Lord Roe of West Wickham (Lab)

My Lords, I promise I will be brief because I know we are approaching dinner break business. I thank my noble friend the Minister for the amount of time he has given to this group of amendments; he has really been very generous, particularly across recesses. He has met me and almost everyone else who has spoken, and with Cindy Butts, who many of us have also met. I strongly support Amendment 9 and recognise that there is a rightful debate to be had in the further stages on the Bill around some of the more complex areas of funding and resources. While it is relevant, it needs discussion. I want to go back to my personal interest in this Bill, which is in my practical experience of responding to and dealing with the aftermath of significant disasters. Putting the IPA in the Bill would give someone who victims—whether bereaved or survivors—can turn to in the immediacy of an aftermath, when even agencies that operate effectively, but are themselves under immense pressure, make well-intended decisions but may not know what other agencies are doing and will not automatically connect information up for victims and families. This can be very basic stuff; it is not just about candour in the context of people doing something wrong. Think about Grenfell: it took a long time for some of those who lost their families to find out whether people were in hospital. That is a really good, practical example of where the IPA could step in, where it was almost impossible to convene the other agencies with any power. I will not say any more. I just make the point that I support the amendment and a deeper discussion on the other amendments in this group, because there is currently a gap that the IPA can usefully fill to the benefit of those who suffer the most in the immediate aftermath of a tragedy.