Oral Answers to Questions

David Lammy Excerpts

Tuesday 5th February 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Gauke]

I agree with my hon. Friend. The additional 4,300 prison officers will help to ensure that we can do this. A particular area on which I have been keen to focus is the education and employment strategy, which will ensure that we provide those prisoners who are prepared to take responsibility with the opportunity to educate and prepare themselves for the world of work. I am very keen that we should continue to do that.

[Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab)]

We found out from the Secretary of State’s Department last week the alarming fact that 51% of our youth offenders now come from a black minority or ethnic background. That puts us in a worse position than the United States. Given that context in our prisons, will he revisit my review, and may I meet him urgently to discuss how we can accelerate progress?

[Mr Gauke]

I am grateful for that question, and I would be happy to meet the right hon. Gentleman. I know he regularly meets the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, my hon. Friend the Member for Charnwood (Edward Argar), on this subject. I am also concerned about the proportion of BAME children in custody, which is something we take very seriously. My Department has introduced a dedicated team within the youth justice policy unit with a key focus on explaining or changing disproportionate outcomes for BAME children in the justice system.

Oral Answers to Questions

David Lammy Excerpts

Tuesday 10th July 2018 Commons Chamber

[Edward Argar]

Although it is right that sentencing decisions should always rest with the judiciary and a custodial sentence should always be an option where the nature of the offence absolutely merits it, given the persuasive evidence that short custodial sentences are not the most effective way to secure rehabilitation and reduce reoffending, we will be looking at what more we can do to provide alternatives and to highlight that short custodial sentences should be used only as a last resort.

[Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab)]

I, too, welcome the new Minister to his position. May I recommend to him the Lammy review? In it he will see that there is tremendous concern that the youth prison population now is 43% from a black or ethnic minority background. Will he look closely at its recommendations and can I meet him soon?

[Edward Argar]

First, I commend the right hon. Gentleman for his work on that review, which is well known to this House and beyond. It is an excellent review, with an excellent report, which was one of the first documents I read upon my appointment. I considered all its 35 recommendations carefully and I am absolutely delighted to agree to meet him.

Joint Enterprise

David Lammy Excerpts

Thursday 25th January 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend recognise that where 14, 16 and 19-year-olds have gone to prison for significant periods of time when it is absolutely clear to the community that they have not committed murder, as happened in her community of Moss Side, it undermines the black community’s sense of justice, fewer people co-operate with the police, fewer people have faith in the justice system and it undermines all she is attempting to do?

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. I hope to give everybody 10 minutes. If Members intervene, the danger is that I will have to drop the time limit immediately.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester Central (Lucy Powell) on securing this debate and on the way in which she has gone about representing her constituents, many of whom I met a few weeks ago, who are caught up in this terrible nightmare. I pay tribute to the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell), who has championed and taken up many of these issues consistently in this House over the past few years.

The doctrine of joint enterprise is a common law doctrine very much derived from judicial decisions, not legislation passed by Parliament. As has been said, it is now time for Parliament to reflect hard on where we have arrived at and on the fact that this debate is essentially about juveniles—people as young as 14 who are looking at spending significant stretches of their lives behind bars. This debate is about what we have come to describe as “gangs”. We do not use the word “gangs” when we are talking about the Bullingdon club; we do when we are talking about black youth in constituencies such as mine or white youth in constituencies such as Salford in north-west England.

That is why it is so important that we look hard at a doctrine that stretches back to 1846, when two cart drivers engaged in a race that killed a pedestrian. Throughout the 20th century, further court judgments clarified the joint enterprise doctrine in the case of murder. Even if there is no plan to murder and one party kills while carrying out a plan to do something else—for example, robbery—the other participants can still be found guilty. The use of that doctrine has been criticised by academics, by legal practitioners and by the Justice Committee. I want to associate myself with all those remarks and, in particular, with the fantastic work of JENGbA over the past few years.

Following the review that I did for the Government, it is important that we recognise that in black, and particularly Muslim, communities, there is tremendous concern about our judiciary. In those communities, the judiciary do not appear to be independent and justice is not perceived to be blind. That is why I was so disappointed that, when I proposed a target in my review, it was roundly rejected by our senior judiciary and by the Government, although a target is not prescriptive but merely a goal.

I am concerned that the independence that our judiciary say they have, and rightly have in our democracy, means that they are hugely detached from the communities that we are talking about. They do not have to defend their actions in Tottenham town hall or Manchester city hall. They are never present in those communities. They do not have the kinds of surgeries that we do. It is really important that they reflect hard on the common law tradition. In other jurisdictions such as Canada, Australia and New Zealand, there has been progress on proximity and diversity in relation to the judiciary, but in this country we appear to be stuck. On this occasion, it is absolutely clear that the common law makes no common sense. That is why I referenced joint enterprise in relation to black, Asian and minority ethnic communities in my review.

The offence of joint enterprise has long been justified, by Ministers of both Conservative and Labour hue, on the basis that it sends a wider social message. I will not quote the right hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling), a former Justice Secretary—hon. Members will recognise that I do not need to; they will know what his views would be—but let me quote Lord Falconer. He said of joint enterprise in 2010:

“The message that the law is sending out is that we are very willing to see people convicted if they are a part of gang violence—and that violence ends in somebody’s death. Is it unfair? Well, what you’ve got to decide is not ‘does the system lead to people being wrongly convicted?’ I think the real question is ‘do you want a law…as draconian as our law is, which says juries can convict even if you are quite a peripheral member of the gang which killed?’”

I want to say that the former Lord Chancellor Lord Falconer got it wrong, and the perception in the sort of communities we are talking about is that this is very wrong. Joint enterprise raises significant issues of miscarriages of justice, which must command the attention of this House and of our wider justice system.

[Afzal Khan (Manchester, Gorton) (Lab)]

I want to put on the record my thanks to my right hon. Friend for the work he has done with his review. I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester Central (Lucy Powell), who represents a neighbouring constituency.

This issue has also touched the lives of my constituents. Yesterday, I spoke to Louise Otway, whose son was sentenced to 30 years under joint enterprise. I am concerned by two issues, as a former serving police officer in the Greater Manchester police and as a practising solicitor. My first concern is that, although the Supreme Court has said that the law has taken the wrong turn, nothing has been done to put that right, which is not acceptable. Secondly, as is becoming clear from listening to my hon. Friends, BME and working-class defendants are over-represented, with the use of gang narratives playing into the stereotyping and targeting of these groups. Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is essential we have greater transparency, through the official statistics, about the make-up of joint enterprise defendants?

[Mr Lammy]

My hon. Friend’s point is exactly right. The issue is: what would happen if the principal’s intent was graver than the accessory’s? In all the cases that have been mentioned, that is absolutely the case. What would happen if the outcome of whatever act the principal carries out is far graver than the accessory was aware of? Getting into questions about the foresight and intent of a young adult is next to impossible, given all that we know in modern times about child psychology, so it is absolutely right that young people should not be convicted in those cases.

[Robert Neill]

The right hon. Gentleman is making a powerful case and perhaps I can offer him some support. As evidence to the Justice Committee has made clear, practitioners feel it would be of greater assistance to juries deciding on these issues if there were a statutory framework within which they could work. We have done that with the Theft Act 1968, which replaced out-of-date common law arrangements. Ironically, in the Jogee case, the trial judge of first instance was this country’s first black woman High Court judge, but she was obliged to follow the rules of precedent. Had there been a revision of them by statute, the situation might have been different.

[Mr Lammy]

The hon. Gentleman is right. He makes the case that it is now for the House really to get thinking about these matters.

As the hon. Gentleman will be aware, an accessory party can be liable under joint enterprise, even if they withdraw from a group before any crime is committed. Many hon. Members will think of the example of a group of students in a playground or a park, where someone talks about teaching someone a lesson—in fact, we might recall such an occasion from our own lives when we were younger—and one of those individuals thinks that teaching a lesson involves significant violence, assault or even something ending in murder, and just because the group had discussed teaching someone a lesson, someone else may end up in prison for murder.

We have been in the House when or know of times when Members have picked up the Mace—I am thinking of the former leader of the SNP and Lord Heseltine. If you picked up the Mace and an older Member thought it was coming towards them and died from a heart attack, you would be in serious trouble. However, if you had discussed it with your colleagues beforehand, they too would be in serious trouble. A whole political party—on that occasion, the SNP—might have been heading towards that. That shows how ridiculous this situation has become, and it is why we need an urgent review.

We are having this debate after politicians have said, “We have to crack down on gangs and that is why we are doing this.” But has it worked? Knife crime is rising: in England and Wales, there were 36,998 knife crime offences in the 12 months to the end of June. Hospital admissions as a result of knife crime and the use of sharp objects are rising. We have a real problem in London, which the Mayor of London is trying to deal with. Has this therefore had the effect that people suggested it would? It has not. It has not had that effect because it is not minors driving knife crime—it is serious organised criminals: gangsters and kingpins. They are driving the trafficking of cocaine and drugs, which is leading to the turf wars that are making some of the communities we represent more violent. The 14, 15 and 16-year-olds or those in their early-20s locked up for the offence of joint enterprise do not know anything about getting a tonne of cocaine from Bolivia or Colombia. We must go after the gangsters, but we are hearing very little about that.

The Ministry of Justice’s own research on joint enterprise convictions understands the psychology of young people. It understands the need of teenagers and juveniles to belong to a group. It understands that they have a predisposition towards risk, seeking excitement and reckless behaviour. It understands their inability to inhibit their impulses and the fact that they have less self-control. All of us in the House who are raising or have raised teenagers will recognise all those characteristics. Are we really going to throw young men—black and white—into prison because they are young?

I have two boys at home. They navigate the streets of north London on their way to school and one in particular goes through some high knife-crime areas. I am raising boys who would never ever take a knife out of the house and use it on anybody else—I am absolutely sure about that—but can I say, if something is going on in a park, that one of them might not drift towards the action? Hand on heart, as a father, I cannot say that. I do not ever want to have to visit one of my own children in prison. None of us should want ever to have to visit young people in prison. None of us should want that waste. None of us should want those criminal records. It is time that this House acted.

European Union (Withdrawal) Bill

David Lammy Excerpts

Committee: 7th sitting: House of Commons
Wednesday 13th December 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Kenneth Clarke (Rushcliffe) (Con)]

I rise to support new clause 3 and amendment 7. As mine is the second name attached to amendment 7, which was tabled by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve), who is mainly responsible for it, I also incline to the view that it is slightly the better drafted, but I will support either proposal if one or both are put to the vote.

I might well succeed in being reasonably brief, because I agreed with every word of the speech made by the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) and I will not repeat what she said. A welcome note of cross-party consensus exists across a large part of the House, and it represents the cross-party consensus that is in favour of what is lazily called a soft Brexit and of having the best possible close relationship with the European Union after we leave.

The main issue in this debate seems to turn on what we mean by a “meaningful vote”, which relates to our discussion on the role of parliamentary sovereignty in a situation of this kind. I accept that today the Prime Minister—not for the first time—promised us a meaningful vote, but she later went on to qualify that slightly by talking about the need for statutory instruments to be brought forward during the period of the Bill, within the extraordinary powers that the Bill gives Ministers to enact, by regulation, even changes to British statute law. We have to be clear what a meaningful vote is, and the key is the timing. It is quite obvious that if the British Government are to be responsible to the British Parliament, the vote must take place before the Government have committed themselves to the terms of the treaty-like agreement that is entered into with the other member states. Any other vote will not be meaningful.

[Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab)]

rose—

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

rose—

[Mr Clarke]

I will give way in just a second, but let me finish this point.

That means that a meaningful vote cannot take place until a detailed agreement has been arrived at about certainly the precise nature of our trading and economic relationships with the single market of the European Union, and actually quite a lot else besides, because we still have to embark on the security discussions, the policing discussions and the discussions about which agencies we are going to remain in and which agency rules we are going to comply with. This is, we all agree, a huge and complex agreement, and it is going to determine this country’s relationships with the rest of the continent of Europe and the wider world for generations to come. Can that happen before March 2019?

We face the genuine difficulty that it is quite obvious that we will not be remotely near to reaching that agreement by March 2019, and we have to think through what that actually means. The negotiators have been very optimistic in saying that they will have first a transition deal and then a deal by 2019. I am sure that they will try, but they have not a chance. I think that what they are actually saying—certainly the continental negotiators—is that they might be able to have some heads of agreement on the eventual destination by March 2019, which we can all carefully consider. They will certainly have to agree a transition deal of at least two years within which the rest of the process will have to be completed.

I agree with the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford that everybody wants things to be speedy, because one of things that this country is suffering from most at the moment is the appalling uncertainty caused by the fact that we have taken a ridiculous length of time to reach three obvious conclusions on the three preliminary points that had to be determined as the basis of our withdrawal. At the moment, however, we do not quite know what the British Government are going to be seeking as their end goal in the negotiations that are about to start, because the British Government, within the Cabinet, have not yet been able to agree exactly what they are seeking.

If I may say this to my desperately paranoid Eurosceptic friends, it is not as if I am somehow trying in some surreptitious remainer way to put a spoke in the wheels of the fast progress of the United Kingdom towards our destination. The Government do not know what leave means. Nobody discussed what leave meant when we were having the referendum. Our overriding duty is not just to our political allegiances and so on; it is to provide this country with a good, responsible Government who face up to the problems of the real world and, accountable to Parliament, can produce the best new order that they can for the benefit of future generations.

[Mr Lammy]

The right hon. and learned Gentleman is demonstrating why he is Father of the House, so I hesitate to interrupt him, but on his point about having a meaningful vote prior to the Prime Minister of the day making the deal, does he agree, with his wealth of experience, that if we are to keep the country together, it is important that that Prime Minister has in the back of her head when trying to pull off that agreement, “I have to get this through my Parliament”?

[Mr Clarke]

The right hon. Gentleman makes one of the points that I was going to make. The most important effect of passing either new clause 3 or amendment 7 —there is actually more to this than a meaningful vote, if we consider the various stages—and achieving proper parliamentary accountability is that that would affect the tenor of the negotiations. Like every other Head of Government in the European Union, our Prime Minister would need to have at the back of her mind, “Can I deliver to the House of Commons what I am thinking of conceding?” Every other political leader in Europe will do that, because they will have to sell what they sign up to to their own Parliaments. If we do not have a meaningful vote, we will be the only member state whose negotiators are not under a legally or constitutionally binding commitment to sell the deal, because they will be able to make the deal and then come back to the House of Commons and the House of Lords and say, “This is it. What do you think of it?”

--- Later in debate ---

[Charlie Elphicke]

The Committee will know that, from my point of view, we cannot get out of the European Union fast enough. Time and again, I have said that we need to be ready on day one and be prepared for every eventuality, deal or no deal—or, should I say, regional deal or global deal—but we must remember why we are taking back control. It is because of the vision we have for our country and because of our values. Those values include the rule of law, natural justice and the sovereignty of Parliament. The rule of law exists to ensure that executive power is not abused, and that is why I object to clause 9. It is not right that a measure of this sort should be put through by any form of statutory instrument.

I welcome the fact that the Government are going to bring forward a withdrawal agreement and an implementation Bill, and nothing I have heard today has indicated to me any sense of urgency or any reason why a statutory instrument will need to be put through in a hurry. As far as I am concerned, I am prepared to stay up all night long to pass legislation to get us out of the European Union as soon as possible. For that reason, I urge the Government to withdraw clause 9, and I have to say that I will not be able to support it on stand part.

[Mr Lammy]

I am coming up to my 18th year in the House. During that time, we have had serious votes on going to war in Iraq and in Syria, and on different occasions, parliamentary sovereignty has asserted itself. On the war in Iraq, we thought we had the information, but it turned out that we did not, and we went to war. On Syria, despite some strong arguments to intervene, we chose not to. I also remember sitting through the night for the 90-day detention legislation under Tony Blair, and this House resisted the move to a 90-day detention period for those arrested for terrorism offences. Tonight, we are again being asked to make a very important decision that will affect the future of this country.

I might say that the sovereignty of this Parliament is why we are here in the first place, so I applaud the Government Members who are standing by their principles and remembering the importance of coming back to debate in this House. This is about timing. We may have had a discussion about what is meaningful, but I think we all know what is meaningless. It is meaningless to have a debate and a vote in this House after the decision is made. For all those reasons, I hope that we will return after the vote on amendment 7 and find that we really have given back sovereignty to the UK Parliament.

[Vicky Ford]

The Government have now made it clear that the House will have a final meaningful vote on the EU withdrawal agreement before the UK leaves, which is extraordinarily important because the last point in the process of withdrawal is actually the vote in the European Parliament. My former colleagues—the ones who are trying to help us get an amicable agreement in that Parliament—have told me that unless there is a full democratic process here, there will be people who try to scupper the deal in that last vote in the European Parliament. The rest of the world is watching how we legislate, and transparency is important.

I am new to British legislation, but I have heard it time and again from Members as diverse as my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve) and my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg) that the powers in clause 9 are inappropriate, too strong and could mean that the Government are able to make material changes to legislation without a scrutiny process before we leave. I am therefore extremely pleased that the Minister made his announcement at the last minute. If he would like to, I would love him to intervene once more to ensure that everybody has heard exactly what he said.

European Union (Withdrawal) Bill

David Lammy Excerpts

Committee: 3rd sitting: House of Commons
Tuesday 21st November 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab)]

When children in the world are still subject to slave labour or trafficking, or are working as child soldiers, does my hon. Friend agree that the message being sent that the UK would simply do away with rights that we campaigned for, which led to the charter of fundamental rights, is an abhorrence? We need Ministers to come to the Dispatch Box and say that they have changed their mind.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Leslie]

Would it not be great if we were having a proper debate about retaining Francovich protections, albeit possibly making an amendment? The hon. Lady may well have a case for increasing or decreasing the level of the damage thresholds in place, but that is not what we are debating; we are debating simply the deletion of this Francovich protection—that right to redress—from our laws and protections. I would be happy to discuss with her where that level should be set, as there is a debate to be had about that, but we are talking about the principle, yes or no, and whether this should be retained within this legislation.

[Mr Lammy]

My hon. Friend rightly suspects that the Government will say that removing the charter from the UK will not affect the substantive rights that individuals already benefit from in this country. Does he agree that the problem is that the Government do not go on to say what those substantive rights are? If we simply leave it to the common law, a future Parliament—it may not be this one—could determine that it is right to erode those rights. That is why it is important we stick with the charter.

[Mr Leslie]

We need to make sure that if we are transposing legislation, it is a true copy and paste, but that is not what has been proposed. I am not in favour necessarily of cutting off our relationship with the single market or the customs union. There are a lot of debates on the Brexit choices we have before us, but here we are dealing with a set of separate discussions about the rights that our citizens—our constituents—could have in a post-Brexit scenario, and we need a better justification in order to be convinced than that we should just throw these overboard at this stage.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Dominic Grieve (Beaconsfield) (Con)]

It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Nottingham East (Mr Leslie). If I may say so, I do not take the view of my right hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry) in her description of new clause 16. It seems to me that in tabling it for consideration by the Committee the hon. Gentleman has accurately sought to stimulate an extremely important debate on the consequences of getting rid of the charter.

I sometimes feel that there is perhaps a failure of some Members to look at what has been happening in our society and country over a 40-year period. On the whole, western democracies have tended in that time to develop the idea of rights. I know that for some Members that appears to be anathema—it makes them choke over the cornflakes—but it is a development that I have always welcomed and that, it seems to me, has delivered substantial benefits for all members of our society, particularly the most vulnerable.

In this country we have had a long debate about how we reconcile rights with the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty. Indeed, in 1997 the Labour Government sought to craft—extremely ingeniously, I thought, which is why I was very supportive of it at the time—the legislation that would become the Human Rights Act in an effort to achieve that reconciliation. I think most people in this House would argue that that Act has worked very well by preserving parliamentary sovereignty for primary legislation, enabling secondary legislation to be struck down if incompatible and with the mechanism of a declaration of incompatibility when required.

The truth is that because of our membership of the European Union there are some things that many of us would regard as rights but which fall outside the scope of the Human Rights Act and the European convention, and those things have developed over the same period I mentioned as a result of our European Union membership. I appreciate that that leads to double choking over the cornflakes, because not only have those rights come from what some people might regard as a tainted source—although I am blowed if I can think why: it is just another international treaty—but on top of that is the fact that once in place the charter has no regard for our parliamentary sovereignty. It has the capacity to trump our domestic laws if there is an incompatibility between our domestically enacted laws and the principles of, or anything that has come from, the charter. That is part of the supremacy of EU law to which we have all been subject.

All that should not make us ignore the benefits that the charter of fundamental rights has conferred. Whatever we may think as we talk about parliamentary sovereignty, I venture the suggestion that if one goes out into the street and asks people whether they think that equality law, which is largely EU-derived, has been of value to this country, most people would give a resounding note of approval. I am sure they would do the same with respect to the recent Benkharbouche case in relation to the disapplication of the State Immunity Act 1978 for the purposes of enabling an employment case to be brought against an embassy that had mistreated one of its employees. Of course, as has been cited, the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union has availed himself of the provisions of the charter and the rights that the EU has conferred in relation to questions of data privacy and the way data is handled.

[Mr Lammy]

Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman also aware of the simple rights that many of us will have used on behalf of a parent, such as the right to wheelchair accessibility at our airports? There are also rights that came up in the course of the youth justice review I did for the Government, to do with making courts child-friendly so that, for example, they do not intimidate a young woman having to relay a terrible case of sexual assault. Such rights did not exist in British law but now exist as a result of the charter. For that reason, we ought to give due respect to our European friends for giving us the charter.

[Mr Grieve]

I place great respect on the fact that, for all the faults I can sometimes identify, when the European Union was established its founding fathers wished it to be based on principles not only of the rule of law, but of a vision of human society of which I have no difficulty approving.

Oral Answers to Questions

David Lammy Excerpts

Tuesday 31st October 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lidington]

I am certainly keen to learn from best practice not just in the United States but in other jurisdictions around the world. What was striking about some of last week’s figures was that they showed that offenders who underwent drug or alcohol treatment in this country showed a 33% reduction in the number of offences they committed in the following two years. That is a lesson we can learn from.

[Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab)]

May I recommend to the Minister my proposal of deferred prosecutions, which also gets to the community responses that can reduce recidivism? That is among the recommendations I made in the review that the Government asked for.

[Mr Lidington]

I reiterate to the right hon. Gentleman the Government’s appreciation for the work that he put into the review. We shall be responding in detail to his recommendations, including the one that he mentioned.

European Union (Withdrawal) Bill

David Lammy Excerpts

2nd reading: House of Commons
Monday 11th September 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab)]

I am very grateful for the opportunity to speak this afternoon. Let me start by saying that it is possible for parties to work together to find consensus and bipartisan moments. I see the Secretary of State for Justice in his seat; we have been working together on the review his predecessors asked me to do on the over-representation of black and ethnic minority people in the criminal justice system, and I am grateful for his support and that of his civil servants over the last 18 months.

I wish that I could be speaking in a spirit of co-operation on this subject, but when I think about the Prime Minister taking the position she did and talking about bringing the country back together, I think how far we are from that. Those who wanted to leave talked about giving the British people control—taking back control. Why, then, are we producing a Bill that will, effectively, give that control to the Government of the day, to make decisions behind closed doors, and not to this Parliament, which represents the democratic will of the people? If the Government are genuine about bringing the country back together, surely they allow serious time for reflection, debate and serious amendments to a Bill of this magnitude. Surely they should also come to this House with a degree of humility, having recognised that their proposition at the general election failed spectacularly, and that the context today is very different from the context three or four months ago. None of that has happened.

Then we look at the beginning of the negotiations. We hear a lot about the bill the EU is asking us to pay, but I have to say to those who campaigned to leave, and who are adamant that we should leave, that we are taking 12% of the EU budget out by exiting. We are asking others to pick up that bill. Of course there is a serious bill to pay, and of course it will take months to negotiate it.

We have heard so much from the Secretaries of State for Brexit and for International Trade about how easy this will be. When they go to negotiate with Donald Trump, who is one of the most protectionist Presidents the United States has seen, he will surely want access to our pharmaceuticals and will demand access to our agriculture. It will not be easy; it will take months and years to reach that trade deal. As for those who spend so much time on free movement of people and immigration, when we go to negotiate with the Indians, will they not demand visas for people to come to this country?

I worry, as I am sure hon. Members will understand, about what we have unleashed in this country, about the increase in race hate, and about the nastiness that surrounds this debate. No party is the font of all ideas, but I worry hugely about how the Conservative party has moved to the right to pick up ground ceded by the UK Independence party—[Interruption.] I do. We are in times in which the Anglo-American world is looking inward, in which we are moving back from human rights and in which we are waving goodbye to battles that we fought in decades gone by. This is not the time for this House to spend months and years wrangling about exiting a European Union that has given us so much.

For all those reasons, with very little to be gained—and when the articulation of what is to be gained has been so poor in the past four months—how could we possibly be about to set off on this path? In a constituency such as mine, where people are struggling to make ends meet and the economy is very fragile, as sure as night follows day, as we exit a customs union that the British Retail Consortium—

[Anna Soubry (Broxtowe) (Con)]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Lammy]

I will.

[Anna Soubry]

I share the right hon. Gentleman’s concerns. I share his views, and would have campaigned with him to remain, but the simple truth is that the majority of those who voted—52%—voted to leave the European Union. On that basis, we must begin the process of doing so and must see it through, even if he and I do not agree with it.

[Mr Lammy]

I hesitate, because the right hon. Lady and I have agreed on much, particularly free movement. Her bark has been loud, particularly on the “Today” programme, but her actions in the days that followed those contributions have been far less loud.

[Anna Soubry]

Would the right hon. Gentleman like to take that back? Things such as getting a White Paper, which my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said she would not give—that is what people like me achieve. The real opposition to much of this comes from those on the Government Benches, not on his.

[Mr Lammy]

I am not sure that the right hon. Lady really wants me to respond.

The point is whether we can get beyond the partisan. I represent a constituency where many people are struggling. Our economy is likely to take a real hit as a result of this move. Trade deals are an aberration and are some years in the future. If we exit under World Trade Organisation rules, we are in for huge rises in tariffs, consumer prices and, potentially, inflation. For that reason alone, in the best interests of my constituents and many people across the country who do not have the privileges of most people in this House, I shall absolutely vote against the Bill.

When we talk about the will of the people, let us remember the 48% who voted against this. Let us think about what they deserve: a Bill that does not grab powers from them; a Bill through which we have ample time to discuss all these issues; and a Department that actually understands the position of the 27 European countries, and faces up to the fact that we are going to have to pay. They do not want to be told that this is going to be easy—that the whole of the European Union cannot wait to do a deal with us. That is not what they recognise. For that reason, it is important that this House does not let this Bill go forward.

Youth Justice System: Gypsies and Travellers

David Lammy Excerpts

Wednesday 1st February 2017 Westminster Hall

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Dr Phillip Lee)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Dorries. I congratulate the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green) on securing the debate. She has a long history of engagement in these issues, both before coming into Parliament and since.

Young people are some of the most vulnerable in the secure estate. We are determined to improve standards in youth justice so that we not only punish crime but intervene earlier to prevent crime and reform offenders to prevent further crimes from being committed.

There has been a significant and welcome reduction in the number of young people entering the youth justice system in recent years. However, we are concerned about the levels of disparity that exist in the justice system. Last August, the Prime Minister announced an audit of public services to reveal racial disparities, and the review, headed by the right hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy), has been established to provide an independent assessment of the treatment of and outcomes for black and minority ethnic individuals in the criminal justice system. Gypsies and Travellers fall within the scope of the review. In November last year, the right hon. Gentleman wrote to the Prime Minister setting out some of his emerging findings. The final report is due to be published in the summer, and we will give its findings careful consideration.

We also welcome the Women and Equalities Committee inquiry launched in November last year, which will look at the effectiveness of Government policy in improving outcomes for Gypsy, Romany or Traveller communities across education, health and employment as well as the criminal justice system. We will monitor the outcome of that inquiry.

I note the recent report by the Traveller Movement on Gypsies, Romany and Travellers in the youth justice system, for which the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston drafted the foreword. I commend its work to promote increased race equality, inclusion and community cohesion.

The Youth Justice Board does not currently require local authorities to collect data specific to the identification of Gypsy, Romany and Traveller children and young people. However, the YJB and Her Majesty’s inspectorate of prisons publish an annual report, “Children in Custody”, which monitors the number of GRT children in young offenders institutions and secure training centres. The latest report, published last November, found that of the young people surveyed in STCs, 12% identified as GRT in 2015-16, which was up from 11% in 2014-15. For young offenders institutions, 7% considered themselves to be GRT, which was down from 8% in 2014-15.

The report showed that in young offenders institutions there was no difference between GRT children and the rest of the cohort in understanding spoken and written English. It also showed that participation in education, work or vocational skills training in custody is higher for those identifying as GRT than among the rest of the cohort.

[Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab)]

As I think the Minister is indicating, surveys show that Gypsy and Traveller young people’s experience of education in youth custody is positive; to the extent that they are in vocational training, they want to do it and their perceptions of being in education are positive.

[Nadine Dorries (in the Chair)]

Order. This is not a speech, Mr Lammy. It is an intervention.

[Mr Lammy]

I have seen that as I have been around prisons. That is something that the youth justice system can build on. I hope the Minister might indicate how that might happen.

[Dr Lee]

I know that the right hon. Gentleman is very interested in expanding the evidence base on the experience of GRT children in the youth justice system, in particular. As the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston indicated, the genesis of a lot the problems encountered in the justice system predates their appearance in the system. A lot of them relate to the fact that those children do not attend school, so their first opportunity to receive education is in the system. We are conscious of that, and we are pleased that some of the indicators show that, when those services are offered, children engage with them. We want that to continue.

As I said, the youth justice system is of great importance to the Government. We have made it clear that outcomes are not good enough for children in custody. Reoffending rates remain stubbornly high, and not enough is done to support young offenders. That is evident for all young offenders, including those who identify as GRT. We also remain concerned about the level of violence in the youth secure estate. Recent figures demonstrate that levels of assault, self-harm and restraint remain too high.

In December, we set out our response to Charlie Taylor’s review of the youth justice system and how we will improve outcomes for young offenders and safety across the youth custodial estate. We will develop a new pre-apprenticeship pathway to ensure that all children and young people are in education, training or employment on their release. We have committed to boosting the number of frontline staff in young offenders institutions, and we will develop two secure schools with a particular focus on education and health. They will look to attract a wide range of specialist providers and allow them the freedom to decide how best to deliver services. I look forward to updating the House on the progress of those reforms as the work develops.

It is important that ethnicity classifications for young people are robust and accurate, so any potential disparities must be identified and suitably addressed. In 2011, the National Offender Management Service adopted the 18+1 ethnicity monitoring system on the centralised database used in prisons and young offenders institutions for the management of offenders, following the change of ethnicity classifications within the national census. The 18+1 system included as additional categories “Arab” and “Gypsy or Irish Traveller”, but the new classification is not consistently used by secure children’s homes, secure training centres and youth offending teams.

The YJB uses a number of different IT systems to monitor performance across the youth justice system. The two largest systems are eAsset, the custody booking system, and the youth justice application framework, which is used to record the ethnicity of young people and draws on data from individual youth offending team case management systems. Both of those systems currently use criteria from the 2001 census categories, which means that they do not capture GRT as a distinct category.

I am pleased to say that the Youth Justice Board has confirmed it is keen to move to the 18+1 system. However, although we support working towards consistency in the data that are recorded, further work is required to assess the feasibility and costs associated with such a move.

Safety of Prison Staff

David Lammy Excerpts

Monday 11th July 2016 Commons Chamber

[Michael Gove]

I would be delighted to meet, or have one of my colleagues meet, the hon. Gentleman in order to explain in greater detail the reasons for closing HMP Kennet. One of the things that we need to do is to make sure that we have modern and appropriate prisons for our prisoners. Of course, there will be opportunities not just in HMP Berwyn, the new prison in Wales, but elsewhere for staff who currently work in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency to continue to do the idealistic work for which I thank them.

[Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab)]

I have spent a lot of time in prisons over the past few months. There are two things that staff have raised with me. The first is that they are optimistic about the reform context that the Secretary of State has created and he should be congratulated on that. However, the second topic that staff have raised at prisons across the country is staff numbers, which have fallen substantially. In the new Government that we expect to begin shortly, does the right hon. Gentleman hope to see that reform agenda continue? Now that we are moving away from austerity, is it possible that staff numbers might begin to rise again?

[Michael Gove]

I am very grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for what he says, and for the work that he is carrying out to ensure that black and minority ethnic individuals are treated fairly in our criminal justice system. On the reform programme, I have been delighted by the fact that across this House and throughout the Government there has been strong support for the reform programme that we are undertaking, and I think it will be central to the work of this Government over the next few years. I look forward to working with the right hon. Gentleman and other colleagues to ensure that we make progress.

Riot Compensation Bill

David Lammy Excerpts

Wednesday 13th January 2016 Public Bill Committees

[Mike Wood]

I will be brief, Mr Howarth. The main purpose of clause 2 is to clarify the property within the confines of the scheme, primarily extending it to motor vehicles. As has been said, 1886 was the year the first diesel engine was pioneered, so it would be too much to hope that those considering that legislation might have foreseen the extent to which the motor would come to dominate so much of our lives. The clause would explicitly extend the riot damages scheme to include motor vehicles. It also clarifies the position of mobile businesses and the equipment stored within them.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 2 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 3

Regulations about claims procedure

[Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab)]

I beg to move amendment 5, in clause 3, page 3, line 12, at end insert “, which must be no shorter than 132 calendar days from the day on which the riot ends”.

This amendment would ensure that a person has at least 132 days from the end of the riot to make a claim for compensation.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 6, in clause 3, page 3, line 14, at end insert “, which must be no shorter than 132 calendar days from the day on which the riot ends”.

This amendment would ensure that a person has at least 132 days from the end of the riot to submit details and evidence in relation to their claim.

[Mr Lammy]

I am grateful to serve on this Committee but sad that we find ourselves here because my constituency has seen two riots in a generation. It is right to update this legislation, and I, too, pay tribute to the hon. Member for Dudley South for his work on the Bill.

I have tabled some probing amendments that I suspect will go to regulations. The Committee will understand that these matters are of great concern to my constituents, but many hon. Members might also want to raise these issues. Amendments 5 and 6 relate to the kinds of areas that experience riots in our country and the kinds of people and businesses that find themselves having to make a claim. Hon. Members might remember that the original legislation allowed for 30 days in which to claim compensation. After much lobbying by Members and others, that was extended to the 42 days that has been landed on.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mike Penning]

I fully understand the thought process behind the amendments and their tone. Of course, there was an extensive consultation process, but we have to draw a line somewhere. I fully understand the points made by the right hon. Member for Tottenham and the shadow Policing Minister, as I am sure other Members do. I will commit to putting exceptional circumstances into the regulations.

The Bill is for people who have suffered and the most vulnerable. It is a safety net; that is what it is there for. The regulations will cover exactly what the right hon. Gentleman has asked for. Exceptional circumstances could easily cover medical conditions, residential properties and small and medium-sized enterprises. The Bill is rightly not about the Nexts of this world. Given what I have said and will say, I hope that Members and other people will realise that we have listened. We will do this in the regulations, which is where it should be. That commitment is now on the record, so I hope there is no need for the amendments.

[Mr Lammy]

I am grateful to the Minister for that undertaking and, if those regulations are forthcoming, am pleased to withdraw the amendment. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Mr Lammy]

I beg to move amendment 3, in clause 3, page 3, line 17, leave out “may” and insert “must”.

This amendment would require the Secretary of State to require that any estimates of the cost of repairs are to be prepared by approved contactors.

The amendment deals with the approved contractors that act on behalf of the Secretary of State, engage with individuals who find themselves having to make a claim under the Riot (Damages) Act 1886 and estimate the cost of the repairs. It would be remiss of the Committee if we did not put on record the substantial findings in the months after the riots. That comes up time and again in the House, and it will come up in relation to the floods being experienced across the country.

The London Assembly committee chaired by John Biggs did very good work and published a very good report in 2012 on the riots. The committee took evidence from a range of people. The report said:

“Loss adjusters who were involved in assessing insurance claims after the riots faced a complex situation. Nevertheless, some loss adjusters behaved insensitively in handling claims, and lacked the skills needed to deal effectively with some owners of small businesses.”

As I said at the time, there is no point asking someone to provide receipts for their stock if their business has been burned to the ground. There was an inability, frankly, to understand where those small businesses were coming from and what they were facing. There were challenges in such areas as Croydon, Birmingham and Tottenham, where businesses—they are often independent, ethnic minority businesses—were made to feel like they were criminals attempting to defraud the state. I had an Adjournment debate after the riots where I expressed my concerns about the insurance industry and some—not all—loss adjusters.

I tabled the amendment to probe the Minister to say a little more about the nature of those approved contractors and how we might deal with the issue. I pay tribute to the independent review of the Riot (Damages) Act by Kinghan, which laid the foundation for much of the work that led us here. He recommended that a riot claims bureau be developed with the agreement of the Home Office and the insurance industry. He also recommended that a manual be prepared, as soon as is practicable, to provide guidance on the types of claims likely to follow a riot, including how to deal with clients unused to making claims and other issues. That is a part of his report that is pertinent to the issue raised by the amendment.

Members will understand that floods occur more often than riots in the United Kingdom, because of the nature of our geography. In 2011, much of the expertise simply was not there. The country had not seen widespread riots in the 10 years since Bradford and Oldham, and it is easy to lose the expertise, the necessary sensitivity and the understanding that the context in the communities experiencing such events is very different.

Kinghan also recommended that, in their emergency plans, local authorities should be asked to include planning for riot recovery services to provide co-ordinated advice and support. I do not know whether that recommendation relates to all local authorities, but that, too, goes to the point about expertise. It would be wrong if I did not mention loss adjusters at this point. Will the Minister say something more about the approved contractors and how we can avoid the situation that caused real concern in the communities affected?

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

Clause 3(4) is also about trying to prevent fraudulent claims, but I am just trying to understand what the amendment, by making this mandatory, would preclude. With approved contractors on an approved contractors list, it might be hard to identify a local authority or others outwith the approved process of the Secretary of State or local policing bodies. Is there an important flexibility that may help to a degree with timeliness? I know that the right hon. Gentleman was concerned, as I was, about the timeliness of compensation for our constituents’ businesses.

[Mr Lammy]

The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. In a sense, this is a probing amendment to get to the substance of what we are really talking about. The “must” probably goes too far; I accept that. I hope that I will get some comfort from the Minister shortly.

No one can predict when the next riot will be and no one can entirely control the individual loss adjuster who is behaving insensitively, but what one can guarantee is that, by and large, it will be in a deprived area and, if it is a high street area, it will involve independent shopkeepers. We have had a long history, over successive generations since the Windrush, of independent shopkeepers largely being of refugee and immigrant stock. I think of the parts of my constituency that are still Orthodox Jewish and of the émigrés who ran the shops many decades ago. Over the decades, different communities have run the shops. Shopkeepers find themselves in a situation where, if they have been ransacked, they are not getting understanding from parts of the insurance industry, particularly loss adjusters, about providing receipts, for example. That is why I make the points that I do.

[Mike Penning]

I fully understand and also respect, not least because of the conversation that we had outside, the right hon. Gentleman’s probing amendment. I have to agree with him that “must” goes a bit too far, but I fully understand exactly where the amendment is coming from.

May I say at the outset that we are looking to put together an approved list of loss adjusters who will be responsible should riots take place? Obviously this is different from the insurance side, because these measures are for people who are uninsured.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mike Penning]

It might have been a long intervention, but I think it was very useful to the course of the debate. I am sure you would agree, Mr Howarth, even if we need to keep interventions short. Should I need to intervene on anyone, I will try to keep my intervention short as well.

I say to the hon. Member for Croydon North on that specific point that I have just had the 10th anniversary of Buncefield in my constituency, which was the largest fire and explosion in this country since the second world war. The quality of the loss adjusting in some companies was brilliant; the quality in others was appalling. The insurers were very good in some areas and did not boost the premiums, while other premiums, particularly for smaller companies, were extremely harsh. It is something I have been working on with other Departments. If the right hon. Gentleman wants to join me outside the Committee in working on that issue, I will be more than happy to do so.

With regard to the probing amendment, there are two things we have to ensure. This is taxpayers’ money, so we have to make sure—this is a safety net for people who are uninsured—that fraud and other events do not in any way mean that taxpayers’ money is misused. However, we do not want to say that everybody will be a criminal and try to defraud; they are after help in 99% of cases. We also do not want to slow down the process of making the payments. If we look at the sheer scale of the riots in 2011—we have heard today about the myriad different communities across the country that were affected—we can see that to have all the estimates done by approved contractors would be enormously difficult.

The point about guidance was very well made; for want of a better word, on paper, it would say, “This is what should happen, should these terrible events happen again”. That was a recommendation of the review. That is something I will take away from the Committee, work on and make sure it happens.

With regard to the loss adjusters, an approved list is exactly where we need to go. On the need for this provision and the need for the word “must”, I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will agree to meet me and consider the comments I have made.

[Mr Lammy]

With that statement from the Minister, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn

Clause 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 4

The decision-maker on a claim

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[Mike Wood]

Neither police and crime commissioners nor local police forces are experts in processing claims, which is why it is important to allow those bodies to delegate the functions, particularly to loss adjusters. Provisions in clause 4(3) allow the Secretary of State to specify the persons to whom those functions may be delegated, which will hopefully achieve the objectives that the right hon. Member for Tottenham was trying to achieve through amendment 3.

[Mike Penning]

Obviously, that was looked at extensively. We have to be slightly careful. Unlike my learned Friend I am not legally trained, but the authority is the police—it is the police who decide and no one else. That is the definition. From the police’s point of view, if a criminal offence has taken place, a riot is defined as such by the police, who have the training and expertise to do that.

I fully understand the sensitivities of local authorities and others, but it is not their decision and it must not be. It must be the police’s decision. The wording in the Bill makes it simple as to how we define that. I understand the concerns, but they were looked at extensively.

[Mike Penning]

That is a fundamental point. The Minister will understand that that goes to the heart of our policing model: that is, policing by consent. Unlike other police forces in the world, our police do not routinely carry guns; we, as citizens, police alongside the police. Therefore, given the policing by consent model, he will understand that in some scenarios the police authority may be reluctant to declare a riot. What are the safeguards in those circumstances?

[Mike Penning]

The right hon. Gentleman makes an important point, but that is the same as any other decision that the police make. We have an independent police who make independent decisions based on their best knowledge at the time. To say that no policeman is ever influenced by events going on is wrong. Of course they are. They can listen to arguments, but it is their decision. We looked carefully at that to ensure that the police have and can keep powers to make the decision as to what is a riot and what is not. There is a whole debate to be had about that, but the definition in the Bill is important in allowing the police to continue to have the powers that they have had. That is why I support the clause.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 4 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 5 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 6

Delegation of Secretary of State’s functions

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mike Penning]

That is an important point. From my own constituents’ point of view, I understand the frustration when money is sitting in a bank account and not being used by the local authority. I cannot comment on why that happened, because I do not know, but I fully understand the frustration.

If we are asking local people to take part in and to be part of their community—if we believe in localism—it is critical that they are listened to. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman and I could meet after the Committee. I will look into the recommendations that were made—I was not in post at the time—and we can see the reasons why they were not implemented and whether those reasons were logical. The Secretary of State wants the power to do something with the local community—localism in action—which is exactly what he will do.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 6 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 7 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 8

Amount and payment of compensation

[Mr Lammy]

I beg to move amendment 1, in clause 8, page 5, line 19, leave out from “compensation” to “that”.

This amendment would remove the £1 million compensation cap.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 4, in clause 8, page 5, line 29, at end insert—

‘(3A) Money received by the claimant from emergency or recovery funds, whether funded publicly or privately, in the aftermath of a riot must not be taken into account by the decision maker when deciding the amount of compensation to be paid.’.

This amendment would ensure that money received by the claimant from emergency or recovery funds in the aftermath of a riot does not reduce the amount of compensation a claimant receives.

Amendment 2, in clause 8, page 6, leave out lines 16 and 17.

This amendment is consequential on amendment 1.

[Mr Lammy]

The amendment relates to the £1 million cap that the Government have landed on. I am probing what is behind the £1 million limit.

Someone who sets up a small business on Tottenham high street might buy the shopfront and have a home of sorts above the shop. In London the average price of a house is estimated to be £470,000, and the average price of a shopfront is a little more than that. A number of individuals on the high street found that they were underinsured, or not insured at all. The issue of insurance premiums in the kinds of areas affected by the riots is very real.

In response to my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon North, we do not want to see parts of our country looking like areas of America, such as the city of Detroit. That city has experienced successive riots, has a falling population and was effectively declared bankrupt a few years ago. Showing great sensitivity to those areas that experienced riots, we do not want them to become failed communities. We want them to be communities where people can set up businesses and thrive. Successive Governments in our country have been in the business of regeneration and improvement. We do not currently have areas in our country that are like Detroit.

The question of where to set the cap is in the context of the ability to find insurance, its cost and whether some of the big players on the high street decide not to come to the area. We lost easyGym, the post office and Carpetright from our high street; all were really important for us. The big issue is whether they are going to come back. If they do not come back there is no footfall for the small independent retailers and shopkeepers. How did we arrive at the £1 million cap?

We also have to look at the regional context. The cost of running a small business in Croydon is different from the cost of running one in Salford. There is currently no regional variation before us to indicate an understanding of that.

[Mr Reed]

My hon. Friend is making an important point. In a riot, police resources are necessarily overstretched and they have to prioritise, and they tend to prioritise the wealthier areas. Once again it is the poorer businesses that can least afford the loss that suffer. It is those areas that would be affected by the inability to claim above the cap. What is my right hon. Friend’s view on that?

[Mr Lammy]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. He and I are regular soldiers in the fight for very poor areas. With regard to the £1 million cap, I would say that the 2011 riots were unusual. As a Londoner born and bred, I would never have imagined that on the second day I would see the constituency of Ealing Central and Acton caught up in the riots.

[Mr Burrowes]

Or Enfield.

[Mr Lammy]

The profile of Enfield is changing slightly. Colleagues in Clapham Junction were caught up in the rioting, as of course were those in Enfield, Southgate.

[Dr Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab)]

The word on the street in Ealing, once known as Queen of the Suburbs, was that our police were diverted to Westfield, which is a shopping centre of high-value, high-end designer shops. That is why we were left empty-handed when the riots hit.

[Mr Lammy]

My hon. Friend makes a serious point. There was a similar context in Salford. That goes to the point about the £1 million cap meaning different things on the high streets of Tottenham, Ealing, Salford and Croydon. It goes to the cost of running a business, to the detail of loss of stock as a result of flooding or following fire damage because a business has been burnt to the ground, and it goes to insurance. We want businesses to be insured and not to have to rely fully on the legislation. Given that we do not want to have areas in our country that cannot recover because of under-insurance or no insurance, the point about the £1 million cap is very important.

I go right back to the very good Kinghan report, which of course suggested the cap in the first place. Options were explored in Kinghan’s review. His first option was that we set a percentage—say, 25% or 50%—as the limit of compensation that the police or Government would pay in respect of claims paid by insurers to their customers. His second option was that we put an absolute limit on any single claim that the police or Government pay to an insurer—say, £500,000 or £1 million. The third option was that the limit be set by reference to the size of the insured business, so that the insurer receives compensation only for claims made by businesses with a turnover below the limit. I liked the third option a lot and thought it was fair, because it allowed for an understanding of the differences between small businesses.

In drafting the Bill and landing on the figure of £1 million, were the Minister’s officials in touch with the Federation of Small Businesses or with high street businesses, for example small retailers and newsagents? Where did they get their estimates for the cost of running a business? Will the Minister say more about the claims we saw as a result of the rioting across the country?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mike Penning]

If I may, I will speak to amendments 1, 2 and 4. I know, because I spoke extensively to the right hon. Member for Tottenham before the Committee, that he has some concerns about amendment 4 that he did not have an opportunity to talk about, but I am more than happy to take an intervention.

[Mr Lammy]

I am grateful. I want to raise the question of the high street funds that were set up after the riots. I pay tribute to Sir Bill Castell, chairman of the Wellcome Trust and one of our great industrialists, for all the work he did to encourage big business to fund small business. I put it to the Minister that it cannot be right that any payment from charitable interests—a high street fund helping small business on the high street—is somehow offset against the riot damage. I want reassurance. Sir Bill raised this a lot at the time and I spoke to him today. We hope that that is not to be the case.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mike Penning]

It will. I completely agree morally that charitable donations should stay outside, whether from a lady putting 50p in a tin on the high street, as I know took place, or from some of our great businessmen coming together to offer help. I will set that in regulations. I hope that alleviates concerns on amendment 4.

On the £1 million cap, we have to be honest about what the Bill is for. It is a safety net for those who are not insured should a riot affect them and their businesses. Of course, if it is taxpayers’ money a limit has to be set somewhere, and 99% of all claims following the terrible riots that took place across the country in 2011 were below that limit. I am happy to share that information with colleagues before Report.

In looking at where to set the cap, we should not encourage people not to be insured or insurers to take the view that the state will pick up the cost for which they and businesses have responsibility. That is why we set the cap at £1 million. I will make the commitment today that that will be continually reviewed within regulations without the need for primary legislation. At the moment we have very low inflation nationally, although building and residential inflation is quite high, particularly in London. We will keep a close eye on that but there has to be a limit. There cannot be a blank cheque from the taxpayer; I think we all accept that.

In response to the shadow Minister’s point, if the money comes out of the police or Home Office budget, it is still taxpayers’ money and there is a limited amount available. I think £1 million is fair and we will keep it under review. We will also ensure that charitable donations, no matter where they come from, are exempt, and I will place that in the regulations for the Bill. I hope that the amendment will be withdrawn.

[Mr Lammy]

I am grateful for what the Minister said about the charitable donations set up after the riots and the points I made about the high street fund. I am still a little concerned about the £1 million figure because regionality has not really been addressed by the Minister. There are big differences across the country.

[Mike Penning]

Perhaps I could offer an olive branch. I will write to members of the Committee explaining the logic and thought processes behind the decision, rather than putting the question to a vote now, which would prevent it being brought back on Report. If the right hon. Gentleman is still concerned on Report, options will be open to him then.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Lammy]

I am grateful for that undertaking from the Minister. With that, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 8 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 9 and 10 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 11

Regulations

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[Mike Wood]

Earlier, I referred to mobile businesses being within the scope of the Bill. To clarify, they are not in the Bill but the intention is to include property contained within mobile businesses in the regulations. I hope that the Minister will take that on board.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 11 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 12 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule agreed to.

Question proposed, That the Chair do report the Bill to the House.

[The Chair]

I think that that was a point of order. I will happily accept it.

[Mr Lammy]

On a point of order, Mr Howarth. May I put on record my gratitude to Mr Kinghan for all his work on the review, and for spending time with me? This has not come up in Committee, but there were five fatalities during the riots in 2011, and I am sure all hon. Members would want to send their sympathies to the victims’ families. Such fatalities are not the sort of thing that we associate with riots in this country. This is a very serious matter, and for that reason we are all grateful to have served on the Committee under your chairmanship, Mr Howarth.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly to be reported, without amendment.