Immigration Bill

David Lammy Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd October 2013 Commons Chamber

[Keith Vaz]

It worries me if that is happening; it is certainly not the best way to enforce immigration policy. The best way is to go through the proper process of making an application. If the result is negative, the person should leave the country. I have just had figures from Capita and the Home Office for the number of people who have left the country as a result of the £2.8 million contract that the Home Office gave Capita—although I cannot understand why it was not possible for Home Office officials to write the letters and send the e-mails instead of giving the job to a private company. According to those figures, 20,000 cases have been closed as a result of Capita’s activities.

I will come to my second bit of praise for the Home Secretary at the end of my speech, but I first wish to highlight a couple of issues that cause me concern. The first is the issue of landlords checking people’s passports, which will cause huge problems. The shadow Home Secretary said that people might have to look at 400 different European identity cards and documents. I am concerned that ordinary landlords who are not trained in immigration policy will simply not know the difference between leave to remain, indefinite leave and other Home Office statuses placed on non-British passports. Most landlords, when they grant tenancies, already ask for copies of people’s passports. The risk is that the only people who will be able to get accommodation are those with British passports. That means that a lot of people with a perfect right to remain here will not be able to get accommodation because landlords are too scared or do not understand the law.

I recently visited Calais to look at the border and I asked our excellent border officials how they were able to test whether certain passports and documents were forgeries. They brought out this very big, expensive machine. It was about 10 years old and not the most sophisticated piece of equipment, but they told me, “We use this to find out whether a document is a forgery.” We cannot expect landlords to have such machines—they would not be able to afford them—but if we do not train them or have regular inspections, which we could not afford, it is difficult to know how the provisions will work in practice. In theory, it is a brilliant idea, but it is totally unworkable in practice.

[Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab)]

Does my right hon. Friend know that up to 40% of the British population do not have a passport and do not travel abroad? Many of those people are poor, and they will not be able to get housing because landlords will not take the risk.

[Keith Vaz]

I did not know that and I thank my right hon. Friend for that information, which suggests an even greater problem with what the Government propose. Those Members who are lucky enough to serve on the Bill Committee—not me, I should inform the Whips—will need to look at this issue very carefully.

My second concern is the removal of rights of appeal. This is a crazy idea. The one way in which people can be sure of whether they can stay in the country or have to leave is the appeals process, whereby someone with the authority of a judge looks at the case. There is nothing wrong with the appeals process. I know that the Minister for Immigration recently said that immigration lawyers get too much money and that one of the purposes of the Bill is to cut their income. I declare an interest, as my wife is an immigration lawyer, although she does no legal aid work. If the decision making is right in the beginning, cases would not have to go to appeal.

The Minister for Immigration is prepared to listen to points made by Members of Parliament. Whenever we have put points to him, he has listened carefully, and I think that he should listen seriously to the idea of creating a hub in London. He has talked about the need for administrative reviews. The problem with those reviews is that unqualified people have to look at legal issues. I am not sure whether the same immigration officials who said no at the first stage are the right people to say no at the second stage, but that is what happens with the entry clearance operation. If someone is knocked back on a visa, but has a right of appeal, they go to the same post and talk to the senior immigration officer who has to make the decision. It would be a much better idea—and I am sorry that the Labour Government did not do it—to create a hub in the UK for cases that have been knocked back. People could go to a senior official at the hub and put arguments for people to come into the UK.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab)]

I am very grateful to make a contribution to this debate and of course my remarks are informed by the experience of being the son of immigrants; my father arrived in this country in the 1950s, but is no longer alive. The remarkable greatness of Britain that allows me to be here representing my seat in a sense conveys the importance of the debate; it is what is great about this country. In discussing immigration, migration and, indeed, emigration, we balance and underline that greatness, which gives us the diversity that we all cherish.

I am also informed by two particular experiences over the past few years. One was an experience that many hon. Members will share, particularly those representing so called “safe seats” or those who have ministerial office in government. During general elections, we end up out of our constituencies, travelling around the country, holding balloons in shopping centres and persuading people to vote for our parties. I found myself in North West Leicestershire with our candidate Ross, campaigning in Coalville. We were greeted—well, not greeted; many people tried to avoid us—and I got stuck in a conversation with a young man called Scott. He supported Leicester City; I support Spurs. We had a long conversation about this and then I plucked up the courage, not to ask him to marry me, but to ask him who he was going to vote for. At that point, I was set back because he told me he was going to vote for the British National party. I said, “What do you mean? Why are you going to vote for the BNP?” He described himself as a brickie, and he told me that eastern Europeans—“the Poles”, as he called them—had come to that part of the country and undercut his wages. He said they were preventing him from being employed. He pointed to his four-year-old son and said, “I’ve got to feed this boy. That’s why I’m voting for the BNP.” That is a difficult argument to counter, just as it was for my right hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown), who so badly fumbled it at the last general election, and for all hon. Members across the House.

Another factor was the riots. People talk about them starting in Tottenham, but they spread to very different areas. I have strong memories of members of the English Defence League on the streets of Enfield Town, just two miles away, chanting “England, England, England” and handing out leaflets saying that we had to do something about the African gangs. That is the context of this debate, and these subjects have to be handled very sensitively indeed.

Why was that young man in Coalville, Scott, so concerned about immigration? His wages were being undercut and he often could not get a job. Was it not the job of the Government properly to enforce the minimum wage? Was it not the job of the Government to be tough on unscrupulous employers? In London at the moment, we have a crisis involving school places, and people are voicing their concerns about the situation. Surely it should have been the job of successive Governments to deal with that. People complain about housing and about the benefits bill, but successive Governments have failed to build sufficient housing in this country. There is concern out there, but that concern should fall right back on us here. Successive Governments have failed to deal with the issues that stoke those concerns.

Before I came to this place, I had the privilege of taking a law degree at the School of Oriental and African Studies in London, and I then made it to Harvard law school. I learned a lot about our constitution and about the constitution that was forged in the United States of America. In both those places, it is important to remember that the foundation of our democracy was the Magna Carta; I am not quoting this for the sake of it. It states:

“No free man shall be seized or imprisoned, or stripped of his rights or possessions, or outlawed or exiled. Nor will we proceed with force against him except by the lawful judgment of his equals or by the law of the land.”

Why then, in 2013, are we returning to the subject of appeals and denying civilised human beings the right of appeal? Why do we tell people that it is okay for them to go back to Afghanistan? Why, after the debate we had on Syria, are we telling people that it is okay for them to go back and launch their appeals from there? Why, given the debates that we have on international development, do we expect people to go back to the Democratic Republic of the Congo and launch their appeals from there? Just a few months ago, we were having a debate in this place on the residence test and the changes to judicial review. Those changes will mean that far fewer people will be able to exercise their rights.

The sense that we are choking our democracy is coming from a number of different directions; it is not exclusive to this debate. It places a stain on all that we have achieved in this place, and all that we expect our young people to understand about our democracy, if we are not honest about why our services are feeling the pressure. Our Prime Minister says that he wants to see an end to the something-for-nothing culture, but if we are not honest about what fosters that, we give the wrong impression.

Let me go back to the period when my father arrived in this country, the 1950s. It was a period of austerity, with the country just coming out of rationing, a period in which we celebrated the coronation of our current Queen and a period of crisis, the Suez crisis, but it was also a period during which it was typical and usual to have on landlords’ doors in this country, “No Irish, no blacks, no dogs.” We forget that at our peril. That is why I will absolutely not vote for a Bill that encourages landlords to go down that road again and that does not have the necessary understanding, restrictions and knowledge of our history. Believe me, anyone in this House who knows anything about the Irish community will know that “No Irish need apply” has been a consistent phrase in our country’s history, and we are now going back to a place where we hand our landlords the power to make such decisions without the necessary experience to determine the validity of a stamp in a passport.

[Mel Stride (Central Devon) (Con)]

rose—

[Mr Lammy]

I will not give way.

Many people in this country from poor and working-class backgrounds do not have a passport. They have not applied for one. They do not go off to France or southern Italy on holiday every summer, or save up to go to India or the Caribbean. They are lucky if they get to Skegness at best. They have no passport and now they will be forced to buy one because landlords cannot always determine where somebody is from and will want to be sure. Those people without passports will be passed over and others will get preferential treatment.

My father would be rolling in his grave and I can tell Members who would be smiling: Peter Rachman, that famous landlord in Notting Hill who caused so much damage to so many people. It is an absolute shame that we are going down this road.

Despite all the Government’s discussions of the importance of our global economy, anyone who believed in the importance of trade and our export market would do nothing to damage the higher education sector, which brings in £14 billion from the students who come to this country. Every vice-chancellor would say that this Government have got things wrong in their treatment of students and higher education, just as 82% of landlords are asking, “Please do not give us this power. We do not want the power, we are not policemen and we do not want to do this. The Government should do this.” What is the Government’s record? What about the UKBA? How effective is it as an agency? How does it stack up on the list of effectiveness? It is one of the most appalling agencies we have ever seen in this country and that is why the Government have had to tinker with it, change it, get rid of it and take it back into the Home Office.

Why, when 70,000 appeals are being made, 50% of which succeed, would the Government deny people the right to appeal? It is because of the race to the bottom, because of the UK Independence party and because we have failed to have the honest discussion with the British public about what we have failed to invest in. Yes, the last election was marked by this issue, but in 2005 I had to canvass across the country while looking at the posters with that scribbled writing, “It’s okay to talk about immigration—it’s not racism.” I remember those Conservative party posters. We will have that debate again and I hope that the British people will recognise the nastiness at the core of the discussion. In the end, we do down our country when we walk down that road.

Oral Answers to Questions

David Lammy Excerpts

Monday 25th March 2013 Commons Chamber

[Damian Green]

I agree with my hon. Friend that, for neighbourhood policing to be completely effective, it requires not just the police to work with others, but also with other Departments. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has written to chief constables and police and crime commissioners to emphasise that it is important, particularly in the field of mental health, for the police and the health service to work better together than they have in the past and to improve their response to that particularly vulnerable group of people. There is always more that we can do on that.

[Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab)]

A few weeks ago the Mayor of London said that he would not close front-office counters in police stations unless he could replace them with a superior— or equivalent—service. Today he closed 63. Does the Home Secretary agree with the assessment of the Daily Mail, which a few weeks ago described the Mayor as “faintly ridiculous” and changing his mind “every five minutes”?

[Damian Green]

I understand that as part of the changes to the overall policing and crime power, which, as I am sure the right hon. Gentleman knows, is the responsibility of the Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime, 2,600 officers will be redeployed from back offices into neighbourhood policing. There should therefore be more police on the streets of London than before, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will join me in welcoming that.

Oral Answers to Questions

David Lammy Excerpts

Monday 7th January 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Browne]

My hon. Friend is right to draw the House’s attention to an under-reported aspect of the problem, which is the involvement of girls and young women in gangs and the exploitation of them. We are supporting financially young people’s advocates around the country to support girls at risk of suffering from gang-related violence. More generally, we are having a reasonable impact, including through reductions in the past year in homicides, the use of knives or sharp instruments and gun crime, and that impact benefits everybody.

[Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab)]

The Minister will be aware that just over 18 months ago there was widespread arson, looting and violence, which emanated from my constituency and spread across the country. Given that context, does he view with alarm the Mayor’s decision to shut half of London’s police stations? In particular, is he concerned about the closure of Tottenham police station and the withdrawal of the police officers stationed in it? Is this not just open season for London’s thugs, gang members and hoodlums?

[Mr Browne]

No; I do not accept that characterisation at all. Perhaps I could draw the right hon. Gentleman’s attention to a recent quote from Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe, who said:

“If we ended up with less people but better technology, and ended up being better at fighting crime, I’d say that wouldn’t be a bad thing”.

The right hon. Gentleman will note that in London, the Metropolitan police reports that serious youth violence has fallen by 34% since the launch of the new Trident gang crime command less than a year ago, in February 2012.

Gangs and Youth Violence (2011 Riots)

David Lammy Excerpts

Tuesday 4th December 2012 Westminster Hall

[Ms Buck]

I absolutely agree. My hon. Friend has been a powerful advocate of our better understanding of social media and how they can interact with long-standing patterns of behaviour and yet change that behaviour, increasing the ability of groups to taunt and confront each other through the posting of gang videos. She is absolutely right.

From all the analyses from across the political spectrum, left and right, from politicians, the media, think-tanks and academia we have a whole range of different contributory factors. Family breakdown, unemployment, the absence of effective role models—in particular for young men—poor relationships between young people and the police, the role of social media, excessive consumerism and poverty have all been analysed and put into the mix. We have yet, however, to translate our understanding of all such different factors into a comprehensive strategy for responding to the violence that has plagued our streets generally and to ensure that there is no repetition of the terrible events of 2011. Are we doing enough to translate our understanding of the causes of such behaviour into a specific understanding of, for example, where flashpoints can occur, postcodes, the role of social media or how adult criminals are directing the behaviour of younger members of the gangs? Such adults are sometimes directing from inside prison or even from outside the country. Young people involved in gang behaviour often say that they are dealt with by the police—quite rightly—but adult serious criminal behaviour is often behind the drug dealing or other criminal activity underpinning some gang behaviour, and those adults are not gone after or challenged. Work is being done in all those respects but I can fairly say that it is patchy, inconsistent and simply not good enough to insure against a repetition of the events of 2011.

In London, the number of people who died on our streets as a result of gang and serious youth violence peaked in 2008. It would be extremely unwise, however, for any of us to feel that that might have been a high-water mark for gang and serious youth violence, because it clearly was not. Serious youth violence was surging in 2011, up to and after the riots, and that would have been a more important element of media commentary had the riots not, understandably, distracted so much of our attention. We are only just beginning to appreciate the role of serious sexual violence, and the way in which girls are being drawn into the gang structure and abused.

It is estimated that around 250 gangs are operating in London alone, and that around 88% are involved in violence. Some 18% of individuals in gangs are linked to drug supply, 20% to stabbings, 50% to shootings and 14% to rapes. The Minister may say that we are calling for additional public spending to respond to some of the challenges, but the reverse is true. I want less to be spent on the consequences of that serious criminal activity, and on holding young people in youth offending institutions and prisons. A place in a youth offending institution sometimes costs £60,000 of public money a year. If only a fraction of that could be invested in prevention strategies, we would make a contribution to tackling the deficit as well as criminal behaviour.

When gang violence leads, as it has done, to serious concern about flashpoints in Pimlico, Parliament should regard that as a wake-up call. I am pleased to see the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mark Field) in his place, and he may make a contribution. That was a powerful wake-up call for people on Westminster city council because Pimlico is not the sort of place normally associated with the gang culture.

When a Westminster head teacher tells me that

“Hearing gun shots from my office yesterday really brought home to me how close we are to yet another tragedy”,

that should be a wake-up call. When a busy Oxford street store is the scene of a confrontation ending in a teenager’s murder, as happened last Christmas, we are reminded that gang violence cannot be swept out of sight and consigned to the usual suspect areas, such as Tottenham, Hackney and Lambeth. It can explode into everyone’s consciousness.

Given that background, we might have expected the problem to continue in summer 2012, perhaps with a repeat of the riots, and certainly a continuation of that surging youth violence that we saw throughout 2010 and 2011, but the picture is much more complicated. There has been a significant fall in serious youth violence locally in Westminster and across the Metropolitan police area with falls of nearly one third in knife injuries and 21% in gun-related incidents. The number of young people arrested has also fallen, gratifyingly, in recent times. But that makes my case more, not less pressing. If recent months are not to turn out to be an aberration, we must understand what contributory factors bore down on that youth violence, and how we can continue them.

We are definitely seeing the benefits of gang initiatives in my constituency and Met-wide, supported by some outstanding individuals and organisations which are delivering results with better information sharing, such as through the Gang Multi-Agency Partnership—the GMAP process, which monitors individual and gang activity—gang mediation and intensive family support.

I pay tribute to some of those involved in that work, because they do not receive sufficient recognition. They include Matt Watson, who runs Westminster’s gangs unit, and his team; the outgoing Commander Bray in Westminster, under whose watch a police gangs unit was set up and maintained despite all the other pressures on local policing; front-line gang workers, such as Twilight Bey and the Pathways to Progress team; Manni Ibrahim and the youth workers at clubs such as the Avenues, Paddington Boys, the Feathers and others, who have had to deal with the realities of gang violence on the front line; schools and colleges that have worked together; parent and family groups, such as the Tell It Like It Is campaign and Generation to Generation; and individuals who are doing creative work trying to tackle youth unemployment, such as Circle Sports.

It would be good to describe that as an infrastructure, but it would be unreasonable because, important as that work is, and invaluable as those individuals are, it is held together by gossamer threads. We simply do not know how much of the fall in serious youth crime in the last few months is due to the combination of statutory and community activity, and how much is due to other factors. That is an important challenge for Ministers. We may simply be seeing a lull in violence in the aftermath of the riots, when so many people were convicted and imprisoned and the shock waves went to communities in cities up and down the country.

The Centre for Social Justice report warned that the arrest strategy of recent months has weakened the leadership of some of the more responsible elders in gangs and created a greater risk of a more anarchic gang structure growing up in its wake. I do not know whether that will happen, but nor does anyone else, and that is part of the problem. What I do know is that we cannot afford to relax our grip for one moment. There is no evidence that the tide has turned, and in many respects, the underlying conditions for some of that behaviour are worsening because of factors such as the disproportionate cut suffered by the youth services as local government has been squeezed, and the pressure on family poverty and homelessness.

I was struck by a report that was published today by the Human City Institute. It says that social tenants have lost 10% of their purchasing power over the last couple of years—a total of £3 billion. Grainia Long of the Chartered Institute of Housing, who wrote the foreword to the report, said that it

“is very concerned that the combined effects of austerity and welfare reform run counter to the government’s fairness principle, and…that tenants are…disproportionately taking the strain of deficit reduction”.

That sort of upheaval and social stress cuts across some of the work that we are trying to do in tackling gang behaviour.

Long-term youth unemployment is at catastrophic levels, with unemployment of black and ethnic minority young men and women particularly worrying. The youth unemployment rate for black people has increased at almost twice the rate as that for white 16 to 24-year-olds since the start of the recession, and young black men are the worst affected.

[Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend recognise that, when considering that statistic, it is important that the House realises that the situation in Britain is now worse than in the United States of America? That is how bad it has become. Black and minority ethnic communities are also seeing women, who were traditionally employed in the public sector, losing their employment. That is devastating for families who find themselves in that circumstance.

[Ms Buck]

My hon. Friend, who has spoken eloquently and with great knowledge about the causes of social breakdown in his constituency, is absolutely right. It is shocking that black unemployment is higher than in America. We have often seen the consequences of that in America, and we know that such social polarisation and deprivation are undoubtedly two of the many causes of gang and serious youth violence. That cannot be ignored, because such behaviour does not occur in a vacuum, and the economy is a critical element.

This debate is not about poverty and unemployment, but any Minister who believes that we should not mention them in considering long-term strategies for tackling the sort of behaviour that has led to far too many young people being murdered and maimed on our streets, and hundreds of others being imprisoned, sometimes for life, with a devastating effect on their families, is missing the big picture.

Gang membership and serious youth violence reflect the experience of troubled families and powerful peer pressure on the streets, the hopelessness and alienation of exclusion, unemployment and powerlessness, the power of an alternative identity that gangs offer to young people without community or family protection, and much more besides. Mainstream services must bend to incorporate what we have learned about prevention and gang exit. There is much evidence from the work of the London School of Economics, from “Reading the Riots”, from the work of groups in the Transition to Adulthood Alliance, from Catch22, the Brathay Trust project and Working with Men, and from Harriet Sergeant’s powerful book, “Among the Hoods”.

There may not be a grand theory of everything to explain the riots and gang and serious youth violence, but we broadly know what to do. We need to prevent young people getting drawn into gangs, offer gang members a way out and ensure that enforcement works when all else fails. The question is whether we can ensure that we do that, and that we do enough of it.

Finally, Mr Speaker—[Interruption.] I apologise. In time, perhaps, Mr Streeter. The final point is that we have no certainty at the moment about the long-term funding for the anti-gang initiatives that we already have. According to my borough, the funding for 2013-14 will be less than it was for 2012-13, and we are anticipating cuts from the Mayor of London’s contribution in the region of 12% to 20%. The chief executive of Westminster council has advised me that it receives two grants from the Home Office for 2012-13, but the ending gang and youth violence fund, which represents a sizeable proportion of the council’s spend on tackling youth violence, is only for the current financial year. There has been no indication of further funding from the Home Office for 2013-14.

Having said that, the Home Office peer review of Westminster’s gang programme highlighted the importance of creating a period of stability in provision. I ask the Minister to reflect on how it is possible that on one hand, the Home Office requires local authorities to provide a period of stability in gang prevention and exit programmes, but on the other hand refuses to guarantee the funding or ensure that the Mayor of London maintains at least the current levels of contribution.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab)]

I am grateful for the opportunity to take part in the debate. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Westminster North (Ms Buck) for her comprehensive remarks on the whole range of issues, and for returning, as she has done over many years, to the root causes: housing, welfare and some of the central challenges that exist across London.

I want to concentrate on diversionary activity, but will begin with some fundamental assertions. First, gangs are not new in British life. In the 19th century Dickens wrote well, in “Oliver Twist”, about gang life in London and how older men like Fagin could prey on groups of young men in the inner city and cultivate criminality among them. More recently there was violence involving mods and rockers. There are certain points in history when young men, masculinity and violence become issues—so what is new now? Why are we particularly concerned? I think it is because of the callousness towards human life, and how quickly it is taken—usually with knives—with so little regard for that life. The House needs to pause and think deliberately about how so many groups of young men can take life so lightly—and how they can take female life and the dignity of a woman’s disposition so lightly, displaying such terrible misogyny. The work of the Children’s Commissioner in recent weeks highlighted the way in which young women are often sexually exploited, which underlies that callousness about human life for which we should have concern.

Gang activity is but one small component of the story of the riots and it amounts, when we look at the arrest profile, to no more than 20% of the arrests that were made. We should not overstate the effect of gangs there; but in some areas those involved in gangs clearly orchestrated the violence. It may well be that those who were arrested initially were new to criminality and therefore were caught earlier. That is an important aspect of the matter; but, to underline the points that my hon. Friend the Member for Westminster North made, it is a matter for deep concern that we live in a country that is prepared to spend up to £2 million on an inquiry but does not want to get to the fundamental reasons for the riots and then act. I pay tribute to the work of the Riots Communities and Victims Panel but it was not a judicial inquiry. I am sure that hon. Members taking part in the debate today will want to revisit the issues, particularly on the anniversary of the riots, to consider what has happened since, but when we look for lessons it is not clear at all that there has been a coherent approach, save for the work on troubled families and some activity on gangs. What comes across in a debate such as this, from all the hon. Members who have spoken, is the comprehensive way in which the problem needs to be attacked, and the fact that such comprehensive action is lacking.

I applaud the efforts that have gone into a joined-up approach to gang activity in London. It is right to pay tribute to the work of the Metropolitan police, because there is a reduction in such activity across London. Young men are being imprisoned because of their gross antisocial behaviour. In Haringey there has been a 31% reduction in serious youth violence, a 31% reduction in gun crime, a reduction of just under 21% in knife crime and a 26.2% reduction in knife-enabled robbery. However, there is a lot of experience in the Chamber this afternoon and hon. Members know that when young people are put in jail they come out; that the same effort has not gone into the prison system; and that the recidivism rates for people getting out of Feltham are about 75%. They know that young people in their late teens or early twenties who are arrested have younger brothers and cousins who take over the turf, and that gang violence is quintessentially a turf war, a ridiculous parochialism about postcode. That means that the mainstay of violence in the London borough of Haringey is what happens between, broadly speaking, 12 gangs, although three dominate. Those three are NPK in Northumberland Park, Tottenham Man Dem, largely around the Broadwater Farm estate in Tottenham, and the Wood Green Mob. Just weeks after the riots, we had the most amazing knife crime incident, with multiple knifings outside the McDonald’s in Wood Green, for no reason other than a turf war. I am afraid that as arrests are made, new people move on to the turf.

It is right, building on what has happened in Glasgow, to approach the issue as one of public health and to be purposeful about diversionary activity; but that is where I have deep concerns about the understanding of what works, the comprehensive nature of what is taking place, and the money that is being dedicated to the purpose. Communities Against Guns, Gangs and Knives funding in the London borough of Haringey is £45,000. It is barely possible to buy a lock-up garage in Tottenham for that. Ending Gang and Youth Violence funding—that is for projects such as the Ben Kinsella knife crime exhibition that young people visit, and targeted mentoring work—is £199,000 in the London borough of Haringey. A one-bedroom flat cannot currently be bought in the borough for that money.

I must ask what the priority is. Austerity issues are rightly raised, but in that context we must at least consider what our priorities are. I want to reinforce the points that have been made about quality, cost and the sustaining of investment. We know what works in mentoring, and not enough of it, of a high enough standard, is going on comprehensively in our constituencies. We know, too, that there are particular problems in high-rise tower blocks in constituencies such as Lambeth, Haringey and Hackney across London. The issue is about getting down to a neighbourhood level. It is not about a feral underclass; it is about the workless poor and an endemic worklessness in too many such tower blocks—dysfunctional and not working. It is deeply problematic that only 110 young people in Tottenham have benefited from the Work programme long-term. It is not good enough and it cannot be good enough in the circumstances in which we find ourselves.

There are question marks over the work needed to ensure that young people do not follow in the footsteps of their brothers and cousins following arrest. As a society, we must underline the importance of men, and particularly fathers, in our communities. They cannot be forgotten. We must challenge the stereotypes coming out of the games industry and parts of the music industry in particular, where toleration of violence and misogyny is totally unacceptable. Not enough is being done to tackle it. I shall end my remarks there. Many of us could go on, but we hope that the subject is revisited in the main Chamber soon.

[Mr Gary Streeter (in the Chair)]

I remind Members that the wind-ups begin at 3.40 pm.

Knife Crime

David Lammy Excerpts

Tuesday 27th November 2012 Westminster Hall

[Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab)]

I am grateful to have the opportunity to contribute to this important debate, Mr Davies. I congratulate the hon. Member for Clacton (Mr Carswell) on securing the debate and on the manner in which he made his remarks. I fully agree with aspects of what he said, in particular on the importance of the criminal justice system, but in some areas I would choose to differ.

I have now been in the House for 12 and a half years. Tottenham is my home and the community I grew up in, and when I first became its Member of Parliament, it had been in the news for many but not great reasons—I am not now talking about the football club—so I expected the tough, gritty inner-city issues to be my fare. One would expect London’s housing crisis and its immigration challenges, and issues such as welfare benefits and crime and disorder to be mainstream stuff for the Member of Parliament for Tottenham to bring to the House for debate, discussion and even disagreement, both with one’s own Government and that of other parties. What I did not expect 12 and a half years ago was that serious crime, such as murder, would escalate from being an issue affecting individuals and small communities to a serious national problem.

My period in the House has coincided with Operation Trident, which was set up to look at gun crime in parts of—I emphasise “parts of”—the black community. People use the phrase “black-on-black violence”, but it is not one that I have ever been comfortable with, and I have voiced that on several occasions. A small group of criminals, who were trading in drugs that originated in the Caribbean and America, made their way here through drug-trafficking routes and created a gun crime problem in certain neighbourhoods and communities in London. Legislation covering guns, together with serious enforcement by the police, bore down on that problem, and to some extent it has been contained, but in our capital city and our major cities we still see guns go off and we see crime related to guns. At the same time, the problem of knife crime has increased.

[Sir Bob Russell (Colchester) (LD)]

Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm for the record that three times as many people are killed by knives as by guns?

[Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab)]

I am happy to confirm that that is exactly the case, and that goes to the point that gun crime morphs into knife crime. We saw knife crime morph from something we associated with particular tough, inner-city environments into a real problem across London, Manchester and Birmingham. It is significant that the hon. Member for Clacton is raising this as an issue in his community. This is a moment to pause and ask ourselves what has really happened, and why teenagers and young people so callously take life in this way. It is a criminal justice and enforcement issue, but only in part. There are underlying causes in our society which we must uncover.

There was a time in the 1980s when many of us would have looked across the Atlantic to north America and wondered whether drive-by shootings in cities such as Los Angeles and New York were just part and parcel of life in that country and had to be accepted, or whether the authorities would bear down on the problem and deal with it. Knife crime in this country is at that junction.

When we debate this issue, I think of so many families whom I have comforted in my surgery because they have lost children to knife crime in north London. The names do not now take up whole pages and sections of newspapers, but are small columns because knife crime has become such a regular occurrence in our country. Teon Palmer was 23 when he was stabbed to death in Edmonton last month. Pavel Zekaj was stabbed to death outside Burger King in Wood Green last month. Kevin Duhaney from Bruce Grove in my constituency was stabbed to death in Hackney over a girl, and his mum had to fundraise £7,000 for a funeral. Steven Grisales was 21 when he was stabbed to death on his way to Silver Street station in Edmonton where he was pelted by conkers by a gang of youths.

The case of Godwin Lawson touched me greatly, as did his parents. He was a wonderful and incredibly talented young man who went to a great secondary school. He was just 17 and doing so fantastically well at football that he had been picked by Oxford United. He was training in Oxford to become a great footballer of the next generation, and perhaps to play for Spurs one day. He came back to north London for a weekend to see his family and friends, and when walking innocently down the road in the Stamford Hill area of my constituency he was stabbed to death for no reason other than being on the wrong side of the road and looking in the wrong way at someone in a gang of youths. He lost his life. I pay great tribute to his parents, who set up the Godwin Lawson foundation.

What lies behind such actions? Why are young men—on the whole it is young men, but sometimes it is young women—choosing to pick up knives? Why do they need that weapon? Is something going on in our society in how young men are forming a mature understanding of masculinity? Should we look at that in a more meaningful way? Does it matter that the young men who commit those crimes have so often not had responsible male role models in their lives? Is fatherhood a feature, and are we willing to discuss that, or is it irrelevant that there is an absence of responsible role models, be it a father figure or a school teacher? Does it matter that some of our primary schools have an absence of male teachers? Does it matter that we are living in a society that has made decisions similar to those in the United States of America, which have led us down the road of rampant materialism and consumerism, creating deep feelings of violence and misogyny, and leading to a culture in which whole groups of young men think it is okay to stab someone for no reason? Is that relevant to the debate and, if so, what are we going to do about it? I think it is relevant.

I was deeply disturbed to be contacted by a games console company a few months ago, which was putting together a game for which it was using the Tottenham riots as the backdrop. Is that acceptable? The company rang my office to ask me whether I wanted to feature in the game. What kind of society are we living in if it is okay to profit from something that caused so many Londoners and others across the country so much despair, and indeed, in which five people in Britain lost their lives? Does this matter?

I have come to the view that only five things are the ingredients of a successful society and country: education, employment, community, aspiration and parenting. We have a lot of discussion about education in the House and, although there is still much to do in our schools, my sense is that teachers are doing a hell of a lot, and there has been a great deal of attention on that area of policy.

We see problems when we look at the environments that so many of the young men who are committing this crime come from. They are from some of the toughest housing estates in the country, and particularly, from some of those tower blocks—such as the one that I grew up in; Broadwater Farm in Tottenham—that have gone from being working-class environments to workless-class environments. That workless class is not just about our GDP; it is about the character and dignity that comes from work, and particularly, about what surrounds the masculine culture in the environments that these young men come from and thrive in. If there is a culture of sitting around and doing nothing, then we get decay, and then we get petty criminality. There is a lack of value, particularly as regards women, I might say, so we get domestic violence and so on. We see repercussions from income not coming in. There are neighbourhoods and estates where those things happen. I know—because I have visited them—that those environments are to be found in places such as Essex and Kent, and particularly in some of the seaside towns.

There is the business of aspiration and what one aspires to. Is someone aspiring to have the latest pair of trainers? If they do not have them, are they prepared to stab someone who does, or to break into Foot Locker or JD Sports, as we saw during the riots? What we are aspiring to is hugely important. How do we create a culture in which the idea of aspiration is deeper and more meaningful than some of the frankly lightweight and superficial ideas of it that we see? I do not want to knock shows like “The X Factor”, which I enjoy, but I worry that there is a dominant idea that aspiration relates to being in the public eye, like a pop star, when it can just mean doing meaningful work, and contributing to and raising a family. Those are much simpler notions of what genuine achievement is.

There is also community. One thing that we saw during the riots in Tottenham was that the idea of community is problematic, because there can be communities within communities. There, we saw a community on Blackberry Messenger, which was exclusively made up of young people and was closed—the police could not see it—who communicated with each other and caused mayhem and violence across our country. Communities within communities exist on Facebook, on Twitter and in some unhealthy counter-cultures and sub-cultures that we are tolerating in a world that says, “Choice is everything. You can choose to be in that community or not.” The problem is that if someone’s child is knifed as a consequence of the violence and the obscene ideas of human life that exist in those communities, my God, they wish that someone had intervened in a meaningful way, to give a different vision of what was possible.

Of course, we come back to parenting, recognising that, in the end, two thirds of a young person’s life is spent out of school, so it is not sufficient for us to berate schools and tell them to do all the work. Parents matter, but it is also about recognising that where there is only one parent struggling in one of these housing developments where people are not able to make a living wage, so they cannot be with their kids because they are doing two jobs and do not have the time, that can militate against parenting and against being family. It is also about recognising that far too many of the young people caught up in this problem have been through our care system in this country, where the state was meant to be in loco parentis, but basically failed. That has been captured very well by Plan B in his film “Ill Manors”, which hon. Members should get on DVD, if they have not seen it. It is a good illustration of what goes wrong. I want to emphasise to the hon. Member for Clacton that yes, there is a criminal justice context to this issue, but we have to get to the bottom of some of the reasons for it.

The police, through the gangs initiative that was launched by the Government last year, are doing a lot around enforcement, certainly in communities such as mine. We are seeing many young people who are caught up in gang activity and knife crime being arrested and put through the criminal justice system. The problem is that I am not at all convinced that prison, with its recidivism rates, or Feltham and institutions like it are yet at the point at which I can say with full confidence that young people will come out reformed, and they will not get caught up in crime again. We seldom want to discuss that in the House.

The Mayor of London launched the important Heron initiative in Feltham prison, which was designed to work with young people before they left. There were bespoke services to help young people into employment, to work on drug addiction, and to work on the things that they needed outside, but unfortunately, the results of that were poor. It looks as though the scheme has been scrapped by the Mayor because it was costly, and the payment-by-results method that he hoped would underline it did not work.

There is a lack of ideas in this area. The Mayor said that he wanted to create a generation of mentors, which is hugely important in this area, and I am sure that young people in Clacton will need that. However, if people do not have the time to be a mentor, that is a problem. It is hugely disappointing that although he announced that he wanted 1,000 mentors when he was first elected in 2008, the Mayor has managed to get only 28. That, too, is an area that will need a lot of attention if we are to halt the decline.

I heard what the hon. Gentleman said about stop-and-search. Blanket section 60 notices, as we saw in the run-up to the riots last year, are not the way forward for Britain’s young people. Those notices designate a whole constituency as somewhere that the police can stop and search. In Tottenham, we saw the figure rise from 50 such searches in January 2011 to 237 searches in July of the same year, and we can recognise what is significant about that July, coming, as it did, the month before we saw serious unrest in London.

Doing intelligence-led, informed stop-and-searches is not the problem; the problem is when the police get lazy, frankly, about who they stop and search. We have found in London that the issue is about the police officer distinguishing between a young man on the way to the gym or university wearing a hoodie, and a young man carrying a knife. In the end, in our model of policing—policing by consent—we must carry communities with us. Our policing relies on good young people working with the police and, ultimately, not being in fear of them.

I caution the hon. Gentleman to ask himself whether stop-and-search will help, and to reflect on the underlying causes of the problem. In this era, when there is enforcement activity, the diversion and engagement of young people will be really important. That will require resources, and it will require us to understand fully what works, but it will also require us to be honest about the phenomena in our wider culture that are bringing us closer to the United States than to some of our continental European cousins, and that are driving warped senses of masculinity so that teenagers think that masculinity can be found in a knife or a gang, rather than in watching football or doing something constructive in their local community.

Intercept Evidence

David Lammy Excerpts

Thursday 18th October 2012 Commons Chamber

[Jim Fitzpatrick (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)]

I am very interested in my right hon. Friend’s last point and he is making a powerful case for allowing intercept evidence to be used in court. However, he says that there might be exceptions for counter-terrorism. Might there be exceptions in serious and organised crime cases so that they can be exempt from automatic disclosure? There is a difference between evidence that should be allowable and used in court and cases when authorities need to prevent the source of their evidence from being disclosed to prevent the exposure of how it is obtained.

[Mr Lammy]

My hon. Friend raises a very important point. Of course, serious and organised crime is dealt with by a particular agency and it would be for a Home Secretary to determine whether it would fall within the scope of any provisions.

Let me move on to the other steps that can be taken to ensure that we do not compromise and that we separate the material from the means. Successive Home Secretaries have been concerned about the means, when there is really a need to separate the means from the material provided.

[Sir Alan Beith (Berwick-upon-Tweed) (LD)]

I have great respect for the right hon. Gentleman and for the particular problem that has led him to take this position. I hope, however, that he does not underestimate the complexity of the task—something I have also been engaged in—of finding a way to achieve what we all agree is desirable. A combination of the disclosure requirements that operate in English courts, and article 6 of the European convention on human rights, could lead to massive requirements for retention and transcribing, and that could impair the operating efficiency of our security and intelligence services.

[Mr Lammy]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman who I know has huge experience in these matters. Inquests have been with us since shortly after the Domesday Book, and if other major jurisdictions can crack this complexity, surely we in our developed democracy should be able to do the same.

Surveillance evidence has long been admissible in court. The police can eavesdrop on a conversation in a pub, and use the evidence in court. Someone’s phone conversation can be recorded on a microphone hidden under a desk and played back in court. If something is recorded, it is fine. There is only a problem if the conversation is contemporaneous, which seems strange.

If someone’s call is intercepted in a foreign country where intercept evidence is admissible—that is the case in every country other than the United Kingdom—that material can come before the courts. That is absurd. If sensitive material gathered by any other means can be heard in court, from transcripts of telephone surveillance to the account of an informant—informants are obviously important in this context—why can we not find a way to make contemporaneous intercept evidence admissible, handling the sensitivity of that material with due care?

We must dispose of the notion that intercept evidence is categorically more sensitive than evidence gathered by other means such as surveillance or informants. Evidence of any other kind is handled based on the sensitivity of the material, but that is not so with intercept evidence, which is the only evidence that has a blanket, categorical ban. In practice, it means that evidence from a phone interception of a conversation detailing a planned robbery is categorically inadmissible in court. At the same time, detection of a human trafficking ring through highly sensitive material provided by an informant faces no such categorical ban.

Of course, no hon. Member would wish to compromise the gathering of intelligence, but I wish to put to one side the notion that because maintaining records of intercept evidence may require logistical consideration, it is not worth doing. If intercept evidence recorded in another country is good enough for the eyes and ears of the British public, how can we maintain the position that evidence intercepted on our soil is not? If America, Canada and Australia allow intercept material to be used in court, one might suppose that the logistical hurdles are not insurmountable.

It simply does not hold true that removing the ban imposed by section 17 of RIPA would hamper the secret services from developing interception technology without exposing their methods to the public. Admitting intercept evidence in court would not restrict the way such evidence is collected any more than existing legislation. The British justice system already has a system that allows prosecutors to disclose material without disclosing its source. Given the strong similarity between admissible surveillance evidence and inadmissible intercept evidence, surely a similar system of disclosure could be applied. Indeed, a framework for making intercept evidence permissible in court already exists in public interest immunity plus. Public interest immunity is already used in cases where admissible surveillance data are heard. I see no reason why a similar safeguard cannot be applied to intercept evidence that has been made admissible in court. As with all difficult tasks, implementing a comprehensive safeguard will not be straightforward, but we cannot afford to give up on challenging the ban.

Yes, the Government have received legal advice against public interest immunity plus in the light of European Court of Human Rights rulings on similar cases from Finland in 2008, and public interest immunity may need refining, but to take the ECHR rulings as a definitive rejection of the principle of a Home Secretary or senior judge assessing the material and deciding which bit is relevant would go too far.

The alternative in amending the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 would allow a coroner to fulfil their role in determining the cause of death in mysterious circumstances. Such amendments were proposed in the Lords to the Coroners and Justice Act 2009. They proposed that the coroner nominated by the chief coroner should be able to see the intercept material and make a decision on its disclosure. Material would only be redacted when strictly necessary and in proportion to the public interest. If we wanted to go further, we could confine the role to the senior coroner in such cases.

I am not concerned with the question whether the state should intercept private communications between individuals. My concern lies with the ludicrous situation that there is a statutory ban on using material gathered through interception in court, despite a clear legal case for admitting it. That is a bizarre situation that leaves a family in my constituency without a full inquest into the death of their son more than a year since he was killed. That stubbornness might prevent there ever being an inquest into the death of Mark Duggan. That is unconscionable following the scenes of last August.

As it stands, section 17 represents legislation that obstructs, restricts and obfuscates—bad legislation. It is the House’s duty to return to the matter. Will the Minister say when Chilcot will end the reviewing period—it seems to have gone on for ever? The arrangements are small but necessary, and I hope we can make them. I do not want to compromise the important interception work that is done in cases throughout the country, but we should at least allow a senior coroner or judge, or the Home Secretary, through the use of public interest immunity, to look at the material and redact what is necessary to ensure that the means are not compromised.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Lammy]

I am grateful for the support I have received from across the House. I do not think that an inquiry is the way forward in a case of this magnitude and given the nature of an inquest. However, I have heard the Minister’s remarks about the inquest powers of a judge alongside a coroner, and I will look into that.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House notes with concern that the inquest into the death of Mark Duggan may never commence under the current arrangements for the use of intercept evidence in courts and inquests; and calls on the Government to review its approach to open justice, in particular the use of intercept evidence in courts and inquests.

Riot (Damages) Act

David Lammy Excerpts

Monday 14th May 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab)]

I am very grateful to have the opportunity today to debate this issue, which is very important to my constituents and, I suspect, to many others in London. All of us in this House tonight, and others beyond, have insurance. We value our homes, our possessions and all the things we have worked hard to accumulate, and it is natural that we seek to protect them. Insurance exists to cover unforeseen events. Some events are more unforeseen than others. Although burglaries, house fires and floods are unfortunate in the extreme, they are all possibilities that insurance is intended to cover and they are, to some extent, foreseeable.

Living in a stable democracy such as ours, it is often easy to take the rule of law for granted. Last August, we saw that rule break down, with rioters destroying the homes and businesses of their neighbours, robbing them of not only their property, but their livelihood. In that context, it is the role of the police to maintain order, so it is to the police that we look when that has failed and we have paid the price for failure. Were the police and the state not to foot the bill, the costs would be passed to individuals and traders. That would result in rising premiums and entire communities losing out. It was not the fault of those who saw the riots, so it is right that the state helps to bring them back to a position where they can get on with their lives.

This evening, I wish to discuss four issues, the first of which is the overly bureaucratic and unprofessional manner in which the Riot (Damages) Act 1886 has been administered. The second is the hypocrisy of Ministers, the Mayor of London and even the Prime Minister himself in promising to support Tottenham’s riot damages—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. May I say to the right hon. Gentleman that he should not refer to identified Ministers using the word “hypocrisy”? He is a versatile individual and he has an extensive vocabulary. I am sure that he can find another way to make his point, and I trust that he will now do so.

[Mr Lammy]

I am grateful for that, Mr Speaker. May I therefore refer to the extreme inconsistency between the statements made to this House and the promises made to victims shortly after the riots by those I referred to, and what we actually see taking place?

The third issue I wish to discuss is that, under the coalition that champions the big society, philanthropic donations are now counted against riot compensation claims. Finally, I wish to draw attention to the differential treatment afforded to the Metropolitan police compared with that offered to police authorities in Merseyside, Manchester and Salford.

Although this debate draws on the experiences of riot victims in my constituency, I know for a fact that Members in other riot areas have been affected, and many are in the House as I speak. This is not the first time that compensation for riot victims has been discussed in the Commons. Some nine months ago, the Prime Minister made two promises, neither of which he has honoured. To the victims of the riots he proclaimed,

“we will help you repair the damage, get your businesses back up and running and support your communities.”

In the same debate, the Prime Minister promised that the Government would

“ensure the police have the funds they need to meet the cost of any legitimate claims”.—[Official Report, 11 August 2011; Vol. 531, c. 1053.]

Seven months later, the Leader of the Opposition pressed the Prime Minister, demanding that he provide proper, clear information about the processing of claims. I, for one, have heard nothing about that. The Prime Minister promised to put the process details in the House of Commons Library after that discussion with the Leader of the Opposition. I therefore ask the Minister when the Prime Minister intends to provide the House of Commons Library with that information.

Between 6 and 10 August 2011, more than 5,000 crimes were committed including five fatalities, 1,860 incidents of arson and criminal damage and 1,649 burglaries, 141 incidents of disorder and 366 incidents of violence against the person. In London alone, more than 171 residential and 100 commercial buildings were affected by fire at a cost of millions. The disturbances last August saw thousands of shops damaged and there were more than 3,800 claims under the Riot (Damages) Act in London alone, with liabilities estimated to be between £200 million and £300 million.

Some shop owners had insurance, of course, but others did not. In that regard the Act represents an important means of financial support. Sevill Hassan, who owns a hair salon on Tottenham High road, was away on holiday when the riots broke out in August. She returned to find her shop front damaged and equipment stolen and looted. She was between insurers at the time of the riots and had not yet sent off her cheque to her new insurer. Sevill did manage eventually to secure a £3,000 payment under the Act, but 18 months later she is still struggling to keep her business afloat.

Despite being labelled by many as arcane and out of date, the Riot (Damages) Act can and in many cases has helped victims of riots, particularly individuals and small businesses without a property insurance policy thanks to a clause added to the Act following the Brixton and Toxteth riots of 1981. Indeed, the Act was used as recently as 2001, following the Bradford riots, and so although the original Act might date back to 1886, there is no excuse for the Home Office’s failure to administer it in a clear and efficient way.

When one speaks to individuals and businesses who have submitted claims through the Act, its limitations become apparent. A number of the limitations relate to the manner in which it is administered and the majority could have been avoided or minimised had the insurance industry processed its own claims. Why have the Home Office and the Metropolitan police been unable to process their claims as successfully? Perhaps that is why, when representatives of the insurance industry went to the Home Office on 18 August, after the riots, they offered to do the job for the Met. Why was that offer from the Association of British Insurers and the industry rejected out of hand? The industry processes claims every day of the week, but the Department said, “Oh no, we can do it.” Nine months later, that has not happened.

Loss adjusters were appointed by the Home Office to manage claims. On making their claims, a number of individuals were treated insensitively by insurers and loss adjusters, many of whom failed to appreciate the devastating impact of the damage caused during the riots. Victims of the riots tell me that they were asked to provide receipts, and ask how they can do so when their business has burnt to the ground. That was the insensitivity shown to them. I have heard from traders in Tottenham who claim to have been treated like criminals, rather than victims of crime.

People with insurance were able to claim directly through their insurers, but in a constituency such as mine many people found themselves having to submit through the Act—if they were underinsured, for example. That is why this is so important. The Home Office did well to extend the period in which to make a claim from 30 to 42 days, following lobbying from the ABI. However, it took a long time to update the claim form from the 1800s. Many constituents were unable to understand the archaic language and the requirements, or did not know whether to use the form at all. As of 9 May, the Metropolitan police had received a total of 3,427 claims. Just over a quarter of those claims—912 of them—have been settled to date, and a total of just over £6 million has been paid out to victims. That works out at an average of just £7,000 per claim. There are 707 ongoing claims. I can only assume that the remaining 1,800 claims —52% of claims received—were rejected. I would be interested to know whether the Minister can reconcile the figures and say what has happened to the claims that have not been dealt with.

[Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab)]

My right hon. Friend is making a powerful speech on behalf of his constituents. Does he share my concern that some people, including my constituents Sue Murphy and Peter Turnbull, whose car was smashed up by the group who attacked Nottingham’s Canning Circus police station, are being offered nothing more than warm words by the Government, because vehicles are not covered by the Act? Should the Government not have done more?

[Mr Lammy]

Yes, and my hon. Friend will recall the burned-out cars on Tottenham’s High road. Many of my constituents have raised the same point. That is why we need an updated Act. I hope that the Government will not recoil from having an Act at all, because it is important that in such circumstances, victims are compensated by the state.

My hon. Friend will also recall that on 27 February, Boris Johnson said:

“All uninsured claims submitted under the Riot Damages Act have been processed through a bureau set up by the Home Office.”

He said that Met

“officers have been instructed to treat these applications as a matter of priority and they guarantee that once a completed and documented claim is received, an offer (Discharge Form) will be sent within five working days.”

For more than 707 people in London, that has not happened, so why was that claim made in February? Bad bureaucracy and poor administration is more than inefficiency; it prevents business owners, many of whom have dedicated their working lives to running a business, from picking up the pieces and moving on. For many riot victims—I stress that they are victims, not simply clients—an unprocessed claim form means a loss of income, sleepless nights and the brutal reality of losing a business or shutting up shop.

The Minister knows my constituency well. I have had constituents who have ended up having heart attacks as a result of their business going under with no compensation. That is how serious this is for small businesses, which are finding things hard because of the double-dip recession.

In response to questions on 13 March, the Home Office Minister, Lord Henley, told peers that 90% of businesses and individuals who had insurance had “received full or part” compensation. By the same date, just over half of uninsured victims had received money under the Riot (Damages) Act. Why the discrepancy between those who had insurance and had their claims processed by private insurers on the one hand, and those who were reliant on the state on the other? Their experience was completely different. It is often the most deprived, and those with the most marginal businesses, who are still waiting to receive money. That includes, of course, home owners who are relying on the Act. Given that both insured and uninsured businesses were victims, how does the Home Office justify the discrepancy in their treatment? If private insurers were able to process claims more efficiently, why did the Home Office decline the offer from the ABI?

Does the Prime Minister agree that nearly eight months after the riots, it is unacceptable that only half of the uninsured claims in London have been paid out? Nine months on, there is a significant lack of information in the public domain regarding processing and payment of the claims. Unfortunately, no statistics on claims made in Tottenham have been released. Many aspects of the Act are still shrouded in mystery. There is a significant grey area surrounding the relationship between philanthropic donations and compensation received under the Act. According to the Act, all philanthropic donations should be deducted from the eventual compensation settlement.

I want to pay tribute to the work of people such as Sir Bill Castell and the Prince of Wales, both of whom rang me up within hours of the riots, offering their help. Sir Bill set up a big high street fund, working with big business to help small business, only to find that that money has now been offset against the Riot (Damages) Act. Either we believe in the big society or we do not. What is the answer? What kind of society are we living in, when many victims of the riots who have had barely a few hundred pounds from that grant are still waiting for payment to get their businesses back on track?

People say to me that when we see a tsunami or an earthquake in a developing country, we are able to act and get the funds there. Why is it any different in a major democracy and a major developed country such as ours? It must be totally unacceptable that nine months later people are expected to wait. Of course they are not waiting. They are seeing their businesses destroyed and the high road lose its vibrancy. They are feeling abandoned. I remind the Minister that the cry that we heard after the riots right across the country was, “Where are the police? Where are they?” Now we are hearing a similar cry, and I hope the media will remain true to those people and continue to press their case. They want to know where the state is, or have we rolled the state back so far that for true victims it no longer exists?

Can the Minister assure me that measures will be taken to ensure that individuals and organisations are not put off making philanthropic donations to businesses affected by the riots, given the situation that we are in? Can the Prime Minister assure the House that information on payments made under the Riot (Damages) Act, as he said to the Leader of the Opposition, will be put in the House of Commons Library or, as he said, that he will return to the House to make a statement as swiftly as possible? I want to allow the Minister ample time to come back to me on these points, but I end by reminding her of the case of Niche Mufwankolo, who is the landlord of the Pride of Tottenham pub.

On the night of the riots, Niche fled through an upstairs window, while downstairs rioters smashed windows, looted televisions, broke and stole his sound system and set fire to furniture. He escaped from the roof of his pub at knifepoint, and the Metropolitan Police Authority responded to him by offering just £22,000 of compensation, some £70,000 less than the claim that Niche had submitted. It should be noted that VAT was excluded from claims relating to building damage, loss and damage of contents and loss of stock, just one of the reasons given for Niche’s payout being dramatically less than anticipated. To add insult to injury, the Met lost the original invoices submitted by Niche, preventing him from making further claims.

There is a huge disincentive to appeal against any offer of compensation, as people have been waiting for months to get back on their feet, and small businesses do not have the time to be caught up in such bureaucracy.

Many of us will have had different views about those involved in the riots, but I hope that all of us support the victims. That is why I have brought the debate to the House this evening. I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say.

Stephen Lawrence

David Lammy Excerpts

Tuesday 24th April 2012 Commons Chamber

[James Brokenshire]

I certainly pay tribute to the work of the Lawrence family. As I think I said in my opening response, I am sure that if it were not for their tireless fight for justice, we would not have seen the convictions that we have. I do not want to speculate on what the response may be once we see the outcome of the response from the Metropolitan Police Service. However, let me say to my right hon. Friend that the Government take the issue of corruption in the police service extremely seriously. That is why we have established the Leveson inquiry, why the Home Secretary commissioned the Independent Police Complaints Commission to provide a report on corruption in the police service, and why she commissioned Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary to consider instances of undue influence, inappropriate arrangements and other abuses of power in police relationships.

[Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab)]

Will the Minister update the House on investigations involving the other defendants in the original trial? Will he also say why the Home Secretary has such confidence in an internal review given all that has happened in the Met in relation to allegations of corruption, and why in this case it is not thought that the IPCC should be engaged in any review?

[James Brokenshire]

In response to the right hon. Gentleman’s first question, what I can say is that the police have been very clear that investigations in relation to this matter continue, and it is right and proper that all appropriate lines of inquiry are followed through. I say in response to his second question that I think it is appropriate for the Metropolitan Police Service to be able to look at this matter and provide a response, and then for the Home Secretary to determine what the next steps should be.

Oral Answers to Questions

David Lammy Excerpts

Monday 19th March 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab)]

The Home Secretary will recall that, following the riots last summer, there was widespread concern about the absence of policing, the police being outfoxed by technology, particularly BlackBerry Messenger, and an absence of intelligence. Following the Kirkin report, what will change, this summer and next?

[Mrs May]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for raising an important point about the policing of the riots last summer. Following the riots, I brought together representatives of the Metropolitan police, the Association of Chief Police Officers, BlackBerry, Twitter and Facebook to look at the use of social media and social networks during the riots. Further discussions are taking place between ACPO, the individual forces and those organisations to ensure that the police are in a better position to deal with the wealth of information that becomes available on those social networks.

Oral Answers to Questions

David Lammy Excerpts

Monday 12th December 2011 Commons Chamber

[The Minister for Immigration (Damian Green)]

As my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary said a few minutes ago, the number of colleges that did not register when the new proper accreditation system came in was more than 470. Some but not all of those will have been bogus colleges, so we have swept away a vast raft of bogus colleges. Reputable colleges can now be assured that we have a proper accreditation system. If they satisfy that system, their students and the wider community will know that they are genuine colleges.

[Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab)]

I wrote to the Secretary of State two weeks ago asking her to review the Independent Police Complaints Commission’s handling of the Mark Duggan case. Given the catastrophe that was this morning’s pre-hearing inquest and the family’s declaring no public confidence in the IPCC, will she now look at its handling of the case and the thoroughness of this investigation?

[Nick Herbert]

I have just replied to the right hon. Gentleman. I have spoken to the acting chairman of the IPCC about the matter and the investigation, and he has assured me about the investigation’s integrity. We therefore see no reason at the moment to order any review. It is important that the investigation takes its course properly.