Roger Gale (North Thanet, Conservative)

With this it will be convenient to consider new clause 8—Transfer of the office of coroner of the Queen’s household—

‘The office of coroner of the Queen’s household will, at the retirement of the present incumbent, be transferred to the Chief Coroner.’.

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

Clause 35 abolishes the office of coroner of the Queen’s household. The current holder of that office is Michael Burgess, who is also HM coroner for Surrey. We discussed earlier the great historic nature of the traditional post of coroner. The post of coroner to the King or Queen’s household is also an ancient one and I have worked out that it dates back to William I. It would be a great pity if it were abolished without good reason. Was this measure recommended in the June 2003 Luce report? What sort of discussions have take place between the Ministry of Justice and the Palace, at the time of that report and subsequently? I am well aware that there have been issues more recently, particularly relating to the summoning of a suitable jury in the inquest of the late Diana Princess of Wales. That obviously posed challenges. I suppose it could be argued that the exclusive nature of the office is difficult  to integrate with the new national framework that is being put in place, and I understand why the Government may be keen to look at how the office has been held by different coroners throughout the country in the past. At the moment, it is held by the Surrey coroner, who will become the senior coroner for that area.

I am suggesting that, instead of getting rid of the post completely, it might be more sensible to retain it, because from time to time important and sensitive matters will have to be dealt with concerning the Queen’s or King’s household. It is important not to abolish the office, but to transfer it to the chief coroner. Under our amendment, the chief coroner would also be the Coroner of the Queen’s Household, which makes a great deal of sense.

Alun Michael (Cardiff South & Penarth, Labour)

I am intrigued by the hon. Gentleman’s suggestion, which seems to run counter to the developments in the Bill. He referred to the fact that the Bill establishes a national framework, but it does not establish a national organisation. The purpose of my earlier questions to the Minister was to clarify that the amendments that she moved a short time ago were to extend the judicial competence of the chief coroner, not to give the chief coroner an organisational responsibility. The chief coroner is a judge, so he is not necessarily competent to run anything. I say that with some feeling, because I was the first Minister to be a member of a jury when the legislation changed to allow MPs and Ministers to be members of juries. The experience did not increase my confidence in the capability of judges to run anything.

The hon. Gentleman is suggesting that we pass responsibility to the chief coroner, who would then have to run something and to be the coroner, instead of merely being the overseer or regulator of the coronial service. Surely the hon. Gentleman’s suggestion is inconsistent with the rest of the Bill.

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

With respect, the right hon. Gentleman overestimates how onerous the duties of the Coroner of the Queen’s Household are. Mr. Burgess, who is currently the Coroner of the Queen’s Household and the Surrey coroner, probably spends 1 per cent. of his time dealing with the former office. It is much more a ceremonial post, and if the Government are keen to move it away from the senior coroners, I am suggesting that they keep the great ceremonial office in place. I know that the right hon. Gentleman is keen on getting rid of a lot of things, but I am more of a traditionalist.

Alun Michael (Cardiff South & Penarth, Labour)

With respect, the hon. Gentleman is suggesting that the new post, which is innovative, should take on that activity, but surely he is describing a local coroner having responsibility as Coroner of the Queen’s Household. He is being far more dramatic and innovative than I am.

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

I am suggesting a compromise. I understand why the Government want to take the post away from what will be senior coroners. They want to tidy up the system. I do not know whether Luce suggested this in his report—the Minister may be able to touch on that—but one way of keeping alive a great historic,  albeit a mainly ceremonial office would be to transfer it to the chief coroner, which would be neat. The Minister may say that my new clause is unnecessary, and that she will think again and keep the post of Coroner of the Queen’s Household with the senior coroners.

Jennifer Willott (Cardiff Central, Liberal Democrat)

As well as the ceremonial functions, an operational function can be invoked. If the Government abolish the post, is the hon. Gentleman clear about where the operational side would go and who would be responsible for that?

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

I am pleased to say that members of the royal family do not die very often, thank goodness; but, when one of them does die, presumably, the death will now be dealt with by the local coroner, along with many others. At the moment, if a member of the royal family dies, the death is dealt with by the coroner of the Queen’s household. It is an ancient, ceremonial office, and I believe in keeping such offices in place. There is a good reason for doing so, and I hope that the Minister will listen to our argument.

Alun Michael (Cardiff South & Penarth, Labour)

The hon. Gentleman has tabled a piece of nonsense.

George Howarth (Knowsley North & Sefton East, Labour)

My right hon. Friend said to me a moment ago that he could not resist it. May I suggest to him that he might?

Alun Michael (Cardiff South & Penarth, Labour)

The Opposition, having tabled a serious provision, should be taken seriously and challenged. The chief coroner is a regulator, and he or she will have oversight of training, standards and so on. He will not undertake coronial duties as such, apart from the responsibility that the Opposition seek to move on to him. Could we imagine Ofcom running a radio station, even if it was known as the royal radio station? Could we imagine Ofwat running a small, royal water company, or something like that? The new clause may be exploratory, but the hon. Member for North-West Norfolk did not say that; he suggested that it was serious. If he had suggested that the post be retained and attached to a local coroner, as it currently is, some degree of tradition would have been retained, but what he suggests does not seem logical.

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

When we reach the end of a subject, the debate always becomes lively again.

The most recent example of an inquest requiring the post of the Queen’s coroner was the inquest into the death of Diana, Princess of Wales, which, as was mentioned, was opened by the current coroner of the Queen’s household, Michael Burgess. Dr. Burgess is also the coroner for Surrey. Owing to the complexity of that case, which required almost full-time attention in the run-up to, and throughout, the inquest, the proceedings were eventually conducted by Lord Justice Scott Baker. Before that inquest, the last time that a case required the involvement of the coroner of the Queen’s household was in the 1980s, and I really cannot see the merit in retaining a post when there is work only every 15 to 20 years.

Under the Bill, a death that currently falls within the jurisdiction of the Queen’s coroner will simply be dealt  with by the coroner for the area where the body lies. As with any case, excepting certified inquests, the chief coroner will have the power to transfer the case to another senior coroner, to investigate it himself or herself, or to require the Lord Chief Justice to nominate a judge to conduct the investigation. That seems perfectly satisfactory and, indeed, the many people whom we have consulted about the Bill since it was published in draft have not objected to the proposal in any way. I do not know what Tom Luce said in his report, but I suspect that it was very little, as he will have considered it a relatively minor matter. He is unlikely to have commented on it at all. I must say to the hon. Member for North-West Norfolk that, until now, no single person has raised any concern with us about these plans.

The abolition of the office of coroner of the Queen’s household is one of two provisions in the Bill which require Her Majesty’s consent, and that will be signified  in the normal way on Third Reading. It would not therefore be appropriate for me to say any more on the matter, given Her Majesty’s constitutional position.

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

I am grateful to the Minister for that explanation. We reserve our right to look at the issue when it comes up later.