Jennifer Willott (Cardiff Central, Liberal Democrat)

I beg to move amendment 262, in schedule 6, page 132, line 22, leave out ‘(or on behalf of)’ and insert

‘the relevant local authority, on behalf of’.

Roger Gale (North Thanet, Conservative)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: amendment 263, in schedule 6, page 132, line 25, leave out ‘(or on behalf of)’ and insert

‘the relevant local authority, on behalf of’.

Amendment 264, in schedule 6, page 133, line 3, leave out ‘(or on behalf of)’ and insert

‘the relevant local authority, on behalf of’.

Amendment 265, in schedule 6, page 133, line 25, leave out from ‘coroners’ to end of line 26.

Jennifer Willott (Cardiff Central, Liberal Democrat)

The amendments relate to the issue of coroners’ expenses. The Bill replicates the current circumstances, but there are significant problems with the present situation regarding expenses. At the moment, a coroner is personally responsible for paying expenses out of their own pocket and claiming back for juries, witness costs and general costs of the inquest. That can be a huge amount of money, particularly in the case of jury inquests. Coroners pay all that out themselves and claim it back afterwards. It is a bizarre situation; there are very few—if any—other jobs where a person would be expected to fund something like that out of their own pocket and salary.

A coroner wrote to me to express his deep concern at having to take on personal liability for £50,000 because it was considered that LiveNote stenography recording was important to a particular trial, which involved the Home Office. Originally, the local authority refused to guarantee payment, so he had to take on personal liability himself. That seems a very strange situation.

The Minister said earlier that coroners are, or would be, indemnified against the costs incurred in a judicial review. I have had letters from coroners that say the exact reverse, so perhaps the Minister could clarify that point. There seems to be concern among coroners about a lack of such protection following a couple of cases. I understand that the law has already been amended a couple of times, but there are still concerns about the matter and I would be grateful if the Minister clarified that point today.

It is completely inappropriate that senior coroners have to pay for the costs of running an inquest out of their own pocket. There is no way that a judge or magistrate would be expected to pay the running costs of a court case that they were hearing. It seems extraordinary that coroners are expected to do that, particularly given that the costs can be quite substantial. Has that issue been considered, and have any other suggestions been made to bring coroners in line with the standard practice of almost every other employee?

Bridget Prentice (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Ministry of Justice; Lewisham East, Labour)

Schedule 6 provides a clear structure for paying allowances to jurors, witnesses, pathologists, coroners and anyone else who is eligible to receive them. The structure should be appropriate and transparent as well as flexible, which will make it simpler both to claim for and to pay allowances. I am not prepared to accept the amendments as they stand. None the less, I understand what the hon. Lady is trying to achieve. There is a discrepancy in coroners paying out that money directly. We made the change in the 2006 draft Bill as a direct result of the representations made by the Coroners Society, which wanted such flexibility to be available. I will have to think seriously about whether to change that during the Bill’s progress through Parliament.

On judicial review, I can only repeat what I said earlier. Coroners may have misunderstood something in the past, but I can assure them that they would be indemnified if they were judicially reviewed. At the moment, I would be reluctant to remove the local flexibility that the Bill makes available to both coroners and local authorities in the way in which reimbursements are made.

Jennifer Willott (Cardiff Central, Liberal Democrat)

Given that the Minister has clarified one point and said that she will consider the other one, I am happy to beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.