Jennifer Willott (Cardiff Central, Liberal Democrat)

I beg to move amendment 119, in schedule 2, page 121, line 11, at end insert—

‘(2A) Each coroner area is to have the same boundaries as each medical examiner area.’.

Roger Gale (North Thanet, Conservative)

With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 126, in schedule 2, page 121, line 26, at end insert—

‘(aa) whichever local authorities are affected by the proposed alterations,’.

Jennifer Willott (Cardiff Central, Liberal Democrat)

I shall be brief on this. The two amendments, which are slightly on different issues, are both simple. Amendment 119 is linked to the previous discussion that we had earlier today on ensuring the full co-operation and co-ordinated working between medical examiners and senior coroners. It would make it clear that the medical examiner areas would have the same boundaries as each coroner area. If the boundaries were not the same, it would be more difficult for the medical examiners to co-ordinate their work fully with coroners, and for coroners to be clear as to who it is that they should apply to. [Interruption.]

Roger Gale (North Thanet, Conservative)

Order. I should like to hear the hon. Lady.

Jennifer Willott (Cardiff Central, Liberal Democrat)

It would make it more difficult if there were a number of different medical examiners who a coroner would be liaising with on a regular basis. Amendment 126, which I have also tabled, relates to the situation when the boundaries of coroner areas are changed. The wording of the Bill suggests that currently, the Lord Chancellor must consult the local authorities that he deems appropriate. I am sure that that is the intention, but since it is not clear in the Bill, my amendment clarifies that he must consult the local authorities that are affected by the boundary change. Usually, I would have expected that the Lord Chancellor would do that automatically, but it is not clear in the Bill that that is the requirement. Given that coroner areas are often across different local authority areas, and that any changes could affect multiple local authorities both before and after the change, it seems sensible that it is a requirement that all of those affected should be consulted. Otherwise, it would all be too easy for somebody to be missed out and not noticed.

Alun Michael (Cardiff South & Penarth, Labour)

I have a couple a points that fit, but not quite in the current context—they are more related to a stand part debate. I was wondering whether you, Mr. Gale, intend to have a stand part debate on the schedule, or whether it would be helpful if I made those remarks and sought the Minister’s response now.

Roger Gale (North Thanet, Conservative)

I am perfectly relaxed about the position. If the right hon. Gentleman would like to treat this as a stand part debate, that is fine by me.

Alun Michael (Cardiff South & Penarth, Labour)

I am exploring the thinking behind the position in the Bill, which is the continued situation of the location of coroners’ requirements in local government. I tabled an amendment, which is currently starred, that suggests that the Secretary of State become the relevant authority for each coroner area. The reason is that there is an anomaly that the coroner service is the only judicial service that remains in local government. That leads to a peculiarity in a number of ways because the coroner service and the work of a coroner is judicial in its nature. We will have a situation where local authorities or local police authorities are responsible for the funding and delivering of the service, but have little or no control over costs. National standards will be established and monitored by the chief coroner, and coroners can be removed from office only by the Lord Chancellor. There is a rather odd mixture of local and non-local issues. That fits with the concerns expressed about new clause 19 in an earlier debate regarding situations where there are no unusual circumstances concerning either a particular event or some of the pressures that have arisen from service personnel and so on.

There is always a tension between local and national matters. It has been suggested, for example, that had there been a different deployment of Ministers in the 1940s, we might have ended up with a national education service and a local health service, and there is a tension in both of those between national and local issues. There seem to be anomalies in this matter, and concerns have been expressed by people in local government. That reflects the views expressed by the Justice Committee—of which I am a member—which stated that it is difficult to see how a chief coroner could  function effectively as a force for standardisation without it being part of a national service. With the reforms, we see councils playing for offices, court accommodation, the training of coroners and staff and a new appeal system. All that is sensible. Most coroners do not have dedicated courts under the present legislation, and there will be pressure to provide those in a reformed system. We are looking for improvements, as is the Minister. The new chief coroner will implement changes that will impact directly on the management of the service by councils and the police, including the transfer of cases between coroners. We have heard about those issues during the course of today’s debate. The purpose of that is to avoid backlogs and delays and that is a positive outcome.

My concern is to understand the thinking behind the retention of the local nature of part of the coroner service, when a national focus is given to the standards and oversight. Is this a halfway house? Have we thought about what will happen in the future? Will the Minister set out her case and comment on the observations made by the Justice Committee about the Bill and about the way that we as a Committee consider that the coroner service could be improved by moving towards a consistent service across the country?

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

I will start by responding to the comments made by the hon. Lady, and then I will comment on what my right hon. Friend has said.

I say to the hon. Lady that the amendments are both impractical and unnecessary. Amendment 119 is impractical because coroners areas are based on local authority areas. Medical examining areas will be dictated by the boundaries of primary care trusts and local health boards, and those are not coterminous. Primary care trusts are accountable to their local communities and to the Secretary of State through the strategic health authorities. In 2005 the Department of Health set out proposals for reconfiguring strategic health authorities and primary care trusts. Although it sought to strengthen relationships between health care and local authorities by bringing the boundaries closer together, it also made it clear that there is no single blueprint for the future shape of PCTs and SHAs. The most important thing is to secure high-quality safe health care services. Therefore, the Department of Health feels that one size cannot fit all and make every boundary exactly the same.

Jennifer Willott (Cardiff Central, Liberal Democrat)

I would like some clarification. The coroner areas are not one local authority area, so local authorities already have to coordinate to ensure that funding is made available to provide a coroner service across those areas. For example, the area that I represent has five constituencies and two local authorities within one coroner area. In Wales, after the reorganisation, there will still be a link between local authority areas and the health boards. In England, there may not be one PCT for one local authority area but the boundaries are pretty much the same. Given that coroner areas are already linking, why can the same not be done for MEs?

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

In a sense I agree that they can link—that is the whole point—but they do not have to be coterminous. It is impractical to try to make each coroner area match a primary care trust area. One can look at it the other way round and say that coroners are  appointed and funded by local authorities, whereas the coroner area usually comprises more than one local authority area.

Although coroners and medical examiners will be independent of each other, they will work closely together, as the hon. Lady pointed out. In fact, there will often be several medical examiners serving a particular coroner. The other thing that I should say, which has not come out in debate already, is that while coroners will be predominantly full time—certainly in the future will be full time—most medical examiners will almost always be part time.

Amendment 126 is unnecessary because, if the hon. Lady looks at paragraph 2, schedule 2, the Lord Chancellor, when altering a coroner’s area, before making an order under that paragraph, must consult

“(a) whichever local authorities the Lord Chancellor thinks appropriate,

(b) in the case of a coroner area in Wales, the Welsh Ministers, and

other people that he thinks appropriate. Therefore, when changing coroner area boundaries, he will be consulting the local authorities affected by that change, and that will automatically include those affected by the change, whether they are increasing or decreasing the boundary, so the amendment is unnecessary.

I turn now to my right hon. Friend’s point about the relationship between local and national. National organisations are not always appropriate for all services, and it might not be as cost-effective a solution as the current system’s problems need. The reformed system will have the best features of the national structure, by being headed by a chief coroner, complementing the best features of the local structure and local delivery. I do not think it is appropriate to create a new and unnecessary bureaucracy.

In consultation there was considerable argument for keeping the coronial system local, although people appreciated having the direction and leadership of a chief coroner at a national level. That chief coroner will set and monitor the compliance standards. The charter for the bereaved will contain rules and regulations and there will be an independent inspection system and an appeals system for the first time.

Alun Michael (Cardiff South & Penarth, Labour)

I will be brief because I do not want to extend the discussion, but it is possible to have a local service as provided by the probation service, for example, without it being a local authority service. I accept that there has to be a local service, but that does not mean that it needs to continue being a local authority service.

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

My right hon. Friend has made a perfectly valid point. It does not have to be a local authority service, but we did at least two consultations on this policy and local provision was what people wanted. That certainly was the view among many of the bereaved families and organisations that we met.

For that reason, I ask him to accept that it will be a new service with national leadership but all the benefits of a local provision, with a community aspect that the bereaved families that we are putting at the heart of the Bill, as we said earlier, will be able to understand, appreciate and benefit from.

Jennifer Willott (Cardiff Central, Liberal Democrat)

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.