Public Bodies Bill [Lords]

Bob Ainsworth Excerpts

Tuesday 25th October 2011 Commons Chamber

[Andrew Percy]

One of the most important tasks of the chief coroner would have been supplying an annual report to Parliament, which would have enabled issues such as that to be debated here and, indeed, in another place.

Let me return to monitoring and training. The Lord Chancellor’s written ministerial statement made it clear that the provision for ensuring that coroners were suitably trained and the monitoring of investigations would not now be transferred or implemented. Crucially, although the Government claim that their proposals will allow training to happen, the statement removes the requirement for training, and instead puts it under section 37 of the Act, which simply states that training regulations on training “may” be issued.

It also concerns me that the monitoring of service inquests is currently completed by the defence inquest unit. In the context of transparency and accountability, I understand why many would see a conflict of interests. The DIU is part of the Ministry of Defence, which in the case of the deaths of service personnel is also the employer, and it will therefore be an interested party in relation to such investigations.

[Mr Bob Ainsworth (Coventry North East) (Lab)]

I was responsible for the establishment of the DIU in an attempt to improve the service that we gave to coroners and thence the service that they could give to service personnel. However, the hon. Gentleman is absolutely right: there is a fundamental conflict of interests, given that the Ministry of Defence is attempting to assist an independent coronial service to such a degree. That separation of powers, coupled with the need to improve service and timeliness for bereaved service families, goes to the heart of the need for a chief coroner.

[Andrew Percy]

The right hon. Gentleman has much more expertise in this area than I do. His powerful comments will have been heard, and I think that they prove exactly why we want the chief coroner in post to ensure that there is monitoring and that it is completely independent of Government.

I have already mentioned the chief coroner’s parliamentary oversight through the annual report, so I will not dwell on that. Instead, let me turn to the issue of appeals. I do not deny that a key aspect of the chief coroner’s functions—hearing appeals—is a bone of contention both in the House and outside. My personal instinct was to be somewhat sceptical, which is why I examined the appeals system in a bit more detail.

I certainly would not advocate the removal of the chief coroner from the Bill if I did not also believe that a chief coroner—as Parliament agreed when it passed the legislation—would reduce the need for so many bereaved people to engage in expensive litigation, as they must at present, through judicial review. I do not think that anyone wants a system in which people’s experience of the system is extended through protracted appeals. However, it cannot be right that at present the only avenue of appeal that is open to the families of those who have made the ultimate sacrifice, and who want to challenge the decisions of coroners and their conduct at an inquest, is a complex and expensive judicial review system, or persuading the Attorney-General to exercise his power of fiat. Surely it would be much more cost-effective and efficient for a High Court judge as chief coroner to resolve some legal issue currently resolved in the administrative court. The alternative proposed by the Royal British Legion is to trial this. Therefore, it is accepted that there is a debate to be had about appeals. Adopting the joint RBL and Inquest proposal for an appeals trial is sensible.

Although my knowledge of the subject is limited, I have explained as best I can the most compelling arguments for leaving the chief coroner out of the Bill. I think this is the right way to proceed, and the ComRes poll to which I referred earlier illustrates that I am in good company. One of its findings is that 60% of the public believe a chief coroner should be appointed immediately—although polls must always be taken in the context in which they are asked, and all of us who are involved in politics know how they work. The theme running through the ComRes poll is that people want more support for bereaved families and a system that is independent of Government, and they want that quickly. I think all Members support that.

I readily concede that those who have been through the system are far better advocates of this case than me. In the last few days, we will all have received an e-mail from Gareth Turkington, the brother of Lieutenant Neal Turkington, who served in the Royal Gurkhas and who, sadly, died in Afghanistan. Gareth’s e-mailed letter to MPs contained some powerful phrases about the current system. He says:

“It was one of the most harrowing experiences of our lives…We as a family sought a full, independent, impartial inquest—precisely the function of the coroner—to establish how the event had happened and the circumstances of how Neal was killed. What we witnessed instead was a lack of rigorous investigation and a denial of any form of accountability or responsibility for duty of care towards Neal’s safety.”

Such situations do not only arise in respect of service deaths, as other people have similar experiences of the system. Sue Ainsworth, a lead midwife at the University Hospital of North Tees, also gave evidence on this issue. Her 21-year-old son died from sudden cardiac arrest. Her testimony is powerful. She states that the inquest took eight months and she found the system in many respects to be lacking in any empathy for the situation she had faced. She concludes:

“The coroner’s conduct was unacceptable. When I refused to be quiet at the Inquest and persisted in asking questions, it was then hurriedly concluded with the pathologist and the coroner abruptly leaving the room.”

If that is a manifestation of respect in the system, I would not like to know what disrespect is.

Sadly, such experiences are not isolated incidents. Many coroners fulfil their role perfectly well, but others do not. Although people can point to good and bad practice in the current system, the fact that there is bad practice suggests to me, taking a common sense point of view, that there has to be somebody at the top, such as a chief coroner—or perhaps someone holding a less expensive position—who is independent of Ministers and who can drive this reform, and who ensures there is accountability back to Parliament. That is why, at present, I intend to press this amendment to a Division.

--- Later in debate ---

[Michael Dugher]

The hon. Gentleman knows that I have the utmost respect for him and especially for the distinguished service he gave to this country. I have to say to him that independence is at the heart of the proposal for the chief coroner. Introducing national leadership under the chief coroner’s post was rightly seen as a vital step towards tackling the problems of unacceptable delays, a lack of accountability and inconsistent standards across the country. The move would meet the interests of bereaved families and the wider public in terms of quality, effectiveness of investigations and ensuring that knowledge is applied to prevent avoidable death and injury in the future.

[Mr Ainsworth]

The hon. Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart) has a point, but it is not the poor coroners, of whom there are many, who say uncomfortable things and whose findings make Departments such as the Ministry of Defence very uncomfortable. It is the good coroners who do that. I am talking about people such as Mr Masters, the Trowbridge coroner, who does that very effectively. There is no consistency at the moment, as there is good and bad practice; there are two extremes of the spectrum. That is why we need a chief coroner to spread best practice throughout the system for the benefit of not only bereaved families, but government.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Djanogly]

The hon. Lady is very involved with coroners. We have had several meetings on coroners. She is dedicated to coronial reform—I respect her for that—but I am afraid that what she thought was the position arising from the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 is not right. Such inconsistencies and misconceptions are rife, which is why I feel that it is so important to address them now.

[Mr Ainsworth]

rose—

[Mark Durkan]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Alan Beith]

I will not, as I want to be brief in order to allow another Member to speak in the time that remains.

The Justice Committee never wanted to see an office of the chief coroner that would be vast, expensive or become involved in the provision of an alternative appeals system, which in my view would never be a proper role for a chief coroner. A chief coroner could help to ensure that cases were handled by the right coroner and that the necessary advice had been given, but appeals against what happened in an inquest need to be to a superior court that has the capacity to examine the legal questions that will then arise.

The coroners system does not exist in Scotland. If military casualties were flown directly to Scotland, they would not be the subject of inquests, unless of course that were to be stipulated in the Bill, because the Scottish system depends on the procurator fiscal deciding that there is something to be investigated, which a wholly different approach. In England, Wales and Northern Ireland, we have always assumed that having the coroner as an objective adjudicator of the cause of death in cases where that was in doubt, or where the state was involved, was a necessary part of our system. Making that system work effectively should be our primary objective.

I welcome the attention that the Royal British Legion has given the matter and remain of the view that it would be useful to have professional leadership from someone designated as chief coroner, but what I want more than anything is for the Government to go ahead with introducing proper, judicially based support for the coroners system so that we can ensure that coroners are properly resourced and are of even quality across the country.

[Mr Ainsworth]

The most telling intervention on the hon. Member for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy), who moved the amendment, was from the hon. Member for South Antrim (Dr McCrea), who asked how we got to where we are. After three years of consultation, cross-party agreement and a full examination of what was needed, how did we get to a position in which that has been scrapped and thrown away by the Government as part of a bundle of measures intended to save costs—costs that they will not even share? How did we get to a position in which the Government continually say that there was constructive dialogue with organisations which basically claim that there has been skulduggery and no effective dialogue with them at all?

When the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Sir Alan Beith) said he wanted clarification, the Minister made it clear from a sedentary position that no High Court judge would have the words “chief coroner” added to his title. There will be no independent leadership for the coronial system under what is proposed. It is the Government themselves who are causing that delay, not the hon. Member for Brigg and Goole or those of us who want to see the creation of the office of the chief coroner. It is the Government who are causing the delay and the only way to move them is to support the amendment so ably moved by—