State Pension Age (Women)

David Lammy Excerpts

Thursday 7th January 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mrs Lewell-Buck]

My right hon. Friend is spot on. It would be embarrassing for the Government if the women affected by the changes decided to take individual legal action.

[Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend recognise that for many of the women affected, who are our constituents, there is a real threat of stress and stress-related illness as a result of the failure to inform them? The Government should take that seriously when they are trying to understand why so many Members want transitional arrangements.

[Mrs Lewell-Buck]

I thank my right hon. Friend, and I will come on to some examples from my constituency of women who are experiencing such stress.

In my constituency of South Shields we have a higher than average number of people with illnesses such as chronic obstructive pulmonary disorder, left over from our proud heavy industry days. That means that we have a large number of women who are caring for relatives or husbands, including those who fall into the group disadvantaged by the pension changes.

One such woman is my constituent Lynn Wilson. She got a letter sometime in 2011 or 2012 telling her that she would be getting her pension not at 65 but at 66. That was a complete and utter shock to her, as she was still of the view that she would get it when she was 60. Lynn’s husband Derek was diagnosed with lung cancer four years ago. Owing to the pension changes Lynn has had to continue working, but she has had to reduce her hours so that she can care for Derek. She does a difficult and physical job, and she suffers from serious back problems and arthritis herself. She tells me that she has a small private pension that she and Derek could manage to live on if her back got worse, but that it would not last the whole six years she needs to wait for her state pension. She tells me that she continues to struggle, but we agree that it just should not be this way.

Police Funding Formula

David Lammy Excerpts

Monday 9th November 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mike Penning]

I congratulate all the Lancashire Members who took the time, and were considerate enough, to meet me. Members of all parties listened to our proposals, and then presented their own ideas. That, too, helped us to make the decision to delay the process.

[Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab)]

The Metropolitan Police Commissioner will be taking £1.3 billion out of the Metropolitan Police budget. Will the Minister tell us how much the Met needs to save or keep, and what bearing that has on the announcement that he has made today, in the context of borough amalgamations here in London?

[Mike Penning]

Decisions on front-line operations are a matter for the commissioner. He is an excellent commissioner, and we await his proposals for his force. However, no decision has been made because the comprehensive spending review has not been announced. As I said a few minutes ago, the funding formula will be announced in December.

Police Federation Reform (Normington Report)

David Lammy Excerpts

Thursday 13th February 2014 Commons Chamber

[Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)]

I congratulate the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis) on an excellent speech. I thank him and the other sponsors of this Backbench Business Committee debate for ensuring that the House can discuss the recommendations of the Normington report at an early stage. This is our first opportunity in many years to have such a discussion, although we often discuss policing issues in the House; we discussed the police grant here only yesterday.

I begin by paying tribute to the hard-working police officers in the police service, including those such as PC Craig Smith. With an off-duty paramedic, David King, he struggled to free the driver of a burning car in Leicestershire and saved the person at risk. He was a runner-up in the police bravery awards, which I, with Ministers and others, attend annually to pay tribute to the marvellous work being done throughout the country by individual police officers.

I have to say that, following a proposal from the hon. Member for Northampton North (Michael Ellis), the Select Committee on Home Affairs has unanimously agreed to hold an inquiry into the Police Federation. The terms of reference will be announced next week, and I hope that they will provide an opportunity for a full-scale inquiry into the matters that have been raised. I shall return to this point at the end of my short speech.

Morale in the police service is at an all-time low, as the Stevens report recognised. Indeed, if Members talk to any police officer stationed here in the Palace of Westminster, they will hear that people are deciding to leave the force because of the current state of affairs in policing. That is regrettable. There is an obligation on all of us to ensure that we have the best police service in the world—which I think it is—and we also need to ensure that the concerns of Police Federation members are met.

I want to mention the case of the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell). It is not the subject of the debate—we are talking about the Police Federation—but the right hon. Gentleman and his family have gone through a terrible ordeal. I believe that he has now been vindicated, given that 11 of those involved have now become the subject of misconduct hearings and one has gone to prison. The cases of three witnesses who appeared before the Home Affairs Committee are still outstanding and are the subject of an Independent Police Complaints Commission inquiry that has been held in abeyance because of a judicial review application.

Those of us who have been around for a long time have asked ourselves: if this could happen to a serving Cabinet Minister, what hope would there be if it happened to one of our constituents? The right hon. Gentleman has done the House and the public a great service, from his position of power as an elected Member of the House, but his situation is quite different from those of people in Leicester and elsewhere in the country. He has been vindicated, and it is important that a line should now be drawn and that people should move on, for the sake of him and his family, and of the reputation of the police as a whole.

[Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab)]

My right hon. Friend makes his point very effectively. Does he agree that in cases such as these, continuing litigation could eventually bankrupt someone, and that the organisation is capable of going way too far? What would that mean for our ordinary constituents, who simply would not have the means to defend themselves in similar circumstances?

[Keith Vaz]

I thank my right hon. Friend for his intervention. I am a little concerned at the number of cases in which someone criticises a serving police officer and ends up being served with a legal notice or threatened with legal proceedings as a result of raising issues of legitimate concern. The Select Committee inquiry will want to look at such cases.

The right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield and his family must have been through a terrible ordeal. It is time to draw a line and move on, and to think about how we can reform the structure, now that the personal issues have been resolved and people have gone to jail or faced misconduct hearings.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab)]

It is wonderful that the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis) has secured this debate, although it is sad that we have reached a point where there is such deep concern across the House about one of our most noble and great professions. It has been a great privilege for me, over the past year or so, to serve on the police parliamentary scheme and spend time with front-line officers across London and beyond. The scheme continues and I am looking forward to spending time with front-line officers next week. Overwhelmingly, the scheme has confirmed my childhood belief, which began at about the age of nine when I said to my parents that I wanted to be a police officer, that the men and women who serve in our police forces across the country do a fantastic job.

These officers do a fantastic job at a time when, as has been said by the Chair of the Home Affairs Committee, morale is pretty low, they feel pretty battered and they feel that contracts forged with them, particularly in relation to their pensions, have been totally changed around them—reform has come, as it has to so many other professionals across this country. I know how these officers deal with the public not just because I was there to see it, but because I have met many hundreds of officers. I have seen how they interact with tricky situations. I have seen how they have dealt with the vulnerable—alcoholics, vagrants, drug addicts. I have seen them do an assortment of things, and I have seen armed officers deal with the huge burden and responsibility of carrying a gun, and it has overwhelmingly left me impressed.

It is against that truth that this discussion and this debate are so important. All of us have had the privilege of travelling to countries where corruption is endemic in the police force. I think of sitting in meetings in Brazil and also of the challenges and problems in eastern Europe. However, we all understand that, in a growing democracy such as ours, how we treat the most vulnerable and the areas of our life where light often does not shine is an indication of the state of our democracy. The day-to-day job of the police is to deal with a small criminal minority—fortunately, it is a small minority in our country. The light often has not shone and certain practices can build up. That is why it is so fundamental that here in this Chamber we are able to shine that light.

[Julian Smith]

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the report shows that the light is not shining in the Police Federation on women or on people from ethnic minorities? One of the most shocking things about the report is the lack of effort that the federation has made on people and on serving members other than white men.

[Mr Lammy]

The hon. Gentleman makes his point strongly. That point comes across crystal clear in the report. I was going on to say that many of us have watched in this country as cases involving minorities have often been overlooked. The truth is that there are many cases, some of which emanate from my own constituency, where there have been concerns about the Police Federation and a closed shop, particularly in relation to getting at the truth. However, what is so startling is that what may have been a minority concern has broken into the mainstream. When three officers so blatantly tell mistruths and so blatantly refuse to apologise over an event involving a Cabinet Minister in a country such as this, it must tell us something about a culture of impunity that has become endemic in the system. It must also say something about the necessary reform that must now come. I am pleased, therefore, that the Police Federation has accepted the report’s recommendations. The tipping point must surely have been reached if it has come to pass in this way.

As we have this debate in 2014, it is clear that a number of our institutions need to reform and to look closely at these closed practices. We as Members of Parliament are premier among them. We have had debates about closed practices in the NHS and the need for a stronger whistleblowing culture. In the Leveson report, we saw real concerns about parts of the journalism profession. Now, as we come to the police, we must see an end to those closed practices and to the refusal to get to the truth.

We have such discussions not to attack but out of sadness. The practices under discussion have chronic effects on ordinary people’s lives and they put tremendous pressure on families. It is the nature of any state that it leaves the individuals caught up in this feeling desperately powerless. That is why we juxtapose the situation in which the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell) has found himself with so many others.

[Mr Raab]

The right hon. Gentleman is making a powerful speech. Does he agree that the way in which the Police Federation uses its funds in litigation is critical to the balanced approach that he is discussing? It is one thing for it to defend its own members from litigation—to use the fund as a shield—but another thing to use those funds as a sword to pursue other people, especially victims or other members of the public?

[Mr Lammy]

Absolutely. The point is that some of those funds involve taxpayers’ money, which must demand close scrutiny. I am pleased that the Chair of the Home Affairs Committee suggested that scrutiny should be No. 1 on the agenda. It is also the case that the federation has seen fit to go after leading members of our society who are looking at police reform issues. Why is it that it thinks that it can get away with challenging a senior Cabinet Minister? Is it because parliamentarians, MPs and Ministers at this point in the cycle just happen to be a minority group that is up for attack and the federation thinks it can get away with it? There is a connection with the way it might deal with certain types of criminals. There is a connection with the way it might deal with some parts of the Irish community in this country, who would say that they have experienced some sharp practices from parts of the Police Federation. I am talking about the notion that, “It is a minority, the public don’t care that much and we can get away with this.” We must challenge that, because the honour of a great profession is at stake. Some £8 million is spent annually in relation to litigation. These are important budgets. We must ensure that they are being used for the right purposes.

I have been concerned, especially in the Duggan case, that officers have been advised by the Police Federation not to give interviews. Attempts to suspend officers facing serious allegations are always fought, whatever the circumstances. If any of us were caught up in a situation that involved the death of another individual, we would not be able to refuse to give an interview. Why would we accord that power to people who are in uniform? This is a very important issue.

One of the fundamentals of our system is the fantastic idea that we have policing by consent. That is at the heart of our police service. Here in London, there are only 32,000 police officers, and a population heading towards 10 million. In reality, it is the 10 million people who work alongside the police who give us that feeling that we are safe almost anywhere in London. The idea is that we police by consent, not by fear as is the case in America or in parts of continental Europe where police officers carry guns. It is an idea that we must treasure and protect. It is grossly undermined when a minority of police officers misbehave, they are not challenged sufficiently, there is not sufficient scrutiny, and there is the sense of a closed shop where even those who are blatantly lying are protected. That is why this report is so important, why the House must look closely at implementing it and why we must revisit these issues not just in Backbench debates over the coming months and years but in debates in Government time where we are absolutely rigorous about protecting this important fundamental of our democracy.

Deaths in Custody (Black People)

David Lammy Excerpts

Monday 2nd December 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Charles Walker (Broxbourne) (Con)]

On 27 June, I was invited by Matilda MacAttram, of Black Mental Health UK, to attend a conference in Wolverhampton. I did not know what to expect, but this was a woman I liked and trusted immensely, so I travelled up to Wolverhampton for a conference on deaths in custody. It was an extraordinary, moving and profound occasion. The conference comprised men and women, most of whom had lost sons, grandsons and nephews in custody, in either a mental health or a police setting. They bore their grief with great dignity and fortitude, but there was huge upset and anger in the room at how they had been treated by the establishment, by the system. I shall come to that in a moment.

Many relatives of the deceased bore witness to their treatment at the hands of the state and of authorities that we should trust. It was gruelling to hear. I am afraid that much of the commentary focused on the treatment meted out by certain police officers and the Independent Police Complaints Commission. I do not want this to be an attack on the police, so I want to say this now: there were many senior police officers at the conference, and the pain was etched on their faces as they listened to the experiences that families had been put through by some of their colleagues in the police force. It was a terribly moving day, but as I said, there were some very good police officers there. The police must be part of the solution, so we need to take them with us.

African-Caribbeans account for about 3% of the population of this country, but approximately 20% of deaths in custody. This has been a running sore and an open wound for 30 years, and it is incumbent on us, the political class, to address it, because if we do not, whatever side of the House we are on, we have no hope of engaging with this community constructively. They have lost trust in us. When I was preparing for this debate, I talked to several journalists, and one of them said, “But Mr Walker, isn’t it just about racism? Isn’t this an issue of racism?”, and I said, “Well, racism is an ugly, ugly word. It is a word I do not want to ascribe to people I do not know or institutions I am not experienced of.” But let me say this: for the past 30 years, since I became an adult, I have been aware of grieving black families on the steps of courts or inquests flashing across my television screen. I have seen the faces of those families and the young men they are mourning flash across my television screen, and up until this point I have chosen to do nothing. Now I am standing up and trying to do something. I may want to ask others this question, but I have to answer it: why, for 25 or 30 years, did I do nothing? Until I answer that question satisfactorily, I will not cast aspersions on others.

Another person said, “But Charles, you are talking about deaths in custody. You are a white male, why are you talking specifically about black people?” Well, I feel there is something very egregious about the treatment of black people in custody and detained environments. Any death in custody is regrettable, sad and tragic, but I am speaking as a parent because I think about what would happen if it were my son or—hopefully—when I am a grandfather, my grandson. It would be too much to bear.

I have been helped to prepare for tonight by some fabulous people—I have mentioned Matilda MacAttram, and Lord Victor Adebowale has done great work with the police on restraint and how we look after people in a mental health crisis in a detained environment. I also pay tribute to Deborah Coles of Inquest who has been extraordinarily generous in the time she has given me when preparing for this debate. I know that I will not do this subject justice this evening, but at least I can start to do my bit.

We must address the whole system of inquests. In June I met families in Wolverhampton who had waited six, seven or eight years for an inquest into the death of their child, their brother. That is wholly unacceptable. I know the Government are committed to holding inquests in good time, but many families are still waiting for two or three years. We must ensure that inquests happen in good time, but an inquest is only as good as the information presented to it, so we must ensure that inquests deal with good information.

We must address the fact that police officers are not required to answer questions put to them by the Independent Police Complaints Commission. That is simply ridiculous; I am aware that many senior police officers in the Association of Chief Police Officers believe it is a nonsense and needs to be addressed. We must also have equality of arms. When there is a death in detention, the various parties of the state have legal representation—the mental health trust, the police, the chief constable may have legal representation, all funded by the taxpayer. The family of the deceased, however, will too often have their finances gone through with a fine toothcomb—not just the parents, but grandparents, aunts, uncles and extended family—to see whether they should pay for some or all of their legal costs. That is a disgraceful way to treat a mourning family, and if we do nothing else, it is incumbent on this House to end that inequality in arms.

When someone dies in a mental health setting, as opposed to a police custody environment, we must ensure an independent investigation that carries the confidence of the family of the deceased and the wider community. Let us be in no doubt about the sense of anger and frustration at the current state of play. I do not know how we do this in law, but we must also end the culture of briefings. When someone dies in custody, the organisation that had responsibility for that individual’s care and safety can go into a sort of institutional meltdown and lockdown. It goes into a default position of getting its side of the story across, and the names and reputations of good young men are trashed in such a way that that becomes the accepted narrative—“Because the inquest is so far away, if we go on and paint a wholly false picture of this young man, that will become the accepted story.”

Can one imagine how it affects a grieving family—the weaker party in all this— to see the reputation of their son, grandson or nephew destroyed, and they have no right of reply? I do not know how we do that in law, but off-the-record, unofficial briefings should be regarded as acts of gross misconduct, and those that participate in and promote them should lose their jobs.

An issue of great importance to Black Mental Health UK is the use of face-down restraint, which is a very aggressive way of controlling someone who is distressed. Too often it can cause severe physical damage and can kill. We in this House should be in no doubt about the importance of this issue to those in the African-Caribbean community. They feel that it is used disproportionately on their young men, and we need to address that concern in a serious way.

I want to go back to the need for inquests. I am dealing with one family whose son called the police—there was a domestic dispute and he felt that he and his child were being threatened—and ended up being arrested. He was taken to a detained mental health environment. His sister came to see him. He said, “Please get me out of here. If you don’t, they will kill me.” He was dead the next day. It took the family a year and a half to recover the body of their son and brother. When they did recover his body, it was beaten, bruised and covered in Taser marks. That is a tragedy. I can understand why that upsets people so much. It upsets me today and I know that it upsets my colleagues who are here for the debate.

I do not pretend to understand the African-Caribbean community, but from the people who came to see me there is a total loss of trust in the establishment. There is a feeling that for the past 30 years we have allowed the causes of these deaths to go unaddressed. Somehow, we have turned away. The establishment has turned its back; it has chosen to walk on the other side of the road. If we are to bring the community closer to us we need to understand the sense of hurt we in this place, and the institutions of the state, have caused. The healing process needs to start at the very top. We need the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition to stand up and say, “I want to hear your stories. I want to listen. I am so sorry that we allowed this to happen for so long. Please tell us your experiences and let us work together to ensure that we do not allow these injustices to continue.”

When I left the conference in Wolverhampton on 27 June I had one overriding emotion as I sat on the train: I felt ashamed that the country I love so much, and which has given me so much, could let a group of good people down so badly. It is quite something to have that emotion at the age of 45. I always knew that we do not live in a perfect place, but I always thought that it was a good place and that, if challenged, this country did the right thing. We have not done the right thing by the African-Caribbean community. All is not lost: we have the opportunity to do the right thing. I know I have not done this subject justice, but I hope that the Government hear the growing number of voices from all communities and lead the nation to a better place.

[Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab)]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on the way in which he has made his remarks on this very important issue. Does he agree that one of the great sores in this debate is not just that no police officers have been prosecuted for the many deaths—hundreds—that have taken place in the past 20 years or so, but that the police continue effectively to investigate themselves because so many IPCC staff are police officers? That issue continues to be raised consistently in relation to deaths in police custody.

[Mr Walker]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I am aware that since 1991, although there have been nine verdicts of unlawful death passed down by inquest courts, there has not been a single successful prosecution. When I was at the conference at Wolverhampton and heard Dame Anne Owers of the Independent Police Complaints Commission present, I felt that perhaps the organisation was not fit for purpose. I had this terrible vision that this was the Care Quality Commission in front of me—we know that it is trying to address the failings of the past—but I felt that the IPCC was not in a good place. Now it is under new leadership, but I fear that it has so much ground to make up that it will never recover the credibility required to make it the force it should be.

With that, I shall conclude. I know that the hon. Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) is going to say a few words.

Oral Answers to Questions

David Lammy Excerpts

Tuesday 8th October 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab)]

As a former Legal Aid Minister, I recognise the hard decisions that have to be made on legal aid. Civil legal aid and judicial review are fundamental to our system. It has been fundamental since Magna Carta; if the state decides to take away someone’s home or children, or refuses to give them appropriate education, they ought to be able to challenge that. Will the Secretary of State look again at the issue, given the small amounts of savings he has suggested that there will be?

[Chris Grayling]

I hate to correct the right hon. Gentleman, but he talks about people’s entitlement to judicial review since Magna Carta. That took place in 1215—we will be celebrating its 800th anniversary shortly—whereas judicial review was introduced in 1974.

Criminal Legal Aid Reforms

David Lammy Excerpts

Wednesday 4th September 2013 Westminster Hall

[Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab)]

I will try to be brief, Mr Davies, because of that stricture.

Does the Minister accept that price-competitive tendering must always lead to the reduction or complete withdrawal of client choice? As long as we begin from the principle that we are not only entitled to a fair trial, but must be seen to have a fair trial, the latter is incompatible with the prosecuting body limiting the defendant’s choice, or even choosing the person employed to defend them. If the Department plans to put contracts that guarantee an equal share of work out to tender—as stated in the document it has produced—by necessity, choice is being limited. The central concern about choice therefore remains. As I said in the legal aid debate called by the hon. Member for Brent Central (Sarah Teather), the establishment of choice goes back to the Magna Carta. It is fundamental to our system, and I have yet to hear why the Lord Chancellor thinks it can be discarded in this way.

Even if the Government are not interested in the perception or the subjectivity of receiving a fair trial, tendering, and the guarantee of work without quality control, can lead only to an objectively less fair system. The system proposal means that firms will be forced to compete on price rather than on quality, and I do not want lawyers doing that. The lower firms bid, the fewer resources they can commit to each case. That is why, when we went down that road with those who would provide food for our children in schools, we ended up with turkey twizzlers. It is why, when the NHS decided to contract out the cleaning services in our hospitals, we ended up with MRSA. So I say to the Minister, let us remain committed to quality in the system—a point well made by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull East (Karl Turner) and the hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Sir Edward Garnier)—and not discard it for a cheap and, by definition, substandard service.

The savings we need can be found in other places. The significant bulk of the £220 million, as the Minister knows, comes from high-cost cases, half of which deal with banking fraud. Why does the banking sector not have an insurance scheme for fraud against its banks? That would halve the sum that the Minister is looking for. Again, it would be nice if the Lord Chancellor could say whether he was considering taking banking fraud out of criminal cases so that we could find the savings in a way that was much more friendly to our justice system.

Do we want the situation that we see in the United States of America, with substandard lawyers and huge miscarriages of justice? There are an estimated 10,000 cases of innocent people convicted of a felony there. Do we want that system? We need to think very carefully about price-competitive tendering.

I want to end briefly with the proposals that still stand on judicial review. This matter affects us all. If the state comes to take my kids away, I will seek judicial review. If the state wants to bulldoze my home to make way for High Speed 2, I will seek judicial review. If the state is unwilling to provide a care home for my mother, I will seek judicial review. Seeking to restrict judicial review is a travesty. It is a fundamental area that has largely been protected by law, and the inroads into it should be of great concern to every individual in this country. We really need to consider the matter again, given that the savings are so minuscule.

The caricature of fat-cat lawyers has been a disgrace—most lawyers are high street lawyers in places as different as Cornwall and Tottenham, and are on less than nurses and teachers. The clamour outside this building is not being made by just the legal profession. It is not about the lawyers, but about the many people who will see miscarriages of justice if the measure goes through.

Legal Aid Reform

David Lammy Excerpts

Thursday 27th June 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab)]

I am very grateful, Madam Deputy Speaker. I seek your forgiveness for being on the move, but I was consulting colleagues about whether, given the importance of this debate, a vote of this House might be required, and whether I could invite colleagues to join me in the No Lobby after this debate. That would, of course, require Tellers.

Why is this so important? It is important because the Secretary of State has caricatured this debate as being solely about producers and suppliers of legal services. He has sought to suggest that it is about fat-cat lawyers and their fees. He also sought to suggest that this follows in a long line of reform to legal aid over the last 10 years and that ultimately it is about saving £220 million of taxpayers’ money. I think it is hugely important that Members are able to assert that that is not the case.

These are profound changes that would completely unsettle our constitutional arrangement, which begins with Magna Carta, where it was said we should not sell justice, deny justice or delay justice to anyone. When this House last met to discuss issues of such importance, the subject was the suspension of habeas corpus. On that occasion, the House met for three days, there was huge debate, we sat through the night, and then the House was able to vote. It is a travesty that the Secretary of State is not present, and that the Government seek to make such a profound change in our country by secondary legislation. That is why I urge Members to follow me into the No Lobby after the conclusion of this general debate.

[John Hemming (Birmingham, Yardley) (LD)]

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the removal of people’s choice of advocate is a very profound change?

[Mr Lammy]

It is absolutely the case that in our system the choice of lawyer is fundamental and essential. In fact every democratic country we can think of enables that choice. That this Government should seek now to say that someone facing criminal charges cannot choose, and therefore have confidence in, the person to be charged with preserving their liberty is a huge exception to the democratic system we have sought to preserve for so long. Of course it will lead to huge miscarriages of justice.

[Mr Henry Bellingham (North West Norfolk) (Con)]

I am very grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way and I hope he gets extra time for taking a second intervention. I hear what he has to say, but does he agree that whoever was in power at the moment, having to make difficult choices, would almost certainly have to look at what is one of the most generous legal aid systems in the world and make savings to that budget? Does he agree that the problem is not so much the principle of the savings but how this is being done and the fact that there needs to be consultation on a number of specific points that, to be fair, the Government have agreed to reconsider?

[Mr Lammy]

The hon. Gentleman is right. It is totally unacceptable that the Government have sought to rush this measure through after a speedy consultation that lasted less than two months. It is wrong that there should not be a vote in the House and it is wrong to caricature previous changes to legal aid as having any relationship with these changes. When I was legal aid Minister, changes were made to scope in personal injury in an attempt to take out those who were caught up in speeding or traffic cases in the legal aid system. We introduced fixed fees to maintain costs. We introduced online and phone systems for free legal advice to limit costs. Those were the sorts of changes we introduced; we did not attempt to charge and make an attack on judicial review.

Judicial review is so important. Most people in this country feel that public authorities are benign until they have a disabled child, or one with special needs, and seek to challenge the local authority or the school, until they have an elderly relative in a care home and abuse goes on in that care home, or until they live in the path of High Speed 2 or Crossrail. There are people in this country who would seek to use judicial review and it is a travesty that this Government would run a coach and horses through it for £6 million.

The hon. Member for North West Norfolk (Mr Bellingham) mentioned savings and savings can be made in other ways. Tagging a defendant costs £13.41 in Britain, but £1.22 in America. Let us find the savings through cheaper procurement. Let us find the savings in the court system. Let us not rip up a democratic, constitutional system that we have had for so many years and that has served us well.

We have heard that the parents of Jean Charles de Menezes would not have received legal aid under the changes being made to the residence system. In fact, after these changes, babies in our care system aged under one would not get legal aid, even though children sometimes need access to it. There are many headlines at the moment about Jimmy Mubenga, a young man who lost his life in a deportation case. His family would not get legal aid. Is that really the kind of country we want to live in? Is that what we want to arm our Foreign Secretaries with when they are trying to speak powerfully to foreign Governments who seek to oppress their citizens? It cannot be, so I ask the Department to think again about the decision and to think very hard about the changes it is attempting to railroad through Parliament.

Those are the reasons it is important that we have the opportunity to vote. It is deeply concerning that it has taken senior Back Benchers going to the Backbench Business Committee to bring this discussion to the House in the first place. I cannot think of an occasion in the past few years when that has happened on such a major issue. I ask the Secretary of State to be mindful of the petition signed by thousands of people because they, too, are concerned about the situation.

The caricature that implies that those who are caught up in the criminal system are thick and therefore do not need a choice of lawyer is a disgrace coming from a Secretary of State for Justice. For legal aid lawyers to be caricatured as fat cats when their average salary is less than that of nurses and teachers in this country and when we are talking about high street firms in Bristol, Swindon and Brixton—places as different as that—is unacceptable. This is not about the producer, but about the citizen and the consumer. It is about hard-fought battles that have taken place in this Chamber over many years. I ask the Government and hon. Members to join me in the No Lobby after the debate.

--- Later in debate ---

[Robert Neill]

It seems to me that the Secretary of State has adopted a careful and measured approach. What the hon. Lady says is thoroughly misleading. I am sorry to say that she does herself no service by making such a thoroughly meretricious point.

This matter has been the subject of great public debate. I have referred to the former Lord Chancellor’s speech in 2009, in which he made specific proposals, including bringing in fixed fees and graduated fees as a precursor to best value tendering. He may not have delivered on those proposals, but the ideas have been out there for a long time.

The Lord Chancellor has met the chairman of the Bar Council and the president of the Law Society. It is right and wise that he chooses temperate interlocutors. He has been most willing to engage with Members of this House who are interested in legal matters. The hon. Lady therefore does herself a disservice to characterise the process as rushed.

[Mr Lammy]

The hon. Gentleman is doing a fair job of coming to the defence of the Government, but does he really believe, as a member of the criminal Bar, that it is right to withdraw choice from defendants? That is the fundamental question.

[Robert Neill]

The right hon. Gentleman had no difficulty serving in the Government of Tony Blair, who observed in 2003 that it was time

“to derail the gravy train of legal aid”.

He might like to think about his own background before he criticises anybody on the Government side of the Chamber.

Of course choice is important, but if we are to have a sensible and intelligent approach to choice, we must recognise that when choice is funded by the taxpayer, it should not come with a completely blank chequebook. It is legitimate to look at the way in which choice is delivered. We should link to the question of choice the important commitment to a proper quality standard. I hope that the Bar Council and the Law Society will work with the Ministry of Justice to develop a quality standard to ensure that the lawyers who come forward under this scheme are not just acceptable, but really good and able.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Davis]

If the hon. Lady will forgive, I am very tight on time. I will give way if I can a little later.

That does not tell the whole story, however. Time and again, we see trials delayed and extended by CPS incompetence. In my part of the world alone, the newspapers are littered with cases of lawyers not turning up, evidence not being presented and cases being adjourned again and again. I suspect we all have constituency cases just like that. This happens right across the country. We should not pretend that the legal aid system is a model of efficiency, but when it comes to finding savings and better, effective justice across the whole system, we should look first at the CPS itself before we let the axe fall again on legal aid.

I am yet to be convinced—this addresses the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Esher and Walton (Mr Raab)—by Government assurances that the quality of legal aid providers will be guaranteed by a state body. This debate comes barely a week after the Care Quality Commission scandal. That demonstrates how difficult it is to guarantee the quality of complex intellectual services, which, of course, justice is. We should notice that even where the state has direct control—namely, the CPS and the Serious Fraud Office—it cannot guarantee quality there either. A judge in a recent murder case described the CPS lawyer as “completely inadequate”. The judge said that the lawyer cited old law, did not understand the current law, fell out with the prosecution team, and then simply did not show up on the following Monday. As a result, the trial had to be held six months later. If we cannot guarantee our own system and our own service, how are we going to guarantee 400 private operators around the country?

[Mr Lammy]

Does the right hon. Gentleman also recognise a Conservative idea that competition can drive down costs?

[Mr Davis]

The right hon. Gentleman is almost taking the words out of my mouth. I cannot believe that a Conservative Government are going to mandate how many companies and providers there should be. I know of no example in the world where a Government mandated the number of companies and then improved the efficiency of provision—not one. This is a Soviet proposal that I do not want to see. I do not mind if there are better ways of finding efficiency—as has been said, that is what we must find—but please do not lay down laws like that.

I wish briefly to discuss a couple of other troubling issues in the consultation document, the first of which is the 12-month residency test. That could deny justice to people who have suffered because of the actions of the UK Government—under UK jurisdiction—which we are responsible for resolving. Just to mention cases in which I have been directly involved, I can cite those of Binyam Mohamed, Serdar Mohamed, Yunus Rahmatullah, who is still in Bagram prison, and Baha Mousa. We are talking about: people who were subject to torture in which Britain was complicit; an innocent man beaten to death by British soldiers; people who have been rendered—and still are—to other countries; people who have been handed over to our allies—[Interruption.] From a sedentary position, my hon. Friend the Member for Esher and Walton mentions de Menezes, who was shot, although accidentally, by the British Government. All those people would be denied their justice. More important, given that in many of those cases the person is deceased, the British people would not know about the misdemeanours of their own Government.

That brings me to my final point, which is about judicial review. I sympathise with Ministers who find it irksome that we have so many judicial reviews, but the Government are in danger of getting themselves a reputation for wanting to act above the law. Irksome as it is, judicial reviews are what keeps British Governments honest—it does not matter of which party or of which origin, they keep the Government honest. I say to the Government that before they strike down these things at their own convenience, they should think again, come back more slowly and present this House with some primary legislation we can then be proud of.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Elfyn Llwyd (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)]

May I first of all declare an interest? For many years, I practised family and criminal law, both as a solicitor and barrister, and many of the cases were legally aided.

The effects of these reforms will be extremely detrimental to solicitors and their practices. Inevitably we will have advice deserts and this will impinge even more on the situation in Wales, where there is a requirement to provide services through the medium of Welsh. The Justice Secretary, sadly absent, has admitted that the Ministry only considered this factor a month into its consultation and his impact assessment does not even mention the Welsh language.

The consultation process in general so far has been nothing short of a sham allowing professionals only six weeks to get up to speed with proposals that will fragment the professional world they inhabit. To add insult to injury, the Government intend to introduce these reforms by secondary legislation without proper scrutiny by Parliament. This is scandalous. Unless these plans are stopped now and quickly, there will be no turning back.

[Mr Lammy]

I was in Wales at the weekend and was struck by the major rurality issues in that part of the UK. Is the right hon. Gentleman concerned that the loss of high street lawyers in rural areas could damage access to justice?

[Mr Llwyd]

Undoubtedly so and, as one who used to practise in a small town, I speak with a little authority. The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jane Ellison (Battersea) (Con)]

Before I make some brief remarks on behalf of the many members of the legal profession and the general public who have approached me, may I say a word to the House on behalf of the Backbench Business Committee? The Committee granted this debate to the hon. Member for Brent Central (Sarah Teather) and the right hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy) as a general debate with no Division to allow for a wide-ranging and frank discussion, which I think all Members would agree the House is having. We are also extremely mindful of the fact that the debate is over-subscribed and the House needs to give more time to this subject. Does the right hon. Gentleman want to intervene on me at that point to say anything?

[Mr Lammy]

The hon. Lady is a member of the Backbench Business Committee, and I wonder whether she is saying more time could be made available for us to return to this topic and have a vote. I am also mindful that the shadow Secretary of State has not yet spoken, however, and that I may not need to press this debate to a Division.

[Jane Ellison]

I hope it is possible not to do so, for the reason I have just explained. There is also a short, but important, debate to follow.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jeremy Wright]

I note that the right hon. Gentleman did not take the opportunity to share where he was the last two times, but I suggest that we might want to move on.

This is an important debate, as hon. Members from all parts of the House have said. Before I try to respond to a number of the specific points made—the House will understand that the time constraints we face mean that I will not be able to respond to everything, and I apologise for that in advance—let me say something about the context of these reforms.

It is right to say that the previous round of legal aid reforms, culminating in the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012, will have already removed about £320 million from the legal aid budget by 2014-15, but those proposals were primarily focused on civil legal aid scope and eligibility. Alongside those changes, we have made sweeping reforms to the central administration of the legal aid system. We have strengthened accountability and introduced a more rigorous approach to financial management by creating the Legal Aid Agency. But the successful delivery of that programme has not eliminated the need for reform. In order to meet the ongoing financial challenges facing the justice system, which many who have spoken have recognised, the Government have had to look again at the cost of civil legal aid, as well as turning their attention to arguably the most difficult part of the legal aid reform agenda: the reform of criminal legal aid.

[Mr Lammy]

The saving the Government would make by looking at civil legal aid is £6 million in relation to judicial review. Does that really make it necessary to run a coach and horses through judicial review?

[Jeremy Wright]

The position is, as I have just said, that the bulk of the work done under the 2012 Act dealt with civil legal aid and the bulk of the work being done under these proposals will deal with criminal legal aid. The total value of the savings that these reforms would make if fully implemented as currently proposed would be £220 million by 2018-19. That is a significant figure, given our financial circumstances.

Many hon. Members have questioned the need for further reform, while others have said we should go much further. My hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr Djanogly) made an interesting speech about more radical options we could pursue. The answer is simple: criminal legal aid accounts for £1 billion of the overall legal aid budget, and in the current financial climate, the Government, being committed to eradicating the deficit and the national debt, cannot overlook such a sizeable portion of Government spending. We have had to make extremely tough choices in other areas, and it would not be right to exclude this one.

Many hon. Members have said that we should look for savings in other areas of the criminal justice system. My hon. Friend the Member for Meon Valley (George Hollingbery) made that point, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury (Simon Reevell), my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis), my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous) and the hon. Members for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Meg Hillier) and for Leeds North West (Greg Mulholland). All of them were right about the importance of looking at other areas. I think we heard some good suggestions today, and of course the Government will look in all those areas for savings, too, but that does not get us away from the need to keep the legal aid budget under proper scrutiny.

The package of proposals on which we have consulted is intended to ensure that our legal aid system commands the confidence of the public—that is important—and remains financially viable both now and in the years ahead. We are looking carefully at the 16,000 responses to the consultation, and, with reference to what my hon. Friend the Member for Brent Central said, I can reassure the House that I and my ministerial colleagues will treat everything said in this debate as important contributions to that process. We will listen carefully to what has been said today as well as to what was said in the consultation.

We are duty bound to ensure, however, that taxpayers’ money is spent only where it is justified and only on those who genuinely need the state’s assistance. The taxpayers, who fund the legal aid scheme, have every right to demand that their money be well spent and to ask important questions. They have a right to ask why the taxpayer should be paying the legal costs of the very wealthiest Crown court defendants up front; why the taxpayer should be paying for criminal legal aid for claims made by prisoners that can be better resolved by other means—I will return in a moment to prisoner law— and why the taxpayer should pay the legal costs of those with no strong connection to the UK.

As others have said, our legal aid budget is disproportionately high. My hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill) made that point very effectively. We have an extremely good legal system—it is greatly admired and, as others have said, it contributes significantly to our society—but that does not mean that it should be immune to the realities that the Government face. Efficiencies have to be made, and reform is the mechanism for achieving them.

[Mr Lammy]

No one is suggesting that there should not be reform. Has the Minister considered the fact that 45% of criminal legal aid goes on high-cost cases, many involving bank fraud? Why does he not ask the banking industry to come up with an insurance scheme and take that out, rather than dismantling the whole system?

[Jeremy Wright]

The right hon. Gentleman is right that very high-cost criminal cases are an important area for us to focus on, and we propose to take about 30% of the cost of those cases out of the system, but he would be wrong to assume that those cases, on their own, could achieve the savings we need to make. We need to look more broadly.

I want to turn to the particular proposals and concerns that hon. Members have concentrated on. Many Members have focused on the effect of the proposals on smaller firms and on the issue of price competitive tendering. In 2011, we said that competitive tendering would likely be the best way to ensure long-term sustainability and value for money in the legal aid market. Some Members were concerned that this was a new idea suddenly springing into the political landscape, but of course that is not the case. Indeed, the right hon. Member for Tooting (Sadiq Khan)was gracious enough to point out that the idea was first considered under his Government. In March 2010, the last Government produced a Green Paper entitled, “Restructuring the Delivery of Criminal Defence Services”. Among other things, it said:

“Currently the criminal defence service is highly fragmented, with a large number of small suppliers and relatively few large suppliers….We believe that these market trends are not sustainable. Therefore we believe a future tendering process would ensure a more consolidated market, with a smaller number of more efficient suppliers, required to undertake the full range of the services we need.”

That is what the Labour party thought in 2010, and lest we should run away with the thought that it has changed its view since then, let me quote from what I am sure is a very well-read blog written in October 2011 by the right hon. Member for Tooting. He said—as, to be fair, he also said today—that:

“I recognise that cuts need to be made…I would have carried through a new scheme for contracting of solicitors for criminal legal aid and lowered criminal defence advocate fees in the Crown Court…This more efficient contracting of legal services from solicitors has bizarrely not been implemented by the coalition government”.

So he criticises us for not doing it, then he comes here and criticises us for proposing to do it.

Another point that has been made repeatedly today is the effect that the proposals could have on smaller firms. I need to make it clear that the proposed competition model would see the number of contracts, not the number of firms, reduced from 1,600 to 400. Our proposals do not prescribe how many lawyers should be available or how those that have the contracts should divide up the work allocated to them.

The matter of client choice has also been raised by many hon. Members today. We have listened carefully to the concerns that have been raised not only in the debate but by those who responded to the consultation. Let me reassure the House that quality-assured duty solicitors and lawyers will still be available, just as they are now. The Legal Aid Agency will need to ensure, as part of the tendering process, that all providers are capable of delivering the full range of criminal legal aid services across their procurement areas. That is also true in relation to the points raised about rural sparsity and about the Welsh language.

We have a number of things to consider, and we will consider them carefully. We will come back with our conclusions in the autumn. I am grateful that the debate has taken place today and for all the contributions that have been made. We will consider them properly and respond accordingly in the autumn.

2011 Public Disorder (Compensation)

David Lammy Excerpts

Wednesday 5th June 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Steve Reed (Croydon North) (Lab)]

I am grateful for this opportunity to raise an issue that is of great interest to my residents in Croydon North and to many other people across London and in other parts of the country that were affected by the riots in the summer of 2011.

It is almost two years now since the riots hit Croydon. Businesses were burned to the ground, shops were looted, and homes were destroyed. The Prime Minister and the Mayor of London walked along the devastated London road in the central part of Croydon and promised people that they would not be forgotten and that, while the state had failed to protect them during the riots, it would stand by them as they tried to rebuild their lives. Since becoming the Member of Parliament for Croydon North last November, I have met business owners and residents whose lives were damaged by the riots. They feel completely abandoned by a Government who promised to help them when the TV cameras were on but walked away when the media glare died down.

It is instructive to know how much has actually been paid out compared with the amount that has been claimed. I put in a freedom of information request to the Metropolitan police and found out that that now, nearly two years after the riots took place, only one seventh of the £250 million that was claimed had been paid out—that is, £35.8 million. The Metropolitan police rejected outright half of all claims that were filed, yet the Government continue to claim, and I fear may claim again tonight, that the majority of cases have been settled. The Government might have closed the files, but the cases have not been settled to the satisfaction of the people who were affected. They feel very strongly that the Government have given up on them and walked away. It is no wonder that the chair of The High Street Fund, Sir William Castell, has described the Government’s compensation schemes as a “disgrace” because of how slow they have been at paying out to people who need and deserve that additional money.

I have here some quotes from the Prime Minister during the debate in this Chamber on 11 August 2011. He said:

“I confirm that any individual, home owner or business that has suffered damage to or loss of their buildings or property as a result of rioting can seek compensation under the Riot (Damages) Act 1886, even if uninsured.”

In response to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition, he said of the money that would be made available that

“the Riot (Damages) Act has no cap at all…people will be able to apply to the police and the Government will stand behind the police.”—[Official Report, 11 August 2011; Vol. 531, c. 1054-59.]

The Government’s promises were good. What the Prime Minister offered to do was exactly what they should have been doing; the tragedy is that the reality has not matched the rhetoric.

What I hope to demonstrate, and hope the Minister will respond to, is my fear, and the fear of many people who have suffered as a result of the Government’s failure to intervene, that the Government are hiding behind definitions to avoid paying up. For instance, they are refusing to replace damaged, old business equipment with new business equipment, even though in many cases businesses are unable to buy like for like, and therefore cannot replace them, get their businesses going again and get their livelihoods back.

The Government, and the Metropolitan police, have also failed to define the riots properly in some parts of London. My right hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Frank Dobson) has been in correspondence with the Home Secretary about Chalk Farm, where the riots were defined as “public disorder”, which means that the Riot (Damages) Act does not apply to businesses and individuals in that part of London who were affected.

Statistics do not give the full scale of what happened. They fail to tell us the human side of the Government’s failure. Individual stories tell us much more than statistics. I would therefore like to refer to two specific cases involving constituents of mine whose lives remain blighted by riots that happened nearly two years ago.

First, a gentleman called Mr Mumtaz Hassan and his wife ran a dry cleaning business on the London road in west Croydon. Their business was burned down by a mob and as a result their livelihood has been destroyed. Two years later, they have not been paid a single penny in compensation. All they have been offered is like for like. It was an old business that they had taken over. They cannot afford, with what is on offer to them, to pay for new dry cleaning equipment. As a result, that family risk losing their home, because they have no livelihood or income to maintain their mortgage payments. Two years later, the riots are still creating new victims and it is time that the Government stepped up and helped people as they promised in the immediate aftermath of those events.

Secondly, Miss Charlene Munro is a single mother who at the time lived in a flat above a business on the London road with her three-year-old son. When they saw rioters rushing down the London road, smashing and looting their way through the shops, they fled their home. They returned the next day to find the shop and the flat where they lived burned down and all their possessions destroyed. Absolutely everything they owned was gone. She put in a not unreasonable claim of just £6,000 for all her possessions. She received a paltry £2,500 in payment, which is absolutely inadequate to replace all the possessions, clothes and electronic goods that the family owned. She is unable to replace them. In her attempt to build a new home for her three-year-old son, she had to go into debt and is now so burdened with debt she has been forced to file for bankruptcy. The Government say that her case has been settled. It is not settled in any meaningful way other than that the Government have simply closed the file and are refusing to provide her with the support she deserves and was promised.

Some businesses are still being held liable for rent or mortgage payments on properties that have been burned down. Many insurers are going far too slowly in dealing with claims for damaged property and goods.

[Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab)]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the manner in which he has brought this issue back to the House. Is he also concerned about premiums rising in riot areas such as his and mine, and does he agree that the absence of engagement with the Riot (Damages) Act 1886 means that areas are being abandoned and that that could lead to a Detroit-type scenario in this country, with completely barren areas without any insurance presence?

[Mr Reed]

I thank my right hon. Friend for his intervention. I compliment him on his work as the Member for Tottenham in standing up for riot victims not just in his constituency, but elsewhere in London. That has been of great reassurance to my constituents as well as his. I absolutely agree with him. The issue is not just that premiums have gone up in areas hit by the riots; businesses have even told me that they cannot get insurance at all.

If we hollow out whole areas of London, we will further blight the lives of people who, through no fault of their own, were victims of hooligan mobs trashing and looting their way through London. We need the Government to step up to the mark, take on the issues that confront these areas and work with insurance companies to ensure that whole areas do not get blighted because of incidents two years ago that were nothing to do with the people who were living their lives peacefully and running businesses there.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice (Damian Green)]

I thank the hon. Member for Croydon North (Mr Reed) for raising this important subject. I take this opportunity to pay tribute to his predecessor, Malcolm Wicks, who was extremely assiduous, as all those who knew him would expect, in representing the victims of the riots in his constituency before his very sad death.

I am, of course, aware that the Croydon North constituency was one of the areas most severely affected by the riots of August 2011. I, like everyone in the House, sympathise with the individuals and businesses in that area, across London and across the country that experienced losses because of the riots.

Given the tone adopted by the hon. Gentleman, it is important to make sure that we have the facts and figures on the record. I note, for example, from local media coverage in March 2013, that it was claimed that as many as 40 claims for compensation under the Riot (Damages) Act 1886 appeared to be outstanding in Croydon alone. It is simply not the case that there are 40 outstanding uninsured cases in Croydon, as only 11 uninsured cases remain unresolved nationally, nine of which are in the Metropolitan police area.

The hon. Gentleman quite reasonably brought up some figures, so I am sure it will help him and the House if I quickly run through the latest statistics on compensation payments. They show that 577 uninsured claims were originally made, of which five remain outstanding—about 1% of the original total. A further 716 uninsured claims were later received by the Metropolitan police. These were largely made after insurance companies had repudiated claims. Only six of that latter group of claims are unresolved, which is again around 1% of the original total.

The largest category of outstanding claims represent insurance companies seeking compensation from police and crime commissioners for reimbursement of settlements paid to policyholders. This does not affect individuals or businesses who have received some form of payment from their insurance company: 3,935 of these types of claim were made and 270—about 7%—are outstanding. So far, PCCs, and in London the Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime, have paid out just over £30 million in claims.

The hon. Gentleman brought up the Government’s initial response to the riots. Indeed, through the Department for Communities and Local Government, the Government quickly set up funds to help individuals and businesses to get back on their feet, and these schemes paid out £10.8 million.

With specific reference to compensation payments under the Riot (Damages) Act, the Government took swift action by extending the application period from 14 to 42 days, by replacing the antiquated prescribed form with a simple claims form and by setting up a Home Office bureau to act as a single point of contact to advise claimants and take in applications.

From recent correspondence with Members, I am aware of a few individuals—the hon. Gentleman mentioned them—who have had to continue making mortgage payments on properties left uninhabitable by the riots. I should say that this type of loss is not covered by the Riot (Damages) Act, and I shall come on later in my speech to the inadequacies we have identified in a what is a rather old Act. I have recently written to the Council of Mortgage Lenders, which has agreed to liaise with lenders to see whether a more sympathetic approach can be taken. I am happy to assure the hon. Gentleman and other Members that my officials are working closely with them. In the end, this is a commercial decision for mortgage lenders, but as I say, we are taking action on this.

[Mr Lammy]

My hon. Friend the Member for Croydon North (Mr Reed), other Members and me have pressed this case for years with the Association of British Insurers. It must be unacceptable that people still find themselves in receipt of insufficient funds to get back on their feet.

[Damian Green]

As I say, particularly in the case of the mortgages, it is for the mortgage lenders to decide in the end, but I have explained that I am doing what I can to persuade them to take a sympathetic attitude to individuals who deserve help.

As the House will know, all those who made claims under the Riot (Damages) Act were offered sums in settlement. In case they were unhappy with their offers, the PCCs—and MOPAC in London—established a right of appeal, which a number of people have exercised. At the outset of the riots, the Government made a commitment to back the costs incurred by police forces in meeting Riot (Damages) Act costs, because that was another potential problem. We have provided that backing, and will continue to do so until the few remaining claims have been settled. So far the Government have paid some £30 million to forces to meet Riot (Damages) Act costs, as well as meeting the operational costs of policing the riots, which totalled £97 million.

--- Later in debate ---

[Damian Green]

That is part of the principle of the Act, but it is not the whole point of it. The right hon. Gentleman has been a Minister and he knows that Ministers have to obey the law like everybody else.

I take the point about money, and MOPAC has been making some interim payments. I understand that about £10 million has been paid out, including some to residents of London road.

Underlying all this is the unsatisfactory nature of what is 19th century legislation. As I set out in a written ministerial statement last month, we have appointed Neil Kinghan to conduct an independent review of the Act. That has already begun and is expected to be completed by the end of September.

[Mr Lammy]

Will the Minister ask Neil Kinghan to meet Members and constituents who have been affected, because he has not got in touch so far?

[Damian Green]

Well, he only started two days ago, I think. He is very keen—

Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill

David Lammy Excerpts

Tuesday 21st May 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Burrowes]

I do indeed welcome their prayerful support and, indeed, the fact that there has been engagement from those who are on all sides of the argument.

There has been much tolerance and respect in the debate from those on both sides of the House, but I must take this opportunity to say—I have informed the right hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy) of my intention to do so—that there have been comments that have gone beyond tolerance. There have been intolerant comments that were, frankly, offensive to my constituents and many of his. How dare the right hon. Gentleman equate the position of Christian Members of Parliament such as me and others with the slave traders of Wilberforce’s time? Wilberforce supported traditional marriage and would, I am sure, have been on the side of the dissenters on the Bill.

Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that by playing the race card and accusing the Bill’s opponents of being in step with the racists and traffickers of years gone by, he is offending not just me—that does not matter—but the majority of the black and minority ethnic communities who are opposed to the Bill? He has offended the black majority Church leaders in his constituency and mine who wrote to The Times recently and said:

“If the Government gets its way, it will not be a victory for equality. Equality requires diversity, and diversity requires distinctiveness, and marriage is and always will be distinctively a union between a man and a woman… The Government is not respecting difference, and it is not promoting a plural society.”

[Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab)]

rose—

[Dr Huppert]

rose—

[Mr Burrowes]

Unfortunately, we are running out of time.

What is pernicious is equating hon. Members’ opposition to redefining marriage with previous discrimination on the basis of race. That plays into the hands of those who have accused me and many hon. Members of being homophobic or bigoted simply for standing up for marriage—[Interruption.] I will give way to the right hon. Member for Tottenham shortly. Such intolerant reaction to our belief in marriage runs the risk of being fomented by the state orthodoxy in the Bill about the new gender-neutral meaning of marriage. For our constituents—those who really matter—those who disagree risk vilification and discrimination and they certainly will not get the protection they deserve under the Equality Act 2010.

[Mr Lammy]

I am greatly saddened that the hon. Gentleman chose to use the term “playing the race card”. My comments were merely sited in an understanding of equality. There have been many battles on equality in this House. The battles against slavery, racism and sexism were noble, and many people outside the House will recognise that the fight for gay rights is one of equality; it is not playing—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. The hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes) must have a chance to finish his speech.

Metropolitan Police Service

David Lammy Excerpts

Wednesday 6th February 2013 Westminster Hall

[Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab)]

Thank you for allowing me to speak, Mr Streeter. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow West (Mr Thomas) for securing this timely debate. We all know that for London to remain one of the best cities in the world it must also be one of the safest. London has been well served in that respect.

The Metropolitan police, although no stranger to controversies or mistakes—my hon. Friend has mentioned some high-profile concerns—is one of the best police services in the world, considering the challenges that it faces. Given the sheer expanse of the city and the ever-present concern about terrorism, the need to forge links across all communities is an important hurdle that the Met overcomes. We would all want to give great thanks to the men and women who serve in our areas.

That is all testament to the previous Labour Mayor, who invested in our police service and in policing technology; it is a testament to the previous Labour Government, who revolutionised neighbourhood policing. The resulting model for the Met that the previous Mayor and Government bequeathed to their current Tory masters was defined by three principles. The first principle was strength in numbers. The number of officers available to the Metropolitan police broke the 33,000 barrier, complemented by 4,000 police community support officers and 4,000 special constables.

The second principle is a relentless focus on the local and the very local. Community relations were forged on the ground, not just over the airwaves. New sergeants and their teams were embedded in neighbourhoods and communities, ensuring that they knew not only the faces of people serving the community, but their first names and addresses.

The third principle was an inescapable presence. The Metropolitan police had a permanent and visible presence in every neighbourhood in the capital. Whether it was an expensive or expansive police station or a local shop front, Londoners knew where to find their police on the high street, and residents and businesses felt safer for that.

As my hon. Friend has outlined so well, that model is now under threat. Those pillars are slowly being kicked away by the swingeing axe that this Government and their Mayor have taken to budgets. Where they have not entirely demolished community faith in policing—I shall come to concerns in Tottenham shortly—they have found a deputy Mayor who has not been present at all in the communities that he is supposed to be serving.

We have already lost 1,500 police officers and 2,000 PCSOs since the spending review. The safer neighbourhoods teams have been decimated, and a quarter of sergeants have been cut. Just last month, we found out that the Mayor has ordered the effective withdrawal of the police from our high streets. Sixty-five police stations are proposed to be closed, and the hours of more than 30 others are being downgraded. Of particular concern to me and my constituents is the fate of Tottenham police stations.

[Lyn Brown]

I am sorry to interrupt my right hon. Friend’s flow about Tottenham, but may I tell him that Newham faces the same problem? Almost half of our police stations are going, and so is the police station in Stratford, which, as hon. Members may recognise, is a place of major growth and regeneration. How can someone possibly think that that is a reasonable police station to close?

[Mr Lammy]

My hon. Friend makes her point well. She will appreciate that constituents such as ours in Newham and Tottenham fear the closure of police stations and the hours that police stations might now be open. Concerns in complex, multicultural areas must command the Mayor’s attention, and a present deputy Mayor is needed to answer them urgently.

[Mark Field (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Harrow West (Mr Thomas) on securing this important debate.

Ten short days ago, my constituency was home to an appalling tragedy. A 16-year-old boy, Hani El Kheir, was brutally murdered in the street. Walking along Lupus street, Pimlico, literally a mile or a mile and a half away from here, in the early evening, Hani and his girlfriend were approached by a group of 10 to 20 youths carrying a range of weapons. When he tried to escape, he was tripped and set upon, receiving a number of stab wounds as he was attacked, one of which pierced his heart. Having completed their deed, the pack of killers left Hani bleeding in the street. The emergency services arrived swiftly, taking only five to 10 minutes to get to the scene of the crime. Medical staff worked hard, but Hani eventually died some two hours after the attack.

Hani was the only child of Pauline Hickey. As a father of two young children, I cannot even begin to imagine her anguish. She has lost the most precious gift, a son with whom she had, as she put it, an “unconditional and unbreakable bond.”

Everyone here will have read the newspaper reports of the attack, and I suspect in my constituency such attacks bring more headlines than is perhaps the case in some parts of outer London. I do not wish to repeat those reports other than to say that the witness accounts were chilling and posed questions about how such people operate in our society. I am well aware that comparable brutalities occur on the streets of Harrow, Tottenham, Hackney and Peckham that are no less a tragedy because of their location.

All but one of the constituents who contacted me after Hani’s murder were women, and I suspect that such cases strike a particular chord with mothers, daughters and sisters who sympathise so deeply with Pauline Hickey. One of my correspondents said:

“Hani’s death is a tragic example of the escalating brutality that our young men in the area are being exposed to.”

A number of warrants have been issued across London and local ward resources have been beefed up, with weapons sweeps conducted on local estates in Pimlico and beyond. Police have been working closely with Westminster city council and information is being shared with local schools, especially with regards to the siblings of any victims and suspects arrested in relation to this high-profile case, and there have been many arrests. A big public meeting is taking place tomorrow to bring all of us together—police, council, residents and elected representatives—to discuss how we might prevent similar tragedies in future.

I have mentioned this in the House several times, as has been mentioned, but it is worth repeating that Westminster city council, under the energetic chairmanship of Councillor Nickie Aiken, who is a cabinet member, has pioneered innovative work with gangs in this city. Under the “Your Choice” programme led by the integrated gangs unit, gang members are given real choices. If they wish to leave their gang, they are helped with employment, mentoring and support. If they choose not to, serious enforcement action will be taken, including clamping down on those living in social housing who create misery for their neighbours through antisocial behaviour. I am glad to see that the Mayor of London is committed to rolling such measures out.

Many criticisms are made of the Metropolitan police, particularly in these difficult financial times. In the aftermath of Hani’s murder, I received some relating to the fact that there seemed to be a visible police presence only after the tragedy. Where had those bobbies on the beat been before? If they had been more visible, could they have prevented Hani’s murder? Those are the sorts of question coming through.

I confess that I do not recognise some of the criticisms that have been made by the two hon. Members who have spoken in this debate and, I suspect, will be made later by others among this great phalanx of London Labour MPs. [Interruption.] I felt as outnumbered as this in 2001, when I was first elected to the House. It may happen again in future.

[Mr Lammy]

The hon. Gentleman serves his constituents well, but I am surprised that Conservative Members from Barnet, Croydon and other places are not here to join him in this important debate for London.

[Mark Field]

This is an important debate, and rest assured that Conservative MPs have had various meetings on these matters with Stephen Greenhalgh, deputy Mayor of London, and with the Mayor himself.

The new local policing model reflects the financial constraints that any Mayor, of whatever colour, would have experienced. Part of it involves making police more accountable to local people. One reason for closing down our local police stations is that we are trying to put more money into bobbies on the beat rather than necessarily into bricks-and-mortar institutions. There will be an extra 2,600 officers in the safer neighbourhoods scheme as the role of safer neighbourhoods teams changes to cover reassurance and enforcement. Neighbourhood officers will be available for far longer hours, and neighbourhood inspectors will be a key point of accountability. That is good news, and I hope that the Met starts connecting with local people so that communities can work together to protect our youngsters.

--- Later in debate ---

[Damian Green]

There is no reason why response times should go up. I have explained what is happening in the way people report things to the police. There are ever-increasing ways in which the public can contact the police. That includes contact centres on the new non-emergency number, 101, which takes some of the pressure off 999 services, and contact through supermarket surgeries and so on, where the police can meet thousands of people, instead of the very few who may come in to a police station.

Several hon. Members made the point that the quality of contact as well as the quantity of contact matters. It seems to be unarguable that getting the police out there into buildings where thousands of people are likely to be is a better way of making that contact than simply being inside a traditional big-building police station.

[Mr Lammy]

There is a proposal that throughout the entirety of my constituency police station hours will be reduced to 9 to 5. The matter also involves perception. The people of Tottenham do not want officers coming into the constituency from outside. They want officers based in the constituency for reasons that were echoed time and again after the riots in the summer of 2011. The issue is not just about a 9-to-5 operation; it is about visible policing on the ground in constituencies such as mine.

[Damian Green]

Indeed, and as the right hon. Gentleman knows, one part of the MOPAC plan is to increase the number of police constables, so there will be more visible policing. The background that the right hon. Member for Delyn mentioned in passing—he is honest enough to know that it must be the background to the debate—is that crime is falling, but someone coming to this debate cold would not recognise that fact from the tenor of the debate so far. It is a straightforward fact that crime is falling, and that includes a 3% reduction in police recorded crime in the Metropolitan police area in the first two years of this Government between 2010 and 2012. That refutes any suggestion that reduced budgets and fewer officers inevitably make the public less safe.