Public Bodies Bill [Lords]

I rise to return to an issue that has been raised—the role of the chief coroner. Like my right hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Paul Goggins), I congratulate Bridget Prentice, who steered the legislation through when she was the Minister responsible,. She did a fantastic job and deserves credit for it. The chief coroner's office was going to be created to improve national standards and to monitor compliance with what is, as we have heard, an archaic and shambolic system. It would also have introduced the role of medical examiners, who would be able to scrutinise medical certificates, and ensured, for the first time, a bespoke appeals system to save people the lengthy expense of going through judicial reviews. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East said, it is important to state how we got to this point—it was not by accident. He referred to the Luce review, which reported on death certificates and improvements in the service. He also mentioned the very important Shipman inquiry chaired by Dame Janet Smith. If we agree to what the Government propose in their amendments to take out what the Lords put into the Bill, we will go against Dame Janet Smith's recommendation, as stated on page 492 of the report:"““The body which is to provide that leadership and support must be seen to be independent of Government. In my view, it would no longer be satisfactory for the coroner service to be administered from within a Government Department.””" However, that is what is being proposed in place of the chief coroner, and that is not acceptable. The Government have changed their position. Today I looked at the Hansard report of the debate on the Second Reading of the Coroners and Justice Bill in 2009, when the current Attorney-General said:"““We agree that reform of the coroners' system is long overdue.””—[Official Report, 26 January 2009; Vol. 487, c. 46.]" The hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (James Brokenshire), who was then the Member for Hornchurch, said:"““We all welcome the establishment of the chief coroner””" and"““the modernisation of the coroner's powers of…investigation””.—[Official Report, 26 January 2009; Vol. 487, c. 111.]" He said that that was well overdue. In his winding-up speech, the hon. Member for North West Norfolk (Mr Bellingham) said:"““Reform is, therefore, long overdue…I welcome the creation of the posts of chief coroner and deputy chief coroner.””—[Official Report, 26 January 2009; Vol. 487, c. 117.]" So what has changed since? The Minister, in opening the debate, said that it was all about money. If it is, then the Government need first to provide the costs of setting up and running the chief coroner's office. They seem to miss the point regarding taking these functions in-house when they say that no cost is involved in that process at all. That is clearly not the case. The figures that have been suggested include about £1 million a year as a contingency for what, we do not know. The only thing that has changed is the fact that the Government are using this argument about cost. If they are going to make the big mistake of deleting the post of chief coroner, they will have to justify every single penny of costs, and the civil servants in the Ministry of Justice will have to justify every single thing they do in terms of costs. Clearly, we will not get what Dame Janet wanted, and what the Conservative Government and the Liberal Democrats in the previous Parliament wanted, which is an improvement in the coroner service. That is an opportunity missed. We will still be stuck with the system that we have had for many centuries, which is not only not fit for purpose but outdated and bureaucratic. It also leads to delays in the hearing of coroners inquests, which is unacceptable. The Royal British Legion has stated that it does not support this reform and it argues strongly for the role of chief coroner. It is also important to record that the organisation, Cardiac Risk in the Young—I chair an all-party group on the issue—is vociferous in arguing that what is needed to improve the coroners service and the inquest service for the families of young people who die of sudden cardiac arrest is the role of the chief coroner. We need to improve the system and stop the untimely delays for those who die in action serving this country. It is all right for the Government to say that they support the covenant; that needs to be supported in practice by establishing the role of the chief coroner. I agree totally with my right hon. Friend the Member for Coventry North East (Mr Ainsworth) that the Government will be forced to back down on this issue. I suggest that they do it sooner rather than later. In closing, although I do not usually agree with Viscount Slim, he summed up the issue well in the Lords last week in the debate on the Armed Forces Bill, when he said that the deletion of the position of chief coroner is"““mean, short-sighted and rather stupid.””—[Official Report, House of Lords, 6 July 2011; Vol. 729, c. 299.]"