Jennifer Willott (Cardiff Central, Liberal Democrat)

I beg to move amendment 129, in clause 30, page 16, leave out line 26.

This is a probing amendment whose purpose is to clarify what is intended by subsection (5). The subsection gives the Lord Chancellor the power to amend the list of reasons for an appeal. Will the Minister explain in what circumstances such a power would be used? The list is pretty comprehensive, which would mean that the Lord Chancellor would have a fairly blank cheque. I would therefore be grateful if the Minister clarified the intention behind the subsection and what she foresees its being used for.

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

If I were to accept the hon. Lady’s amendment, it would prevent the Lord Chancellor from amending the list of coroner decisions that can be appealed under subsection (2), which would not be desirable. As this is an entirely new system, tailored especially for the coroner system in England and Wales, it is important to retain flexibility as the system beds down. It is likely, for example, that some of the processes contained in the Bill will be piloted before full implementation. We will be able to see from that how best to take things forward.

If I were to accept this amendment, it would be impossible to introduce new decisions that could be subject to appeals or to amend the list of appeals that are subject to appeal at the moment, even slightly, without recourse in both cases to primary legislation. If the Lord Chancellor were to make an order to change decisions that can be appealed, it would be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure and so would receive full parliamentary scrutiny. It would be both unnecessary and undesirable at this stage to remove that power from the Bill. We have already published a delegated powers memorandum alongside the Bill and will give careful consideration to any recommendations that the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee puts forward in the other place. Until we have the benefit of that Committee’s report, I would prefer that the hon. Lady withdrew her amendment.

Jennifer Willott (Cardiff Central, Liberal Democrat)

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Henry Bellingham (Shadow Minister, Justice; North West Norfolk, Conservative)

I beg to move amendment 362, in clause 30, page 16, line 46, at end insert

‘, subject to all coroners enjoying indemnity for costs.’.

The amendment relates to subsection (7) which deals with what the chief coroner may do if the appeal is successful and allowed. The chief coroner can take a number of different actions including amending the determination, and they can substitute any other decision. Under paragraph (d), they can

“make any order (including an order as to costs)”

that they think appropriate.

My concern is that the senior coroner should enjoy indemnity from costs being awarded against them. We talked earlier about the independence of that office. We were talking about the need to ensure that morale in the service remains high. We are also, to some extent, moving into uncharted territory with the new appeals system. I am sure that the Minister will agree that while there is a great deal to recommend the new appeals system, there is a whole new area of opportunity for people who may feel disgruntled and upset, which is a good thing in many ways.

I mentioned two cases earlier where the families were extremely distressed about what happened—in one case a death certificate was not amendable, and in the other the inquest had been adjourned and was not going to be restarted. Under the clause, they would be able to appeal. The Minister in her reply to that earlier discussion said that the clause would play a pivotal part in giving those families the sort of remedies that they are quite entitled to expect. I am concerned that there might be an order for costs against the coroner personally. Perhaps the Minister will comment on that and tell us whether she is prepared to accept amendment 362.

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

I am not persuaded that there is a case for the amendment. It would be for the chief coroner to make any order that they think fit, based on the circumstances of the particular case. That would mean that coroners and the local authority, which funds them, may well have to pay the costs that the chief coroner orders. However, coroners would not have to pay any expenses from their own pockets, because such funds would come from the funding of the coroner service.

One of the reasons why I cannot accept the amendment is that the appeals process must not only be totally transparent and fair, but be seen to be such. The amendment runs counter to that, because it could mean that if coroners were indemnified against costs, they would be seen to be treated more favourably than other parties against whom the chief coroner could make an order. Paragraph 9(2)(c) of schedule 6 allows for regulations to be made about coroners’ expenses arising from appeal decisions. To the extent that additional provisions are needed in respect of appeal costs, it is best that they are made there rather than in the Bill. I therefore hope that the hon. Gentleman will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

Henry Bellingham (Shadow Minister, Justice; North West Norfolk, Conservative)

My only concern is that judges and magistrates are indemnified from any award or costs against them, whereas coroners do not appear to be. On  the basis of what the Minister has told me this evening, I will reflect on what she has said. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.