| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Dr. Jenny Tonge (Richmond Park): Liberal Democrat Members would also like to extend their sympathy to the people of Montserrat at this terrible time. Although I appreciate the need of the people to stay on their island, I understand that the habitable area is becoming smaller and smaller and I want to know whether, in the long term, the Government have any plans for geological surveys or volcano surveys--I do not know the scientific name off the top of my head. Are there any plans in the long term to decide whether it is worth trying to persuade people to relocate elsewhere, and to help them to do so if that is necessary?
Mr. Foulkes: I am pleased to say that the British Geological Survey has been providing seismological and volcanological advice to the Government and the people of Montserrat. We will continue to provide that seismological and volcanological advice to the people of Montserrat. Although vulcanology is not an exact science, we hope that there will not be a more serious and more fatal eruption. It is important to remember that this has been a viable island, producing rice for the European Union and acting as a haven for tourists, and we would want it to continue to be viable, if at all possible. We are working with the Government of Montserrat to try to make that possible.
If evacuation has to take place, we will consider the position as sympathetically as possible and do everything we can to make sure that the people of Montserrat are properly dealt with.
Mr. Andrew Mackinlay (Thurrock):
Does not this tragedy highlight once more the fact that there is not adequate communication or facilities for communication between the legislative councils and Chief Ministers of small dependencies and this place?
I listened to the points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott). Will the Minister advise the House whether at any stage the legislative council or the Chief Minister tried to raise those points with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office or his Department? Secondly, will he put in the Library the messages from the Governor, who is responsible for these matters during emergencies, so as to indicate at what stage the gravity of the current situation was flagged up? Those messages are appropriate for scrutiny by Members of Parliament.
Mr. Foulkes:
In relation to the period for which I and the Government are responsible, I totally rebut my hon. Friend's suggestion.
I met the Chief Minister of Montserrat only five weeks ago when I was in Toronto at a meeting of the Caribbean development bank. As I said earlier, my noble Friend Baroness Symons visited Montserrat, met the Government and the Opposition and discussed what was necessary in the short and the long term. We were in the process of considering all of the things that we should provide for the Government and the people of Montserrat when, unfortunately, the eruption took place. It could not be
predicted, and I do not think that even my hon. Friend would blame the present Government--or a Conservative Government--for a volcanic eruption.
Mr. Tony Baldry (Banbury):
Will the hon. Gentleman reconsider his remarks about inactivity by the earlier Government, given that that Government paid for the building of a number of new schools and a new general hospital in Montserrat, which were destroyed by the volcano? Can he confirm that Montserrat receives more aid per head of population than any country in the world?
The House would like to know, if not today perhaps in tomorrow's debate, how much money are Her Majesty's Government are prepared to earmark to ensure that Montserrat is viable in future.
Mr. Foulkes:
I will certainly try to ensure that the hon. Gentleman's final question is answered in tomorrow's debate--if not in the introductory speech, then in the reply for which I am directly responsible.
It is not right to compare dependent territories with other countries. We have a special responsibility for dependent territories as long as they remain in that role, which is why I said that we accept, jointly with the elected Government of Montserrat, our responsibility to the people of Montserrat; and that continues.
No doubt if the hon. Gentleman catches your eye, Madam Speaker, he will have the opportunity tomorrow to extend his contribution and tell us what the previous Government did. I do not believe, however, that he will be able to say that they acted with the sense of urgency that has been shown in the past eight weeks.
Mr. Andrew Miller (Ellesmere Port and Neston):
My hon. Friend will be aware that, last year, I saw the devastation in Montserrat from a Lynx helicopter flying from the back of HMS Argyll, the West Indies guard ship on station at the time. In view of the risk to Lynx helicopters because of the nature of the dust from the volcanic explosion, is my hon. Friend satisfied that, in the event of there having to be a major evacuation, there is sufficient seaborne support to bring that about?
Mr. Foulkes:
Yes. As well as providing the ferry service, which started yesterday, we have had discussions with the Governments of the other islands in the area, and we are satisfied that there is sufficient seaborne capacity to carry out an evacuation. I can say, however, that we are currently reviewing the evacuation procedures--the second issue of which was produced earlier this year--in the light of recent happenings, to ascertain whether any updating and improvement are necessary.
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Jack Straw):
With permission, Madam Speaker, I should like to make a statement about the Hillsborough stadium disaster.
Ninety-six people lost their lives as a result of the Hillsborough disaster, which happened on 15 April 1989. That was more than eight years ago, but no one who saw the news reports on that dreadful Saturday will have forgotten those terrible events. For those who lost loved members of their family, the pain is ever present. Following Hillsborough, Members of the House were united in their determination to do all in their power to prevent anything like that ever happening again.
After the Hillsborough disaster, a number of inquiries and investigations took place. The most thorough and wide-ranging of those was the public inquiry led by the late Lord Taylor. The terms of reference of that inquiry encompassed not only inquiring into the disaster, but making recommendations about crowd control and safety at sports events.
Lord Taylor's inquiry took oral evidence from more than 170 witnesses at public hearings during May and June 1989 and considered many hours of video evidence from different sources. In his interim report in August 1989, Lord Taylor found that the disaster had a number of causes. He did not attribute all the blame to a single cause or person, but in paragraph 278 he made it clear that, in his view,
The deaths that occurred on 15 April 1989 were also the subject of inquests conducted by the coroner of the western district of South Yorkshire. After examining the evidence, the jury at the coroner's inquest found in March 1991 that the cause of death of those who died at Hillsborough was accidental death. A further investigation was conducted by the West Midlands police, supervised by the Police Complaints Authority, to establish whether there were any grounds for criminal proceedings and to consider whether any police officer should be subject to disciplinary proceedings.
That investigation involved the taking of more than 5,000 statements and the scrutiny of all the material that had been examined previously by the Taylor inquiry. After that investigation, the evidence was sent to the Director of Public Prosecutions, who concluded that no person should be subject to criminal proceedings.
The Police Complaints Authority decided that the chief superintendent and the superintendent in charge on the day should face disciplinary charges for neglect of duty. In the event, the chief superintendent retired due to ill health in advance of a ruling by a disciplinary tribunal.
Under police discipline rules, a disciplinary hearing cannot proceed when a police officer retires before the hearing takes place. The Police Complaints Authority decided later that disciplinary proceedings against the superintendent should be withdrawn because the retirement of the chief superintendent meant that what, in effect, was a joint allegation of neglect of duty could not be heard fairly in the absence of the more senior officer.
Hon. Members will be familiar with the unhappiness of the families of those who died regarding the outcome of the inquest. They later applied for judicial review of the coroner's proceedings. In November 1993, the divisional court ruled that none of the matters raised in the judicial review proceedings justified intervention by that court in the verdict of the inquest jury.
The events surrounding the disaster have therefore been subject to investigation on several occasions. However, concerns have remained about whether the full facts have yet emerged. I have met relatives of the Hillsborough victims whose suffering is exacerbated by their belief that there are unresolved issues that should be investigated further.
Representations were made to my predecessor and have been made to me, to the Attorney-General and to the Director of Public Prosecutions. A Granada television programme in December last year dramatised the disaster and raised a number of issues that, in the view of the programme makers, represented new evidence. The programme prompted an Adjournment debate on 17 December 1996, which was led by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Kilfoyle), and to which my predecessor, the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard), replied. I know how seriously my predecessor viewed the matter.
Since that programme, further material has been submitted on behalf of the Hillsborough families support group. Those representations have related in particular to video evidence of the disaster and to medical evidence about the time of death of the victims. My Department, the office of the Attorney-General and the Crown Prosecution Service have considered very carefully all the evidence that has been put forward in recent months. The Director of Public Prosecutions has taken the view that the material so far presented to her would not justify fresh criminal proceedings. The former Attorney-General, the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Sir N. Lyell), also took the view--again, on the basis of the material presented to him--that any application to the High Court for a new inquest would not have any realistic prospect of succeeding.
None the less, I am acutely conscious that the families of those who died at Hillsborough and many others, including hon Members, are very concerned that unresolved issues remain. I am determined to go as far as I can to ensure that no matter of significance is overlooked and that we do not reach a final conclusion without a full and independent examination of the evidence.
The Attorney-General, the Director of Public Prosecutions and I have therefore agreed that it is in the public interest to establish an independent scrutiny to ascertain whether there now exists any new evidence relating to the disaster which was not previously available.
We are appointing Lord Justice Stuart-Smith, a senior Lord Justice of the Court of Appeal, for that purpose. His full terms of reference are as follows:
3.47 pm
"The main reason for the disaster was the failure of police control".
Lord Taylor made 43 recommendations in his interim report. His final report in January 1990 made a further 76 recommendations. The developments that have taken place since then in safety at football grounds and in the policing of football matches have been based largely on those recommendations. Football in this country has been transformed since the Taylor report. To a large extent, that is due to Lord Taylor's wide-ranging and soundly based conclusions.
"To ascertain whether any evidence exists relating to the disaster at the Hillsborough Stadium on 15 April 1989 which was not available:
I shall place a copy of those terms of reference in the Library.
(a) To the Inquiry conducted by the late Lord Taylor; or
(b) To the Director of Public Prosecutions or the Attorney General for the purpose of discharging their respective statutory responsibilities; or
(c) To the Chief Officer of South Yorkshire Police in relation to police disciplinary matters;
And in relation to (a) to advise whether any evidence not previously available is of such significance as to justify establishment by the Secretary of State for the Home Department of a further Public Inquiry; and in relation to (b) and (c) to draw to their attention any evidence not previously considered by them which may be relevant to their respective duties; and to advise whether there is any other action which should be taken in the public interest."
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |