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.

See this speech in context