Lord Wills (Lab)

My Lords, I agree with everything the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, has just said about the amendments in this group. I will briefly speak to the two that are in my name. Amendment 10, as the noble Baroness has already said, aims to encourage transparency and efficiency in the proceedings covered by this Bill. In doing so, it seeks to increase trust in those proceedings among those most directly affected. This Bill is designed to tackle failure by the state, yet it would hardly be surprising if those most directly affected by such failures were suspicious of how far the state was going to meet their concerns. In the days following the tragedy at Grenfell Tower, over 150,000 people signed a petition demanding that the investigation “must be FULLY TRANSPARENT and allow the MEANINGFUL PARTICIPATION of the affected residents, their families, and the surrounding community”. On its own, that revealed the depth of public mistrust of the official processes that deal with the aftermath of such public disasters. This Bill is before your Lordships’ House because, over and over again, an original failure by the state has been compounded by failures to secure outcomes that those directly affected felt met their concerns. In these circumstances, if the Bill is to deliver on its admirable intentions, it must, among other things, do everything possible to secure the confidence of those directly affected. Among other things, they must know exactly what evidence exists and be able to assess for themselves what is relevant and what is not. Knowing there was an obligation to produce an annexe of materials related to their complaint would provide some reassurance that the records they may rely on had been identified and recorded. In the case of the Hillsborough disaster, this process was, in practice, completed by the Hillsborough Independent Panel, and it proved essential for the effective preparation for the subsequent inquest. It gave, as we have heard, the bereaved a chance to see—in some instances, for the first time—key information about their loved ones. However, it also saved time and money, as the action taken in the wake of the Hillsborough Independent Panel’s report progressed. Therefore, if a straightforward administrative task, such as that set out in this amendment, is introduced early in the process, it will help prevent delay and the subsequent anguish of those most directly affected. That is why it is supported by Hillsborough families, and I do hope my noble friend the Minister will be able to accept it. Amendment 29 is straightforward; it seeks, as we have heard, to put in the Bill something which it appears the Government have already considered. It seems only logical that, if there are conditions within this legislation for the provision of records to an inquiry, there should also be an obligation for these to be created or preserved as the case may be. It is a probing amendment because it may be that the intention is that this should be done as standard, in accordance with the Public Records Act 1958. In this case, and in order to create confidence in the Bill among all those who have suffered from state failures in the past, it should be made explicit in the legislation for the avoidance of any doubts. I hope my noble friend the Minister can reassure the Committee on this point.