Public Bodies Bill [Lords] (Programme) (No. 2)

The hon. Gentleman has pre-empted another stage of my speech. Although I was not here at the time, perhaps mercifully, I know that the matter was dealt with on a cross-party basis. The right hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Paul Goggins) referred to Lady Justice Smith's report, and I want to refer to five issues that were raised in it. It found that the current system had offered inconsistent levels of service—which I think addresses the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart)—and that families and friends were insufficiently involved in coroners' investigations. It found an absence of quality controls and independent safeguards—once again, we see the word ““independent””—a lack of consistency, leadership or training, and, in some instances, an absence of medical knowledge. The report also stated that the"““coronial jurisdiction should be re-formed on modern judicial lines, as a national jurisdiction, small in size but comparable to other jurisdictions in having a Chief Coroner'””." Although it could be claimed that that report said all that needs to be said about independent leadership, the desperate need to address the issue was perhaps put as well as it could have been by the Lord Chancellor in a written ministerial statement on 14 June:"““As the functions to be transferred are limited, and the Office of Chief Coroner not filled, neither the judge nor any other individual will be responsible for the leadership, culture or behaviour of coroners.””—[Official Report, 14 June 2011; Vol. 728, c. 62WS.]" That cannot be right. The Lord Chancellor's statement implicitly acknowledged the need for judicial, and thus independent, leadership to address the culture of coroners, while simultaneously refusing to address it.