Coroners and Justice Bill

I apologise for bringing this amendment forward so late in the proceedings but, I suspect like other noble Lords, I have been very concerned about the general content and tone of this Bill which seemed rather more to be a sort of patch-up rather than a new or more inspired coverage of the coroner system, bearing in mind the fact that it is 130 years since the system as a whole was last renewed. When the Ministry of Justice issued its coroner briefing system note in January this year, it said that the Government were committed to improving the system and reforms would introduce national leadership to ensure greater consistency between areas. Paragraph 15 of the Explanatory Notes states: ""The purpose of the Bill is to establish more effective, transparent and responsive justice and coroner services for victims, witnesses, bereaved families and the wider public"." The reference to "effective, transparent and responsive" caused me some concern. Looking at the history, the post-Shipman inquiries initiated by the Home Office in 2004 have already been mentioned. At that time, the Home Office brought forward proposals to create a new unified coroner and death certificate agency, which would work out of local offices but be centrally financed and managed. It would replace local authorities in the appointment and support of coroners. It appeared at that time that the Home Office was aiming at something more centralised. However, between 2004 and 2006, responsibility passed to the Ministry of Justice, where a rethink was carried out and, instead of the centrally-financed agency envisaged by the Home Office, it stated that coroners would continue to be appointed and supported by local authorities. This prompted a sharply critical report from the Constitutional Affairs Committee, particularly on the Government’s retreat from the centralised agency. This led to another rethink and to this Bill, which is really a hybrid because, if you like, it establishes a national service with local delivery. It will provide for a new national leadership but local authorities will still appoint and support coroners. I have wondered about this because, frankly, a hybrid never works as well as something which is centrally directed and run. My next port of call was to look at the rather inadequate impact statement which came with the Bill. In that there were four options, two of which were dismissed. Option three, which is the one we have before us—the enhanced service locally based—lists a summary of savings and benefits, including greater rights for bereaved people, improvements in case handling, more effective handling of cross-district major emergencies and greater accountability through inspection arrangements. There is nothing very significant in that. However, option four—the unified national service— includes all those savings and benefits and adds effective introduction and enforcement of good practice, common standards for the public, a charter for bereaved people and a complaints/appeals process, leadership and public accountability; it would enable comprehensive co-ordinated forward planning, resource management and efficiency savings; it would provide a single career structure for coroners and staff and allow for management of personnel; there would be a single system of medical expertise to support the service; and it would allow streamlining and modernising of investigations and inquests for greater efficiency and with more focus on bereaved people. In other words, the Government acknowledged that a unified national service actually met all the aims they were trying to achieve and which, I suggest, was far better than anything else that had been suggested before. Along with a number of other people I wondered how I could suggest when we were considering the Bill that we should not accept option three just because it is the recommended option but should look seriously at option four because we are considering, for the first time for 130 years, the reform of something fundamental. I was very interested to find that among my supporters was the Local Government Association, which believes that the coroner service should be a national service under the control of the Ministry of Justice; that councils should not be expected to manage a service where the national standards are established and monitored by the Chief Coroner; where coroners can be removed from office only by the Lord Chancellor; and where they have no control over costs. If the Local Government Association, representing those people who are meant to be supporting and accommodating the service, is uneasy, we ought at least to raise this matter during the debate rather than let it go by default. I also found that Mr Tom Luce, who was responsible for the first inquiry initiated by the Home Office, says that he was one of those who would have preferred a new, centralised structure as the best solution—or, at least, that support of the coroners service should have been transferred to the Courts Service, which already exists. The service would then be completely independent of the public service’s responsibility for the facilities in which deaths occur, while a national agency or other centralised arrangement should be able to equalise standards and practices between different areas. If the coroners service was transferred to the Courts Service, it would be under the aegis of the Lord Chancellor or of the Secretary of State for Justice. I then looked at the Bill again, to see whether in fact such a service would be directed by the Lord Chancellor, and provision for that is already effectively made. Clause 22, with Schedule 2, allows, ""England and Wales to be divided into coroner areas and gives the Lord Chancellor the power to set and alter the boundaries of these areas … after consultation with the relevant local authorities"," while Part 4 of Schedule 3, ""makes provision for the relevant authority for the area to pay salaries to senior coroners … The amount of these … fees is for the … coroner and the relevant authority to agree. If they fail to reach an agreement the matter can be referred to the Lord Chancellor"." Her Majesty’s court inspections are carried out by an agency that reports to the Lord Chancellor, so everything is already in place for what would seem a logical outcome with better impact, without having to go too far. However, one has to consider the coroners themselves. I consulted one senior coroner who had always felt that coroners were in a difficult and hybrid position, because they were not part of the court system as a whole. He also commented that, unlike the remainder of the court service, coroners do not get a pension until they have been coroners for 40 years, which makes life pretty difficult for somebody who is appointed one at age 50. He also pointed out that, currently, being funded by local authorities meant a postcode lottery—because some authorities were less supportive than others—and that different coroners being paid different salaries by different local authorities was thoroughly unsatisfactory. Like other coroners, he is concerned about the clout that the Chief Coroner would have without funding. Finally—and this was the most important part of all—he mentioned the fact that were they part of the Courts Service, they would have access to all of its facilities, the courts and other support. That would be a major factor in reducing delay, which is one of the prime objects of the Bill. Of course, it is not surprising that the Government have shied away from something which has the centralisation of responsibility and is financing a system that probably requires more cost, certainly to the Courts Service. Neither is it surprising that there will be those in the court system—the judicial system, and others—who are concerned that that system is already under strain, and therefore not in a position to provide resources to the coroners to help them in their task. However, my purpose in tabling this amendment now is because in a Bill of such magnitude, it is unfortunate that the one issue being ducked is whether, rather than a hybrid being presented as the answer, and with all the problems associated with that, the House should not have considered the other option; that is, of going for what is clearly the best solution in efficiency of outcome. While being absolutely open and clear that there are limitations to this, which must be borne in mind, it is therefore probably not the right time to press this any further than a discussion, with the suggestion that, perhaps having also discussed the matter with the Ministers, we might reconsider the matter at Third Reading. I beg to move.