Schedule 3
Coroners and Justice Bill
6:30 pm

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

I beg to move amendment 44, in schedule 3, page 123, line 7, leave out ‘relevant authority’ and insert ‘senior coroner’.

Roger Gale (North Thanet, Conservative)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: amendment 46, in schedule 3, page 123, line 10, leave out ‘relevant authority’ and insert ‘senior coroner’.

Amendment 47, in schedule 3, page 123, line 20, leave out ‘70’ and insert ‘72’. Amendment 45, in schedule 3, page 123, line 21, leave out sub-sub-paragraph (b).

Amendment 33, in schedule 3, page 125, line 3, leave out ‘70’ and insert ‘72’.

Amendment 127, in schedule 7, page 134, line 17, leave out ‘or as a Deputy Chief Coroner’.

Amendment 36, in schedule 7, page 134, line 19, after second ‘judge’, insert ‘or a senior coroner’.

Amendment 37, in schedule 7, page 134, line 20, leave out ‘70’ and insert ‘72’.

Amendment 128, in schedule 7, page 134, line 20, at end insert—

‘(1A) To be eligible for appointment as a Deputy Chief Coroner a person must be

(a) a judge of the High Court or a Circuit Judge or a senior coroner, and

(b) under the age of 70.’.

Amendment 38, in schedule 7, page 134, line 24, leave out ‘70th’ and insert ‘72nd’.

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

I may be able to help you, Mr. Gale. I am confident that with good will and a degree of conciseness, we will be able to finish part 1 by 7.20 pm. Hopefully, we will not have to come back after dinner. I will be brief, because most of the amendments stand in my name and the names of my hon. Friends.

The amendments relate to various matters to do with boundaries, appointments and issues such as retirement age. They are important to the coronial service. It is important to bear it in mind that the office of coroner is one of the oldest in the country; I understand that it dates back to 1420. [Interruption.] I am happy to be corrected by the Minister, or by my hon. Friend, if he can find an earlier or later date.

James Gray (North Wiltshire, Conservative)

My hon. Friend is completely and utterly wrong. The coroner was founded shortly after William the Conqueror in the 12th century, rather than in the 15th century.

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

My hon. Friend is quite right, but I understand that the office as it is currently constituted dates from 1420. However, I do not want to get into a long, historical debate or I will be ruled out of order.

The point to bear in mind is that the office is ancient and should only be tampered with lightly. It carries many onerous duties. Those of us who heard what AndrÃ(c) Rebello had to say could only be impressed by his hard work and his total commitment to the job. He made it clear that he was on duty 24/7. He could be rung up at any hour of the day. He said that he was under constant pressure, and pointed out that he was persistently underfunded. He also made it clear that coroners live in constant anticipation of some ghastly local disaster. The office carries pretty poor pay and allowances and is not likely to appeal to everyone. On the other hand, it carries power—the coroner has the power to summon witnesses to an inquest to give a statement—and a great deal of prestige in the local  community and among local professions. Many coroners have a civic role, as well, attending the mayor and corporation at civic occasions. What the office of coroner represents is the very best of localism. Many coroners are third or fourth-generation coroners from a particular family, and they take a huge pride in their work. I have spoken to many county coroners and have been incredibly impressed with their total dedication and professionalism. They really pride themselves on the professional service that they can give to the community.

That is why Conservative Members have always been very much in favour of maintaining the best of localism. That is why we support the Minister’s decision to put in place a national overarch, the national coroner and the deputy national coroner, but with strong local autonomy under it. However, it is important that the office of senior coroner be truly independent, and the offices under it, the area and assistant area coroners, must be totally independent. That is why our amendments 44 and 46 strike out the provisions in the Bill to give the power of appointment of the area and assistant area coroners to the local authority. That would be a bad move. At the moment the county coroner appoints his deputy and assistant deputy. I put it to the Minister that, if we give the power of appointment of the more junior ranks to the local authority, there may well be possible conflicts of interest.

What, for example, would happen in the scenario—unlikely, I accept, but possible—of a local authority falling out with the senior coroner? It could be over resources, the senior coroner demanding facilities or how he has handled a particular inquest. In any event, I suggest that there could be a serious falling out between the local authority—or perhaps the police authority—and the senior coroner. Under the arrangements as envisaged in the Bill, the local authority could say, “Right, we are going to appoint an area and assistant area coroner under you whom we know full well you will not be able to work with”, thus causing strife and probably leading to the resignation of the coroner.

Our amendments are taking an extreme case, but what the Bill as it stands does is to take away an important task from the senior coroner—the power to appoint his two key deputies. If we are to have a coronial system that works smoothly and well, it is crucial that the senior coroner and his deputies get on well together and work together as a team. That is the essence of amendments 44 and 46.

There is also a need for the office to be properly independent. The Minister mentioned a moment ago that the office, as it stands, contains proper judicial independence. She mentioned that in future, the coroners will be independent. On the other hand, the Bill states clearly that the office of coroner will no longer be a freehold office. Freehold, which I remember from my early days of law, implies a degree of independence. It implies a degree of self-sufficiency and control over one’s own destiny. It implies, in this context, judicial independence. To remove the office’s status—the freehold status—and move it over to being an office of the local authority would take away that judicial independence. It would make the coroner a servant of another agency, another authority. It would also imply that, rather than being totally independent, he or she could be controlled by that third party. That would be a very negative move.

Is it not also important to have a proper career structure for coroners? Is it not important that we try to attract the most able, capable people to the post of senior coroner? The Minister has said on a number of occasions that it is important to have the highest calibre men and women applying for the posts. Surely it makes no sense at all for there to be a glass ceiling on the career structure of senior coroners. Why should they not be able to apply for the post of chief coroner or deputy chief coroner? There is no reason why they should not apply for those posts. If they have the necessary qualifications and experience, there is no reason why they should not apply; hence we have tabled amendment 36. It is important that senior coroners do not have a glass ceiling on their career structure and that they are given the opportunity to apply for the top jobs. That is the essence of amendment 36. It is also very important that they retain their current retirement age.

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

I cannot accept amendments 44 and 46—I will manage to find the others in a moment. They run entirely contrary to what we are aiming to achieve in the Bill, which is to create an open, transparent and consistent system for appointing coroners. The system at the moment is largely opaque. It is not uncommon—the hon. Member for North-West Norfolk obliquely referred to this—for a coroner to appoint as a deputy or an assistant deputy someone from their own legal practice or someone who is otherwise known to them. That, in turn, clearly causes disadvantage to anyone else who might be interested in applying for the post when the senior coroner position becomes vacant if they have not been in that law firm. It also means that vacancies might never be made known to potential candidates who might be better people to fill those vacancies. As well as creating a lack of transparency, it has led in the past to a lack of diversity among those in coroner posts.

It is important that we do all that we can to enable diversity of coroners to reflect the diversity of our society. Having the local authority advertise vacancies, with an agreed and published set of criteria that candidates must meet, is one of the fundamental measures that we take in this part of the Bill. It will allow all potential qualified candidates with an interest to apply and will allow the local authority to select the best person for the job.

George Howarth (Knowsley North and Sefton East, Labour)

The hon. Member for North-West Norfolk made the point that some coroner families are into the fourth generation. Does that not rather make my hon. Friend the Minister’s point—or are some people just genetically predisposed to being coroners?

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

I am not sure that anyone is genetically predisposed to being a coroner, but my right hon. Friend is right to say that the hon. Gentleman did rather make my case for me. Under the new, transparent system, there will be an additional check, in that the chief coroner, who is responsible for ensuring consistent standards throughout the system, and the Lord Chancellor will have to consent to the appointment of all coroners. With that new scrutiny in place, consistency and transparency will become much more apparent. In addition, it will increase public confidence in the system and people will see that the best candidates have been recruited.

I turn to amendments 47 and 33, which deal with increasing the retirement age of coroners from 70 to 72 for which I see no justification. Schedules 3 and 7 set out a new retirement age of 70 for coroners and chief and deputy chief coroners. There is no retirement age at present: the office of coroner is freehold. The introduction of a retirement age will bring consistency with the rest of the judiciary and allow for better succession planning.

James Gray (North Wiltshire, Conservative)

Is the Minister in favour of introducing a retirement age for Members of Parliament?

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

It is not entirely relevant, but I am sure that I will retire from this place before the hon. Gentleman does.

Mr. Grayrose—

Roger Gale (North Thanet, Conservative)

Order. The hon. Gentleman is now out of order. The question was out of order. I allowed the Minister, perhaps unwisely, to half-answer it, and I would now like to get back to the amendments before us.

Bridget Prenticerose—

James Gray (North Wiltshire, Conservative)

I asked my question to introduce the matter of age limits. The point that I was making in perhaps a frivolous way was that the hon. Lady’s argument was that, because of the quasi-judicial position of a coroner, it was therefore reasonable for them to retire at the age of 70. I accept that my point was marginally out of order and that I did not express it well, Mr. Gale, but I wanted to draw attention to the fact that lots of other highly responsible work is undertaken in this country that can be done until the ages of 80, 90 or older. If the hon. Lady is of the view that the work of a coroner requires that the person should retire at the age of 70, why should that not apply to politicians?

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

To ensure that I stay within order, Mr. Gale, I repeat that we are making the retirement age of coroners consistent with that of the rest of the judiciary. In practice, that will make very little difference at the moment because we shall allow those coroners who are in post to continue for the time being.

Tim Boswell (Daventry, Conservative)

Will the Minister at least consider the possibility of providing some flexibility or headroom for the future, so that there is a presumed retirement age—she has selected the age of 70 for consistency—but in particular circumstances and if there was a reason for doing so, it would be possible to continue the appointment for, say, up to a couple or three years? I can imagine there being a local difficulty or a shortage of suitably qualified legal persons for the post. It is exactly the sort of the problem that the High Court had to deal with by drafting back, for example, retired judges to carry out some inquiries.

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

I do not object to retired judges being brought back into the system for particular reasons on some occasions. There is no reason why that could not continue in the coronial system, too. Nevertheless,  most coroners retire voluntarily between the ages of 65 and 70, so it is unnecessary and undesirable to increase the retirement age to 72.

Under the Bill, anyone under 70 who has been legally qualified for five years would be eligible for appointment as a senior coroner, area coroner or assistant coroner. Amendment 45 would remove the requirement for coroners to be legally qualified. In other words, it would allow anyone to be a coroner if they were under the age of 70, even if they had no qualifications. I am sure that that is not what the hon. Member for North-West Norfolk intended by the amendment, so I hope that he feels able to withdraw it.

In future, it will be increasingly important for coroners to be legally qualified. Given the duty of investigations that satisfy article 2, legal qualifications will become even more essential. They will also give the coroners the skill to examine evidence and conduct investigations in the most effective way.

At the moment, a small number of coroners are both medically and legally qualified, and about the same number are medically qualified only. The Coroners’ Society tells me that there are about four of each. Under the reformed system, it will not be necessary for the coroner to be medically qualified, as the medical examiners will be on hand to provide independent medical expertise. However, those who are currently medically rather than legally qualified will retain their posts under the reformed system and will simply be exempted from the legal qualification requirement. They will already have picked up forensic skills through experience and training, and that is not something that we want to lose.

Amendment 36 deals specifically with eligibility for the appointment of chief coroner and deputy chief coroner. Schedule 7 provides that to be eligible for appointment as chief coroner or deputy chief coroner, the person must be a judge of the High Court or a circuit judge. Amendment 36 would allow a senior coroner to be eligible for appointment as chief coroner or deputy chief coroner. I understand the point made by the hon. Member for North-West Norfolk about the glass ceiling, and I have some sympathy with it. However, in my view, the scope of the job of chief coroner probably requires someone with senior judicial status, such as a High Court judge or a senior circuit judge. To be led by a figure of that stature heightens the profile of the coroner service. When determining complex appeals or negotiating for resources nationally or locally, status can be quite important. I cannot agree that a senior coroner should necessarily be eligible for appointment as chief coroner.

I am more open to the suggestion that a senior coroner should be allowed to become a deputy chief coroner. It is important that we recognise that there will be more than one deputy chief coroner. Amendments 127 and 128 would allow a senior coroner to apply for that role provided that they are under the age of 70. As I said, given the experience of senior coroners who have been working in the system for some time, it is understandable that they might wish to apply for such an appointment and I recognise that their skills should continue to be used in that way. Although I cannot give a firm commitment at this stage to table an amendment  on Report, I will certainly reflect carefully on that aspect of the hon. Gentleman’s proposals. On that basis, I ask him to withdraw his amendment.

Jennifer Willott (Cardiff Central, Liberal Democrat)

In response to the Minister’s comments about deputy chief coroners, this is an important point for senior coroners, who are clearly upset by the suggestion that it is not appropriate for them to progress in their career to become deputy chief coroners.

I want to flag up a couple of points made to me by a coroner of significant years’ experience who raised a number of concerns from his personal perspective, particularly regarding the suggestion that coroners who operate in the courts do not have the appropriate judicial experience to become a deputy chief coroner. He pointed out to me that he is the part-time president of the Mental Health Tribunal and a part-time chairman of the Appeals Service. He gained considerable experience as an advocate and a solicitor in private practice before becoming a coroner. He has dealt with more than 100 jury inquests and used remote video link and voice distortion equipment. He has dealt with witness intimidation, anonymity and special measures. Those are all matters that coroners deal with daily, just like other members of the judiciary, although coroners are not recognised in the same way as having judicial experience. That is reflected in the Bill’s current measures.

I understand that the Minister will come back on Report with proposals to make the arrangements fairer, so that senior coroners can progress in their careers, but I would like to flag up one other issue. I understand her point about the chief coroner being a High Court judge, and I know that the Coroners Society believes that, especially at the beginning, the post needs to be held by someone in a significantly high office, so that it is well respected and has the clout to make the necessary changes. However, if the reforms are successful, resulting in improved standardisation and funding across the UK and so on, and if the coroner service is held in higher regard and given more recognition, at some point a very experienced senior coroner with a lot of experience as a deputy chief coroner might be the most appropriate person to become the chief coroner. It seems unwise to rule out that possibility completely, even though I understand that perhaps nobody would wish to take up that option for a while. However, I am glad that she will reconsider the point about the deputy chief coroner, and I look forward to hearing her proposals on Report.

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

I am grateful to the Minister for giving us some hope that some of the more technical amendments will be considered and that she will return with the necessary changes on Report.

Returning to a point that the Minister made about doctors also serving as coroners, I appreciate that there will be a five-year phasing out period, but it would make sense to have doctors serving as coroners as long as they were told to get at least some basic legal qualification as well. It would be a great pity to exclude doctors completely from the career structure, because they could have a great deal to offer. Perhaps she could reconsider that point, but on the basis of the commitments that she has given, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

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

I beg to move amendment 32, in schedule 3, page 124, line 41, leave out ‘are not’ and insert ‘will continue’.

Roger Gale (North Thanet, Conservative)

With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 260, in schedule 3, page 124, line 41, leave out ‘not’.

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

I have already made my points about freehold office, and I would just like the Minister to comment.

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

All I have to say is that if any member of the public is aware that coroners are freehold office holders, I suspect that very few know what it means. It is an historical throwback and the Bill provides us with an opportunity to remove it. I do not think that by so doing we will undermine coroners’ independence, which is referred to throughout the Bill. I therefore resist the amendment.

Jennifer Willott (Cardiff Central, Liberal Democrat)

Amendment 260, which is in my name, would do precisely the same thing as the amendment moved by the hon. Member for North-West Norfolk.

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

I plan to return to this point on Report, because we feel strongly about it. We believe that it goes to the essence of independence. I hope that the Minister will reconsider. She has said on many occasions that she believes in the total independence of the coroner’s office and the coronial system, and I hope very much that she will reflect on what I have said. We do not want to be too persistent, however, and divide the Committee. However, we do feel strongly and reserve the right to return to the matter. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Jennifer Willott (Cardiff Central, Liberal Democrat)

I beg to move amendment 259, in schedule 3, page 126, line 23, at end add

‘in accordance with standards and guidance produced by the Chief Coroner’.

Roger Gale (North Thanet, Conservative)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: amendment 258, in clause 28, page 14, line 33, leave out ‘may’ and insert ‘shall’.

New clause 28—Regulations about senior coroner standards—

‘The Chief Coroner may, from time to time, with the consent of the Lord Chancellor, publish minimum standards relating to the service to be provided by senior coroners.’.

New clause 29—Guidance about salaries and fees—

‘The Chief Coroner may, from time to time, with the consent of the Lord Chancellor, publish guidance for local authorities regarding the level of salary for senior coroners and area coroners, and of fees for assistant coroners.’.

Jennifer Willott (Cardiff Central, Liberal Democrat)

The amendments and new clauses go together quite well as a group. They are designed to introduce standards for coroners in various ways. Amendment 259 relates to the terms and conditions on coroners; amendment 258 would mean that the coroner must publish regulations on training for senior coroners; new clause 28 would enable the chief coroner to publish minimum standards that should apply to all senior coroners in the UK; and new clause 29 would enable the chief coroner to publish guidance on salaries and fees.

This matter has been raised a number of times already, so I shall be brief. There are concerns about the inconsistencies in the United Kingdom, both on standards of service delivery and on the terms and conditions, salaries, equipment, staffing and support that is provided to coroners by local authorities. The proposals would improve the uniformity of the service that is delivered to bereaved families. New clause 28 would mean that the chief coroner would be able to publish minimum standards by which local authorities would have to be guided when funding offices—accommodation and staff—to ensure that coroners have the basic minimum of support that they need to fulfil their jobs. Because those standards would be laid out by the chief coroner, it would not be so much in the hands of local authorities to decide what they believe is appropriate. Instead, a basic minimum standard would be applied, which would help coroners in their dealings with local authorities.

We have already highlighted the issue of training. The Government accept that there is a need for improved consistency in training in the UK to ensure that there is better uniformity in different coroners’ areas. The Bill states that the chief coroner may publish regulations about training, but amendment 258 would ensure that such guidance is published. Given that we all accept the need for it, it seems somewhat surprising that the Bill enables rather than ensures. That is clearly important for coroners and for all of us.

I accept that the proposal on terms and conditions and on salary guidance is slightly contentious. However, a key issue in some areas is that coroners are not in a strong position when negotiating with local authorities. For example, the area that the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth and I represent is covered by the coroner for Cardiff and Vale of Glamorgan, who is employed only on a part-time basis, despite the fact that she works full-time hours. The local authority has decided that it only wants a part-time coroner despite the fact that her work load is far too large. Laying down central standards and guidance for local authorities on salaries and fees would rule out such anomalies. The guidance could take into account such things as the number of inquests, investigations and deaths reported, and the size of an area. It could also consider transfers between areas, and generally take into account a coroner’s overall work load.

Clearly, the chief coroner is in a much better position to consider such things, because they gather information and can see the bigger picture throughout the UK, whereas local authorities see a very small part of the picture and are not in the best position to make decisions on how much coroners should be paid for how many hours, and what support staff they need to do their jobs. Currently, as we all accept, there is significant inconsistency.

I hope that the four proposals provide a solid basis to enable coroners to do their job with the resources that they need.

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

I understand that at present, the mechanism for determining coroners’ salaries nationally is an annual negotiation between the Coroners Society and local government employers on behalf of local authorities. If that arrangement is discontinued, it would  be up to the Local Government Association and the Coroners Society to decide what alternative machinery should be put in place. Frankly, they are probably better placed to make the decision, and the Coroners Society should represent coroners’ interests rather than the chief coroner. I therefore resist the amendment.

On training, subject to the agreement of the Lord Chancellor, the chief coroner will be responsible for setting national standards and ensuring that coroners and those who work with them have the training that they need to meet those standards. There will also be requirements for specialist training in coronial law and, as the hon. Members for Cambridge and for Daventry pointed out in earlier debates, there will be a need for training on the application of the Human Rights Act.

I can assure the hon. Lady that improved training arrangements will be high on the chief coroner’s list of priorities. I do not think that they would be any higher on the agenda if they were there purely through compulsion. In any event, as an independent judicial appointee, it would not be appropriate for the Government to compel the chief coroner to do any particular thing, however essential we may see it as being.

Finally, new clause 28 would allow the chief coroner to publish minimum standards that coroners must meet after consultation with the Lord Chancellor. That replicates clauses 32 to 34, which already provide for the Lord Chancellor to issue guidance on the services to be delivered to bereaved families. Those of us who have looked at the draft charter know that it includes at paragraph 44 an example of the types of deaths where specific standards might be set. We would therefore expect coroners’ rules and regulations to deal with such matters—for example in relation to post-mortems, suspension and resumption of investigations, disclosure of information, the release of bodies for funerals and the operation of the appeals system. Such secondary regulation would have added force.

I hope that on that basis, while much of what the hon. Lady has said about the way the system works is sensible, she will see that it is already covered in the Bill. Those other areas, relating to employment and salary negotiation, are best left to those who will be doing the negotiation.

Jennifer Willott (Cardiff Central, Liberal Democrat)

To clarify, the amendment about salary guidance is not so much about the amount that an individual should be paid, as forums are already in place to deal with that. The issue is more to look at the guidance for what work there is in a particular area and what needs to be funded there. At the moment, although the guidance is provided centrally, it clearly does not work as some areas are significantly underfunded, and the volume of work is far greater than the hours for which the coroners are paid. The system is not operating efficiently at the moment, so the suggestion is that there is a better way to ensure that areas get the resources that they need.

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

Other parts of the Bill give the chief coroner the powers to look at how local authorities resource the system. Therefore the reports that the chief coroner will be able to make will give them the leverage to deal with the overall resource issue as far as local authorities are concerned.

Jennifer Willott (Cardiff Central, Liberal Democrat)

I tabled the amendments because I am not convinced that the existing powers are strong enough to enable the chief coroner to do that. We clearly agree in this Committee on what the outcome needs to be in terms of adequate funding and the resources to enable coroners to do their job, but we do not necessarily agree on how to achieve that.

My final point concerns minimum standards. I accept that the issue of coroners’ rules and regulations relates to a lot of their work, but my concern about the publishing of minimum standards is that they relate to work load and so forth—the practicalities of running the office and the service that will be delivered to all families that come into contact with that service, rather than the way in which an inquest will operate and so on. There are certain areas that are already covered by the measures in the Bill, but there are areas where it is not clear enough. We shall return to the issue on Report, and I look forward to hearing the Minister’s comments then.