Lord Lemos (Lab)

Certainly, I will check with my officials, but I do not have any objection in principle to that at all. I signed it off this morning, so I know what it says. I am sure that will be fine; it is obviously germane. Additionally, Government amendments 149 and 151 clarify the powers available to the Scottish Ministers and the Northern Ireland Department of Justice to make regulations to commence the parts in the Bill for which they have competence. Turning to the amendments of other noble Lords, Amendments 12 and 14 tabled by noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, relate to compliance directions. Service provisions for statutory inquiries, as she acknowledged, are already provided for in The Inquiry Rules 2006, which is why they do not appear in this Bill. Non-statutory inquiries, by their nature, have no such provisions, so the Bill provides them in the context of compliance directions made under this Bill. However, I am open to looking at where the Bill might helpfully provide clarification and I certainly intend to return to this point at Report. I turn now to the probing Amendment 13, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, which seeks to ensure that the duty of candour and assistance extends automatically to independent panels and reviews established by the Minister of the Crown. I note that similar amendments were tabled in the other place. The duty of candour and assistance applies to all statutory inquiries and non-statutory inquiries as set out in Schedule 1. Until now, non-statutory inquiries have not been clearly defined, so the Bill sets out the criteria for an inquiry where the duty of candour and assistance will apply. Most independent panels, like the Hillsborough Independent Panel, would meet the definition of non-statutory inquiries in the Bill, so we would expect the duty to apply to similar panels, investigations or reviews in future. Reviews can, however, be held on a range of issues—for example, the net zero review and a number of others. It is not appropriate to apply these duties in all these circumstances. The Cabinet Office is undertaking work to look at how inquiries could be reformed, including how different types of inquiries, reviews and investigations could be more clearly defined and best be used. There is always a slight misalignment of timing with these things. But I can reassure the noble Baroness that this work is under way, and it will inform how the duty is used in relation to those reviews going forward. Turning to the important Amendments 18 and 20, tabled by the Noble Lord, Lord Carlile, the Bill replicates the protection against self-incrimination in the Inquiries Act 2005 and the inquest or fatal accident inquiry legislation that applies in the different parts of the UK. It can be, and has been, the case that witnesses do not provide an answer or evidence due to the protection against self-incrimination. In such situations, the Attorney-General can issue, and indeed has issued, an undertaking that information provided by a person to an inquiry that may be self-incriminating may not be used in criminal proceedings against the person. The noble Lord’s amendments would remove the protection and replace it with a provision to the effect of what could already be in an Attorney-General’s undertaking—namely, that information provided in compliance with the duty of candour may not be used in criminal proceedings to prosecute the person who provided it. I understand the intention behind this amendment. I am very happy to read the more detailed document he promised—