Clause 2

11:15 am

Henry Bellingham (Shadow Minister, Justice; North West Norfolk, Conservative)

Clause 2 is similar to section 14 of the Coroners Act 1988, which allows a coroner in one district to ask a coroner from another district to assume jurisdiction over an investigation—in effect, to take over. One of the discussions that has been going on relates to the costs of transferring inquests to another coroner area. Will the Minister tell the Committee the situation regarding costs? Will they be paid entirely by the coroner area where the inquest takes place after the transfer, or will the original coroner area pay some of those costs?

This clause is good news as far as military inquests are concerned, because we have all been concerned about the situation relating to the bodies of tragically deceased servicemen and women who have been flown into RAF Lyneham in Wiltshire and RAF Brize Norton in Oxfordshire. Military inquests have been taking place within Wiltshire and Oxfordshire and carried out by the local county coroners. They have been carried out extremely effectively, but the problem is that significant delays have built up, and that has been a concern to both the coroners in those areas and the families involved. Why can the families not—as a matter of course—elect to have the inquest in their home town? Under clause 2, according to my reading of it, families could speak to the coroner, and the coroner could decide to request that another coroner carries out the investigation. That coroner could be the coroner for the home town or city of the families involved. The inquest would therefore take place, probably as a matter of course, in either Wiltshire or Oxfordshire, but when pressures build up and delays take place, there could be an easy transfer to another city or area.

Members on both sides of the Committee will have dealt with situations in which families who have lost loved ones in either Iraq or Afghanistan have found it extremely inconvenient and difficult to get to Wiltshire or Oxfordshire. Recently, a family wrote to me to ask why an inquest could not have taken place in Norfolk; I was sympathetic to that. Does the clause make that eventuality more likely and more easily brought about, and will the Minister answer my question about costs?

Tim Boswell (Daventry, Conservative)

Briefly, may I support my hon. Friend in his queries? Two relevant cases have affected me, as it happens, because of the strange geographical situation I find myself in. I live in the extreme south-west of Northamptonshire. I sometimes have difficulty persuading my constituents that I have lived in my constituency for 40 years, which I have, because I have an Oxfordshire post code. In addition, a motorway immediately adjacent to where I live is policed not by Northamptonshire police, but, by arrangement, by Thames Valley police, because it would clearly be stupid to break up the responsibility for a two-mile stretch of somebody else’s jurisdiction. On one occasion, less than a mile from my home, a fatality took place in which a cyclist fell from the motorway down on to the road below. That created a jurisdiction issue. Subsequently, a former employee—whom we took on part time to look after livestock on my farm, which goes right down to the county boundary and crosses it at one point—was sadly afflicted, after a life of perfect health, by a sudden heart attack. We found him dead in the field, and it was difficult not only in personal terms—obviously—but in terms of sorting out the coronial jurisdiction. Everybody was helpful, but the body was removed to Northampton because the death had occurred in Northamptonshire, notwithstanding that the widow lived within two miles in Oxfordshire and all the interests were down there. Within the spirit of what the Minister seeks to do, I seek an understanding—not in those circumstances, because it is a matter of judgment—that such provision should become more frequent than it has been in the past. To stray briefly into clause 3, if there are difficulties and the coroner is stroppy and reluctant to forgo jurisdiction, the chief coroner might wish to address that matter.

If there is to be a transfer, it is terribly important that the process is cleared quickly for the families involved, so that they, and all the various authorities, know whom they are dealing with—with regard to receiving permission to dispose of the body, issuing death certificates and so forth. We do not want, as we have occasionally had from the Government—I will not stray into that now—a commitment to an administrative system that gives rise to further delay and distress. I hope that the Minister can assure us that the provision will work seamlessly and swiftly to ensure that the inquest and inquiries are carried out in the most convenient and expeditious place.

Bridget Prentice (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Ministry of Justice; Lewisham East, Labour)

Clause 2 will allow the senior coroner, who has the duty to conduct the investigation under clause 1, to ask another senior coroner to conduct such an investigation.

I want to touch briefly on military inquests, and endorse the comments of the hon. Member for North-West Norfolk about Oxfordshire and Wiltshire, which have done an outstanding job in clearing the backlog of inquests on our servicemen and women who have died in Iraq, Afghanistan or on other active service overseas. Along with the Ministry of Defence, I report regularly to the House on how those inquests are progressing.

Tim Boswell (Daventry, Conservative)

The Minister gives me the opportunity of putting on the record—if she will accept it—my thanks to her for the report she gave in a written answer on 2 February. It would be fair to say that, at least on the coronial side, the Government are beginning to get their act together. This will be a good token, and, I hope, the precursor of a constructive debate later.

Bridget Prentice (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Ministry of Justice; Lewisham East, Labour)

I appreciate the hon. Gentleman’s comments. The MOD has also moved a great deal in trying to be far more supportive and flexible in getting the information that we need for those investigations to be carried out.

I hope that I can give both hon. Gentlemen the assurances that they need. There are a number of reasons why a senior coroner might ask another coroner to take on an investigation. The most common reason will likely be that the family so wishes it. If the death occurred in one jurisdiction and the body lies there, but the family lives in an entirely different part of the country, it would be appropriate. I assume that the coroner would be perfectly entitled to ask a colleague to take on that investigation. There might be other reasons. The coroner might know the deceased person and therefore feel that it would not be appropriate to conduct the investigation. The important thing is that the coroner should come to such arrangements so that bereaved families receive the service they deserve and, as the hon. Member for Daventry asked, the inquest is conducted as quickly as possible. The clause replicates broadly section 4 of the Coroners Act 1988.

I am confident that coroners will act reasonably, accommodate requests from their colleagues and help where they are able; they do that at the moment. However, the fact that the chief coroner must be informed that a request has been made will ensure that such requests are monitored, and he will be able to see whether anyone is—or appears to be—misusing the system. Therefore, the chief coroner will be able to intervene, as under clause 3, at an early stage if there are disputes; that will be part of his leadership role.

I turn to the issue of cost. Who will pay will depend on the circumstances; generally it will be the transferring area. However, that will not apply to military inquests, where the local area will be expected to pay. In general, the policy on military deaths is that single deaths will be transferred but multiple deaths will not, for reasons that will be obvious to the Committee.

Henry Bellingham (Shadow Minister, Justice; North West Norfolk, Conservative)

I want to ask the Minister one final question about military deaths. Is it fair to say that, hitherto, families have had problems getting the inquest transferred to their home cities? If that has been the case, is the Minister confident that her good offices will have prevailed on the relevant authorities to ensure that if families now want a transfer, that will always be allowed? The Bill makes clear exactly what the procedure is.

Bridget Prentice (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Ministry of Justice; Lewisham East, Labour)

Certainly, families have had problems in getting cases transferred, because the law did not allow for it. The law states that the inquest must take place in the jurisdiction where the body is held. That is one of the difficulties in Scotland regarding military deaths of Scottish personnel. It has a ridiculous situation whereby aeroplanes must touch down at Brize Norton or Lyneham for an inquest of a Scottish serviceman or woman to be held—Scotland simply does not have a coronial system in the same way that we do. Clause 2 is therefore important.