Public Disorder

David Burrowes Excerpts

Thursday 11th August 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr David Burrowes (Enfield, Southgate) (Con)]

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for giving me an opportunity to speak about the appalling events that hit Enfield on Sunday night. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield North (Nick de Bois), who gave a good account of those awful events. They also washed into Waltham Cross, in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Mr Walker), who has taken a close interest in the issue, and into my constituency.

My constituents would want me to express a number of emotions on their behalf during the brief period available to me. Those emotions include, of course, sympathy for the businesses whose livelihoods simply went in a matter of hours. My hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Jane Ellison) made the good point that we must never understate the importance of the livelihoods of those businesses, and that must be reflected in how we enforce the law and punish those who seek to denigrate it.

Another of those emotions is shame: shame that one of the oldest department stores in north London, and in Enfield itself, has had to bring in counsellors to counsel members of staff who are still traumatised by what happened on Sunday night, and a dog team to reassure staff and customers about future trade. A jeweller has put sandbags in front of a shop that was raided, and other shops are boarded up because their owners are still in fear.

A further important emotion is the feeling of support for the emergency services, which have made such a brave and sterling effort in Enfield: for the action of the local police, for the strong leadership of David Tucker, their borough commander, and for their bravery and—despite enormous provocation—extraordinary restraint. However, my constituents want, and wanted at the time, tougher action and more police. The wave of violence that hit Enfield was intolerable, and it then crashed down on Croydon, Clapham Junction and Ealing, and beyond. My constituents have a serious question to ask: why did it take until Tuesday for that particularly robust policing to arrive on the streets? They want to give their unqualified support to our police, in terms of not just numbers but empowerment. They want the police to be free from the time-consuming process of processing individuals from arrest to charge, and from the risk-averse culture that advocates containment rather than confrontation.

However, there is also the issue of enforcement. The right hon. Member for Salford and Eccles (Hazel Blears) reported reassuring news in an evening paper about instant justice, but there is less reassuring news from today’s edition of the London Evening Standard, which has the headline “Riot Police Fury at Soft Sentences”. Members on both sides of the House have referred to the riots on their streets, but, although 400 people have been charged, there has not yet been a charge of riot. I am assured, and I recognise, that there is a heavy evidential burden and that there will probably be charges in future, but that raises the issue of the serious offence of riot.

Guidance from the Crown Prosecution Service lists the characteristics of riots. For instance,

“the normal forces of law and order have broken down”—

they certainly broke down in Enfield—and

“due to the intensity of the attacks on police and other civilian authorities normal access by emergency services is impeded by mob activity”.

That happened in Enfield as well. Next it says that

“due to the scale and ferocity of the disorder, severe disruption and fear is caused to members of the public”.

That happened in Enfield, too. It also says that

“the violence carries with it the potential for a significant impact upon a significant number of non-participants”.

That happened in Enfield and beyond.

We must ensure that when these offences come before the courts, even though the specific crime may be burglary or theft, they are all considered in the context that there was a riot, and the culprits are punished accordingly. We must look at the offence of riot to see whether it is fit for modern purposes.

There is little time left to consider the deeper issues involved here. Whereas in years gone by rioters shouted “Church and King”, they now shout for “Adidas and Nike.” The pursuit now is for appearance, possessions and brands, rather than meaningful relationships, where the father is influential. He may well now be absent. We must all reflect on, and then tackle, these questions of value and culture.