Scotland: Demography and Devolution

David Anderson Excerpts

Thursday 9th March 2017 Westminster Hall

[Pete Wishart]

I am grateful to the Minister. I suggest that although that argument is always convenient, the evidence for it is flimsy, verging on non-existent. Nobody has presented us with anything to support that view.

Yes, income tax is a feature and a factor when it comes to the suite of taxation that people have to pay, but it is just one part of it. England, for example, has higher rates of council tax and higher house prices. We have free education for our young people and free prescriptions. Taxation comes in many forms. The ludicrous suggestion that Scotland is uniquely the highest-taxed part of the United Kingdom does not bear any scrutiny at all. To suggest that it disincentivises people from coming to Scotland is beyond absurd and almost ridiculous. What changes people’s decision whether to come to a nation is powers over immigration and the ability to incentivise people to come through means such as a post-study work scheme, available jobs and a growing economy, and a growing economy needs a healthy working-age population. Those are the very factors we have considered and tried to address in our report.

Emigration from Scotland is an issue. Scotland is still an emigrant country; it is a feature that has characterised our nation throughout the centuries, and we are still losing far too many young people rather than retaining them. The Scottish Government have put in place a number of measures to hold on to young people in Scotland, and we wish them well in those endeavours, but as long as we remain a dependent nation within the United Kingdom, there will always be other attractions, particularly in huge centres such as London. We cannot build that capacity to retain people in our capital and other cities, so for as long as we remain a dependent nation, it will probably always be likely that our young people will be attracted to the bright lights of London. For example, when my son finished at Glasgow University, he came down here to look for work opportunities that he could not find in Scotland, because we have not been able to put in the resources there to develop our economy and give our young people those chances. As long as we remain part of the United Kingdom, I believe that we will always have difficulties.

[Mr David Anderson (Blaydon) (Lab)]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his Committee’s important report. He knows as well as I do that one of the reasons we are having this debate is the UK Government’s paranoia about getting immigration numbers down to below 100,000. Have he and his Committee given any consideration to addressing some of the concerns that I have heard, particularly in the Irish situation, that if we allow Scotland to have its own immigration policy and bring in as many people as possible, we will not be able to prevent those people from going to Scotland for a fortnight and then coming down to England and completely upsetting the balance that people want to see? I think that is nonsense, but it is one of the reasons behind the Government’s refusal to let Scotland handle immigration. We have to work together to find an answer to that, because it is one of the reasons that the Government will use to prevent Scotland from addressing its genuine needs and achieving what the hon. Gentleman and I want to see happening in Scotland.

--- Later in debate ---

[Margaret Ferrier]

I completely concur—I will come on to that point later in my speech. Population growth is a vital contributor to a more dynamic society, and it is crucial if we are to ensure our economy is fit for the challenges of the future. With an ageing population, Scotland will undergo a significant demographic shift in the coming decades, which will present us with challenges that we must be prepared for.

The Scottish Government want to address Scotland’s changing demography through population growth, which will provide a larger tax base to pay for services, as well as ensure that we have more people to carry out essential jobs. Immigration policy obviously plays a huge part in that. As we have heard again and again today, EU and international citizens play a crucial role in making Scotland’s economy successful. They and the contribution they make to our society are valued. It is utterly shameful that the UK Government have failed to guarantee the rights of EU citizens to remain in the UK almost a year on from the Brexit referendum.

It cannot be repeated often enough how much we respect those who have chosen to live and work in Scotland. In the words of our First Minister:

“You’re not bargaining chips, you are human beings with families, jobs, friends and lives here. I believe you have a right to certainty and peace of mind.”

We have heard it already today, but let us just stop this nonsense about speaking up for people who live abroad. Let us take the first step today and tell EU nationals who are living here that they are valued and that they can stay; then we can move on, because it is just going to be repeated again and again. We need action from the Government now before the issue causes any more distress to families and damage to Scotland and across the UK. One thing is abundantly clear: UK immigration policy is at odds with the values of the Scottish people. It does not meet our needs and the UK Government need to listen to those legitimate concerns.

The Government’s response to the report is disappointing in many ways. The report clearly sets out that, based on the evidence we received, there is a case for further consideration of sub-national migration powers for Scotland. The report calls for closer co-operation between the UK and Scottish Government on that. Simply put, the UK Government must deliver an immigration system that meets Scotland’s needs and they should allow Holyrood to have more say. By insisting that the immigration system is designed for the whole of the UK, the Government fail to take into account that Scotland’s demographic needs are different from those of other parts of the UK.

The UK Government remain absolutely committed to reducing migration to the UK to tens of thousands, as we heard from the hon. Member for Blaydon (Mr Anderson). Growth in our population is crucial to the growth of our economy. Scotland’s people, including those who have chosen to live and work there, are key to our future prosperity and a strong economy.

[Mr Anderson]

The hon. Lady is making a very powerful speech, as always, but she is being too kind to the Government when she says that the UK immigration system is designed to do that. The Government’s UK immigration policy is for one thing and one thing only: to try and knock back UKIP from their right-wing backwoodsmen in their heartlands. That is what it is about and nothing more.

[Margaret Ferrier]

The hon. Gentleman has made his point and I do not need to reply; I am sure the Minister will have taken that point on board.

I appreciate that in his response the Minister will probably wish to highlight the fact that immigration policy is not some population panacea. That is very true. In order to grow the population, the Scottish Government are working on a combination of measures, including creating a fair and inclusive jobs market that attracts the type of skilled individuals we need, investing to create a supportive business environment that attracts inward investment, improving the education, skills and health of Scotland’s population, and creating a fairer, more equal society through the delivery of key public services. The UK Government must acknowledge why immigration is essential in that mix as a key driver of population growth. As we have heard, the population of Scotland is projected to increase by 7% between 2014 and 2039, and 90% of the increase over the next 10 years is projected to come from migration. However, projections for the UK as a whole show 49% due to migration. Scotland is different, and one immigration policy for the whole of the UK is simply not workable.

The damage caused by a single UK-wide policy can perhaps be seen in the withdrawal of the post-study work visa. Initially a pilot scheme that worked for Scotland, which was then rolled out across the UK, it was removed due to concerns it was not working for the rest of Britain. In our report, the Scottish Affairs Committee restated our call for the UK Government to work constructively with the Scottish Government to explore the possibility of introducing a formal scheme to allow international higher education students graduating from Scottish further and higher education institutions to remain in Scotland and contribute to economic activity for a defined period of time, as set out in the Smith Commission report. It is hugely disappointing that the Government do not intend to reintroduce a general post-study work scheme for Scotland, despite calls from across the political spectrum, our universities and civic society in Scotland.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr David Anderson (Blaydon) (Lab)]

I thank the Scottish Affairs Committee for doing such a thorough job. It did the job that we expect Select Committees to do, and it did so very well. I thank everyone who contributed to the debate for bringing to this place the voice of what is happening on the ground. The hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Brendan O’Hara) talked about the real-life stories of human beings and the effect that policies will have on their lives. It is sad that the Government’s response is so dull and negative, but it is hardly unexpected because, as I have already said, the one thing driving their approach to immigration is their desire to get the numbers down below an imaginary figure of 100,000 a year. They have failed miserably to do so, but they are continuing to plough that furrow.

We have to accept the reality that the different nations, regions, countries and cities of the United Kingdom have different immigration needs. The needs of the north of Scotland are different from those of the central belt. I recently visited the north of Scotland, and I was told about the example of Walkers Shortbread. It has a factory in Moray, where there is essentially no unemployment. As a result, it buses two full coaches of EU nationals from Inverness to work in its factory every day. If those workers were not available, that factory could close. Can we imagine Scotland without Walkers Shortbread?

This is not just about places like that. Last autumn, we were told that there was a 14% reduction in the number of EU immigrants available to work in East Anglia, because they are worried about what will happen post-Brexit. If that carries on, we could see crops rot in the fields of East Anglia because of a lack of an available workforce. The Government have to look again at that.

As hon. Members have said clearly, the Government also have to look at the post-study work scheme. Sir Timothy O’Shea, the principal and vice-chancellor of the University of Edinburgh, said in evidence to the Committee that his concern is that a world-class university such as Edinburgh may no longer be able to compete with the best in the world. That is a frightening scenario. We also heard from other hon. Members about the impact on other universities in Scotland and the fact that they have lost millions of pounds as a result of the scheme’s closure. Let us be realistic about the different needs that exist and address them as adults, and not be driven by the fear of hard right-wing ideologues.

[Deidre Brock]

I expect the hon. Gentleman will not be surprised to hear that Universities Scotland considers the UK to have one of the least competitive post-study work policies in the English-speaking developed world.

[Mr Anderson]

I am not surprised at all. As I said, our immigration policy, if it can be called a policy, is being driven by people who make you wonder if they went to school, let alone university—it is so ludicrously inadequate.

This time last year, we were being driven into a referendum by the ludicrous nonsense that if we did not pull up the Brexit drawbridge, 76 million Turks would flood into this country. That was how ridiculous the debate got in this country—the Conservative party is working within those terms. We need realism, pragmatism and good old-fashioned common sense to put in place an immigration system that benefits everyone’s economic and social wellbeing, not the narrow-minded view that all that matters is getting immigration numbers down to tens of thousands, no matter what harm is done to the economy, our public services and the great people who have made their homes in this nation. I suggest humbly to the Minister that working with the Committee in an open and positive manner would be a great way to start.

There is one benefit to leaving the EU: we now have a chance to shape our immigration policy ourselves for the future. We can link it to an industrial strategy, with proper training and apprenticeship schemes, but that will be much harder to do if we carry on with the lunacy that the Conservative party is putting forward. It will not give guarantees to the millions of EU nationals living in the UK and Scotland. We need to understand the vital role they play in Scottish society. Some 80% of EU nationals in Scotland are of working age, compared with 65% of the overall population, and 20,000 EU nationals work in accommodation and food services. We were told last week in the Chamber that that is the fastest-growing industry in Scotland. The health and social work sector employs 12,000 EU nationals, and a fifth of EU nationals working in Scotland are managers, directors, senior officials or in other professional occupations. We can ill afford to lose those people, so it is time to stop playing political football with them. It is wrong to do so.

The Minister intervened on the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute and asked him whether he is prepared to give a unilateral guarantee to EU nationals here if the British people living in Europe are not allowed to stay. I want to put it the other way round. What is the Government’s policy? If the EU says to us when we reach the end of the negotiations, “We are not prepared to give UK nationals living in Europe the right to stay,” what are they going to say to the EU nationals in this country? They have a right to know that. If the Government were to say, “We might throw you out,” or even, “We will throw you out”, although I do not want to hear that and nor does anybody else in this Chamber, at least that would be fair to those people and would enable them to plan their lives. But if they say, “If they call our bluff, we will throw you out anyway,” it is not a bluff worth having. The Government need to come clean.

Beyond all that, this is a moral issue. It is about human beings, and it is completely and utterly wrong that they are being used as bargaining chips. People have come here and contributed to society, and they deserve the decency and respect that they have earned. We should be good to them, and we should tell them now, “Yes, you are stopping here, in the same way as everyone else is.”

A smaller but equally important part of the debate, which the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) touched on, is life expectancy. He went through the stats. It is worrying that Scottish male life expectancy is lower than that of people in England. It is even worse when compared with the UK average. That is something that none of us can be proud of, and we have to work at it together. It is even worse when we dig down into the figures. It is bad enough that life expectancy is lower, but those living in deprived communities are 40% more likely to die from a stroke than those living in the least deprived areas. Amazingly, people living in the most deprived areas are 98% more likely to die from cancer than those living in the least deprived areas. I am not saying that to point out that it is bleak, but it is a moral issue for all of us to tackle. We need to get to the bottom of it collectively and do all we can to right that wrong.

The report suggests that the Government should work with the Scottish Government to ensure that we use the new welfare powers that have been given to the Scottish Government in an innovative way. I am glad those powers have gone to Scotland, and I would like to see them used to relieve the pressure on the people of Scotland. There is a continual attack not only on those at the vulnerable end but on those right across society who are affected by the benefit changes. I hope that the Scottish Parliament will take new powers and use the ones it already has in a way that achieves that. I hope that the Scottish Government will do exactly what is indicated in the concluding sentence of the Government response to the report, so that we can “look forward” to the use of “substantial new powers” for the benefit of all in Scotland, but in particular those most in need.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Goodwill]

With respect to the hon. Lady, it was not the UK Government that showed reticence; the other EU member states refused to engage in purposeful and fruitful negotiation ahead of the triggering of article 50. We were keen to get that item resolved as soon as possible. For probably the only time, on that point I will have to agree with the right hon. Member for Gordon (Alex Salmond) and take a leaf out of his book, because last week he confirmed that he did not think EU nationals’ status in the UK would be jeopardised.

I will now make one or two remarks in response to points made in the debate, but I will leave enough time for the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire, who initiated the debate, to make some comments at the end. The hon. Member for Dundee West talked about the permanent residency form. The form covers several different scenarios, not all of which will be relevant to a particular applicant. The average applicant does not need to complete anywhere near 85 pages—about 25 pages is the average. There is a new online application process, which is straightforward for applicants to use and means that they can complete the form in about 15 or 20 minutes. Indeed, the online form leapfrogs ahead if sections of it are irrelevant. We have introduced a system so that documents such as passports can be validated by local councils rather than having to be sent off as part of that process.

The hon. Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Margaret Ferrier) made a point about student numbers. I make it clear that we remain committed to attracting the brightest and best graduates to the UK. They help make our education system one of the best of the world and return to use that education for the benefit of their own country. I repeat that there is no limit on the number of international students who can come to the UK.

The hon. Member for Blaydon (Mr Anderson) referred to some of the points made during the referendum campaign. Indeed, I think he almost abused the intelligence of those who voted to leave the European Union. I respectfully point out that in the Gateshead borough, 58,529 people voted to leave the European Union and 44,492 voted to remain. In his area a clear majority of people wanted to leave the European Union. I for one—despite having been on the remain side—am pleased to follow the instructions given to me by the British people.

[Mr Anderson]

I am aware of the figures. Like the Minister, I was on the remain side. I was disappointed by the figures, but I am aware of the reality and I am working to make the best job of this. The problem with what the Government are doing is that the narrow aim of getting immigration down to 100,000 a year or less is the only thing driving their immigration policy, not the impact on the economy, on social services or on real people’s lives. That is what is insulting our intelligence, and the intelligence of the Scottish people.

[Mr Goodwill]

Immigration was a key part of the referendum debate. Where we can control numbers—those coming to the UK from outside the European Union—we have seen falls. The Brexit negotiations give us an opportunity to control the numbers that come in in a way we have not been able to before. However, we will be committed to the needs of the UK economy and ensuring that we get the best possible deal.

A number of colleagues talked about the post-study visa scheme—indeed, the hon. Gentleman mentioned it. We remain committed to attracting the brightest and best graduates to the UK. However, the post-study provisions we have in place must strike a careful balance between providing competitive options for the brightest graduates from around the globe and maintaining standards against the type of widespread abuse that was seen in the previous Government’s post-study work scheme. Such abuse undermined our work routes and damaged the reputation of our education system. The Government welcome international students who choose to study in Scotland and are pleased to note that visa applications from international students to study at Scottish universities have increased by 10% since 2010. The most recent figures, for the year ending June 2016, showed a continued year-on-year increase. With our current post-study provisions, the number of international students switching from tier 4 to tier 2 has increased. In 2015, about 6,000 international students switched from tier 4 to tier 2 from within the UK, up from about 5,500 grants in 2014 and about 4,000 in 2013. Unlike those on the former post-study work schemes, those students will all move into skilled employment with employers, who have appropriate sponsorship duties placed on them.

I will conclude to leave a few moments for the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire. As the Government continue to develop their negotiating strategy for leaving the EU, we will work closely with the Scottish Government and other devolved Administrations to get the best possible deal for all parts of the United Kingdom. We are considering the options for our future immigration system carefully. As part of that, it is important that we understand the impacts of different options on different sectors of the economy and the labour market around the UK.

Access to the UK’s single market presents tremendous social and economic opportunities for people and businesses in Scotland. The people of Scotland understood that when they were asked to vote in their own referendum. As I said earlier, I want Scotland to continue to be a prosperous nation, but I see Scotland’s future sustainability coming as part of the United Kingdom. I am grateful to the Scottish Affairs Committee for its work on this issue, and we will work closely with the Scottish Government as we move forward.

Post-study Work Schemes

David Anderson Excerpts

Thursday 8th December 2016 Westminster Hall

[Mr David Anderson (Blaydon) (Lab)]

It is a great pleasure to appear under your chairmanship today, Mr Rosindell. I welcome the report, and not just because I was part of the Committee that drew it together back in February. I am a huge supporter of the Select Committee system. It does the House credit because, by and large, the people who serve on Select Committees park their partisanship to try to do a piece of work for the benefit of the people they are doing it for.

An exceptional thing that the Scottish Affairs Committee does is take the Committee out to the people. It goes around the country and not only takes advice from experts during sittings, but invites the public to come to play their part in discussions. Before, during and after the formal part of discussions, it engages with people who have an interest, which gives a much broader view that shapes the Committee’s reports. Our discussion today reflects both that and how seriously people take this issue in Scotland.

What is the situation in Scotland? It is a nation that needs to stem population drift. I welcome the news from the Chair of the Committee that that is being reversed to some extent—I had not picked up on that, but it really is good news. It is a nation that welcomes students and workers from across the world and that has an education system that is second to none. It is a nation that has always welcomed strangers warmly, a nation that has a cultural history without compare, a nation that offers a lifestyle and standard of living as good as anywhere on this planet, a nation that wants and needs to build up its ranks of workers, researchers, scientists and everyone else capable of driving this great country forward. Where I come from, we call that a win-win situation for all concerned.

What do we have against us? We have a Government in Westminster who act as if Scotland is some sort of colony, still under the rule of empire; a Government who are driven by fear of their own rabid Back Benchers and the xenophobes hounding them across the country; a Government who sign up to a ridiculous populist commitment to reduce immigration to below 100,000—they have to accept that they have failed repeatedly to reach their own targets—a Government who are ignoring the needs of the nation as a whole to bolster their own political status in this House.

That is all shown not only by this debate, but, for example, by the desperate plea made last week by fruit growers in the east of England. This year they have seen a 14% drop in the number of applicants to come for the fruit-picking season from eastern Europe. The fear is that it will only get worse and could lead to the ridiculous situation of produce being left to rot in the fields of England and the whole country, all because of the attitude the Government have taken towards immigration.

Everything is a direct result of that policy, with the blurring of lines between asylum seekers, refugees and economic migrants in the mind of far too many in this country, and we in this House have allowed that to happen—all those people being lumped together into one group is a negative for this country. Anything that can be done to drive down the immigration numbers to reach the Government’s ridiculous targets is being done by our civil servants on behalf of the Government.

The Government are paralysed by the policy, and sensible discussions or suggestions such as that of my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray) and the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East (Stuart C. McDonald)—that students are taken out of the immigration numbers—the Government dare not do. They dare not be seen as backsliding, because they know they will be attacked by people from the far right. Instead of having the bottle to stand up and take them on, saying, “It’s the right thing to do because it’s what the people of this country need,” the Government are far too worried about the electoral consequences.

Everyone in this House will have seen immigration cases in their own case loads in recent months and years, with people saying that they, their family or dependants are not being allowed access to this country, whereas in the past they would have been allowed in on exactly the same applications. More and more obstacles are being put in the way of people simply as a mechanism to get the numbers down to a ridiculous target. If the Government were really serious about controlling immigration, they would start by putting real pressure on exploitative employers.

[Pete Wishart]

The hon. Gentleman was a very valued member of the Scottish Affairs Committee. I must say, on behalf of the Committee, that we miss him and we are very grateful for his remarks today. Does he share my concern with where we are going with all this? Currently, EU students can come to UK and Scottish universities uninhibited by any immigration rules. Maybe we will hear from the Minister himself, but does the hon. Gentleman share my fear that EU students might be treated similarly to non-EU international students? Will they also be expected to fall into all these immigration tests?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Anderson]

I thank the Chair of the Committee for his kind words. He is absolutely right. It is clear that the tone that is now set in this country is one of saying, “We don’t want strangers anymore.” We are not welcoming and that is abhorrent for people. I know that the Scottish people, people from my part of the country, and certainly people from where the Minister is from are not like that. We are warm, welcoming people. Virtually all of us who live on this island, somewhere down the line, are immigrants to this place. Hardly any of us can go back and say, “I’ve been here since the stone age,” and that has created a country and a nation that is at ease with itself, and that has welcomed and led the world in so many ways, but we are becoming narrow-minded and not the sort of people we want to be. I accept that people from around Europe will look at us and say, “Why would I go there? I should go somewhere else where I’ll be made to feel welcome.” It is a real worry.

Getting back to where I was, if the Government are really serious, they would be putting the pressure where it belongs and disincentivising exploitative employers who are abusing workers they bring to this country; properly policing the implementation of the national minimum wage; and ensuring that health and safety legislation was properly and fully adhered to on behalf of the immigrant workforce. If they were really serious, they would prevent immigrant workers being forced to live in conditions that would have shamed the hostels used in the apartheid days in South Africa, and stop employers using bonds to tie unhappy workers into contracts that are not worth the paper that, quite often, they are not even written on. Disincentivising exploitative employers would do more to reduce immigration numbers in this nation than any of the ridiculous schemes being promised so far that are so clearly failing.

The report should be a wake-up call for the Government. They should drop this sham of a policy and look instead at the real needs of the nation, at what has been said and at what this is about—the future of the country and the future of Scotland, which needs people to come in for the betterment of us all. Failure to do so is a detriment to us all. This report was done in good faith and it expresses the real needs of Scotland. It deserves a much better response than it has had so far.

Football Fan Violence: Euro 2016

David Anderson Excerpts

Tuesday 14th June 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

The hon. Gentleman raises a number of concerns relating to the tournament in Russia. As I said earlier, the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport has been in touch with the sport Ministers in Russia. I think that our immediate focus must be on the tournament in France, but I am sure that when that tournament is over, people looking ahead to the tournament in Russia will want to raise many issues, some of which will be for Governments and others for the football authorities.

[Mr David Anderson (Blaydon) (Lab)]

Before our friends from Scotland get too carried away, may I gently remind them that there was a riot at the end of the Scottish football final on 21 May?

I want to make a serious point about how we can prevent racism and do the necessary work on the ground. For the past two decades, groups such as Show Racism the Red Card have played a tremendous part in that anti-racist work, going into schools and encouraging young people to get involved in it. Sadly, however, as a result of Government decisions, funding for such groups has been cut both by local authorities and the Department for Communities and Local Government. May I encourage the Home Secretary and other Ministers who are here today to consider restoring that support? Getting to our children first is what will end this curse.

[Mrs May]

The hon. Gentleman makes an important point about the significant work that has been done over the years to stop racism in football. Sadly, the job is not complete; the work must continue, and the Government and football authorities take that seriously. However, the issue is wider than racism. Before the Olympics I was involved in discussions with a number of sports authorities, including the Football Association, about homophobia at sporting events. We should all take those issues seriously and work at every level to try to cut all that out.

Hillsborough

David Anderson Excerpts

Wednesday 27th April 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to refer to what was done and how the families were treated. How appalling it must have been to learn that one of your loved ones had died in these appalling circumstances and to be unable to touch them, and then not to know the proper details of when and how they died—the cause of death. People have had to live with that for far too long. I hope that these sorts of issues coming out of the families’ experiences will be brought to light by the work that I have asked Bishop James Jones to do.

[Mr David Anderson (Blaydon) (Lab)]

I thank the Home Secretary for the work she has done, but I wish to raise with her a point I raised in 2012 when she made the same statement: that the rest of the country fell for this story. The rest of the country did not fall for this story. Those of us who went to football matches expected to be treated like second-class citizens and expected the police to get their retaliation in first, even when people had done nothing wrong.

I also want to pick up on the point raised by my right hon. Friend the shadow Home Secretary about Orgreave, as I was there in June 1984. Seven years after that, South Yorkshire police paid £425,000 in compensation to silence 39 miners who were suing them for assault, yet not one of those police officers was even disciplined for what they had done. The police used public money to bury bad news on that day.

I come back to where we are now. The hon. Member for Leeds North West (Greg Mulholland) made the point that so desperate were the police to cover up that they actually tested young children who were dead, and that shows how seriously they took this. But the real responsibility for what happened from then onwards cannot just be left at the doors of South Yorkshire police. I ask the Home Secretary to do what the Prime Minister did not do today in response to a question from the leader of my party and say what specific action will be taken to expose everybody—at every level in this country, elected official and appointed official, of previous Conservative Governments and of my party’s Governments—who played any role in this cover-up, either by omission or commission.

Those individuals are as guilty of making the people suffer for 27 years; many people went to their graves vilified when they would have been vindicated had this been sorted out at least a quarter of a century ago. We need to know that this will not just be laid at the door—rightly—of Duckenfield; other people must be called to account. Even if they did not commit criminal acts, they have done things that delayed the course of justice and they should be called to account for that.

[Mrs May]

Importantly, the independent panel’s report showed the truth of what had happened on that occasion. That work required a number of organisations that had previously been silent about what had happened to be prepared to come forward to give their evidence to the panel.

On the criminal investigations and the potential criminal prosecutions, obviously I have answered that point. I say to the hon. Gentleman that there has been a collective recognition across this House today, from all parts of it, that there were verdicts on what happened on that day in 1989 but that subsequently the procedures and processes that should have sought out and found the truth failed. We have to ask ourselves how that happened and what we can do to make sure it does not happen again.

Hillsborough

David Anderson Excerpts

Monday 22nd October 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

The hon. Gentleman is right, but I think that the issue goes wider than that. Going back to the remarks that the Prime Minister made in his statement, the problem for the families was that a sort of collective view came to be held across the country—that the fans had been responsible. We can discuss how that came about—it is quite clear in the report how it was fuelled by certain newspaper reports—but everybody came to accept that view and not to question it. It is to the great honour of the hon. Gentleman and a number of other Opposition Members, and to the families themselves, that they held fast to their belief through those 23 years. I hope that they can now take some comfort in the fact that the truth is out there. That double injustice has come to the surface and people have recognised it.

[Mr David Anderson (Blaydon) (Lab)]

The Home Secretary said that it became the collective view of everybody across the country that this was the fans’ fault, but let me be clear that that is completely and utterly incorrect. Many people across the country were very clear that it was not the fans’ fault, and very few people from my background were surprised to find that the former Prime Minister, the police and certain newspapers were in cahoots.

[Mrs May]

I recognise that there will have been individuals, perhaps in certain parts of the country, who took a different view. What happened was that, collectively or as a whole, nothing was done, and nobody responded to that view. This happened, I think, because there was an acceptance of the story that had been put about. As I said, that was the second injustice to the families that the Prime Minister mentioned. They had to suffer not only not seeing brought to light what they believed was the truth about what had happened to their loved ones and friends, but the injustice of being told that it was those individuals’ own fault. That is absolutely shameful.

--- Later in debate ---

[Yvette Cooper]

I agree with my right hon. Friend about the importance of co-ordination and the value of having a special prosecutor in these circumstances. It might be helpful if Ministers said a bit more about whether there is any concern about how long it will take for the DPP to decide whether further criminal prosecutions will be pursued given that a special prosecutor and a special investigative team may not be established until after that decision has been taken. In other words, what resources does the DPP need in the meantime in order to take the decision about criminal prosecutions? The IPCC is beginning investigations now, and there is a question about how long these will take to get going.

[Mr Anderson]

In many years of representing people, particularly in the public services, in some very serious internal disciplinary procedures, it was always the norm that when someone was accused of potential serious misconduct they were suspended. Has anyone been suspended from the police service? If not, who has the power to do that if it is seen to be the right thing to do?

[Yvette Cooper]

There are legal processes in place that allow police authorities to take decisions about the suspensions of police officers. As my hon. Friend will recognise, in taking these decisions it is clearly important that legal processes are followed. In the past, there have been suspensions in a series of such cases.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alec Shelbrooke]

I would hope not. My point is that if he suspended himself and removed himself from any investigation, the public could have faith in any report that is produced. I did not level the new charge—that he tried to interfere with West Yorkshire policy authority—against him; it was the IPCC that levelled that charge. After 23 years, the public must have faith in any report that is brought out.

[Mr Anderson]

Is it not a fact that in the vast majority of employment cases, where an issue is raised or accusations are made against a worker—and this man is a worker—that worker would almost certainly be suspended, regardless of what they had to say about the allegations? If the allegations were made, they would be suspended, particularly in order to prevent any interference with any records or paperwork. That would happen to virtually anybody in this country, so why should it not happen to this man?

[Alec Shelbrooke]

I am most grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s intervention. He will have heard me intervene on the shadow Home Secretary earlier. Her answer made it very clear that she and the Home Secretary did not have the ability to be involved, which is why I said that if there is a mechanism whereby the person in question can offer himself for suspension, that is what should happen. I want to make it absolutely clear that I am not casting judgment on him; what I am saying is that this House, the public, the victims and their families need to know that when this process is finished, no more questions will be left unanswered. There should be no more theories about whether someone influenced a report; only then can peace be brought to those families. They must know that the full truth is out there; those found to be responsible must face up to the consequences; and we must close this dreadful, shameful chapter in our country’s history.

Finally, I want to make a point about what my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Jackie Doyle-Price) said. I simply cannot understand how such an experienced politician as the then Member of Parliament for Sheffield, Hallam was able to go to journalists and report as fact rumours about which he had been told. I am thinking particularly of what appears on page 351 of the report, to which my hon. Friend referred:

“‘Some of the supporters were pissed out of their minds. They were pissing on us while we were pulling the dead and injured out…they were swearing at us kicking and punching us and hampering our work’. One seated showed me the marks of the kicks on his left trouser leg and the marks on his skin.”

The report goes on to mention what fans were said to have yelled about what they would do with a girl who was naked. An off-duty sergeant is said to have given this information to the then Member of Parliament. We also read on page 351 that

“‘senior officers advised Mr Patnick to take what he had heard ‘with a pinch of salt’.”

Those accusations should make every one of us angry. I am angry, and I cannot imagine what the families must feel about the fact that a Member of this House fed those allegations to the newspapers, and into the general stream of information that was going around the country, when a senior police officer had told him to take them with a pinch of salt.

At the end of the process, those who are found to have deliberately peddled that story must be prosecuted for defamation of character, because that is what it was: besmirching the names of the dead was a defamation of character. It is not good enough, and I hope that we shall never see a repeat of it in the House. I also hope that one outcome will be that we all remember—this was pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock—that we, as politicians, are in a very powerful position. Our words matter, and we must never peddle rumours and, consequently, untruths.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr David Anderson (Blaydon) (Lab)]

When thinking about the debate, I tried to work out what we were really trying to achieve. Are we part of the process of investigation? I do not think that we are. Are we part of the process of scrutiny? Of course: that is a job that we do every day in the House. Are we part of the process of interrogation? Obviously we should be part of that as well, on a regular basis. Officially, however, as a result of the mechanisms of the House, we are here to confirm

“That this House has considered the matter of the Hillsborough Independent Panel Report.”

I am not criticising the Government, because I know that that is how we conduct our business here, but I think that we should really be discussing a motion along these lines: “That this House will do everything in its power to deliver justice to those who died, those who survived and all their families; and that, in doing so, we will set up a series of rigorous, transparent processes to ensure that that happens, that sufficient resources—of all kinds—are put in place to facilitate the process, that we in this House are constantly updated on progress, and that we can reconvene, at short notice, if we think that we are falling behind on these commitments.” I hope that every Member in the House can agree with those words, and I hope that they will give some succour to those who are listening to the debate, because that is the job that we have taken on tonight.

We have heard a lot about the truth leading to justice. I am happy that we have arrived at some of the truth about the “what”—about what happened—but what about the next stage? We have to work out the “why” and the “who”: in particular, we must identify the guilty. We do need justice, but what are the definitions of “justice”? One is

“Conformity to truth, fact, or sound reason”.

Another is

“The upholding of what is just, especially fair treatment and due reward in accordance with honour, standards or law.”

What we have heard over the past 23 years is a negation of justice.

I agree with much of what was said by my hon. Friends the Members for Bassetlaw (John Mann) and for Wansbeck (Ian Lavery) about the role of the police, and that of the South Yorkshire police in particular. I was at Orgreave in June 1984, and I was one of those who believed that on that day the police had decided to get their retaliation in first. I was not surprised by that, and I was also not surprised to observe, when I went to matches in the 1970s and 1980s, that the police adopted the same attitude in the football stadium. The truth was that the police decided that because some people, either on a picket line or at a football game, might decide to behave like animals, the best thing to do was to treat everybody as if they were animals. We need to see what happened at that time through that prism. It was not a surprise that Hillsborough happened, because we expected to be treated in the way that I have described and, even more worryingly, we accepted that we would be treated in that way. We cannot lay the blame entirely on the police, however. We need to clarify the role of Sheffield city council, too. I take on board what Sheffield Members have said about the council having done the right things, but the report says the safety advisory committee carried out inadequate and poorly recorded inspections. I cannot think of another scenario in which an organisation that is refused a safety certificate just goes ahead with business as normal; that is unheard of.

In the report, Sheffield Wednesday football club is accused of having limiting costs as its primary concern, while the police’s primary concern was dealing with public disorder. Their primary concerns were not the safety of the men and women in the ground, but keeping costs down and preventing disorder.

The Football Association has a lot to answer for, too. Why did it decide to continue using that ground for such matches? I am also surprised and dismayed by the role of the ambulance service, which I have worked with for many years. It has a lot to answer for as well.

My hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw was right to say that the solicitors’ actions need to be scrutinised. They went to the police and said to them, “You need to go back to your officers and get them to ‘reconsider and qualify their statements.’” They were clearly part and parcel of changing the record of ordinary policemen who had been on duty that day.

What are we in Parliament going to do? I was pleased to hear the Chairman of the Home Affairs Committee, my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz), say that the Committee will set up a process whereby it can be continually updated by the people on the ground. Members of Parliament have got to keep on the case, too. We have to keep asking parliamentary questions and urgent questions if we have concerns, and we need to keep asking for statements.

We Back Benchers should consider setting up an all-party group, because such groups can ask people to come and tell us what is going on, and tell us whether things are moving in the right direction. As my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral South (Alison McGovern) said, we should recognise the role played by the Backbench Business Committee in getting us to where we are today, too. We Back Benchers must take on this responsibility now as well. We should be able to raise matters of concern regularly, and to tackle any obstacles that get in the way of the good people of Liverpool achieving justice.

We must ensure there is no chance for us in this House to say, “Nowt to do with me, guv.” We are now the state; whether we like it or not, we inherit the shame of 1989. We are the establishment, so it falls to us to redeem this House for the total failure of the past. It is up to us to act properly and get a quarter of a century of wrongdoing put right. No one should get away with what happened in 1989, including politicians in this House, regardless of whether they are retired, have moved on to another place or are still Members of the Commons. If any Members of this House have failed in their duty, they should stand up and account for what they did. We must make sure we hold their feet to the fire, so that truth and justice can be achieved.

In many ways, what happened was a failure of the state. It was state-sponsored failure, because most of the bodies responsible for what took place on that day were agents of the state—they were public servants, whom we look to to do the job of taking care of the people we are proud to represent. We must make sure everyone involved in what happened is called to face up to their failings.

When matters such as Hillsborough arise, one of the things that annoys me most is people telling me, “It’s time to move on.” What they really mean is, “You need to forget the debate you’ve just had; you need to bury this issue and let it lie.” I thank God that the great people of Liverpool have blown that kidology mentality out of the water. What we should be doing is making progress, and working with the people who have suffered, so we do our bit to make sure justice is not just a word, but is a fact.

Hillsborough Disaster

David Anderson Excerpts

Monday 17th October 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr David Anderson (Blaydon) (Lab)]

Members often have the privilege of visiting schools, and we are always asked why we wanted to become an MP. I wanted to become one because of nights like tonight, when we have the chance to bring justice and right a real wrong. Another question we are asked is why MPs are called “honourable”. After tonight, I shall always refer people to the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Steve Rotheram)—who has been in the Chamber for the past five hours but has just now disappeared. He gave a tremendous speech on a very important subject. One of the points he made was that this could have happened at any football ground in the country. He is right, and I want to refer to some of the things I have seen—my hon. Friend the Member for Wansbeck (Ian Lavery) mentioned many such things in his speech earlier.

On Boxing day, it will be 49 years since I first walked into a football ground. Boxing day 1962 was when I saw my first game, and, sadly, it was the last game that Brian Clough played. About 30 minutes into the game, he was injured very badly. Even though that happened 49 years ago, the memory is still burned into my mind, because football has that effect on us; it hooks us in a way no other game in the world does. It becomes an obsession.

For football supporters, things were very different back in those days. We stood in a huge concrete stand that took 21,000 people. It was uncovered, and the day was freezing cold. The pitch had been covered in straw, and the straw had been pulled back. That was probably one reason why Clough’s injury was so severe. There were at least 50,000 people in the ground for what was a second division match. They were united in wanting to see their team do well. Sadly, as has happened far too often, we got beaten 1-0. I have been a Sunderland fan for many years, and that is a common theme.

Such results do not dampen the passion people feel, however. Regardless of whether they support Liverpool, Everton or any other team in the league, it is their team and their town, and they want to support and get behind them. That passion was there no matter how badly we were tret—and some of the grounds were unsanitary or unsafe, and no other sport would have taken place in them.

If that was the situation back in the early ’60s, how did 96 people get killed so much later on, in one of the grounds that was improved for the 1966 World cup? There is absolutely no doubt that the hooliganism of the ’70s and ’80s influenced the mindset of the people in authority in this country. Their attitude towards the fans was much harder back then. The police in particular believed that their job was to control crowds by getting the retaliation in first. In saying that, I do not in any way excuse the crass and disgraceful behaviour of some people—they besmirched the names of good football clubs—but football was not immune to what was happening outside in those days.

The police were strongly politicised in the 1980s. We had seen riots on the streets of Brixton, Toxteth and Tottenham. We had also seen the dispute at Wapping and the miners’ strike, when ordinary working men, many of them football fans, were declared to be “the enemy within”—a phrase that was mentioned earlier in our debate in relation to the people of Liverpool. Crucially, just four years earlier, we had seen the disaster at the Heysel stadium, as a result of which we ended up with fans literally penned in cages. Was that seen as an overreaction at the time? It was not. People said, “Its all they deserve. If they are going to behave like animals, let’s treat them like animals.”

[Graham Jones (Hyndburn) (Lab)]

I do not want to move away from the issue of the day, but I wish to make a point about what led to that penning in. What was done by people such as Ken Bates, who put up electrified fences at Stamford Bridge, led to disasters such as this and it is why every football fan in this country sympathises with this issue today.

[Mr Anderson]

I could not agree more with my hon. Friend, because he raises exactly the point I am trying to make. Sadly, it was the Liverpool fans who suffered that day but it could have been any of us, because the authorities took an attitude that said, “These people are out of control. We will treat them like animals.” How did they do that? It was okay to herd people into a clearly overcrowded area. It was okay to keep forcing more and more people into confined spaces, despite their objections. My hon. Friend the Member for Wansbeck mentioned what happened to him and I experienced a similar event at the Leppings Lane end in Sheffield in 1968. We could not even get near the turnstiles, but the design of the ground funnelled people into an area. So we were pushed up against police horses and they could not move, let alone the crowd. What stays in my mind from that day was a policeman on horseback flailing with his baton, but he could not move—none of us could move. That took place 21 years before Hillsborough, so a catalogue of events led up to what happened on that day in 1989.

[Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)]

Sadly, I was at the Heysel stadium. Very few people misbehaved and the resulting problem occurred mainly because most of the Liverpool fans had been crushed together; there were far too many in a small pen. It is a tragedy that the lessons were not learned.

[Mr Anderson]

Again, the hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. This was about how we treated football fans, which was different from how any other sports fans were treated in this country or across Europe. That was shown by the fact that when people were trying to escape from these cages, they were penned in—they were actually forced back. They were knocked back by the police, because the police thought that they were trying to invade the pitch for some reason other than to try to save their lives. That would not have happened in any other scenario.

As we have heard so often today, although all of that was a real scandal, just as bad, after the devastation to so many lives, is the way in which this issue has been covered up for two decades and more. It was covered up by the authorities and it was disgracefully covered up by some of the media in this country. The behaviour of The Sun has been highlighted today. As a former coal miner, I am not surprised that The Sun turns against working people—it has done that for decades and I do not see how it will ever stop doing it. But that does not stop us, and others in this House and this country, from saying that that was out of order, particularly as there was an attempt to sway the conscience and belief of people in this country against ordinary people who were just having a day out supporting their football team.

As far back as 1999, I was working in Liverpool with some social workers, and in the days leading up to the 10th anniversary they were saying to me, “We’ve got to get justice for these people.” I was working with the trade union movement and we tried to move that forward. We had discussions with the then Government but, sadly, despite all our best efforts, nothing happened. We have heard about how the courageous attempts of my right hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham) and my hon. Friend the Member for Garston and Halewood (Maria Eagle) started to bring some pressure to bear and we did then see movement from the Government some 10 years later.

We are still discussing this issue here today, 22 years down the line, and we hope that we are going to see justice done. We need everything out in the open and we need it now. We do not need some more vague promises of, “Somewhere down the line.” We need to act when the information comes out. It is no good just saying, “This was wrong. That was wrong.” We need to bring people to justice in this country. If it was wrong for them to have done this in 1989, it is right for them to face punishment in 2011, or whenever we can bring them to book. We need to make sure that we do so because we owe it to the 96. We owe it to the families who lost loved ones and we owe it to all the folks who will go to football games this weekend, because it is about them as well as about the people who went before them.

As has been rightly said, this is about every football fan in this country, because the truth is that football is still the beautiful game. It is a hugely emotive event, a game that does away with any sense of rationality. A person can believe that their team is the best team in the world when, quite frankly, it is not and probably never will be—[Hon. Members: “Speak for yourself.”] Look, I have to get votes in Newcastle. Football is a game that sometimes brings out the best and the worst in all of us who are obsessed by it. The feeling is never less than great and I hope that it never loses that feeling, that passion and that bond between people from all walks of life.

Football brings people together and one of the great experiences of my life is when Liverpool fans come to Sunderland and then come to the village in which I have spent most of my adult life to go to the memorial for Bob Paisley, the most successful Liverpool manager of all time, who was born and bred in the village that I am proud to come from. Bob Paisley’s brother worked with my dad. There is a bond between people who can say that for the next 90 minutes they will shout at each other, saying that they hate one another—that they hate the very life of one another—but can come out and be the best of friends. There is nothing wrong with that and we should be proud of the culture that this country brought to the sporting world 150 years ago. That is something about which we should all be passionate and proud.

That is the real joy of football. It is miles away from the world of Sky, from the superstars who cannot even be bothered to come on to the pitch when some of us would give our left arm to play once for our team and from the agents who will destroy football if they can get away with it. We owe it to the 96 to ensure that justice is done today. We need to see justice. Failure to do so diminishes our game and our nation and it will diminish this House. We need to get on with it.

Policing and Crime

David Anderson Excerpts

Monday 23rd May 2011 Commons Chamber

[The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mrs Theresa May)]

The Opposition’s motion is wrong in every point of fact and wrong on every point of policy. Given that they seem to have so little knowledge or understanding of policing and crime, let me deal with each of their points in turn.

First, the motion says that the Government are cutting 12,000 police officers throughout England and Wales. Of course, that is not Government policy. Decisions on the size and make-up of the police work force are a matter entirely for chief constables to take locally in conjunction with their police authority and, from May 2012, with their police and crime commissioner.

[Mr David Anderson (Blaydon) (Lab)]

Can the right hon. Lady say exactly how much money is being cut from budgets that are going to police authorities?

[Mrs May]

I think the hon. Gentleman asks me how much money is being cut from budgets to police authorities. The average cut this year in real terms from central Government funding for police is 5.5%, but each police force area raises funds through the precept.

I heard the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper), the shadow Home Secretary, complain when I made the point that decisions on police numbers are a matter for chief constables, yet in an interview with the New Statesman on 11 January she said that

“decisions will be taken and that is always going to be a matter for chief constables.”

So, she agrees that such decisions are taken by the police authority and the chief constable together.

Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary says in its most recent report that the size of the work force gives no indication whatever of the quality of service a force provides to its community, and that is because of all those officers who are sat behind desks, filling in forms and giving no benefit to the public. What matters is the visibility and availability of officers and the effective use of resources, and many forces are increasing availability.

My hon. Friend the Member for Ealing Central and Acton (Angie Bray) made the point about the increased number of police officers under the Mayor of London, an elected individual responsible for policing in London. In Gloucestershire, the police force has put 15% more sergeants and constables into visible policing roles while reducing overall numbers, and by doing that in Gloucestershire it is increasing the number of police officers on the beat from 563 to 651.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs May]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right; we will indeed do that. I take this opportunity to commend PC Albuery, who suffered terrible injuries, as result of which he is in a serious condition. He was doing the job that he signed up to do, which is protecting the public and dealing with criminals. I pay tribute to him and to all the other officers who, day in and day out, go out to deal with instances and incidents that take place not knowing whether they will be subject to the sort of attack to which PC Albuery was subject.

[Mr Anderson]

Raoul Moat began his killing spree in my constituency, a mile from my house. Twenty-four hours later, he damaged PC David Rathband to the extent that that man will never see again. Last week, at the Police Federation, he asked the Home Secretary, “Do you think I’m paid too much?”, to which she replied, “I’m not saying to any individual officer that your pay is wrong.” Just what is she saying to all police officers?

Disturbances (London)

David Anderson Excerpts

Monday 28th March 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

As I said in response to the question from my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis), the way in which the main march was policed was a good example of, and a tribute to, the British model of policing. It was important that the police were able to do that in co-ordination with the organisers of the march, who had been in discussions with them about it in advance of the event.

[Mr David Anderson (Blaydon) (Lab)]

Will the Home Secretary enter into discussions with her colleagues about the way the events on Saturday were reported? Any impressionable young person watching the news on Saturday evening or through the night, or reading the newspapers yesterday, would believe that the only way to make their voice heard is by being involved in such actions, which none of us in this House condones. We need more balance from the British media so that that message can get through.

[Mrs May]

Yes, of course the media have a responsibility in how they report such incidents. I find it deeply distressing that too many people are willing to stand up and condemn the police, when they should be condemning those who perpetrated the acts of violence.