Passport Applications
Steve Rotheram Excerpts(10 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Yvette Cooper
The unfortunate thing is that the message on the Government’s websites and helplines still says that passports will be processed within three weeks. Families are making decisions on that basis: they think it will be done within three weeks and then it is not. It can be delayed by many weeks, and that is a huge problem, because they have made plans and invested in booking holidays.
Steve Rotheram (Liverpool, Walton) (Lab)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that staff in places such as Liverpool passport office are doing their best with the backlog, and that this is a systemic failure on the part of the Government and not the fault of people who have been put in an intolerable position by staff cuts?
Yvette Cooper
My hon. Friend is right. We understand that staff are working long hours, including weekends, but people are still not getting their passports in time.
Home Department
Steve Rotheram Excerpts(10 years, 7 months ago)
Ministerial CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Steve Rotheram
To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what deadline she has provided to chief constables by which they must hand over any evidence to the Independent Police Complaints Commission in relation to Hillsborough.
[Official Report, 8 April 2014, Vol. 579, c. 202W.]
Letter of correction from Karen Bradley:
An error has been identified in the written answer given to the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Steve Rotheram) on 8 April 2014.
The full answer given was as follows:
Karen Bradley
The Minister for Policing, Criminal Justice and Victims, my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Damian Green), wrote to all chief constables on 4 March 2014 to request that all police forces search their records to establish whether they possess any material that relates to the Hillsborough tragedy. The Minister asked if this could be completed by 4 April 2014 and asked that every police force responds, even if it is to record a nil response.
The correct answer should have been:
Hillsborough
Steve Rotheram Excerpts(10 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mrs May
My hon. Friend makes an important point. We should all be constantly aware of the need to ensure safety at stadiums when large numbers of people are at football matches and other events. It is extremely important that we learn the lessons from the tragedies from the past to ensure the safety of those who attend such events in the future.
Steve Rotheram (Liverpool, Walton) (Lab)
I am grateful to the Home Secretary for agreeing to update the House today. In her statement, she said that in 2012 the Prime Minister apologised for a double injustice, yet now we learn that Hillsborough may have been a treble injustice. Ever since the disaster, the families of the 96 have expressed concerns that their phones may have been hacked and electronic communications monitored. First, families lost loved ones, then they were criminalised, and now it seems that they may even have been shadowed by terrorists. I have one simple question, so that the right hon. Lady can put the families’ minds at rest. Will she confirm unequivocally that at no stage since the disaster were the families subjected to surveillance by the police or security services of this country?
Mrs May
I fully appreciate the point that the hon. Gentleman makes about the families’ concerns, but he will recognise, as I am sure his right hon. and hon. Friends will too, that we do not identify those who may or may not have been subject to interception in any form. I know that this is difficult and I know that some would prefer a somewhat different answer, but it has always been the case that the police do not confirm or deny whether an individual has been subject to interception. There are two avenues that I would refer to in relation to the hon. Gentleman’s question. The first is that, as I said in response to the shadow Home Secretary, the IPCC is aware of these concerns and is considering how best to address them. If it does find any evidence during its investigation that suggests that surveillance has taken place, it will pursue it. It is also available to those who feel that they have been subject to unlawful interception by the authorities, to refer that to the Investigatory Powers Tribunal, which provides an independent forum for investigating complaints.
UNHCR Syrian Refugees Programme
Steve Rotheram Excerpts(10 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Justine Greening
The thing that parents worry about most is what the crisis is doing to their children and the experiences their children are going through. I have met children who have clearly been traumatised by these events. Many, on the outside, seem to be coping with the crisis, but when talking to them, one realises that their heartbreaking experiences will mark them for the rest of their lives. When they draw pictures in school, they draw pictures of planes bombing their homes, and when they talk, they talk about chemical weapons attacks and their concerns about what they have done to Syria.
As highlighted today, the big challenge is that Syria’s children are in danger of becoming a lost generation. They will grow up and become adults, and we all have a choice about what kind of adults we would like them to become and the kind of opportunities we would like them to have. That is one reason why the UK has worked hard with UNICEF—we are now its biggest bilateral donor—to focus international attention on the No Lost Generation campaign, which is about ensuring that children, in particular, are taken care of.
The thing about UN appeals that are only half funded is that while many life-saving measures, such as those mentioned today, are taken, those extra things that children in particular often need, such as education and psycho-social trauma counselling, tend to get left out. That is why it is important that these UN appeals be funded, and why the UK has provided so much funding and why the rest of the international community needs to work harder to ensure the appeal is fully funded.
It was particularly interesting to hear from my hon. Friends the Members for South Basildon and East Thurrock (Stephen Metcalfe) and for Pudsey (Stuart Andrew), who have seen refugees in Turkey for themselves and who eloquently set out their views on how it was affecting children. I can assure the House that the £30 million that we have invested in UNICEF to provide protection, trauma care and education, particularly for children, will not be the final word in our investment to help those children.
Some 4.2 million children are in need inside Syria, and 2 million of them are school-aged but not in school. We know that many schools in Syria have been bombed. About 500,000 child-registered refugees are not enrolled in school, and as we have heard, some are sent out to work, but some have parents too scared to take them out of the tent and into school, because they do not want to let them out of their sight in camps as big as Zaatari. One of the most important things to do, working with the NGO community and UNICEF, is to ensure that parents feel secure in sending their children to school, often in alien environments.
I have met teachers in Lebanon in schools running two shifts, and they are amazing professionals. They sat down with me and talked about how they and head teachers had work as teams to ensure schools could operate double shifts—in the morning for Lebanese children, and in the afternoon for Syrian children. It is remarkable to see how these children rub along together and have come to understand more about each other’s experiences as the term has gone by.
Clearly, the international community needs to do more. Countries such as Lebanon and Jordan in particular, but also many others, have been incredibly generous in opening up their borders and allowing refugees in, and it is absolutely right that today my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary announced that the UK Government would continue to evolve our support for those affected by the Syrian crisis by extending that support and providing sanctuary to the most at-risk refugees from this war. The right hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy) talked about Ugandan-Asian refugees coming here. One of them is now the leader of Wandsworth council, which shows the contribution that many refugees make to Britain.
I can assure the right hon. and learned Member for North East Fife (Sir Menzies Campbell), the right hon. Member for East Renfrewshire (Mr Murphy) and the hon. Members for Cheltenham (Martin Horwood) and for Brent North (Barry Gardiner) that we will work hand in hand with the UNHCR. I had a good talk with Antonia Guterres in Switzerland last week about how we could ensure the programme worked effectively.
I think that, ultimately, we all recognise that Syria needs a political solution to end the fighting. That point was made very eloquently by someone for whom I have a huge amount of respect, my right hon. Friend the Member for North East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt), and also by my right hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South (Sir Richard Ottaway) and the right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Mr Llwyd).
In the meantime, as we all have hopes for the Geneva II process but retain a heavy sense of the level of the challenges that remain, the British people can be proud of the role that Britain is playing in conveying humanitarian assistance to those who need it. As we have already heard today, not only is that the right thing to do, but ending the conflict and bringing stability to the region is in Britain’s national interest.
Britain is on the side of the people in Syria about whom we have talked today. We will do everything that we can to achieve a political solution, but during that process we will continue to be at the forefront of the humanitarian response.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House welcomes the Government’s £600 million response to the unprecedented Syrian refugee crisis; further welcomes the UK’s leadership in the appeal for aid and supports calls for the rest of the international community to ensure the UN humanitarian appeal for Syria has the resources it needs to help those suffering from the conflict; is concerned about the plight of the most vulnerable refugees who will find it hardest to cope in the camps in the region, including victims of torture and children in need of special assistance; and calls on the Government to participate in the UNHCR Resettlement and Humanitarian Admission of Syrian Refugees Programme.
Steve Rotheram (Liverpool, Walton) (Lab)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Earlier today, during Prime Minister’s Question Time, I said that child poverty was on the increase in Britain. That was disputed by the Prime Minister, who claimed that it was, in fact, going down.
As you know, Madam Deputy Speaker, I am a diligent fellow, and I was once called “a perspicacious terrier” by Mr Speaker himself, so I double-checked with Save the Children this afternoon. I can now confirm that absolute child poverty is rising in this country, and that, just this month, the Institute for Fiscal Studies released projections showing that, whichever way the Government measure child poverty, it is set to increase massively over the next decade. Madam Deputy Speaker, could you—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)
Order. Whatever Mr Speaker may have said about him in the past, the hon. Gentleman has not made a point of order so far. What he is making is a point of debate in disagreeing with something that was said earlier. Unless he wishes to raise a matter, further to his point of order, that can be dealt with by the Chair, I must congratulate him on getting his point on the record, but say to him that it is not a point of order for me, as the occupant of the Chair.
Madam Deputy Speaker
It had better be. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman does not need any help.
Steve Rotheram
Because you were not in the Chamber at the time, Madam Deputy Speaker, I was trying to explain to you exactly what had happened earlier. Can you now advise me on whether it would be appropriate for the Prime Minister to come back to the House and apologise for misleading—or inadvertently misleading—the House?
Madam Deputy Speaker
I am extremely grateful to the hon. Gentleman for reminding me of the proceedings in the House earlier. However, I must say to him “Nice try, but it is still not a point of order.”
What is said in the House is relevant and a matter for each Member, and I am sure that, given that the hon. Gentleman has been described as someone who is persistent, he will find another way—although not this afternoon—in which to pursue his point with regard to the information given by the Prime Minister.
Oral Answers to Questions
Steve Rotheram Excerpts(11 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Damian Green
On the right hon. Gentleman’s last point, I absolutely agree. The College of Policing is there precisely so that we can improve professionalism in all areas of policing, and clearly that applies to undercover policing, which is, as he and the House will know, a particularly sensitive area at the moment. On his previous point, if he can be patient for just a few minutes my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is about to say something about that.
Steve Rotheram (Liverpool, Walton) (Lab)
9. What financial and logistical support she is offering to the Independent Police Complaints Commission for its inquiry into Hillsborough.
The Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice (Damian Green)
I have committed to ensuring that the IPCC has the resource and powers necessary to investigate the findings of the Hillsborough independent panel thoroughly, transparently and exhaustively. The IPCC is working with the Home Office to determine the level of resource it requires and any logistical help that the Department can offer.
Steve Rotheram
Given that the investigation into the Hillsborough disaster will be the biggest and most complex in the IPCC’s history, what assessment has the Minister made of its capability to carry out the job competently? What assurances has he received that give him comfort that the IPCC’s processes will be scrupulous and, importantly, acceptable to the families?
Damian Green
The hon. Gentleman gives many of the more sensitive issues an airing. We have received assurances from Jon Stoddart and from the IPCC that, for example, no officer or investigator employed to work on the investigations will have had any prior connection with the Hillsborough disaster. I have personally checked that those assurances are being met, and I am able to reassure the hon. Gentleman that they are. As he will know, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has promised that the resources will be made available to the IPCC so that it can conduct this investigation as thoroughly as it and, more particularly, the families of the victims of the disaster deserve.
Hillsborough
Steve Rotheram Excerpts(12 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mrs May
I am absolutely clear that the various investigations—I shall come on to other aspects of investigation—will look at the totality of the report and its findings, and will identify any cases where there has been a suggestion of criminality; and if there has been such a suggestion, it will be properly investigated.
Steve Rotheram (Liverpool, Walton) (Lab)
With the families’ hopes dashed on so many occasions, does it not shame us as the mother of all Parliaments that it has taken 23 years for the families to get to this stage where at least the truth is out, but justice is still to be done?
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.
Stephen Mosley (City of Chester) (Con)
The atmosphere that enveloped the Chamber when the Prime Minister made his statement to the House last month will stay with me for the rest of my life. That atmosphere was echoed across the country as the truth of what happened at Hillsborough was revealed.
To learn that the lives of 41 people might have been saved and to discover that those responsible sought to manipulate the truth to conceal their own guilt and shift the blame on to the innocent victims of the day made this one of the greatest scandals in our history. The failures, flaws, corruption and deceit of those who were culpable have been laid bare for all to see. Most importantly, the reputation, honour and persistence of those who sought the truth for so long have been vindicated.
Reading through the panel’s report, it is difficult to identify which of the many failings caused the most harm: the cavalier attitude towards health and safety at the stadium, which had no safety certificate and a terrible record of near misses at big matches in previous years; the complete absence of leadership, communication and responsibility among those who were supposedly in charge on the day; or the perpetuation of lies by those self-serving individuals in senior positions of authority who tried to absolve themselves of responsibility. Each of those revelations, and the many others that the report highlighted, were truly shocking to discover. We owe the members of the panel a huge debt of gratitude for their diligence and hard work, and for the clarity with which they presented their findings.
Looking around the Chamber, I can see many right hon. and hon. Members who fought long and hard to ensure that the truth about Hillsborough was brought to the public’s attention. What many of us cannot understand is why it has taken so long. Although there is much in the panel’s report that has been revealed and published for the first time, there is a huge amount that has been known about for a long time, but that has been ignored, dismissed or ridiculed over the course of the 23 years.
A case in point, where information and evidence have clearly been ignored, is that of my constituent’s son, Kevin Williams. As with all 96 victims, the inquest into his death ruled that Kevin died at or before 3.15 pm, yet video evidence showed Kevin being lifted out of pen 3 at 3.28 pm and resuscitated on the pitch by PC Michael Craighill. At 3.31 pm Kevin was carried across the pitch by, among others, an off-duty fire officer, Mr Tony O’Keefe, who stated that Kevin was still alive. At 3.37 pm, Kevin was resuscitated by an off-duty police officer, PC Derek Bruder, who testified that Kevin was still alive. Finally, Special WPC Debra Martin found Kevin’s pulse, picked him up in her arms and watched and listened as he opened his eyes, spoke the word “Mum” and then died just before 4 o’clock.
There has never really been any doubt about what happened to Kevin Williams. The eyewitness accounts on the day were unequivocal: Kevin was still alive just before 4 pm. The evidence has been presented to three previous Attorneys-General on three separate occasions, and the facts of what happened to Kevin were recounted in the House in an Adjournment debate as far back as 1994. What happened to Kevin, and to so many others, has not been a secret, yet only last month, with the Prime Minister’s statement and the publication of the independent panel’s report, was the truth finally accepted.
Steve Rotheram
I spoke today to Anne Williams, who is not well enough to be here but will be watching the proceedings on the television. Is it not testament to a mother’s love that somebody would continue their fight despite the fact that, time after time, the legal doors were slammed in that woman’s face? She went as far as the European Court and was turned down. Is that not a national disgrace?
Stephen Mosley
I spoke to Mrs Williams on Friday and she passed on her regards and thanks to Members such as the hon. Gentleman and the right hon. Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham), who have done so much to ensure that we have got to where we are now. I am grateful for the fact that the truth is now out there, and as the hon. Gentleman says, it is a total disgrace that it has taken so long.
We now know that witness statements were altered in the weeks and months after the tragedy. Last week, the Independent Police Complaints Commission launched an investigation into the process of amendments undertaken by South Yorkshire police. In addition, the IPCC said that the role of West Midlands police would be examined as part of its investigations, and it is that role that I wish to address.
As I said, at 3.37 pm Kevin Williams was being resuscitated by an off-duty police officer, PC Derek Bruder. PC Bruder had seen Kevin moving his head and being sick, so he went over to help. He saw an ambulance and tried to stop it so that Kevin could receive medical attention. PC Bruder provided an official statement shortly afterwards, along with a second statement four months later.
PC Bruder was then visited at his home on 3 May 1990 by a West Midlands detective inspector to take a further statement. PC Bruder was told that the video footage had been studied and that the ambulance to which he referred in his statement was not in the ground in the time, so he must be mistaken. He stuck to his evidence and told the detective inspector that he would be available to give evidence at the inquest. But PC Bruder was not called to give evidence at the inquest. Instead, Detective Inspector Sawers said at Kevin’s inquest that PC Bruder was mistaken about the ambulance; mistaken about taking a pulse from Kevin; and also mistaken about seeing him be sick. It is worth noting that, contrary to the evidence given at the inquest, video and photographic evidence was available, along with a statement from the assistant driver of the ambulance in question, Mr Tony Edwards, confirming PC Bruder’s testimony that an ambulance passed them at 3.37 pm. His evidence was correct all along and should not have been ignored and dismissed at the initial inquest.
Another example of the inappropriate actions of West Midlands police relates to the special constable who held Kevin in her arms as he passed away shortly before 4 pm. Special WPC Debra Martin’s original statement, made within weeks of the disaster, described finding Kevin’s pulse, resuscitating him, hearing him call for his mother and holding him as he died just before 4 pm. However, a few months later Miss Martin was visited at her home by West Midlands police officers. In total, she was visited on four separate occasions by senior police officers whose aim was to convince her that her original statement was mistaken and that Kevin was not alive when she treated him. Considerable pressure was put on Miss Martin to ratify the amended statement, and I understand that she was even told that she could not have looked after Kevin because she was not at Hillsborough. She was accused of standing by and doing nothing as people died; she was told she was making the whole thing up. In the end, she succumbed to pressure and signed the second statement without reading it. In that second statement, everything that referred to signs of life in Kevin was gone, and there was no reference to a pulse or to him saying, “Mum”. Miss Martin has stated on numerous occasions that she stands by her original statement and that she was bullied by senior police officers to sign the second, inaccurate statement.
John Hemming
I do want to speak about Hillsborough, but there are similar cases that go before the Europe courts. Unless we solve the systemic problems and ensure that cover-ups do not continue, there will be further cover-ups. I am sure the Hillsborough families wish to see the system changed so that such situations do not happen again. I will not mention any of the other relevant examples at present, but, over time, we must look at them, because, as the Minister accepted earlier, the system is very vulnerable to cover-ups.
Steve Rotheram
I cannot speak for all Hillsborough families, but the Hillsborough families I know would absolutely agree that there should be no more cover-ups. However, they have fought for 23 years for the opportunity to come to this House and hear politicians speak about the Hillsborough independent panel report, and I think the hon. Gentleman is drifting far from that topic.
John Hemming
It is interesting how many Members are taking on the role of the Speaker today. I accept the hon. Gentleman’s point, however.
Let me return to the comments in my prepared speech: it is to be hoped that the report of the Hillsborough independent panel will provide closure for the families. They need justice, and they have now got to the truth. Parliament needs to learn from this and stop the culture of cover-up. There must be no more cover-ups.
Steve Rotheram (Liverpool, Walton) (Lab)
Ten minutes is nowhere near enough to do justice to a campaign that I have been involved with for 23 years, and to a 395-page report presented to the House that shocked a nation. It has taken 8,591 days to get here, but we finally have what the families and the people of my great city have known all along: the undeniable truth.
I did not dare dream that one day I would be in the House of Commons to hear a British Prime Minister apologise to the families of the Hillsborough disaster. Not only did that happen, but the Prime Minister offered a double apology. I never thought an Attorney-General would ever apply to the High Court for fresh inquests into the deaths of 96 men, women and children, but just last week in this very Chamber, that is what was announced. And I could never have imagined that the police and other organisations and individuals would ever face the full weight of the law for their lies and deceit, but we now know from what the IPCC and the DPP have said that there is the probability that criminal charges will be brought against those really responsible for both the tragedy itself and the cover-up that followed.
Let us remind ourselves of that corruption in more detail. The report suggests that police statements relating to the Hillsborough disaster
“underwent an unprecedented process of review and alteration”.
The report outlines a process of intimidation, manipulation and coercion by senior officers against their juniors less than 24 hours after the disaster, and the report finally reveals the names and rank of the officers involved in the disaster, with their actions.
There was clearly an “us versus them” mentality in the police before the match, and this mentality did not change as the disaster unfolded before their very eyes, and it certainly did not change after the disaster. When does human nature override orders given by senior officers? Why did humanity not replace duty? Was it not the duty of the police to ensure fans’ safety?
Mr Dave Watts (St Helens North) (Lab)
Although much has been said about the enormous failings of the police, what about the other organisations?
Steve Rotheram
We now know that the police were not the only ones who were at fault on that day. Six agencies were also involved in the cover-up. I will try to cover them in the limited time available.
The ambulance service was engaged in despicable alterations to statements. We always knew that the police were involved, but the ambulance service was at it too. Many, many parts of the Hillsborough independent panel report are harrowing for the families and the survivors, but none more so than the news that numerous fans were alive after the arbitrary 3.15 pm cut-off point, and with proper emergency care they could and probably would have been saved.
Next, there was Sheffield Wednesday football club. As the report says, following the 1981 crush,
“there was a breakdown in the relationship”
between Sheffield Wednesday and South Yorkshire police. The two major partners in match-day safety had a fractious relationship at best. What is more, Sheffield Wednesday, a club that was promoting Hillsborough as a modern ground, fit to host major football games, failed in its first duty to ensure that it had a suitably safe stadium.
By now the failings of Sheffield city council are well known. The council allowed a major football stadium in its city to operate outside the law. The report is absolutely clear that the way the council undertook safety inspections was totally and utterly inept and it failed to ensure that an appropriate safety certificate was in place.
As Kenny Dalglish wrote in his weekend column in The Mirror, the Football Association
“knew that Hillsborough did not have a safety certificate and yet they were still adamant the game had to be played at the stadium.
If they had not insisted that the game was played there . . . the fans that died would still be alive”.
The FA must now face the full force of the law for the deadly decisions that it made at that time.
Hansard of 17 April 1989 makes for particularly interesting reading. It was clear even then that there were those in this place who were seeking to shift the blame for the disaster on to the fans—no one more ignorant of the facts than Irvine Patnick, the then Tory MP for Sheffield, Hallam, who asked the Home Secretary to
“examine…the part that alcohol played in the disaster”.—[Official Report, 17 April 1989; Vol. 151, c. 29.]
Why—on what basis—did he ask that question?
Mr George Howarth
In view of the recent revelations about Irvine Patnick, does my hon. Friend agree that this calls into question any honours that were bestowed on him?
Steve Rotheram
If there were ever a job for the Honours Forfeiture Committee, surely the scrapping of Patnick’s knighthood would be it.
The report reveals for the first time that it was a Sheffield-based news agency, White’s, that claimed that the fans had verbally and physically abused the police and urinated on them as they attended to the stricken, and had stolen from the dead and dying. That came after three days of conversations between White’s, senior police officers, the Police Federation spokesman, and Irvine Patnick MP. Fancy that, Mr Deputy Speaker—lies conjured up through collusion between the press, the police and certain politicians.
It was said on the day that the Hillsborough independent panel report was published that there were 97 victims of the Hillsborough disaster. The families, the survivors and the people of our great city were tarnished and branded guilty of the deaths of 96 of their own. The reputational damage has been incalculable. But one thing is for sure—the 97th victim of Hillsborough was certainly not Kelvin MacKenzie; how dare he claim his victim status? The police were able to make such rapid progress in their conspiracy because they were aided by ready henchmen such as MacKenzie who poisoned the atmosphere around Hillsborough. It will be interesting to see whether any charges of criminal liability are placed at his door.
I am grateful to the Home Secretary and the Attorney-General, and I appreciate their efforts and commitment to upholding the law and the pursuit of justice in this case. However, I urge the Attorney-General to complete his application as quickly as possible so that fresh inquests can be launched almost immediately. All agencies involved in subsequent investigations have made it clear that the inquests can happen in parallel alongside investigations into potential prosecutions, and there is therefore no need for a delay. South Yorkshire police have billed the taxpayer for a considerable amount of legal advice over the past 23 years as they sought to cover up their actions and the actions of senior officers. Given how badly this country has let the families down, it should be for the state to ensure that any costs of fresh inquests are met by central Government funds.
The first investigation, which is being led by the Director of Public Prosecutions, is looking at whether manslaughter charges can be brought against South Yorkshire police, Sheffield Wednesday football club, the Football Association, Eastwood—the engineering company—and Sheffield city council. Any manslaughter charges may be corporate or individual, depending on the DPP’s findings, and may relate to the actions of those agencies before the disaster. The second investigation, which is totally separate from the first, will be carried out by the IPCC. This investigation will focus on the conduct of the police after the disaster and will decide if charges for perverting the course of justice or malfeasance in public office can be brought against certain individuals.
It is vital for the families and for the justice process that three things now happen with these investigations. First, they must be co-ordinated; there is no point in having two investigations covering the same ground. It is the wish of the families that there be a figurehead for subsequent investigations. The IPCC and DPP should work together effectively and efficiently so that decisions over future prosecutions may be made within months, not years. Secondly, both investigations must be well resourced. Thirdly, the investigations must be carried out in reasonable time. The families have had to wait 23 years already. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham) has said,
“What you have achieved, your dignity in the face of provocation, setbacks and defeat will forever inspire any parent fighting for their child.”
He was absolutely right.
At Hillsborough on that fateful day, we witnessed one of the greatest moments of spontaneous human ingenuity in peacetime. Heroes who were labelled drunken louts and who were apparently “unemployable” came together in a time of uncertainty, panic and immense fear to try desperately to save others by creating makeshift stretchers from advertising hoardings and by working to save the dying while the professionals did little or nothing.
This report means that half our campaign has concluded, and our gratitude must be conveyed for the work of Bishop James and the independent panel, but the fight for justice continues. The lies are now attributable to the liars. Whether or not the reported 41 or 58 could have been saved, the reality is that 96 should have been saved. We will never give up until there is justice for the 96.
Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)
I apologise to the House and to hon. Members for being late, but I was chairing a Select Committee and I did let Mr Speaker know.
It is important that we get to the truth—the families have waited for far too long. I support the calls for a new inquest; clearly, the 3.15 pm cut-off was arbitrary and wrong. I do not believe that that inquest should take place in Sheffield, and I think that the Government ought to fund the cost of it. I support the further investigations by the Independent Police Complaints Commission and the Director of Public Prosecutions. I think what they will do is concentrate on the key issues: the failure of police control and monitoring on the day, which is what Lord Justice Taylor found many years ago; the subsequent evidence coming out of the panel that there was an attempt at a cover-up, including changes to statements; and whether, as a result of those issues, criminal prosecutions or charges of misconduct should follow.
I support the comment of my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Angela Smith) that although the police actions on the day were at the heart of this problem, the South Yorkshire police force is now a different organisation with a different culture. It is important that, as local Members, we support it in trying to maintain the trust and confidence of local people in its day-to-day policing activities. As she mentioned, Sheffield Wednesday football club is also a new organisation with new ownership.
I agree with the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Steve Rotheram) that there were failings, and he rightly identifies them and the panel draws people’s attention to them. However, Lord Justice Taylor also dealt with the issue of breakdown between police and club, and paragraph 166 of the interim report stated:
“What is clear, however, is that de facto the police at Hillsborough had accepted responsibility for control of the pens at the Leppings Lane end.”
That is the key issue—the control and responsibility were with the police and they failed absolutely on the day.
In terms of Sheffield city council, I am pleased that the panel found absolutely no new evidence or information that had not been available to Lord Justice Taylor. As leader of the council at the time, I made it clear to all its officers that they were expected to co-operate thoroughly with Taylor’s investigations and inquiries, and to provide all evidence and information—clearly, they did that. Again, as has been identified, including by Taylor, there were failures by the advisory panel and as a result of the non-issuing of a safety certificate. I shall discuss that in a moment.
We must place all this in the context of what football was like at the time. As a football fan, I went to every away ground. I had been to all 92 clubs—to every ground in the country—at one point. My hon. Friend the Member for Wansbeck (Ian Lavery) said that he had been at an incident at Sheffield Wednesday where there had been crushing and nobody seemed to act. I went to many grounds where there was crushing and problems, and so did other football fans. That was accepted as commonplace at the time; it was accepted that that was what happened at football matches. Of course it is wrong that that should have been the case, but that is what happened. Lord Justice Taylor said:
“there have been many other occasions when overcrowding has led, at various grounds round the country, to a genuine apprehension of impending disaster through crushing, averted only by good fortune… So, although the operational errors on 15 April were special to one ground and one day, the lack of precautions against overcrowding was not unique. I do not believe that sufficient safety measures were being applied at all other grounds.”
This was a problem of football generally.
Of course I am devastated that the disaster happened at my football club, but I do not believe it was down to a number of individuals believing the ground to be unsafe and carrying on regardless. The horrible truth is that Hillsborough was generally regarded as a safe ground, which was why it was selected, although it proved not to have been so in the event. Of course there should have been a safety certificate—there is no excuse for the failure to provide it—but the evidence was that one was being prepared, which would actually have justified the arrangements of the ground as they were.
One of the fundamental problems that Taylor’s report identified was that although the Safety of Sports Grounds Act 1975 and the green guide, which clubs, local authorities and the police were meant to follow, required an overall capacity for a ground, there was no mandatory requirement for individual parts of the ground to have a special capacity limit—that simply was not a requirement. Furthermore, even if there was a capacity for individual parts of the ground, there was no requirement—this was a crucial problem at Hillsborough—to have mechanisms, electronic or otherwise, to count people into each individual pen. I went to football grounds all around the country and I found that, generally speaking, people went through a turnstile at one end of the ground and there was no counting mechanism for any individual part of that end.
Steve Rotheram
My hon. Friend points out that many grounds were unsafe, but we are talking specifically about the Hillsborough independent panel’s report. Paragraph 1.54 on page 32 talks about
“serious crushing at the FA Cup Semi-Final between Tottenham Hotspur and Wolverhampton Wanderers”
in the semi-final in 1981. If lessons had been learned by the authorities at that time, there would not have been a Hillsborough disaster in 1989.
Mr Betts
The problem was that the crushing at that time was regarded as due to the lateral movement of the crowds at the Leppings Lane end, so lateral barriers were put in place in response to that incident. They created the pens that caused the problem and that is the issue. The lateral barriers were a safety measure that proved to be a failure.
Lord Justice Taylor stated—this confirms what the panel said—that the lack of counting mechanisms for individual parts of the Leppings Lane end meant that the responsibility rested with the police to see whether the pens were overfilling. The problem was that on the occasion of the Hillsborough disaster the police did not see the pens overfilling and opened the gates, which led to more people going into the central pen. They then did not respond to the further overcrowding. That was what Lord Justice Taylor found and I do not think any different evidence was given to the panel. There was a complete failure of the system. Of course there should have been counting mechanisms, but grounds across the country did not have them at that time. It was the police’s responsibility to monitor the crowd and take precautionary action and they failed on that occasion.
Lord Justice Taylor’s interim report was comprehensive. He said that it was the police’s responsibility to control and monitor the crowd. They failed in that respect, as he identifies in chapter 10. In chapter 17, he discusses the choice of Hillsborough as a ground and states:
“However, it was not suggested that the choice of venue was causative of this disaster. The only basis on which that could be said would be that, because of its layout, the Leppings Lane end was incapable of being successfully policed for this semi-final. I do not believe that to be so.”
He is saying that despite all the failings—those of the council, of the club and of others—the key issue was that the ground could have been operated safely on that day but for a failure of police control. Along with the issues considered by the panel, that brings us back to the key questions: why have people not been held accountable for those failings, why was there an attempt at a cover-up afterwards and how will we deal with the issues to ensure justice for the families? They are the key points and if we focus on them and on the responsibilities and actions, we will, I hope, get to the truth.
The question of timing is important and I hope that we can make arrangements so that all the necessary evidence can be taken account of properly and quickly. Twenty-three years is an awfully long time, so we ought to ensure that the final conclusions come as quickly as possible.
Internet Trolling
Steve Rotheram Excerpts(12 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Steve Rotheram (Liverpool, Walton) (Lab)
I am delighted to have the chance to initiate an Adjournment debate to highlight an issue that is becoming commonplace on social media sites.
Trolling is wide-ranging and stirs up strong feelings, among people who want it criminalised and want those who indulge in it to be jailed, and among those who believe it is their inherent right to indulge in—as they see it—a bit of banter, and who claim that freedom of speech is one of their human rights, whether or not it causes offence. It should be noted that the right to freedom of speech is not absolute in any country, and that right is commonly subject to limitations.
The topic transcends the usual petty party politics. It is not about attributing blame, or even urging a particular Department to take ownership of the issue. Indeed, I am aware that Members on both sides of the House have been victims of trolling, as have I—although of course we all know that parliamentarians are pachyderms, with little or no feeling, so it should not bother us. But it does bother the public. My hope is that all parties will work together to reach a solution and take trolling seriously, specifically RIP trolling.
As I shall set out at the end of my speech, the solution may or may not take the form of legislation, but if a change in the law is required, so be it. In that spirit, I am grateful to the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department for meeting me at the end of last year. Since then, I have met, among others, the hon. Member for Mid Bedfordshire (Nadine Dorries), and representatives from Merseyside police, Facebook and the Crown Prosecution Service. Although some of those meetings were less productive than others, there was universal recognition that trolling exists, and that it is grossly offensive and it is escalating. With such a rise in prominence has come greater scrutiny of the laws that govern its practice and punishment. The starting point must be to see how we can improve the way trolling is prevented, policed and punished. That would be preferable to trying to get Parliament to act, as the wheels of justice turn slowly.
Nadine Dorries (Mid Bedfordshire) (Con)
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing an Adjournment debate on such an important issue. He mentioned that he had met the CPS and Merseyside police. From those conversations, I am sure he would agree that one of the problems for the police is that it is difficult to know which legislation to invoke when trying to prosecute offences, and that there are no definite frameworks or boundaries for them to work in. Furthermore, the CPS will consider only what happened over the previous six months, and will not go further back to look at abuse caused by trolling.
Steve Rotheram
The hon. Lady is right. I hope to tease out some of the complexities of the legislation during my contribution, but it is not as easy as us just saying that trolls should be brought to book—I shall try to outline why.
Trolling has become a sick hobby for some and an increasing problem for dedicated police trying to monitor and respond to reported cases. Trolls are individuals intent on upsetting and offending people, often in their hour of grief and mourning, for a kind of pleasure that I must admit is totally alien to me and, I would think, to every person in this Chamber.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on bringing the matter to the House’s attention. Every Member will have examples of constituents who have been subjected to trolling, whether in the workplace, in schools or on the internet. Young people who write about the good things that have happened to them can find that they are attacked on the websites. The example of Tom Daley comes to mind, because of what happened to him at the Olympics, when a cheerful thing turned into nastiness. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that there must be some system in place, whether banning trolls from using the websites, legislation or whatever, to protect young people and those using the internet in an innocent fashion?
Steve Rotheram
I agree that the first thing to do is to try to identify those people causing the offence, which is very difficult because they hide behind the anonymity of a computer. The second part, of course, is to try to get the issue out among the general public, so that we can secure a culture change in society. One of the starting points is to highlight some of the celebrity trolling and the great offence it has caused, although it happens to ordinary people too.
Graham Jones (Hyndburn) (Lab)
It seems that local newspapers now cannot have an online discussion or commentary following an article on their websites because trolls will totally dominate and post page after page of abuse, which means other people just switch off. I do not know whether that is my hon. Friend’s experience, but it is certainly mine.
Steve Rotheram
I have experienced and identified that when reading the comments beneath an article. It is not about people having extreme views; it is about the posting of really offensive, disgusting and vile comments that shock people. That sort of thing is prevalent in online discussions.
I want to bring to the House’s attention the case of Georgia Varley, who was just 16 years old when she slipped from a platform under the carriage of a departing train at James Street station in Liverpool. Her devastated family and friends set up a dedicated memorial page on Facebook to inform others of Georgia’s death and as a means of demonstrating their outpouring of love and affection for this popular schoolgirl. But in the days and weeks that followed, sick, vile and truly grotesque individuals whose identity was hidden through an online alias abused Georgia’s site. Most had never even visited Liverpool and certainly had no knowledge of Georgia, but they thought it would be fun to exploit her death.
I would never dream of repeating the vicious insults directed at Georgia and her family, because it would be wrong for them to appear in Hansard. Indeed, I believe that it would probably give the trolls a kick if they thought that outcome was the product of their vindictiveness. However, I have directed my staff to keep records of certain trolls, and I would be happy to place copies in the House of Commons Library if requested so that Members can ascertain for themselves the truly depraved nature of the content.
Nadine Dorries
I thank the hon. Gentleman for being so generous in giving way. I think that he has recounted that story before in this place, and it is truly awful, but the situation is even worse. There are cases of people actually being driven to their deaths by trolls. Two cases come to mind, those of Natasha MacBryde and Olivia Penpraze, who both wrote on the internet and thought that social media was something they could engage with. They thought that the people they were engaging with were just reasonable human beings, but the fact is that there are some pretty horrific people out there. Those two girls were driven to their deaths by trolls telling them to kill themselves. That is the severity of the situation. It is not just people who have died whose sites are abused; people can be driven to their deaths.
Steve Rotheram
Those are two of the most depressing and disgusting instances of trolling. It is not just about having a bit of fun; it can lead to serious consequences. I will return to the case of at least one of those people who, unfortunately, took their own life.
Part of the problem is that a degree of professionalism is associated with some trolls that might be too sophisticated for our laws to combat in their current guise. The relevant legislation on this matter predates the birth of social media such as Facebook and Twitter, which were not launched until 2004 and 2006 respectively. In fact, since becoming actively involved in this issue, I have increasingly come to understand that the law surrounding trolling is a minefield. If only Thomas Jefferson had been right when he said:
“Laws are made for men of ordinary understanding and should, therefore, be construed by the ordinary rules of common sense. Their meaning is not to be sought for in metaphysical subtleties which may make anything mean everything or nothing at pleasure.”
A whole plethora of associated legislation could potentially be used against trolls, but there is nothing specific to outlaw the practice itself. The Suicide Act 1961 can still be used against those who encourage others to take their own lives, and it was specifically amended, with websites in mind and to simplify the law, by the Coroners and Justice Act 2009. We also have the Telecommunications Act 1984; section 4a of the Public Order Act 1986; the Computer Misuse Act 1990, which created precedent by extending the time limit to investigate cases for summary offence; and the Protection from Harassment Act 1997, under section 3(2) of which claimants may pursue a civil case for damages. Those are all relevant pieces of legislation, but none specifically identifies trolling as an offence, and every single one was passed before Facebook or Twitter existed. Even section 127 of the Communications Act 2003 predates social media, but it suggests that someone can be found to have broken the law if a message is sent that is
“grossly offensive or of an indecent, obscene or menacing character.”
It goes on to say that the section
“targets false messages and persistent misuse intended to cause annoyance, inconvenience or needless anxiety”.
The Crown Prosecution Service clarified this on its website by stating:
“If a message sent is grossly offensive, indecent, obscene, menacing or false, it is irrelevant whether it was received. The offence is one of sending, so it is committed when the sending takes place.”
The CPS also confirms:
“A person guilty of an offence under the same section shall be liable, on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or to a fine or to both.”
The crime is dealt with under the fixed penalty scheme. However, there is a degree of subjectivity when we talk about causing offence. Trolls often write that they do not know what might cause offence to a particular individual and so cannot be accused of so doing.
We can already see the pitfalls. There is ambiguity over whether a six-month sentence is long enough in order to send a message to trolls that such behaviour is not to be tolerated and, by extension, to seek fundamentally to change behaviour. There are also questions about whether, given the complexities surrounding false identities, there is enough time for the police fully to investigate complaints and for the CPS to deem whether a successful prosecution is likely. The Guardian recently reported that nearly 8% of Facebook profiles were fake, which equates to approximately 83 million accounts worldwide. This has become not just a national but an international problem.
The other relevant piece of legislation is the Malicious Communications Act 1988, section 1 of which deals with the sending to another of
“any article which is indecent or grossly offensive, or which conveys a threat, or which is false, provided there is intent to cause distress or anxiety to the recipient”.
The offence covers letters, writing of all descriptions, electronic communications, photographs and other images in material form, tape recordings, films and video recordings.
I believe that the greatest strength of both that Act and the Communications Act 2003 is that for an offence to be deemed to have been committed, the intended recipient of the message never has to receive it. That is pivotal in prosecuting RIP trolls, because more often than not the intended recipient of their bile is deceased. It is therefore right and proper that it is the sending that is an offence, and that proof is not needed that a person has received the communication in question. There still has to be intent to cause offence or distress.
Jim Shannon
Does the hon. Gentleman therefore feel that there is a greater role for the police to play? If the legislation is in place and there is an opportunity to prosecute, should the police do more?
Steve Rotheram
It is always difficult to say whether the police should do more, and part of the problem is the complexities of the gaps in legislation which I have just identified. That has to be the starting place for the House to consider seriously whether a Bill should be introduced to close the loopholes that people have been able to wriggle out of.
There have recently been two prosecutions for racially motivated tweets. One was sent to the former footballer Stan Collymore and the other was sent in the wake of the collapse on the pitch of Fabrice Muamba. Both were vile comments, but the sanctions imposed by judges were met with condemnation from certain sections of the public and disdain from others for being too lenient.
We must work harder to raise the issue of trolling so that people know unequivocally that they should not say something online that they would not say face to face. The case of Natasha MacBryde, which was mentioned earlier, is perhaps the most high-profile case of trolling, because an 18-week prison sentence was handed out to Sean Duffy, who admitted that he was hooked on the sick craze. That is far and away the severest sentence that a court has handed out to date.
Many months before the release of the Hillsborough independent panel report, I spoke to Facebook about a page that had been set up on its site called “96 Wasn’t Enough”. It informed me that the content of the page and/or postings on the site did not constitute a breach of its community standards, and that there was no need to remove the page because there was not an implied or explicit threat. I add that I do not condone trolling by anyone. Alan Davies received some horrendous abuse over his ill-judged comments about Hillsborough, and I was quick to condemn hate messages aimed towards him and his family. I think it is better to educate than to abuse.
Trolling is not about normal social discourse, or even about disagreeing vehemently with someone who has a contrary opinion. The test should be quite simple: would someone be happy to put their name to what they have said under a false identity? We are not talking about cases of whistleblowing, in which it would be understandable to anonymise a person’s details. If the answer to that question is that someone would not be happy to be identified, we have to ask why. Why would somebody need to hide their identity under such circumstances?
Having listened carefully to what Facebook had to say when I met it, I have developed a better understanding of what it determines to be acceptable. Although I may disagree with the grey areas within the boundaries that social media sites impose, I understand that they are as much about the sharing of information as they are about people getting a better understanding of local, national, regional and international cultures, events in history and universally famous tragedies. However, I have severe reservations about the ability of social media sites to understand fully the gross offence caused by certain types of message, especially to families and friends of deceased victims. Surely common sense must prevail. All too often, the benefit of the doubt falls in favour of the rights of the troll over those of their innocent target.
Trolling is not about disagreeing with another person’s perspective. It is not about telling somebody straight what they think about them, or that they think that the other person is wrong. Trolling is not even about arguing with somebody online about sensitive issues. It is about setting out, intentionally and deliberately, to cause gross offence to another, or to say something menacing.
I reiterate that I hope that tonight’s debate is just the beginning. I am keen to hear others’ views and to learn new things about trolling. Will the Minister therefore answer the following questions? Do the Government fully appreciate the escalating problem of trolling? What monitoring of activity are they undertaking? Are the Government satisfied with the prosecution rate of trolls, or does the Minister believe, like me, that the number of trolling cases far outweighs that of convictions? Has the Minister met the police and/or the CPS recently to discuss the obstacles to prosecuting trolls? What time frame have the Government scheduled to look at ways in which to address the problem? Could an amendment to legislation be made in this Parliament, if the Minister believes that to be appropriate? What discussions has he had with social media sites about the need to strengthen the community standards that govern best practice on them? Does he agree that they could and should do far more to aid the police with prosecuting trolls?
I believe that the law of the land needs to be constantly updated to reflect social and technological advancements. However, I also appreciate that, in the case of trolling, concerted effort by Parliament to change online culture may well prove to be just as important as an amendment to existing legislation.
Points of Order
Steve Rotheram Excerpts(12 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Steve Rotheram (Liverpool, Walton) (Lab)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. You will be aware that, last Thursday, a document—Cabinet papers from 1989 on the Hillsborough disaster—was leaked to the BBC. Many believe that the leak could only have come from a senior politician or a senior civil servant, or that the BBC itself must have had access to this sensitive documentation. There have also been suggestions that there may well be further leaks on a “drip, drip” basis, which will undermine the work of the Hillsborough independent panel. Given the urgency—
Mr Speaker
Order. I intend no discourtesy to the hon. Gentleman. What I am seeking to establish is: what is the point of order for the Chair? That is the question.
Steve Rotheram
Given the urgency of the situation, Mr Speaker, perhaps you can offer me guidance on the most appropriate parliamentary mechanism to ensure that as many Members as possible have the opportunity, and sufficient time, to debate the intricacies of such a complex issue.
Mr Speaker
There are a number of answers to the hon. Gentleman’s point of order. First, I do not give procedural advice to Members from the Chair. Secondly—as one wag has just observed from a sedentary position—it is open to the hon. Gentleman to consult the Standing Orders, and he could probably do so to his advantage. Thirdly, my genuine and constructive advice to the hon. Gentleman is that he should consult the Table Office about the variety of parliamentary devices that could be available to him, and could enable him further and better to pursue the matter.
Oral Answers to Questions
Steve Rotheram Excerpts(12 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mrs May
I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for his question. As he will have seen from the Prime Minister’s comments following his discussions with the President, discussions are taking place between this Government and the American Government about the extradition treaty, and I will report shortly.
Steve Rotheram (Liverpool, Walton) (Lab)
T9. The number of passengers arriving at Liverpool John Lennon airport, which is Britain’s fastest growing airport, rose from 294,000 in quarter 1 of 2010 to 713,000 in quarter 3 of 2011. The vast increase coincided with the Home Secretary’s decision to open the doors of Britain without proper checks last summer. What guarantees can she give to the people of Liverpool that all 713,000 of those passengers had their passports checked?
Damian Green
I am glad that the local economy around John Lennon airport is flourishing and that more people are now using it. I am happy to reassure the hon. Gentleman and his constituents that, for the first time, full checks are now being operated at the border. As John Vine’s report showed, that had not been happening since 2007.
Metal Theft
Steve Rotheram Excerpts(12 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Steve Rotheram (Liverpool, Walton) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hyndburn (Graham Jones) on securing this debate and on his tenacious approach to this issue from the outset. I was a sponsor of his ten-minute rule Bill in November; he has not rested on his laurels since.
As colleagues have said in this debate and in previous exchanges, there has been a huge increase in the theft of cable and other metals. The exponential rise in thefts requires an equally robust legislative response, which the Government should be pushing through, but instead they are trying to catch up with the momentum given to this issue by Opposition Members. Although legislation will not stop all such crime—it never does—it would make it more difficult for criminals to profit from their ill-gotten gains and make it easier to track and prosecute those responsible. Nobody should be in any doubt that the Scrap Metal Dealers Act 1964 needs to be updated. We did not have things such as CCTV and SmartWater technology back then.
As we have heard, metal theft is not simply a matter of the illegal sale of stolen scrap; its consequences can have profound knock-on effects. Without a tougher regulatory framework, trains will continue to face disruption because of missing signalling gears and cables, electricity supplies will be interrupted because of the theft of power lines, and our heritage will be poorer because of the vandalism of plaques and war memorials.
Steve Rotheram
No, I will make some progress.
Even some of our churches have been hit by metal thieves. The stripping of a few hundred quid’s worth of lead has resulted in many thousands of pounds’ worth of damage to the building’s structure. Some churches have actually closed.
This is a serious crime that requires Members to produce a serious and viable solution that increases police power but safeguards legitimate, socially responsible scrap metal firms from financial restriction. We must do all in our power to clamp down on rogue dealers and metal laundering. Unless the Government agree to introduce a form of licensing for metal dealers and insist that anyone producing scrap metal must produce photographic identification, their limited response to a growing problem will be seen as no more than a sop. They need to grant the police and magistrates powers, which must be combined with vehicle badging for mobile scrap metal dealers. Trends suggest that without those necessary safeguards, the problem will continue to grow.
As the hon. Member for Wyre Forest (Mark Garnier) said, not every dealer in the scrap metal industry is a Steptoe and Son-esque, turn-a-blind-eye fly-by-night. The industry provides a service that is both environmentally friendly in recycling terms and economically beneficial to UK plc. It is estimated that it contributes £5 billion a year to the UK economy, with much of that figure coming from small firms. Our plans would restore confidence and make it a better-regulated business. I firmly believe that there has to be a stronger law enforcement mechanism and regulatory framework in place, so I urge colleagues of all parties to support the motion.