Public Bodies Bill [Lords]

Robert Flello Excerpts

Tuesday 29th November 2011 Commons Chamber

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Robert Flello]

Let me begin by adding my praise to INQUEST, the Royal British Legion and a host of other organisations, which are almost too numerous to mention, that have been behind the campaign to ensure that the Government finally saw sense on refilling the post of chief coroner—not appointing someone to the post, because it was filled. Somebody was appointed, but then, shall we say, let go. I also pay tribute to the hon. Member for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy) for the work that he did, which is much appreciated.

I am extremely disappointed that, having been told time and again, and shown the error of their ways, the Government waited until the 11th hour—or not quite the 11th hour: it was probably around half past 7—finally to change their mind. However, they then behaved like a small child. Having been found out, they now want to kick the toys around spitefully. Section 40 can be introduced over time, in a measured way, using pilots. However, simply saying, “Okay, have the chief coroner, but you can’t have appeals,” looks petulant and leaves the Minister and the Ministry of Justice looking stupid. [Interruption.] Allow me to rephrase that, Mr Deputy Speaker. I did not mean for a moment to say that the Minister looked stupid; however, the stupidity of the actions stands out.

INQUEST has said as recently as today that it envisages that section 40 would

“remain on the statute book until, at a time to be agreed in the future, the provision would be brought into force by the Secretary of State under section l82 of the Act so a full pilot and review of the appeals process could be undertaken by the Chief Coroner.”

That is totally sensible. It continues:

“This would enable a properly costed, informed decision to be taken about rolling out a new avenue of appeal across coroners courts in England and Wales. Terms of the pilot and review would be decided between the Chief Coroner and the Ministry of Justice and, under our proposal”—

the proposal put forward by it and RBL—

“an appeals process would not come into effect for several years.”

All that is eminently doable, and to say otherwise is frankly wrong. INQUEST continues:

“An appeals process overseen by the chief coroner would offer families a route to resolve poor decision making.”

That relates to the interventions from the hon. Member for Dover (Charlie Elphicke)—[Interruption]—who is probably tweeting at the moment.

[Charlie Elphicke]

indicated dissent.

[Robert Flello]

I have got his attention—marvellous.

As INQUEST says, this is about

“poor decision-making by coroners before and during the course of the inquest so that any legal questions on these points could be dealt with quickly and efficiently. Currently, the only avenue of appeal for bereaved families about the decision-making of coroners and their conduct of an inquest is through judicial review which, as well as being expensive and complex, will often result in lengthy delays and adjourned inquest hearings while the issue is dealt with by the High Court.”

Let me give a quick example. Sheila Taylor bravely came to this House and spoke at a meeting with INQUEST on 20 October, following the tragic death of her son Mike, in April 2007. She says, among many other deeply poignant things:

“The Coroner’s Office didn’t inform us that we had a right to be present at the post-mortem. That had already been done before we were informed of Mike’s death, which made us suspicious. Was there some sort of cover-up? Had he been murdered? Had he been given the wrong drugs? The Coroner’s Officer was so rude in response to our questioning that we had to get our solicitor to speak to him on our behalf. We decided we needed a second toxicology report, but that caused a delay of 8 weeks before we could hold the funeral. You can imagine how upsetting that was.”

We can also imagine how upsetting it is for a family who have something that they are not happy about—indeed, something they have deep concerns about—but for whom the only avenue currently open is the judicial review approach, as the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Sir Alan Beith) said. Families such as the Taylors have to decide whether they want their son’s funeral delayed even further and the coroner to take even longer to look at their case, while they go through the expensive and lengthy process of judicial review. It does not need to be like that.

[Charlie Elphicke]

The hon. Gentleman was kind enough to suggest that I was tweeting. In fact, I was looking up the difference between judicial review and section 13 applications under the previous arrangements and section 40 appeals under the current arrangements, and it struck me that there was not much difference between the two. I wonder whether we are actually talking about a slightly illusory right of appeal.

[Robert Flello]

Perhaps the hon. Gentleman should go and use a fully sized computer to conduct some proper research, rather than using a small hand-held device in the Chamber, which is probably not allowed by “Erskine May” in any case.

The Government have previously referred to cost, but—this has been said several times already, but I shall say it again because it is so important—the whole cost issue is a nonsense in many respects. Answers to parliamentary questions, responses to freedom of information requests and discussions with the Ministry of Justice have shown that the Government have not analysed the current costs of judicial reviews of coroners’ decisions or made any attempts to ascertain what the future costs might be, and have thus been unable to make any comparison with the section 40 appeals process.

If section 40 remains on the statute book, things can be done properly, carefully, steadily and slowly. There is no need for them to be done tomorrow. There is no need to say, as the Minister has, “We want to ensure that all this can be done quickly, so we must omit section 40.” I am sorry, but that is wrong, and I suggest that he should read the Act again.

I do not know whether the Minister suddenly thought “We are going to lose at the other end of the Corridor”, or whether there was a moment on Remembrance Sunday when he stood thinking about the ultimate sacrifice that people had made, and about the small sacrifice that the House could make by doing the right thing. Whatever the reason for his decision, however, I know for certain that he will not want to upset the Whips today, and that he therefore will not tell the House that he will not press the amendment that would remove section 40. That is a tragedy.

No doubt the Government will win the vote despite the brave stance of many Government Members, but notwithstanding that victory and notwithstanding the removal of section 40, which I am sure will happen, I ask the Minister to ponder this: he may win the vote, but he will have lost the moral and ethical argument. He will also have lost any chance of being viewed positively by the—sadly—tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of bereaved families out there, and those who represent them, who know that section 40 is the answer. He has done the right thing in regard to the chief coroner, for whatever reason, and I now ask him to do the right thing in this regard.

[Stephen Mosley]

I believe that the Minister wants the chief coroner to be able to ensure that coroners are fully trained and know how to deal with issues so that no mistakes are made. Appeals are necessary only if things go wrong, so is not the solution to ensure that they do not go wrong in the first place?

[Robert Flello]

I might have a little more sympathy with that argument had the Minister not said on previous occasions that there was no need for a chief coroner, and that the precautions listed by the hon. Gentleman were not necessary. He cannot have it both ways.

[Mr Djanogly]

As the hon. Gentleman well knows, the Government’s reforms provided for training under alternative proposals.

[Robert Flello]

I do not disagree with the Minister—he did say that the Government wanted to provide for training—but the point was made time and again from the Dispatch Box that there was no need for the chief coroner to do any of the things that were mentioned by the hon. Member for City of Chester (Stephen Mosley). Thankfully the Minister has seen sense in that regard. However, if the hon. Gentleman is right and the existence of a chief coroner means that all coroners will finally be up to standard, there will be few if any appeals, so where is the harm in including section 40? I suggest that there is no harm in it at all.

I think that the Minister needs to do the right thing. I know that he will not do it today, but I know that it will be done at some point in the future.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—