Jenny
Willott: This is on similar lines to the previous group,
but from the opposite perspective, requiring the local authority to
take into account the minimum standards when providing
funding. My
concern is that the wording of the clause, as it stands, is
vague—it refers to the local authority having to “take
into account” the staff that are needed and adequate
accommodation. Clearly that is currently being interpreted extremely
widely, as very varied staffing levels and accommodation are provided.
I want to clarify that and to get the Minister’s response to the
duties that will be held by local authorities to ensure that the
provision is adequate, as it does not seem to be at the moment. She has
already commented on many of the issues when we discussed the previous
group of amendments.
Mr.
David Kidney (Stafford) (Lab): The clause imposes a
statutory duty on a local authority to provide adequate resources for
the local coroner service, but what if a local authority does not
provide adequate resources and is in breach of its duty? The Bill is
silent. I asked the Minister that question when she gave evidence on
the first day, and she thought that the ability of the chief coroner to
make an investigation and recommendations, perhaps allied to the
coroner service and the Government of the day putting that authority in
a bad light to the public, might be sufficient pressure. However, the
Government of the day might regret not having the ability to intervene
and sort out such a problem, should the time arise. My amendment 92
proposes one way in which a Government might want to intervene to make
a direction to solve the problem. I am open to the Minister saying that
that is not the right solution, but there should be a
solution.
Alun
Michael: I wonder whether I can make an allied point,
which is more of a clause stand part point, but might be helpful for
the Minister to reply to at the same time. I am looking for clarity
about who is responsible for providing the coroner service in future.
Something like 90 per cent. of coroners officers are currently employed
by police authorities rather than local authorities. It is intended
that coroners officers will continue to be employed by either police or
local authorities, with the transfer of the two subject to local
agreement, as is now the
case. The
problem is that, reading the Bill as it stands, the wording appears to
make it clear that local authorities are compelled to provide the
service, if the police do not, but I am not absolutely clear that
police authorities are obligated to carry on providing the service, if
they do so at the moment. My question is, if the Bill goes through in
its present form, police authorities that currently employ coroner
officers must continue to do so unless a transfer to local authorities
is agreed mutually. If that is not absolutely clear, will the Minister
look at it again and seek to make it explicit and clear on Report, so
that there is no
doubt? The
police can be wonderful, but they can also change their arrangements
quite quickly without looking at the impact on other authorities, which
we have seen on a number of occasions. The hon. Member for Cardiff,
Central will be aware of discussions about changes to some arrangements
in south Wales at the moment, which the police have announced without,
as far as one can see, discussing the matter with anyone. That example
does not involve coroners, but the point is the same. If there are to
be changes in the current arrangements, they ought to involve adequate
notice and agreement between the police authority and the local
authority.
I ask the
Minister to consider removing any ambiguity on Report to clarify the
Government’s intentions now. The police service already has
heavy involvement in the matter of death investigation, which is going
to continue, whereas it is not really a part of the daily business of
the local authority. I would be happy to accept a short speech from her
saying, “My right hon. Friend is right. The police authority
will not be able to opt out unilaterally from providing the coroner
service.” 7.15
pm
Bridget
Prentice: I am afraid that I cannot commend the amendments
to the Committee, because I do not
think that it would be appropriate to give the Lord Chancellor and the
chief coroner direct powers over local and police authority funding
decisions. However, the Bill will confer on the chief coroner
significant influence over such matters. We believe that his or her
powers of persuasion and negotiation, together with the opportunity to
name and shame recalcitrant local authorities, are probably a more
appropriate and proportionate response to the issue addressed by the
amendments. I am repeating what I said on the matter to my hon. Friend
the Member for Stafford.
We know, as
AndrĂ(c) Rebello made clear in his evidence, that some coroners are
very well resourced. It is also important to acknowledge that the
reforms of the death certification system are expected to lead to a
significant reduction in the number of deaths referred to the coroner.
That in itself should lead to significant savings, which can be
reinvested to deliver an improved service for bereaved
families. The
chief coroner’s powers as a result of the Bill go beyond any
that coroners currently have when negotiating with their local
authorities. In addition, the new inspection regime will examine and
comment on the use of resources. A new complaints system will give a
good indicator of the views of bereaved families and highlight trends
pointing to resource deficiencies. The package satisfies me that the
new arrangements will be sufficient to deliver proper resources to
coroners. If I am wrong, we can return to the matter, but for now, I
contend that the case for the amendment has not been made, and I ask
that it is withdrawn.
My right hon.
Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth asked about police
authorities. He is right that there must be an agreement between the
local authority and the police authority before officers are withdrawn.
If we need to strengthen that requirement and make it clearer in the
Bill, I will certainly consider it.
Amendment 261
would compel a local authority to take into account the
coroner’s view when providing not only accommodation but staff.
Again, I do not believe that that is necessary. The Bill requires a
proper provision of resources and provides a role for the chief coroner
in that. Clause 23 already places a statutory duty on local
authorities, in partnership with police authorities where relevant, to
secure the provision of whatever officers and other staff the coroner
for that area needs to carry out their function. It is therefore
implicit that the coroner will be consulted on their need for
coroner’s officers and other support staff. I therefore ask the
hon. Lady to withdraw her
amendment.
Jenny
Willott: I thank the Minister for putting on record the
fact that coroners should be consulted on staffing levels. With that, I
beg to ask leave to withdraw the
amendment. Amendment,
by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 23
ordered to stand part of the
Bill. Clause
24 ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Schedule
4Powers
of senior
coroners
Mr.
Bellingham: I beg to move amendment 34, in
schedule 4, page 127, line 41, leave
out from ‘Coroner’ to end of line
43.
The
Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss
amendment 120, in
schedule 4, page 128, line 41, at
end insert— ‘(7) The
Secretary of State must issue a code of practice in connection with the
entry and search of land and the seizure of anything on the land by a
senior
coroner.’.
Mr.
Bellingham: Paragraph 3(1) of schedule 4
states: “A
senior coroner conducting an investigation under this Part, if
authorised in
writing— (a)
by the Chief Coroner,
or (b)
by another senior coroner nominated by the Chief Coroner to give
authorisation, may
enter and search any land specified in the
authorisation.” My
concern is simple. We believe that too many agencies have too much
power to enter and search land or property. That is why we want to
delete paragraph (b) and retain the powers in the hands of the chief
coroner only, not other senior coroners or those nominated by the chief
coroner. The measure is simple and straightforward. It will simply add
safeguards for householders, landowners and other such people who might
come up against a totally unscrupulous situation in which those powers
are abused. I commend the amendment to the
Committee.
Jenny
Willott: Amendment 120 relates specifically to the
introduction of a code of practice relating to the entry to land. We
have tabled it because it seems somewhat odd that police officers must
abide by a code of practice but coroners will not need to do
so.
7.20
pm Sitting
suspended. 8.30
pm On
resuming—
Jenny
Willott: I was speaking briefly to amendment 120, which
would introduce a code of practice for the entry and search of land. I
would be grateful if the Minister addressed two issues. First, the
police must abide by a code of practice when entering and searching. It
would be helpful for coroners to have a similar code. In some areas
such as health and safety, they must have detailed parameters and
guidance to work
within. I
am afraid that the second issue relates to railway lines and utilities,
which we discussed earlier. The schedule gives the senior coroner the
power to require “any other thing” to be produced or
to “seize
anything that is on the
land”. I
am sure it is not intended that that should include things such as
railway sleepers and electrical equipment. Such things are technically
on the land and could be produced or seized, so they fall within the
provision. Will the Minister confirm that that is not the intention and
undertake to consider the wording? There are a number of things that
could be involved that were not intended to
be.
Bridget
Prentice: Amendment 34 would prevent the chief coroner
from nominating a senior coroner to authorise search and entry. That
would fetter the coroner’s
ability to search and enter premises and to seize items. The clause was
drafted as it is because time is of the essence in such circumstances.
I hope that the hon. Member for North-West Norfolk will withdraw the
amendment. It
is important for somebody who can grant the power to be available 24
hours a day. There will be times when the chief coroner or one of his
deputies is not available. The intention is to allow the group of
senior coroners to inform the chief coroner of any permission to search
and enter that they grant. The amendment would mean that if the chief
coroner was unavailable, the quality of evidence could be impaired
severely or lost entirely. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would not
wish to impede a coroner’s investigation in that
way. On
amendment 120, I assure the hon. Member for Cardiff, Central that
paragraph 2 of schedule 4 makes it clear that the coroner does not have
the power to require anything to be provided that a person could not be
required to provide to a civil court. I suspect that power lines would
fall into that category. On that basis, I hope she will not press her
amendment.
Mr.
Bellingham: On the basis of the Minister’s
comments, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the
amendment. Amendment,
by leave,
withdrawn. Question
proposed, That the schedule be the Fourth schedule to the
Bill.
Mr.
Kidney: I wish to ask the Minister about the powers of the
chief coroner in trying to prevent future avoidable deaths under
paragraph 6 of the schedule. We had a short debate under clause 5 on
what is now called the rule 43 procedure, whereby coroners raise issues
with people who can do something about avoidable
deaths. During
the evidence-taking sessions, we had a debate about what happens in
Australia. The Samaritans stated in a memorandum that it greatly
approves of the procedure there. It mentioned developments in Australia
such as the national database of coronial information, a quarterly
publication called Fatal Facts, and examples of coronial
recommendations that are published widely. My coroner in Staffordshire,
Mr. Andrew Haigh, sent me a copy of a publication by the
Victorian Government called Residential Aged
Care Coronial Communique, which is a subscription service for
people connected to residential aged care. I was given volume 3 of
issue 5, from December 2008, which is mostly about the effect of
warfarin. There are three coroners’ cases about warfarin, and an
expert commentary about its use as a drug for treating a number of
conditions.
Those are all
commendable practices from Australia. Under the current drafting of the
Bill, can the chief coroner in this country decide to do that kind of
public information work at a wider level, including subscription
services to people who are interested? I cannot see a power in the Bill
that would allow the chief coroner to do that at all, or to be paid or
claim expenses for doing that. Does the Minister agree that that would
be a valuable service by the chief coroner? If so, is there sufficient
flexibility in the Bill for the chief coroner to have the power to do
that and to have their services paid
for?
Bridget
Prentice: As the Bill stands, it probably does not contain
the flexibility that my hon. Friend is looking for. However, I hope
that I can reassure him that we are looking at how to improve the Bill
in that respect, particularly by looking at the Australian experience.
There might well be something of that nature in the Bill on
Report.
Question
put and agreed
to. Schedule
4 accordingly agreed to.
Clause 25
ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 5
agreed to.
Clause 26
ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule
6Allowances,
fees and
expenses
Jenny
Willott: I beg to move amendment 262, in
schedule 6, page 132, line 22, leave
out ‘(or on behalf of)’ and insert
‘the relevant local authority, on behalf
of’.
The
Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss the
following: amendment 263, in schedule 6, page 132,
line 25, leave out ‘(or on behalf of)’ and
insert ‘the relevant local
authority, on behalf
of’. Amendment
264, in
schedule 6, page 133, line 3, leave
out ‘(or on behalf of)’ and insert
‘the relevant local authority, on behalf
of’. Amendment
265, in
schedule 6, page 133, line 25, leave
out from ‘coroners’ to end of line
26.
| 
