This amendment, which stands in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Hunt of Wirral, would insert a new subsection into Clause 3 after subsection (1). Clause 3(1) states: ""The Chief Coroner may direct a senior coroner (coroner A) to conduct an investigation under this Part into a person’s death even though, apart from the direction, a different senior coroner (coroner B) would be under a duty to conduct it"."
Under that provision, in a separate subsection, our amendment would add that, ""the Chief Coroner must take into consideration the resources available to coroner A"."
The amendment returns to a topic that we debated fully in Committee, where my noble friend Lord Kingsland made it clear that he expected the Government to think about it over the summer. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Bach, indicated that he would do so. There is not much that divides the parties on this. The Government seem to accept the principle that the availability of resources is indeed a consideration that must be taken into account, which is entirely reasonable.
There will be situations which arise that place a great strain on one coronial area, and we agree that it should be possible for that strain to be shared. The Government, in turn, agree that coroner A—as he is referred to in the Bill—who is there to help ease the strain, must not himself be swamped by a new workload. In Committee, the Government resisted our amendment. If we are convinced that the concern has been sufficiently addressed through other means then we will not necessarily insist that this wording be included in the Bill. However, we need to hear what the Government will do to ensure protection for coroner A.
On that occasion my noble friend made it clear that, ""This has got nothing … to do with increasing resources"—"
we have all been made very much aware of the need not to impose extra costs on the budget— ""either centrally or locally. It has simply got to do with the functioning of Clause 3.""Clause 3 can only function—the directions can only sensibly be made—if they are made to people who are in a position to carry them out. The responsibility for making that assessment is the responsibility of the Chief Coroner. Inevitably, that assessment will have to include the terms of my amendment".—[Official Report, 9/6/09; col. 583-84.]"
That seems to be a matter of common sense. However, if the Government feel that this can be better set out in regulations or by some other means, I am sure the Minister will welcome this opportunity to explain what concrete proposals they have to ensure that existing coronial resources are used as equitably as possible. I beg to move.
Coroners and Justice Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Lord Henley
(Conservative)
in the House of Lords on Wednesday, 21 October 2009.
It occurred during Debate on bills on Coroners and Justice Bill.
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
713 c716-7 
Session
2008-09
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
Subjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2024-04-21 13:27:52 +0100
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_586670
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_586670
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_586670