Jennifer Willott (Cardiff Central, Liberal Democrat)

I have a couple of points to make about the removal of bodies. In some cases, the body might be in difficult circumstances—for example, on a railway line or protected land. Some coroners insist on using their own preferred undertaker to remove the bodies, whether or not the undertaker has been trained in, for example, health and safety procedures if they are  dealing with a body on a railway line. That has been raised with me as a concern, because it can threaten the safety of the site where the body is located and of the people operating in that area. It can also lead to longer closures and unnecessary disruption to, for example, a railway line if the job is being done by someone who is untrained and does not know how to work in those particularly dangerous circumstances.

There is no obligation in the Bill or in any of the previous Acts for undertakers to have any training or authorisation. We have tabled an amendment to a provision later in the Bill that would require a code of practice on the powers to be given to coroners in relation to entry to and searching and seizure of land. It would also be helpful if the Minister considered addressing, whether in a code of practice or in guidance laid alongside the powers to remove the body, the training that is available or necessary for undertakers in these cases. The number of such cases is very limited, but they are specific examples. We are talking not just about railway lines, but about electricity substations, power stations, airports, motorways, major roads, zoo enclosures and so on—places where the circumstances raise health and safety issues.

Tim Boswell (Daventry, Conservative)

I have two comments to make. The first adverts to something that I talked about the other day, where a former employee died on my farm, in a field. The difficulty was that because it was located in the county of Northamptonshire, the body was removed to Northampton, whereas it would have been much more convenient for all the relatives and everyone else had it gone to Banbury, which is a much shorter distance but would have entailed crossing a boundary. I say to the Minister that although I understand that she has made provision in earlier clauses for the transfer of jurisdiction, it is important that that is tied up fairly early on, particularly when there are those borderline issues, so that the process is as unintrusive to the family as possible. There may well be a role for training undertakers and it may well be that the coroner’s officer has some ability at least to make inquiries at an early stage to see what would be appropriate.

My second point relates to the provision in subsection (3) about removal of a body

“to a place provided by a person who has not consented to its being removed there.”

That seems entirely reasonable. No one, to put it crudely, wants a body dumped on them without their knowledge or consent. I realise that there is a saving for local authority premises in the second part of that subsection, but if the practice in, say, an area of relatively low coronial intensity, where there were only a few cases, was to use private sector premises such as an undertaker’s chapel of rest or something similar, things would be difficult if that was not easily available on a 24/7 basis. I hope that the Minister can address that point administratively and ensure that if outsourcing, if I may call it that, is to be applied, it is done in a way that does not create further delay.

The common interest, which is also shared by the hon. Member for Cardiff, Central, is to produce as easy, unintrusive and unobjectionable a procedure in difficult circumstances as possible. That is important both for the process of justice and for the interests of the family, who are bound to be feeling low when a death has occurred.

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

May I pick up on the hon. Gentleman’s last sentence? He said that the procedure should be as unobjectionable, sensitive and easy as possible, not just in public policy terms but for the benefit of the family. Of course that is absolutely right and it is what the Bill is about. On that basis, I hope that I can reassure him and the hon. Member for Cardiff, Central that we will consider those sensitivities very carefully. The whole point of clause 16 is to ensure that, where possible, the body is removed to a place that is more appropriate for the family.

I have not heard of the examples that the hon. Lady outlined, so that has sent a little bee buzzing around in my brain. I shall have conversations with the National Association of Funeral Directors and others as to how to take this forward, and whether it needs to be part of a code of practice.

Jennifer Willott (Cardiff Central, Liberal Democrat)

The Minister will probably find that Railtrack—or Network Rail, I should say—will be happy to speak to her about it. I know it is concerned.

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

I will resist the temptation to say anything sarcastic about Railtrack, but I welcome its positive attitude in wanting to be helpful. I assure the hon. Lady that we will do what we can.