| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Ronnie Fearn (Southport): I welcome the statement as a Merseyside Member, at the end of a line that connects most supporters of Liverpool football club. From what I remember--I was in the House at the time--many people said that they had recollections of what happened, but never came forward because they were terrified to give evidence. Can we make an appeal--from the House or through the lord justice--to ordinary people and ask them to stretch their memories once more and, if they were frightened to do so at the time, to come forward now with any new evidence? That is a crucial part of the procedure.
Mr. Straw: If there are any individuals who have material evidence that was not produced at the inquiry conducted by the late Lord Taylor, at the inquest or in relation to the police disciplinary investigation by West Midlands Police, I appeal to them to come forward.
I did not properly answer the second part of the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, South (Mr. O'Hara) in relation to allegations by newspapers. Although I shall not go into that, let me make it quite clear that Lord Taylor's report dismissed entirely the allegations made by certain newspapers and clearly came to the view that the principal reason for the disaster was the failure of police control. I hope that remains a matter of reassurance for the families.
Mr. Joe Ashton (Bassetlaw):
I declare an interest as a director of Sheffield Wednesday football club and an eye witness to the event who was no more than 50 yards away
I have two questions for my right hon. Friend. First, will the evidence be given on oath? There is a great interest in that. Secondly, he will recall that the previous inquiry cost some £250,000, excluding compensation. Will the Government pay for the inquiry and refund all the expenses to the parties concerned, including the witnesses and relatives of the victims? Will it be possible to reopen the matter of compensation? Can he give us some information about that?
Mr. Straw:
I am very grateful to my hon. Friend, especially given his position as a director of Sheffield Wednesday football club. He asked whether evidence before the scrutiny by Lord Justice Stuart-Smith will be given on oath. We are not planning that that should be the case. If Lord Justice Stuart-Smith considers that he has inadequate powers to conduct the scrutiny, I shall actively consider any such representations from him, but I do not expect that it will be a problem, given the nature of the scrutiny that we are asking him to undertake in respect of the new evidence.
My hon. Friend asked whether the Government will pay the costs of the inquiry. We shall certainly pay for the cost of the inquiry itself and will refund the travelling and incidental expenses of those who appear before it to make representations. I dealt with the issue of legal representation, which is a much wider issue. So far, I have had no calls for legal aid. That would involve some large decisions to which I cannot commit myself. With respect to my hon. Friend, the issue of compensation for trauma suffered does not arise as a result of this scrutiny.
Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover):
Does my right hon. Friend recall that, a short time before the general election, traumatised policemen were awarded substantial sums because they had witnessed the horrific events? It is well known that many of the Liverpool families of the victims
Mr. Straw:
The issue of some police officers receiving compensation while some of those who were on the terraces have not is not a matter for this scrutiny--not because it is unimportant, but because it is not directly related to the need for the scrutiny, which is to examine allegations of new material evidence. If that new material evidence is found to exist, it should trigger a new public inquiry or action by the Attorney-General, the Director of Public Prosecutions or the chief officer of the police.
I fully understand the concerns that have been expressed by hon. Members on both sides of the House about the payment of compensation to police officers and its unavailability to others who were there. The issue could be raised in the debate that I promised to discuss with my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House in response to the shadow Home Secretary.
Mr. Mike Hall (Weaver Vale):
I represent a number of families who lost loved ones in the Hillsborough disaster and a number of people who were severely injured there. I am sure that the Hillsborough families support group will welcome the independent review of the evidence. Will that review look at the events that took place between 3.15 and 5.30 pm? The issue is very important for many of my constituents. I hope that what my right hon. Friend has announced today will lead to a full public inquiry.
Mr. Straw:
The answer to my hon. Friend's first question is an unequivocal yes. One of the major issues raised by the Granada Television programme and by the families, support group is the time of death--whether it was 3.15 for all those who died or whether it was later for some. Lord Justice Stuart-Smith will examine that critical issue.
Mr. Michael Ancram (Devizes):
On a point of order, Madam Speaker. With reference to the point of order raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) on Friday, have you had time to complete your consideration of the letter that he sent you about the behaviour of the Secretary of State for Wales and its implications for the rights of Members of this House?
In particular, as the further public utterances of the Secretary of State and the hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Smith) are so contradictory that they cannot both be telling the truth, and given the Prime Minister's categorical assurances to the House last Wednesday, is it not paramount for the reputation of the House and the rights of its Members that the Secretary of State for Wales should make a personal statement to the House at the earliest opportunity?
Madam Speaker:
I have now seen the letter written to me by the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans). As the House will understand, I do not divulge details of correspondence between myself and individual Members. I have responded to him today. I have no comment about the particular case that the right hon. Gentleman has raised, as the full facts are not available to me. As a matter of principle, however, I say clearly that freedom of speech is one of the most cherished privileges of parliamentary democracy. I expect Members to exercise that fundamental right at all times to the fullest extent.
Mr. Simon Hughes (Southwark, North and Bermondsey):
On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Is it appropriate to ask you, about half an hour before the end of British rule in Hong Kong, to express on behalf of the House two thoughts that are probably strongly in the minds of all Members of Parliament--those who have been privileged to go to Hong Kong and those who have not? First, very simply, will you pay tribute to all those who served the Crown and the people of Hong Kong during the past century and a half, including those in the legislative council? Secondly, will you express the hope of this Parliament that the democracy that has been cultivated in Hong Kong will be able to continue from midnight tonight throughout the years ahead?
Madam Speaker:
I know that the hon. Gentleman recognises that that was not a point of order. But it is a very exceptional day for this country and for Hong Kong, and I appreciate the fact that he has raised the matter with me.
Madam Speaker:
Order. I have not yet finished. I am still on my feet.
Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover):
Manners!
Madam Speaker:
Yes, let us have some courtesy and a few manners.
I say simply that I know that the thoughts of the House are with the people of Hong Kong, particularly today. We certainly wish them success and all happiness in the future.
I should like to pay my own personal tribute to the work of the elected legislative council, which I had the pleasure of visiting a couple of years ago. From this democratic institution, which is often known as the mother of Parliaments, our thoughts go to Hong Kong, as do our best wishes for the future.
Mr. Eric Forth (Bromley and Chislehurst):
On a point of order, Madam Speaker. You will be aware that, over the weekend, we heard accounts of the failure to declare certain trips and other things by hon. Members who--I think--are now members of the Government. Will you guide me and the House on whether the matters will be looked into automatically by the Commissioner for Standards and Privileges, or whether any further action is required in order for him to consider the very grave matters that emerged in the press over the weekend?
4.26 pm
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |