Kevin Williams

Debate between Derek Twigg and Steve Rotheram

Wednesday 22nd February 2012 Westminster Hall

[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.

Apprenticeships

Debate between Derek Twigg and Steve Rotheram

Monday 19th December 2011 Commons Chamber

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

I welcome tonight’s debate on this very important instrument in tackling unemployment in Britain today, which promotes a highly trained, suitably qualified, sustainable work force. I think that I am one of the few parliamentarians who has been an apprentice. I was a brickie and I learned my trade through an indenture route. Many years later, I became a vocational training instructor. In addition, I have worked for the Learning and Skills Council and its predecessor organisation, and was responsible for delivering construction training in the Merseyside sub-region. Therefore, I have some limited understanding of the issue.

In modern times, many traditional occupational areas are still three-year, and in some cases four-year, apprenticeships, and are still seen as being a detailed introduction to a trade: a valuable period of on and off the job training to industry recognised standards. Apprenticeships should not be 16-week test drives, as some are today. This will result only in damage to the brand.

I must confess that I feel that some right hon. and hon. Members’ interpretation of apprenticeships is slightly different from mine. For me, some employers are still confused about the precise definition of an apprenticeship. I welcome the Minister’s comments tonight about ensuring that quality does not suffer through quantity.

Thanks to the cuts in career services such as Connexions, many youngsters starting out today will be reliant on parents, grandparents and teachers for career support and guidance, and will need to decide whether to say on at school, whether they can afford the tripling of tuition fees and go to university, or whether to try to get an apprenticeship. Very few people, apart perhaps from some Conservative Members, would advise a young person to pack in school at 16 to take part in a six-month apprenticeship. So let us incorporate the question of definition into today’s debate. All training programmes cannot simply be rebadged as apprenticeships or they will lose all credibility. They should at least include the NVQ qualification at levels 2 or 3, the technical certificate and the key skills element.

There are many on the Government Benches who will no doubt advocate their love for and devotion to apprenticeships, but who have no intention of taking on an apprentice themselves, or of encouraging their own children to complete one. In fact, many Members claim that apprenticeships are the be all and end all if you listen to some of them, but despite my minor misgivings at times about the last Labour Government’s emphasis on academic routes over vocational training, the last Tory Government nearly destroyed apprenticeships completely. We were down to about 20,000-odd in the year before their last year in power.

Any increase in apprenticeship numbers, as identified by the Minister earlier, is welcome—

[Derek Twigg (Halton) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the recently announced construction projects that the Government support are an ideal opportunity for the Government to stipulate that they should include a number of apprenticeships? In our part of the world, the council is working hard to ensure that there are apprenticeships on the Mersey gateway. Should not the Government stipulate that any construction project they support should have apprenticeships?

[Steve Rotheram]

I agree with my hon. Friend. We tried to push the Government on that. The old rule of thumb used to be that for every £1 million-worth of procurement an apprentice was taken on. The Minister should seriously look again at that, because it is a way of stimulating demand for apprenticeships.

The point made earlier about 10-week programmes makes a mockery of the brand and looks like statistical gerrymandering to all those responsible for delivering quality apprenticeships. They are not what people out there believe to be apprenticeships; they are training programmes. They are very welcome in the vocational field, but they are not apprenticeships. While the Government take credit for all that they have done and for the current level of apprenticeships, many Members seem to forget that some current apprentices in traditional occupations started their apprenticeships under the Labour Government. For example, my beloved son is an apprentice electrician, which is a four-year programme. Perhaps I am being cynical, but the Government seem to be systematically rebranding work experience programmes as apprenticeships, and I genuinely hope that that is not the case.

The reason for my scepticism probably has something to do with a recent incident in my constituency of Liverpool, Walton. I keep questioning why the Government, who claim to be so dedicated to reducing unemployment and increasing apprenticeship numbers, allowed the National Construction Academy in Aintree to close its doors on their watch. Not only will the decision deny up to 80 young people each year the chance of accessing training via the centre, but Walton is unfortunately home to the sixth highest level of unemployment in the country.

The Minister will know that I have the greatest admiration for his undeniable appreciation of vocational routes into employment, but surely he must understand the relationship between public sector spending and private sector growth. Despite the coalition’s at times relentless desire to drive a wedge between the public and private sectors, the two are heavily interlinked and mutually co-reliant, as can be seen in the construction sector, for instance. As I have said on a number of occasions since becoming a Member of Parliament, the symbiotic relationship between the public and private sectors means that cutting one makes the other bleed. Needless to say, the construction sector is haemorrhaging badly at the moment and needs an urgent transfusion. The construction industry has a long history of taking on apprentices, but such programmes have now been savaged, with capital investment slashed—