Lord Lemos (Lab)

My Lords, this has been an interesting, important and wide-ranging debate. This group of amendments is principally about the application of the duty of candour, which obviously the Government take extremely seriously. The issues raised by noble Lords seek to address the concern, which the Government understand, that we may not achieve the culture change that we, in different ways, seek through the provisions of the Bill. It is in that spirit that I will try to deal with those concerns. It is through the miracle of grouping that we have such a large and coherent group of amendments to deal with here. Before I speak to those amendments, I wish to turn first to a modest collection of government amendments in my name. Amendments 15, 16, 141, 149 and 151 are minor but important changes that strengthen the existing duty of candour provisions in the Bill. Currently, the Bill requires a coroner to issue a compliance direction to any public authority or public official who is an “interested person” under the Coroners and Justice Act 2009. Amendment 15 seeks to remove ambiguity regarding suspended inquests by making it clear that, where proceedings have been suspended, the coroner is not required to issue a compliance direction. However, if proceedings are resumed, the obligation on the coroner to issue a compliance direction is reinstated. This approach seeks to preserve the intent of the duty of candour while at the same time respecting the statutory framework contained in the 2009 Act. Amendment 16 extends the fining power available to coroners, as set out in Schedule 6 to the 2009 Act. The extension captures instances where a compliance direction is issued by a coroner and the “interested person” subject to it cannot provide a reasonable excuse for their non-compliance. This change strengthens the utility of compliance directions and will ensure that coroners have the full range of familiar enforcement options.