Westminster Hall

Wednesday 22nd February 2012 Westminster Hall

Wednesday 22 February 2012

[Mr Joe Benton in the Chair]

Sri Lanka (Human Rights)

Wednesday 22nd February 2012 Westminster Hall

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the sitting be now adjourned.—(Mr Newmark.)

09:30

[Mr Virendra Sharma (Ealing, Southall) (Lab)]

It is pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Benton. I am grateful for the opportunity to raise the issue of human rights in Sri Lanka at a significant moment in the country’s post-conflict history. Next week will see the start of the 19th session of the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva. Among the many pressing human rights issues from around the world that are due to be discussed, a debate and vote are likely on whether an independent, international commission of inquiry should be established to investigate the credible allegations of war crimes perpetrated at the conclusion of Sri Lanka’s armed conflict in 2009. I, and many hon. Members present today, urge the Government to take action; I believe strongly that an international investigation must be initiated. The creation of an international inquiry has been called for by the world’s leading human rights and conflict prevention bodies, and, most significantly, by the UN Secretary-General’s panel of experts on Sri Lanka.

An estimated 40,000 civilians, many of whom were Tamils, died during the final days and weeks of the war. The victims and their families deserve to know the truth about what happened, and those responsible should be held to account.

A credible and independent inquiry is not possible within Sri Lanka, and President Rajapaksa’s regime has sought to censor and condemn anyone who has raised concerns about the Government’s actions during the war. The recently released report by Sri Lanka’s discredited Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission—the LLRC— whitewashed credible allegations of Government atrocities.

Sri Lanka has a long history of failing to investigate abuses of human rights, and without an international investigation, I fear that truth, accountability and justice will become yet another casualty of Sri Lanka’s long and bloody conflict. Without such an investigation, the pervasive culture of impunity in Sri Lanka that has such a detrimental impact on human rights on the island will continue unchecked. Without an international investigation and accountability for war crimes, prospects for reconciliation and long-lasting peace will diminish.

I wish to focus on three key areas that are fundamental to the debate on human rights in Sri Lanka: first, the failure of the President’s regime and the LLRC to address war crimes allegations; secondly, how that failure must be set in the context of the failure by the current Government—and previous Governments—to enact effective processes of accountability for human rights abuses; and finally, how those two elements reflect and encourage the culture of impunity that exists in Sri Lanka.

[Dame Joan Ruddock (Lewisham, Deptford) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate and on his excellent speech. Does he agree that another problem in Sri Lanka is that it is considered the fourth most dangerous place for the media? Some 40 journalists have been killed, and it is therefore impossible to get an internal, independent voice.

[Mr Sharma]

I fully support my right hon. Friend’s intervention, and I will develop that point later in my speech.

The UN panel of experts, two UN special rapporteurs on extra-judicial killings, the US State Department, the European Commission, Channel 4, the International Crisis Group, Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, the elders and others, have documented allegations of egregious violations of international human rights and humanitarian law that were committed by the Government and the Tamil Tigers during Sri Lanka’s conflict. The Sri Lankan authorities, however, have continually refused to address adequately those serious claims. The findings of the UN panel of experts, which stated that,

“most civilian casualties in the final phase of the war were caused by government shelling”

were dismissed as “fundamentally flawed.”

[James Wharton (Stockton South) (Con)]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this important debate. He has referred on a number of occasions to the report by the UN panel of experts, which I am sure he has read in full. How does he equate his comments with the acknowledgement in paragraph 53 of that report that

“this account should not be taken as proven facts, and any effort to determine specific liabilities would require a higher threshold.”?

Is it not clear that, while the report sets out a narrative and raises legitimate concerns, it must not be taken as a factual account?

[Mr Sharma]

I assure the hon. Gentleman that I will develop that argument later in my remarks. The demand for information from other sources indicates that there is a flaw and that further investigations are needed.

The Channel 4 documentary, “Sri Lanka’s Killing Fields”, is horrifying, and—I am sure all hon. Members will agree—made for difficult viewing. Disturbing footage captured on mobile phones as war trophies, by both Tamils under attack and Government soldiers, showed the extra-judicial executions of prisoners and the aftermath of the targeted shelling of civilian camps. Dead female Tamil fighters appeared to have been raped or sexually assaulted, abused and murdered.

Since its original transmission, the programme has been screened at the UN in Geneva and New York, and shown to politicians at the European Parliament and US Senate. It has prompted comments from leading political figures in the UK and around the world. The programme has been denounced by the Sri Lankan Defence Secretary, Gotabhaya Rajapaksa, as depicting “baseless accusations” of Government atrocities. Last week, however, the Sri Lankan army announced that it has appointed a five-member court of inquiry to examine the evidence shown in the programme, as well as the report by the presidentially-appointed war panel, the Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission. A follow-up programme is to be aired next month, exploring the reasons behind the apparent international inaction after accusations of war crimes. The work of two UN special rapporteurs, who have authenticated footage of war time abuses in Sri Lanka, has been similarly dismissed.

[Tony Baldry (Banbury) (Con)]

I am impressed with what the hon. Gentleman is saying, as, I am sure, is the whole House. Surely, however, the tribunal that has been announced by the Sri Lankan army is a welcome development. That the army is willing to investigate allegations of offences committed by its soldiers is a move that one would expect from armed forces in any democratic society and must be welcome.

[Mr Sharma]

We all welcome such a move, but later in my remarks I will argue that people are suspicious about such tribunals and also about the commission’s inquiries.

[Mr Andrew Love (Edmonton) (Lab/Co-op)]

Is not it of some concern when the army is investigating itself, and was not the LLRC report meant to be the report that went into all the issues that people were concerned about? That is the failure in this instance, and we need to address it in this debate.

[Mr Sharma]

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. I agree with the point that he raises.

For more than two years, Sri Lanka maintained that it pursued a “humanitarian rescue operation” in the final stages of the war, with a policy of “zero civilian casualties”. Not until August 2011 did the Sri Lankan Defence Ministry concede for the first time that Government forces caused civilian deaths, but they took no responsibility for violating the laws of war. Indeed, the LLRC was appointed by President Rajapaksa only in the wake of domestic and international pressure to deal with issues of wartime accountability.

From its inception in May 2010 to the release of its long-delayed report in December 2011, the LLRC has shown that it is not fit for purpose. According to the UN panel of experts on Sri Lanka, the LLRC failed to satisfy international standards for independence and impartiality; it was compromised by its composition and the deep-seated conflicts of interest of some of its members. The UN panel stated that the LLRC mandate was

“not tailored to investigating allegations of serious violations of international humanitarian and human rights law, or to examining the root causes of the decades-long ethnic conflict”.

In essence, it was a “deeply flawed” accountability mechanism.

The concerns that I have set out have only been reaffirmed with the publication of the LLRC report. The LLRC’s conclusions on the prosecution of the conflict contradict many of the findings of the UN panel of experts, with Government forces largely exonerated of any culpability for alleged atrocities. In the light of that, many countries, including the United States, Canada and Australia, as well as international non-governmental organisations, have criticised the LLRC’s failure adequately to address the allegations of war crimes.

The British Government have stated that

“many credible allegations of violations of international humanitarian law and human rights law, including from the UN panel of experts report, are either not addressed or only partially answered.”—[Official Report, 12 January 2012; Vol. 538, c. 21WS.]

They say that the LLRC report does not provide a serious and full response to the evidence of the UN panel, the UN special rapporteurs or the “Sri Lanka’s Killing Fields” documentary. Indeed, following the broadcast of that programme last June, the British Government stated that if Sri Lanka did not respond positively to the findings and recommendations of the UN panel report and the concerns of the international community, they would support calls to

“revisit all options available to press the Sri Lankan government to fulfil its obligations”.

[Stephen Pound (Ealing North) (Lab)]

Like all of us, I am listening with great interest to my hon. Friend’s extremely well researched and detailed speech. In connection with the issue of the LLRC’s credibility, he will be familiar with the Amnesty International report titled “Twenty Years of Make-Believe”, which lists all the previous problems with these commissions. Is he aware of any credible body, agency or nation anywhere on earth that gives credibility to the LLRC’s report? We have heard many people say that it has no credibility. Is anyone speaking on the other side?

[Mr Sharma]

I thank my hon. Friend for that timely intervention. I am sure that the Minister will respond to it. I cannot at this stage find whether there is anyone such as my hon. Friend describes, but I will definitely be looking through the papers to see whether I can find anyone.

Given that the British Government have consistently called for a credible and independent inquiry into

“all allegations of grave abuses”,

it follows that the UK should be willing to support an investigation under international auspices, in the light of the LLRC’s unsatisfactory conclusions. It is clear that independent credible investigations of human rights abuses cannot be achieved within Sri Lanka. The actions of the Rajapaksa regime and the conclusions of the LLRC support that case. Indeed, the need for an international investigation becomes even more acute when set against the backdrop of systematic Government failure to provide credible processes of accountability for rights abuses over many years. The current and previous Sri Lankan Administrations have established a number of domestic commissions of inquiry to investigate human rights abuses. However, they have often failed to provide accountability and justice for the violations identified.

[Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend makes a very powerful case. Does he agree that this is not just a matter of looking back at what happened and ensuring that it is properly and fully investigated? The UN Committee Against Torture, in its examination of Sri Lanka last November, concluded that it has serious concerns about

“the continued and consistent allegations of widespread use of torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment of suspects in police custody”.

The report also states that

“torture and ill-treatment perpetrated by state actors, both the military and the police, have continued in many parts of the country after the conflict ended in May 2009 and is still occurring in 2011”.

It is the UN Committee Against Torture reporting that. This is not a matter simply of looking back to what happened before and during the war.

[Mr Sharma]

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention.

[Mr David Burrowes (Enfield, Southgate) (Con)]

Is not the issue one of accountability and not that we simply want to dismiss the LLRC report? Amnesty itself says that the report contained some good human rights recommendations. The Sri Lankan Government say that they themselves are capable of prosecuting violators in a court of law. Is not the issue how a high standard is brought to bear and people are properly held to account?

[Mr Sharma]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. I think that it would be better if I continued my speech, because the answers to the questions being raised now are ones that I will be developing later in my speech. I will definitely return to the issue.

Sri Lanka’s criminal justice system, which has been weakened in recent years due to the centralisation of power with the President, cannot even offer a credible domestic avenue to pursue accountability. As Amnesty International has stated, the system

“is subject to political pressure, lacks effective witness protection and is glacially slow…The system is so degraded that the vast majority of human rights violations over the past 20 years have never been investigated, let alone heard in court.”

That is the point that my learned colleague, my hon. Friend the Member for Brent North (Barry Gardiner), raised.

The failure to hold those responsible to account for rights abuses has led to the development of a culture of impunity in Sri Lanka where anything goes, particularly in the Tamil majority areas of the north and the east. The militarisation of the region and the resultant impact on independent, civilian administration means that many Tamils fear that their culture and identity are under existential threat.

[Mr Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) (Lab/Co-op)]

My hon. Friend is making a very good speech. I agree with all the points that he has made so far. My hon. Friend the Member for Brent North (Barry Gardiner) highlighted the ongoing human rights abuses. Does that not call into question the decision of the current UK Government to deport many Tamil refugees who are in the UK? Should we not seek from the Minister replying to the debate an explanation of the Government’s policy on deportations back to Sri Lanka? I ask that question of my hon. Friend in the context of a constituent whose brother is about to be deported back to Sri Lanka. This is a brother who lost a sister fighting for the Tamil Tigers and who understandably is worried about what will happen to his last relative should the family history be known when he returns to Sri Lanka.

[Mr Joe Benton (in the Chair)]

Order.

[Mr Sharma]

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow West (Mr Thomas) for his intervention. I am sure that the Minister has taken note of his question and will answer it. I will definitely be developing that issue later in my speech as well.

More than 160,000 people who were displaced at the end of the war and in the years before 2009 remain in camps or are living with host communities or in transit situations. Many live in tents and are without access to the most basic amenities, such as health care, sanitation, housing and education. Terrible human rights abuses are being perpetrated. Murder, assault, corruption, torture and sexual harassment are commonplace. Although wartime emergency laws have been rescinded, draconian powers of arrest and detention remain in effect. Thousands of suspected ex-combatants are still being detained without trial or access to legal representation.

[Stephen Hammond (Wimbledon) (Con)]

I am listening to the hon. Gentleman’s case, and I have spoken on behalf of the Tamil community a number of times, but he has just said that thousands of people are still being detained. At the end of the war, political prisoners—ex-Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam cadres—numbered 11,000; the Sri Lankan Government now say they still have 300 in detention. Will the hon. Gentleman explain exactly where he thinks the rest of those who are in detention are? We do this cause no good if we are not accurate.

[Mr Sharma]

If the hon. Gentleman reads the full report, he will find out that all the figures are there. I am not totally ignoring what the Sri Lankan Government are saying, but we can pick up the figures from the facts and reports that are coming through and from the people we meet through our constituency casework. I am sure the Minister will talk about this, but the exact figures are in the report, and if the hon. Gentleman reads it fully, he will find them.

[Heidi Alexander (Lewisham East) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing the debate. On this point, does he agree that it would be useful if the Sri Lankan Government produced a list of all the prisoners they hold in their custody so that the matter can be cleared up once and for all?

[Mr Sharma]

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. That is an important point, and I am sure we will get answers from other Members, the Minister or perhaps the high commissioner himself—his representative is sitting here and will be taking a note of these points.

It was only in November last year that the UN Committee Against Torture produced a damning report on allegations pertaining to the ongoing use of torture and ill treatment by state actors, including the military and police. Highlighting allegations of threats to, and harassment of, human rights defenders, defence lawyers, journalists and others, the committee stated:

“It regrets that, in many cases, those allegedly responsible for acts of intimidation and reprisal appear to enjoy impunity.”

In addition to his Government’s failure to promote and protect human rights, President Rajapaksa has failed to adhere to his 2009 commitment to

“address the aspirations and grievances of all communities”

and pursue meaningful reconciliation after decades of political violence and conflict. A political solution to the ethnic conflict through devolution and negotiations with Tamil and other minority political representatives has not been forthcoming. Instead, as the International Crisis Group noted, the Government’s post-war agenda

“has been further to centralise power, expand the role of the military, undermine local civilian authorities, and politicise the institutions that should uphold the rule of law and combat impunity”.

All those who now speak publicly against the Government are imprisoned, leaving an all-powerful family Government who are becoming more centralised and heavy-handed. Economist and opposition figure Harsha de Silva says the army is becoming involved in hotels, farming, construction, golf courses, sports stadiums and even in running roadside tea stalls. The main political threat to Rajapaksa’s rule is former general turned popular presidential candidate, Sarath Fonseka, who currently resides in a Colombo jail.

Colleagues of two political activists, Lalith Kumar Weeraraj and Kugan Murugananthan, who went missing in Sri Lanka’s north on 9 December, fear the men are in grave danger. On 9 January, hundreds of clamouring demonstrators marched through the capital, Colombo. They demanded that the Government release the activists, put an end to abductions in the north and pull the military out of former conflict areas. In fact, the opposite is happening.

Mr Weeraraj and Mr Murugananthan spent many of the months before they went missing campaigning on behalf of thousands of missing Tamils, many of whom were last seen in the custody of the security forces. The two were intercepted in the northern city of Jaffna by men on motorcycles. They were bundled into a white van and taken away. That pattern is now all too familiar. In a report in December, the LLRC wrote that it was alarmed by the large number of complaints of

“abductions, enforced or involuntary disappearances, and arbitrary detentions”.

Sinhalese and Muslims, who count as a separate ethnic group in Sri Lanka, are now being targeted in addition to Tamils, and some are turning up dead. On 3 January, Dinesh Buddhika Charitananda, a 25-year-old ethnic Sinhalese, was abducted at night. His body was later found near a river in a Colombo suburb. In October, Mohamed Niyas, a Muslim astrologer, was taken away in a white van by a group of gun-toting men and found dead three weeks later.

According to the Bangkok-based Asian Human Rights Commission, there is a “commonly held belief” that the abductions and murders are happening with

“the direct or indirect knowledge of the police and often also with the tacit approval of political authorities”.

The families of the two activists, Mr Weeraraj and Mr Murugananthan, have now petitioned the United Nations, and a spokesman for Ban Ki-moon, the Secretary-General of the UN, says the case of the abductions is being sent to the UN Human Rights Council for investigation. The families turned to an international body because they could not get action from the local authorities.

Such allegations raise questions about the deportation of Sri Lankans from Britain. The UK Border Agency is to continue forced-removal flights, despite human rights organisations warning of mistreatment. The agency has carried out two large-scale deportations to Sri Lanka since June, the last of which left Luton airport in September, despite the concerns of several rights groups, including Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, which believe that deported Tamils may be at risk of arbitrary arrest and mistreatment.

One London-based non-governmental organisation, Freedom from Torture, which provides medical services to torture victims, has said that it has gathered evidence demonstrating that prisoners in Sri Lanka still faced severe mistreatment this year—more than two years after the island’s 26-year civil war came to an end.

Last month, the UN Committee against Torture reported that it was

“seriously concerned about the continued and consistent allegations of widespread use of torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment”,

after hearing submissions from a number of NGOs and the Sri Lankan Government. The committee also expressed concern at

“the prevailing climate of impunity”

in Sri Lanka.

In a case recently referred to in a UK Border Agency report, Freedom from Torture noted that, in spring this year, a Sri Lankan national known as Rohan was tortured after travelling back from the UK. According to Freedom from Torture, Rohan, who held a UK student visa, claimed that after returning to Sri Lanka to visit a sick relative, he was held by officials at Colombo airport and detained for three days, during which he was beaten and stripped and his skin was burned with heated metal. On the strength of his evidence of torture, he was later granted asylum in the UK.

The UK Border Agency has warned officials who are deciding asylum claims that NGOs have serious concerns about forcibly returned Tamils. However, the agency is also circulating a report that quotes senior Sri Lankan intelligence officials as saying that Tamil detainees are inflicting wounds on themselves to create scars that will support later asylum claims.

In the light of plans for a further mass removal flight on 28 February, I call upon the Government to do more to ensure that they are not returning individuals to a risk of torture in Sri Lanka. The fates of almost all those who have been returned on the charter flights thus far are unknown.

In response to concerns raised by Freedom from Torture about the risk of torture for Tamils returning to Sri Lanka, the Minister has provided public assurances about monitoring arrangements in place for those forcibly returned. He has indicated that for the recent charter flights, returnees were met by UK Government officials, provided with contact details for the British high commission in Colombo and given a small payment for onward travel. Against the backdrop of torture risks for those who return from abroad, there is widespread concern that those are woefully inadequate protections against torture. However, worse still, it is has just emerged that even those basic protections do not apply to anyone forcibly removed other than by charter flight.

Could the Minister please explain how many people have been forcibly removed to Sri Lanka otherwise than by charter flight since the civil war ended? Why are those forcibly returned on ordinary flights not met at the airport and provided with an assistance package? Why was that disparity in protection not disclosed when the Minister was asked to explain the monitoring arrangements for anyone forcibly returned to Sri Lanka? How does the Minister intend to remedy that protection gap? What do the Government intend to do to verify the safety of those returned in the months following their return?

Sri Lanka’s entire approach to accountability, justice and reconciliation must be challenged to prevent the setting of a dangerous precedent for the future. A failure to investigate alleged war crimes during the conflict undermines international law and respect for human rights and potentially sows the seeds for future conflict on the island.

Kofi Annan has stated that

“the international community cannot be selective in its approach to upholding the rule of law and respect for human rights.”

Impunity in Sri Lanka, where violations were on a massive scale and yet the UN failed to act, sets dangerous precedents. It sends a message to Sri Lankans that the UN is irrelevant there, and it could re-enforce that message globally. That could create a situation where states that have not ratified the Rome statute would feel that they are beyond the reach of international justice and that crimes committed in the name of combating terrorism can simply be ignored.

The international community’s failure to take timely action in 2009 endangered hundreds of thousands of civilian lives in Sri Lanka. Continued inaction threatens future generations and institutions that are critical to the protection of rights in Sri Lanka and internationally. Sri Lanka’s failure to ratify the Rome statute of the International Criminal Court means that the court cannot act without a referral from the United Nations Security Council. Far from referring the situation to the court, the UN has not even established an effective system to document the extent of violations. It has never revealed what it knew about the final days of conflict or acknowledged the scale of the abuse that took place. The end of the armed conflict in Sri Lanka should have been an opportunity for the country to turn a page on impunity. It is crucial that the UN and the UK should support genuine international efforts to encourage the Sri Lankan Government to give better protection to the rights of all Sri Lankans and ensure that violations, which became so commonplace in the past, are not repeated.

I call on the Minister to address the clear failings of the LLRC to deliver progress on accountability and acknowledge the need for the international community to act decisively during this session of the UN Human Rights Council to put the necessary machinery in place and to ensure that the UK plays a proactive and leading role in efforts to secure the strongest possible resolution on accountability for serious human rights violations in Sri Lanka, that any Human Rights Council resolution is not limited to the conflict period and that it includes within its scope accountability for torture and other continuing violations that make it impossible to secure a sustainable peace in Sri Lanka.

Reconciliation and sustainable peace must be built on the foundations of a credible truth and accountability process for the alleged crimes committed in the final months of the civil war. A genuine mechanism for truth, accountability and justice would challenge the prevailing culture of impunity and could play an important role in reducing the perpetration of human rights abuses. However, such a process can be satisfactorily conducted only under international auspices. Investigations of a similar nature have been voted for and conducted by the UN Human Rights Council on Libya, Syria and Ivory Coast in recent months.

The number of concerned hon. Members present at this Westminster Hall debate demonstrates the strength of parliamentary support for strong diplomatic action to be taken by the British Government. Many other hon. Members who could not be here this morning, including my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), who had a pressing constituency engagement, have assured me of their support; so it is not only the Members who are present who are concerned. Others who could not get here support my argument and ask for the same demands to be met.

The next generation of Sri Lankans, whether they are Tamil or otherwise, deserve a future in which they can move on from the horrors that they and their families have experienced and the losses they have suffered on all sides. They deserve to know what happened and to be able to reflect on it as one of the most significant times in their nation’s history, for which those responsible are brought to justice. Only then will there be true and lasting peace.

[Mr Joe Benton (in the Chair)]

Order. Before I call the next hon. Member to speak, I want to point out that I intend to start the wind-ups at about 10.40. As hon. Members can see, many of them want to speak, so I ask right hon. and hon. Members to be as brief as they can. Let us try to allow as many hon. Members to speak as possible.

10:07

[Mr Lee Scott (Ilford North) (Con)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Ealing, Southall (Mr Sharma) on securing the debate and on his speech. Given the time, I shall not give the speech I have prepared, but will refer to various points.

The tremendous turnout today for a Westminster Hall debate shows the depth of feeling of Members throughout the House about getting justice for all in a country that has been troubled since independence in 1948; but what is this really about? We have had many debates in Westminster Hall and the main Chamber. Many words have been spoken by the previous and present Governments, but the time has come for action. To go back to when innocent people lost their lives—I am not making accusations against any individual, as that is not my role as a Member of Parliament—someone needs to identify who did it: who killed people. Then justice must be done.

I thought, as many others did, that we had seen the end of camps where people were detained for years—however many people might be in them. Again, I cannot give numbers, and I am not sure that anyone can. That in itself is a problem. In meetings that I and other hon. Members of all parties have had with the Sri Lankan high commission we have requested, “Please prepare a list.” It cannot be that difficult. If the numbers are as low as has been suggested, it is a relatively simple thing to do. If they are not, it is still not that difficult to do. Families in the diaspora and in Sri Lanka need to know what happened to their relatives.

I want to make it clear that I am not making any allegations, but I am asking questions about what is alleged to have happened. It is alleged that a number of babies and young children went missing at the end of the conflict some two years ago. What happened to them? Anecdotal evidence suggests that a number of them are still alive and have perhaps been adopted by families and do not know who their original families are. I do not know whether that story is true, but people who have lost their nieces, nephews or their own children have a right to know what happened to them.

[Gavin Barwell (Croydon Central) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend not agree that the failure still to have answers to those questions demonstrates that the LLRC process was flawed and that we will only get answers if we have a genuinely independent investigation?

[Mr Scott]

I totally agree with my hon. Friend. During the conflict, we saw reports of murder, rape and torture. Now we are hearing about people being resettled into other people’s jobs and being moved into homes and areas where Tamils had lived. No one can deny what we saw in the Channel 4 programme; it was there. Some people have said that it was not correct and that it was not edited in the right way, but no matter how the programme was edited, someone is still dead at the end of it, killed by someone else. If there is ever to be reconciliation, we must have answers. Those answers are needed not only by the Tamil people, but by everyone in Sri Lanka, so that everyone can live in democracy and harmony. That can only be done if justice is done.

[Mr Robert Buckland (South Swindon) (Con)]

On accountability and independence, does my hon. Friend agree that the forthcoming UN Human Rights Council is an ideal opportunity for that mechanism to be set forth, so that we have a genuinely independent process and that the questions that he properly raised can be answered?

[Mr Scott]

I agree with my hon. Friend. I will personally go to the Human Rights Council to try to ensure that that happens. I will be with other hon. Members from all parts of the House.

The Americans have explicitly stated that if the internal mechanism is flawed and accountability is not addressed, they will put pressure on an international mechanism to probe human rights abuses. I ask my hon. Friend the Minister whether we can support the Americans at the UN in Geneva.

[Mike Gapes (Ilford South) (Lab/Co-op)]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that we should also look at other international channels apart from the United Nations, given that the Human Rights Council took a deplorable decision in the previous consideration not to support an international inquiry into the event? The British Government should also raise the matter within the Commonwealth and follow the lead of the Canadian Prime Minister, who said that unless the situation in Sri Lanka changes, he will not attend the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting in Colombo in 2013.

[Mr Scott]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I agree that we need to pursue every avenue, including, if necessary, going to the Commonwealth.

[Nick de Bois (Enfield North) (Con)]

My hon. Friend rightly talks about what the Americans have said, but they used the word “if”. They said, “if accountability is seen to be failing.” Does he not agree that given the recent publication of this report and, notwithstanding the understandable scepticism, the signs of progress, more time should be given to see whether those involved can genuinely and accountably deliver? If they do not, then we hold them to account.

[Mr Scott]

Forgive me. My hon. Friend and I agree on a number of issues, but not on this one. No, I do not believe that any more time should be given. I mean no offence to him.

When someone has had an accusation made against them, I have some concern about them taking high position until that accusation has been proved not to be true. Allegations have been made against Major-General Shavendra Silva, who is the Sri Lankan deputy ambassador to the United Nations and who has recently been appointed to a special advisory group on peacekeeping operations. Until he is fully cleared of those allegations, should he be in a position of such high authority?

[John Mann (Bassetlaw) (Lab)]

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Roman Catholic Bishop of Mannar has provided a list of more than 2,000 people in his congregation who have disappeared and that he cannot get answers to where they have gone?

[Mr Scott]

Yes, I was aware of that. I have also been made aware of other such lists of people who are no longer there. Something must have happened to them.

I appreciate that other Members want to speak, so I will finalise my words shortly. The Tamil people deserve justice; everyone in Sri Lanka deserves justice. Anyone who has committed a crime must pay the price; they need to be tried. Then and only then can reconciliation go forward. If we do not fight for justice, each of us, no matter what our political party and no matter who is in government, either now or when the atrocities took place, must hang our heads in shame. I fear that with everything that is going on in the world—whether in Syria, Libya, Somalia or in other countries—a lot of people, including, forgive me, the Government of Sri Lanka will hope that this issue goes on the back burner, but I can give an assurance today, on behalf of Members from all parts of the House, that it will not do so. We want justice for everyone, and it needs to be done as quickly as possible.

10:16

[Siobhain McDonagh (Mitcham and Morden) (Lab)]

Last month, I was one of the signatories nominating Channel 4 News for the Nobel peace prize in recognition of its work in highlighting human rights abuses in Sri Lanka. Parliamentarians around the world were shocked when Channel 4 broadcast a harrowing documentary, using video from victims and perpetrators that proved, according to the UN special rapporteur, “definitive war crimes”. I imagine that all of us have seen that programme, and none could forget the impact that it had on us. The Minister himself gave an eloquent speech after watching that programme. It showed the routine shelling of civilians in hospitals and safe zones, video evidence of executions carried out in cold blood at point blank range. Disgusting scenes were shown of dead, semi-naked women, who had obviously been sexually assaulted then shot dead, being thrown on to the back of lorries, while soldiers joked about who was the best looking.

In the nomination letter, I said:

“By bringing to light the breaches of international conventions by the Government of Sri Lanka in a bold manner and by piecing together numerous forms of evidence in a coherent way, the value of independent journalism to the building of a peaceful global order in the century ahead has been amply demonstrated.”

It is easy to forget quite how dreadful the conflict was. Some 100,000 people were killed—40,000 civilians in the last few months alone. The UN identified

“serious violations of international humanitarian law”

and the European Commission described

“unlawful killings perpetrated by soldiers, police and...groups with ties to the Government.”

Although the previous British Government may have come to realise what was going on too late, they are widely recognised for taking a lead in standing up against those abuses. My right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (David Miliband) was widely praised for visiting Sri Lanka and imploring the Government there to stop shelling their own people. Thanks to his influence, we brought an end to Generalised System of Preferences—GSP Plus—which gave preferential trading status to Sri Lanka in Europe, prevented it from hosting a Commonwealth conference and voted against an IMF deal worth $2.5 billion.

[Barry Gardiner]

rose—

[Siobhain McDonagh]

I hope my hon. Friend will understand, but I will not give way. I want others to be able to speak, so I must do this quickly. Britain has a proud record of leading world opinion. The grip we had in leading international opinion is, I believe, one reason why the United Nations has placed so much emphasis on accountability for war crimes. Yet despite the UN stressing that

“not to hold accountable those who committed serious crimes...is a clear violation of Sri Lanka's international obligations”

and despite the Panel for Experts on Accountability in Sri Lanka calling for an independent, international investigation into war crimes, Sri Lanka instead established a Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission that was clearly not independent. After all, it was comprised of people who supported the Sri Lankan Government’s behaviour during the civil war and, according to the Sri Lankan Government, the LLRC’s job was to

“relegate the past to history.”

Fears that that commission would reach unsatisfactory conclusions now appear to be well-founded. Indeed, the Minister himself has said:

“The British Government is, on the whole, disappointed by the report’s findings and recommendations on accountability...These leave many gaps and unanswered questions...We note that many credible allegations of violations of international humanitarian law and human rights law, including from the UN Panel of Experts report, are either not addressed or only partially answered. We believe that video footage, authenticated by UN Special Rapporteurs, should inform substantive, not just technical, investigations into apparent grave abuses.”

Most observers have come to similar conclusions. For example, Freedom from Torture has said:

“On the all important question of accountability, the Commission has completely failed to deliver.”



Internationally, the LLRC is seen as an attempt to brush war crimes under the carpet.

However, although our words have sounded damning, I must say that the Tamil community are increasingly concerned that British actions are anything but damning. Freedom from Torture’s chief executive, Keith Best, has said:

“The UK government has insisted that Sri Lanka demonstrate ‘progress’ on accountability for international crimes by the end of 2011...but there is no getting around the fact that the necessary progress has not been achieved”.

How can Britain respond? Despite the lack of progress; despite the widespread evidence of torture; despite the fact that more than 300,000 Tamils are being held in camps after the war, with many of them still living in deplorable conditions described by the International Crisis Group as being

“devoid of the most basic amenities”;

despite independent reporters still not being permitted to report; and despite allegations of all sorts of ongoing human rights abuses, Britain has embarked on a policy of sending planeloads of Tamils back to Sri Lanka even though there is a genuine and understandable fear about how they might be treated there. How does that look to the rest of the international community? What it looks like is an endorsement by Britain of the appalling behaviour of the Sri Lankan Government and a snub to Tamils who fear for their safety. Understandably, Tamils look at us and say that, if Britain were serious about its criticisms of Sri Lanka, those flights would not be taking off.

What is even worse is that, while everyone else has been increasingly frustrated by Sri Lanka’s efforts to use the LLRC to wriggle out of its legal obligations to investigate war crimes, not once have we heard from the mouth of a British Minister these words: “We support an independent international mechanism to conduct investigations into the alleged violations that took place in Sri Lanka.” Those are not radical words; they simply repeat what the UN panel of experts has asked for.

Britain’s Tamil community is understandably impatient. The US is bringing a resolution at the UN Human Rights Council and the European Parliament has passed a motion demanding

“a UN commission of inquiry into all crimes committed”.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Mr Alexander) has said that the Labour party supports an international commission to investigate the “acts of unconscionable violence” perpetrated in the final months of Sri Lanka’s armed conflict in 2009. Britain’s recent reticence and reluctance to join in that support for the UN panel of experts is extremely disappointing and has no doubt been noted by many Tamils here in the UK. I hope that the Minister will be able to rectify that situation today.

Britain is respected around the world for taking brave and principled leads, as we did in supporting military action in Kosovo, Sierra Leone and Libya; in imposing sanctions against Robert Mugabe and Bashar al-Assad; and in helping establish the International War Crimes Tribunal. Surely we can join the moderate voices supporting the calls by the UN panel of experts for an “independent international investigation”.

I hope that the Minister will remember how he felt, and how we all felt, when we saw the Channel 4 documentary on Sri Lanka: numb; angry; and driven to right the horrific wrongs that were shown. Crimes such as those must be investigated and justice must be served. Kofi Annan has said that

“the international community cannot be selective in its approach to upholding the rule of law and respect for human rights.”

On behalf of my constituents, I implore the Minister to consider the message that Britain is sending the world by forcing Tamils on to planes to go back to a country where torture continues, and by failing to support loudly the UN panel of experts. I hope that today we can reassure British Tamils that Britain is serious about doing the right thing, and that we will take a lead on human rights in the international community.

10:24

[Martin Horwood (Cheltenham) (LD)]

I commend the hon. Member for Ealing, Southall (Mr Sharma) for securing this very timely debate. At the outset of my remarks, however, it is important to stress that Sri Lanka has many things to be proud of. Its record on literacy, child mortality and life expectancy is among the best in south Asia and, indeed, one of the best of any developing country. Sri Lanka also has a proud tradition of democracy and the rule of law.

Sri Lanka ought to be an aspiring leader within south Asia and, indeed, the democratic Commonwealth, but the truth is that gaining such a status demands the highest possible standards of human rights, and the inescapable conclusion to be drawn from this debate and from many other debates and commentaries around the world is that, during and since the violent conclusion of the war in 2009, Sri Lanka’s record has not met those high standards. That casts a rather dark shadow over the country’s otherwise proud record in development and democracy.

The UN panel of experts produced its report in 2011, which found credible allegations of serious violations of international humanitarian law and international human rights law in Sri Lanka. The report also highlighted the fact that a staggering number of civilians—40,000—were killed in the closing weeks of the war in Sri Lanka and, critically, it called for an international accountability mechanism, which several hon. Members have already referred to.

[Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)]

On accountability, does my hon. Friend share my concern about the committee of inquiry that has been set up by the Sri Lankan army and that was appointed by Lieutenant-General Jayasuriya, who was the commander of the security forces in the Vavuniya area during the last few years of the war? Moreover, does he hope that the Minister, when he responds to this debate, will indicate that that is not the sort of accountability that the British Government believe is effective in holding people to account?

[Martin Horwood]

My hon. Friend makes a very important point. In fact, the hon. Member for Ealing, Southall pointed out that there has been a series of internal commissions and inquiries within Sri Lanka, none of which have really had much credibility. Possibly the most credible of them has been the Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission, which produced a report last year, and it is important to acknowledge that that report made some tough recommendations in relation to detainees and media freedom. Furthermore, it dispelled the myth that there was no shelling of civilians and that, for instance, the shelling of hospitals by Government forces did take place. In that sense, that report by the LLRC was an important step forward.

Nevertheless, I should still like to hear from the Minister what progress he thinks has been made in implementing the recommendations of the LLRC report. For instance, Human Rights Watch reported only last month that there are still several thousand people in Sri Lanka who, having initially been detained under the emergency regulations, are still in custody. Many of them have been held for years without trial, which is in violation of international law. The Sri Lankan Government have so far refused even to publish lists of those who have been detained. Of course, as several hon. Members have pointed out, there are severe limitations to the LLRC report, particularly in relation to the army’s conduct and to accountability for possible war crimes and humanitarian crimes that may have been committed.

More fundamentally, however, there are other, deeper issues with Sri Lankan society. The Foreign Office’s own human rights report highlighted, for example, issues of torture. The report quoted the statement by the World Organisation Against Torture that

“it had received credible testimonies of torture from across the country, including in cases not related to the ethnic conflict or terrorism”.

The report also raised issues about human rights defenders, freedom of expression and other concerns, which I probably do not have time to go into today.

The role of the army in Sri Lankan society is an increasing concern. Earlier this month, The Economist highlighted the role of the Sri Lankan President’s brother, Gotabaya Rajapaksa, who is the country’s defence secretary. The Economist said:

“His brother, Basil, calls him ‘fully vegetarian, the nicest, kindest person in the family’, yet he is widely feared.”

The article continued:

“A Tamil leader says the army oversees ‘oppressive, insulting, humiliating’ rule in the north, with tales of land grabs, murders and rape. In Colombo, political observers worry about the militarisation of politics.”

The article went on:

“Some local journalists are warned by editors never to write about him”—

that is, Gotabaya Rajapaksa. It concluded on Gotabaya:

“Asked if he frightens people, he says: ‘If they don’t criticise me, it is because there is nothing to criticise.’”

I leave hon. Members to draw their own conclusions.

Obviously, there are also specific cases, such as those of Mr Weeraraj and Mr Murugananthan, the activists who have disappeared, and indeed the continuing case of Sarath Fonseka, a former general, who had the temerity to stand against Mahinda Rajapaksa in a presidential election. Can the Minister tell us—if not now, then in writing—what representations are being made on those specific cases to the Sri Lankan Government? Amnesty, Human Rights Watch and others have raised the issue at the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting. It has also been raised, as has been mentioned, by the Canadian Government.

In conclusion, I want to ask the Minister three specific questions. First, has he raised the issue of an independent accountability mechanism, as recommended by the UN panel of experts, with the Sri Lankan Government, within the EU and at UN level? If so, what progress has been made? I do not want words put into the Minister’s mouth, but it is important for us to know that those discussions are taking place. Secondly, what is our response to the Government of Canada and others who have questioned whether it is right for Sri Lanka to host the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting, given Sri Lanka’s record on human rights? Thirdly, I emphasise the point made by the hon. Member for Ealing, Southall about the continued deportation of Sri Lankans from this country, when such deep concerns are raised by the Foreign Office about the treatment of detainees and those in custody. Obviously, the Minister has to be diplomatic, but it is time to send a clear message that, as a democratic Commonwealth country with high aspirations, Sri Lanka’s record on human rights and accountability for crimes committed is simply not good enough and has to change.

[Mr Joe Benton (in the Chair)]

May I remind right hon. and hon. Members that the wind-ups will start at 10.40?

10:31

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

Thank you for allowing me to speak, Mr Benton. I congratulate the hon. Member for Ealing, Southall (Mr Sharma) on securing this debate. Last year, my political researcher got married and she had her honeymoon in Sri Lanka. She regaled me with many stories about Sri Lanka—the ones that she could tell me about, of course. We see the tourist veneer, which is the good part of Sri Lanka. We do not see the underbelly of the political displacement taking place. People have been killed and more than 1 million people have been displaced.

Other hon. Members have spoken about Amnesty International. Its report referred to the

“escalating political killings, child recruitment, abductions and armed clashes”,

which created

a climate of fear…spreading to the north by the end of the year”.

It outlined the violence against women and also referred to the death penalty. Sri Lanka has not officially used the death penalty since 1976, but there are well-documented cases of disappearances and murders. Non-partisan humanitarian organisations, notably Human Rights Watch, contradict official statements. Human rights violations include murder, rape and land grabs. People from all walks of life are disappearing.

I commend the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh) for her comment on the sending back of Sri Lankans who have come to the United Kingdom and who will be forcibly repatriated without any consideration. Will the Minister comment on that?

I want to speak on an issue that concerns me greatly: evangelicals and Christians in Sri Lanka. Today, we have talked about the Tamils and their human rights. I want to talk about the rights of Christians. I have regular contact with Release International. It provides prayerful and practical support for those who need help. There have been attacks on Christians in south and west Sri Lanka recently. Several people have been injured and many have had their homes damaged. Attackers have shouted threats. Christians have left the area. Families have fled to the jungle. Local police have been informed, but no one has been made accountable. Why did this happen?

On July 10 last year, a pastor in Ampara district was hospitalised after being beaten by a Buddhist monk and others. The pastor from Mount Carmel church in—I will not try to pronounce the name of the place; in an Ulster accent, it will not come out right—attended a meeting about land distribution that was convened by the monk, and the pastor was attacked by those present. He was also later assaulted in his home. He was taken to Ampara hospital with injuries to his arm and severe pains in his stomach. In the Puttalam district in western Sri Lanka, the Prayer Tower church in Mahawewa was desecrated with excrement on June 5. Later on the same day, some 200 protestors carrying placards and clubs demanded the church’s closure. A lay preacher who tried to remonstrate with protestors was beaten.

Evangelical Christians face violence and opposition in the Buddhist-majority nation. Buddhist nationalists in Sri Lanka have caused concern among Protestant Christians by renewing their calls for anti-conversion laws. Can the Minister tell us what discussions he has had with Sri Lanka in relation to that?

The Jathika Hela Urumaya party, which has been pushing for legislation banning forced conversion since 2004, renewed its campaign in a press statement this month. It is clearly targeted at those of an evangelical, Protestant and Christian disposition. The JHU’s Prohibition of Religious Conversions Bill proposes to “ban fundamental Christian groups in the island”. Sri Lankan Protestants, especially evangelicals who are a particular target for discrimination and even persecution, fear that the law outlined in the Bill could be used to limit their church activities. Will the Minister respond to that as well?

Release sources inside Sri Lanka say that Christians are also concerned about a loosely worded circular issued in September by the Ministry of Religious Affairs. It stipulates that building or maintaining places of worship

“must be sanctioned by prior approval of the Ministry.”

Release sources say that some existing churches have already been informed that they are illegal and must close because they do not have state approval. That clearly outlines my concerns.

According to our sources, evangelical churches in particular are facing increased pressure from the state, with “indiscriminate closure and threats”. Applications to register formally are “routinely rejected”, and there is evidence that planning permission is being denied for non-church buildings—even houses—if the applicant is a Christian individual or organisation.

We have a responsibility and a duty not only because Sri Lanka is a former British colony; we have a duty to use our influence to ensure that basic human rights are adhered to. Sri Lanka is a beautiful country—I have never visited, but people tell me that it is—that has been ravaged by war. I represent Sri Lankans in Northern Ireland. We have had our 30 years of troubles, which have impacted on our economy, but we are getting better. The potential of Sri Lanka is being shrouded by atrocities and human rights desecrations. We must apply diplomatic pressure to bring about change. I urge everyone here to support the people of Sri Lanka. They have no voice to speak for themselves. We must be that voice for them.

10:36

[James Wharton (Stockton South) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Benton. In the few minutes that I have left, I will first declare, as is recorded in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, that I visited Sri Lanka in January. I will visit again at the beginning of March with the charity, International Alert.

I have listened with great interest to the contributions made by hon. Members today. Some important points have been raised, although I would add that the unanimity of view of Members here is perhaps not as clear-cut as some contributions would lead us to believe. While I was in Sri Lanka, I saw quite a lot of positive progress being made. I am not dismissing the genuine concerns that many individuals have raised, but at the same time they should be seen in the context of what is being done. A great deal of rehousing work is being done, with nearly 50,000 houses having been built. Resettlement is going well. I visited Manik Farm, one of the internally displaced person camps. I met people there and heard that they were keen to be resettled back to the places from which they had been displaced. I also saw that the conditions in which they were living at that time were not as is sometimes described. They had good facilities.

[Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend accept that the Sri Lankan military have now occupied more than 7,000 sq km of land in the Tamil majority areas in the north and east, for which they have no credible property rights?

[James Wharton]

My hon. Friend makes an interesting point. Throughout the period of conflict, the military occupied large swathes of land in the north and east, and they continue to occupy parts of land. One of the things that I saw while I was there is that the military are now contracting the spaces that they occupy. That does not take away from the genuine concerns that are raised about the military presence in the north and east, but it is none the less a fact on the ground that the amount of land that they are occupying is reducing, as that land is returned to its rightful owners. There have been areas of progress in Sri Lanka. I had hoped to say more on them, but I am conscious of the time.

[Mr Love]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[James Wharton]

No, I do not have any further time to give way. I apologise to the hon. Gentleman.

The LLRC, which has been the topic of much discussion this morning, makes a number of strong and good recommendations. In some areas, it has been criticised. Understandably, hon. Members have raised some of those issues this morning—for what it does not say, as much as for what it does say. In responding to the LLRC, we should recognise some of the actions that the Sri Lankan Government are taking. During my visit there, when I met representatives, whether parliamentarians or Ministers, I found that the issue was being taken seriously.

It is welcome that the Attorney-General is investigating allegations made throughout the process and that police investigations have begun into allegations made to the LLRC. It is welcome that an army court of inquiry has been established to consider not just the allegations raised with the LLRC but the Channel 4 documentary, which, although disputed, is now being investigated.

Welcome progress is being made, and we are in danger of damaging that progress if we rush wholeheartedly to the UN Human Rights Council and ask for action now. Sri Lanka must be given time and space to deal with the issues, along with an understanding of the context and history of the recent experiences in that country. The issues must be addressed fully, but we must give Sri Lanka the opportunity to address them internally before rushing to take international action.

10:40

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Southall (Mr Sharma) on securing this debate. Ever since the report of the Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission was published, I have thought that Parliament needed to discuss it. The turnout today has meant that Members have had to rush their contributions and many have not had the chance to speak. Perhaps the Backbench Business Committee or the Government ought to consider a full day’s debate on the Floor of the House, like the one we had on Somalia just before the half-term recess. I think that many Members would be keen to make more of a contribution.

We have heard accounts of appalling abuses in Sri Lanka. My hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh) discussed violence perpetrated against women, which has not received sufficient attentions. There are also concerns about displaced people. Many Members have referred to the Channel 4 film “Sri Lanka’s Killing Fields”. I attended a recent exhibition in Parliament with photographic evidence of some of the abuses that occurred in Sri Lanka. I do not want to cut into the Minister’s time, and I do not think it would be a good use of my time to detail those abuses—they are on the record and in the public domain—but it is worth restating that the UN panel of experts found credible the allegations of a wide range of serious violations of international humanitarian and human rights law by the Sri Lankan Government and the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam, some of which could amount to war crimes and crimes against humanity.

Attempts have been made to dismiss some of the evidence produced, including attempts to rubbish the Channel 4 film by suggesting that the footage of violence against women could have been faked. It is important to put on record that, although the UN panel of experts was not given as much access as we would have liked, it found that the original allegations were credible.

[Robert Halfon]

I support everything that the hon. Lady is saying. Is she aware that in November 2011, the UN Committee Against Torture reported that the Sri Lankan military behaved as though they were above the law and noted threats and harassment against human rights workers, defence lawyers and journalists?

[Kerry McCarthy]

Again, we must take seriously the fact that the allegations have been substantiated. They are, for all intents and purposes, a fact, and we must proceed on that basis, rather than still debating which side is right or wrong about the allegations. It is notable that the LLRC report makes no mention of torture in 338 pages.

[Mr Love]

Notwithstanding some concerns about time for the LLRC report, there has been a general consensus in this room about its significant shortcomings and failures. Does my hon. Friend agree that Government action is called for to address those shortcomings, and that the call for an international independent investigation must be sustained?

[Kerry McCarthy]

Labour was concerned about the LLRC’s composition and terms of reference, and the report’s flaws have borne out that concern. As the shadow Foreign Secretary said last year, we were not convinced that the commission could do its work even with international participation, and we thought that an international commission was needed to consider the evidence. That is still the Labour party’s stance.

The Foreign and Commonwealth Office statement in response to the publication of the LLRC report was critical to a degree, but perhaps not as critical as Members feel it should have been. Will the Minister explain in more detail exactly what he sees as the report’s flaws? Is it the Government’s stance that the LLRC is a sufficient basis for moving forward and that it is all about implementing the recommendations, setting a time scale and making progress, or does he think that the report, although useful in parts, is not a sufficient foundation for moving forward and that an international investigation is needed instead?

I particularly hope that the Minister can give more clarity on what the UK Government’s stance will be at the UN Human Rights Council in March. It has been said that the US will introduce a resolution calling for further action. I would be interested to know whether the Government support the US on that. A time scale is needed, as is a mechanism for ensuring that the recommendations in the LLRC report are not just allowed to drift.

I was concerned to hear the Sri Lankan high commission mention the Bloody Sunday inquiry, which took decades to be implemented and reach its conclusions, and the Stephen Lawrence investigation, which took 18 years. We should not be using that sort of time scale, or thinking that it will be decades before prosecutions are brought or resolutions are found. The US Government’s suggestion that report-backs should be made at future Human Rights Council meetings in June and September is a good starting point for setting a time scale and moving the agenda forward.

On deportations, my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow West (Mr Thomas) has had to leave, but he mentioned a constituent’s case. I appreciate that it is not in his portfolio, but will the Minister clarify the UK Government’s stance on deportations to Sri Lanka? A flight is due to leave on 28 February, and people are concerned about that. To his knowledge, have there been any allegations of mistreatment on return of those forcibly removed by the UK to Sri Lanka? What attempts have the UK Government made to monitor suggestions that people returned forcibly to Sri Lanka will be at risk? Are efforts made to investigate such allegations? What does he think would qualify as a substantiated allegation in a context where victims and family members might be reluctant or not in a position to come forward to give evidence of their concerns?

I will let the Minister reply, but the main thing that I want him to confirm is whether he sees the LLRC report as a basis for moving forward or whether he thinks an international commission is needed. Does he think that the UN is the right body to take things forward? Does he support not just an international investigation but a much stronger mechanism to ensure that justice is done for the victims of human rights abuses in Sri Lanka? The culture of impunity that has been allowed to develop must no longer continue.

10:48

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Alistair Burt)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Benton. I thank the hon. Member for Ealing, Southall (Mr Sharma) for securing this debate, for how he introduced it and for the content that he delivered. Numerous colleagues have spoken. I do not have time to mention them all, but I welcome the contributions made by my hon. Friends the Members for Ilford North (Mr Scott), for Cheltenham (Martin Horwood) and for Stockton South (James Wharton), and by the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh), the hon. Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy), who spoke for the Opposition, and the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon). Several interventions were also made.

I agree, not for the first time, with the hon. Member for Bristol East. Once again, my portfolio produces opportunities for debate for which an hour and a half is plainly insufficient. I could have spent a good length of time responding to the speech of the hon. Member for Ealing, Southall, let alone all the contributions made by others. Both the passion with which colleagues have dealt with the matter and their knowledge of this complex issue are reflected by their taking part in such numbers.

Before I answer colleagues’ specific questions, this is an opportunity for me to put on record how we currently see things and deal with the first issue raised by the hon. Member for Bristol East, which is how we view the report by the Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission.

[Robert Halfon]

I am pleased to be sitting next to my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Steve Baker), who has been active on the issue.

Given that we are Sri Lanka’s largest trading partner, and given our unique role in the Commonwealth, if the LLRC’s recommendations are not implemented by the next session of the UN Human Rights Council in September, will Britain seriously consider boycotting the Commonwealth leaders’ summit in 2013?

[Alistair Burt]

Let me come to the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting a little later. We recognise that we have a long-standing relationship with Sri Lanka and all its peoples. We appreciate our international responsibility, in company with others. Let me develop where our policy is, which I think my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon) and others will find helpful.

Our policy towards Sri Lanka is built on the United Kingdom’s values and on British interests. It will balance the future of the people in Sri Lanka, who must get on with their lives after terrible years of conflict, with the need for a sense of justice about the events of the past. We express again our abhorrence at some of the events that concluded the conflict, which still leave questions for the Sri Lankan Government to answer, just as we do at the campaign of violence, suicide bombings, the use of child soldiers and terrorism practised by the LTTE during the conflict—a conflict that, after decades, has left recent scars that still need to be healed.

Our policy is not starry-eyed about allegations against the Sri Lankan Government or unaware of concerns about current human rights issues. However, we acknowledge open statements from the Sri Lankan Government about what needs to happen to reconcile and move forward, and we recognise the sovereign Government’s ability to make things happen through implementing measures set out by the LLRC and through addressing issues that were not dealt with satisfactorily in the report.

We will work with other like-minded Governments, inside and outside the Commonwealth, to see that Sri Lanka upholds its professed values. Where we have expertise that may help, we will offer it, in reliance on Sri Lanka meaning what it says. Where that proves not to be the case, we will, privately and publicly, bilaterally and in conjunction with others, say and do what this House would expect us to do.

[Mr Love]

The Government’s written statement on the LLRC on 12 January states that

“we continue to believe it is important that an independent, credible and thorough mechanism is put in place to investigate all allegations of grave abuses.”—[Official Report, 12 January 2012; Vol. 538, c. 21WS.]

Will the Minister explain exactly what that means in current circumstances?

[Alistair Burt]

We still believe that. Let me marry that with the remarks that I will make to the hon. Member for Bristol East about the LLRC report.

Does the report form a basis for progress? Yes, it does. We said that there are some aspects of it, particularly in relation to reconciliation and justice, where clear suggestions for the way forward have been made. We said that they had possibilities, and I said clearly that implementation of the recommendations is the real test of Sri Lanka’s progress.

There are other areas where we did not believe the LLRC provided an adequate basis for going forward, principally in relation to accountability issues. We believe that more must be done with regard to those. As either the hon. Member for Bristol East or another hon. Member quoted earlier,

“we note that many credible allegations of violations of international humanitarian law and human rights law, including from the UN panel of experts report, are either not addressed or only partially answered.”

That includes Channel 4’s documentary. The quotation continues:

“We believe that video footage, authenticated by UN special rapporteurs, should inform substantive, not just technical, investigations into apparent grave abuses.”—[Official Report, 12 January 2012; Vol. 538, c. 21WS.]

Accordingly, our approach is to work with both the Sri Lankan Government and international partners on the different aspects. Where we believe the Sri Lankan Government can and should make progress, we still believe that a process led in Sri Lanka is better than one led internationally. However, where progress cannot be made, we reserve the right to work with international partners to apply pressure to ensure that it is made. That remains our position on an independent investigation and the international aspect of it.

[Barry Gardiner]

Will the Minister give way?

[Alistair Burt]

No.

There is much in the report that can contribute to the pursuit of enduring peace and reconciliation in Sri Lanka, but that can happen only if the recommendations are implemented in a timely fashion. We call on the Government of Sri Lanka to move quickly to implement the recommendations and to address questions of accountability for alleged war crimes that were left unanswered by the LLRC report.

[Barry Gardiner]

Will the Minister give way just very briefly ?

[Alistair Burt]

I cannot. I have four minutes.

I will deal with two or three major issues raised by colleagues in the debate. First, I will deal with the deportations, which is an important issue. All asylum and human rights applications from Sri Lankan nationals are carefully considered on their individual merits, in accordance with our international obligations and against the background of the latest available country information. The situation in Sri Lanka is still evolving, and where individuals can demonstrate that they face a real risk of prosecution and/or ill treatment on return, they are granted protection. It is only when the UK Border Agency and the courts are satisfied that an individual is not in need of international protection and has no leave to remain in the UK that removal is sought. We do not routinely monitor the treatment of individual unsuccessful asylum seekers once they are removed from the UK. They are, by definition, foreign nationals who have been found, as a matter of law, not to need the UK’s protection, and it would be inconsistent with such a finding for the UK to assume an ongoing responsibility for them when they return to their own country.

The Foreign Office follows the human rights situation in Sri Lanka closely. For chartered flight operations, we currently make a small payment to enable returnees to travel to their home town or village. We also ensure that UK Government representatives are present at the airport. Every returnee, whether on scheduled or chartered flights, is provided with the contact details of the British high commission in Colombo, should they want to make contact with the migration delivery officer based there.

We are aware of media allegations that returnees are being abused. All have been investigated by the high commission, and no evidence has been found to substantiate any of them.

[Heidi Alexander]

Will the Minister give way?

[Alistair Burt]

No. I hope the hon. Lady forgives me, but I have three minutes to deal with the rest of the issues.

The hon. Member for Ealing, Southall brought up the discrepancy between scheduled and chartered flights, which I acknowledge. As I said, we give everyone the same information, and we have been able to meet chartered flights. I have now asked colleagues in Colombo to see what we can do to meet scheduled flights as well, where that is practicable. I assure the hon. Gentleman and the House that the same information is given to everyone to allow people to contact us in private—not the Sri Lankan authorities—and so far we have not been able to substantiate allegations. However, we remain open to anything that would do that, because it is essential that those returned are safe.

For the avoidance of doubt, I will also deal with the issues related to the Human Rights Council. We have raised the issue of Sri Lanka at the council under item 4, countries of concern. We also raised specifically the Channel 4 footage in the interactive dialogue with UN special reporters last June. We will continue to work with international partners to support Sri Lanka in its pursuit of enduring peace and reconciliation. We are aware that the US is preparing a draft resolution for the Human Rights Council, and we are likely to support it.

In relation to the Conservative Heads of Government—[Laughter.] If only. It was a Freudian slip. In relation to the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting in Sri Lanka next year, it is too early for us to make the same pronouncement as the Canadians. There is much to be done before the meeting. We are conscious, as everyone in Sri Lanka is, of the importance of that meeting and its ability to stand for the highest values of the Commonwealth. No one is unaware of that position.

I conclude by repeating some earlier remarks. A number of specific issues will be answered by letter. The ongoing question is, if such things are going on, what are we going to do? We will work with the Sri Lankan Government on the implementation of LLRC and other human rights recommendations to deliver what they have declared they will deliver. We will work with international partners—Commonwealth and others—to urge action in areas where adherence to Commonwealth or human rights values is still lacking. We are conscious of the power of international bodies, such as the Human Rights Council and CHOGM, to apply pressure and to encourage the raising of standards. We are also conscious of time scales. Our activity will be both public and private, and I will regularly update colleagues. No one should doubt that there is still much to do in Sri Lanka, and no one should doubt that the UK Government recognise that.

Flood Defences (Exeter)

Wednesday 22nd February 2012 Westminster Hall

11:00

[Mr Ben Bradshaw (Exeter) (Lab)]

I will outline for the benefit of the Minister, who, I am sure, has already been very well briefed about the subject, some of the background. I then have a number of questions for him. If he cannot provide me with answers at the end of the debate, perhaps he could write to me over the next couple of weeks with the responses.

Over the past few decades, we have been incredibly lucky in Exeter to have benefited from excellent flood defences, which were constructed following two devastating floods that took place in quick succession in the early 1960s. Thousands of households and businesses were flooded out in my constituency. Those flood defences are a wonderful resource for the people of Exeter, who use them to walk on and walk their dogs. I use them regularly to enable me to cycle through the city centre, thereby avoiding some rather busy roads. They have also protected us from the devastation that floods can cause.

The challenge we face, however, is that the independent Environment Agency says that the flood defences that have stood the test of time over those decades are now no longer sufficient to protect us from a major flood at the frequency with which the Environment Agency says we need that protection. Those flood defences need a significant upgrade or some alternative flood defence scheme will be required to provide Exeter households and businesses with the flood protection that they not only need but require if they are to qualify for flood insurance.

When the flood defences were built, they provided Exeter with protection from a major flood at a rate of around once in every 75 years. However, the current Environment Agency estimate is that, because of climate change, the rate of flooding has increased to around once in 40 years. It does not take a genius to work out that, given it is now 2012, we are already overdue a major flood in Exeter. Indeed, I have noticed a couple of occasions in recent years when the water has got very close to the top of our flood defences.

The Environment Agency tells me that upgrading Exeter’s flood defences is its major priority in Devon and Cornwall—it needs to happen, and it needs to happen very quickly. As we all know, the trauma of flooding can be very significant indeed. The excellent charity, the National Flood Forum, which I met yesterday to discuss the issue says:

“It can take up to two years for homes to dry out and be restored and during this time, many families live in temporary accommodation. The process is stressful, time consuming and simply beyond some people, particularly those who are elderly or vulnerable. The dread of flooding again can cause long term distress and mental health problems.”

The insurance industry says that its estimates of the latest cost of flooding to the average household are between £20,000 and £40,000.

As well as the challenge that we face locally in upgrading our flood defences, a second issue that is just as important relates to the statement of principles that the previous Labour Government signed with the insurance industry. Under the statement of principles, householders can still get flood insurance at reasonable rates if they are at risk or serious risk of flooding. The statement of principles runs out on 30 June next year, so we face a potential double whammy in Exeter. We will not have the flood defences that the Environment Agency says that we need to provide protection to our homes and businesses. Depending on whether the insurance industry’s estimate or the Environment Agency’s estimate is used, we are talking about between 2,500 and 3,500 homes of local people in well-known areas of the Exe floodplain: St Thomas, Alphington and low-lying parts of St Davids and St Leonards as well. I happen to live in one of those areas—admittedly, on the first floor, but I suspect I am still as at much risk as anyone.

We not only have the threat to those homes, but the very real possibility that, when the agreement with the insurance industry runs out, those homes and businesses will either not be able to get insurance against flooding or their insurance premiums will rise so fast that they become unpayable. The impact of that on thousands of homes in my constituency could be housing blight: people will not be able to move, sell their homes or get mortgages for them. Around 1,000 businesses that are affected—they are mainly on the major Marsh Barton industrial estate—will be unable to borrow or sell their businesses.

The recent study by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs on flood risk in the light of climate change predicted that damage from floods could rise tenfold to more than £10 billion in the coming decade. We have already seen the impact of the huge cuts—a 27% cut in their first year in office—that the Government have made to investment in flood defences. A number of schemes that back in 2010 had indicative funding for the next financial year, 2012-13, now do not have funding at all and will not go ahead.

In the past few weeks, a very damning report from the Public Accounts Committee said that the combination of Government cuts and the likelihood that hard-strapped local councils such as mine simply will not be able to fill the funding gap, as the Government are expecting them to do, has left a huge mismatch between the money available and the flood defences that we need.

As I have said, I have a number of questions for the Minister. First, does he accept the Environment Agency’s analysis that, for every £1 invested in flood defence, £8 is saved? If so, why are the Government cutting investment in flood defences so drastically? Given the calls—even from some Government Members—for more measures to kick start our economy, does he agree that reversing the cuts in flood defences, which is exactly the kind of investment in vital infrastructure that many economists are calling for, including the CBI today, would provide much-needed business for the building trade? If so, has he made such representations to the Chancellor in advance of the forthcoming Budget?

If the Minister cannot persuade the Chancellor to invest more in flood defences, will he review the new requirement for local communities to fund or part fund vital flood defences? If he will not review that requirement, how much or what proportion of the cost of the Exeter scheme does he expect will have to be shouldered by my local council tax payers? Given the big cuts in local government funding, where does he expect my local authorities to find that money?

If the local authorities are to be responsible for paying the bulk of the money the Minister expects to be raised locally, what in his view should the balance of responsibility be between the district authority and the county council? Exeter city council—the district council—prides itself on having the fifth lowest district council tax in the country, and the prospect of having to fund the whole cost of the scheme would be an unacceptable burden on my local council tax payers. What does he imagine to be a fair sharing of responsibility between the city council and the county council, which is the upper tier authority responsible for flood protection?

Would the Minister advise the local authorities concerned to borrow the funds needed? That might actually be sensible, given our record low long-term borrowing costs. Would they be allowed to do so? If they do, can he give an assurance that that will not fall foul of Treasury rules? Given all those challenges, I would be grateful to the Minister if he gave me some idea of when he thinks work on upgrading Exeter’s flood defences might start and be completed.

Given the potential gap between that work being done and the ending of the agreement with the insurance industry on cover, what progress is the Minister making in his discussions with the insurance industry about what will happen when the statement of principles runs out next year? Is he aware of the extreme urgency, given that insurers will be issuing new annual policies this summer that span the period after which the agreement ends? Is he also aware of reports that some insurance companies are already refusing to renew policies or are significantly increasing premiums because of the current uncertainty?

What estimate has the Minister made of the likely increase in insurance premiums if no alternative solution is in place in time? How many more property and business owners are likely to find they cannot get insurance at all if this happens? When does he expect to make an announcement about what the Government propose to put in place of the statement of principles? I am sure that he will be aware that the industry has a preferred model of a public subsidy, in effect to pay for the premiums for at-risk property owners over and above a threshold. Has he had discussions about that and other models with the Treasury?

Has the Minister pointed out to the Treasury that the cost to the Government of such a scheme would be a fraction of the cost to the Government if the floods take place and they have to pay the clean-up costs? What does he think about the insurance industry’s preferred model of pool reinsurance? Would he favour it being compulsory or an opt-in model, such as the scheme already available to businesses to insure against terrorist attack?

Do the Government intend to consult on their proposals when they are published? Is it likely that whatever solution the Government come up with will require legislation? If so, we are looking at a very tight timetable indeed. The indications that I have been given from the insurance industry—in fact, it has stated them publicly—is that it feels frustrated at the lack of progress and does not feel that the Government are taking the issue seriously enough. Will the Minister give my constituents a categorical assurance that they will not be left in a position next year where they do not have the necessary upgrade of Exeter’s flood defences and they do not have a replacement for the agreement with the insurance industry that currently ensures cover at reasonably affordable prices?

I am grateful for the opportunity to raise an issue that is of great concern to thousands of householders and businesses in my constituency. They face a potential double whammy in a very short space of time next year: not having the upgrade to our flood defences that the Environment Agency says that Exeter requires and the uncertainty that hangs over them about the future of their insurance cover. I would be grateful to the Minister if he reassured them on those points.

11:12

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Richard Benyon)]

I congratulate the right hon. Member for Exeter (Mr Bradshaw) on securing the debate on a matter that is of great concern to his constituents. Nothing would please me more than to be able to protect the nearly 4,000 properties that are currently at risk in Exeter. I hope that we can make progress in the coming months and have a scheme in place as quickly as possible.

I am sympathetic to the need to improve the existing flood defences in Exeter. First, let me be clear on the record that flood and coastal erosion risk management is an absolute priority for the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. The Government are committed to protecting people and property from flooding and coastal erosion where it is sustainable and affordable to do so. The right hon. Gentleman raised the issue of spending. I want this to be a constructive debate that focuses on the needs of his constituents, but we are talking about a 6% difference in this spending round compared with the previous spending round. In the context of cuts to Departments such as DEFRA of approximately 30%, that shows the absolute priority that we are giving flood and coastal erosion risk management, coupled with the efficiencies being found in the Environment Agency budget to spend more on the front line and on the partnership funding, which I will come on to talk about and which will be important for the aspirations of his constituents.

[Mr Bradshaw]

I have no desire to turn the debate into political ping-pong, but Lord Smith, the chairman of the Environment Agency, talked about a cut in cash terms of approximately 27%. The figures for capital investment by DEFRA for flooding work between 2010-11, the last figure of Labour spend, and 2011-12, are £354 million down to £259 million—a 27% cut in anyone’s terms.

[Richard Benyon]

The right hon. Gentleman, who was a Minister in DEFRA, will understand that these things are done in spending rounds. Very few flood schemes go from conception to commissioning in one year, which is why we base it over a spending review period. The excellent chairman of the Environment Agency will confirm—our figures have been sent to the Public Accounts Committee—that there is a 6% difference. The last Chancellor in the previous Labour Government, of which the right hon. Gentleman was a member, announced shortly before the general election that there would be 50% capital cuts in budgets. I will be generous to the right hon. Gentleman and say that if his party had won the general election it would not have cut the capital budget by 50%, but it would certainly have cut it. I think that he would have also implemented all the recommendations of the Pitt review into those very damaging floods in 2007, part of which form the basis of the partnership funding system that we have introduced, and part of which resulted in the implementation of local flood risk management through lead local flood authorities. That is very important for communities such as his, and I hope that we can work together constructively in the coming months to achieve a result for those people.

It is the nature of flood and coastal defence investment that there are always more projects than national budgets can afford at any one time—there always have been and, sadly, always will be. Some 5.2 million homes are at risk from flooding and we want to protect as many of them as possible. Funding has always needed to be prioritised, and that would be the case even if capital budgets had not been reduced in the spending review.

As we have heard today, the Environment Agency is developing an option for Exeter that is expected to cost £25 million over its lifetime. Under the new partnership funding system, that might attract approximately £13 million funded by the general taxpayer. That leaves a shortfall of £12 million. Many schemes are funded totally by the taxpayer. What we have now in our partnership funding scheme is a totally transparent system. For years, communities such as the right hon. Gentleman’s wanted schemes like this to go ahead, always believing that total funding by the taxpayer would be available, but always just missing out and never knowing why—now they can see a transparent funding system.

The right hon. Gentleman talked about the “independent” Environment Agency. It is part of DEFRA; it is the Government in terms of spending flood money. The people in the Environment Agency are the experts. They have developed that transparent funding system on the lines of the recommendations of the Pitt review and have come up with the scoring for what can be achieved for his community.

Exeter is an excellent example of why we have had to change the funding approach and introduce the partnership funding scheme. The new approach follows recommendations made by Sir Michael Pitt’s review of the 2007 flooding, in which he said that local communities should be allowed and encouraged to invest in flood risk management measures so that more can be done and more schemes can be introduced. He also said that future investment plans should not simply assume that the cost of flood alleviation is met centrally. Those recommendations were accepted fully by the Government. If we had carried on with the old system, we would be placing an ever-increasing burden on the general taxpayer to meet the long-term costs of flood defence alone. Those costs are expected to rise considerably with our changing climate, as the right hon. Gentleman predicted in his speech.

The old system artificially constrained how much could be done in each town and city because Government funding has always been, and always will be, limited. The old system meant that schemes were either funded in full, or not at all, based on top-down decisions. Many worthwhile schemes, such as in Exeter, were knocked back for funding, in many cases without a realistic prospect of ever going forward. At a cost of £25 million, the Exeter scheme would have been in that category, doomed never to have had a high enough priority for full funding. Transparency and greater local involvement is at the heart of the new partnership funding system. Instead of meeting the full costs of a limited number of schemes, national funds are spread further in order to achieve more overall. Many schemes will continue to be fully funded, where value for taxpayers’ money is sufficiently strong.

In other cases, such as Exeter, national funding is available to part-fund the project. This approach creates space within the system for local and private contributions to help pay for the significant benefits to land, property, infrastructure and other assets realised when defences are built. There are potentially many sources of funding to tap in to, both public and private.

Last year, the community of Morpeth found itself in a similar position to Exeter. The proposed scheme in that area did not meet the old criteria for full funding, so it was deferred, potentially indefinitely. Under the new approach, the Government were able to meet around half of the costs of the scheme. Leadership was shown by Northumberland county council, meaning that the scheme is now fully funded and will proceed in the coming months, with half the money—coincidentally, up to £12 million—met from local sources. This example shows the power of the new system, and there are many others that I would like to point to; this is important in addressing one of the right hon. Gentleman’s points.

In south Derbyshire, Nestlé contributed £1.7 million to a £7 million scheme to protect 1,600 homes and further financial contributions have been made from industry and other means. In other areas, the planning system has been used to unlock schemes, whether through section 106 money or some other form of funding, rather like exception site housing schemes in rural communities. The income from those schemes goes to deal with flood and coastal erosion risk management. In respect of another scheme in York, York city council is finding the money to bring it above the line.

The new system has already helped secure £72 million of external funding for schemes in the next three years—more than 500% higher than during the previous spending period.

[Gavin Shuker (Luton South) (Lab/Co-op)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Richard Benyon]

If the hon. Gentleman will let me finish this point.

Early indications suggest up to a third more schemes are likely to proceed than if we had kept up the old all-or-nothing system.

[Gavin Shuker]

I am grateful—

[Mr Joe Benton (in the Chair)]

Order. I am sorry, but under the rules for half-hour debates, an Opposition spokesperson cannot intervene.

[Mr Bradshaw]

I am interested in the scheme in Northumberland that the Minister mentioned. Will he outline—if he does not know, perhaps he will write to me—whether the county council or district council was involved and what the balance of funding was?

[Richard Benyon]

The county council provided funding from its capital budget. I am not going to sit at my desk—once the right hon. Gentleman’s—and try to dictate the balance of contributions from district or county councils, businesses or whatever. That is the purpose of implementing the Pitt recommendations. These should be local decisions.

There is at least clarity. If I made an exception and broke away from the clear rules that guide the scoring of schemes, I am sure that, given his previous position in DEFRA, the right hon. Gentleman would be the first to recognise that I would be called back to this Chamber, rightly, by hon. Members from all parties, asking, “Why have you made an exception? Why have you broken the clear guidelines that you have set to favour one scheme?”

I have huge sympathy for the right hon. Gentleman’s constituents. I want this scheme to go ahead.

Despite the economic situation, DEFRA plans to spend more than £2.17 billion on flood and coastal erosion risk management. The latest projections suggest that we are on course to exceed our target to protect 145,000 households by March 2015.

[Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)]

Will the Minister share those examples, principles and policies with the Northern Ireland Executive, because we obviously have coastal erosion and areas of flooding in Northern Ireland, which, frankly, the authorities have been dilatory in managing and dealing with? It would be worth while sharing with our own Government in Northern Ireland the examples that the Minister has shared with hon. Members, so that we can learn from them.

[Richard Benyon]

I am happy to share everything. There are no state secrets in what we are doing here. We just want more schemes to go ahead. I am happy to share examples with ministerial colleagues, the Northern Ireland Executive and anyone else who is interested.

We are learning and our learning curve is steep. I am impressed with how the Environment Agency has implemented this new scheme over this year. The fact that we are able to take on more than 60 new schemes in the indicative list for the coming year shows that it is working.

Let me answer some other points made by the right hon. Gentleman. He defined the statement of principles as ensuring that insurance was available to every household and used the words, “at reasonable rates”. Actually, that is inaccurate. The statement of principles does not influence pricing. It never did; that is part of the problem. Some 2,500 homes in my constituency were flooded in 2007, many of which can get insurance because of the statement of principles, but the high premiums and high excess charges are really testing some people.

Is there urgency about how we progress in our dealings with the insurance industry? Absolutely. Do we want an arrangement moving forward from 20 June 2013 that still ensures that insurance is widely available? Absolutely. We will make an announcement in the spring that will give a full year for new systems to be in place, providing clarity and ensuring that insurance is freely available. We hope that we will also be able to announce that there will continue to be some sort of pool arrangement for those in flood-risk areas who are on low incomes. That is important.

It is also important to note that partnership funding has weighting for communities where there are high levels of deprivation, because we recognise that there is a lack of capacity in many such areas to take forward schemes under partnership funding and there is a desperate need to resolve these issues so that some vulnerable people can be protected. Therefore there is a weighting in favour of such systems.

In the past, insurers have charged everyone in a pool system, so that constituents of the right hon. Gentleman, and mine, who do not live in areas of high flood risk are subsidising those who do. The statement of principles always was going to end in 2013, whoever was in Government. We are desperately keen to find a solution that takes things forward.

The Association of British Insurers, which is, rightly, a lobbying organisation on behalf of large financial institutions, says that it needs a Government subsidy—a taxpayer subsidy—for the insurance industry. That is not realistic, but we think that there is a way forward and that we can work with the industry and find a solution. I assure the right hon. Gentleman and all hon. Members that we are working to achieve that.

The right hon. Gentleman mentioned the Public Accounts Committee’s criticisms of the partnership funding scheme. I will make the same point that I made when those were published: we are implementing the recommendations of the Pitt inquiry, rightly instigated by the previous Government. Pitt made 92 recommendations, in a good report. We are implementing its recommendations on partnership funding and the local aspect—the creation of lead local flood authorities—giving local authorities the capacity to take forward flood and coastal erosion risk management. That is working well.

Will we review partnership funding? We are constantly reviewing it; we want to streamline this new concept and get it right, but as I said earlier, it is not for me to dictate whether a local council, a district council or any others provide that added element of the funding. It is wrong to say that we want hard-pressed council tax payers to dig deeper into their pockets. There are various ways in which this funding is found. Yes, sometimes local authorities step up to the mark, but that is by no means always so.

Under the latest capital programme, 22 schemes are going ahead in Devon and Cornwall this coming year, with a total of £5 million grant-in-aid funding during 2012-13, including the construction of improved flood defences in Braunton, Ottery St Mary, St Ives, Stoke Canon, Teignmouth and Truro, and a further 49 projects in Devon and Cornwall have indicative funding for 2013-14 or later, subject to confirmation of the outcomes, cost and partnership funding arrangements.

I recognise that this matter is important to the right hon. Gentleman and his constituents. I have had constructive conversations with colleagues from all parties, many of which have resulted in successful commencement or announcement of schemes, and I assure the right hon. Gentleman that I will continue to work with him to try to achieve a good result for the people of Exeter.

11:29

Sitting suspended.

Kevin Williams

Wednesday 22nd February 2012 Westminster Hall

[Mrs Anne Main in the Chair]

14:29

[Stephen Mosley (City of Chester) (Con)]

This debate is on behalf of my constituent, Mrs Anne Williams, to help seek the truth about what happened to her 15-year-old son, Kevin, at the 1989 Hillsborough disaster. All that Mrs Williams asks for is the truth, and I hope that that message is given loud and clear to my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General over the next 90 minutes.

I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for considering the issue. I understand that he has written recently to Mrs Williams to say that, upon application for a new inquest, he will consider all the evidence put before him and not restrict an application to new, unheard evidence. That is extremely welcome news, for which Mrs Williams, who is watching the debate from the Public Gallery, and I are grateful. Of course, I also thank the 118,000 people who signed Mrs Williams’s e-petition calling upon the Attorney-General to order a fresh inquest into Kevin’s death. Mrs Williams would like to thank everyone who has made the debate possible.

The focus of today’s debate is tightly drawn around the circumstances of Kevin’s death at Hillsborough, and my opening remarks are similarly narrowly focused, but it is important to recognise that the debate encompasses all those who so tragically lost their lives in the Hillsborough disaster. Both directly and indirectly, the evidence that I will present about Kevin’s death is significant for all whose lives were irreversibly changed that day.

From the outset, I make it clear that, contrary to the conclusions of the initial inquest into Kevin’s death, Kevin was alive long after 3.15 pm on Saturday 15 April 1989, and he did not die of traumatic asphyxia. The evidence is unequivocal. The testimonies are unmistakable. The original inquest into Kevin’s death was wrong.

All Members present today are familiar with the tragic events at Hillsborough on 15 April 1989. It is not my intention to recall in great detail the many accounts of what happened that day, nor do I intend to talk about the many failings that led to the disaster. This debate is not about pointing the finger of blame, it is about the truth of what happened to a 15-year-old boy.

Kevin arrived at Hillsborough football stadium early on 15 April, entering the ground at around 1.30 pm. Spotting some friends in pen 3, he and his friend Andrew left pen 4 at about quarter to 2. As the pens became more congested, Kevin, like many others, was forced to the ground. Kick-off came and, shortly after, the game was abandoned. According to coroner Dr Stefan Popper and, consequently, to the inquest into his death, Kevin was already dead at or before 3.15 pm. Yet video evidence shows Kevin being lifted out of pen 3 at 3.28 pm and being resuscitated on the pitch by Police Constable Michael Craighill.

PC Craighill then helped carry Kevin across the pitch on a makeshift stretcher, with off-duty fireman Mr Tony O’Keefe and other Liverpool fans including Mr Stevie Hart. Both Mr O’Keefe and Mr Hart are here with Mrs Williams today. The off-duty fire officer, Mr Tony O’Keefe, is on record as saying that Kevin was still alive at 3.31 when he was being carried across the pitch. Mr O’Keefe said:

“In my opinion, he was still alive. Taking this kid and many others across that pitch, you see signs of life in someone and think I’m going to get him to the right end of the ground and give him to someone else. I didn’t have any doubt that he would be dealt with when we put him down. We carried him on a piece of hoarding to the other end of the ground and I looked down, saw people taking over and I thought, yeah, he’s going to be okay.”

At 3.37 pm, Kevin was being resuscitated by off-duty police officer PC Derek Bruder, aided by Liverpool fan Johnny Prescott and a member of St John Ambulance; they found a pulse in Kevin. PC Bruder had seen Kevin moving his head and being sick, so he went over to help. He saw an ambulance enter the ground and tried to stop it so that Kevin could receive medical attention. The ambulance, however, did not stop. PC Bruder provided an official statement shortly after the disaster, along with a second statement four months later in which he identified himself on photographs taken at Hillsborough.

PC Bruder was visited at his home on 3 May 1990 by Detective Inspector Sawyers of the West Midlands police, to take a further statement to clarify certain medical issues made in PC Bruder’s first statement. During the visit, DI Sawyers rang the coroner’s office and handed the phone to PC Bruder. On the phone was the pathologist, Dr Slater, who explained that during the throes of death a body builds up gases that can cause it to wriggle slightly. So while PC Bruder understood that the purpose of the visit was to clarify certain medical details, what transpired was that the pathologist responsible for Kevin’s autopsy was in fact dictating to PC Bruder what he had seen.

The conversation at PC Bruder’s home continued, with DI Sawyers explaining how all the video footage of the tragedy had been studied by the inquiry team and how the ambulance to which PC Bruder referred in his first statement could not have been in the ground at that time because there was no supporting evidence. DI Sawyers then went on to ask whether PC Bruder could have been mistaken about the ambulance. PC Bruder responded to those statements at the Stuart-Smith scrutiny:

“This really annoyed me and I told him that I was not mistaken, nor did I imagine the ambulance, and I insisted that he made reference to it in the statement. I told the inspector that I would be available to give evidence at the inquest should I be required. I expected to give evidence at the inquest in order to clarify my position on the obvious grey areas which emerged. To my surprise, I was never called to give evidence in the case of Kevin Williams.”

Those words are the sworn testimony of a registered police constable, yet they have been categorically dismissed.

Following the visit, DI Sawyers said at Kevin’s inquest that PC Bruder was mistaken about the ambulance and that he must have seen the ambulance that is on record as exiting the ground at 3.20 pm. DI Sawyers said that PC Bruder was also mistaken about finding Kevin’s pulse and about seeing him be sick. The coroner concluded that if PC Bruder was mistaken about the ambulance, he must also have been mistaken about Kevin’s condition. However, contrary to DI Sawyers’s comments, video and photographic evidence has subsequently emerged, along with a statement from Mr Tony Edwards, the assistant driver of the ambulance, that confirms PC Bruder’s testimony that an ambulance did pass them at that point, at 3.37 pm. There are serious concerns about PC Bruder being persuaded on the phone by pathologist Dr Slater of what he actually saw that day, but the underlying fact is that PC Bruder was not mistaken about the ambulance, and that there was therefore no legitimate reason for his testimony to be dismissed.

At 3.40 pm, following PC Bruder’s intervention, Special Woman Police Constable Debra Martin found Kevin’s pulse and helped take him into the gym. Miss Martin was told to stay with Kevin and to carry out resuscitation, which she did. After conducting heart massage and resuscitation, Kevin’s ribs began to move and he stirred from unconsciousness. Thinking that she had revived Kevin, Miss Martin picked him up in her arms. Kevin opened his eyes and spoke the word “Mum” before he slumped back and died just before 4 pm. This, again, is the sworn statement of a registered special WPC, yet the events that I will now describe are quite unbelievable.

Miss Martin’s original statement, made within weeks of the disaster, described the events that I have just described. However, a few months after the disaster, Miss Martin was visited at her home by Detective Constable Appleton of the West Midlands police. The purpose of the visit was to seek her signature on a second, contradictory statement. Considerable pressure was put on Miss Martin to ratify the amended statement. In the end, she succumbed to the pressure, and signed the second statement without reading it. In the second statement, anything that referred to signs of life in Kevin was gone. There was no reference to a pulse, or to him saying, “Mum.” In total, Miss Martin was visited on four separate occasions by senior police officers whose aim was to convince her that her original statement was mistaken, and that Kevin was not alive when she treated him. Miss Martin has stated on numerous occasions that she stands by what was in her first statement, and that she was bullied by senior police officers to sign the second statement, which was wholly inaccurate.

This is what happened to Kevin at Hillsborough. At 3.28, he was pulled from pen 3, and resuscitated by a police constable. At 3.31, he was carried across the pitch by, among others, an off-duty fire officer, who swears that Kevin was still alive. At 3.37, he was resuscitated by an off-duty police officer, who testifies that Kevin was still alive. His statement was dismissed due to lack of evidence relating to the whereabouts of an ambulance. That has subsequently been proven to be an accurate account. Finally, at a few minutes before 4 pm, a special WPC found Kevin’s pulse, picked him up in her arms, and watched and listened as he opened his eyes and spoke the word “Mum”. Those are the facts of that day, plain and simple. Kevin was alive well after 3.15 pm on 15 April 1989.

As a result of the ruling of the coroner, Dr Stefan Popper, that all the victims were either dead, or brain dead by 3.5 pm, the inquest into Kevin’s death was dealt with as such. I have dealt with key parts of the evidence that show that Kevin was unquestionably alive after 3.15 pm, and I turn my attention to the cause of Kevin’s death, which is as contentious as the timing. At the inquest, Dr. Slater, the pathologist who conducted Kevin’s autopsy, concluded that he had died of traumatic asphyxia. Mrs Williams told me recently that although the 3.15 cut-off point has caused great anger and distress to her and many other families who seek justice for their loved ones, her main reason for wanting a new inquest is that Kevin did not die of traumatic asphyxia. Since the inquest, Mrs Williams has obtained several expert evaluations of Kevin’s autopsy report. Without exception, they all disagreed with Dr Slater’s findings.

The first evaluation was courtesy of Dr James Burns, forensic scientist at the Royal Liverpool hospital. Dr Burns spent a considerable time with Mrs Williams re-evaluating the autopsy report with the evidence obtained from PC Bruder and Special WPC Martin. Dr Burns concluded that the fractures that Kevin had suffered in his neck would have caused swelling around the windpipe. The swelling would have resulted in the gradual closing of his airway, which would have taken at least three quarters of an hour to happen. Dr Burns produced a report for Mrs Williams, which contradicted much of what Dr Slater had reported. Of further interest was his letter to Mrs Williams, in relation to the evidence of WPC Debra Martin. He wrote:

“It strikes me that Special WPC. Martin has been the victim of unjustifiable adverse criticism amounting almost to ridicule. I am amazed that the evidence of Miss Martin, a dental nurse, by training, and a special police constable of five years standing, is treated with such incredulity, amounting almost to hostility. I see no reason to doubt the evidence of Miss Martin when she states that she picked Kevin up in her arms, that Kevin opened his eyes, moved his mouth and said “Mom”.

The second noteworthy evaluation was that conducted by the late Dr Iain West, a former consultant forensic pathologist at London’s Guy’s Hospital. Following assessment of Kevin’s autopsy photographs, Dr West stated:

“They do not indicate the classic signs of Traumatic Asphyxia.”

Like Dr Burns, Dr West fundamentally disagreed with the official autopsy report, believing that Kevin’s injuries would not have led to unconsciousness within a few seconds, and that if medically trained professionals had been present, an emergency tracheotomy or cricothyroidotomy would have relieved Kevin from suffering the fatal asphyxia that led to his death.

Some hon. Members may not be aware that traumatic asphyxia usually results from an individual being crushed or pinned under a large weight or force. The cause of death resulting from traumatic asphyxia is related not just to the impairment of respiration but, importantly, to physical interference with the return of blood from the upper part of the body to the heart. That results in swelling and haemorrhaging in the upper part of the body, most notably the face. Dr West did not believe that Kevin’s body displayed such symptoms, and concluded in his report:

“This mechanism, (of death by traumatic asphyxia) leads to quite unmistakable pathological findings which differ from those seen in Kevin Williams’ body.”

Dr West explained to Mrs Williams that if Kevin had died of traumatic asphyxia, and had Kevin looked the way that Dr Slater described at the inquest, she would not have been able to recognise him, but she was able to do so.

I should stress that Dr West was an extremely distinguished and respected pathologist. His cases included the shooting of WPC Yvonne Fletcher, the Brighton bombing of the Conservative party conference, the second autopsy on Robert Maxwell, and the death of Joy Gardner, the deportee who died in a police struggle. Very simply, Dr West concluded that Kevin did not have any of the injuries to his chest that would have been a necessity if he had died from traumatic asphyxia. The only injuries that he sustained were to his neck.

In 2006, Mrs Williams sought the expertise of Dr Nathaniel Carey, a similarly distinguished pathologist and successor to Dr West as consultant forensic pathologist at London’s Guy’s Hospital. Dr Carey concurred with Dr West’s examination, concluding that the simple administration of oxygen through the insertion of a rubber tube down the windpipe would have saved Kevin. Had medical personnel been present, that would have been a routine procedure.

Mrs Williams has had three previous requests for a new inquest into her son’s death refused by the Attorney-General’s office, and she has been refused an inquest by the European Court of Human Rights due to timing technicalities. In light of the compelling evidence, it is simply remarkable that her requests have been refused. Why is it that what clearly happened after 3.15 that day has not been fully investigated? Why were two police officers pressured into changing their witness statements? Why has the opinion of three expert pathologists been collectively ignored? Why has Mrs Williams never been granted a new inquest into Kevin’s death when the evidence is so compelling?

An inquest into a death is a fact-finding inquiry to establish reliable answers to four important factual questions. The first relates to the identity of the deceased, the second to the place of death, the third to the time of death, and the fourth to how the deceased came by their death. Those are statutory requirements, yet the inquest into Kevin’s death has clearly failed factually and reliably to answer two of those four statutory questions. I hope that I have made that clear to my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General. Kevin was not dead by 3.15 pm on Saturday 15 April 1989, and he did not die of traumatic asphyxia.

It has been suggested that one key consideration for not previously granting Mrs Williams a new inquest is the wider interests of all concerned, notably that witnesses would be required to cast their minds back to events that many have tried to put behind them. However, I can confirm to my right hon. and learned Friend that, of the individual witnesses mentioned in my remarks, Miss Debra Martin, Mr Derek Bruder, Mr Johnny Prescott, Mr Stevie Hart and Mr Tony O’Keefe have all said very recently that they would be happy to give evidence should a new inquest be granted. I thought it appropriate to put that firmly on the record.

As Members of Parliament, it is our duty to represent our constituents, and to fight for what is fair, just and true. I stand here today because Mrs Williams has not been treated fairly. Justice, thus far, has not been served. The truth that Mrs Williams has campaigned so tirelessly to discover has yet to be officially recorded. Following publication of documents by the Hillsborough independent panel this summer, Mrs Williams will again submit to the Attorney-General a request for the original inquest into Kevin’s death to be quashed, and for a new inquest to take place. For the sake of justice, I beg the Attorney-General to grant Mrs Williams the inquest that she, and Kevin, so rightly deserve.

[Mrs Anne Main (in the Chair)]

Nine hon. Members have indicated that they wish to speak, and there are approximately 50 minutes remaining for the debate. I hope that hon. Members will bear that in mind when making their contributions.

14:49

[Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for City of Chester (Stephen Mosley) on his effective description of what happened on 15 April 1989, and I add my thanks to all those who have worked hard to secure this debate. I also congratulate the family of Kevin Williams, and Mrs Williams in particular, on the tireless work with which they have pursued this campaign. I hope that this debate will help Mrs Williams and her family to move nearer to a point at which the truth is fully in the public domain and that what actually happened to Kevin and others on that day will be recognised one day soon.

I am speaking in this debate because of the connection that Kevin Williams and his family have with my constituency. Kevin Williams lived in Formby until his death at Hillsborough. He went to Freshfield primary school and Formby high school, as did his brother and his sister, Sara, who still lives in Formby. There is widespread support for a new inquest across the country, as evidenced by the large number of people who signed the e-petition organised by Anne Williams. People in my constituency often ask me about Hillsborough and about the call for a fresh inquest into Kevin’s death. Nearly 23 years after the terrible events at Hillsborough, the depth of feeling among my constituents remains strong, and it is right to hold this debate.

I will comment briefly on the fact that this debate is being held in Westminster Hall rather than the main Chamber. The Government gave an undertaking that petitions that attract more than 100,000 signatures will be awarded a debate in the House of Commons. That responsibility was passed to the Backbench Business Committee, but it has little time to allocate for such debates and was unfortunately unable to award time for this discussion in either the main Chamber or Westminster Hall. For me, and for many others, the importance of this issue and the almost 23-year injustice experienced by Anne Williams and her family, as well as the families of the other 95 people who died and others who were affected by the trauma of events at Hillsborough, mean that the case of Kevin Williams deserves to be allocated a debate in Government time. I also believe that a vote could have been held on a simple motion that called for a new inquest to be held, or for the Attorney-General to consider such an inquest. We are not able to hold such a vote in this Chamber, and in my view, such a motion would have enabled Parliament to show that it understands the strength of feeling among our constituents.

The Attorney-General has indicated that he will consider the evidence afresh, rather than simply review the findings of his predecessors in office, and I welcome that. He has also indicated that he will await the release of papers by the Hillsborough independent panel before reaching a conclusion. He has said that he will allow further representations to be made to him once the panel has released the papers to the families involved, and he has told Mrs Williams that she will have the time that she needs to consider the information in those papers. The offers made by the Attorney-General are welcomed by Mrs Williams, and I believe that they are a step in the right direction.

I am cautious, however, about what the outcome of the release of papers by the Hillsborough independent panel might be and about the likely outcome of the Attorney-General’s consideration of new evidence. I agree with the call for a new inquest, but I understand that that is a highly unusual step. In his response, perhaps the Attorney-General will explain any potential difficulties that he might have in agreeing to a new inquest and explore how new information might be addressed and what he has in mind when he says that he wishes to consider the evidence afresh.

Kevin was one of 19 people from the borough of Sefton who died at Hillsborough, and I would like to discuss the evidence that relates to what happened to Kevin on that day. I will concentrate on the medical evidence—some of which is similar to that already mentioned by the hon. Member for City of Chester—and on the views of a number of experts who have examined what was said at the inquest into Kevin’s death.

The inquest into Kevin’s death decided that those who died at Hillsborough were irreparable damaged by 3.15 pm, and that therefore the actions—or lack of actions—of those who might have helped, or given instructions to help, were irrelevant. That is one of the reasons why some of the other evidence was not considered. Such a decision implied that none of the 96 people who died could have been saved by medical attention or by being rescued from the pens at the Leppings Lane end of the stadium after 3.15 pm. As we have heard, however, a number of reliable witnesses say that they were with Kevin until nearly 4 pm, and that they tried to save his life but were unable to do so as they lacked the necessary medical training. Those who tried to help Kevin included at least one police officer, yet their testimony was not accepted by the coroner.

The suspicion held by families, friends and supporters is that the 3.15 pm cut-off point was a convenient way of avoiding evidence that showed that lives could have been saved if ambulances had been allowed on the pitch and if police officers had been told to help people out of the Leppings Lane pens. Many thousands of people believe that a new coroner’s inquest would allow the presentation of evidence to show that Kevin was still alive after 3.15 pm and that his life might have been saved had different decisions been taken.

A different coroner’s verdict for Kevin might also provide a recognition for the families of some of those who died that decisions were taken that denied their loved ones medical care or rescue—decisions that cost lives. Many people believe that even after all these years, those who took such decisions could be held accountable for causing the deaths of the 96 people who died—deaths that could have been prevented had action been taken as soon as it became clear that there was a problem. Kevin’s mother, Anne, is one of many people who have fought since that day in 1989 to get official recognition for the truth about what happened at Hillsborough, and that is what lies at the heart of the debate today.

Let me examine some of the evidence and compare the views of Dr Slater with those of Dr West. Dr Slater gave evidence that Kevin died of traumatic asphyxia and that he died quickly from injuries to his chest and neck. He also said at the inquest that Kevin’s voice box had been badly damaged, that he had suffered extensive brain damage and that he would not have been able to speak. Dr Slater’s evidence suggested that Kevin was not alive and did not speak to his prospective rescuers and that those who claimed that Kevin was alive much later than 3.15 pm were mistaken.

Dr West disagrees with Dr Slater and could not confirm that Kevin died quickly. The photographic evidence seen by Dr West showed evidence not of extensive injuries to Kevin’s chest but of injuries to his neck. Dr West says that there was no swelling of the face, which is different to the view provided by Dr Slater. In Dr West’s view, the injuries shown in the photographs would have led to a swelling of the voice box, which would then have reduced the flow of air to the lungs. He says that such an injury would not have been fatal straight away and that it could have been treated by an emergency tracheotomy with a rubber tube. The suggestion is that a trained paramedic could have saved Kevin’s life if ambulances had been allowed on to the pitch.

Dr West has told Anne Williams that the injuries shown in the photographs suggest that Kevin’s chest was not damaged although his neck was. Traumatic asphyxia is not caused by neck injuries alone, and Mrs Williams told me that she challenged what the coroner put on form 99, the coroner’s certificate. Dr Slater said that Kevin had a chest injury and a neck injury; Dr West said that the injury was only to the neck. After Mrs Williams challenged the certificate, Dr Slater agreed that the injury was confined to the neck.

Anne Williams has been advised that the injuries to Kevin’s neck could have taken up to 45 minutes to swell up enough to close his airways. The comments made by Debra Martin, the police constable who says that Kevin died in her arms just before 4 pm, are consistent with that medical advice.

Anne Williams would like recognition that Kevin did not die from traumatic asphyxia, given the confirmation that his injuries were not consistent with that cause of death. She was also advised that Kevin may have been able to speak because the injury to his voice box would not have prevented speech straight away. Dr West believes that Kevin may have been able to say a word or two, even if he had suffered some brain damage.

The evidence that Kevin was alive up to 4 pm and that his injuries may well have meant that he could have been saved is the reason why Anne Williams and many thousands of others believe that there should be a further inquest. There is evidence that Kevin was still breathing at 3.37 and died only just before 4 pm. The family and thousands of others believe that his death has not been properly investigated. They are backed up by Debra Martin, who was at Hillsborough as a special constable. Debra held Kevin in her arms as he died, but found out that her statement was never given at the inquest. Instead, a statement was made up without her knowledge.

I hope that the Attorney-General will explain in his response to the debate just what process he plans to follow in reviewing the evidence. Many people want a new inquest for a number of the victims, so that evidence about decisions taken can be considered at such an inquest and so that the impact of not allowing ambulances on the pitch or preventing escape from the pens can be considered. Many people want public recognition that those in authority took decisions that may have caused some of the deaths after 3.15 pm. Perhaps the Attorney-General can explain whether a new inquest would contribute to meeting that request. Will he explain whether it is possible to have a new inquest? Over the years, expectations have been raised and dashed many times. Today might be an opportunity for the Attorney-General to give an honest assessment of the likelihood of a new inquest.

Anne Williams and her family want public recognition of what happened to Kevin. They want to hear the truth acknowledged. After all the years of knock-backs, the family want justice for Kevin and for themselves, so that they can feel that they have done right by Kevin and for themselves and so that they can finally move on.

15:01

[Esther McVey (Wirral West) (Con)]

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for City of Chester (Stephen Mosley) for bringing this much-needed debate to the House today. I also praise Mrs Anne Williams, her family and friends and the extended family of the Hillsborough 96 and supporters for fighting so hard to bring the debate here today to get justice for her son, Kevin.

I will not speak for long, as many other Members want to speak. It is important that they are all heard, because that will add weight and credence to the argument for a new inquest. However, I do want to highlight the fact that through a mother’s love and determination and through the efforts of the public, more than 116,000 people have come together in an e-petition. They all see the force of the argument and the need for a new inquest. That needs to be put on record. Powerfully and forcefully, we are all calling for a new inquest into the death of Kevin Williams.

The Coroners Act 1988 requires a coroner to hold an inquest where

“there is reasonable cause to suspect that the deceased…died a violent or an unnatural death”

or

“a sudden death of which the cause is unknown”.

If a person is dissatisfied with the outcome of the inquest, they can take further action to reopen the case. The Ministry of Justice states in “A guide to Coroners and Inquests”:

“It is possible to challenge coroners’ decisions and inquest verdicts”.

One way of doing that is by making an application to the High Court for judicial review, but we are seeking use of the

“separate power under which the Attorney-General may initiate an application to the High Court…for another inquest to be held on the grounds that it is necessary or desirable…because new evidence has come to light”.

That is precisely what we are calling for here today in respect of Kevin Williams.

Since the Hillsborough disaster, which took place almost 23 years ago, Mrs Williams has always disputed the claim that all 96 victims died of traumatic asphyxia, especially because she has evidence that her son showed signs of life as late as 4 pm. I do not want to cover what has already been stated by my hon. Friend the Member for City of Chester and by the hon. Member for Sefton Central (Bill Esterson). The situation was well and ably described by both of them. However, we have heard from very credible witnesses, an off-duty police officer and a special constable, who have said that they believed that Kevin was alive and that he opened his eyes and said “Mum” just before 4 pm. Mrs Williams also sought advice from three separate medical experts, who all stated that Kevin did not die of traumatic asphyxiation or he would not have shown signs of life as late as that.

However, the coroner who was in charge of the case, Dr Stefan Popper, stated that he would not take any evidence from after the 3.15 pm cut-off point—a cut-off point that I would say was imposed unnecessarily. He stated that all the victims would have died or been brain-dead within five minutes because of the surge of the crowd and the crush, but in the words of Mrs Williams:

“Kevin did not die from Traumatic Asphyxia or in an accident. I will not pick up his death certificate until we get the cause of death put right and the accidental death verdict struck down.”

I believe that in the light of the witnesses’ statements and the information given by other medical experts, all of which shows that Kevin was alive after the 3.15 cut-off point, it is imperative that a new inquest be granted for Kevin Williams.

15:05

[Steve Rotheram (Liverpool, Walton) (Lab)]

It is an honour to speak under your chairmanship for the first time, Mrs Main. For many people attending Westminster Hall today and for those watching at home, there may be confusion that after 118,000 people signed a Government e-petition, today’s proceedings are not being heard in the main Chamber of the House. People recognise the green Benches of the Commons, but understandably will be less familiar with today’s surroundings. The Government need to address that when public expectations are raised owing to a petition reaching 100,000 signatures. This debate could have happened in the exact same location and in the exact same format without a single person having signed the online petition. I feel some sympathy for the Backbench Business Committee because of the dilemma that it faces in looking for parliamentary time to debate such important issues—this is an important issue to hundreds of thousands of our constituents—but here, in the mother of Parliaments, what could be more important than justice? That is what we are trying to achieve today.

We are here to argue the case for the Attorney-General to review the overwhelming evidence relating to the unlawful killing of a young man—Kevin Williams. Some people have asked why we are back here again, following the success of the absolutely enthralling debate in the House on 17 October. It is simply because there are specific questions that still require specific answers. If there was a case in any other walk of life in which the police and members of the emergency services had altered statements, fabricated stories and covered their own backs, there would quite rightly be public outrage. Well, there is public outrage. The public of Merseyside and far beyond have been outraged for 22 and a half years, and it is time that the cynics who believe that we are

“like a blind man in a darkened room looking for a black cat that isn’t there”

woke up to what happened with the Hillsborough cover-up. For Anne Williams and her family, the backdrop to their individual tragedy is the same as that for the other 95 families—it is the dignified pursuit of justice.

In the limited time available, I will not repeat the sequence of events as laid out by the hon. Member for City of Chester (Stephen Mosley).He has provided the necessary detail to illustrate the specific circumstances of young Kevin’s death, and I congratulate him on the way he went about that during his contribution. Despite successive Attorney-Generals and Home Secretaries dismally and consistently failing to act on this issue, there may be light at the end of a very long tunnel. Credit where it is due: I have to thank the current Home Secretary for her contribution, commitment and forthright action back in October. The Hillsborough independent panel is now accessing all the unrestricted and unredacted documentation that our cross-party consensus on that night secured. My hope is that the current Attorney-General will look afresh at the evidence in this case, as he has suggested that he will.

There are options for us as parliamentarians. We can go down the path of hyperbole and trying to hide behind complex legal argument and archaic parliamentary conventions, or we can adopt a simpler approach based on the elementary principle of right and wrong.

[Maria Eagle (Garston and Halewood) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that this case, of the many cases involved, illustrates just how appallingly inadequate the original inquests were in doing the job inquests are supposed to do: establishing the cause of death in each individual case and bringing a sense of closure to the relatives left behind? Does he agree that the 3.15 pm cut-off point and the accidental death verdicts were instrumental in creating the ongoing sense of deep injustice felt by families such as that of Anne Williams? That needs to be put right to put a stop to the suffering of people such as Anne Williams whose relatives died at Hillsborough.

[Steve Rotheram]

My hon. Friend is once again spot on with her forensic understanding of the issues. Her contribution in the debate on the Floor of the House highlighted her comprehensive appreciation of what happened at Hillsborough. She touches on two important issues. The first is that the original inquest was inadequate, and the hon. Member for City of Chester made absolutely clear why that is so. The second is the ongoing sense of injustice, which has resonated not only in Liverpool. The people who signed the online petition come from right across this country and from different political persuasions. They include football fans and people who are not interested in sport. People are beginning to understand what the people of Merseyside have fought for for 22 and a half years.

As a result of the overwhelming evidence, Kevin’s case proves beyond any shadow of a doubt that the 3.15 pm cut-off point was simply wrong. It is fundamentally flawed and it does not stand up to scrutiny. For those who failed in their duty on that day, it has, quite literally, been their get-out-of-jail-free card. They point to the 3.15 pm cut-off and claim there was nothing they could do. How wrong they are. They could and should have saved Kevin Williams.

Since becoming an MP, I have wrestled with how best to explain to people who are not necessarily familiar with the Hillsborough tragedy exactly why it still matters. Twenty-two and a half years on from the disaster, some might wonder why their MPs are in this Chamber debating it. They could be forgiven for asking that, and many were not even born in 1989. As human beings, however, they must surely understand that this debate, this campaign and this dark chapter in British history are, and always have been, about broken-hearted mothers and fathers, sons and daughters, and brothers and sisters fighting for loved ones who went to a football match and did not come home.

All deaths are tragic, especially when they involve children. It is also true that Britain has experienced other national tragedies over the past three decades, but has there ever been a national tragedy in which no one has been held to account?

[Derek Twigg (Halton) (Lab)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for City of Chester (Stephen Mosley) on his excellent speech. I also support Anne Williams’s campaign, which proves nothing is stronger than a mother’s love for her child. One point has never really been brought out to the extent that it should be. Not only was this disaster caused by incompetence and a complete disregard for people’s safety, but some of the people alive after 3.15 pm could have survived, and did not. A lot of people do not understand that. Not only was there a disaster because the crushing resulted in people being injured and killed, but others could have survived afterwards had they been looked after properly—it was a double disaster.

[Steve Rotheram]

My hon. Friend makes an important contribution. If we look not just at Kevin’s case, but at the disaster that took place that day, it is clear that had it not been for the quick action of Liverpool fans, the tragedy would have involved way more than 96 deaths and could have involved many hundreds of deaths. Liverpool fans acted, while those charged with our safety that day froze, and that should never be forgotten.

Today, we have heard that the cause of Kevin’s death should be re-examined. As we have heard, his mother is yet to pick up his death certificate, because the cause of death is wrong. Imagine a country that has so far allowed a broken-hearted mother to wait 23 years to find out the reasons why her young son died at a football match, when she knows it was not the result of traumatic asphyxia.

The e-petition stated that the overwhelming evidence makes it quite clear that the Attorney-General needs to look afresh at this issue to reach the logical conclusion that Kevin was not dead at 3.15 pm, but died subsequently, so that he can deem that it is right to grant a new coroner’s inquest.

The families have fought their dignified campaign for more than two decades, with an eternal flame burning bright—the flame of hope. Kevin’s mother, Anne, has hope in her heart today. She has been joined on her heart-breaking journey by the families of the other 95 victims of Hillsborough, some of whom I left earlier at a different venue. My hope is that we can finally get justice for those who lost their lives and the families who continue to mourn them. Only then will the families of the 96 be able to put their loved ones to rest.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mrs Anne Main (in the Chair)]

Order. Some Members have spoken for considerably longer than others, and I am minded to try to include all Members. I will call Mr Tom Brake, but I hope Members will be generous to others in making use of their time allocation.

15:16

[Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)]

Thank you, Mrs Main. I will do exactly that. I intend to make a very brief contribution.

I congratulate the hon. Member for City of Chester (Stephen Mosley) on opening the debate and bringing his expertise and his knowledge of the family to the Chamber. We have also heard passionate contributions from other Members.

I welcome the opportunity to discuss the Hillsborough tragedy further and specifically the tragedy that befell the Williams family and Kevin Williams. I also welcome the fact that the Attorney-General is here to respond to the debate. We have heard of his very positive letter, which I hope gives Members and the families some comfort that a resolution may be in sight.

The hon. Member for City of Chester clearly set out what did and did not happen to Kevin Williams and the time line over which those things happened. He also set out the way in which those involved in trying to save his life were, rather alarmingly, subsequently encouraged—one Member used the word “bullied”—to see events differently from the way they experienced them.

The family are clearly entitled to have an accurate record of how and when their son died. If we, as parents, were in their situation, we would want an accurate record; we would want to know that the truth had come out so that we could have some sense of closure. The medical evidence to which Members have referred clearly points to a cause of death other than traumatic asphyxia. The family are also entitled to a detailed account of the emergency response and to be told whether lives could have been saved if that response had been different.

I hope that the Attorney-General will be able to give Members an undertaking that the inquest they seek is possible. I also hope that he will be able to update Members on any discussions he has had with the Hillsborough independent panel and on whether he expects its report, which is due quite soon, to give some comfort by providing information that might help clarify exactly what happened on that tragic day.

To conclude, the Attorney-General has the opportunity to help the family obtain closure, and I hope he will take it.

15:19

[Mrs Louise Ellman (Liverpool, Riverside) (Lab/Co-op)]

I, too, congratulate the hon. Member for City of Chester (Stephen Mosley) on his important presentation and on securing this debate with other Members. I pay tribute to the dedication and determination of Anne Williams in seeking out the truth and trying to secure justice.

The debate on Hillsborough called by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Steve Rotheram) on 17 October demonstrated the continuing strength of feeling—the distress, concern and outrage—at the absence of the full information about what happened to the people who died. The deaths and the tragedy may have happened some years ago, but many people have said to me that it is as if it had happened today: the grief and anger are still there, and the determination to get to the truth of what happened remains. The highly respected Bishop of Liverpool, James Jones, is chairing the panel that we hope will bring full disclosure of all the documentation available. I hope that that will go further towards establishing the truth of the dreadful tragedy.

Today’s debate, however, is about securing a new inquest on the death of Kevin Williams. That means challenging the ruling of the coroner, Dr Stefan Popper, who imposed the cut-off time of 3.15 on the day of the disaster, his statement that Kevin must have died by 3.15 and his verdict on the cause of death. In the debate this afternoon we have heard compelling evidence from several contributors about why all those aspects of the matter are challengeable and, indeed, wrong. We have heard in graphic and traumatic detail why a new inquest is a justified request. It can only be incomprehensible, and a matter of outrage, that that request has not been granted before.

A new inquest was requested previously in this House. On 26 October 1994 the then Member for Crosby, Sir Malcolm Thornton, spoke at length, imploring the Attorney-General to agree to a new inquest. He quoted Anne Williams, whose words are now recorded for all time in Hansard:

“He was just a little boy that went to watch a football match and never came home. There is nothing that I can be told now that will make the agony any worse. I just want to know the truth.”—[Official Report, 26 October 1994; Vol. 248, c. 979.]

I hope that today the Attorney-General will be able to give us information that will take us nearer to establishing that long-sought-after truth.

15:22

[Mr David Anderson (Blaydon) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your Chairmanship, Mrs Main, on what is a busy day for you. I congratulate the hon. Member for City of Chester (Stephen Mosley) on the forensic way in which he went through the detail.

I want to stand back a little, and to be dispassionate. I want to work out, coming from the other end of the question, why the Attorney-General might not support Mrs Williams’s case. The facts according to the coroner were, as we know, first, that the death was accidental; secondly that it resulted from traumatic asphyxia; and, thirdly, that Kevin, along with everyone else, was dead by 3.15. Mrs Williams’s e-petition has asked for the opening of a new inquest under section 16 of the Coroners Act 1988. Her case is that Kevin did not die until 4 o’clock and he did not die from traumatic asphyxia. She has evidence to back up her case, and she claims that people who were helping Kevin well after 3.15 are prepared to testify.

If we are going to be told today by the Attorney-General that he does not accept that case, we can apply three simple tests. Is Mrs Williams simply wrong? Is she misguided? Or, God forbid, is she deliberately misleading us out of her understandable need for justice for her son? If the Attorney-General cannot answer yes to at least one of those questions, how on earth can he justify anything other than agreeing to reopen Kevin’s inquest or some other form of process that will allow her to get justice? Whatever obstructions are put in the way of the Attorney-General in trying to reach that justice, he should knock them out of the way. He should also not allow the inbuilt bias that has a long history in this nation, of the establishment closing ranks to protect its own. Why things happened as they did has been mentioned, to an extent, by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Steve Rotheram). I do not intend to go into that, but I suggest that if facts come to light as a result of this case that show even more overwhelmingly that people did not do the things they should have done as public servants, it is not too late for them to be called to account. That is something that the nation should pursue.

The Government have made some very positive statements about transparency. As recently as 19 December, the Deputy Prime Minister said in a speech to Demos:

“The third characteristic of an open society is the sharing of knowledge and information. In a closed society the elite think that, for the masses, ignorance is bliss: But in an open society there is no monopoly of wisdom. So transparency is vital.”

I could not agree more. According to the coalition programme for Government of May 2010 the Government believe

“that we need to throw open the doors of public bodies, to enable the public to hold politicians and public bodies to account.”

Today the Attorney-General can show whether his Department will live up to those fine words. He can show the people of this country that justice is more important than secrecy. My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton is right. This is about families—dads, mams, brothers and sisters; but it is also about us as a nation, and what sort of country we want to live in.

15:19

[Angela Smith (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Lab)]

Like other hon. Members, I shall not detain the Chamber long. I congratulate the hon. Member for City of Chester (Stephen Mosley) on the way—it was indeed forensic—in which he laid out the case for a new inquest.

I wanted to add once again the voice of the city of Sheffield to the debate. It is an important voice. My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Steve Rotheram) outlined why the debate still matters. It matters primarily because Anne Williams wants to know what really happened to her son and how he died. It matters to all the families of those who died, and who were involved in the tragedy—the other 95. It matters to the people of south Yorkshire, and particularly to those who were involved in dealing with the tragedy that day, and its aftermath. It matters to a city that, alongside Liverpool, is still struggling hard, 23 years on, to come to terms with what happened that day. It matters because even now, every day of every week, as I said in the debate in October, flowers and wreaths are laid outside Hillsborough stadium in memory of those who died. More than anything else, in a sense, it matters because we need to know the truth.

I think the details, showing why we need an inquest to establish some of the truth of what happened, have been laid out clearly. There is the fact that, as has been mentioned several times, the coroner drew the line at 3.15, which we know was wrong. That matters primarily because it meant there was no examination of how the emergency services and police responded to what happened during the afternoon—the simple facts of the case. Also, we need a new inquest because evidence was suppressed at the time, through, it appears, the falsification of police statements. That evidence is now emerging clearly. Debra Martin has bravely come out into the open and gone on the record in the media. She was on “Calendar” on ITV Yorkshire last night, laying out clearly what happened that day, as many hon. Members have mentioned: how Kevin died in her arms calling for his mother. She has put that on the record. She has gone on Radio Sheffield today. The city now knows that the truth about what happened to Kevin and the other 95 who died is not entirely out in the open. That is why the case for an inquest is strong.

Whatever the new allegations are, and however serious they are, it is absolutely critical that all the papers relating to the disaster, both public and private, are handed over to the inquiry. Although that commitment has already been made from the Government’s point of view, the case still needs to be reiterated. The allegations made against West Midlands police will need further investigation, as it now appears that there was a deliberate suppression of the facts relating to the case. The inquest will help with that, but it will take more than an inquest to deal with the suppression of the evidence that occurred in 1989 and 1990. The relationship between West Midlands police and South Yorkshire police in the suppression of that evidence also matters. The inquest is just one of the critical elements in helping to deal with what happened and how evidence was recorded after the disaster.

If the allegations are accurate—and there is no reason to believe that the claims made by Debra Martin are anything other than accurate—they alone justify the case for a new inquest. Debra Martin is absolutely clear about events. She looked at her watch when Kevin Williams died; it was four o’clock in the afternoon. She is absolutely crystal clear about that. We need a new inquest. The Attorney-General must respond in clear terms this afternoon. There must be no prevarication; we need that inquest.

Finally, let me thank Yorkshire Television for bringing some of the new evidence to light and for helping Debra Martin clear the record and the air about her role on that day. The role of the media is important in all this, and it is watching what is happening—never mind The Sun, it does not have a part in any of this. We all want an inquest and it is in the public interest that we get it.

15:31

[Mr George Howarth (Knowsley) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to take part in this debate under your chairmanship, Mrs Main. I congratulate the hon. Member for City of Chester (Stephen Mosley) on the clarity that he has brought to the case. It is difficult to bring all these facts together and make them comprehensible, and he did that very well. I also pay tribute to the dignity and tenacity of Anne Williams and all those who supported her in taking this case so far and for drawing it to the attention of Members of Parliament and the Attorney-General.

In our culture, we are not equipped as parents to deal with the loss of a child. That lack of preparedness is even greater when the circumstances in which the death occurs have never been properly explained or officially put on the face of a verdict from a coroner’s court. We need to recognise that there is a huge burden of honour involved in what we are doing today in relation to what happened to Kevin Williams in the coroner’s court.

I wanted to take part in this debate because I attended one day of the inquests that took place. At the time, I was with two constituents, Mr and Mrs Joynes. I was appalled at the way in which the proceedings were conducted, and I have two points to make. The first one, which has been mentioned repeatedly this afternoon and on many other occasions, is that the decision to make a cut-off point at 3.15 had the effect of insulating everybody who was responsible for everything that happened after 3.15 from any criticism or any action. People talk about the 3.15 cut-off because it is important. Things happened and people were still alive after that, but the presumption of the inquest was that nothing happened after that, or that anything that did happen was not relevant to the conduct of the inquest. In the Coroners Act 2008, I tried to move an amendment about that in the event of future incidents, but, unfortunately, I was unsuccessful.

My second conclusion after spending a day at the inquest was that the whole thing was set up on a preconceived presumption, which was that those who were killed may have, in some way, been partly responsible for their deaths. It was significant that on the day that I was there—from what I can gather, it happened on all prior and subsequent occasions—one of the issues that was relentlessly pursued was the alcohol content in the blood of the deceased. Obviously, in some cases, that may have been relevant, but the issue was pursued on a presumption. It was as if they were saying, “We know about football fans. We know how they behave and we know that they may have been responsible.” That was the feeling that I left with, and I was outraged at the time and remain so today.

The whole process of conducting mini inquests—from recollection there were eight on the day that I attended—is unacceptable. Again, that makes a presumption about what happened. What we have heard subsequently, and what the inquiry that is being conducted into the paperwork by the Bishop of Liverpool will show, is that every individual’s case was different. What happened to each and every one was different. What caused the events is known, but how individuals were treated and dealt with was specific. As those inquests were so truncated, they could not explore all that in every case.

I welcome the fact that the Attorney-General has made a positive statement about what may happen in the near future. For all the reasons that the hon. Member for City of Chester and others have given, the verdict in the case of Kevin Williams is invalid. Moreover, because of the 3.15 cut-off point, all the verdicts are potentially—I stress “potentially”—invalid. It is possible in a lot of other cases that something could have happened to prevent the death of someone who was still alive beyond 3.15. I have no hard and fast suggestion about how to deal with that, but the Attorney-General, as a very competent lawyer, will recognise the point that I am making. This case may not necessarily be a precedent, but it may well be a model that applies in other cases where people think it is appropriate. I am sure that the Attorney-General will give a great deal of thought to the important points that have been made during the debate.

[Mrs Anne Main (in the Chair)]

I plan to call the shadow Minister at 3.42 and the Attorney-General at 3.50.

15:38

[Luciana Berger (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab/Co-op)]

I pay tribute to Anne Williams, Kevin’s mother, for the incredible courage and determination that she has shown in the pursuit of justice for her son. All of us here hope that today marks the beginning of the end of what has been a long battle for her and her family. I congratulate the hon. Member for City of Chester (Stephen Mosley) on securing the debate and my hon. Friend the Member for Sefton Central (Bill Esterson) on the important role that he played in ensuring that it took place. I also pay tribute to the 118,000 members of the public who signed the petition. I echo the comments made by some of my hon. Friends; this debate should be taking place in the main Chamber this afternoon.

Much of what I wanted to say has already been said by the hon. Member for City of Chester in his forensic remarks at the beginning of the debate and by many other hon. Members who have spoken before me. Like all of them, I welcome the fact that the Attorney-General has agreed to look at the applications made to his predecessors, and to consider whether to support an application to the High Court for a new inquest into Kevin’s death. I urge him to make that application, please.

To many of us here, the evidence is conclusive. We have heard the chronology of events on 15 April 1989 in detail from the hon. Member for City of Chester, and from the BBC tapes, we have heard from PC Michael Craighill, Mr Bruder and WPC Debra Martin. It is clear that their visual evidence alone contradicts the original verdict, and when it is added to the evidence that discredits Dr Slater’s conclusion at the inquest—evidence that has already been mentioned—the strength of the case is overwhelming. I sincerely hope that the weight of all this evidence, along with the clear inaccuracies of the original inquiry, will convince the Attorney-General to recommend a new inquest.

It is sometimes suggested by some in the media or by those who are not connected with the terrible events of Hillsborough that it is time to draw a line under what happened on that fateful day in April 23 years ago, that it would be better not to rake up the past, or that the families of those who lost their lives that day should he spared from reliving their trauma. However, those of us here today who have met the families of the 96 victims, or who knew people who were at Hillsborough or who were even at the ground themselves, know the deep sense of injustice felt by so many people about what happened then and afterwards. We know that it simply would not be right to draw a line, not while families still have questions that deserve to be answered, not until the full truth of what happened at Hillsborough is known, and not until justice has finally been served.

15:41

[Robert Flello (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Lab)]

If I may, I will break with convention by starting my comments by paying tribute to Mrs Anne Williams for the determined campaign that she has undertaken to seek justice for her son, Kevin. The tireless work that she has put in and the unwavering love of a mother that she has shown for her young son who was tragically robbed of his life, must serve as a reminder to us all of why we are in Parliament—to serve our constituents and our nation.

I thank the hon. Member for City of Chester (Stephen Mosley) for securing this debate, all those who have signed the petition and indeed all right hon. and hon. Members who have supported the call over many years—too many years—for justice for the 96 who died and the 766 who were injured as a result of events at Hillsborough on that sad day, 15 April 1989. My heartfelt sympathies are with all the families who were affected.

I also put on record my thanks to those who were with Kevin in his final moments, who revived him, carried him and cradled him. Even just reading what happened to Kevin, and to so many others, profoundly moves me, but I cannot begin to comprehend the pain that losing a child such as Kevin—a 15-year-old lad who was just out to watch a footy match on an afternoon—must be like.

That pain was made so much worse by an inquest that was plainly wrong. The evidence that Anne Williams has uncovered and that we have heard today demonstrates clearly that Kevin was indeed alive after 3.15 pm on that day, and it shows just how unsound the original inquests were.

Quite reasonably, there has been a great deal of criticism about how the coroner conducted those original inquests and about how the 3.15 pm time limit has stopped important evidence being brought forward. Our outdated coroner system needs the reforms that were legislated for in 2009, and more reform. If inquests had been properly conducted in the past, justice could have been achieved years ago and decades of pain could have been tempered.

May I gently suggest to the Attorney-General that he speaks to his colleagues at the Ministry of Justice? That is because the need for a chief coroner, with appropriate powers and an appeals system, was one of the lessons learned from terrible events such as Hillsborough. The Government need to rethink the implications of stripping away the powers of the chief coroner from the Coroners and Justice Act 2009.

As we have heard this afternoon and on other occasions, mistakes—some of them genuine errors, others examples of incompetence and even worse behaviour—led to the tragic events at Hillsborough. However, we have also heard that mistakes, incompetence and even worse behaviour happened after the 3.15 pm cut-off time, which have never been examined at inquests. The cover-up that then took place was, to say the least, shameful.

I am pleased that the Attorney-General has said that he will look again at Kevin’s case and I look forward to hearing what he intends to do, as people’s expectations are rightly and understandably high. I hope that he will set out what he can do and, just as importantly, what he feels he is unable to do. If he feels bound by legal constraints, he needs to make those constraints clear and then explain what—if anything—can be done to change those legal barriers. After all, that is what this House is here for; it is here to change legislation if that is what is needed.

I conclude my remarks to give the Attorney-General plenty of time to respond to the debate and if I may I will again break the normal conventions by turning to the Public Gallery and saying that Anne, her family and so many other families need full answers, and inquests that can properly hear testimony about what happened on that profoundly sad day are an important part of getting those answers. I hope that before the 25th painful anniversary of Hillsborough we will have had a proper inquest into the tragic death of Kevin Williams and that Anne—through her mother’s love—can get justice for her son.

15:45

[The Attorney-General (Mr Dominic Grieve)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for City of Chester (Stephen Mosley) on securing this debate and thank those right hon. and hon. Members who have spoken so eloquently about the tragedy that was Hillsborough.

Today’s debate has been prompted by the e-petition started by Mrs Anne Williams. She is the mother of Kevin Williams, whose short life was ended that day at Hillsborough. There is no hierarchy of victims; every loss was a tragedy for someone and I express my sympathy to all who lost loved ones on that day. Mrs Williams’s petition asked that her application for a fresh inquest into the death of her son be reconsidered. I have already indicated that I will do so.

It may assist people if I explain what I am being asked to do. After hearing what others have said this afternoon, I recognise that what follows may sound a little dry or legalistic. It is none the less necessary for me to say it, if what is being asked of me is to be understood.

The only way that a second inquest can be held into the death of Kevin Williams, or into the death of anyone else on that day, is if the High Court quashes the original inquest and orders a second inquest to be held. The Court will order a new inquest only if it is satisfied that the test that is set out in section 13 of the Coroners Act 1988 has been met. Essentially, that test is whether a new inquest is

“necessary or desirable in the interests of justice”.

That test implies a wide discretion and it is necessarily fact-sensitive. An inquest determines who the deceased was and how, when and where they came by their death, as was so rightly explained by my hon. Friend the Member for City of Chester. “How” is not simply the medical cause of death but may include the circumstances in which the death came about. What justice requires in any case is that there has been an effective inquiry into the death and that the conclusions reached are supported by the available evidence.

For example, if it can be shown that an inquest was flawed procedurally or that new evidence has come to light since the inquest was held, and if that flaw or new evidence potentially has a significant impact on the conclusions of the original inquest, then a fresh inquest may be

“necessary or desirable in the interests of justice”.

[Mr George Howarth]

In the definition of what is a “flaw”, will the Attorney-General consider—I do not ask him to commit himself—including the existence of what many of us believe was an arbitrary 3.15 pm cut-off point?

[The Attorney-General]

Perhaps the best way that I can put it to the right hon. Gentleman is to say that I fully understand the points that have been cogently made today that raised criticisms about the 3.15 pm cut-off point, but, as he will appreciate, at this stage of the proceedings, I have only heard the explanations that have been provided. However, I fully understand the force that lies behind the argument that is being put forward.

An application to the High Court can only be made by me or by another with my consent. My role is to consider the available evidence and to determine whether there are reasonable prospects of the Court ordering a new inquest. I act as a filter, as Parliament has required me to do, and I should make it clear that I perform that role entirely independently of anyone else in Government. I have given some thought to how I should set about this task and I will, of course, consider it further in the light of the points that have been made in this debate today.

Mrs Williams has made four previous applications to my predecessors in office—predecessors in the two major parties that have been in Government. On each occasion, the application was refused as the Attorney-General of the day did not consider there was any reasonable prospect of a court being satisfied that a fresh inquest was necessary. There are undoubtedly difficulties. The matter has already been considered by the divisional court in 1992, which looked at many of the issues that had been put forward as reasons for a new inquest. That court refused to quash the original inquest and indicated that it did not consider it at all likely that the court would reach a different view had it been considering an application made under section 13. There has also been the inquiry by Lord Justice Taylor, as he then was, and the later review by Lord Justice Stuart-Smith, whose findings argued against the need for a new inquest.

Later this year, the Hillsborough panel will release the information it has collected about the disaster and publish its report. For the first time, Mrs Williams and the other families of the deceased will have access to all—I stress all—relevant material, including the material held by my own office in respect of the discussions that took place with previous Attorneys-General. I am minded, therefore, to approach the case by awaiting the release of that material rather than simply by reviewing the material evidence that formed the basis of the applications already considered by my predecessors in office. This means that it will be necessary for me to delay reaching any conclusion until such time as the Hillsborough panel has released the collected material and there has been sufficient time for the families to be able to consider it carefully.

If I were to try to reach a decision sooner, I could ask to see the material that the panel holds now, but I will not do that for three reasons. First, I do not want to distract the panel or do anything to delay the completion of its work, which I hope will take place shortly. Secondly, I do not want to go behind the promise given, which I think important, that the families should see the material first. Thirdly, I want to give Mrs Williams, or indeed any other applicant, the time to consider the released material and make any representations that they may wish to make to me in respect of it.

I acknowledge that taking this course will affect the timing of my decision as to whether to make an application for a second inquest, and I am of course prepared to consider any representations that Mrs Williams or any other interested party—or, indeed, their Members of Parliament—may wish to make to me on timing.

[Robert Flello]

We have only eight minutes left, but will the Attorney-General consider making a statement to the House once he has had a chance to look at further evidence and what has come from the panel, and will he have discussions with Mrs Williams and others? Will he come to the House and present his thoughts?

[The Attorney-General]

I will certainly consider doing so, as I have done in the past. If I come to a conclusion, I would certainly want the House to know what that conclusion is, and I would want the House to understand the reasonings. If it were indeed to be the case that I was going to make an application to the High Court, my reasonings would probably be very brief. If for any reason it were to be the case that I was not to be making an application to the High Court, I would want the House to understand, and indeed the public to understand, why I had come to that conclusion. The reality is that I think it would be inescapable, and indeed proper, that the House would require my attendance to answer questions whether I wished to make a statement or not. For that reason, without anticipating where I will be in respect of this matter, I would be rather surprised if I were not coming to make an oral statement to the House. History has shown that it is a better way of proceeding, particularly in terms of giving adequate notice to the Opposition of what I am going to say beforehand so that we can have a reasoned exchange of views based upon it. I promise that I will keep the hon. Gentleman, and indeed my shadow in this matter, informed of how I am proceeding in respect of it.

It seems to me at least that the Hillsborough panel’s work provides an opportunity to allow for a more informed examination of the evidence. That is going to be very important. My understanding is that not only will it sift through material and make sure that it is presented, but that there will be an ability to direct attention to areas of material that might be seen to be relevant if there is to be further consideration. For that reason, to explain further my rationale behind wishing to wait for the panel’s report rather than just plunging into this material myself, it seems sensible for me to be informed by the panel’s own deliberations.

I will make another point about my work. It is probably not greatly understood, but my office is a very small one. I have a small and dedicated team of lawyers working with me, and I have one deputy Minister, the Solicitor-General. I am afraid it is not the case in matters of this sort that suddenly dozens of people can be let loose on material and we rapidly come to conclusions. That said, I am perfectly aware that after the length of time that has elapsed, there is a real need to try to bring this matter, if I am reconsidering it, to a conclusion. I will be mindful of that, but I will have to ask hon. Members to bear with my office in terms of our ability to manage our workload in what I anticipate is likely to be the sifting of substantial quantities of material. I think quite a lot will be in existence.

[Robert Flello]

I understand the constraints that the Attorney-General’s office has upon it, but given the importance of this matter not only to the House but to the nation, if he finds that he is in a position in which he needs more resources to undertake that work, will he come to the House and ask for that provision?

[The Attorney-General]

I would certainly do so if I felt it necessary. We seem to manage a pretty heavy workload reasonably well. Some things come in as emergencies and some things we consider at greater leisure. If I felt that I was not able to discharge my responsibilities more generally, I would certainly bring that to the attention of my colleagues in Government. I can reassure the hon. Gentleman about that. I have no reason to suppose that this is going to take an inordinate length of time. I want to make that clear. I simply wanted to stress the point, because people would not necessarily understand that mine is not a large Department with large numbers of people who can suddenly be tasked on to a particular role.

I will make one final point. No one can fail to be moved by what happened on that fateful day in April 1989 that still resonates so powerfully among so many people. That is perfectly apparent to me having listened to the debate today and having read the debate—I was not able to be present—that took place in October. I found it illuminating in helping me to understand the concerns, which have been further voiced today.

I am only too well aware of the strength of feeling that this House holds about the tragic and needless deaths of so many men, women and children. Not only did that day—a day that promised only the entertainment of an FA Cup semi-final—go so badly wrong, the pain was undoubtedly compounded by unforgivable calumnies published about those who tried to help the injured and the dying. As a man and as a Minister, I share those feelings. As Attorney-General, in which role I am here today, I cannot let sympathy alone sway any decision I may reach. As Attorney-General, in performing this function, as I explained earlier, I act wholly independently of Government and must reach my decision based on the evidence alone. What I can promise the House, and do promise, is that I will approach this case with an open mind and, if I conclude that the evidence supports an application to the court, I will ensure that an application is made.

15:58

Sitting suspended.

Fishing Quotas

Wednesday 22nd February 2012 Westminster Hall

16:00

[Mr David Amess (Southend West) (Con)]

Southend and the sea enjoy a symbiotic relationship; of that there can be no doubt. It gives us our character, our image, even our name—it is why we are called Southend-on-Sea. For many locals and tourists, the sea offers leisure, providing chances to enjoy our historic seafront, our pier—represented by my hon. Friend the Member for Rochford and Southend East (James Duddridge)—and our arcades, known as the golden mile, which the Queen had the privilege of driving past some years ago.

For others, the sea provides employment and opportunity, and that is the purpose of this debate. Nowhere is that more true than in our historic fishing community at Leigh-on-Sea and Old Leigh. Boats there have been working the waters for centuries. Indeed, boats from the local fishing community were used to rescue injured people from Dunkirk. The fishermen and the wider community have a long history of patriotic support. The utmost respect has always been given to one of mother nature’s most powerful forces, but now the industry, which has adapted and survived through the ages, is facing its greatest ever challenge. The threat comes not from our old friend the sea but from within our ranks, and it threatens to strike at the heart of Britain’s ancient fishing fleet.

Let me say immediately to my hon. Friend the Minister that there is no point in any Member of Parliament having an Adjournment debate for the sake of it, for press releases or for various people to observe. I always see a purpose in an Adjournment debate. However, I understand entirely that for all sorts of reasons, he will be constrained in responding, given matters pending in court. If so, I ask simply that he reflect on what I will share with him and consider whether something can be done in the fullness of time to help.

The Marine Management Organisation is, in its own words, supposed to make a “significant contribution” to the marine area, yet for many fishermen, it has become an increasingly vindictive organisation managed by people with no practical knowledge of the industry that they are regulating. Astoundingly, only one member of the board and executive committee has any physical experience of fishing. I would have thought that that alone would be cause for concern. The MMO’s implementation of law is inconsistent and draconian, particularly in regard to small inshore fishing boats. I refer to the under-10-metre fleet, which is subject to the harshest possible sentences for minor offences. Sentences can be so extreme that some fishermen receive the same punishment as drug dealers and gang members.

[Sheryll Murray (South East Cornwall) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that part of the problem was created by the last Labour Government when they underestimated the catch of the under-10-metre fleet? The quota available to that fleet is disproportionate compared with the quota for larger vessels, most of which is held by producer organisations.

[Mr Amess]

I welcome my hon. Friend to the debate. She has much more expertise in the sector than I do. I agree with her point about the last Government’s responsibility, which is why I say to my hon. Friend the Minister that I understand that he is constrained by current regulations.

[Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this debate. The points that he has raised alarm me. It is the proverbial sledgehammer used to crack a nut. It is like sending in the SAS when a bailiff would do. We need to get back to common sense in regulatory matters, on sea or on land.

[Mr Amess]

I will call the hon. Gentleman my hon. Friend, and I know that I speak for everyone in wishing his father a return to rude health. He must have read my speech, where I have used the expression “a sledgehammer to crack a nut”. I agree completely. The issue centres around what I believe is a complete misuse of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002. Worryingly, those who speak out against the MMO seem to be dealt with the most severely. That is totally unacceptable.

I will personalise the issue by talking about a constituent of mine whom I regard as a friend. His court hearing was held on Christmas eve, with all the stress that that involves, and he was recently fined £400,000. Although I was not there to hear the judge’s summing up—I am not criticising the judge; he was only interpreting the law as it stands—he apparently said that if not for my constituent’s references, the fine could have been as much as £600,000. The fine was for bureaucratic offences relating to his catch, the majority of which concerned offences relating to sales notes.

The gentleman to whom I am referring is Paul Gilson. Like generations of his family before him, he has fished the waters of Leigh-on-Sea since childhood. He is a highly respected member of the local community. In the late 1990s, I went with him, the gentleman who was then running my office, Lionel Altman, and the then Member of Parliament Bob Spink to do battle with the famous fisheries commissioner Emma Bonino. It was game, set and match to the Paul Gilson contingent. He is skipper of the historic boat Endeavour, which I am delighted to tell the House will be travelling in the flotilla for Her Majesty’s diamond jubilee. A seat has been reserved on the boat for me, but as I suffer from seasickness, I will be giving the opportunity to someone else, however flat the River Thames is on that day.

[Daniel Kawczynski (Shrewsbury and Atcham) (Con)]

Take pills.

[Mr Amess]

Unfortunately, pills do not work with me.

Paul Gilson is so highly thought of in Southend that he was awarded the freedom of the borough, which says everything about him. He is an honest, hard-working man, and such a sentence is an outrage, especially given that two other recent sales note offences received sentences of £3,500 and £6,000. I know that my hon. Friend the Minister cannot comment on that or whether the sentence should have been appealed, but how can two people be given sentences of £3,500 and £6,000 when Mr Gilson was given a sentence of £400,000? That is absolutely not acceptable. It is a coincidence that if someone is a critic of the MMO, they seem to be dealt with particularly harshly.

I am not denying that if an offence has been committed, a punishment should be given. However, as my hon. Friend the Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley) said earlier, this is using a sledgehammer to crack a nut. The punishment should fit the crime. The 2002 Act, under the right circumstances, is an effective deterrent, but Paul Gilson is neither a gangster nor a drug dealer. The judge even conceded that there was no evidence at all to suggest that Mr Gilson had enjoyed a lavish lifestyle—indeed, if he had done so, no doubt I, as a friend, would have expected to have benefited from it to an extent—or had been motivated in any sense by greed. There is clearly an abuse of the 2002 Act by the MMO, and Paul Gilson is not the only example.

A number of colleagues have sent me briefings on the matter. In particular, three fishermen who are constituents of my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin) will appear before Colchester magistrates court on 29 February—obviously, I will not go into the details, as the case is before the courts and the Minister cannot comment on it. Apparently, in a similar case, while a judge recommended a fine of £2,000, the MMO pushed for a prosecution, again under the 2002 Act, to the tune of £156,000. That is absolutely outrageous.

A fisherman from a historic fishing town is being harassed at every opportunity, while three men from the Colchester area are about to appear in court charged with similar offences, and they fear for their livelihood. That is simply vindictiveness beyond belief and a serious waste of taxpayers’ money. As we found out only too well with the Harry Redknapp trial, which cost about £8 million, the money is all coming from the public purse. Money should not be wasted in criminal proceedings unnecessarily, and the case is a waste of taxpayers’ money. Departments are supposed to be making significant cuts, and I respectfully ask my hon. Friend the Minister to reflect on that. Money is being wasted in the pursuit of small-scale fishermen, largely guilty of nothing more than omissions in paperwork. My goodness, if I was to be looked at by how some of my paperwork is dealt with, no doubt I would have something to answer for, so I have tremendous sympathy for Paul Gilson and the other small fishermen.

The problems run deeper. The whole issue with the cases of Mr Gilson and others like him results from mismanagement in the industry and archaic, impractical laws regarding quotas, which my hon. Friend the Member for South East Cornwall (Sheryll Murray) has brought to the attention of the House. I have been reliably informed that fishermen are losing out on their catches. Fish are being left uncaught but are not being replenished in the quotas for the following year. For example, Dover sole and skate in the North sea are being under-caught by hundreds of tons. There is also inconsistent implementation of quotas in the industry.

Two excellent articles appeared in The Times on 14 February. One of them is titled, “All at sea: historic fleet that can’t catch its own cod”, and I refer to my hon. Friend the Minister the circumstances of the Hastings fishing fleet. The other article was about a cartel on fishing quotas. My hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Miss McIntosh), who is the Chair of the Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, said that it was astounding that the Government did not know who owned the quotas that they handed out, while my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous) described it as an absolute scandal.

The current system of quota allocation has resulted in fishermen with boats less than 10 metres long being denied access to the seas. Those boats comprise 85% of the UK fleet, yet receive only 4% of the annual quota. That just cannot be acceptable. If owners of smaller boats want a share of the quota, they usually have to rent it, but many cannot afford the price demanded. They claim, rightly, that the system forces them to discard tonnes of fish.

Government figures suggest that larger boats are fishing less than a third of their quota and renting more than half to smaller vessels. That leaves up to a fifth of quotas left uncaught. Why are they not passed on to the struggling under-10s, or at least replenished in the pot? The system forces smaller boat owners to discard tonnes of fish to comply with regulations. Such practice is ludicrous and wasteful.

I read recently about the privatisation of the seas, whereby private producer organisations manipulate the market to boost their profits, despite being given 90% of quotas for free. Those organisations are on the verge of securing personal control of Britain’s fishing rights. Worryingly, it has been confirmed that the Government do not know, as I have already said, who is profiting from the arrangement—an admission echoed by the MMO. The quota cartel hits the under-10-metre boats particularly hard, as I have mentioned. It leaves men and women struggling to make a living. It is well to remember that they are fishermen, not bureaucrats, and it is madness that they spend as much time doing paperwork as they do fishing.

All that is killing our historic fishing industry, overseen by an apparently vindictive organisation that has no experience or understanding of the industry. Fishermen are rapidly and quite rightly losing faith in the MMO. Add on top of that the absurd, restrictive laws on quotas and the anonymous cartel that manipulates the markets for its own gain and it is easy to see the terrible state the under-10-metre fishing industry finds itself in.

Fishing is an art as old as man itself. It has survived everything that mother nature can throw at it, but it seems that it might just be defeated by our own ludicrous legislation and pointless policy-making. Something has to be done, to help not only my constituent Paul Gilson, but the constituents of all Members present and in the rest of the House.

16:12

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Richard Benyon)]

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Southend West (Mr Amess) for speaking with passion about his friend and constituent and about the fishing industry and representing, like many hon. Members, his local fishing community.

I will talk about the Marine Management Organisation, how it works and how we try to regulate fisheries. I will also briefly touch on how I, as the Fisheries Minister, am trying to improve the lot of the under-10-metre fishermen and the entire fleet with different activities that we are taking in the Department, to see a reversal in the decline of a once-noble industry.

From my conversations with fishermen around the country, one message that they are keen to relay is that those who commit fisheries offences are taking fish from their fellow fishermen; I am making a general comment here about those who land black fish, not a specific one. It is vital that we do all that we can to achieve compliance with the law and to protect fish stocks and the livelihoods of legitimate fishermen from criminal activities that affect them. If fish are landed illegally and sold, they are black fish and their value is stolen from legitimate fisherman. I make that point unashamedly to the whole fishing industry across all the United Kingdom’s waters and all the EU’s waters, for which I take my responsibility as the UK Fisheries Minister seriously.

Decisions on the investigation and prosecution of fisheries offences are not taken by me or my officials, as my hon. Friend rightly pointed out. To maintain fish stocks, laws are set at European and national levels. We could have a debate about that, and I would probably start at the position taken by him and many other hon. Members that one would not start from here, and we want to see some changes. However, the MMO has the duty to enforce those laws.

I have spoken before and often about the difficult decisions the MMO has had to make. The MMO is a measured and proportionate organisation in its approach, with a strong commitment to transparency and impartiality. I will explain why. Enforcement action against illegal activity on our seas is one of many activities the MMO undertakes. It may be useful if I provide a brief overview of the legal framework within which those decisions are taken. I urge all hon. Members who have fishing interests in constituencies that are potentially affected by the MMO’s rulings to make contact either with their local MMO officer or to visit its headquarters in Newcastle, as I have done on a number of occasions. I urge them to do that because they will see a committed organisation trying to do its best in a complicated world, where the vast majority of fishermen do good, but some sadly do not.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

The Minister had an opportunity to visit Portavogie in my constituency the week before last. He had the chance to meet some of the people who have the 10-metre-and-under boat size. They expressed to him their concerns about the bureaucracy and the system whereby the proceeds of crime are used against them. Was the Minister able to give them some comfort on the days that he met them? If so, what was the outcome?

[Richard Benyon]

I hope that I will be able to give the hon. Gentleman some comfort when I discuss how the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 is—although it usually is not—involved in the prosecution of fishermen when illegality or bad maladministration has taken place.

For all its faults and vices, the EU fisheries control regulation requires all member states to have an effective, proportionate and dissuasive system of administrative and criminal sanctions, which should effectively deprive those responsible of the economic benefit derived from their infringement.

[Sheryll Murray]

Will the Minister confirm that the same penalties will apply to a fisherman who is a member of a producer organisation as to a fisherman who is operating under the MMO’s own system with an under-10-metre vessel?

[Richard Benyon]

Absolutely. No distinction is made between size of vessel, who owns the vessel or where the fishing opportunity rests.

The regulation goes on to say that sanctions must be capable of producing results proportionate to the seriousness of such infringements, thereby effectively discouraging further offences of the same kind. It also says that member states may apply a system whereby a fine is proportionate to the turnover of the business, or to the financial advantage achieved or envisaged by committing the infringement. That is the background against which the MMO must operate. I urge my hon. Friend the Member for Southend West to read the MMO’s compliance and enforcement strategy, which it published on its website last autumn. That demonstrates its practical approach in helping people to achieve compliance.

As I have already said, my officials and I are not involved in operational decisions relating to fisheries investigation cases, and it would not be right for me to offer solutions or direction on the case my hon. Friend has raised or on any other case. However, I will say that the MMO does not take decisions to prosecute fish merchants or fishermen lightly. I have looked into the matter in great detail. The MMO is astute and recognises that the vast majority of the fishing industry is compliant with the rules that govern it and that only a small percentage break the law. The MMO understands that education, guidance and advice is the best approach to achieving compliance in the fishing industry in most cases.

Decisions to prosecute are taken only when all other efforts to achieve compliance have been exhausted, or the nature of offending is on such a scale or is so persistent that prosecution is the only appropriate action available. The MMO will only prosecute fisheries offences after careful and detailed consideration of the relative involvement of individual offenders. In every case, the MMO will scrutinise the seriousness of the alleged offences detected and select the most appropriate course of action. In serious cases, where people are found guilty of criminal offences, their behaviour may warrant a confiscation order, so that the money made from their criminal activity is returned to the public purse. I hope that I am explaining how the system works.

[Mr Alan Campbell (Tynemouth) (Lab)]

My fishermen believe in the rule of law as much as anyone else and would want those who benefit from criminality to lose the proceeds that they get from that. However, their view is that, in these instances, the response is wholly disproportionate. They are also concerned that education is one thing, but trying to govern law-abiding fishermen through fear is entirely different.

[Richard Benyon]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for making that point. I reassure him that I want to make sure that all the sanctions are applied proportionately. My hon. Friend the Member for Southend West has asked me to reflect. I always reflect on what he says because he puts it with such force and panache. I will also reflect on what the hon. Member for Tynemouth (Mr Campbell) has brought to this debate and ensure that we can reassure his constituents. The MMO should use the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 sparingly. It has done so on only five occasions in the past 12 months of its existence. Only two of the cases were fish dealers, who were significantly mis-recording the landing and selling of quota species.

The MMO uses the 2002 Act where a prosecutor who, by law, acts independently of the Government and the MMO considers action under that Act is necessary to remove the unlawful benefit to deter similar offending fishermen. Those two Proceeds of Crime Act cases are unusual, and the MMO’s approach to compliance, as I stated before, is ordinarily via education and guidance. For example, in 2011, the MMO carried out 2,862 vessel inspections, and the majority of infringements detected resulted in the MMO offering oral advice to achieve compliance on 396 separate occasions. Some 83 written warnings were issued and seven financial administrative penalties were levied. Only 22 prosecution cases were brought, only two of which resulted in confiscation orders such as those that we are discussing today.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Southend West says, I cannot go into the details of the case. However, in the case of Mr Gilson, who is both a fisherman and a buyer and seller of fish, the court felt that the financial benefit of almost £425,000 that was omitted should result in a repayment by Mr Gilson of £395,000. That sounds like a lot of money, but it is proportionate in relation to the amount that was admitted.

In the few minutes I have left, I will respond to the other issues. One of the criticisms of the fishing industry is that we are harder on our own fishermen than we are on overseas fishermen. The biggest order under the 2002 Act was for £1,163,000, which related to a foreign fishing vessel that was fishing illegally. Another case of interest was a fishing boat that was unlicensed. It was nicking fish from our fishermen, and it was prosecuted by the MMO, to the applause and gratitude of the fishermen in that area.

I have said that I will reflect on the points that my hon. Friend raised, and I will. I urge him to look at the proposals that we are making to improve the lot of the under-10-metre fleet. That involves taking quota that is unused by other elements of the fleet and using it to supplement the under-10-metre fleet, which, as he rightly says, receives an unfair allocation. The statistically correct figure is 4%. The 96% that the larger sector has includes some stocks that the under-10-metre sector would never access because they are so far away. However, statistically, he is right. I want to correct the unfairness that he has so eloquently pointed out. That is why, in the next few weeks, we will be making proposals that will lead to enhanced fishing opportunities for the under-10-metre fleet in three or four pilot projects around the country.

We have employed people to assist in ensuring that the relevant quota reaches the fishermen who deserve it and that the transfer of unused quota will mean there is a fairer allocation. Quotas that are unused will be accessed by fishermen around our coasts, who will continue to support their vital rural and coastal communities in a law-abiding way.

My hon. Friend asked about the Select Committee report on who owns quotas. I agree with him. It is bizarre that we do not know. That is the product of the bizarre system that we have inherited, and we in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs are seeking to correct that by finding out who does own quota and making sure that it is used properly.

I urge my hon. Friend to have faith in the MMO. It is doing a wide variety of different work and has some good people in it working hard. The compliance work is never easy, but it is important because, speaking generally, when illegal fishing takes place and illegal fish are landed, those fish have been stolen from the law-abiding fishermen whom we must protect. For that reason, we need a good and robust system. It is not just the EU that is doing this; other countries, such as Norway, run very strict sanction systems as well.

Fuel Duty (Northern Ireland)

Wednesday 22nd February 2012 Westminster Hall

16:30

[Ms Margaret Ritchie (South Down) (SDLP)]

I am pleased to have secured this important debate and I look forward to contributing under your chairmanship, Mrs Main. I am also pleased that the Minister is present, and I look forward to her response.

In the run-up to the Budget, it is more important than ever to bring into sharp focus the record high price of vehicle fuel, which has now reached a critical level. The increased cost of fuel, together with the correspondingly steep rise in inflation in the past year, has put individuals, families and businesses under increasing pressure. There is clearly an over-reliance on importing fossil fuels. Until that is cut, we will always be tethered to external forces. I note with great interest that the incoming Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change placed an emphasis on energy production that is clean and green. I welcome him to the role, especially if he follows through with that commitment. My own party is committed to a green new deal in Northern Ireland providing jobs, investment and energy security. However, I recognise that that is a long-term goal and we must tackle directly the problems facing consumers and businesses now.

[Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)]

I thank the hon. Lady for giving way and say that that is the one green deal that my party would support alongside her party. [Laughter.] My hon. Friend the Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) says, “The only green deal”, but it is a worthwhile point.

The hon. Lady will be aware that since we became Members of Parliament two years ago, the one issue we have debated most is fuel duty and the implications of its constantly rising cost. I am sure that, like me, she understands that the little piece of water between the mainland and Northern Ireland—those 17 miles—is the most expensive stretch of water in these islands, as it inflates prices of fuel disproportionately. For our rural constituencies, the smack is double, because rural areas suffer more. The luxury of car transport is a necessity to get kids to school, and people to work and into employment.

[Mrs Anne Main (in the Chair)]

Order. Will hon. Members please ensure that interventions are brief?

[Ms Ritchie]

Thank you, Mrs Main. I thank the hon. Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley) for his long intervention. I could not agree more—rural communities, particularly in Northern Ireland, are more deeply affected because they rely totally on car transportation. There has been insufficient investment in public means of transportation—a matter for the Northern Ireland Executive—and no doubt the Minister will take care to pass that on. We will no doubt pass that point on as individual Members of Parliament from Northern Ireland.

I will highlight specifically the problems faced by businesses and consumers in Northern Ireland, but those problems do not exist in a vacuum. We must consider the scale of the problem confronting consumers across these islands. The Automobile Association’s latest data, from industry price trackers Experian Catalist, showed that the latest average pump prices for petrol are 134p, compared with 128p a year ago, and 111p in mid-January 2010. That is within sight of the record prices witnessed last May. Indeed, the average price of diesel has just hit an all-time high at an average price of 143p. The AA reported that in Northern Ireland the price of diesel is the highest of any region in the European Union.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

Does the hon. Lady share my concerns? The fuel that comes in through the ports of Belfast and Londonderry, and is then dispersed across the whole of Northern Ireland, is the same as the fuel in Great Britain, so why is it so much dearer in Northern Ireland? It is an unfair penalty towards those in the rural community.

[Ms Ritchie]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I agree that it is the same fuel type, which is imported directly from the middle east and wherever it is refined before it reaches the ports of Belfast and Derry. I also agree that rural communities are more deeply affected as a result of fuel duty increases. We find little reassurance in the current global situation. Just this week, Iran suspended the sale of crude oil to the UK, and the strait of Hormuz, through which 35% of all traded oil travels, is in a state of great uncertainty. It is not my intention to turn this into a debate on Iran and the middle east, but the point remains that while we rely so heavily on imported fossil fuels we will be somewhat captive to external events. Set against that, the Treasury is not doing enough to ameliorate the consequences of these events for consumers and businesses alike.

Consumers and business are caught in a pincer between the volatile price of a critical commodity and an inflexible Treasury duty regime. With the current instability in Iran, combined with the suspension of the refinery at Coryton, we would be naive to think that there will be no more inflationary pressures on the price of petrol. While the Minister has little control over an uncertain world, I would like to know what plans she has to protect people from the worst effects of those circumstances. Put more bluntly, in the short-term the Chancellor must extend the freeze on fuel duty hikes that was announced in the autumn statement. The measures announced in the autumn statement—the deferral of the 3p increase in duty and the cancellation of the escalator—were welcome short-term measures, but they will do little to mitigate the increased long-term rise in fuel prices. According to Consumer Focus back in March 2011, the 1p reduction in fuel duty was wiped out within days by rising oil prices. There is not the feeling that the Treasury is shouldering its share of the rise in the same way that motorists and businesses are.

[James Wharton (Stockton South) (Con)]

I congratulate the hon. Lady on securing this important debate. I represent a constituency in the north-east of England, which in many ways faces similar economic challenges to Northern Ireland. One issue—

[Mrs Anne Main (in the Chair)]

Order. I ask the hon. Gentleman to confine his remarks to Northern Ireland fuel duties.

[James Wharton]

Absolutely. As the relative income is lower compared with some English regions, as it is in Northern Ireland, the effect of fuel prices is felt more acutely. Will the hon. Lady clarify whether she is looking for Government measures that are specific to Northern Ireland, or a nationally applicable measure that would benefit everybody in the UK?

[Ms Ritchie]

Naturally, I will be looking for measures that are specific to Northern Ireland because I represent a constituency in Northern Ireland. I understand the difficulties of other regions. As Mrs Main has directed, this debate is specific to Northern Ireland. If the hon. Gentleman will let me progress a little, I will explain where I am coming from.

While we rely on imported oil, fuel prices will always be vulnerable to exogenous pressures and external shocks, but the Treasury has levers at its disposal with which it could mitigate the worst of those effects for consumers. The 3p increase in fuel duty is still approaching in August and the Chancellor’s remedy would seem to be palliative rather than curative. It is a market in which price rises are passed on with alarming rapidity to the consumer, while decreases are notable mainly by their absence. It is like a seesaw with a very heavy weight at one end—a lot of jumping up and down at the other end seems to make very little difference.

[Oliver Colvile (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Con)]

Is the hon. Lady suggesting that it would be helpful if VAT rates were set by the Northern Ireland Assembly? Of course, the reaction to that would be ensuring that the block grant also suffered.

[Ms Ritchie]

The hon. Gentleman brings me into an interesting debate about the devolution of tax-varying powers to Northern Ireland, which my party supports. He raises the other important issue of the block. No doubt, as with corporation tax, that matter will be decided by the Office for Budget Responsibility. Naturally, we in Northern Ireland would say, collectively across parties, that we are a special region within the UK, notwithstanding our political or identity differences. We are coming out of a legacy of conflict and that needs to be addressed for the people who live there.

[Stephen Pound (Ealing North) (Lab)]

Surely, the point is that Northern Ireland is the only part of the United Kingdom with a contiguous land border with another European country. Just as in Europe, there are variable tax rates on borders—between Luxembourg and Belgium, for example—so surely there is a case for recognising that the problem is not solely part of the rural differential, although that is significant. It is a cross-border issue. We must look to that as well. Surely, Her Majesty’s Government should be working in that direction.

[Ms Ritchie]

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. I wish to progress to the issue he mentioned, because we share a land border with the south of Ireland. There are differential tax rates and we in the north of Ireland need to be given a certain degree of comfort.

With specific reference to Northern Ireland, having brought attention to the general problem besetting the market, I now turn to our own constituencies and Northern Ireland in particular, where the situation is even more severe. I have already highlighted the general point in relation to Britain, but I emphasise that from January to December last year petrol and diesel prices in Northern Ireland were the most expensive, and in January this year the price of diesel was the most expensive in the European Union. The AA has recently demonstrated that Northern Ireland has higher fuel prices than any other region and that on average we pay 134.6p at the pump, while the average price in the UK is 133.5p.

Prices continue to rise in Northern Ireland. In December 2011, it cost £66 to fill a standard 50-litre engine—£70 for diesel—and within a year this has gone up to £70, a 6% increase. A family in my constituency that owned a Ford Galaxy car with a 70-litre engine recently told me they are faced with a £100 bill every time they refill their car. Such families will be faced with paying hundreds of pounds more than they used to every year, an amount that I guarantee the Minister is not insignificant for the vast proportion of people, at a time when they are already suffering, with welfare reform proposals coming down the line and with the cost of motor car insurance much higher in Northern Ireland, particularly in rural areas, compared with comparable regions in Britain.

The average family sends £680 a year to the Treasury in London just to cover fuel duty. Many families will be affected by the public sector pay freeze enacted by the very same Treasury. The high cost of fuel is particularly problematic for the poorest in society, for whom such an amount represents a significant proportion of income and for whom the use of a car is most important to remain economically active.

There is a discrepancy not just between regions but within them, with rural areas in Northern Ireland, including my constituency, particularly prone to high prices. Indeed, this problem is exacerbated by large retailers operating across many sites, charging different premiums by location, a practice that drives up prices in certain areas, particularly in rural locations, where the dependence on fuel is often the greatest.

The problem in rural areas can be compounded by the absence of large supermarkets to drive down the prices. For example, the AA cited the lack of Asda forecourts in Northern Ireland as a key contributory factor, meaning that price competition is not as keen as in the UK. I urge the Minister to review how location-specific pricing and the absence of large supermarkets distort the market and create an unfair playing field.

We cannot separate this problem from our investment in public transport services. It may interest the Minister to know that, historically, Northern Ireland has received the lowest spend per capita on transport infrastructure, leaving the car as king and often the only viable choice. A perfect example of this is the atrocious management of the rail link between our two biggest cities, Belfast and Derry, which has been compounded by the legacy of blinding ignorance to organising the network on an all-Ireland/island basis.

Simply put, people have no option but to get in their car. Those who are priced out of the market by high fuel prices are often left economically isolated and socially disfranchised. Indeed, there needs to be joined-up thinking on a north-south basis regarding the fuel duty regime to avoid striking disparities, particularly around the border, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing North (Stephen Pound) mentioned. This problem distorts the local market for fuel and leaves local retailers and consumers at a marked disadvantage.

These problems are faced not only by our people but by our businesses. We hear the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and Treasury Ministers talk about rebalancing and growing the Northern Ireland economy. This seems to be rhetoric in search of a policy at the minute. Does the Minister not agree that one of the main things holding back business growth in Northern Ireland is the punitive price of petrol? Action here would be the ideal way for the Treasury to demonstrate its commitment to growing the Northern Ireland economy.

The Minister does not need to tell me the problems faced by small and medium-sized businesses in the current climate. Does she not agree that a cut in fuel duty would act as an immediate stimulus to the economy in Northern Ireland?

I do not want to create the impression, by focusing on these immediate measures, that I am ignoring the big picture. As a society, we must wean ourselves off dependence on oil. Without doing so we will have the same debate in the House year after year. Doing this will take foresight rather than expediency, and ambition rather than an “as you were” mentality, but until we reach that point, the Government must do more to help those in need; they must shoulder a fair share of the burden and not simply pass on price rises to consumers and local businesses. The Government must commit to their pledge to consult on a fuel duty stabiliser and cancel the planned duty increases scheduled for August.

In Northern Ireland this problem is particularly striking. We must address the basic problem, which is that our people pay more at the pump than in any region in the UK and, indeed, in the EU. There are clearly issues surrounding the operation of large retailers, which bring price competition, but not evenly across the board. As other hon. Members have clearly articulated, rural areas are often most vulnerable and often people and businesses in rural areas are most dependent on their cars. If the Treasury is serious about growing our local economy, would this not be an obvious place to start? I acknowledge that the Northern Ireland Executive at Stormont also have a major role to play.

These immediate measures must be buttressed by a sustainable approach to our energy future and transport infrastructure. My party and I are committed to proper investment in new, green energy technologies in Northern Ireland. I look forward to the Minister’s response.

16:49

[The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Miss Chloe Smith)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for South Down (Ms Ritchie) on securing the debate and on presenting her case so eloquently. The debate is clearly well attended, with members of the Select Committee on Northern Ireland Affairs present, which puts me in mind of an extensive session that we had in the past few weeks discussing fuel fraud in Northern Ireland. I wonder whether that serious economic issue in Northern Ireland, which we all recognise, will also occupy the hon. Lady, if she has any spare time.

The first issue raised by today’s debate is what the Government have done to assist motorists and businesses in a time of high oil prices. Secondly, I will go on to what we intend to do, before returning, as requested by the hon. Lady, to some details about the fair fuel stabiliser. Before dealing with those two areas, I acknowledge what she said about the difficulties of living, working and running businesses in a rural economy, in particular given the absence of other large businesses whose decisions might be able to bring about cheaper fuel points of purchase. I live in Norwich and am conscious that I can access cheap fuel partly because of the availability of a number of large supermarkets competing with each other on price. She might not be in that position.

I note also what the hon. Lady says about public transport, although I regret that I am not a Transport Minister and cannot assist her directly today, and that she might be floating the idea of co-operation on tax matters between north and south on the whole island of Ireland. I do not know whether she is suggesting that and I hear what she is saying, but that is not something that we think that the British Treasury should necessarily do, and I am not entirely sure that the Republic would wish to do so either.

[Ms Ritchie]

I was referring to a discussion between the British and Irish Governments about harmonisation on fuel duty and about the problems encountered by people on both sides of the border, living in close proximity and able to travel with great speed from north to south, and vice versa. At the minute, prices in the south are lower than they are in the north. What amelioration can be brought to the people?

[Miss Smith]

I understand that point. The topic could be on a long list of what the two Governments discuss, and I note positive aspects of those discussions in the realm of transport, such as acknowledgement of the importance of the land border in setting air passenger duty rates, of which the hon. Lady must be aware. We also acknowledge the significance of the land border to fuel fraud—returning to that important subject—but there is a point to stop short of in harmonising tax rates.

I shall plough on swiftly with some helpful points. First, there is absolutely no doubt that the cost of fuel remains difficult for families and businesses up and down the country, as demonstrated in the debate. I am also sure that many of the hon. Lady’s constituents joined the 100,000-signature petition delivered to the Government last autumn and to which we responded in the House. Our response—indeed, I personally responded —recognised that the price of petrol, which is different from the rate of duty, is extraordinarily high in many people’s eyes. The price is the result of a combination of the duty and various global factors, which she has already mentioned, so it is not fully in the control of the Government to say, “The total cost of your litre of fuel shall be this.” What a responsible Government must do, however, is listen, consider and respond.

The Government have eased the burden on motorists by £2.5 billion up to 2012-13. We started by cutting fuel duty by a penny per litre from 6 pm on Budget day. We cancelled the previous Government’s fuel duty escalator and introduced the fair fuel stabiliser, which I shall come on to shortly. Our response also includes the deferment of last month’s duty increase to August and the cancellation of the original increase planned for August, ensuring genuine help for motorists through only one inflation increase this year. The fuel duty changes support motorists throughout the country, including Northern Ireland—I do not see a distinction—because any motorist can be approximately 10p per litre better off as a result of our Government’s actions. The hon. Lady asked me to acknowledge businesses. An average haulier will be better off by £4,400 because of our fuel duty and vehicle excise duty actions, which I am sure she will welcome in her part of the world, as everyone else does.

[Mr Robin Walker (Worcester) (Con)]

Will the Minister give way?

[Miss Smith]

I am terribly sorry, but I must proceed.

The hon. Lady asked me about how the Government might seek to manage the effect of oil prices in the longer term, and I want to give a few details about the fair fuel stabiliser. The Chancellor has been clear that we cannot take risks with the public finances, although the hon. Lady spoke several times of the Treasury needing to shoulder its share of the difficulties faced by the country. Government coffers, however, are public coffers. The Treasury has employees, but there is no separate entity known as the Treasury that could or could not be shouldering a share. The Treasury simply has a role in managing, as best it can, the public resources to which we all contribute, whether we be citizens, motorists, businesses or any other category that anyone can think of.

My point about the fair fuel stabiliser is that any support we provide to the motorist needs to be paid for. As oil and gas production is more profitable in times of high oil prices, it is fair for companies to make an additional contribution. As part of the stabiliser, therefore, the supplementary charge on oil and gas companies was increased in the Budget, meaning that when oil prices are high, fuel duty will increase by inflation only. If the oil price falls, we will reintroduce the fuel duty escalator and reduce the supplementary charge on a staged and affordable basis.

Coming swiftly to a conclusion to allow us to finish on time, I assure hon. Members that, beyond fuel duties, the Government remain fully committed to working with the Northern Ireland Executive to achieve the common objective of rebalancing the Northern Irish economy, to which the hon. Lady referred. Colleagues are aware of wider work looking at how best to achieve such rebalancing, including the ministerial working group chaired by my colleague the Exchequer Secretary. I understand that the group is making good progress and is due to meet again in early March.

We have recognised the impact of record prices on businesses and families, whether on the mainland or in Northern Ireland. The previous Government had no credible plan to deal with the debts that they created or with motorists, as shown by the escalator that they sought to continue. We, by contrast, have listened and responded: we cut fuel duty, we scrapped the escalator and we have ensured that there will be only one inflation-only increase in fuel duty this year. We continue to have a long-term plan for support in the form of the fair fuel stabiliser. I think that the hon. Lady will agree that that is a reasonable position to be in considering the difficulties faced by this whole country, given the resources left to it by the Government represented by the hon. Gentleman sitting to her left, the hon. Member for Ealing North (Stephen Pound).

Question put and agreed to.

16:58

Sitting adjourned.