Clause 9 - Coroners
Human Tissue Bill
4:30 pm
Mr Andrew Lansley (South Cambridgeshire, Conservative)
The amendments deal essentially with the same point. The clause relates to the coroner's powers. As we understand the position, we are not legislating to interfere with their existing practices, which is fine. Indeed, subsection (1) states:
''Nothing in this Part applies to anything done for purposes of functions of a coroner or under the authority of a coroner.''
What is done under the authority of a coroner that is not for the purposes of their functions? Why does the clause say:
''or under the authority of a coroner'',
rather than ''and under the authority of a coroner''? An action would then have to be both for the coroner's purposes and with his authority.
Amendment No. 25 relates to subsection (2)(b), which specifies that people who deal with material that should be in the hands of the coroner for the purposes of the coroner cannot act on the authority available under clause 1. However, the end of subsection (2) adds the words:
''except with the consent of the coroner.''
Like the ''or'' in subsection (1), that suggests that we are dealing with activities that go beyond the purposes of the functions of a coroner, but which coroners may authorise in lieu of consent. I am not at all sure that we intend them to act in that way. As it happens, amendment No. 26 makes the same point on requiring an activity that is no longer for the purposes of the functions of a coroner to be undertaken with appropriate or qualifying consent, depending on whether it is a scheduled purpose or DNA analysis.
The question at the heart of the amendments is, therefore, whether the Government permit activities that go beyond the functions of a coroner, on the authority of a coroner who is acting in lieu of consent. That was not our understanding of the purpose of clause 9.