New Clause 3

HC Deb 19 October 1982 vol 29 cc235-60

APPOINTMENT OF SPECIAL CORONER

'(1) Where an event has occurred which entitles or requires a coroner to exercise his functions, the Lord Chancellor may appoint a special coroner to assume all the functions and duties of a coroner in relation to that event.

(2) Such appointment may be made notwithstanding that a coroner has commenced to exercise his functions in relation to that event and in such case any proceedings carried out by the coroner prior to such appointment shall be null and void and the coroner shall cease to be empowered to carry out his functions in relation to that event.

(3) No person shall be appointed a special coroner under this section who is not a judge of the High Court or a circuit judge.'.—[Mr. George Cunningham.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. George Cunningham

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Speaker

We may discuss at the same time the following:

New clause 8—Coroners' courts (reports)— '(1) Where a report into the circumstances surrounding the death of any person has been prepared by or on behalf of the Chief Constable of any police force or any statutory authority such report shall be disclosed to the coroner who is responsible for holding an inquest into the death of that person. (2) Any such report as is referred to in subsection (1) above shall if requested be disclosed to any properly interested persons.'. New clause 9—Judges to act as coroners— '(1) When any person has died in circumstances falling within subsection (2) below or in any other circumstances where it appears appropriate to the Secretary of State the inquest into that person's death shall be held by one of Her Majesty's judges of the Supreme Court who shall have all the functions and powers of a Coroner. (2) The circumstances referred to in subsection (1) are:—

1. (a) deaths in police custody;
2. (b) deaths in prison establishments;
3. (c) multiple deaths of five or more persons;
4. (d) deaths of persons at their place of work.'.

New clause 12—Legal aid for persons appearing before special coroners— 'The provisions of paragraph 4 of Part I of Schedule 1 to the Legal Aid Act 1974 in relation to proceedings before special coroners shall come into force with the commencement of this Act.'. New clause 14—Rights of persons at inquests— 'Without prejudice to any enactment relating to the examination of witnesses, the following categories of persons shall have at any inquest a right to be present and to examine any witness either in person or by counsel or solicitor:

1. (a) the next of kin of the deceased;
2. (b) the parents, children and personal representatives of the deceased;
3. (c) any beneficiary of a policy for insurance on the life of the deceased and any insurer having issued such a policy;
4. (d) any person whose act or omission on the part of himself, his servants or agents, may be thought to have caused or contributed to the death of the deceased;
5. (e) a chief officer of police;
6. (f) any person appointed by a government department to attend the inquest.'.

New clause 16—Coroner to summon jury for case of death in police custody etc.— 'In section 13 subsection (2) of the Coroners (Amendment) Act 1926 (which requires a coroner to summon a jury in certain circumstances) there shall be added after paragraph (e) the following paragraph— or (f) that the death occurred while the deceased was in police custody, or resulted from an injury caused by a police officer in the purported execution of his duty;".'

Mr. Cunningham

I could, as legitimately as the hon. and learned Member for Accrington (Mr. Davidson), begin my remarks by claiming to speak on behalf of this side of the House. I hope that the Labour Party will get used to the idea that it does not constitute the whole of the Opposition side of the House. It is a large part of it, but by no means the whole of it. Right hon. and hon. Members who speak from the Opposition Front Bench, as I used to do, speak for the Labour Party and not for this side of the House.

There is an awful lot that is unsatisfactory about the taw in relation to coroners and it is not only high time, but well beyond time, when the House should decide either to implement or not to implement the proposals set out in the Brodrick report published well over a decade ago.

One of the unsatisfactory features is highlighted by recent events, including the arguments over the financing of coroners which arise from the South Yorkshire case, where an unbearable position is being suffered by the South Yorkshire coroner in his relations with the appropriate county council. The Home Office should take a more active interest in that matter. We cannot leave a situation where a local coroner is left in doubt about whether he will have to meet out of his own pocket certain expenses that arose from actions that he did not initiate.

The new clause deals particularly with the desirability of having a special coroner—I suggest a High court judge or at least a circuit judge—to take over from the normal coroner the conduct of an inquiry and, if necessary, an inquest in special cases.

The gist of the proposal, which was widely canvassed in Committee, is that inquiries into some deaths are particularly difficult and sensitive. They are very few. If the new clause were passed we might end up with four or five such cases in a decade—no more than that. However, the fact that they are few does not mean that the change is undesirable. The disquiet that the public feel about the conduct of certain inquests is a disquiet about the administration of justice, which we should not allow to continue.

The range of work of a coroner is enormous. By that I mean the vertical range of work. At the bottom end, he conducts mere inquiries on paper and by oral inquiry. He may conduct an inquest with or without a jury and, at the top end, he may conduct an inquest such as the Blair Peach, the Deptford or the South Yorkshire inquiries, where even a High Court judge might find that, procedurally, the case is not easy to handle.

4 pm

It is not normal in any walk of life to find one person who is competent to carry out such a vertical range of work with no possibility of substituting a "higher person" to conduct the work, if that is demanded by the circumstances. High Court judges are coroners at the moment. There is doubt in some quarters as to whether that is undeniably true, but the Home Office said so explicitly, and who am I to question the knowledge of the Home Office of the law on this subject?

Let it be understood clearly that we already distinguish between inquests into some deaths and inquests into others. The objections attributed to the Coroners' Society, that the proposal would involve a classification of deaths into upper and lower class deaths, is invalid, because we already have a system that allows a coroner to sit without a jury in certain circumstances but with a jury in other circumstances. That matter is appealable to the normal law courts. Occasionally, for example in the case of Blair Peach, the courts have ordered a coroner to conduct an inquiry with a jury—an upper class rather than a lower class inquiry. What I am suggesting would involve simply another gradation where one could remove the matter from the normal coroner and give it to a High Court or circuit judge acting as a coroner.

The difficulty arises because the present law confers the jurisdiction in respect of a case geographically, according to where the body lies or was found. Therefore, there is not even the opportunity that exists in many judicial proceedings whereby the judicial authorities, secretly but nevertheless effectively, choose one person rather than another to conduct a case. It is no secret that some High Court cases are believed to be especially difficult and call for qualities that one judge may possess more perfectly than another. That can be arranged, but it cannot be arranged for a coroner's inquest. If the body is found in his area, that coroner must conduct the inquiry.

The only way in which the coroner can arrange for someone else to conduct the inquiry—for example, if he is on holiday, if the deceased was known to him or if he is otherwise engaged—is to appoint a deputy. That is unsatisfactory and contrary to the normal habits of the English legal system. High Court judges already have the quality of coroners, although no geographical jurisdiction, and in most cases we can find a way to decide that person X will conduct the case rather than person Y.

I moved this new clause in Committee. Despite the apparent opinion of the BBC programme "World at One" today, the Labour Party did not move it. I do not expect the BBC always to be up to date on such matters, but it should try. I do not blame my former right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer). It is up to the BBC, not its interviewees, to get its facts right. It is no secret that, in Committee, the Law Officers—who have now disappeared and left the Home Office to take a much harsher line on the Front Bench—were sympathetic. The Solicitor-General left the Committee in no doubt that he would be happy to see the matter go through.

Since then, I have altered the proposal slightly to allow not only a High Court judge but a circuit judge to be appointed and to take account of the position where a normal coroner had begun his work, although not the inquest, so that if a special coroner was appointed he would take over after the initial inquiries had been partially completed.

At column 49 of the Standing Committee proceedings, the Solicitor-General said: I express sympathy for what I believe lies behind the amendment. In column 50, he said: I recognise, as does my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General, that there could be cases for which a different kind of skill and experience was required. The Solicitor-General meant different skills and experience from that of most normal coroners. He went on: I have in mind such cases in which the skill and experience required is in the direction and control of the proceedings, which can be a most expert matter when it is necessary, in the interests of justice as a whole, that a proper procedure is devised and followed. In this and in many other remarks, the Solicitor-General got it across to the Committee loudly and clearly that the Law Officers wished the change. At that stage, enter the Home Office, the Lord Chief Justice and the Lord Chancellor. I see the Minister of State shaking his head, but the fact is that the Law Officers showed clearly that they wished the change and it was only when the Home Office entered the scene—unfortunately, the Home Office is responsible for legislation on coroners, although not this legislation—that we encountered far less sympathy in the matter.

As well as expressing sympathy, the Solicitor-General made other interesting comments. I am sorry that he is not here because I should have wished to see him nodding his head while the representative of the Home Office was shaking his. The Solicitor-General said: I am reminded that all judges of the High Court have the jurisdiction of coroners throughout England and Wales. He went on to say that the only problem was how one could overcome the legal technicality of getting High Court judges to exercise that jurisdiction, because it had not been exercised for a long time. He said that he would consider the matter. He went on: I simply cannot tell the Committee how that jurisdiction can be brought into effect or who has to do what in order to ensure that a High Court judge may exercise that jurisdiction." —[ Official Report, Standing Committee A,8 July 1982; cc. 49–50.]

Once again, the Solicitor-General showed clearly that he would wish to have the possibility of invoking the general jurisdiction of High Court judges that had not been exercised in practice.

I remind the Minister of State that his colleague, the other Minister of State, in a written reply to the hon. Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Price) in July 1981, said categorically: High Court judges already have the powers of coroners, but fundamental changes in the procedure of coroners' courts would be needed to enable judges to act as coroners." —[Official Report, 9 July 1981; Vol. 8, c. 181.] We are not talking about a proposal that is outside the spirit of English law on coroners. It is fully within that spirit. Nor is the proposal a reflection upon normal coroners. Most of the work of coroners calls for some medical knowledge. The law does not require a coroner to have medical knowledge, but requires him to be either medically or legally qualified. An increasing number of coroners possess both qualifications.

There can be no doubt that at the lower level of work, medical knowledge can be extremely useful, but the higher level of work is the conduct of what amounts to an important judicial examination. It is experience and capacity of that kind that is required and it is no reflection on normal coroners to say that it is unreasonable to expect them to have that.

It is sometimes suggested that there is no problem because anyone who is dissatisfied with the coroner's inquest and its verdict can always appeal to have the verdict quashed, but that is not the solution. The Deptford fire case is a perfect illustration of this. The inquest was, in certain respects, wrongfully and unlawfully conducted. Nevertheless, when the matter came before the Divisional Court, the Divisional Court decided that those irregularities were not such as to justify the quashing of the verdict. I do not quarrel with that decision. Nevertheless, it leaves deep dissatisfaction with the conduct of the inquest if the Divisional Court can say that the coroner conducted it contrary to his legal obligations.

It was obvious before the event that that would be a difficult case. It was also obvious before the event that the Blair Peach case would be a difficult one. It would have been better, without it necessarily affecting the verdict, for the inquiry to have been bumped up to a higher level from the beginning. This is especially so because when a High Court does quash a verdict its freedom, as far as I know, only extends to deciding that another inquest will be heard.

In the normal way of things, the second inquest will be heard by the same coroner who heard the first inquest, but the High Court can order a different coroner, although still a normal coroner, to conduct the second inquest. Therefore, the fact that there is a procedure for going to a higher level of court to quash the coroner's inquest does not fulfil the objective that the new clause is directed towards.

In the new clause I am saying that there are some cases that need qualities which a normal coroner cannot be expected to possess in sufficient abundance for him to conduct the case. In those cases, the choice should be left entirely to the discretion of the Lord Chancellor, in the light of whatever representations from the Attorney-General or from the public that are informally made to him, to decide.

I do not think that that would result in thousands of applications to the Lord Chancellor to appoint a special coroner. No doubt there would be applications that were turned down, as well as applications that were accepted, but that is life. If we are to have a two-tier system, as we do already with jury and non-jury inquests, there will be requests that are successful and some that are not. That is not an argument against having what would now be a three-tier system but an argument in favour of discretion being exercised with common sense.

I am sony that all inquiries suggest that the Home Office is not prepared to recommend that the House accept this new clause. In the end, we shall come to it sooner or later, and I hope that the Minister can express more sympathy to the new clause when he replies than he has done in the conversations that we have had. He has been personally sympathetic, but not sympathetic to the new clause.

4.15 pm

Mr. John Tilley (Lambeth, Central)

As the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham) wishes to differentiate himself from other hon. Members on the Opposition Bencbes, perhaps I should say that three of the six hon. Members who support the new clause are London Labour Members, and two are distinguished lawyers. I shall try to explain the particular concern that we have about the issue of the inquest into the Deptford, or New Cross, fire.

The House will remember that it was a fire in January of last year in which 13 young black people died, one of whom was a constituent of mine, Patrick Cummings. His mother is only just recovering emotionally and psychologically from that event because it was not merely a private tragedy for the families involved, but something that led to a reaction of considerable and important public significance in the response of the black community, particularly that of South London and my constituency.

These people were angry at the inadequate response, as they saw it, of the rest of society, and particularly the judicial process, to the loss of the lives of those young people. They were upset with the police who after diligent investigations, were unable to sustain a charge of arson and could not produce a credible explanation of how the fire had happened. As the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury said, they were upset with the courts and particularly with the inquest, which was clearly inadequate to the needs of the case.

I do not wish to use the advantage of parliamentary privilege to make a personal attack on the coroner. I simply say that I feel that if some of these new clauses had been in operation then it would have been possible for a much more satisfactory inquest to have been held.

This is a debate on the intricacies of law into which I should normally be fearful of treading. However, I feel that I must make this point because those families and that community were deeply disturbed by the lack of response from Parliament. They drew attention to the fact that there was no official message of sympathy while, by contrast, there were many messages of sympathy, from here and elsewhere, for the young people who were victims of a disco fire in Dublin.

If the people concerned with the Deptford fire are saying, and saying strongly, to British society and the British establishment that they are unhappy—the slogan that summed it up was "13 dead—nothing said"—we should in Parliament, late though it is, pay some heed to what happened. We should at least draw the one lesson that if we had a different system of conducting inquests so that in a special case of public interest—a death or a series of deaths—there should be a special procedure to ensure that the public, not only the families and their friends and relatives, should be satisfied that justice has been done.

I hope that the Minister, if he cannot accept this new clause, will try to find in the legislation to come—I am sure that we shall have more legislation on this subject in the coming Session—a way of meeting this need, so that we can say that while many parts of society let down that community at lease: one of the lessons has been learnt by Parliament and by the Government.

Mr. Christopher Price (Lewisham, West)

I too wish to allude to the Deptford fire inquest, partly because two of the youngsters who died in the fire were constituents of mine, and Mrs. Ruddock, who owned the house which was gutted, is now a constituent of mine, having been rehoused in my constituency.

However, I start by saying that I think that either the Attorney-General or the Solicitor-General should have attended this debate. They participated in debates in the Committee and I have no complaints about their participation on those occasions. However, if we are to get this right, this is not simply a matter for the Home Office. It is a matter for both the Home Office and the Law Officers. The House is not exactly packed today, but in my view there is an obligation on the Law Officers at least to attend the debate.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Patrick Mayhew)

The hon. Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Price) will recall that the responsibility lies with the Home Office for the administration of coroners' courts. Although I was not fortunate enough to be on the Standing Committee considering the Bill, I shall seek to help the House at this stage of the proceedings. It was therefore thought appropriate that a Home Office Minister should respond on this occasion. The hon. Gentleman knows that the Law Officers, who have been represented already this afternoon, will be here later.

Mr. Price

I am sure that they will. The hon. and learned Gentleman knows that I have the utmost regard for both his administrative expertise and his legal knowledge, and I am sure that in many ways he will stand in. However, there are aspects, particularly the legal aid aspects, of some of the amendments standing in my name which, in my opinion, are far more relevant to the Law Officers than to the Home Office. For that reason alone I wish that they had been here.

In broad terms, I support the principle of new clause 3 standing in the name of the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham). However, I have tabled another version of it, simply to canvass with the Minister how he would approach the problem. That is new clause 9, in which I suggest that the Government should be under much tighter control by Parliament as to the circumstances in which they should appoint a judge as a special coroner. I am not completely committed to my solution of the problem, however, and I shall listen to the Minister's speech with interest.

I have also tabled new clause 8, concerning the information that is available at coroners' courts. I shall want to say a word on that subject. I have tabled new clause 12, on the subject of the legal aid that is available to those who appear before coroners' courts, and I shall want to say a word on that subject. I have also tabled new clause 16, dealing with the circumstances in which a mandatory jury should be necessary at a coroner's court. I shall say a word on that matter, too.

First, I shall say a word about new clauses 3 and 9, which immediately follow the remarks of the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury and those of my hon. Friend the Member for Lambeth, Central (Mr. Tilley). The new clauses stem directly from the New Cross or the Deptford inquest, as it has been called. I attended many days of that inquest in the council chamber in County Hall across the river. Had my son or daughter died in that fire, I should have been horrified at the way in which the inquiry into their deaths was conducted. I do not deny that it was a difficult inquest. There were many people in the public gallery, many of whom felt deeply and emotionally about what had happened, about the way in which inquiries had taken place and, in some cases, about the way in which the police had gone about those inquiries. However, we in Parliament have a responsibility to ensure that if a similar tragedy takes place, never again shall we see such a spectacle.

Dr. Davies, the south London coroner, is not an inexperienced coroner. In fact, I think that he is one of the most experienced coroners in Britain. However—I say this in no derogatory sense—it was clearly beyond him. He had never been called upon—and never again would be called upon—to conduct an inquest of that kind. It was clear that for such an occasion we needed a more dignified system, a much more experienced legal mind conducting the case, and a system which enabled all those who were most closely affected—I shall refer to this when I come to the subject of legal aid later—to go away from the inquest with the feeling that justice had been done. None of those conditions applied in that inquest. As the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury said, in a sense the High Court made confusion worse confounded by confirming that the coroner's failure to take notes throughout the inquest vitiated that inquest, although not to the degree that another inquest should take place.

I have to say that the bitterness that exists in the borough of Lewisham among the black population against what it sees as a white legal system is deep and will go on for many years. If the Government aim to heal race relations, healing that bitterness should be high on their list of priorities. As we have the advantage of the presence of the Minister of State, Home Office, on the Government Front Bench, I wonder whether he will give me now, or perhaps write to me later with, an up-to-date account of the degree to which an inquiry is still in progress into the origin of the New Cross fire, or whether the Metropolitan Police decided to draw a line and cease all further investigations. There have been rumours recently that the police have found a new line of inquiry, and I should appreciate a word from the Minister on that subject.

Therefore, on new clauses 3 and 9 I support what the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury said, and I strongly urge the Minister—I know that he will reject them and, if necessary, vote against them—to take this issue on board as a live issue which should be dealt with, and not simply brush it away. It is not just a matter of the New Cross fire inquest. There is also the Helen Smith inquest, which raised the question of Government involvement with inquests—the Foreign Office is deeply involved in that inquest—their proper role in such a case, and what the law is about inquests involving deaths which take place abroad.

4.30 pm

There has been a series of deaths in custody over which there has been a great deal of uncertainty of late. There was Kevin Gateley in 1974, Liddle Towers in 1976, Blair Peach in 1979, Jimmy Kelly in 1979, Richard Campbell, a black South London youngster who died in the Ashford remand centre in March 1980, Barry Prosser, who died in Winson Green prison in August 1980, Paul Worrell, a young black prisoner who died on 12 January 1982 in Brixton and Terry Jmerdon, a young white man with a history of schizophrenia who died in his cell in Wandsworth prison on 26 January 1982. There is another worrying case and it seems that it will be heard under the normal inquest rules. It involves Mr. Douglas Coverdale, who died in his cell in Uxbridge police station on Saturday 18 September.

It is a long catalogue, and to the extent that some of these youngsters were black it adds to the bitterness of the New Cross inquest. I am pleased that in the case of Mr. Coverdale there will be an inquest with a jury. I think that that is right. But who is the coroner's officer? He is Police Constable Wilde. Where is Police Constable Wilde stationed? He is stationed at the very police station at which Mr. Coverdale died. He is the officer charged—I am not saying that anything illegal is going on—with a large amount of the conduct of the inquest. Surely that cannot be the right way of proceeding if one wants justice to be done.

Earlier this year the Home Secretary announced new rules for the selection of jurors by a fair random process in criminal cases. I asked him at the time whether that random system would be extended to coroners' jurors. I can see no reason why it should not be so extended, but I am informed that coroners' jurors are not picked in the same way as jurors in criminal cases. They are picked by the antiquated methods which allow the idea to get abroad that they can be fixed. I am not saying that they have been fixed or that they are fixed, but there are those who say that a couple of recent cases in Wales caused disquiet on that ground. However, I am not making that allegation. I am asking the Home Secretary why coroners' jurors cannot be picked at random by the new method which he has announced recently and on which I congratulate him. When the previous Labour Government were in office, many of us were pressing for such reforms. I must acknowledge that we have obtained from a Conservative Government some changes that we failed to obtain from a Labour Government.

New clause 8 is concerned with information. When someone dies in custody, the chief constable of the relevant police authority prepares a report, especially if the death was in circumstances which gave rise to disquiet. The families concerned want to know the details that are set out in these reports. The new clause would make it necessary to make such reports available to any properly interested persons. I agree that I have not defined a "properly interested person". I have deliberately not done so because properly interested people will vary according to the inquest. The amendment that has been tabled by the official Opposition goes to the issue of what constitutes a "properly interested person". I hope that this issue can be sorted out in due course so that a satisfactory definition may be arrived at.

The issue of information at inquests is becoming especially important because of the worry about those who die from industrial diseases, especially asbestosis. There is a feeling among the families of those who have died from asbestosis that there is a conspiracy—I am not saying that there is but this is a genuine feeling among the relatives of those who have died from asbestosis—to prevent them learning the facts. There was a recent article in the New Statesman which detailed some recent inquests where the verdict was "natural causes", yet it was clear in each case that asbestosis was involved. In both cases the availability of information to the inquest was a central issue. Often in these cases the pneumoconiosis medical panel makes a judgment, but in the case of Richard Wellings, a Rochdale asbestos worker, a panel judgment was not made available to the inquest and the request for a jury at the inquest was turned down.

There is a real worry about these industrial disease cases, especially of asbestosis. When the Minister responds to new clause 8 I hope that he will say as much as he can about the information that should properly be available to the relatives of deceased persons who have been the subject o an inquest so that they do not leave the inquest, as they so frequently do, feeling that it has been a sham.

New clause 12 goes to the issue of legal aid. The relatives of those who died in the New Cross fire have been practically impoverished. They have spent almost every penny that they have trying to get themselves properly represented and to create circumstances in which the facts about the New Cross fire may come to light. New clause 12 would create the right to legal aid for those who appear before special coroners' courts, which are set up by new clause 9. No doubt the Minister will criticise my drafting. I would not defend my drafting for a moment. It is amateur stuff, but the principle is clear. If an incident or death causes genuine public concern and one wants the issues to be properly canvassed at an inquest, it is only fair that the relatives should be represented through legal aid. I know that an inquest is not an adversarial system. There is not one person against another, as in court. It is an inquiry. If no legal aid is available, that simply leads to bitterness and rancour in the minds of those who feel that they should be able to put forward their points of view, yet do not have the resources to do so. Therefore, I should like the Minister to say as much as he can about the availability of legal aid at inquests and about the proposals of the Home Office in that regard.

The final new clause that I have tabled is new clause 16. It reveals an obvious anomaly in the law as it stands. The Coroners (Amendment) Act 1926 lists in section 13(2) the circumstances in which an inquest must have a jury. People were worried in 1926. When deaths take place in prison custody, a jury must be summoned to the inquest. However, for some extraordinary reason, when deaths take place in police custody it is not mandatory for a jury to be summoned. Today there is just as much concern at the deaths that take place in police custody as about those that take place in prison custody. With the Birmingham bombers and the Prosser case there is an argument as to whether the death arose because of police or prison officers. My tiny amendment would put the matter right so that it is made clear in future, as in the case of Mr. Douglas Coverdale and the inquest to take place at Uxbridge, that the two are put on an even footing.

I have spoken fix: longer than I intended, but I have tabled quite a few new clauses. I am not in the brightest of moods as we discussed such matters with the Minister of State until 6 o'clock this morning. However, I believe that this group of new clauses is an excellent opportunity for the House to review the legal position of inquests. I hope that the Minister will reply in as favourable a tone as possible to the points that I have made.

Sir Walter Clegg (North Fylde)

I apologise to the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham) that I was not here to hear him move his new clause. I have a great deal of sympathy for all that has been said by the hon. Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Price) and for the objects that the new clause wants to achieve. In previous Administration of Justice Bills I have tried to ensure that such amendments would be selected.

I came to the conclusion that some reform was necessary after the inquest into the New Cross fire, which was not only bizarre, but brought the system of justice into disrepute. I have been concerned whether the coroners' procedure for death in custody is right as it is at present conducted because it can be unfair not only to the person who died and his relatives but to those who are accused of causing his death.

Therefore, it is time that the Government sought to amend the procedure for coroners' inquests, especially when there is bound to be great public interest when the inquest arises, as after the New Cross fire and deaths in custody. It is proper that a High Court judge, with all his experience, should be in charge of the inquiry, which an inquest is; it is not a trial. With those few words, I should like to express my general support for the theme that has been deployed by the hon. Member for Lewisham, West.

4.45 pm

Mr. Peter Archer (Warley, West)

The House is in debt to the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham) for focusing our attention on this problem. I hope that he will accept that I have done my best to ensure that he receives due recognition for his part in this matter. But I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not be too sensitive. On this question we were all thinking along the same lines.

We were grateful for the intervention by the hon. Member for North Fylde (Sir W. Clegg), who has shown that both sides of the House have been considering the matter. If ever there is bickering as to whether it was the Labour Party or the Social Democratic Party which first thought of a good idea, it will not come from the Labour Party. We have more important matters on which to concentrate.

It is true that, even before some of the recent cases that have been mentioned—the Deptford case, the Blair Peach case, the Liddle Towers case and the Barry Prosser case—there were problems with coroners' inquests which required attention. I hope that I shall be forgiven if I say that I suspect that, while the problems took an undramatic form, there were those who thought that they could be neglected and perhaps they would go away.

I hope that the Minister of State will not think from anything that is said in the debate that his presence is unwelcome. We are pleased to see him. We know that he will do his best to enlighten the House, but experience shows that a Home Office presence does not usually mean such a positive response as there would be if a Law Officer were present. But it is only fair to say that I am aware that the Solicitor-General has had to absent himself for other reasons, and his absence is not due to any lack of interest in what we are discussing.

In Committee, the Solicitor-General said that where consultations were necessary, the more widely we defined the problems, the longer the consultations would take. But it has already become clear that the debate cannot take place in a vacuum. There are many questions relating to coroners' inquests that fall to be considered. Many fall to be considered in this debate.

In 1965, a report by a sub-committee of the private practice committee of the British Medical Association expressed concern that causes of death were not always ascertained with sufficient accuracy. It suggested that in consequence homicides might go undetected. In consequence of the report, the then Home Secretary appointed a committee chaired by Mr. Norman Brodrick, QC. The committee concluded that the BMA report had been "unduly alarmist", but it produced a careful and comprehensive report in November 1971, which made 114 recommendations.

The fact that the committee took six years before it reported indicates the care that it devoted to the matter, and its assessment of the difficulties of the subject. Few of its recommendations have been implemented. The committee traced the history of the coroner's office from its inception in 1194 when its function was primarily to watch over the Crown's financial interests, to inquire into unexplained deaths and to ensure that a communal fine was levied on the locality when a Norman was murdered. It did not matter so much if a Saxon were murdered.

The principal purpose of the inquest continued to be the investigation of possible criminal responsibility for death until the establishment of police forces and the employment of criminal investigation techniques made that function of the coroner obsolete. The committee concluded that the inquest could still perform a function, but that it was a different one—to furnish accurate records of the causes of deaths to the Registrar General of Births, Deaths and Marriages and to identify hazards to health and safety to ensure that death from such cause did not recur. While that remained the function, the present arrangements worked adequately, but the committee still found it possible to make 114 recommendations for improvement.

Recently, the inquest appears to have acquired shades of its former function of investigating criminal responsibility for death. That has arisen in a number of cases where a strong body of public opinion has expressed disquiet about the way in which the police investigation was carried out. That was the burden of many of the remarks made by my hon. Friends the Members for Lambeth, Central (Mr. Tilley) and for Lewisham, West (Mr. Price). That does not necessarily imply any reflection on the police. I suggest not that the public disquiet was necessarily justified; only that in a number of recent cases that disquiet existed. There were those who, rightly or wrongly, felt that the police had not been assiduous in bringing to justice those criminally responsible for the deaths. Because of that anxiety, justified or not, the inquest provided a method of pursuing lines of inquiry which might have led to information about criminal responsibility.

We have shades of the original "watchdog" as opposed to the "Brodrick" function recurring. It is a function that is likely to apply to cases which attract widespread public attention and where feelings run high. A coroner who may admirably perform the "Brodrick" function and who may possess the large measure of expertise required to investigate medical causes of death and identify hazards to health, may not possess the qualities necessary to conduct the more dramatic type of tribunal where distinguished counsel take part in what is virtually—although I agree not in form—an adversarial combat where tempers run high, where there may be demonstrations and where most of us would shrink from having to conduct such an inquest.

I agree with the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury that we are not discussing the distinction between important and unimportant deaths. If that is the objection attributed to the Coroners' Society of England and Wales, it is based on a misconception. There is a clear distinction—it exists already, whether we like it or not—between inquests with the "Brodrick" function and those with the "watchdog" function. They call for different qualities and expertise. I support the proposals of the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury.

For the same reasons, I believe that the coroner should have access to all the known facts—as proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, West in new clause 8—where the inquest is likely to fulfill the "watchdog" function. The inquest cannot investigate whether criminal inquiries have been pursued energetically unless it knows what information was available to those who conducted the inquiries. So I support the proposal of my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, West.

The Brodrick committee made recommendations on the assumption that the function of the inquest was to identify the cause of death and hazards to health and safety. If the committee had envisaged that the inquest should take on a "watchdog" function, its list of recommendations might have been longer. But much of that report would repay closer study than it seems to have received. The Government would do well to consider paragraph 16.57, which deals with the right to be present at an inquest, to be represented and to question witnesses. That recommendation is embodied in new clause 14.

The present position is governed by the Coroners' Rules 1953 which are made by statutory instrument under a power contained in section 26 of the Coroners (Amendment) Act 1926. The relevant parts of rule 16(1) provide: Without prejudice to any enactment with regard to the examination of witnesses at an inquest, any person who in the opinion of the coroner is a properly interested person shall be entitled to examine any witness at an inquest either in person or by counsel or solicitor. One of the two provisos states: The coroner shall disallow any question which in his opinion is not relevant or is otherwise not a proper question. No one would quarrel with that. It is not proposed that anyone should be allowed to ask irrelevant or improper questions.

The Brodrick committee pointed to the uncertainty in that formula, because, until the inquest begins, no one can know whether the coroner will take the view that he or she is a properly interested person permitted to be present and to ask questions.

I endorse what my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, West said about the need to know in advance who is and is not a properly interested person. Two competent coroners, both acting in good faith, may arrive at different conclusions. It was for that reason that the Brodrick committee recommended that certain categories of people should have an absolute right to be present and to ask questions either themselves or through their legal representatives. That recommendation has never been implemented, although it has been referred to occasionally in public debate. It was repeated in the publication "Law Reform Now", which was initiated in 1965 by the Society of Labour Lawyers. The Opposition have sought to reproduce it in new clause 14. The categories set out in that new clause are intended to reproduce the categories set out in the Brodrick report, subject to those changes necessary for drafting purposes. I am sure that the new clause will not come as a complete surprise to the Minister, because I ventilated it in Committee.

I suggested also that it followed that those who were entitled to attend and be represented at an inquest should have access to legal aid. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, West for having taken up that suggestion. There is such a power already—as he has recognized—in schedule 1 to the Legal Aid Act 1974. Technically, we do not need legislation for that power to be implemented. We want an undertaking from the Government that the importance of legal aid in that context will be recognised so that we may know that that power will be implemented.

Those who have an interest in inquests—the next-of-kin of the deceased, who have a direct financial interest in the outcome or who may be criticised publicly for the events leading up to the death—are entitled to be present, to ask questions and to De adequately advised and represented. That is true where the inquiry may be adversarial in substance if not in form. I also agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, West that where the function is primarily to confirm or allay public anxiety, that can be done only if there is the verdict of a jury. That is the way to confirm or set at rest public anxieties.

5 pm

Even if there had never been the Deptford, Blair Peach or Liddle Towers inquests, there would have been a strong case for bringing the Brodrick report down from the shelf. I hope that the Minister can tell us what the Home Office proposes to do about the report. After the inquests we are in a different position. They open up a new epoch in the history of coroners' inquests, and it is one in which new thinking is necessary. I hope that, having had an opportunity to consider these matters, at least since the Committee stage, :he Home Office will tell us the state of its thinking.

Mr. Clinton Davis (Hackney, Central)

I wish to make a few brief observations following those that my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer) made, not in relation to the exceptional cases to which reference has been made but to the generality of coroners' inquests and in particular to new clauses 12 to 14, which are enmeshed.

I have appeared on a number of occasions at coroners' courts, largely acting without charge. There is no satisfactory way in. which a person who is without means can be properly represented unless a solicitor is prepared to undertake that task. That is grotesquely unfair. As my right hon. and learned Friend says, it is often vitally important that proper representation should be afforded to such persons, particularly when there is no equality of representation otherwise. In the vast majority of cases involving public authorities or substantial private interests those bodies are represented, yet there is no effective provision for others who have a direct interest to be represented. That is a serious injustice. I, too, should like to know why paragraph 4 of part I of schedule 1 to the 1974 Act has not been activated. That is quite apart from the question of special interests.

The Minister may say that there is provision for relatively poor people and that they can obtain advice under the green form scheme preparatory to the inquest, but that would be a poor reply. As a matter of practice it does not work. The strength of my right hon. and learned Friend's submission is clear, particularly in regard to new clause 14. Legal aid is an essential for proper and fair representation to ensure that justice is done.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Patrick Mayhew)

This has been an interesting and serious debate. I am grateful to right hon. and hon. Members for their contributions.

I hope that it will not be thought to be introducing an inappropriately flippant tone if I say that I heard with sympathy the hon. Member for Hackney, Central (Mr. Davis) say that he had often appeared at coroner's courts without charge. My first brief was at a coroner's inquest and I have yet to be paid the fee. He as a distinguished solicitor will hear that with considerable sympathy.

Mr. Clinton Davis

Will the hon. and learned Gentleman make it clear that I did not instruct him!

Mr. Mayhew

The effect of new clause 16 is to extend the circumstances in which a coroner is required by statute to summon a jury so as to include all cases where it appears to the coroner, either before he proceeds to hold an inquest or in the course of an inquest done without a jury, that there is reason to suspect that death occurred while the deceased was in police custody or resulted from an injury caused by a police officer in the purported exercise of his duty.

The existing law is contained in the Coroners (Amendment) Act 1926, section 13(2), which provides that a coroner shall summon a jury if it appears to him either before he proceeds to hold an inquest or in the course of an inquest begun without a jury, that there is reason to suspect…that the death occurred in certain circumstances that are specified.

My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has already stated that he accepts the principle recommended by the Home Affairs Select Committee in its report on deaths in police custody that inquests should be held with a jury on all deaths occurring in custody. He stated that this and certain other matters would require legislation in due course.

I listened with sympathy to what the hon. Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Price) said in support of new clause 16 and what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for North Fylde (Sir W. Clegg). In advice to coroners, which originated from the Home Secretary in 1969 but which was renewed by my right hon. Friend last year, the Home Secretary has not only advised coroners that it is desirable for an inquest to be held in every case of a person dying while in legal custody but has expressed the hope that such an inquest will always be with a jury whenever the death of a person in legal custody, including police custody, is reported to a coroner. We have no reason to suppose that that advice is not followed by coroners. The first part of the amendment therefore represents my right hon. Friend's stated policy.

The circumstances of deaths referred to in the second part also, in our judgment, without prejudice to the possibility of subsequent legislation, warrant an extension of the duty imposed by section 13(2) of the Act. I am accordingly able to advise the House to accept new clause 16.

I should like to speak to new clauses 3 and 9 together in the first instance and then move more particularly to a consideration of new clause 3 and then new clause 9. Each provides power for a High Court judge to act as a coroner in certain circumstances. New clause 3 would also extend that power to circuit judges.

New clause 3 provides that the circumstance in which the power may be exercised is merely the appointment by the Lord Chancellor of such a judge as a special coroner. New clause 9, however, provides that an inquest shall be held by a High Court judge where it concerns deaths in police custody, deaths in prison establishments, multiple deaths of five or more persons and deaths of persons at their place of work. It further provides that the inquest shall be held by a High Court judge in any other circumstances where this appears appropriate to the Secretary of State. It will at once be seen that the ambit of new clause 9 is far wider than that of new clause 3.

In Committee, the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham) said that he envisaged the clause being applied perhaps to one case every 10 years. Today, the hon. Gentleman said that he thought it would be applied to perhaps four or five cases a year—

Mr. George Cunningham

In a decade.

Mr. Mayhew

—in a decade. At any rate, the hon. Gentleman evisages it as a rare circumstance in which his provision would be appropriately used. In 1980, however, new clause 9 would have applied to 63 deaths in police custody, 65 in prison establishments and 293 at the place of work, making a total of 421. These include deaths arising from natural causes because they are caught by the clause.

I have certain general points to make about the employment of judges, High Court or circuit, in the role of coroner which I hope I can most usefully advance when I discuss new clause 3. They apply equally to new clause 9. For the moment, the hon. Member for Lewisham, West will, I think, accept that I believe it is enough to point to the unacceptably enormous additional demands that would be made on the High Court bench by new clause 9 to say nothing of the wastefulness of employing these judges to investigate deaths by natural causes or the arbitrariness of the threshold of five for multiple deaths. I should like to say here in parenthesis that this would lead to the recent bomb outrage in Hyde Park qualifying but the contemporary bomb outrage in Regent's Park not qualifying. It is enough for me to point only to those instances, I believe, to explain adequately why the Government cannot accept new clause 9.

I turn now particularly to new clause 3. I must tell the House that I cannot advise its acceptance. The hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury, who has been kind enough to come to see me on at least two occasions to discuss these matters, knows the nature of my response which will therefore come as no surprise. I understand the thinking and the anxiety that has prompted the hon. Gentleman to table the clause. Broadly, it may be described along the lines that inquests can be expected occasionally to become necessary, the conduct of which may be expected to be so difficult, through political or other special connotations, that an ordinary coroner may be expected not to be up to the job and where a High Court judge or a Crown court judge would be better able to cope.

The hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury and others have referred specifically to the Deptford fire inquest. I have no desire today to speak in any way that might be thought to be commenting on any aspect of that tragic occurrence—the Deptford fire or the inquest that took place into those deaths—save only to say that, by the process of judicial review that is open to all who have an interest in the result of an inquest, the matter came before the Divisional Court. It is right to remind the House that the application to quash the verdict was rejected and that the Lord Chief Justice, in the course of his judgment, said of the coroner: Despite the difficulties facing him, this coroner did manage, against the odds, to perform his duties with commendable skill, forbearance and tact. and added later: such irregularities as there were can have had no impact upon the course of the inquiry". 5.15 pm

I pay tribute, like others, including the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury, to the general excellence of the work done by Her Majesty's coroners in carrying out what is often a thankless task. The Government take the view that such difficulties as have arisen in special cases are not sufficient to warrant the introduction of special coroners, particularly bearing in mind the provisions that exist for the setting aside of a verdict by the High Court by means either of a judicial review or with the authority of the Attorney-General under the powers conferred by section 6 of the Coroners Act 1887.

Even if the facts warranted the introduction of a system of special coroners, the Government do not think that a system of the kind proposed would be appropriate. It is true that a High Court judge has a jurisdiction as a coroner by virtue of his office. My hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General stated in Committee that he was in favour of looking into their powers to sit as coroners by virtue of their office but he did not advocate new legislation to enable them to do so as this new clause would provide. It is of interest to note that a High Court judge's jurisdiction as a coroner is not controlled by the Coroners Acts nor by the rules of procedure which stem from the Coroners Acts. We believe that the scheme proposed by new clause 3—

Mr. George Cunningham

The Solicitor-General said in Standing Committee that the Government would look into the question of how that general, ungeographically defined jurisdiction could be brought into force. Have inquiries reached the point where the Government are clear in their mind as to whether, and if so how, that jurisdiction could be initiated to be exercised?

Mr. Mayhew

It is not clear how a High Court judge could exercise or be brought to exercise that jurisdiction. Nor is there any record of which I am aware of his having done so. What is clear is that if he was to exercise that jurisdiction as a coroner, he would not be bound by the rules or be subject to the duties of coroners who sit in the ordinary way under the authority conferred on them by the Coroners Acts. That in itself might well give rise to anomalous conflicts. The High Court judge, unfettered by any statutory obligations, would be sitting in pursuance of common law right, whereas the coroner for the district would continue to have the duties imposed upon him by statute. These would presumably run in a rather unhappy tandem.

Mr. Christopher Price

I do not think that that really answers the hon. Gentleman's question. The Solicitor-General gave a pledge in Committee that the Government would look into the matter—no more than that. Has that process started? Is it in its middle? Has it ended? Have the Government any intention of making a firm statement about their view beyond the statement that the Minister is now making?

Mr. Mayhew

The process has not only started. It has reached the conclusion that I have endeavoured to describe—that it is not clear how a High Court judge could be brought to exercise that jurisdiction which he undoubtedly has. That is as far as we have been able to proceed.

Mr. George Cunningham

Are the Government clear at least on this specific question? If a case goes up to the Divisional Court to quash the verdict and the Divisional Court does so, it is normal practice for it to nominate a coroner to hear the new inquest. If a High Court judge were nominated, would that activate his coronery powers and jurisdiction?

Mr. Mayhew

We do not know for certain the answer to that question. One of the reasons why we do not know is that we have not had the advantage of precedent, so the matter is uncertain. I am not saying that this could not be done: I am saying that it is uncertain. The House will wish to take well into account the fact that a High Court judge, even if nominated in that way, would sit with powers deriving not from the statute, which would not apply to him, but from common law.

I think that it will help the House if I give the principal reasons why I do not believe that the scheme proposed! in new clause 3 would be satisfactory. First, however, I shall deal with some of the points raised in the debate.

I accept the comment of the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury that coroners have an enormous range of work—vertically, as he puts it. I agree that coroners are territorially selected and that it is, as he put it, within the spirit of the English legal! system that within certain categories of judicial officer a measure of selection can be made. I take the hon. Gentleman's point in that respect. I noted particularly his remark that nothing in his speech constituted any reflection on coroners.

I mention these points to demonstrate that I am not in conflict with the basis on which the hon. Gentleman founds his policy, but for reasons that I shall explain I believe that the disadvantages inherent in his scheme are not warranted by the scale or nature of the problem that he puts forward as its justification.

Mr. Ivan Lawrence (Burton)

I appreciate the strength of my hon. and learned Friend's objections to new clause 9, proposed by the hon. Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Price), as I imagine that most hon. Members do, but what on earth is there to prevent a power from being given to the Lord Chancellor to appoint a special coroner in any circumstance in which he considers it in the public interest to do so? It would not be necessary to be specific and my hon. and learned Friend would not have to answer the various specific requirements laid down in new clause 9, but it seems a matter of eminent common sense, for which there must be an eminent amount of precedent, that there are matters in which, in the public interest, a certain course of action needs to be taken.. Where there is or may be public disquiet, as in some recent inquests there has been profound dissatisfaction among certain elements of the public, why cannot a general power be given to the Lord Chancellor to say that in his judgment it is a special situation requiring a special case?

Mr. Mayhew

I am grateful to my hon. and learned Friend. Technically, of course, there is no reason why Parliament could not confer such a power on the Lord Chancellor. I must tell the House, however, that the Lord Chancellor, who is head of the judiciary, has made it clear that he is strongly opposed to involving either High Court or circuit judges in controversial inquests or—this relates specifically to the point made by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence)—to becoming involved himself in the decision as to which cases should be singled out for special procedure. In his view, such a decision would involve a conflict between his judicial and his administrative functions. I need hardly say that he is extremely unwilling to add to the burdens of an already hard pressed judiciary. If I may say so, the problem is not what might prevent the Lord Chancellor from having such a power. The difficulty lies in determining what criteria should guide his discretion.

The hon. Member for Lewisham, West says in new clause 3 that the Lord Chancellor may appoint". He sets out no guidelines or fetter upon the Lord Chancellor's discretion. I believe that that could foreseeably lead to great pressure on a Lord Chancellor, in the circumstances of succeeding deaths, to appoint a special coroner on the basis that the matter will give rise to a particular public interest because it is an especially important case. If I may respectfully say so, I have a great deal of sympathy with the Lord Chancellor's strong reluctance to become saddled with a discretion of that nature in those circumstances.

I shall deal briefly with other objections, but I wish first to deal with the remarks of the hon. Member for Lewisham, West when he referred to the black community in Lewisham feeling bitter about what it regards as a white legal system. I believe that he made that comment in the context of the Deptford fire inquest in particular. As I have said, I make no comment whatever on that inquest or its conduct. I must, however, take up the comment that it is a white legal system, and a biased one, as the hon. Gentleman implied. Only in the last few weeks, we have seen and welcomed the appointment of a Sikh circuit judge and we have black barristers and black solicitors. What matters is not the colour of those who man our legal system but how they conduct their business and discharge their duties. The hon. Gentleman asked whether there was still an inquiry in process as to the origin of the New Cross fire. I am informed that the police are still pursuing inquiries in the case and that they are, for example, continuing to conduct interviews. The case is not closed.

The hon. Gentleman referred to the involvement of Government in connection with the Helen Smith inquest. If I understood him correctly, he spoke of there being anxiety as to the extent to which Government are now involved with inquests. It is precisely to avoid contentious involvement of Ministers in inquests that we are unable to accept either new clause 3 or new clause 9.

The hon. Gentleman asked whether coroners' juries could not be picked in the same way as juries in any other case. It is our intention that coroners' juries should be picked in the same way as they are picked for other courts, but that requires substantive legislation to apply to coroners' jurors the same qualifications and disqualifications as apply to others. At present, the Juries Act 1974 does not apply to coroners' juries.

5.30 pm

The hon. Member for Lewisham, West referred to information available to coroners. He said that families wanted to know the details of the information—for example, in cases of death by asbestosis. Following an inquest, properly interested persons are entitled to request copies of post mortem reports, notes of evidence and any documents put in evidence. The inquest cannot determine matters of civil liability, which must be proved in the appropriate court.

Mr. Price

Is the Minister aware that after protracted inquests the coroners' notes are expensive to procure and are often beyond the means of individuals with a direct interest?

Mr. Mayhew

I accept that point. However, if there appears to be a prima facie case for a claim for damages for civil liability, legal aid is available which extends to obtaining copies of the coroner's notes. I agree that that is not immediately available as the case has to be set on foot first.

I return belatedly to the principal new clauses, Nos. 3 and 9—

Mr. Price

rose—

Mr. Mayhew

I have given way a great deal, and we want to get on with the business.

Mr. Price

When the Minister said that it was the Government's intention to change the system of coroners' juries, did he mean that the Government intended to introduce legislation?

Mr. Mayhew

We intend that coroners' juries should be selected in the same way as jurors in other courts. That requires main legislation. We hope to introduce appropriate legislation, but I cannot promise an early prospect of it.

First, there is a real danger that the inquest procedure, which is adapted to its purely fact-finding purpose, would become adversarial in nature rather than inquisitorial, and would take on the overtones of a trial, if such a structure were adopted. I listened to the interesting point made by the right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer), who said that inquests were returning to their early function of inquiring into criminal responsibility. He will know that it is no part of a coroner's inquest to determine criminal liability. It is a matter of great anxiety that, in one or two cases, coroners' inquests have been conducted on an adversarial basis by those taking part in them. It would be a matter of deep anxiety if that were to continue, still less to be encouraged.

Secondly, it would be impossible to define satisfactorily the sort of case to which the proposed arrangements would apply. That would mean that a large number of those with an interest in those matters would press the Lord Chancellor, or the Home Secretary in the case of new clause 9, for the claims of their case to be treated specially and to be heard by a special coroner. That would lead to an unsatisfactory and unstable position.

Thirdly, the administrative duties carried out by a coroner from an early stage in each case relating to the holding of the inquest, and, during the inquest itself, for eliciting information from witnesses, are not expected of judges in the exercise of their judicial role. I have already referred to the attitude taken by the Lord Chancellor to the proposal, and I need not repeat it.

The Brodrick committee, which was set up in 1965 and scrutinised all aspects of the coroners' system before reporting in November 1971, recommended the re-organisation of that system on more flexible lines, with a national system of coroners appointed by the Lord Chancellor. The committee recommended that if at some future stage it were desired to deploy coroners more flexibly than by static jurisdictions, eg by creating panels of coroners for special inquiries whenever they might occur, or by giving hard-pressed coroners temporary re-inforcement from other areas, these possibilities should not be frustrated. The Government's mind is not closed to the possibilities. I envisage substantial attraction in having a regional structure that would enable the person presiding at regional level to appoint a regional coroner, or a coroner from other than the immediate territorial district where death took place or the body was found, to exercise jurisdiction in the inquest. That may represent a way forward that we should explore.

I must make it clear that the Government are not committed to legislation along the lines suggested by Brodrick, and it would not be possible to introduce such legislation in this Parliament. However, such problems as have arisen might best be dealt with by something of that sort.

Mr. Lawrence

Would not the circumstances in which such regional coronership panels were allocated be as intractable a problem as that which the Minister faced with regard to the appointment by the Lord Chancellor of a High Court judge? Yet he is mildly in favour of the former but opposed to the latter on precisely the same grounds.

Mr. Mayhew

That suggestion would be within the existing coroner system, which is a different matter. It would not involve a member of the Executive, that is a Minister in the Government. That is an important distinction.

I turn briefly to new clause 8. One of the perils of grouping together a large number of new clauses is that they call for a lengthy reply. There is, of course, no question of the police failing to disclose to a coroner a report prepared at his instance for the purposes of an inquest. I know of no instance where the police have failed or refused to supply a coroner with a report prepared for other purposes. The only basis on which I can envisage that they might do so would be on the grounds that a report prepared for other purposes was likely to be disclosed to third parties, which is, of course, precisely what subsection (2) of the new clause seeks to achieve.

The nub of the question is whether police reports should automatically be disclosed to parties other than the coroner. In this connection it is important to examine the nature of police reports and their use. A police report is a summary of the information which has emerged from an investigation, together with expressions of opinion as to the weight to be accorded to it, the veracity, character and reliability of witnesses and so on. In practice they will enable the coroner to consider what evidence he should call at the inquest. They are not evidence in themselves and would not be offered as such in criminal proceedings. New clause 8 would, however, have it that it is always right and in the public interest to disclose such reports to all interested parties if requested.

The Government cannot support that provision, and we know from a number of judgments that the courts do not support it either. For example, the coroner often has to deal with deaths in which, at first, suspicion falls on a member of the family. Such cases are investigated with the greatest discretion and, if the facts disprove that suspicion, there is no need for the person concerned to know that they were ever suspected.

In other cases, one member of a family may have made accusations against other members. Again, great distress could be caused by disseminating such accusations. II is essential that the coroner should retain a discretion in divulging such matters, although recording and investigating them is a proper function of the police.

There are various procedures whereby parties to criminal or civil proceedings, as well as inquests and tribunals, may seek to have documents disclosed. It is, however, for those responsible for such documents and for the courts where appropriate, to exercise discretion whether disclosure should be made. I do not consider that disclosure should ever be automatic. I am afraid that I have, therefore, to give a discouraging response to that new clause.

New clause 12 deals with legal aid for special coroners' proceedings. That depends upon there being special coroners. The hon. Member for Hackney, Central asked why paragraph 4 of the appropriate schedule of the Legal Aid Act had not been implemented. That permits legal aid for coroners' inquests. It has not been implemented for the same reason as it was not implemented by the Opposition when they were in Government—financial resources are not available. It can be applied to coroners' inquests only at the expense of other proceedings in which legal aid is available.

We have increased the scope of legal aid. We recently announced our intention to extend assistance by way of representation to the mental health review tribunals. The Lord Chancellor has announced legal aid for parents in care proceedings, which is to be introduced shortly. There will be legal aid for the proposed new bail applications to the Crown court and mandatory legal aid for young offenders on each occasion that they are subject to a custodial sentence. It is a matter of priorities, and those are the priorities that we put first.

As to new clause 14, the right hon. and learned Gentleman has uncharacteristically omitted to notice that the rights that he seeks are already conferred under rule 4 of the Coroners (Amendment) Rules 1980, under which the following persons have had the right to appear at a coroner's inquest, either in person or through a solicitor or counsel: a parent, child, spouse and any personal representative of the deceased; any beneficiary of a policy of insurance issued on the life of the deceased; the insurer who issued such a policy of insurance; any person whose act or omission or that of his agent or servant may in the opinion of the coroner have caused or contributed to, the death of the deceased; any person appointed by a trade union to which the deceased at the time of his death belonged, if the death of the deceased may have been caused by an injury received in the course of his employment or by an industrial disease; an inspector appointed under section 19 of the Health and Safety at Work, etc, Act 1974, … ; the chief officer of police", and so on.

What is sought in new clause 14 is already available under those rules and a little more besides, because a person appointed by a trade union may be heard. I believe that those categories are wide enough to cover the appearance of any person with a legitimate interest. The rule makes the coroner's court unique in allowing relatives of the deceased and certain other persons affected by the death to appear to be represented and to examine witnesses. That is not the case in other courts. Relatives of the deceased are not represented at a trial for homicide in the criminal courts, nor am I aware of any other court at which such a wide spectrum of interested persons is entitled to appear. I believe that the provisions of the new clause are met, and I hope that it will be withdrawn.

I apologise for speaking so long, but I have given way on many occasions. We have been discussing extremely interesting and connected matters. I am glad to accept new clause 16. I hope that I have been able to establish that there are sound and proper reasons, not intransigent ones, for not accepting the other new clauses.

Mr. Arthur Davidson

The whole House is grateful to the Minister of State for the careful and considered manner in which he has replied to the debate. I am sure that both sides of the House are grateful to him for his two concessions.

The hon. and learned Gentleman will be delighted to learn that I share one thing in common with him. The first brief that I, too, received was a watching brief at a coroner's inquest. Like him, I have not yet been paid—I suspect for the worst possible reason. Indeed, it is rumoured that the solicitor considered that the fee of two guineas was gross overpayment in my case as it was my first brief. However, like the hon. and learned Gentleman, I live in hope.

The debate has shown that there is a growing feeling of dissatisfaction with the inquest system as it operates in a limited number of cases. As of necessity, these are serious cases which by their nature cause anxiety to the public, I fear that that dissatisfaction will grow and that more controversial cases will arise unless some of the anomalies that have been highlighted are dealt with.

I am slightly disappointed at the Minister's response to new clause 3, which is the heart of this debate. As in Committee, the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham) moved the new clause in a considered and modest way. He conceded—I think that this is beyond dispute—that the Lord Chancellor would exercise his discretion to appoint a coroner in a limited number of cases. The hon. Gentleman mentioned two or three in a decade.

The Minister's argument was unconvincing. He suggested that this would be an added strain on judicial resources. I do not think that it will add very much to the burdens of the High Court. I do not believe that it will involve much extra work and I am sure that High Court judges will be well able to deal with these cases.

5.45 pm

The argument in favour of High Court judges acting as special coroners in serious and emotionally charged cases, where the relatives of the deceased feel strongly, and are sometimes even bitter, is the same as the argument in favour of High Court judges hearing serious and emotionally charged criminal cases. High Court judges are selected to hear those cases because, by their training, they are capable of exercising sensitive and firm control. Because of their expertise and training, they usually do so very well. The appointment of High Court judges to hear such cases is no reflection on the overwhelming number of circuit judges, who, in the majority of cases, are more than capable of hearing a criminal case and trying it very well indeed.

I believe that the same principle should apply to an inquest which, by its very nature, arouses strong feelings, not only among relatives, but among the public as well. Someone whose training enables him to exercise sensitive, careful and firm handling of a case should in a limited number of cases be appointed to preside over such inquests.

The hon. and learned Gentleman suggested that the appointment of a High Court judge might well encourage the adversarial system to operate more than it does at present. I take the opposite view. Because a High Court judge is able to exercise firm and experienced control, I believe that he would be able to limit the possibilities of the adversarial system applying in inappropriate cases.

Mr. Lawrence

The reason why High Court judges are appointed to try appropriate cases, and why we are asking that the same should apply to inquests, is that it greatly increases, not the efficiency of the proceedings, but public confidence in the way in which the proceedings are conducted and in the conclusion that is arrived at. The real argument for appointing a High Court or circuit judge for inquests arose out of the recent number of inquests where that public confidence was clearly lacking. The difference between that and the sort of public confidence that emerged when Lord Scarman began his inquiry was so blatant that in some circumstances it must be in the public interest for similar rules to apply. Is that not the real point?

Mr. Davidson

I will not say that it is the real point, although it is a strong point and one to which I was about to come, but since the hon. and learned Gentleman has made the point so fully and so well, and since, clearly, I cannot improve upon it, I shall not attempt to embellish it. Of course the hon. and learned Gentleman is right. Of course the public will have more confidence in the proceedings when they see the careful, skilful and sensitive handling of someone such as Lord Scarman. I do not need to add to that.

In all the circumstances, anyone reading this debate and the Minister's reply will feel that there is no insuperable obstacle, or no real obstacle, to the Government's implementing the sensible and modest proposals outlined by the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury in new clause 3. It is imperative that those who are affected by the judical system, at whatever level must feel that it operates fairly and in their interests, and that it is open and conceals nothing. This is particularly so in an inquest, for the most obvious reason. The relatives feel particularly aggrieved, and frequently feel bewildered. They are shocked, grieving and frequently bitter. Not only are they bitter, as anyone would feel over the death of a relative, but, because the person concerned is dead, there is no one who can give an eye witness account of what happened. Therefore, an inquest must, above all, be seen to be open and conducted in a fair manner. That is all that the hon. Gentleman is asking for in the new clause.

The House would not expect me to deal at any great length with new clause 14. I am sure that we are grateful to the Minister for what he said on that. While I appreciate that the Minister is concerned that inquests should not be a source of dissatisfaction to the public, and a source of grievance to the relatives, I believe that I am expressing the view of most Members of the House when I say that we are disappointed that he could not be a little more forthcoming in an otherwise sensible reply.

Mr. George Cunningham

I have no intention of going over the whole ground again. I entirely agree with the hon. and learned Member for Accrington (Mr. Davidson) about the likelihood that the high-level conduct of an inquest would reduce the adversarial content and nature of the occasion rather than increase it. The Minister of State must have noticed the number of demands in recent years for what might be called extra-system inquiries. Even where those inquiries are conducted either under the Police Act or the 1923 legislation, they are in a sense outside the system. Part of the reason for the demand for such non-system inquiries is the lack of some special facility within the system of the type that is advocated in new clause 3.

As for the reluctance of the Lord Chancellor to take on the burden of distinguishing between those cases which would be subject to the new procedure and those subject to the old, I am afraid that the Lord Chancellor will just have to put up with it. He does exercise something like that discretion at the moment in many cases. The extra burden on the Lord Chancellor is a price worth paying for the advantages that have been recommended. Discretion is already exercised on whether an inquest is conducted with a jury or without one.

What has clearly come out of the debate is that 11 years is too long for the House to get down to introducing fairly comprehensive legislation about coroners' courts. The Minister conceded in a recent parliamentary answer that there were about 25 recommendations in the Brodrick report on which no action had been taken and no position taken by the Home Office. It really is time that the Home Office decided what it wants to happen on those various recommendations, even if there is not time in the next Session or the following one to bring in legislation.

This is not a bad report. In fact, it is a good report. We cannot go on putting things on the shelf. The Home Office should now regard the 11-year-old Brodrick report as if it were a Select Committee report which came out last month. The Home Office should rapidly ensure that it brings forward its response, in some form or other, to these various recommendations and the other points that have come up since, so that when the time comes and there is an opportunity to pass legislation, it will at least know what it wants to do.

I welcome the little bit of hope that the Minister brought in at the end of his speech, and which he has been good enough to discuss with me, about the possibility of a regional hierarchy for coroners, but I am extremely doubtful about the desirability and workability of it in preference to what I am proposing. Coroners' courts, although not adversarial in nature and not now concerned with criminal responsibility, are part of the quasi-judicial system. I find it very hard to fit into that pattern a regional structure of coroners with a boss coroner for the North-Western region or the South-Eastern region. The Home Office must further clarify its position on the matter.

It is clear from the debate that we cannot stay where we are. Representatives of three different parties have expressed grave concern about the present position. I do not propose to call for a vote on new clause 3 because inquiries indicate that there is no possibility of carrying it. Therefore, there is no point in wasting time. That should not be taken as an indication that there is not grave concern on both sides of the House. The Home Office cannot continue, as it has under successive Administrations over the past 11 years, simply to do nothing about this.

Question put and negatived.