Coroners and Justice Bill

I rise with considerable trepidation to speak to my two amendments in this group, in view of the characteristically remarkable expertise exhibited by all noble Lords in this debate. Moreover, I claim absolutely no originality whatever for them. I owe them entirely to the work of Dr Brian Iddon in another place, who spoke to them in Committee. Both amendments are connected to the circumstances in which it is appropriate to substitute a non-invasive method of determining the cause of death and, in particular, the MRI scan. There are circumstances in which families would prefer an MRI scan to an invasive form of post-mortem. Of course, it is important to determine that such a scan would be appropriate and conclusive before permission for it is given by the authorities. Dr Iddon has noticed that, if you add what is in the Bill to what is in the Explanatory Notes, the Government appear—quite properly, I think—to have given some very powerful support to this method of post-mortem examination. I refer particularly to paragraphs 148 and 150 in the Explanatory Notes. For that reason we have tabled an amendment to Clause 16(3)(a), which reads: ""For the purposes of subsection (1)"," which concerns the power of a senior coroner to select a suitable practitioner to conduct a post-mortem examination, ""a person is a suitable medical practitioner if he or she— (a) is a registered medical practitioner"." Our amendment would add, "including a radiologist". The effect of this would be to make it clear that radiologists would be recognised as appropriate persons to carry out post-mortem examinations. As I have said, this is stated in paragraph 150 of the Explanatory Notes, which reads: ""Subsection (3) defines a suitable practitioner as either a registered medical practitioner or where a particular form of examination is required, such as an MRI Scan, a practitioner who the Chief Coroner has designated is suitable to carry out such examinations"." In other words, what is sought here is the incorporation into the Bill only of what is in the Explanatory Notes. A similar situation applies to the amendment that we have tabled to the interpretation section, Clause 39. Here, we seek to insert between the definition of "person" and the definition of "prosecution authority" the expression, ""‘post mortem examination’ includes both invasive and non-invasive examination"." This would make it absolutely clear that non-invasive examination is accepted as an appropriate examination in appropriate circumstances.