Draft Justification Decision (Scientific Age Imaging) Regulations 2023

Jon Trickett Excerpts

Monday 20th November 2023 General Committees

[Ruth Cadbury]

Thank you, Mr Gray. That was one example of a scheme which the Government were warned would be costly and would not work. We fear that that will also be the case for this statutory instrument. From my own casework experience, I must confess that I am deeply sceptical about the Home Office’s claims about its ability to deliver its policies.

In summary, I hope that the Minister can enlighten us about the costs, the lack of an impact assessment, the review process, and the engagement that will take place with groups such as the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health especially, which has raised its own concerns about this policy. I hope that we can see some much-needed transparency on this issue.

[Jon Trickett (Hemsworth) (Lab)]

rose—

[Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[Jon Trickett]

I will try to be reasonably brief, although I need to repeat some of the points that have been made. First, we are not dealing with a huge number of people—over six years, from 2016 to 2022, there were only 700 people a year who were said to be under the age they were claiming to be. Seven hundred a year—that is perhaps two a day. Most of those people have already been identified using other techniques. It is therefore hard to see what the Minister thinks will be added by doing this very unethical and slightly dangerous procedure. Will he tell us how many people he thinks are escaping scrutiny at present?

Secondly, Professor Andrew Rowland, the officer for child protection at the Royal College of Paediatrics, says that the evidence shows that using X-rays to determine age is “widely inaccurate”, and that the “practice is ultimately unethical”. He goes on to say that we will be exposing children to radiation.

There is, surprisingly—perhaps not surprisingly, given the nature of the British establishment—the Age Estimation Science Advisory Committee, presumably to provide advice to the Government. It talks about informed consent, which is my third point. How on earth can we explain to people, many of whom will be below the age of majority, and who may be frightened and may not have English as their mother tongue, in a way they can understand, the risks of radiation exposure engaged in the procedure—x-raying a single tooth—that they are about to undergo? It raises the question in my mind that informed consent, which is a basic requirement imposed on medics generally and on the health service, will be lacking in significant numbers of cases. That is why I am not convinced by the Minister’s arguments, and why I could not possibly vote for this measure, given the arguments he has made.

What are the Government doing? They are effectively taking the power to bully these people by saying, “If you don’t have this X-ray, there will be a presumption that somehow you are not under the age of consent.”

[Dr Thérèse Coffey (Suffolk Coastal) (Con)]

It is the Age Estimation Scientific Advisory Committee which recommended the use of MRI and X-ray methods. The hon. Gentleman refers to this procedure being a potential risk to somebody’s life—would he suggest to that same person that they never have an X-ray, ever? It feels as if we are stretching the argument that he is trying to put across.

[Jon Trickett]

I am complaining about the fact that this procedure will be done to children, who are not capable of giving informed consent, which is a basic principle of medical practice. That is my point. Here is the thing: there is no evidence whatsoever that these X-rays will demonstrate the age of the person—the victim. The scientists are not saying that to the Minister. If he can say otherwise, let him say so, but the people who are responsible for this and the advisory committee do not think the procedure produces sufficient evidence.

I will just make one further point. Where are the practitioners doing these x-rays coming from? According to the Royal College of Radiologists, there is a massive under- supply of clinical radiologists in our country. In fact, by 2027, we are going to need an additional 3,365 clinical radiologists. We are already massively under capacity. I can only imagine that this will mean diverting people from looking after the health of ourselves, our friends, our neighbours and our citizens in order to carry out a practice that is unethical, impractical and unscientific. Where will these radiologists come from, and how long will it take to examine each individual?

I will refer to the report that the Minister has referred to, which says:

“Biological age assessment involving ionising radiation is limited to radiography of the third molar”

and/or of the wrist. This is hardly a great operation, is it? The final sentence on page 6 says that the authority notes all this, and says that the applicant—that is, the Government—should

“cease using X-rays when alternative methods are validated.”

If the justifying authority has major reservations about the use of X-rays in this unethical and unscientific way, what are the Government doing to look into alternative examinations, which the JA is clearly proposing we should do?

Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill

Jon Trickett Excerpts

2nd reading & 2nd reading - Day 2
Tuesday 16th March 2021 Commons Chamber

[Jon Trickett (Hemsworth) (Lab)]

I join others in expressing my condolences. This Bill continues the authoritarian drift of this Government. First, we had the Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Bill, which basically gives immunity to people abroad serving our country who committed torture. Then we had immunity given to state agents breaking the law in our country, including the crime of rape. Now we have clause 59 of the Bill, which proposes a 10-year jail sentence for causing the risk of “serious annoyance”—those are the words in the Bill. Note that is not even for causing “annoyance”, but for causing the risk that there may be annoyance. There are many things with which we might risk causing annoyance every day, but it is only in dictatorships or repressive regimes that such actions are subject to drastic sentencing.

This Government claim to have their roots in libertarianism and, of course, they are champions of liberty, but it is liberty only for the powerful and the wealthy, the “get rich quick” merchants and the spivs, those whose freedoms allow them to cause all kinds of annoyance—firing decent, hard-working employees and then rehiring them on worse conditions and paying poverty wages. Now we have a new freedom—the freedom to bung multimillion-pound taxpayer contracts to mates in the private sector. They have set their sights on our tradition of dissent, because their legislation is designed to crack down on our rights to take action against injustice. Black Lives Matter activists, workers who take industrial action, environmentalists and the women’s movement are all in their sights.

[Alex Sobel (Leeds North West) (Lab/Co-op)]

My hon. Friend and I have organised and been on many peaceful protests together. The measures in this Bill are so regressive that, under them, surely some of those protests that we have been on would have ended up in scenes like those we saw on Clapham common, with us and others being arrested. This shows that peaceful protest is not safe under the remit of the Bill.

[Jon Trickett]

I have indeed worked many times with my hon. Friend on all kinds of activities. What the Government have in their sights are the ancient rights of assembly and freedom of association, which are now threatened by clause 59. The fundamental right to free speech means nothing if these other freedoms come under attack. We may end up with a situation in which we are free to shout at the telly in the privacy of our own homes but not free to organise ourselves collectively in public.

It is not as if our country has done away with all forms of injustice and inequality, is it? Yet instead of standing against injustice alongside, for example, the women on Clapham common the other night, the Government appear to be more interested in empowering the police force to arrest people who the state judges to have risked causing annoyance. It is interesting that many police officers have said that they do not wish that power to be bestowed upon them.

This House of Commons should be a beacon of liberty—a protector of our rights to speak, associate freely and assemble in public to express our reservations about how the country is going. Repressive legislation will never eliminate the thirst and hunger for justice that remains so powerful in our country today. It is the duty of the Commons to stand up this evening and reject this Bill.

Public Bodies Bill [Lords]

Jon Trickett Excerpts

Tuesday 29th November 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Djanogly]

I will touch on my right hon. Friend’s point later.

During the debates on the future of the Youth Justice Board, we set out to persuade Parliament that, now that an effective youth justice system is in place, the oversight provided by the Youth Justice Board was no longer required and direct ministerial accountability for youth justice should be restored. My fellow Under-Secretary of State made that point on Report. However, we acknowledge the opposition to our original proposal to abolish the Youth Justice Board. Its abolition was never about saving money, as the Ministry of Justice does not have major savings contingent on its abolition. In that context, we have decided not to pursue abolition using powers provided in the Public Bodies Bill. Instead, we will reflect further on the Youth Justice Board’s future role.

I want to make it clear that the Government still believe that there should be more direct ministerial accountability for youth justice, that there is a strong case for the reform of the Youth Justice Board, and that we will consider our options for achieving reform outside the Bill. For example, a range of powers are open to us under the Crime and Disorder Act 1998. We will consider whether and how we can use those powers to achieve more direct ministerial accountability.

We will also consider the position of the Youth Justice Board within the context of the Cabinet Office’s policy on public bodies and its stipulation that all non-departmental public bodies should be reviewed at least once every three years. Let me be clear that the Government’s position on the Youth Justice Board will not be business as usual. Having said that, I assure all right hon. and hon. Members that over this period the Ministry of Justice and the Youth Justice Board have maintained effective working relationships, which will carry on as we take forward proposals for reform. The Government therefore support the motion agreed to in the other place, and I ask that this House does not insist on the amendment agreed to on Report.

[Jon Trickett (Hemsworth) (Lab)]

I am grateful to the Minister for his degree of elegance in basically climbing down from the Government’s previous position.

Our position all along—particularly in the shadow of this summer’s riots, which involved many young people—has been that it is essential not to make precipitate decisions on how we handle youth justice. We continually warned that it would not be appropriate effectively to abolish the Youth Justice Board, which continues to do such excellent work, but that does not mean that it should not be reformed from time to time, or at least reviewed.

I therefore welcome the progress made in the other place on the YJB, which I am glad to see has now been removed from the Bill, but I have some reservations about the Minister’s comments just now, and especially those made in the other place by the noble Lord McNally, who, when speaking about the future of the board, said that

“there is a strong case for the reform of the YJB, and we will consider our options for achieving reform outside the Public Bodies Bill.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 23 November 2011; Vol. 732, c. 1074.]

The Minister’s words today were almost a precise repetition of that, and it sounds like a threat. It sounds as though the Government have made up their mind, and that what we have heard today is not so much a climb-down as a temporary retreat in order to attempt to do on another occasion the same thing that they intended to do in this Bill.

[Richard Harrington (Watford) (Con)]

I get the impression that the shadow Minister is of the opinion that in this case any reform is unacceptable, and that the Government’s new line is just about doing the same thing but in another way. Is he against any reform?

--- Later in debate ---

[Jon Trickett]

If the hon. Gentleman had listened, he would have heard that I am not at all against reform or continual review, as no organisation ought to be. As events change, and as our understanding of crime and youth justice develops, as it will do over time, no doubt the YJB and other ancillary bodies will be reviewed, but it looks to me very much as if the Government have dogmatically made up their mind that the board must change and, in effect, be abolished.

[Robert Flello (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the Youth Justice Board has done fantastic work to date, for which it should be commended? The fact that it is not going to be abolished is a positive move. In terms of reform, youth offending teams will have to manage with smaller resources and teams, and it will be under incredible pressure, so does he also agree that the YJB is going to have to change the way in which it works, if only to respond to that?

[Jon Trickett]

I totally agree with my hon. Friend, who makes a powerful point. No doubt there is financial pressure on all public services, and probably rightly so given the climate in which we all live, but the truth is that dealing with justice and, in particular, with protecting the interests of young people is an important and primary function of government, so we ought not to make decisions in haste or for purely financial imperatives.

[Simon Hughes]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his moderate and considerate response to the Minister. My analysis is that there was strong support in both Houses and across the parties for the Youth Justice Board, so it is unfair to come to the conclusion that the hon. Gentleman implies, specifically because Lord McNally in the other place said:

“We will consider whether we can use these powers in the context of a more direct ministerial responsibility but will do so in consultation with the Youth Justice Board and with the intention of working harmoniously with it.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 23 November 2011; Vol. 732, c. 1074.]

I get the impression that the Government have understood people’s support for the board and its effectiveness, and that it is likely, even if changed over time, to continue.

[Jon Trickett]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his comments and for the moderate way he expressed them. We will see over time exactly what the Government’s intentions are.

The Government have set out to remove the independence of the youth justice system. The Minister repeated that they want, in effect, to bring it under direct ministerial accountability. There is no financial case that I can see for what the Government are trying to do. I have reservations about something as important as the operation of the criminal justice system, whether or not it deals with young people, being brought under ministerial direction. That is not a debate to be had this afternoon because the Government have withdrawn the proposal. However, any attempt to bring the criminal justice system under direct ministerial accountability will be resisted in this Chamber and in the other place, because it is a long-established tradition that the criminal justice system should, as far as possible, operate independently of the Executive.

The Government have not recognised the case for independence. As my hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle) said in Committee, the Government are committed to bringing the YJB under the remit of central Government. It is, in effect, a nationalisation. The Government want to nationalise the criminal justice system, whereas we want to defend its independence, as one would expect. In my view, none of the YJB’s core functions will be able to be carried out within central Government.

I do not wish to repeat all the arguments that have been debated elsewhere, but I simply urge the Government to keep in mind, in whatever review they carry out in future, that the independence of youth justice and of the criminal justice system in general needs to be maintained. After all, as has been widely acknowledged, the YJB does an amazing job. It has reduced youth offending, it has protected young people, and on the whole it has made the youth justice system better. In Committee, the YJB was praised, as it has been here today and was in the Lords the other week, by Members on both sides. I am glad that the Government have now recognised formally that it does invaluable work, and that they have withdrawn this proposal. We look forward to seeing in due course whatever the Government do next in relation to this matter.

[Sir Alan Beith]

The hon. Member for Hemsworth (Jon Trickett) is slightly confusing the very necessary and important independence of the courts with the status of a body such as the Youth Justice Board. The Executive are, and must be, accountable to Parliament for the efficient provision of things such as custody and alternatives to custody. They may choose to do this by way of a semi-independent or arm’s length body, but that is much more an administrative decision than a decision about judicial independence, for example. The two concepts are different and should not be confused.

I rise to underline and clarify the points made by the Justice Committee in its 10th report, which was published on 23 November, just after midnight. In that report, we set out our concerns about what would happen if the Youth Justice Board was abolished and what the Ministry of Justice would have to do in order to ensure that youth justice got the focus that the YJB had given it in the good work that it had done. We also set out what needs to happen in the circumstances in which we now find ourselves, whereby the Government have taken the decision not to abolish the YJB. Our concern was that one of the YJB’s weak points—perhaps the only one that came out strongly in evidence—was that quite a lot of people working in the sector felt that it was too “top down” in its approach to youth offending teams. The success that we have seen in youth justice has been achieved by youth offending teams bringing together every agency at local level and working together. That has been encouraged and supported by the YJB. However, the YJB itself told us that its oversight of youth offending teams will be lighter touch in future and that it is working to

“promote peer support and allow more room for professional judgement”.

That lesson needs to be learned. Indeed, when the Minister gave evidence to us, he gave examples from his own experience to underline that that approach was necessary. He also set out his own case for having greater ministerial accountability and greater ministerial awareness of what the YJB is doing.

The Youth Justice Board will continue. Many people will welcome that because it has provided a very specific focus and enabled things to be achieved in youth justice that have not been achieved in the rest of the criminal justice system. There has been a much better understanding of where to strike a balance between custody and alternatives to custody in youth justice than in other fields. There has also been much better local co-operation between the various agencies that deal with young people. We need to build on those experiences.

I wish the board well in the future. However, I underline the point that the Select Committee made in its report and hope that Ministers have noted it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Djanogly]

I beg to move,

That this House does not insist on their Amendment No. 53 to which the Lords have disagreed and agrees to amendments 53A to 53C proposed by the Lords in lieu of that Amendment.

Under Commons amendment 53, we would have retained the office of the chief coroner in statute but transferred its functions to the Lord Chief Justice and the Lord Chancellor. However, we recognised the desire to have a single judicial figure responsible for leading the coroner system, a view that was expressed in both Houses and by a range of stakeholders. We therefore tabled further amendments in the Lords that would allow us to implement the office of the chief coroner without delay and bring into force the range of chief coroner powers envisaged under part 1 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009.

We will not, however, implement the appeals provision under section 40 of the 2009 Act, which will be repealed. That will leave in place the existing system of redress, so that decisions can still be contested by way of judicial review or by application to the High Court by, or under the authority of, the Attorney-General.

The proposal before us will provide the system with leadership and will bring further improvements to jurisdiction, training and monitoring, and it will allow us to bring about all those things without further delay.

[Jon Trickett]

I beg to move an amendment, to leave out “agrees” and insert “disagrees”.

This is a similar debate to the last one, in the sense that the Government have now withdrawn an unreasonable proposal. The truth is, of course, that they did not have a majority in the other place to deliver either proposal, so although some good grace has been shown, there are also mathematical reasons to do with how the votes were going to go in the other place.

Hopefully, Members will never have recourse to the coronial system as a result of a sudden unexplained death of a loved one. We can all imagine that if we did, we would probably be in a difficult emotional condition. We would hope that we would be helped in discovering the true cause of that sudden and tragic death by a modern, professional, strong and independent-minded coroner.

Unfortunately, there have been too many cases reported in which the families, friends and colleagues of a loved one have felt let down by the coronial service that they have received. I do not need to dwell on the many occasions when the service was felt to have failed, but it became clear that the whole coronial service needed to be modernised, made more professional and above all made more accountable.

The Opposition are totally in favour of modernising public services that need to be modernised. We are in favour of reform, and I will not have anything else said. The view that the coronial service needs to be reformed and made more accountable is not simply that of a few party hacks in this place or elsewhere. It is the view of, for example, the Royal British Legion and of INQUEST, an organisation of which many Members will have heard. Between them, those organisations represent many bereaved families, including the families of our fallen heroes. So I have been perplexed throughout the Bill’s progress by the Government’s continuing failure to respond, not to our arguments, but to the voices of the bereaved and those who represent them, to the extent that, as the House knows, the Bill Committee refused to allow witnesses from the Royal British Legion to appear before it so that we could hear what they had to say on behalf of those families.

In the previous Parliament, it became the settled will of this House and the other place that the way to achieve far-reaching reform of the whole coronial service should be—at least in part—through establishing a new post, the chief coroner. The chief coroner’s tasks were well debated at the time and I will not rehearse them. Then, there was a change of Government and, bizarrely, as part of their review of quangos, this Administration decided to abolish the post of chief coroner, notwithstanding the fact that that post is not a quango. We repeatedly warned that that would be a major error and we therefore fully support the Government’s decision to take the office of chief coroner out of schedule 5, thereby securing the post’s existence.

I am happy that the hard work of organisations such as the British Legion and INQUEST, as well as that of many individuals, has finally paid off.

[Jonathan Ashworth (Leicester South) (Lab)]

Like my hon. Friend, I supported the British Legion’s campaign throughout the Bill’s passage. I want to put something on the record briefly. Many representatives of faith communities in the city of Leicester have approached me because of their concerns that coronial services need to be improved across the piece and be sensitive to faith communities’ needs. I wanted to put that to the Minister, but he was speedier than I anticipated. Does my hon. Friend agree that representatives of faith communities should sit on the bereavement committee that the Minister is establishing to advise on those matters?

[Jon Trickett]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who played a distinguished role throughout the Committee’s proceedings and spoke on Second and Third Reading. I know that he pays close attention to such matters as a hard-working constituency representative in the city of Leicester. I agree with his points.

Let me outline the reasons why we felt uncomfortable with the direction that the Government were taking. We heard that they were going to perform a fairly undignified climb-down on the post of chief coroner, and it looked like a wholesale victory, but, as is becoming the Government’s custom, the announcement was not made in this House or the other place, but to the media. We heard about it on the BBC the night before the Bill went into Committee in the other place. I think that that is deplorable.

Many people were misled into saying that it was a wholesale victory for common sense and that the Government had finally listened. However, when we saw the detail of the proposals, it immediately became clear that there was a flaw at their centre. The Government have decided not to delete the post of chief coroner—we welcome that—but they have also decided, as the Minister just said, to repeal section 40 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009. That means that there will be no right of appeal against a coroner’s decision—as we have heard, from time to time, those decisions are contested—to the chief coroner, as the House originally intended.

The Government know perfectly well that there is no need to repeal section 40, which will allow for appeals in due course, since the 2009 Act understood that such action had to be taken carefully. A procedure was therefore put in place so that the process of appealing to the chief coroner would not be invoked until the Secretary of State allowed that to happen. We strongly believe that that should continue. In effect, the removal of the right of appeal will reduce the office of the chief coroner to an administrative post with limited oversight of the coronial system, and that is to be regretted. We agree with INQUEST, which has circulated a note to all hon. Members today, that section 40 of the original Act should be retained and that a pilot for the appeals procedure could then be undertaken by the chief coroner when the post is filled. That review could be undertaken alongside the Ministry of Justice’s review. That would allow the Government to make an informed decision on how to proceed with reform of the coronial system. It seems that the Government are unwilling to make an informed decision, but have just decided, dogmatically, that there will be no appeals system. I strongly believe that a pilot would prove beyond doubt the efficacy of a national appeals system to the chief coroner. Why on earth would the Government withdraw that power? It is baffling.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Alan Beith]

The hon. Gentleman talks as if the appeals system exists and is about to be removed, but in fact it does not exist, because the chief coroner was not appointed and the clauses were not put into effect. The situation that he is describing as some strange and horrific future possibility is actually what we have now.

[Jon Trickett]

Of course it is, and I am baffled by that intervention, given that I have just said that section 40 allows for an appeals system to be introduced in due course. What was envisaged was a proper coronial system with an appeals process and a chief coroner who would have authority over the whole system. The Government are seeking to stop that logical process, which could be tested first by a pilot, and to put in an illogical system, with a chief coroner who would effectively be reduced to a purely administrative post.

In response to a series of parliamentary questions and freedom of information requests, Ministers have revealed that at no stage have the Government estimated the likely costs of additional judicial reviews, as opposed to an appeals system. On that basis, it is odd to argue that savings will be inherent in this decision.

[Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)]

Surely having a right of appeal would just mean more cost and delay. The really important role that the coroner has had historically is to make a judgment and provide closure. Is not that the most important of the coroner’s responsibilities?

[Jon Trickett]

The two interventions have been revealing. Both interventions, and the Minister’s original speech, envisage more judicial reviews taking place in the absence of a proper and orderly appeals process. The problem with judicial review is that it is more expensive than the appeals system. It can take years and it is burdensome, bureaucratic and emotionally painful to the bereaved families. The average cost to an individual is £30,000. We are talking about people, such as families of service men and women, who may want to contest the decisions of a coroner. Under clause 40 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009, there is a simple system that allows for an appeal to the chief coroner, which would create a precedent for the whole coronial service. Rather than that, the Government are resting their case on the fact that the appeal process will go through judicial review. That is not an appropriate way in which to handle a very sensitive service.

[Charlie Elphicke]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way again. He is being typically generous and kind. Judicial review is not a form of appeal. Sometimes it is used as collateral challenge, but it is not a form of appeal. It is used when there has been a procedural irregularity. The key message must be that the whole point of the coroner system is to get closure so that people can move on with their lives. A person has to get leave to apply for judicial review, and they must show that there has been some procedural irregularity or proper grounds for that kind of action to be taken.

[Jon Trickett]

The British Legion, which is closer to any of the service families than we are, says that it would prefer an appeals system. The hon. Gentleman has to say why he thinks that he understands better the needs of bereaved families than the British Legion. I suggest that he does not understand better, and nor do I. It is better to defer to the judgment of the British Legion.

[Stephen Mosley (City of Chester) (Con)]

rose—

[Jon Trickett]

I will not take any more interventions because there are other people who wish to catch the Deputy Speaker’s eye. The Government clearly want judicial review, but the problem is that it is a complex system. We will have the individual coroner’s court, the chief coroner and then the intervention of the judiciary through judicial review. It is a complicated administrative and legal process. Families who are bereaved and who simply do not understand what happened to their loved one want an explanation and the matter to be brought to closure. A judicial review can take years before an issue is resolved and cost tens of thousands of pounds.

[Mr Djanogly]

Will the hon. Gentleman explain to the House why he thinks that the chief coroner’s decision is less likely to be judicially reviewed than any other decision?

[Jon Trickett]

There may be some judicial reviews under the chief coroner, but they will be fewer in number. It will be a far more efficient system. At the end of the day, we want to do what the families want. The families are saying to us—the British Legion, INQUEST and individual families—that they do not want what the Government are trying to achieve. If the Government’s reasoning is to save money, it would be more efficient, better emotionally and cheaper to allow section 40 to remain on the statute book so that a decision can be made in the fullness of time, with all the options having been carefully considered.

It has been suggested that removing the right of appeal, which was in the original Act and which the Government now wish to achieve, will effectively neuter the role of the chief coroner. More sinister than that is a rumour that is now circulating that the Government intend simply to fail to fill the post of chief coroner. Will the Minister now tell the House when he intends to fill that post?

[Mr Djanogly]

rose—

[Jon Trickett]

I have said that I will not take any more interventions. The Government have moved considerably during the course of this Bill, and we will support the decision to retain the post of chief coroner. We welcome the Government’s decision in relation to that matter. For the reasons that I have given already, I will seek your permission, Mr Deputy Speaker, to divide the House on the question of the retention of the right of appeal to the chief coroner.

[Andrew Percy (Brigg and Goole) (Con)]

I shall try to keep my remarks as brief as possible. I begin by welcoming the decision—I will not call it a climbdown—to retain the post of chief coroner. I moved an amendment in this place to reinstate the post, and in that vote I was grateful for the support of the Labour Front-Bench team and some of my hon. Friends.

It is important to rehearse one or two of the arguments, as the hon. Member for Hemsworth (Jon Trickett) did, about why we need this reform and why Conservative Members, at the time, supported the creation of the post of chief coroner. There have been numerous examples of people and families receiving appalling and disgusting treatment at the hands of the coronial system. On Report, I mentioned a couple of such examples, and consequently, since then, other people in my area have come forward with their own examples.

We agreed, therefore, that there was a definite need for the reform and for the post of chief coroner. Of course, had the post been filled before this all started, we would not be in such a weak position, having advanced that argument. Nevertheless, I welcome the decision—whatever the reason—to reinstate the post. I look forward to hearing from the Minister, who tried to intervene on the Opposition spokesman, when exactly the post will be filled. One of the reasons I wanted to speak was to get an answer to that question.