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

Clause 4 is fairly straightforward, because it relates to the discontinuation of an investigation when the cause of death is revealed by a post-mortem.  It would be helpful if the Minister could elaborate a bit on the clause, and perhaps give us some examples that we can have a look at.

Perhaps it is my lack of in-depth reading of the clause, but I am not 100 per cent. clear about whether there will be an appeal procedure in this particular case. The family may well feel unhappy about the outcome and that, despite what has come out of a post-mortem, questions still need to be asked and lessons learned for the future. They may be very keen to still have a full inquest. I do not see anything in the clause that gives immediate rise to the opportunity for an appeal, if the family feel strongly about it. Of course, they could write to the chief coroner, who could use their powers in other parts of the Bill, but would it not be easier to cover it as part of this clause?

Jennifer Willott (Cardiff Central, Liberal Democrat)

I have a quick question for the Minister about the clause. My question specifically relates to subsection (4), which calls on the coroner to provide a written explanation, if requested, of why the inquest has been discontinued. Clearly, giving an explanation is to be welcomed, but I want to ensure that, as with all Government missives, any written explanations are cleared through a plain English directive, because some Government letters are easier to understand than others. In a circumstance such as this, clearly it needs to be easy for the family to understand. I would also be grateful if the Minister were to clarify whether there will be the opportunity for the interested person to raise any questions or to get further clarification, if they do not understand all the issues highlighted by the coroner. Clearly, making people happy and ensuring that their fears and concerns have been laid to rest is important.

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

I hope that I can give the hon. Lady that assurance. I am a great campaigner for plain English in all Government documents. I have not been successful on many occasions, but split infinitives and aberrant apostrophes are included in my campaign for making sure that people get the information that they need. Of course, people can return to the coroner and ask for further information. I know that many coroners often invite families to see them and talk through the situation, which is often much better than receiving something in writing.

An awful lot of deaths are referred to the coroner because the cause of death is unknown, but then a post-mortem reveals natural causes and that there is a perfectly natural explanation. If that happens, there really is no need for the coroner to investigate the death further. Sometimes, investigating a death further can cause additional stress and concern to bereaved families. That is the reason why this clause is set out as it is, but one has to be sure that it is only the appropriate cases that are discontinued. If it is suspected that the death was violent or unnatural, or if it occurred in custody or in other forms of detention, those cases must progress to an inquest.

Finally, on the point made by the hon. Member for North-West Norfolk, clause 30(2)(b) provides an appeal system for families, if an inquest has been discontinued.