Coroners and Justice Bill

I think that the Minister will agree that the thrust of my amendment has been directed towards inquests that involve the state. It may be wider than that, but to pluck a figure of £240 million as the cost of representation, and then to compare it to £76,000 for the Ministry of Defence and something under £1 million for another department of state indicates what a ridiculous suggestion it was that the cost to the state would be £250 million for these inquests. I do not think that I need say any more than that, but I am grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part in the debate. The Bar Council is very concerned to cover family law—I refer to the contribution of the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss—as well as criminal law. Its briefing says, in relation to this matter: ""The Bar Council understands that the legal aid pot is finite, and that difficult decisions have to be made vis-a-vis funding. As a matter of principle, all interested parties should be represented where the State has obtained representation funded via the taxpayer. The Bar believes that to deny representation to other parties where it is provided by the State, or indeed inquests that do not involve the State but where one party has access to representation, is a violation of the equality of arms principle that underpins our system of justice"." The noble Lord, Lord Pannick, seemed very concerned that the amendments suggest that this provision should be non-means-tested. Your Lordships will recall that at the inquests into six deaths at Her Majesty's Prison Styal, such was the uproar at the cost of the representation to the state that the Corston review on women in the criminal justice system was set up. The noble Baroness, Lady Corston, said in recommendation 6 of her report: ""Public funding must be provided for bereaved families for proper legal representation at timely inquests relating to deaths in state custody that engage the state’s obligations under Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Funding should not be means tested and any financial eligibility test should be removed whenever Article 2 is engaged. Funding should also cover reasonable travel, accommodation and subsistence costs of families’ attendance at inquests"." The noble Baroness’s report, set up in the furore over the deaths at Styal prison, recommended non-means-testing. The noble Lord told us that it appears to be within his purview to determine in military cases whether there should be means-testing or not. I would be grateful if he would write to me and tell me in how many of the cases where legal representation has been granted there has been means-testing, and what proportion that is, so that we can be better informed when we come to the next stage. Although I now seek your Lordships’ leave to withdraw the amendment, I shall return to it at Report and shall no doubt confine it—in the light of the observations that I have heard from all round the Committee—specifically to where the state is represented with taxpayers’ support. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment 25 withdrawn. Clause 10 : Determinations and findings to be made Amendments 26 to 29 not moved. Clause 10 agreed. Clauses 11 and 12 disagreed.