Public Bodies Bill [Lords]

Let me begin by adding my praise to Inquest, the Royal British Legion and a host of other organisations, which are almost too numerous to mention, that have been behind the campaign to ensure that the Government finally saw sense on refilling the post of chief coroner—not appointing someone to the post, because it was filled. Somebody was appointed, but then, shall we say, let go. I also pay tribute to the hon. Member for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy) for the work that he did, which is much appreciated. I am extremely disappointed that, having been told time and again, and shown the error of their ways, the Government waited until the 11th hour—or not quite the 11th hour: it was probably around half past 7—finally to change their mind. However, they then behaved like a small child. Having been found out, they now want to kick the toys around spitefully. Section 40 can be introduced over time, in a measured way, using pilots. However, simply saying, ““Okay, have the chief coroner, but you can't have appeals,”” looks petulant and leaves the Minister and the Ministry of Justice looking stupid. [Interruption.] Allow me to rephrase that, Mr Deputy Speaker. I did not mean for a moment to say that the Minister looked stupid; however, the stupidity of the actions stands out. Inquest has said as recently as today that it envisages that section 40 would"““remain on the statute book until, at a time to be agreed in the future, the provision would be brought into force by the Secretary of State under section l82 of the Act so a full pilot and review of the appeals process could be undertaken by the Chief Coroner.””" That is totally sensible. Inquest continues:"““This would enable a properly costed, informed decision to be taken about rolling out a new avenue of appeal across coroners courts in England and Wales. Terms of the pilot and review would be decided between the Chief Coroner and the Ministry of Justice and, under our proposal””—" the proposal put forward by Inquest and RBL—"““an appeals process would not come into effect for several years.””" All that is eminently doable, and to say otherwise is frankly wrong. Inquest continues:"““An appeals process overseen by the chief coroner would offer families a route to resolve poor decision making.””" That relates to the interventions from the hon. Member for Dover (Charlie Elphicke)—[Interruption]—who is probably tweeting at the moment.