Schedule 4
Coroners and Justice Bill
7:15 pm

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

I beg to move amendment 34, in schedule 4, page 127, line 41, leave out from ‘Coroner’ to end of line 43.

Roger Gale (North Thanet, Conservative)

With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 120, in schedule 4, page 128, line 41, at end insert—

‘(7) The Secretary of State must issue a code of practice in connection with the entry and search of land and the seizure of anything on the land by a senior coroner.’.

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

Paragraph 3(1) of schedule 4 states:

“A senior coroner conducting an investigation under this Part, if authorised

in writing—

(a) by the Chief Coroner, or

(b) by another senior coroner nominated by the Chief Coroner to give authorisation,

may enter and search any land specified in the authorisation.”

My concern is simple. We believe that too many agencies have too much power to enter and search land or property. That is why we want to delete paragraph (b) and retain the powers in the hands of the chief coroner only, not other senior coroners or those nominated by the chief coroner. The measure is simple and straightforward. It will simply add safeguards for householders, landowners and other such people who might come up against a totally unscrupulous situation in which those powers are abused. I commend the amendment to the Committee.

Jennifer Willott (Cardiff Central, Liberal Democrat)

Amendment 120 relates specifically to the introduction of a code of practice relating to the entry to land. We have tabled it because it seems somewhat odd that police officers must abide by a code of practice but coroners will not need to do so.

Jennifer Willott (Cardiff Central, Liberal Democrat)

I was speaking briefly to amendment 120, which would introduce a code of practice for the entry and search of land. I would be grateful if the Minister addressed two issues. First, the police must abide by a code of practice when entering and searching. It would be helpful for coroners to have a similar code. In some areas such as health and safety, they must have detailed parameters and guidance to work within.

I am afraid that the second issue relates to railway lines and utilities, which we discussed earlier. The schedule gives the senior coroner the power to require “any other thing” to be produced or to

“seize anything that is on the land”.

I am sure it is not intended that that should include things such as railway sleepers and electrical equipment. Such things are technically on the land and could be produced or seized, so they fall within the provision. Will the Minister confirm that that is not the intention and undertake to consider the wording? There are a number of things that could be involved that were not intended to be.

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

Amendment 34 would prevent the chief coroner from nominating a senior coroner to authorise search and entry. That would fetter the coroner’s  ability to search and enter premises and to seize items. The clause was drafted as it is because time is of the essence in such circumstances. I hope that the hon. Member for North-West Norfolk will withdraw the amendment.

It is important for somebody who can grant the power to be available 24 hours a day. There will be times when the chief coroner or one of his deputies is not available. The intention is to allow the group of senior coroners to inform the chief coroner of any permission to search and enter that they grant. The amendment would mean that if the chief coroner was unavailable, the quality of evidence could be impaired severely or lost entirely. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would not wish to impede a coroner’s investigation in that way.

On amendment 120, I assure the hon. Member for Cardiff, Central that paragraph 2 of schedule 4 makes it clear that the coroner does not have the power to require anything to be provided that a person could not be required to provide to a civil court. I suspect that power lines would fall into that category. On that basis, I hope she will not press her amendment.

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

On the basis of the Minister’s comments, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

David Kidney (Stafford, Labour)

I wish to ask the Minister about the powers of the chief coroner in trying to prevent future avoidable deaths under paragraph 6 of the schedule. We had a short debate under clause 5 on what is now called the rule 43 procedure, whereby coroners raise issues with people who can do something about avoidable deaths.

During the evidence-taking sessions, we had a debate about what happens in Australia. The Samaritans stated in a memorandum that it greatly approves of the procedure there. It mentioned developments in Australia such as the national database of coronial information, a quarterly publication called Fatal Facts, and examples of coronial recommendations that are published widely. My coroner in Staffordshire, Mr. Andrew Haigh, sent me a copy of a publication by the Victorian Government called Residential Aged Care Coronial Communique, which is a subscription service for people connected to residential aged care. I was given volume 3 of issue 5, from December 2008, which is mostly about the effect of warfarin. There are three coroners’ cases about warfarin, and an expert commentary about its use as a drug for treating a number of conditions.

Those are all commendable practices from Australia. Under the current drafting of the Bill, can the chief coroner in this country decide to do that kind of public information work at a wider level, including subscription services to people who are interested? I cannot see a power in the Bill that would allow the chief coroner to do that at all, or to be paid or claim expenses for doing that. Does the Minister agree that that would be a valuable service by the chief coroner? If so, is there sufficient flexibility in the Bill for the chief coroner to have the power to do that and to have their services paid for?

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

As the Bill stands, it probably does not contain the flexibility that my hon. Friend is looking for. However, I hope that I can reassure him that we are looking at how to improve the Bill in that respect, particularly by looking at the Australian experience. There might well be something of that nature in the Bill on Report.