Clause 18
Coroners and Justice Bill
4:15 pm
Henry Bellingham (Shadow Minister, Justice; North West Norfolk, Conservative)
This very important clause introduces the new post of medical examiner. That post is very important indeed to the future of the coronial service. It is a crucial part of the new set of checks and balances, especially in this post-Shipman era. Dame Janet Smith’s 600-page report on the Shipman tragedy strongly recommended that a new post of medical examiner be introduced.
Resources are an issue. Touching briefly on subsection (2)(a), the explanatory notes state that primary care trusts and local health boards must
“appoint enough medical examiners, and make available enough funds and other resources (including medical examiner’s officers) to enable the medical examiners to discharge their functions”
correctly, properly and efficiently. What sanctions there will be on the Department of Health in the event of failure to meet those commitments, and what discussions has the Minister had with her counterparts in the Department of Health?
That is an important preliminary point, but the key issue is the independence of medical examiners. It is wrong that medical examiners will be appointed by the PCTs and LHBs. Amendments 360 and 361 would make a small but significant change so that the chief coroner would appoint a medical examiner in consultation with the PCTs and LHBs. It is an important change that should be made because it is vital that such an important post remains independent of the local health service.
Let me quote the Law Society briefing that was sent to members of the Committee. The Law Society wanted to delete the whole of subsection (5) and to put in extra safeguards, but I think that our alternative offers a neater way forward. The Law Society says:
“The new position of medical examiner is intended as the bridge between the health services and the coroner service. However as the employee of the Primary Care Trust or Local Health Board, the medical examiner would be acting as the filter for the death certificates provided by colleagues in the health service. In that case he is likely to trust the judgement of fellow medical professionals. There could also be pressure from his employer, and the Law Society believes there needs to be stronger checks.”
I would not say that there is a danger that the professional integrity of medical could be compromised if they were appointed by the PCTs, who would also be their employers—I do not accept that. However, I do believe that the very simple extra safeguard makes a great deal of sense.
The Minister may be a bit battered and bruised from her recent encounter on the “Today” programme, when she was interviewed alongside Dame Janet Smith. I thought that the Minister was her usual courageous self.