The
Chairman: Order. Before we go any further, there is
nothing to withdraw because these new clauses have not yet been moved.
If, and when, we reach them in the
appropriate place in the Bill, the hon. Gentleman may wish to move them
formally. We are debating whether clause 20 will stand part of the
Bill.
Bridget
Prentice: My apologies, Mr. Gale. I have
forgotten that there were new clauses—I have been concentrating
on clause
20. 6.15
pm
Mr.
Bellingham: I can see the Minister’s point about
new clause 33, that there may well be a number of technical issues
around that. But I am still convinced that it would not be difficult to
re-insert the principle of establishing a national coroner for treasure
into the Bill. The Minister has said that she will look at the costs. I
hope that she will come back to me as a matter of urgency, because it
is my intention to press new clause 1 to a vote at the appropriate
stage—if we win that, then we will also have to vote on the
other 16 new clauses. Maybe the Minister can prevent that from
happening and come up with costs that will run in tandem with those
that the British Museum have proposed. Then we can all be happy and
re-insert the proposals, which are excellent, into the
Bill.
The
Chairman: I have noted that the hon. Gentleman wishes to
move new clause 1 formally, and that will be conveyed to Mr.
Cook, should he be in the chair when the Committee reaches that point
in the
deliberations. Question
put and agreed
to. Clause
20 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause
21 ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Schedule
2Coroner
areas
Jenny
Willott: I beg to move amendment 119, in
schedule 2, page 121, line 11, at
end insert— ‘(2A) Each
coroner area is to have the same boundaries as each medical examiner
area.’.
The
Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss
amendment 126, in
schedule 2, page 121, line 26, at
end insert— ‘(aa) whichever
local authorities are affected by the proposed
alterations,’.
Jenny
Willott: I shall be brief on this. The two amendments,
which are slightly on different issues, are both simple. Amendment 119
is linked to the previous discussion that we had earlier today on
ensuring the full co-operation and co-ordinated working between medical
examiners and senior coroners. It would make it clear that the medical
examiner areas would have the same boundaries as each coroner area. If
the boundaries were not the same, it would be more difficult for the
medical examiners to co-ordinate their work fully with coroners, and
for coroners to be clear as to who it is that they should apply to.
[Interruption.]
The
Chairman: Order. I should like to hear the hon.
Lady.
Jenny
Willott: It would make it more difficult if there were a
number of different medical examiners who a coroner would be liaising
with on a regular basis. Amendment 126, which I have also tabled,
relates to the situation when the boundaries of coroner areas are
changed. The wording of the Bill suggests that currently, the Lord
Chancellor must consult the local authorities that he deems
appropriate. I am sure that that is the intention, but since it is not
clear in the Bill, my amendment clarifies that he must consult the
local authorities that are affected by the boundary change. Usually, I
would have expected that the Lord Chancellor would do that
automatically, but it is not clear in the Bill that that is the
requirement. Given that coroner areas are often across different local
authority areas, and that any changes could affect multiple local
authorities both before and after the change, it seems sensible that it
is a requirement that all of those affected should be consulted.
Otherwise, it would all be too easy for somebody to be missed out and
not
noticed. Alun
Michael (Cardiff, South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op): I have a
couple a points that fit, but not quite in the current
context—they are more related to a stand part debate. I was
wondering whether you, Mr. Gale, intend to have a stand part
debate on the schedule, or whether it would be helpful if I made those
remarks and sought the Minister’s response
now.
The
Chairman: I am perfectly relaxed about the position. If
the right hon. Gentleman would like to treat this as a stand part
debate, that is fine by
me.
Alun
Michael: I am exploring the thinking behind the position
in the Bill, which is the continued situation of the location of
coroners’ requirements in local government. I tabled an
amendment, which is currently starred, that suggests that the Secretary
of State become the relevant authority for each coroner area. The
reason is that there is an anomaly that the coroner service is the only
judicial service that remains in local government. That leads to a
peculiarity in a number of ways because the coroner service and the
work of a coroner is judicial in its nature. We will have a situation
where local authorities or local police authorities are responsible for
the funding and delivering of the service, but have little or no
control over costs. National standards will be established and
monitored by the chief coroner, and coroners can be removed from office
only by the Lord Chancellor. There is a rather odd mixture of local and
non-local issues. That fits with the concerns expressed about new
clause 19 in an earlier debate regarding situations where there are no
unusual circumstances concerning either a particular event or some of
the pressures that have arisen from service personnel and so
on.
There is
always a tension between local and national matters. It has been
suggested, for example, that had there been a different deployment of
Ministers in the 1940s, we might have ended up with a national
education service and a local health service, and there is a tension in
both of those between national and local issues. There seem to be
anomalies in this matter, and concerns have been expressed by people in
local government. That reflects the views expressed by the Justice
Committee—of which I am a member—which stated that it is
difficult to see how a chief coroner could
function effectively as a force for standardisation without it being
part of a national service. With the reforms, we see councils playing
for offices, court accommodation, the training of coroners and staff
and a new appeal system. All that is sensible. Most coroners do not
have dedicated courts under the present legislation, and there will be
pressure to provide those in a reformed system. We are looking for
improvements, as is the Minister. The new chief coroner will implement
changes that will impact directly on the management of the service by
councils and the police, including the transfer of cases between
coroners. We have heard about those issues during the course of
today’s debate. The purpose of that is to avoid backlogs and
delays and that is a positive outcome. My concern is
to understand the thinking behind the retention of the local nature of
part of the coroner service, when a national focus is given to the
standards and oversight. Is this a halfway house? Have we thought about
what will happen in the future? Will the Minister set out her case and
comment on the observations made by the Justice Committee about the
Bill and about the way that we as a Committee consider that the coroner
service could be improved by moving towards a consistent service across
the country?
Bridget
Prentice: I will start by responding to the comments made
by the hon. Lady, and then I will comment on what my right hon. Friend
has said.
I say to the
hon. Lady that the amendments are both impractical and unnecessary.
Amendment 119 is impractical because coroners areas are based on local
authority areas. Medical examining areas will be dictated by the
boundaries of primary care trusts and local health boards, and those
are not coterminous. Primary care trusts are accountable to their local
communities and to the Secretary of State through the strategic health
authorities. In 2005 the Department of Health set out proposals for
reconfiguring strategic health authorities and primary care trusts.
Although it sought to strengthen relationships between health care and
local authorities by bringing the boundaries closer together, it also
made it clear that there is no single blueprint for the future shape of
PCTs and SHAs. The most important thing is to secure high-quality safe
health care services. Therefore, the Department of Health feels that
one size cannot fit all and make every boundary exactly the
same.
Jenny
Willott: I would like some clarification. The coroner
areas are not one local authority area, so local authorities already
have to coordinate to ensure that funding is made available to provide
a coroner service across those areas. For example, the area that I
represent has five constituencies and two local authorities within one
coroner area. In Wales, after the reorganisation, there will still be a
link between local authority areas and the health boards. In England,
there may not be one PCT for one local authority area but the
boundaries are pretty much the same. Given that coroner areas are
already linking, why can the same not be done for
MEs?
Bridget
Prentice: In a sense I agree that they can
link—that is the whole point—but they do not have to be
coterminous. It is impractical to try to make each coroner area match a
primary care trust area. One can look at it the other way round and say
that coroners are
appointed and funded by local authorities, whereas the coroner area
usually comprises more than one local authority
area. Although
coroners and medical examiners will be independent of each other, they
will work closely together, as the hon. Lady pointed out. In fact,
there will often be several medical examiners serving a particular
coroner. The other thing that I should say, which has not come out in
debate already, is that while coroners will be predominantly full
time—certainly in the future will be full time—most
medical examiners will almost always be part time.
Amendment 126
is unnecessary because, if the hon. Lady looks at paragraph 2, schedule
2, the Lord Chancellor, when altering a coroner’s area, before
making an order under that paragraph, must consult
“(a) whichever
local authorities the Lord Chancellor thinks
appropriate, (b)
in the case of a coroner area in Wales, the Welsh Ministers,
and other
people that he thinks appropriate. Therefore, when changing coroner
area boundaries, he will be consulting the local authorities affected
by that change, and that will automatically include those affected by
the change, whether they are increasing or decreasing the boundary, so
the amendment is
unnecessary. I
turn now to my right hon. Friend’s point about the relationship
between local and national. National organisations are not always
appropriate for all services, and it might not be as cost-effective a
solution as the current system’s problems need. The reformed
system will have the best features of the national structure, by being
headed by a chief coroner, complementing the best features of the local
structure and local delivery. I do not think it is appropriate to
create a new and unnecessary bureaucracy.
In
consultation there was considerable argument for keeping the coronial
system local, although people appreciated having the direction and
leadership of a chief coroner at a national level. That chief coroner
will set and monitor the compliance standards. The charter for the
bereaved will contain rules and regulations and there will be an
independent inspection system and an appeals system for the first
time.
Alun
Michael: I will be brief because I do not want to extend
the discussion, but it is possible to have a local service as provided
by the probation service, for example, without it being a local
authority service. I accept that there has to be a local service, but
that does not mean that it needs to continue being a local authority
service.
Bridget
Prentice: My right hon. Friend has made a perfectly valid
point. It does not have to be a local authority service, but we did at
least two consultations on this policy and local provision was what
people wanted. That certainly was the view among many of the bereaved
families and organisations that we
met.
For that reason, I ask
him to accept that it will be a new service with national leadership
but all the benefits of a local provision, with a community aspect that
the bereaved families that we are putting at the heart of the Bill, as
we said earlier, will be able to understand, appreciate and benefit
from.
6.30
pm
Jenny
Willott: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the
amendment. Amendment,
by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 2
agreed to.
Clause
22Appointment
etc of senior coroners, area coroners and assistant
coroners Question
proposed, That the clause stand part of the
Bill.
Dr.
Iddon: I have two simple questions for my hon. Friend the
Minister, the first of which concerns the employment rights of
coroners. For 10 years I campaigned to change the status of
registration officers. They were statutory officers, which meant that
they had no formal employer and no formal right to go through any
employment legislation, including employment tribunals, if they were
considered to be unfairly dismissed.
During many
debates in which I tried to convert registration officers so that they
would be covered under employment laws—that came about in the
Statistics and Registration Service Act 2007—I learned that
coroners were almost certainly statutory officers as well. Are they
statutory officers? As such, do they have any rights under the various
employment Acts? My second question concerns indemnity for coroners
when, for example, their verdicts are challenged by a judicial review.
Are they indemnified?
Bridget
Prentice: To answer my hon. Friend’s first
question, coroners are office-holders and are judicially independent.
We cannot recall an example of one ever having been dismissed, which
might open another debate that we will not go into at the moment. They
may have rights to compensation under article 1 of the ECHR, but that
has never been tested. That is as much as I can advise him on that
issue. On the issue of indemnity against judicial review, yes, they
will have indemnity. That will be covered in the regulations made under
clause
6. Question
put and agreed to.
Clause 22
accordingly ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
The
Chairman: Before we embark on schedule 3, which has a lot
of amendments, we had better do a little housekeeping. I understand
that there is likely to be a Division in the House at about 7.20.
Unless somebody leaps to their feet and moves the adjournment, I
propose to sit until then and suspend the sitting until 8.30. That will
give hon. Members time to vote and eat, quickly; it will not allow for
a luxurious dinner. If anybody changes their mind, I would like to
know, as I need to let the Officers of the House
know.
| 
