what happens when a death occurs
abroad. Mr.
George Howarth (Knowsley, North and Sefton, East) (Lab): I
want briefly to discuss new clause 19 which stands in the name of my
right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth.
My hon.
Friend the Minister helpfully wrote to members of the Committee in
response to a request that I made last week about how the new
arrangements would work in cases such as Hillsborough. That was a
concern of one of my constituents, who spent a day at the mini-inquest
that took place after that event. My right hon. Friend’s new
clause helps in that respect, because it envisages a role for the Lord
Chancellor in cases where there might be a question whether sufficient
resources are available for a speedy and efficient inquest to take
place. New
clause 19 also draws attention to the fact that there might be great
concerns on the part of the bereaved or the wider community. I suspect
that my right hon. Friend tabled it as a probing amendment, and,
although I cannot speak for him, I do not expect that he would wish it
to go to a vote. Nevertheless, it is helpful, and I wonder whether the
Minister will address those concerns in that context. Perhaps she will
put on the record how she envisages the new arrangements applying in
cases where there are multiple deaths and legitimate public concerns
about the causes of those
deaths.
The
Chairman: Order. It may help the Committee if I
call to mind that, while it is proper that we debate new clause 19
today, it will not be put to a vote until much later in proceedings. It
will be decided today whether clause 1 stands part of the
Bill. Jenny
Willott (Cardiff, Central) (LD): We broadly support the
bulk of clause 1. I rise to support new clause 9, which has been tabled
by the official Opposition. It seems to be a very sensible addition to
clause 1. It clarifies what seems to be an omission from the Bill as a
whole, particularly since it was flagged up as an issue in the draft
Bill that was previously
published. For
families that lose a member abroad, there are often even more
unanswered questions than there are for families that lose loved ones
in the UK. Clearly, an
inquest is a very important way in which they can start the grieving
process and understand what has really happened. For a lot of families
that were not present at the time and that played no role in what
happened to their family member, the inquest is a really important part
of their grieving process. I would be grateful if the Minister were to
make it clear whether the Government intend to clarify the process for
deaths abroad in order to ensure that it is made much easier to see who
is responsible and that the deaths get investigated properly by a
coroner at an open inquest, so that their families can get the answers
to some of their questions.
I am sure
that no one in Committee disagrees with the intention behind new clause
9. If there is no mechanism to tackle a backlog and deal quickly with
circumstances where there are a significant number of deaths—as
happened in Hillsborough, which the right hon. Member for Knowsley,
North and Sefton, East has highlighted—it can cause untold hurt
and distress to families. I am not completely convinced that the
wording of new clause 19 is the right way to go, but I am sure that the
Minister will be able to let us know the Government’s thoughts
on how to manage such circumstances to ensure that families get the
answers that they need as soon as
possible. The
only other point that I want to raise concerns clause 1. We welcome the
extension of the provision from when death occurs in prison to a
broader list of circumstances—for example, areas of custody.
There have been increasing concerns in the past couple of years about
immigration detention centres, where there have been increasing numbers
of reports of violence and of inmates experiencing problems at the
hands of some guards. As I understand it, fortunately there has not
been a death so far in an immigration detention centre, but it is
welcome that these provisions cover those institutions, so we will be
prepared if there is an unfortunate incident in the
future. We
also welcome the removal of the requirement for the death to be sudden.
There are lots of circumstances where a death is not sudden but is
still deeply suspicious. Broadening the grounds on which an inquest can
be called, and making sure that it covers as many of the possibilities
as possible, is a positive way
forward. 10.45
am Mrs.
Madeleine Moon (Bridgend) (Lab): I rise to discuss new
clause 19. In looking at this Bill, we have discussed the role of the
coroner in explaining the “how” of someone’s
death. Often for the family, the explanation that they are seeking is
the “why”—it is their desperate need to know why
their family member died, particularly in cases of
suicide.
I have
mentioned several times my interest in the promotion of psychological
autopsies and their role in helping to prevent suicide in wider
society. We currently have in the Department of Health a national
suicide audit toolkit. The toolkit is voluntary—it is for
individual health authorities to design and use in their own way. It
does not collect national data, and it does not pose a national
strategy for examining
suicides. My
right hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, North and Sefton, East spoke
about events relating to Hillsborough. I do not consider the events in
Bridgend to be of the same order as those at Hillsborough, but they
pose similar issues of national concern as to what
was happening and why. They provide us with an opportunity, as a
society, to understand what we can do to prevent the needless deaths of
young people. There have been studies of suicide autopsies,
particularly by Hawton and Appleby, and a structure has been created
for carrying out such
autopsies. New
clause 19 offers us the opportunity to implement suicide autopsies
nationally, so that we can gather data nationally, develop
understanding and provide local authorities and local health
authorities with the information, advice and guidance that they need to
provide new services and ways of operating that would prevent clusters
of deaths in the
future. I
want to summarise the sort of information that is gathered. The study
carried out by Appleby includes data from interviews with families and
friends carried out by an experienced mental health nurse, along with
an examination of inquest notes, medical records, psychiatric notes,
social networks, demographics, previous self-harm—a particularly
important issue when we are looking at suicide—education, work
and certain life events. In cases of suicide, the motivator is often a
life event in the previous three months—in many cases, it occurs
in the previous week. Finally, it is important to examine
the role of alcohol and substance
misuse. New
clause 19 offers us an opportunity to take away from the local inquest
into an individual death information that may well answer the question
of “how”, which will enable us to look at the wider
societal need to prevent further deaths and clusters of deaths.
Hopefully that also answers for the family the much wider question of
“why”. Mr.
Tim Boswell (Daventry) (Con): I am grateful for the
opportunity to follow the hon. Member for Bridgend, who obviously has
particular constituency experience. The debate to date has been
characterised by a serious tone, as one would expect, but it has also
begun to bring out two essential points in relation to
inquests.
First,
inquests have a vital role in providing closure for the family and, to
be honest about it, in certain cases they expose circumstances which
may or may not give rise to subsequent private legal action. But that
is not the only motive, by any means. Secondly, as the hon. Lady has
just said, the coroner’s inquest and subsequent report may bring
out public interest aspects of the case. Anyone who has ever been
involved in any way would desire to ensure that that set of
circumstances is, if possible, avoided and not replicated, and that
lessons are learned for the future—we all approach this matter
with that point in mind. I have signed new clause 9, which was tabled
and elegantly discussed by my hon. Friend the Member for North-West
Norfolk, in relation to deaths occurring abroad, which I will primarily
discuss. It
is right to treat new clause 9 as a probing amendment, and we look
forward to the Minister’s response. As I read it, which is
imperfectly as a lay person, the issue is not really rehearsed in the
Bill in the way in which it was in the draft Bill. There appears to be
an interesting disagreement of interpretation. The Library research
paper implies that the thinking in the draft Bill, which would have
limited inquests carried out abroad, has been dropped in favour of more
or less leaving the
status quo. I accept, if only by faith, that there will still be
provision for inquests in relation to deaths abroad, but I wait for the
Minister’s assurance to confirm that. For the reasons that I
have given and wish to give, that is very important, and perhaps the
Minister will explain the thinking on that
point. I
know—again, the Library research paper refers to
this—that there are some doubts. Without making use of an
international provision—I think that there is no Hague
convention in this area—no British court or coroner could draw
on or compel foreign authorities to provide or carry out essential
procedures, such as post mortems, in a consistent way or, if the event
has occurred within British jurisdiction, according to their wishes.
There is a need to clarify the powers and circumstances under which a
coroner may proceed in relation to a death abroad. In new clause 9, we
provide that on return to a coroner’s area, the senior coroner
will conduct—indeed, must conduct—an investigation, if
appropriate, under the Coroners Act 1988. In effect, that will bring
the matter into British jurisdiction. New clause 9(3) addresses a
situation where there is no body, or where the body has been disposed
of before return to the jurisdiction, and subsequently, the
family’s right to apply for an inquest. There is a separate
provision in relation to consular
authorities. Perhaps
I can speak in general terms about that matter. As I understand the
thinking in relation to the draft Coroners Bill, one of the problems
identified by the Ministry of Justice is that one cannot compel the
giving of evidence. The suggestion is that the chief coroner would in
effect, stand in and act as the internationally representative
authority and would request his opposite number in another jurisdiction
to provide the information—ideally, the information would be
provided in a reasonably coherent and standardised form. That role is
terribly important, because otherwise the nature of an
inquest—even if carried out in the UK into a death occurring
abroad—may be somewhat impaired and more difficult to conclude.
I modestly suggested that point to my hon. Friend the Member for
North-West Norfolk for his new clause. In terms of the thinking behind
the charter for the bereaved and in the interests of the families
involved, we should take a very close look at the ability of the
consular service to advise family members as to their rights and
responsibilities, if a death occurs
abroad. In
conclusion, I would like to say a word from my own experience. Our
constituents often feel—they sometimes write to us rather
bitterly about this—that as Members of Parliament, we do not
know anything about difficulties. If we have been MPs for any length of
time, we know a great deal about the difficulties faced by our
constituents, and, how ever sad they are for the individuals, they are
invaluable in bringing up cases and problems. It just so happens that
in this particular case—it is now half a lifetime ago, since I
refer to events in March and April 1974—I have some personal
experience of a death abroad involving a close member of my own family.
To compound matters, the particular accident leading to subsequent
death took place on a British-registered ship in United States
territorial waters—the lawyers in Committee may wish to reflect
on the particular interaction and conflict of laws and subsequent
private litigation on the matter. But I do not intend to indulge myself
or reveal any further details.
I make no
criticism of the consular authorities, who were aware of the accident
and subsequently notified of the death. A British death certificate was
issued, as well as an American death certificate. Lessons could be
learned from the handling of that case. We ended up with a situation
where the US authorities conducted—without our
involvement—what might be called a peremptory inquest into the
circumstances of death. However, no substantive investigation of the
facts took place either there or in the United Kingdom, other than what
we were able to obtain through legal
process. It
was suggested at the time that we might be able to ask for an inquest
in the UK, but I never saw any specification in writing. We did not
proceed with that, and I wish to say no more about it. But what I do
want to say, informed by my experience of those many years
ago—it is in the past, and I do not wish to go back to
it—is that even relatively sophisticated people are very
vulnerable in such circumstances, where they may find themselves in a
forest of jurisdiction. It is self-evident that in a highly developed
country with good medical and legal services, the same working language
as ours and broadly the same legal system, it was easier to deal with
the situation than it must have been in the case referred to by my hon.
Friend the Member for North-West Norfolk, which involved a road
accident in India with different languages and different public
expectations. It
is important that we should be able, so far as we can, to offer the
same kinds of services to bereaved families through the consular
service and the activities of the chief coroner. We should seek an
exchange of information in order to investigate such circumstances,
where it is appropriate, not to a higher standard, but ideally to the
same standard or to a broadly equivalent standard. That is important
not only for the families—I have mentioned that the event
actually took place on a United Kingdom-registered ship, and there were
issues of potential liability and so forth—but so that lessons
of failure or success can be learned for the future. As I have said, I
do not want to pursue that point, but I think that it is
valuable—it has certainly been valuable for me to at least get
that off my chest. Nearly all bereaved families who have an interest in
this Bill would say that whatever happened can actually serve to
advance a better understanding of the circumstances and better practice
for the future. That, frankly, is what we would all wish to
see.
|
| |
| ©Parliamentary copyright 2009 | Prepared 11 February 2009 |