Coroners and Justice Bill

I do not have that figure. The noble Lord is arguing for the necessary extension, and I am saying that his amendment leaves open the interpretation that if there is an element of public safety or public concern, that might necessitate the coroner deciding that a jury would be necessary. I do not think that that is a basis on which we can proceed. Leaving aside the additional resources that would be required if this criterion came into play, alternative measures are being put in place substantially to improve the public protection role of coroners. That would surely be more effective than saying we need a jury in such circumstances. We are concerned to improve the role of coroners in public protection, but that is different from accepting an amendment that has significant resource implications. The Committee will be aware of changes made last July to Rule 43 of the Coroners’ Rules 1984, which gave enhanced priority to coroners’ reports relating to the prevention of future deaths. Early indications are that these rule changes have already made a positive difference to the coroner’s public protection role. My right honourable friend the Lord Chancellor will shortly be publishing a summary of those reports and the responses to them. These provisions will be further enhanced under measures being brought forward at paragraph 6 of Schedule 4 to the Bill. I believe the Government’s position is preferable. It is to enhance the public protection role of coroners by giving greater prominence to their reports to prevent future deaths, rather than insisting that they hold such inquests with a jury, which is the concept behind the amendment. I accept the motives behind it, which the Government share. Coroners have a role in improving the quality of public perception. In circumstances such as these, bereaved families want to feel that lessons have been learnt if the death occurred in circumstances where public policy could be improved. We will provide for that through coroners’ reports. Amendment 18 was spoken to by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig, who was strongly supported by the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss. The Committee will be aware that for the most part coroners sit alone when considering deaths of military personnel on active service. I do not think it can be contended that that has stopped coroners successfully investigating all such deaths with a commendable degree of vigour, thoroughness and independence or, on occasion, passing judgments and making comments critical of the Government. I do not think the system can be criticised in that respect. There is no reason to believe that coroners do not or will not deal with the deaths of military personnel undertaking training or under the age of 18 with any less rigour. There is no reason to presume that coroners will do anything other than approach such deaths with the same degree of responsibility and the features that I have outlined as they already do for other military deaths. The Bill already contains provisions giving coroners discretion to summon a jury if they feel that there is sufficient reason for doing so, even if the death concerned does not fall into the categories mentioned in subsection (2). There is also the right of appeal to the Chief Coroner, if the family feels that the coroner should exercise his or her discretion differently. I consider that the anxieties that have been expressed in these amendments have been covered by the Government’s approach, and that noble Lords should have confidence in the position outlined in the Bill. I would also suggest that the issue of whether juries should be summoned in certain types of cases that involve the deaths of military personnel, particularly those of a young age, is one that the Chief Coroner may wish to address in any guidance that he or she may issue. The Chief Coroner will be aware of anxieties and public disquiet on this score, and of course this debate today is evidence of concern in that area. We would expect that the Chief Coroner would address such an issue in guidance that was given. On the first amendment, ably moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Murphy—Amendment 15—I contend that there is no useful purpose in maintaining the status quo in relation to prison deaths and requiring that all deaths in prison, of whatever cause or origin, should be investigated by way of an inquest held with a jury. If there is a reason to suspect that the death was for a violent, unnatural, or unknown cause, the coroner will be obliged to hold an inquest with a jury. I do not see any need for a jury inquest where the death occurred of wholly natural causes in wholly non-suspicious circumstances. I do not see the need for a jury inquest for the death from wholly natural causes, for instance, in a prison hospital, when a similar death in a general hospital would not even warrant an investigation at all. I accept that there would be an inquest into a death in a prison hospital—and the coroner may feel the need to call a jury in such a case—because of concerns about the level of care that might emerge from investigations. That certainly would occasion an aspect of public policy concern and we would recognise the importance of that. If that did arise, the discretionary powers in Clause 7(3) mean that of course the coroner could indeed summon a jury. Finally, on Amendments 19 and 20, there is no need for there to be a jury in any but the most serious cases. These amendments would mean that in any and all cases where it may be considered that a failing on the part of the state, a public authority, or their employees, contributed to a death, there would need to be an inquest held with a jury. Having a jury in every instance where a public authority might be implicated would certainly increase the number of jury inquests by a considerable factor. The noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, quoted a particular instance where people are acting almost as surrogate agents of the state, as I understand it; not employees, but private sector individuals operating in a capacity on behalf of the state, which raises significant issues. It would not be automatic, but the coroner could certainly use his discretion to summon a jury in such a case. We would expect a coroner to have regard to the factors that the noble Lord outlined, and of course it might well be that this would condition the coroner to think that he ought to summon a jury. A jury inquest, however, in all the circumstances that have been contended by the amendments is, I maintain, unnecessary and adds little to the process. The costs and delays involved in holding jury inquests in all such circumstances would certainly be untenable. The noble Lord, Lord Henley, began by saying that he wanted the context on numbers; I have not got an estimate of what the costs of the amendments would be—in some cases they might be not great—but it is clear that in some cases a door might be open to a very great increase indeed in the number of inquests with juries and, therefore, very substantial costs. We anticipate that further guidance will be issued and provided by the Chief Coroner as to the circumstances when the coroner may use his or her discretion. We trust the coroner service, with its additional and enhanced training, and we have seen evidence of the thoroughness with which the work is done. The coroner, of course, has the capacity to summon a jury when it is considered necessary. Beyond that, we will have a Chief Coroner in place who will issue guidance and who can be appealed to, if the bereaved consider that a jury should have been summoned. On that basis, I hope that noble Lords will feel able to withdraw their amendments on the basis that we have had a pretty thorough investigation of this issue and the Government, in forming the legislation, have considered these points very thoroughly.