Oral Answers to Questions

Luciana Berger Excerpts

Thursday 20th June 2013 Commons Chamber

[Maria Miller]

My right hon. Friend will know that John Witherow has been appointed as acting editor of The Times. Appointing a new editor of The Times is a matter for the independent national directors and shareholders. There would be an opportunity to intervene to enforce the requirement for separate publications to be maintained; that is really where my powers come into play.

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

The international festival for business is a national event, which next year will take place in Liverpool in June and July. A quarter of a million visitors are expected. It is supported by the Prime Minister, and the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills is providing significant financial resource. What support will DCMS provide to ensure that the cultural offer that supports the conference and the other events is significant and promotes all that the top arts and creative industries have to provide?

[Mr Vaizey]

The hon. Lady raised this point in yesterday’s Opposition day debate. She also extolled the many cultural virtues of Liverpool, and I heartily endorse her comments. I am sorry that I did not answer her question then. As I understand it, the Arts Council is talking to Liverpool about the cultural support it can give around the international festival, and I will talk to the Arts Council about its plans, and write to the hon. Lady.

--- Later in debate ---

[Hugh Robertson]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely correct: the single biggest issue affecting gender-based participation in British sport in the last 20 years has been the post-school drop-out, which is most severe among teenage girls. The Government have sought to address that in the recent round of whole sport plans by concentrating on those in the 14-to-25 age group; by setting up 500 new satellite clubs, which will help to transition girls out of school and into sports clubs; and through the Sport England College Sport Makers, specialists in further education colleges who will help specifically with that drop-off.

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

A total of 36% of the medals won by Team GB were won by women, but women’s sport gets just 0.5% of sports sponsorship. What action is the Minister taking to ensure that this unacceptable situation is adequately tackled?

[Hugh Robertson]

The hon. Lady is absolutely right to draw attention to the success of the many women who competed for Team GB last year. We tried to put in place a new sports marketing bureau, headed by Sir Keith Mills, responsible for drawing up the sponsorship for London 2012, but I am afraid that the sports en masse did not want to sign up to that and wished to continue to negotiate sponsorship agreements on their own. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport hosted the summit, bringing together people from the worlds of broadcasting and sport, and we are doing everything we can to address the crucial issue the hon. Lady raises.

Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill

Luciana Berger Excerpts

Monday 10th June 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

What I am trying to explain to the House is that the new orders and powers we are introducing in this legislation will make it possible to take the sort of effective action that can be taken under a dog control notice, albeit without having to introduce something that is specifically called a dog control notice, with limits around that. The flexibility will be there because we are introducing wider powers, but they can be used to address the specific issue of dangerous dogs and their behaviour.

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

I thank the Home Secretary for kindly giving way. I share the sentiment expressed by many Members, including the Chair of the Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, that the proposals in the Bill are woefully inadequate. On prevention, can the Home Secretary share with the House why the police do not support the proposals in the Bill?

[Mrs May]

I do not believe that the proposal to extend the offence of having a dog that is dangerously out of control from public spaces to all places, so that it covers private places as well, or that ensuring that it is possible under the new flexible powers for preventive action to be taken—I have given some examples—is, as the hon. Lady describes, “woefully inadequate”. What we are doing in this Bill is setting out a set of clear, flexible arrangements that can be used to ensure the sort of control of dogs that, I am sure, not just she, but other Members of this House wish to see.

--- Later in debate ---

[Yvette Cooper]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. Looked at across the board—whether it be what is happening with DNA or CCTV—Government Members are making it harder for the police to do their job.

After the London riots, CCTV helped to secure huge numbers of convictions. We all know from our constituencies of communities and estates that have worked hard to get CCTV and how it has helped to provide security in those areas, cutting down on antisocial behaviour and abuse. Yet the freedom of information requests put in by my hon. Friend the Member for Ashfield (Gloria De Piero) have shown that one in five councils is now cutting CCTV under a Home Secretary who is wrapping CCTV in a whole load of new red tape. There are already safeguards for residents’ privacy, but the Home Secretary wants a whole load of extra checks, rules and administration just to make sure. The impact assessment produced by the Home Office has found that these new regulations will cost the police and councils £14 million to comply with—and it could be as much as £30 million at a time when resources are so stretched. The Home Secretary, who has already wasted £100 million on the November police and crime commissioner elections now wants to waste up to £30 million making it harder, not easier, to get CCTV. The Home Secretary welcomed extra CCTV in her own constituency three years ago; she should stop making it harder for everyone else to get it.

[Luciana Berger]

Does my right hon. Friend share my pride in the fact that City Watch in Liverpool does such a formidable job with its extensive CCTV network, which is visited by people from not only other cities across the UK, but from across Europe because it is so advanced? It has managed to prosecute people successfully for the crimes that they have committed. Would it not be a shame if other cities and places across the UK could not benefit in the same way as the people of Liverpool have, making ours one of the safest cities in the country?

[Yvette Cooper]

My hon. Friend is right. We have seen the impact in a whole series of areas—as I said, during the London riots, for example. In fact, at the time of the riots, the Prime Minister said of CCTV:

“We are making technology work for us…And as I said yesterday, no phoney human rights concerns about publishing photographs will get in the way of bringing these criminals to justice.”

It would seem, however, that the Home Secretary is tying herself up in exactly those so-called “phoney human rights concerns” that she has pledged to abolish.

This Bill will not make it easier to tackle antisocial behaviour. The Government are indeed making changes to powers: antisocial behaviour injunctions will be replaced with crime prevention injunctions; public space orders will be replaced with public space protection orders; acceptable behaviour agreements will be replaced with acceptable behaviour contracts; premises closure notices will be replaced by closure notices; and noise abatement notices will be replaced by community protection notices. No set of powers will be perfect, and everyone wants to make sure that the system is as swift and easy to use as possible. The trouble is that the Bill will not achieve that. There is a lot of changing of names and a lot of tinkering at the margins. Some changes may help and make it simpler; others may make it harder while agencies work out how the new processes are supposed to work.

Housing associations, for example, have warned that it will take five years to develop the case law for the new powers to work. The Government’s own figures admit that it will require at least 150,000 hours of police training to use these powers, even though many of them are remarkably similar to the old powers they replaced. The fact is that communities, councils, housing associations, the police and the courts need a wide range of tools to deal with very different problems. The risk for the Home Secretary is that, by trying to squeeze a wide range of problems into a narrow number of powers, she may make it harder to achieve that.

On the one hand, many organisations have written to The Times today to say that they fear this will mean too heavy-handed treatment for the lowest level of antisocial behaviour or nuisance, while on the other hand police officers have raised with me their concern that the powers will not be strong enough to deal with the worst problems. The one-size-fits-all approach has risks.

We need early intervention. We do not want to see young people unnecessarily criminalised or dragged through the courts for low-level problems when it can be sorted out on the spot. We do want to know that persistent, aggressive antisocial behaviour that can terrorise neighbours or residents will be dealt with properly, including by criminal sanctions where needed. Yes, we should have community resolutions and remedies for antisocial behaviour, but they must not be abused.

We know that community resolutions are now being used for serious and violent crimes, including for domestic violence. Last year, community resolutions were used for 33,000 serious and violent crimes, including in 2,500 domestic violence cases, where the Association of Chief Police Officers was clear that they should not be used.

--- Later in debate ---

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

I am glad to have the opportunity to contribute to this important debate, particularly as it touches on an issue that is incredibly close to my heart. Before coming to that point, I know that many right hon. and hon. Members have addressed, or will address, some of the wider measures the Bill is concerned with. Although I welcome some of those measures, I have a number of concerns about the Government’s plans for tackling antisocial behaviour. In particular, I am worried that the Bill will make it harder, not easier, for communities to deal with and combat antisocial behaviour effectively.

We discovered only this weekend that red tape introduced in the Bill will cost police and local councils at least £14 million to get CCTV. As I mentioned in an intervention on the Home Secretary—the point is worth sharing in more detail—Liverpool’s City Watch team has used state-of-the-art CCTV both as a deterrent and to identify and convict those who commit crimes and antisocial behaviour offences. It is a very advanced system and it has been highly effective. As a result, Liverpool is now one of the safest cities in the country, according to the UK Statistics Authority. We often have delegations—not only from across the country but from across Europe—who visit the facility and meet the operators, who are highly trained and technical, to see what they are doing and how it might be replicated elsewhere. Given that success, I echo the sentiment I expressed before: it would be such a shame if other local authorities that need CCTV or want to advance their systems were unable to follow that good example. I have every confidence that Opposition Front Benchers will address those concerns in Committee.

I will focus the rest of my remarks on the measures in the Bill for tackling dangerous dogs, which are covered in part 7. Perhaps it is fate, design or just pure coincidence that it is 22 years to the day since the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 received its Second Reading in this House. That was a very long time ago, and it has become clear since, particularly over the past 10 years, that the legislation has not been up to the job. The issue was first raised with me in my constituency just before I was elected three years ago, after the tragic death of John Paul Massey, who was just four years old, in the run-up to the general election. His death really affected the whole community—some members of my community are still very much affected. I have worked closely with his mother, Angela, to raise these issues with the Government. It happened on 30 November 2009. Angela has been incredibly stoic and brave in campaigning on the issue so that no other family has to go through what her family have gone through. Angela came with John Paul Massey’s father and representatives of many other organisations about a year ago to deliver a letter to the Prime Minister highlighting their concerns about the legislation as it stands. I have been compelled by Angela’s incredible bravery to take up her case and ensure that no one else suffers as she has.

[Julie Hilling]

I want to add my tribute to the family of John Paul Massey, because they have also been supporting the family of Jade Lomas-Anderson as they have been going through the same thing.

[Luciana Berger]

I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention. I know that those words will have been heard by Angela and that they will be very welcome and kindly received.

This really is an issue that transcends party politics. I have worked with many Members on both sides of the House who have campaigned on the issue. It does not discriminate between urban and rural areas; it affects all our constituencies. Many people have been campaigning on the issue for far longer than I have; I was elected only three years ago. It was actually the first thing I spoke about in the House. Many people outside the House have worked tirelessly on the issue. My hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies) mentioned Dave Joyce, of the Communication Workers Union, who works so hard to raise the issue with Members on both sides of the House on behalf of his members, the postal workers who deliver our mail everyday. Claire Robinson of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals works incredibly hard on the issue. Organisations including the Dogs Trust, the National Dog Warden Association, the Association of Chief Police Officers, the Blue Cross and Battersea Dogs & Cats Home have worked collectively to raise the profile of the issue with the Government and to see some urgent action.

The previous Government initiated a comprehensive consultation on what could be done to promote responsible dog ownership and combat dog attacks on people and other animals. It is regrettable that it has taken three years for the Government to respond to that consultation, which concluded in June 2010, and bring forward the measures we are discussing today.

[Robert Flello]

On that point, one thing that really concerns me is that not only has it taken that time to get to this stage with the draft legislation, but in that time we have seen measures relating to the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 1995 introduced specifically to exclude dog attacks.

[Luciana Berger]

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. He has been working hard with the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers, as have I, as a member of USDAW, to raise the profile of that issue. It is highly regrettable that the Government have chosen to exclude people who have been attacked by dogs from the criminal injuries compensation scheme. I hope that they will reconsider that.

I wish to welcome some of the measures the Government are bringing forward. As the hon. Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert) mentioned, the fact that the Government now recognise that attacks on assistance dogs should be acknowledged as a very specific crime is to be welcomed. Many organisations, including the guide dogs trust and the Royal National Institute of Blind People, have been working tirelessly on behalf of the visually impaired community to highlight the fact that at least 10 assistance dogs are attacked every month. Most people do not know that a guide dog costs around £50,000 over its lifetime, and that is all charitable money because no support is received from the Government. If a guide dog is attacked, the repercussions and implications for the person the dog is there to support are far reaching, so I welcome the fact that the Government are addressing that in the Bill.

The law is also being extended to cover attacks that take place on private property. We know that the vast majority of attacks happen in someone’s home, in a front or back garden, so it is right that that loophole is being closed. We have heard from other Members specifically about the attacks on postal workers. About 5,000 postal workers are attacked every year, and they will most certainly be thankful for this measure. I had not been aware that since 2011 4,100 working days have been lost at Royal Mail owing to injuries incurred through dog attacks on our postmen and women, and that has cost Royal Mail approximately £400,000. It is not only postal workers who have been attacked on private property; so have our emergency services, social workers, telecomm operators and health visitors, many of whom put themselves at risk every day when they enter the homes of the public. I welcome the fact that the Government are going to do something to address this.

I also welcome the Government’s plans on compulsory microchipping by 2016. There is in our country a significant and growing problem with stray dogs. I meet many owners who are separated from their pets, and having a microchip helps them to be reunited. However, much more needs to be done if the horrific attacks are to be stamped out. Officials have estimated that more than 200,000 people are bitten or attacked by a dog in England every year. That is an absolutely staggering figure. Because I am involved in a campaign to raise the profile of this issue, I receive an e-mail at least once a week from someone somewhere in the country who has been affected by a dog attack. I should like to mention just one that has been reported today in the Liverpool Echo.

Theo Reynolds is three years old, and his life changed for ever just a few weeks ago after he suffered a vicious attack while out walking with his dad down a Liverpool street. The dog went for him and bit off his toe. Doctors attempted to reattach it but were unfortunately unsuccessful. Every year, our NHS spends more than £3.5 million treating injuries sustained in dog attacks such as the one that Theo suffered. What is most harrowing is that the victims of these attacks are so often children, who go on to suffer not just the physical consequences but the long-term psychological and emotional effects. I have spoken to many parents whose children are now unable to go out or enter a park or a playground because of the impact that a dog attack has had on their life.

[Huw Irranca-Davies (Ogmore) (Lab)]

I commend my hon. Friend for her speech. I have met a father whose young child was playing on a lovely day in a park and found an animal running in circles round the playground time and again, completely out of control. That child had their ear ripped off. Beyond the legislation, there is an onus on the owners to take responsibility for their dogs.

[Luciana Berger]

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. He tells a story that I have heard too many times. When we talk about dog attacks, we have to talk about responsible dog ownership. Lots of people say that they feel they may not have the skills or the expertise best to look after their pet, and that is one of the things that the Government should seriously consider. The example that my hon. Friend gave and the examples that have been cited by others illustrate why we need to give a range of powers to the police, local authorities and our fantastic dog wardens, who will prevent these attacks from happening in the first place. I am seriously concerned that the Bill as it stands is far too weak. I share the analysis of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, which said that these plans are woefully inadequate. Where is the support for owners to provide them with the education they need best to look after their pet? Where is there anything in this Bill that will properly prevent dog attacks, specifically, from happening in the first place?

I hope that the Home Secretary will listen again to the many calls to include dog control notices in the Bill, because the wider, non-dog-specific community protection notices, criminal behaviour orders and crime prevention injunctions that it will introduce do not cut it and will take far too long to implement. A dog control notice would enforce muzzling a dog and keeping it on a lead wherever it is in a place to which the public have access, and the owner and their dog having to attend and complete a training course if that is felt to be necessary. It would ensure on-the-spot action before the behaviour of the dog or the owner escalates. It would be a more immediate measure than the lengthy, bureaucratic processes that the Bill will introduce, which will take far too long and I fear will be implemented after something very serious has happened. This approach has already been used in Scotland and has been endorsed by the EFRA Committee. Many people, including those at the Dogs Trust, believe it is an effective means of ensuring responsible dog ownership. We desperately need early intervention and prevention, and they are what are lacking.

When our predecessors debated these issues 22 years ago, one name that featured prominently was that of 11-year-old Kelly Lynch, who was tragically mauled to death by two Rottweilers in 1989. Sadly, two decades on, there have been far too many more cases of families who have lost loved ones to similar attacks. Just two weeks ago another name was added to that list—that of Clifford Clarke, a 79-year-old man who was set upon and mauled to death in his garden while cooking a barbecue. Overall, according to research by the Communication Workers Union, 16 people have been killed in dangerous dog attacks since 2005. Sadly, the action that we are debating today will come too late for them and their relatives. I have come to know some of those families, and I know that other hon. Members have too. Those I have met have expressed just two wishes: that they could have their loved ones back and that no family should have to suffer a loss such as theirs.

As we consider that plea, it is only right that the names of the people who have lost their lives are recorded: Liam Eames, aged one; Cadey-Lee Deacon, aged five months; Ellie Lawrenson, aged five; Archie-Lee Hirst, aged one; James Redhill, aged 78; Stephen Hudspeth, aged 33; Jaden Mack, aged three months; Andrew Walker, aged 21; John Paul Massey, aged four; Zumer Ahmed, aged 18 months; Barbara Williams, aged 52; Leslie Trotman, aged 83; Gloria Knowles, aged 71; Harry Harper, aged eight days; Jade Lomas-Anderson, aged 14; and Clifford Clarke, aged 79. I hope that the Government will remember those people when this Bill is going through Parliament and consider what more can be done to prevent any other name from being added to that list.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

Violence against Women and Girls

Luciana Berger Excerpts

Thursday 14th February 2013 Commons Chamber

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

On the day when we celebrate love and romance, I am glad to take part in a debate that seeks to ensure that no one should ever be subject to a mentally or physically abusive relationship. I congratulate the Backbench Business Committee on securing the debate and my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy) on her work in raising the profile of the incredible One Billion Rising campaign.

Despite Liverpool being the second safest city, victims of domestic violence make more than one in five of all 999 calls to Merseyside police—the highest rate in the country. That amounts to 43,995 calls. The increase in the incidence of domestic violence across Merseyside is staggering, with 32,511 incidents having been reported in the last year—an increase of 36% from 2003. This situation cannot continue. It is a terrible indictment that in 2013 in the UK one in six children aged 11 to 17 experience sexual abuse and that 109 women and girls lost their lives last year at the hands of a partner or former partner.

At least 750,000 children a year witness domestic violence. Although that affects both girls and boys—I note the point made by the hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies)—80% of calls to ChildLine on abuse were from girls. The statistics on that are many. Even if the Government do not accept the enduring physical, psychological, emotional and social consequences experienced by too many women across our country because of this terrible crime, it must surely be in their interest, given that according to the Home Office violence against women and girls costs the public purse £36.7 billion a year, to address these heinous crimes and do more about this stain on our national conscience.

We have a serious problem in our society when findings from the crime survey in England and Wales show that one in 12 people think that a victim is completely or mostly responsible for someone sexually assaulting them when they are under the influence of drugs or alcohol, or when they are sexually assaulted by someone they were flirting with heavily beforehand. No one in the country should ever blame a victim for the crimes perpetrated against them.

Is this any wonder when too many abusers are glorified? Perhaps one of the most famous cases of domestic violence was in March 2009, when the music artist Chris Brown was charged for, and pleaded guilty to, assaulting Rihanna. Members will remember the shocking photos of Rihanna in our press—her lip was split and she had a bloody nose and major contusions on either side of her face—yet two years later Chris Brown was given an international platform at the Grammies. This is the man who subsequently got a tattoo on his neck showing a woman bearing a striking similarity to Rihanna and the scars of a serious beating.

We heard the other week that some of our major supermarkets are stocking an energy drink called Black Energy promoted by the convicted rapist Mike Tyson. It uses the slogan “Sex energy” and includes a series of adverts in which he is surrounded by scantily clad women in bikinis and calls himself “an animal”. I remind the House that this is a man who spent three years in jail for his heinous crimes. We also heard last year about the tragic story of a girl from Battersea who did not report a rape at the age of 11 because of a storyline in “Eastenders” that made her so worried about the court process that she thought she would not be supported.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I understand that a television advertising campaign beginning today or tomorrow will highlight the fact that 30% of young girls are sexually assaulted and that 25% are physically abused. Does the hon. Lady believe that such a campaign will help to reduce those figures?

[Luciana Berger]

We know that there has been a massive reduction, if not a complete moratorium, on the Government spending money on public information adverts. I think, however, that money spent in this area would be welcome, so I hope that the Minister will think seriously about allocating some of the budget to informing and educating the public about domestic violence and abuse, particularly at a time when this crime is on the increase.

There are people committed to tackling violence against women and girls. In Merseyside, our recently elected police and crime commissioner, my predecessor, Jane Kennedy, signed up to a dedicated series of pledges to tackle violence against women and girls that included maintaining specialist domestic violence and public protection units within the police service, which are at risk across the country owing to police cuts; delivering specialist training in domestic and sexual violence; and developing the roll-out of an integrated local action plan to tackle violence against women and girls. In December, we also saw the launch of the Draw A Line campaign, specifically aimed at combating domestic violence.

The reason for today’s debate, however, is that we need to do even more. We need our schools to do everything they can to educate the next generation. We recently saw the One Billion Rising sessions that took place across the country—we had one in Liverpool, at which women called for the statutory introduction of sex and relationships education in all our schools. We also need urgently to challenge the stereotypes in the press and media and to teach both girls and boys about how to respect each other in relationships. We need these statutory provisions to make personal, social and health education, including a zero-tolerance approach to violence and abuse in relationships, a requirement in every school in our land.

Just before this debate, as has been mentioned, we came together in Parliament square in support of the One Billion Rising campaign and heard the names of the 109 women murdered last year by a present or former partner. It was tragic. The reason for the debate is that we need to do everything we can to ensure that we never have to read out the names of 109 women again.

Oral Answers to Questions

Luciana Berger Excerpts

Monday 11th February 2013 Commons Chamber

[Damian Green]

As I said to the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Steve Rotheram), in the particular instance of the Hillsborough investigation my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has already made that commitment on resources. There is clearly a wider point about the IPCC’s resources and how it operates, and a statement on that will be made very shortly.

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

10. What steps she plans to take to increase the use of CCTV in response to community demand.

[Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)]

11. What steps she plans to take to increase the use of CCTV in response to community demand.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (James Brokenshire)]

The Government support the effective use of CCTV to cut crime and protect the public. It is a matter for local agencies to determine how best to deploy and use CCTV systems to meet local needs.

[Luciana Berger]

In Liverpool, the City Watch team have used state-of-the-art CCTV to deter crime and antisocial behaviour and to identify and convict those guilty of offences. As a result, according to the UK Statistics Authority, Liverpool is now the second-safest city in the country. Given this success, why does the Minister want to make it harder for the police and other local authorities to get CCTV for communities who want and need it?

[James Brokenshire]

We certainly recognise the important part that CCTV can play in making communities safer, and the hon. Lady has mentioned the City Watch programme in Liverpool. The Government are not seeking to make it harder to use CCTV; rather, we are seeking to put in place steps to ensure that its use is effective and commands the support of the public and, in so doing, that it can continue to carry out its important work.

Hillsborough

Luciana Berger Excerpts

Monday 22nd October 2012 Commons Chamber

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

Many Members on both sides of the House have made impassioned speeches, and many have presented arguments that I wish to present as well. I shall therefore use my brief contribution to reinforce some of their points, as well as adding some of my own.

Let me begin by adding my voice to the tributes that other Members have paid to the families of the 96 victims. The publication of the independent panel’s report lays bare the double injustice that they have suffered for far too long, and is a major step forward in their search for truth and justice. However, as all of us who are taking part in the debate well know, the report represents not the end of that struggle, but merely the beginning of a new chapter. For 23 years the families and survivors have been let down, and we owe it to them to ensure that we do everything possible to ensure that they finally get the justice they deserve.

I want to record my thanks to the Bishop of Liverpool and the members of his panel for the forensic work that they did on the report. It is testimony to the bishop’s efforts that the Home Secretary confirmed today that she wished to retain him as an adviser on all matters connected with Hillsborough. I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham) and my hon. Friend the Member for Garston and Halewood (Maria Eagle) for the work that they did when in government. They called for the release of documentation, and set up the independent panel. I also pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Steve Rotheram), who has been a powerful and passionate advocate for justice for the victims of Hillsborough. I am sure that we shall hear him speak movingly later this evening.

I welcome the Government’s decision to set aside time for the debate. I also welcome the Home Secretary’s announcement that, if the Attorney-General approves, a special prosecutor will be appointed to examine the possibility of criminal charges. That will be an unusual step, but it is clearly necessary given the nature of the tragedy, the extent of the cover-up, the pain that too many have suffered over two decades, and the many agencies that are implicated.

I support the calls from my right hon. Friend the Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper), the shadow Home Secretary, for the introduction of new powers to compel police officers to give evidence to the Independent Police Complaints Commission’s inquiry into Hillsborough. I also welcome the Attorney-General’s decision to make an application to the High Court for new inquests to take place, and join other Members in asking him to ensure that the process is completed as quickly as possible. New inquests are vital if the wrongs of the past are to be righted. Although the original coroner’s report returned a verdict of accidental death, the independent panel’s report clearly shows that the deaths of 96 innocent people that day were anything but accidental. That verdict must be overturned.

The deaths and suffering of the survivors were a result of systematic failures by football authorities, the police and the emergency services before, during and after what happened on that tragic day, 15 April 1989. It was clear before the game that the stadium was not a safe venue. The independent panel’s report shows that the risks were already known before 1989, and that the crush was therefore avoidable. The ground did not have an up-to-date safety certificate, and problems with congestion at the Leppings Lane end had already occurred during the 1981 and 1987 FA cup semi-finals. There had been actual crushing during the 1988 semi-final the year before, but little action had been taken as a result. Although some work had been done between 1981 and 1987, it was not sufficient to ensure that the ground met minimum safety standards. The fact that the ground was used for such a high-profile match, without an up-to-date safety certificate, shows a complete lack of concern for fan safety.

On the match day itself, key safety procedures were not followed. There was a failure to recognise that the turnstiles were inadequate, or to foresee the problems that would be caused by not sealing off the tunnel leading to the central pens. The response in the immediate aftermath of the crush was appalling. A general failure on the part of the emergency services to recognise what was happening was compounded by the failure to execute major incident plans correctly. Those mistakes cost lives.

Afterwards, a concerted and shameful cover-up of those mistakes began with the blaming of innocent victims. Hundreds of police statements were doctored and amended. The original coroner’s report set an arbitrary 3.15 pm cut-off time; the only reason for that seems to have been a desire to excuse the failings of the emergency services. The blood alcohol levels of those who had been killed—even children—were checked without consent. There was collusion between senior figures in the police force, the political sphere and the media to perpetrate a campaign to smear the fans and innocent victims. Despite the finding of the Taylor inquiry that the police were at fault, not a single officer responsible for the conduct of the police that day has been disciplined or prosecuted.

Those failings, and what in some cases appear to be specific acts of criminality, need to be investigated and exposed in more detail than is allowed by the time afforded to me, or even to today’s debate. That leaves the question of who is best placed to conduct such investigations. As my hon. Friend the Member for Garston and Halewood said in the House on the day the report was published, this cover-up, the lies, and the failure to bring prosecutions show a complete failing on the part of our legal system. Securing justice for the families of the victims must of course be our immediate priority, but once that process is complete, we must also consider the wider failings of our legal system. The fact that a public inquiry, a judicial inquiry, and the coroner’s inquest in the 1980s and 1990s failed to establish the truth of what happened at Hillsborough is deeply disturbing, and such a situation must never be repeated.

I think that it is clear from the report, and from today’s debate, that a number of things need to happen. First, the Attorney-General should submit his promised application for new inquests as soon as possible. Secondly, if that application is successful, it is crucial for the inquests to be held in Liverpool, for the costs to be borne by central Government rather than by any local authority, and—most important—for no legal costs to be borne by the families. The Home Secretary said this afternoon that her Department was looking into that, and I hope that its response will be favourable. Thirdly, a special prosecutor needs to be appointed and given the powers to conduct a full inquiry—including powers to question the police—in order to determine what criminal charges can and should be brought.

What happened at Hillsborough 23 years ago was a terrible tragedy that could have been prevented. It has been made worse by a shameful cover-up by parts of the very institutions that are meant to protect us. Now that we have the truth, we all have a duty to the 96 victims, their families and the survivors to secure justice and ensure that nothing like this ever happens again.

Oral Answers to Questions

Luciana Berger Excerpts

Monday 21st May 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

Yes. That is why the Government will be making changes in the family migration route along with their changes to article 8. Given that article 8 is about the right to a private and family life, the two are relevant to each other. What is crucial, however, is that article 8 is not an absolute right. It is qualified, and it allows the Government to operate a system under which people do not have an automatic right to stay here for the purposes of a family life. We want our courts to operate article 8 in the way in which it is written in the convention.

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

I listened carefully to what the Home Secretary said about changes that might be forthcoming. Does she believe that decisions should be made in a timely manner? My constituent Daniel Omonkhua was told by the UK Border Agency back in October 2010 that his article 8 application would be determined within a month. Why is he still waiting a year and a half later?

[Mrs May]

We do indeed want decisions to be made in a timely manner. That is better for the individuals themselves and for their families, if it is possible. If the hon. Lady writes to my hon. Friend the Minister for Immigration, he will look into the case.

Immigration Queues (UK Airports)

Luciana Berger Excerpts

Monday 30th April 2012 Commons Chamber

[Damian Green]

Criminal records checks depend on the quality of information we get from the sending country, and that will differ between different European countries. I am conscious of my hon. Friend’s attitude to the EU, but as we are talking about the immigration laws under the current laws of this country, I think we have said enough on that particular topic for this afternoon.

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

The queues at Heathrow are unacceptable, but there are also reports of long queues at Gatwick and the channel tunnel. Three weeks ago, I came into Gatwick at about half-past midnight and had to wait for more than half an hour to enter the country. I witnessed families with young children who were struggling badly with the delay. What inquiries has the Minister made into queues faced by travellers outside the capital?

[Damian Green]

As I have already explained, the service level agreement is that 95% of UK and EU passengers should be processed within 25 minutes and non-EU passengers should be processed within 45 minutes. Those are the targets Border Force has been set. Without knowing the details of the individuals to whom the hon. Lady refers, I cannot say whether or not they were processed in accordance with service standards. The point she makes about Calais and Coquelles is particularly ill-advised in that we have been told that, along with Easter, the February half-term is one of the busiest weeks at Calais and Coquelles because of schools coming back from half-term trips, and we prepared and planned, and there were no problems over that busy weekend.

Abu Qatada

Luciana Berger Excerpts

Thursday 19th April 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

My hon. and learned Friend has raised an important point. I can tell him that in indicating that it has received an application for referral that will be put before the panel of the Grand Chamber for consideration, the European Court has made it clear to the UK Government that the rule 39 injunction still applies.

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

It is very disappointing that we are not going to receive a clear answer from the Home Secretary about what advice she received from her officials. We do know, however, that the BBC informed the Home Office on Monday that there was some uncertainty about the deadline. On that basis, why did the Home Secretary not wait for an extra 24 hours before making her announcement?

[Mrs May]

I will repeat it again. I could not be clearer. [Interruption.] The deadline was on Monday 16 April. The Government took the first opportunity that arose to take action to resume the deportation, and we will do so again when the process through the European Court is finished.

Hillsborough Disaster

Luciana Berger Excerpts

Monday 17th October 2011 Commons Chamber

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

We have already heard, in the eloquent speeches made by many hon. Friends, moving tributes to the families of the 96 victims. I want to recognise the tireless work that so many have done to get us to where we are today. I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham) for the work that he did as Culture Secretary to secure the release of documents and to establish the independent panel; to my hon. Friend the Member for Garston and Halewood (Maria Eagle) for her role in calling for the release of the documents; and to my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Steve Rotheram), who, since being elected to this House, as he did before, has relentlessly pressed and campaigned for the publication of all documents. To the 140,000 people who signed the petition, I say thank you for ensuring that we are having this debate today—but it should not have taken so long.

None of us needs reminding of the events of that dark, dark day 22 years ago. Those dreadful scenes from Hillsborough will never be forgotten in Liverpool; they cast a permanent scar across the city and on Merseyside. What happened on that fateful afternoon was a tragedy not just for the people of Liverpool but for our whole country.

Growing up in Wembley, north-west London, I commemorated the disaster every year. Two of the 96 people who lost their lives were Sarah and Victoria Hicks, sisters aged just 15 and 19, Sarah studying chemistry at Liverpool university, Victoria still at school—the same school I went to. I and many others spent hours on a bench dedicated to their memory in the rose garden at our school. I met Jenny Hicks, Sarah and Victoria’s mother, at the 21st anniversary memorial service at Anfield. She is so brave. Jenny Hicks, her family, and all the families are so brave, and they have suffered enough. Their dignified and unwavering campaign for justice is an inspiration to us all.

I want to read a few words from a moving letter sent to me by one of my constituents:

“Everyone in the House of Commons has known private grief and experienced the same patterns of raw emotion. It is incumbent on all of you to recover from your memories those feelings which possessed you at the time of your grief and loss, and project yourselves into the unimaginable torment of living, in that condition, not for twenty-two days, or twenty-two weeks, or twenty-two months, but for twenty-two-years; in an unrelieved cloud of unknowing, tormented by the sure and certain knowledge that the facts, which alone, can end their private agony, have been sealed up against them, locked away by an indifferent and heedless power, that refuses to discuss the motives and purposes which drives its actions.

For twenty-two years, the immediate and extended families of the ninety-six victims of the Hillsborough disaster have endured the unendurable. With no comfort but their inmost resources and the solidarity of their friends, who, as the petition has shown, are no longer counted in handfuls but in Legions.”

For too long, these families have suffered without the truth. The actions taken by a few during and after that day have made their burdens even more difficult to bear. From the attempts at a cover-up to the desire to depict fans as the authors of their own disaster, so many scandals have been perpetrated against them. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Leigh wrote, an orchestrated campaign was conducted to place the blame for what happened on the victims rather than the authorities. Senior police officers lied about why the gates at the Leppings Lane terrace were opened, blaming Liverpool fans for forcing through them when in fact it was the authorities who had opened them. Ambulances which could have saved lives were refused entry into the ground. Police officers were ordered to change their accounts of what had occurred to cover up mistakes. A national newspaper printed lies about fans who were trying to save lives, disgracefully accusing them of stealing from victims and attacking police. Despite the Taylor inquiry finding that the police were at fault, not a single officer responsible for the conduct of the police that day has been disciplined. It simply is not right.

Twenty-two years later, it is hard to believe that so many questions remain unanswered. That is why it is imperative that all documentation is released, first to the independent panel and the families, and then what is appropriate to the public. I am grateful that the Home Secretary has clarified that the Government will not hold back any documents, because the independent panel and the families need everything—including all the Cabinet minutes, documents and papers relating to the Hillsborough disaster, right through to the present day. There is much speculation about what may have been said, done or written, including in correspondence between Douglas Hurd and Margaret Thatcher. The families will continue to be haunted by the speculation until everything is released. I echo the request of my right hon. Friend the Member for Leigh that the release of all information from private companies, specifically from News International, be included.

Today, all of us in this place owe it to every family who are suffering to put right what was done wrong and to ensure that the unredacted truth is unequivocally released, so that we can finally see what has taken far too long: justice for the 96.

Liverpool Passport Office

Luciana Berger Excerpts

Thursday 30th June 2011 Commons Chamber

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

I am pleased to have the opportunity to bring to the attention of the House a matter of great importance: the dismissal of 14 staff at the Liverpool passport office because of a major error made by their employer, the Identity and Passport Service, an executive agency of the Home Office.

I thank the Minister for meeting Liverpool MPs and arranging for us to discuss the situation with him and key staff. I also thank him for forwarding us a copy of the internal review into the issue, although it came complete with many redactions. The key facts are not disputed. On 21 March 2011, 14 permanent staff at Liverpool passport office were called to a hastily convened meeting to be told that what they thought was their permanent employment had abruptly ended. Four were dismissed immediately and 10 were switched to temporary employment, which has now finished for most of them.

The reason given was that the IPS had made a major error in awarding those staff permanent employment status from September 2008 when they were recruited under a friends and family scheme. The rules under which they were recruited meant they should only have been given temporary employment status for a maximum of two years. The employees were unaware of that fact and they had been given permanent status by their employer. The sudden dismissals without warning shocked and angered the staff, some of whom had left their previous employment to take up what they thought was a new career. Others had taken out loans or mortgages on the basis of their permanent employment. Indeed, the whole office remains upset.

I want to raise serious, still unresolved, issues about the conduct of the IPS in this sorry saga and the current status of the dismissed staff. There is considerable confusion about what happened. I have in my possession a very interesting letter dated 4 January 2011, written by Paul Luffman, head of employee relations at IPS, and addressed to Barry Forrester at the office of the Civil Service Commission. According to the letter, the IPS’s error was discovered in its recruitment audit at the end of March 2009. The Minister’s reply to my parliamentary question on 31 March 2011 contradicts that, stating that the error was discovered in March 2010.

Why did it take one or perhaps even two years to inform the staff that there was a question mark against their employment? According to a reply I received from the Minister for the Cabinet Office on 27 April 2011, the IPS told the Civil Service Commission on 27 April 2010 that it was dealing with the situation, replacing the permanent contracts with temporary ones. In reality, they were doing no such thing. Who signed off that incorrect information? Who gave the wrong information to Ministers? When did the Minister discover that the information was wrong?

It also appears that the recruitment audit file was not returned to the Liverpool office as it should have been; it was sent to the Peterborough office and destroyed. Paul Luffman’s letter asks the civil service commissioners if there were any alternatives to terminating the 14 permanent employment contracts, and that indeed is the key question. I understand that the letter was never dispatched. Why?

It is alleged that the letter was never dispatched because of concerns that it would embarrass David Normington, then permanent secretary at the Home Office and now first civil service commissioner and commissioner for public appointments. Is that correct? It is worth noting that David Normington would be in a difficult position to adjudicate the current situation.

Instead of the 14 Liverpool staff being informed of their problem at a time when more alternative jobs were available, they became unemployed two years later, when job opportunities were decreasing and educational and training courses were being curtailed.

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

My constituent, Denise Wheatcroft, who is 58 years old and the oldest of the group of 14 people, took the post with the Identity and Passport Service because she thought that it would guarantee her employment until her retirement. She now finds herself without a job aged 58. Does my hon. Friend agree that, if Denise had been informed of the situation when it was discovered, and in advance of the current situation, given the cuts that are impacting on Liverpool in particular, she would have been in a much better situation than she is today?

[Mrs Ellman]

I thank my hon. Friend for her comments and certainly agree. Indeed, she provides an example of the human cost of what has happened in Liverpool.

It has been said that the decision to dismiss the 14 employees was taken on the basis of “legal advice”, and it has even been claimed that to maintain their employment would have been “illegal”. I challenge that. I have seen no evidence that any formal legal advice was sought or obtained, and Paul Luffman’s letter seeking such advice was never sent.

Telephone conversations and personal discussions, which I am told took place, do not constitute formal legal advice; nor is there any record of the questions to which any verbal advice responded. The suggestion of “illegality” in allowing those employees to continue with the permanent status that they were awarded is grossly misleading and an attempt to divert attention from what has happened and from the culpability of those who are responsible.