Passport Applications
Alison McGovern Excerpts(9 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Alison McGovern (Wirral South) (Lab)
On the subject of what the Government could and should do, I asked the Home Secretary last week about the wording on the Government’s website on the three-week time. We have already heard the estimates my hon. Friends have made of the cases they have seen. The wording gives every indication that it should take three weeks—no more, no less. Is it not that that is causing the problem? What does my right hon. Friend think the Government should do right now to help people?
Yvette Cooper
My hon. Friend is right. People rely on the advice they are given on the website and via the helpline. When they go to the post office to do the check and send they are given information, but they have had no response or further information from the Home Office to tell them that something is going wrong. They make plans accordingly, and as a result they suddenly find themselves in the lurch.
HM Passport Office
Alison McGovern Excerpts(9 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Mrs May
I have already referred, of course, to the identity card scheme.
My hon. Friend talks about the possibility of the extension to passports being brought in domestically as well as in overseas cases. We did examine that possibility, and it was what the Labour Government did when they had queues at passport offices back in 1999. To introduce that now would have meant setting up new centres and processes, which could have disrupted the work that the Passport Office is already doing. That is why I believe it is better to concentrate on dealing with the applications that are being made.
Alison McGovern (Wirral South) (Lab)
Speaking purely personally, I would prefer it if we did not talk about throwing Government staff around.
The families who have come to me to raise their cases have mainly been trying to get a child’s first passport. They have pointed out to me that the Government’s website said that they would get their passport within three weeks, which was clearly a mistake. I know of one family who have definitely missed their holiday. What can be done to ensure that families in my constituency get proper information?
Mrs May
The website has always indicated to people what the normal expected period for a straightforward application is. As I indicated earlier, if there is a problem with the application, it can take longer, but we are ensuring that the information on the website is as clear as possible to people. I have also asked for it to be ensured that it is absolutely clear what documents are required, because there may be issues to do with the type of birth certificate that is submitted, which can lead to problems for families.
Hillsborough
Alison McGovern Excerpts(10 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mrs May
About 2,500 police notebooks have now been supplied to those conducting the investigations. I would encourage any officer out there who may have a notebook that is relevant and who has still not provided it to do so, because I think it important for all the notebooks to be made available.
Alison McGovern (Wirral South) (Lab)
I pay tribute to the courage and bravery shown by all those affected by the Hillsborough disaster over the past 25 years, and especially in recent months.
May I ask the Home Secretary again about the police pocket notebooks? She has said that about 2,500 of them were not made available to those conducting earlier investigations. Does she know, or has she asked, why they were not made available?
UNHCR Syrian Refugees Programme
Alison McGovern Excerpts(10 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Alison McGovern (Wirral South) (Lab)
I want to speak only briefly, but I want to make some points, not least on behalf of my constituents, who over the weekend expressed to me how strongly they felt that Britain should play its part.
There are now nearly 2.5 million refugees, and the UNHCR states that they are at significant risk of sexual and gender-based violence. Other Members have talked already about the reasons—not least the conditions in the camps. However, the refugees also face more mundane but none the less significant challenges: the inability to earn money, to feed themselves, to have housing and shelter, and to be able to educate their children and to access basic services that will keep them healthy. The UNHCR says that the majority of refugees are reliant on humanitarian food aid. We know that food banks in this country are wrong. The indignity of relying on others for food is a problem, even in the face of more violent and terrible horrors.
Refugees also face troubling and significant health problems. We have seen the return of polio, and communicable diseases such as measles, tuberculosis and other infectious conditions make life as a refugee troubling. UNICEF says that 68% of Syrian refugee children are now not in education, as the hon. Member for Brent Central (Sarah Teather) mentioned.
British people never fail to show their solidarity, and I pay tribute to all who have put their hands in their pockets to show support for the Syrian people. They recognise, as the Home Secretary said, that refugees are ordinary citizens, just like us, caught up in a terrible war not of their making.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
Is the hon. Lady aware that the charity Open Doors has recorded that, in 2013, 1,213 Christians in Syria were martyred for their faith? Does she feel that while we address the refugee issue, we should also ensure that there is assistance on the ground for those who wish to stay?
Alison McGovern
There is a range of ways in which we need to show our support. I was sorry and surprised last week to hear Ministers describe the UNHCR programme as “token”. We must do good wherever we can, and I do not hold with the view that has been expressed that because the scale of the problem is huge, each individual action that we can take for each individual at risk is not important in itself. I believe that it is. I would like to pay tribute to each and every one of those people, many of whom are UK citizens like us, who have worked to help those who have been made vulnerable by this conflict. Their work is important and we pay tribute to their efforts.
Anas Sarwar (Glasgow Central) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is talking powerfully about intervention to help those who are suffering as a result of the crisis in Syria. One point that is often lost in these debates is the plight of urban refugees. Many people imagine that refugees are only in refugee camps—and they certainly face real threats—but almost half of them are in urban areas.
Alison McGovern
My hon. Friend makes an incredibly important point. The conditions in the camps were well described by the hon. Member for Brent Central, and we must all remain focused on that important situation, but there is also a massive crisis, which could quickly turn into an economic crisis, for those countries that have welcomed refugees into their cities. We must support not only the refugees, but the host communities. They were not wealthy to begin with and now, as a result of their generosity, risk a difficult economic future.
I will end my remarks by sharing with the House the words of some of the refugees, as documented by the support agencies. I think it is important that we listen to the words of those affected. The World Food Programme reported on the condition of refugees in December 2013 and told the story of Zakiya. She and her three daughters fled to Latakia, carrying little more than the clothes on their backs. She said:
“It was a matter of life and death the day we fled; we could hear the fighting approaching our area quickly and we had to run; we had no choice… I only had time to collect some cash and it was barely enough to cover our transport, let alone buy bread and water to survive”.
It is very important that we remember not only the reality of the situation faced by refugees fleeing present danger, but the possible long-term crisis for a whole generation in the region. They will have to cope with the limits that have been placed on their hopes and ambitions by the absence of sufficient education and health facilities. They are facing not just the return of polio and significant diseases, as I have said, but more mundane risks from illness and infection disease—threats that we all live without because we have everyday health care.
We all just assume that our children will go to school. Reema—not her real name—told Oxfam:
“I miss my teachers. I miss my classes, my English classes, my Arabic classes, my music classes. Now I’m just sitting here every day.”
There is real despondency. That is why I believe that we must take this opportunity, in this House of Commons, to show that we are not helpless in the face of this terror.
Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)
Will the hon. Lady give way?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)
Order. We have very little time remaining. Members who have not been here for the whole debate have sought to intervene, and the time given to each Member who speaks is increased with each intervention, so those who have waited all afternoon to speak will not have a chance to do so. The hon. Gentleman may make his intervention, but the hon. Lady will not get extra time because of it.
Andrew Bridgen
I will be brief, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Given that the UK Government have already committed £600 million in humanitarian aid for the Syrian refugees, which is 12 times more than France has donated, and indeed more than the rest of the European Union put together, does the hon. Lady agree that what we really want is for more countries to make the commitment to the Syrian refugees that the UK has made?
Alison McGovern
I am proud of the UK Government’s contribution, but I do not believe that it is my place as a British politician to judge others. Rather, I wish to encourage them to do all they can.
In conclusion, as we have seen today, we are not helpless in the face of this terror. We can step in and stand between refugees and destitution. I am glad that, by and large, this House has today agreed to do that.
Oral Answers to Questions
Alison McGovern Excerpts(10 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Alison McGovern (Wirral South) (Lab)
T2. I hesitate to make a party political point, but I must pick up the Secretary of State on what she has just said. There are real problems with arts funding outside London, as we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Helen Goodman). It is not the case that the previous Government did nothing. My own city, Liverpool, saw a renaissance in the cultural sector. Will the Government now play their part and commit to a report on proper cultural funding for cities that do not happen to be our capital?
Maria Miller
The hon. Lady is right to say that there is a problem. What I was saying is that we are trying to resolve a problem that we inherited. She will know that Liverpool receives £89 million a year, the highest funding outside London. I agree that we should try to make sure that the great regional culture that we have in this country receives the support it requires.
Oral Answers to Questions
Alison McGovern Excerpts(10 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Maria Miller
The hon. Lady is right to say that we want every corner of the country to have a strong tourism industry. That is why our “Holidays at Home are GREAT” campaign is the biggest ever domestic tourism campaign aimed at exactly what she is looking for, which is to boost tourism throughout the UK.
Alison McGovern (Wirral South) (Lab)
Few city regions have seen as much growth in the visitor economy as Merseyside over recent years. This has been underpinned by the work that the local authorities have done in the boroughs. What conversations has the Secretary of State had with Communities and Local Government Ministers about ensuring that the spending review does not put that investment at risk?
Family Migration Rules
Alison McGovern Excerpts(10 years, 10 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
The Minister for Immigration (Mr Mark Harper)
I am pleased to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Owen. I congratulate the hon. Member for Ealing, Southall (Mr Sharma) on securing this debate. Before responding to him, I want to respond to points made by other hon. Members.
The hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) took well over half the remaining time, so I will probably not be able to take many interventions, and I will struggle to cover some points. In response to the point that the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz) ably made, apart from the commitment by the Opposition to repeal our changes to the family visa appeal route, I struggled to hear any commitments from the Opposition on what they would do about our policies. That may be a disappointment to Opposition Members, but the Labour party does not seem to think that it will change any of the rules that we have laid out. That is the impression I got from the speech of the hon. Member for Rhondda, so I suspect that he will be popular with people wanting to bend his ear. Despite saying nothing about the Opposition’s policies, he took a long time in doing so.
I will say a few words about the intentions of our policy, and then try to pick up some of the points ably made by the wide range of hon. Members who spoke. A general point about the immigration system is that we are determined to take control of it and to restore public confidence. We have made considerable progress with the changes on numbers, reducing net migration by more than one third since the election. The issue is not just about numbers—my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon Central (Gavin Barwell) touched on this—but about preventing abuse and setting out sensible rules that people can follow. That was the context in which we implemented the reforms to change the rules for family migration for non-European economic area nationals seeking to enter or remain in the UK on the basis of their family life.
The rules have three aims. The first is to tackle abuse. The hon. Member for Ealing, Southall referred to the extension of the probationary period from two years to five years before partners can apply for settlement. That is to test whether the relationship is genuine and should help to deter applications based on sham marriages. That not only deals with abuse, but protects people who are often forced into sham marriages to provide a mechanism for someone to come to the United Kingdom. That is a welcome change.
Secondly, we want to ensure that family migrants are better integrated into British society, which is why, for example, from October 2013 they will have to pass the new “Life in the UK test” and demonstrate that they can speak English at intermediate level. Our view is that no one can properly integrate into British society without at least intermediate English language skills.
The third aim, which hon. Members largely focused on today, is to prevent a burden on taxpayers, which is why we have introduced the minimum income threshold of £18,600 for those wishing to sponsor the settlement of a partner.
Mr Harper
No, I will not give way because the hon. Lady has not been here for the whole debate and I want to deal with points raised by hon. Members who have been here, if she will forgive me.
The central point, which came into all the contributions, is that we welcome people who want to make their family life in the United Kingdom, but we expect them to pay for it and we do not expect taxpayers to pay for it. This may be one area where our welfare system interacts with the immigration system. The £18,600 figure is not arbitrary—I agree that the Migration Advisory Committee did some serious evidence-based work. It is broadly the figure at which a couple are no longer able to have income-related benefits. If the argument is that that figure is high and that many people in this country will not earn that much, we must remember that they may have a level of income at which they may receive income-related benefits. That is the challenge.
I would turn the question that some hon. Members have asked around. If someone is on a very low income and wants to bring a partner to the United Kingdom, they are really saying that they want the taxpayer to support them. Hard-working families around the country would ask why their hard-pressed taxes were being used to fund someone else’s family, because that is what they would be asked to do.
Hillsborough
Alison McGovern Excerpts(11 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Alison McGovern (Wirral South) (Lab)
Let me begin by thanking the Bishop of Liverpool and each member of the Hillsborough independent panel. Their diligence and clarity have made clear what was hidden and unjust. The report has made the shocking and the painful bearable, because although it is horrendous to read, we now have the truth. We are all so very grateful to the panel.
Just over a year ago, here in this House, the Hillsborough families and the campaign for justice made history. Having fought a 23-year campaign to see their loved ones exonerated, when it seemed that full disclosure by the Government might be at risk, they did not give up. With thousands and thousands of voices, they told us that this was the issue that must be heard.
The House has often been seen as an exclusive place. A sign in the Public Gallery has words saying, in effect, “No clapping. No making a scene”. People are supposed to watch in silence and show no emotion. As I know, if someone already feels like an outsider, this House can be a difficult place to come to. But when the Hillsborough families needed Parliament’s help to get full disclosure, they broke down barriers that had been in place for centuries which said that only the Government or Her Majesty’s Opposition could call a debate here. Theirs was the first public campaign with enough signatures to reach the threshold needed for a Backbench Business debate. Tens of thousands of people signed the e-petition, and just one year later we have the truly open and frank report that we asked for then. We have the truth.
I also pay tribute to all those journalists—print and broadcast—who undertook the serious responsibility of helping the public understand what is contained in the report. To those journalists—they know who they are—who saw the pain suffered by those who lost a loved one but could not grieve properly, and who listened to those who were in Sheffield on that day and never got over it, I say this, “Your words helped to tell that story. Over the past few weeks, your words have made the awful contents of the panel’s report understood. Your words made sure that those who had been ignored were finally heard, and for that I will never stop thanking you.”
Now that we have the truth, I am hopeful that we are turning towards justice. I associate myself with the remarks made by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Luciana Berger), and other hon. Members, on the process that we now want to see. Last week, the Attorney-General said that he is preparing his application to the High Court, and he stated:
“I want the application that is made to be as persuasive as it can be.”—[Official Report, 16 October 2012; Vol. 551, c. 9WS.]
I understand that he is now doing a significant amount of work to make that case, and I hope he will not mind me briefly drawing the attention of the House to two crucial points of evidence. The first concerns the 3.15 pm cut-off point in the inquest, and the second relates to prosecutions arising from the alteration of police statements.
Chapter 10 of the panel’s report covers the 3.15 pm cut-off point in great detail. In brief, the reason for that relates to information provided in chapter 5, which covers medical evidence. The coroner judged that all 96 people who died on 15 April 1989 died the same way, and stated that
“all who died had suffered fatal and irreversible injuries by that time.”
The report provides evidence that calls that claim into question, stating that
“some people who were partially asphyxiated survived, while others did not. It is highly likely that what happened to these individuals after 3.15 pm was significant in determining that outcome.”
That is a vital finding.
On altered statements, as the House heard on 8 May 1998, Lord Justice Stuart-Smith was aware of
“the fact that some of the original statements made by individual police officers had been edited by solicitors acting for South Yorkshire police.”—[Official Report, 8 May 1998; Vol. 311, c. 944.]
That leads to a question that the shadow Attorney-General, my hon. Friend the Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry), asked the Director of Public Prosecutions: faced with that information, why did the Crown Prosecution Service and the Director of Public Prosecutions act as they did?
Let me quote my hon. Friend the Member for Halton (Derek Twigg) from that debate in 1998:
“I condemn the decision of the Director of Public Prosecutions not to prosecute Duckenfield, the chief constable and others. I understand that the view of the DPP is that there is insufficient evidence. We do not know why that is the case because the DPP cannot publish the reason…That does not help me”.—[Official Report, 8 May 1998; Vol. 311, c. 963.]
All these years later, my hon. Friend must have his answer.
In addition to the key question of why we have not seen prosecutions earlier, and other vital points raised by colleagues, I want to alert the Government and the House to something that I take to be one of the most important lessons in this report. At the heart of the Hillsborough disaster were a couple of horrendous decisions taken by police officers in charge on the day. Against a background of disrespect for fans, and a cavalier attitude to safety, they made the wrong choices with horrific consequences. Despite the magnitude of the disaster, the response could have been very different. The agents of the state could have looked after the families and treated them with kindness—not blood alcohol tests and allegations, but proper respect for the deceased; not the so-termed “black propaganda unit”, but honesty and frankness; not the hesitation and, in the end, refusal to admit liability, but a proper, early apology.
It is clear from the report that people acting on behalf of the state responded to the primary horrific crisis by adding a second. Untold damage is done to the relationship between people and their Government when the actions of the state are, in effect, a second disaster. What was the impact of that secondary crisis? Unnecessary further distress felt by a great number of people over many years. There is also the unspoken impact on those who took their own lives following the disaster.
Mental illness can affect any of us and it should have no stigma attached to it. We must improve our care for people after extremely traumatic events, and we must not backslide on efforts to improve mental health care. I hope the Government will reflect on the lessons in the report, and look not only at what happened but at how our response to disasters can, and should, be better.
The state can at times be so concerned with its liabilities that it forgets about the relationship of trust and care that must exist between people and the Government. It forgets what power it has to condemn people to a life of disbelieving what they saw with their own eves, and feeling all the time like a perpetrator when in fact they were a victim. We know that there were people so wronged and so afflicted by distress that they were deeply affected. Added to the grief of losing 96 precious, special people, is the silent distress of those who blamed themselves.
I hope that all parts of Government and the state have changed. When a crisis occurs, the state should be there to protect the vulnerable and offer help in times of need. If there is no respect for the dignity of those affected or grieving, we risk a secondary crisis and, in the end, a collapse in trust. I say to all hon. Members that I hope we can shape our Government, our police forces and ourselves to be better than that now and in the future. Much has changed since 1989, but perhaps still not enough.
Let my closing words be about love. This issue is very difficult, and I have previously found it hard to get my words out, so I hope the House will forgive me if, in paying tribute to all those who have fought for justice, and to the families of the 96, I borrow the words of another McGovern. Jimmy McGovern, the talented playwright, spoke at the Hillsborough memorial service at Anfield in 2011. He told us what the campaign for justice had been all about. He told the families of the 96 what they had shown. Their campaign is, as he said,
“A wonderful demonstration of enduring love.”
Justice for the 96.
Hillsborough Disaster
Alison McGovern Excerpts(12 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Alison McGovern (Wirral South) (Lab)
Let me begin my contribution today by thanking all those Members of Parliament who supported the call for this debate. The Hillsborough disaster occurred when I was eight, but few other events have had such an impact on my life, or that of my community. It is a true honour to represent my home town, and I am thinking today especially of all those who have been affected. I pay tribute to those who have travelled here today to listen to us. My only hope is that we can do justice to their commitment, and live up to their example.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Steve Rotheram) on leading the debate today. On the 20th anniversary of Hillsborough, I sat with my family in the Lower Centenary stand at a packed Anfield, and I listened to him lead our mourning as the lord mayor of Liverpool. I was taken aback then at his bravery in describing the impact of Hillsborough on his life, and I was deeply proud of him, although I did not know him. Little did I know that, just over a year later, we would both join this place and become friends—and I am really glad we have.
I also place on record the thanks that many of my constituents have asked me to bring to my hon. Friend the Member for Garston and Halewood (Maria Eagle) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham). Their leadership in government led the way to the Hillsborough independent panel being brought into existence, and their support has meant a great deal. I thank the Home Secretary for her words today, which have demonstrated her encouragement of today’s motion and full transparency, which is what we want. I thank Members, particularly those from Sheffield, for their contributions today and for their solidarity.
The motion we are debating today is essentially about the truth. That is what we want. For all those affected by events on 15 April 1989, we want to get to the truth—the truth uncensored, the truth without redaction, the truth with no questions left to answer. I want to say on behalf of my constituents why the truth matters so very much. To answer that question, I need to go back to the day itself.
As I said earlier, I was an eight-year-old girl at the time. It was about then that I started to go to football matches and, like many young children, I learned about the wonder of football—the atmosphere, the beauty, the skill on display—and I learned to stay close to my family and not get lost. On the occasion of the FA cup semi-final at Sheffield Wednesday that April, I was at home. Luckily, I was sat in our front room in our house in Bromborough with my dad—and I can still see the look on his face now, because he knew what was happening. Football fans all over Britain knew. They were watching on TV, listening on radios from other football grounds. Thousands and thousands were gripped with horror as bodies were pulled out of the pens in the Leppings Lane end of the Hillsborough ground, and thousands prayed for the safety of those being carried across the pitch on cheap advertising hoardings for stretchers.
The awfulness of that day sunk in over the weeks and months afterwards. It was the worst possible shock. As Alan Hansen, on the pitch playing for Liverpool that day, has said of the disaster,
“the number of broken hearts is incalculable”.
Sadly, for many I have spoken to over the years, there has been a grim recognition of how this could have happened. In the 1980s, football fans were broadly deemed by some to be scum. The relationship between supporters and the police was frequently poisonous. There was a culture of disrespect for fans.
As the interim Taylor report itself pointed out:
“Over the last few years, hooliganism at and associated with football matches has strongly influenced the strategy of the police. In their plans and management they have concentrated on averting or containing threats to public order...it has led to an imbalance between the need to quell a minority of troublemakers and the need to secure the safety and comfort of the majority.”
Yet this was something new in the scale of the horror. In the weeks that followed, people poured into Anfield to show their respects, and everyone wanted answers. Everyone wanted to know how on earth this could have happened.
Well, from a practical perspective, we do know why 96 people died and hundreds and hundreds suffered. We know it because Members have said it, but I want to say it again for clarity. The interim report of the Taylor inquiry, immediately after the disaster, found that police error allowed too many fans into too small an area of the ground, and an absence of effective leadership exacerbated the suffering caused. Despite problems of ground safety, different decisions could have been taken on that day.
As my neighbour and right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr Field) commented, because of two terrible processes that happened straight away, both in the immediate aftermath and in the years that followed, we are still frozen in those early stages of grief in the awful horror of it all, unable to come to terms with it. That is why we need the truth now. The first awful process was the appearance of stories in newspapers which took the good names of fans who were at Hillsborough on that day and threw them in the mud. One newspaper in particular made untrue allegations of specific behaviour by fans that had simply never happened. Those newspapers took people who were suffering in a manner that few of us here can imagine, let alone have experienced, and ripped apart their dignity. Not only did those affected have to suffer physical and mental injury; they had to witness their honour being attacked as though they were the lowest of the low.
People may recall the pictures of newspapers being burnt in Liverpool at the time, but what they may not know is how those lies have echoed down through the years, and how they continue to be spread. I moved to London in 1999, fully 10 years after the disaster, and I was shocked then by how many people still believed the lies told about Hillsborough. They did not believe those lies out of malice, but because no one had ever corrected them before. On many occasions I have had to explain what actually happened at Hillsborough, why the calls for justice still ring out, and why people will not “just let go”. Even today, we still see horrible claims repeated online, on websites. Those awful lies, which have been corrected any number of times, are still perpetuated. Often the people whom we correct are quite shocked, having simply assumed that football supporters were to blame.
I join those who support Sir Alex Ferguson’s call for the Hillsborough chants to end, which was highlighted by the hon. Member for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey). It is hugely important, and has emphasised the fact that the lies told about Hillsborough still have traction. However, given that not one person has ever paid a significant price for their dereliction of duty on that day—only the fans and the victims have paid that price —why would people think that anyone else was to blame?
That brings me to the second awful process that has brought us here today. Our justice system did not deliver, and has not been seen to provide a just account, for the families of those who died at or because of the disaster. No prosecutions have been brought against those who were responsible, despite the conclusions of the Taylor inquiry. The inquest process was flawed by the provision of insubstantial representation for families, and by a large number of other factors that undermine the authority of the verdict. Most seriously, as others have said, no evidence was considered about events after 3.15 pm on the day, so the actions of the police in the rescue operation, and numerous other crucial details that should have featured in a proper account, were not examined. The scrutiny of the evidence which took place in 1998 was likewise flawed, and private prosecutions did not provide conclusive verdicts.
The truth about Hillsborough has never been fully acknowledged. The truth about the causes of those deaths has not been put fully on the record in the way for which our legal system should allow. That is why, for 22 years, we have stood at Anfield and shouted for justice. It is why this campaign is supported by football fans from all teams, from all parts of Britain—as has been clear from what Members have said today—and indeed across the world. It is why I am trying to explain today why the full truth is so important to so many.
One of the most moving sights at the memorial service is the people who come wearing the colours of teams from far and wide to show their support. In every year that has gone by, our voices calling for justice have become louder. Each year, the numbers attending Anfield on the anniversary are larger. If there is anyone left in the country who thinks that the campaign for justice will just fade away over time, let me tell them that they are very wrong.
In my constituency, Unilever installed a permanent memorial to all victims of the disaster. It sits in a beautiful and peaceful part of Port Sunlight Village, providing another space for reflection and a marker of the indelible effects of 15 April 1989 on our community. The strength of our community, and our commitment to justice, will not fade.
The motion calls for full access to Government papers, unredacted and uncensored. Release of the Cabinet papers—which, thankfully, we have heard the Government support today—is an important step on the road towards a full account, bearing witness to a heartbreaking disaster. No evidence should be kept hidden, even that from the highest levels of Government. What we have asked for today—and, thankfully, succeeded in gaining—is the support of parliamentarians for a full and unrestricted account. Parliament should back this motion because general Government policy has already been changed in that Cabinet papers are kept private for 20, rather than 30, years. We have already waited 22 years for the truth about Hillsborough, and we cannot wait any longer. This is a straightforward matter of letting those affected know precisely what happened—of telling in respect of every locus where decisions were taken, what happened and why. Only then, when we know the truth, can we have justice, and can we hold up an account and say, “This is the truth. This is how our loved ones died. May such a thing never happen again. Their memory will never leave our hearts.”
Police Forces
Alison McGovern Excerpts(12 years, 10 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Mr Burley
I will give way in a moment. Do people think that police forces cannot work more efficiently and be less bureaucratic, that we cannot get rid of some form filling and red tape, and that there cannot be greater efficiencies in procurement and when buying IT systems? I suggest to hon. Members that a lot of efficiencies can be made.
Damian Green
We are in the process of swapping bureaucratic control for democratic accountability by replacing police authorities with directly elected police and crime commissioners. Despite the recent vote in the House of Lords, which the hon. Gentleman refers to, the Government anticipate that police and crime commissioners will be introduced across the whole of England and Wales, with the first elections taking place in May next year. The coalition agreement made that clear. We fully intend to go ahead with the proposals, and we expect the Commons to reinstate the policy.
As I said, the second element in our reform programme is increasing transparency and creating engaged and active communities. That will help communities, which is important, but it will also help police engagement with communities.
The third element of our reform programme is introducing local professional discretion to help to increase efficiency and value for money. That is directly relevant to the many points made about morale. As we all know, there has been too much unnecessary paperwork over recent years.
Damian Green
I am sorry, but I really have not got time.
That has happened as a result of central Government adding layers of bureaucracy to make up for the lack of local accountability. The Government have taken the lead in cutting interference from the centre in police business. We want to respect the police’s operational independence and to give them the space they need to deal with any problems. That is why we published a draft protocol setting out the roles and responsibilities of police and crime commissioners, chief constables, police and crime panels and the Home Secretary. The protocol was drawn up in discussion with, and has the full agreement of, ACPO, including Sir Huge Orde, the Association of Police Authorities and the Association of Police Authority Chief Executives. It builds on recommendations from the Home Affairs Committee.
On top of that, we have axed many of the unnecessary bits of paperwork that had built up over the years. The policing pledge, public service agreement targets, performance indicators and local area agreements have all been scrapped. In their place has been put the one simple objective of cutting crime. The hon. Member for Gedling asked what we had done, and those measures are a significant answer.
We will continue to make decisions that improve the performance of the police and their relationship with the general public. Let me deal with that in detail. Mention was made of funding in Metropolitan police areas. The Metropolitan Police Service receives specific funding for its role of policing the capital. That funding comes in the form of national, international and capital city grant and totals £200 million this year. As with any force, we will consider requests for additional support where the costs involved in any single operation are significant and place an unmanageable burden on the Metropolitan police.
Inevitably, we have discussed the Winsor review extensively. The Government have been clear that action is needed to tackle the deficit, and the police service has its part to play. In an organisation such as the police, where pay is 80% of revenue expenditure, there is no question but that pay restraint and pay reform must form part of the package. Police officers should be rewarded fairly and reasonably for what they do. That is why the Home Secretary asked Tom Winsor to undertake his review. The review is not only about savings, but about making reforms to enable the introduction of modern management practices and to maximise officer and staff deployment to front-line roles, maintaining and improving the service to the public. The principles Tom Winsor sets out in his report provide the right framework, and we have referred his recommendations for short-term change to the relevant bodies for consideration.