Public Bodies Bill [Lords]

Perhaps the hon. Gentleman should go and use a fully sized computer to conduct some proper research, rather than using a small hand-held device in the Chamber, which is probably not allowed by ““Erskine May”” in any case. The Government have previously referred to cost, but—this has been said several times already, but I shall say it again because it is so important—the whole cost issue is a nonsense in many respects. Answers to parliamentary questions, responses to freedom of information requests and discussions with the Ministry of Justice have shown that the Government have not analysed the current costs of judicial reviews of coroners' decisions or made any attempts to ascertain what the future costs might be, and have thus been unable to make any comparison with the section 40 appeals process. If section 40 remains on the statute book, things can be done properly, carefully, steadily and slowly. There is no need for them to be done tomorrow. There is no need to say, as the Minister has, ““We want to ensure that all this can be done quickly, so we must omit section 40.”” I am sorry, but that is wrong, and I suggest that he should read the Act again. I do not know whether the Minister suddenly thought ““We are going to lose at the other end of the Corridor””, or whether there was a moment on Remembrance Sunday when he stood thinking about the ultimate sacrifice that people had made, and about the small sacrifice that the House could make by doing the right thing. Whatever the reason for his decision, however, I know for certain that he will not want to upset the Whips today, and that he therefore will not tell the House that he will not press the amendment that would remove section 40. That is a tragedy. No doubt the Government will win the vote despite the brave stance of many Government Members, but notwithstanding that victory and notwithstanding the removal of section 40, which I am sure will happen, I ask the Minister to ponder this: he may win the vote, but he will have lost the moral and ethical argument. He will also have lost any chance of being viewed positively by the—sadly—tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of bereaved families out there, and those who represent them, who know that section 40 is the answer. He has done the right thing in regard to the chief coroner, for whatever reason, and I now ask him to do the right thing in this regard.