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.

Oral Answers to Questions

David Lammy Excerpts

Tuesday 5th February 2013 Commons Chamber

[Chris Grayling]

I would make two points to my hon. Friend. I absolutely agree with his premise but, first, the cash-flow element of the proposals that we have introduced will not be as tough as that for the Work programme. Part of the task is to pay for the requirements of the court, so the cash-flow situation will be rather different. Secondly, I am making sure that we really engage the social investment sector, which can play an important part in ensuring that voluntary sector organisations can compete on that level playing field and win on it.

[Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab)]

The Secretary of State will know that we privatised and contracted out hospital cleaning, and that led to MRSA. We privatised and contracted out school meals, and that led to turkey twizzlers. Why does he think that in relation to the probation service—such an important service—privatising and contracting out will lead to a better end?

[Chris Grayling]

If I am not mistaken, the right hon. Gentleman was a Minister in the previous Government who introduced the legislation that makes these changes possible. The Opposition say one thing one day and another thing the next. The truth is that reoffending rates in this country have barely changed in a decade, despite extra money being spent, and I want to bring those rates down.

Oral Answers to Questions

David Lammy Excerpts

Thursday 10th January 2013 Commons Chamber

[Hugh Robertson]

The best thing to say is that I wish the hon. Lady every good fortune. I am not responsible for the Arts Council—I suspect that a submission from the Minister with responsibility for sports would get a fairly dusty response—but I wish her every good fortune.

[Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab)]

10. Whether her Department has commissioned research into the effect of fixed-odds betting terminals on the prevalence of problem gambling; and if she will make a statement.

[The Minister of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Hugh Robertson)]

The Government are aware of the concerns that have been raised about these types of gaming machines and are committed to looking at the evidence around B2 machines and problem gambling. In addition, the Responsible Gambling Trust has recently announced the largest programme of academic research into gaming machines ever undertaken in Britain, which should provide a much better understanding of problem gambling behaviour.

[Mr Lammy]

I welcome what the Minister has said. We need an independent look at the seriousness of fixed-odds betting terminals in our country and their prevalence in independent bookmakers. May I ask him to look at the matter with urgency, and not to move forward quickly with the recommendations of the Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport, which would create an open season for fixed-odds betting terminals across the country?

[Hugh Robertson]

I entirely acknowledge the concerns that the right hon. Gentleman puts so well. A response to the Committee’s report is due shortly—clearly, once we have that, I will be in a position to say more—but I acknowledge his concerns and the need for proper evidence to underpin our response.

Defamation Bill

David Lammy Excerpts

Tuesday 12th June 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Clarke]

It must be a serious matter causing serious harm to their reputation. Most Members have things printed about them twice a week that cause them annoyance and which they would vehemently start arguing about if they had the opportunity to do so in front of readers. It is serious matters that must be subject to the serious process of defamation law in the pursuit of a remedy—a financial remedy, an apology or whatever—in a court of law.

[Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab)]

Will the Secretary of State say a little more about this matter? He will understand that once the law is codified, judges will interpret what he has said. Does he recognise that for ordinary members of the public—for example, someone running a small business to whom harm can be caused if a local paper runs a particular story—what is serious is quite different from what is serious for celebrities and those in public life?

[Mr Clarke]

I agree. I stress that it will be for the courts to determine what amounts to serious harm in an individual case, but I agree that someone whose business is damaged—albeit by a local allegation in a local newspaper—could almost certainly demonstrate serious harm. Any citizen against whom a serious and unfounded allegation of personal misconduct is made will probably be able to demonstrate that it has done serious harm to his reputation. The hurdle is raised a little, but I trust that it will not bar any plaintiff who has had serious problems as a result of a publication.

I was moving on to deal with the defences. Clauses 2 and 3 replace the common law defences of justification and fair comment with new statutory defences of truth and honest opinion. These are areas where the law has become increasingly complicated and technical over the years. In our opinion, the revised approach should simplify the situation, ensuring that the defences are available without so many endless and costly disputes over detail and interpretation. Alongside the new defences of truth and honest opinion, we are introducing, for the first time, a statutory defence of responsible publication in the public interest. This is based on the common law defence that has been developed by the courts in recent years following the case of Reynolds v. Times Newspapers but expressed in clear and flexible terms. It provides a defence where the defendant can show that the allegedly defamatory statement is, or forms part of, a statement on a matter of public interest, and that he or she acted responsibly in publishing it.

The relevant clause identifies specific factors to which the court may have regard in deciding whether the defendant has acted responsibly, based on current case law. However, we do not want those to be interpreted as a checklist or a set of hurdles for defendants to overcome, and the list is intended to set out factors in an illustrative, non-exhaustive way so courts will retain flexibility. It is not our intention to change the Reynolds defence; we have sought to set it out in statutory form in a way that we hope will help.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Clarke]

I agree strongly with that extremely good point. The more these things can be dealt with by way of a preliminary judgment by a judge, the more settlements we will get, because sometimes the whole thing really turns on one point, which can be dealt with much more quickly if a jury is not involved.

[Mr Lammy]

Will the Secretary of State give way?

[Mr Clarke]

I think I had better conclude, because I have taken—as I usually do—quite long enough.

This Bill is, in our opinion, a sound piece of modernising reform that we have approached in a balanced way. We have sought in particular to defend the interests of free debate. Accordingly, the Bill contains a range of measures which will greatly strengthen the environment for open and robust scientific and academic debate, including measures to apply across the piece, such as the introduction of the serious harm test, the simplification and clarification of defences and a single publication rule, together with specific ones, such as the extension of qualified privilege to peer-reviewed material and to reports of scientific and academic conferences.

I believe that this package of measures rebalances the law in a fair and effective way so that free speech is not unjustifiably impeded and debate about issues of public importance is able to thrive, while still providing appropriate remedies for those who have been defamed. It also updates the law for the first time to address properly the most pressing challenges raised by the internet and social media in relation to defamation. I commend it as a sound, reforming Bill.

I tempted fate earlier, and the Solicitor-General, my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr Garnier) and I will tempt fate again, because we believe that the process of producing a draft Bill and getting this far has produced a quite extraordinary degree of consensus that I, for one, would not have thought possible to achieve when we first embarked on modernising the law on defamation. So little interest has been attracted abroad that even the media, which one would have thought would be obsessed with the issue, are paying little attention to the debate.

There is still a debate to be had, and this House will demonstrate its usefulness in scrutinising the legislation, just as the Joint Committee on the draft Bill has shown what can be achieved in consultation so far, but I hope that in the end we will continue to command cross-party support in our efforts to address long-standing weaknesses in our defamation regime, and I commend the Bill to the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sadiq Khan]

I am sure that the Justice Secretary has heard the hon. Gentleman’s intervention and will take on board the point he has made.

It is not clear either whether high-profile cases, such as that of Dr Peter Wilmshurst, to which the Chair of the Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport referred, or that of Rachel Ehrenfeld, would have been prevented if clause 9 had been in place at the time. If the Justice Secretary or the Minister winding up the debate cannot address this issue, it will need to be looked at further in Committee.

Clause 11 removes the presumption in favour of jury trials in defamation cases. Although this reversal will, we hope, help to reduce costs and improve clarity, there is a danger in restricting jury trials, particularly where the key issue is who is telling the truth. However, the Bill still gives the court the discretion to order a jury trial where it considers that to be appropriate, which is an important safeguard. I note the comments made by the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis), and we expect that the Committee might want to explore the criteria for the judge to consider when deciding whether a jury trial should be ordered.

[Mr Lammy]

Although much has been said about the cost of jury trial, does my right hon. Friend agree that we would not want to give an indication in the House that this is a slippery slope or that we ought to start thinking about cutting jury trials in criminal cases? The matter was debated at length in the Joint Committee, and there are circumstances where jury trials should remain in defamation cases.

[Sadiq Khan]

I thank my right hon. Friend for his intervention and for his contribution to the Joint Committee. Of course, he is right, and the Justice Secretary will have reassured the House with his comments about criminal cases. My right hon. Friend will be aware that there are still jury trials in civil cases involving what are known as constitutional torts—malicious prosecution and false imprisonment. The provisions in clause 11 still allow a trial by one’s peers in appropriate cases. What the Committee should look into is the comments of the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden about the criteria that one would expect a judge to apply. The key thing is that the presumption of a jury trial has now been removed, which will lead to a reduction in costs and, one hopes, less of a chilling effect than where the “threat” of a jury trial is hanging over a defendant, with all the additional cost that could lead to.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab)]

I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in this debate, following the small role that I played on the Joint Committee of both Houses that looked into this issue. I begin by paying tribute to the noble Lord Lester, who made a considerable contribution to this debate, and the noble Lord Mawhinney, who chaired the Committee successfully and kept our views together. We were able to produce a good report.

I want to return to some of the issues that have been left out of the Bill that is before the House, but I should begin by saying that we had a lot of debate on whether there was a need to codify the common law as it has existed on defamation. That was right and appropriate, because we should not pretend that somehow, just because we have a Bill—a Bill that looks like it has the broad support of the House, and most likely the other place too—the job will be done once it has passed through both places and the process is complete. Of course, the job will not be done. Putting the common law on a statutory footing will make it subject to much interpretation by the courts. Certain areas—in particular, serious harm and justification—will need a lot of teasing out over the months and years ahead. Therefore, the degree of certainty that we might think is contained in the legislation will probably not be in place for some time.

Nevertheless, it is right to codify this area of law at this time, if only so that ordinary citizens who are not in public life—those who are not celebrities and are not famous—who find their reputations tarnished or damaged can, as a result of what we are doing today, at least go to a piece of paper and determine for themselves what the law looks like in Britain, without having to rely on costly lawyers to interpret several different cases in order to determine whether they have any kind of claim. That must be a good thing for the general public as a whole.

This is a careful balance, and it is important absolutely to underline the freedom of expression that must cut to the heart of a democratic and civilised country. However, it is also right to say that we are living in an age in which our liberalisms need to be fully scrutinised—an age in which it is possible to be very conscious of our rights to say what we want, but not terribly conscious of our responsibility in exercising those rights. It is into that juncture that this Bill falls. We are also, I might add, living in age in which we see the results of excessive economic liberalism. We have therefore also seen companies, corporations and oligarchs use this area of law to exercise a lot of control, it seems to me, in the other direction. I want to come to that later.

We should scrutinise very carefully—and put that scrutiny on the record in Hansard—the serious harm test. It is probably more straightforward for someone in public life or a celebrity to demonstrate and explain what serious harm is to their reputation, which will have been built up and is in the public domain. However, I am concerned that the hurdle should not be so high for the average, ordinary member of the public that they have to establish the same calibre of serious harm. We ought to remember that most cases concern ordinary folk who feel defamed by, for instance, their local newspaper or a website whose focus is confined to a local area. We are talking about someone who runs a small business whose products are tarnished in public. We are talking about two partners—about an older woman, for instance, who falls in love with a younger man and lives in a village, and where things are said about the extent of that relationship. Such cases may feel parochial, but to the individuals involved they can feel major. In that sense, we need to ensure that the serious harm test is not set so high that the ordinary person trying to overcome the damage that has been done to them cannot get access to the justice they feel they deserve. I therefore hope that we see some debate in Committee, as well as on Report and in the other place, about what constitutes serious harm.

There has been a rush to push jury trial out of the door to save us money, but it is important to put on the record the fact that the public who serve on juries, and who rely on this important area of our law, are not responsible, on the whole, for those costs. They have largely been driven up by law firms, lawyers and barristers. We are now embarking on a process of no longer having a presumption of jury trial in this area of law, which is a major departure. Broadly, the decision was debated a lot in the Joint Committee, and I will go along with it. However, in an age of austerity, when we are all concerned about finances, I do not want the departure of jury trials to start creeping into the criminal law or for the argument to be extended to what must be the bedrock of our democracy. We must bear in mind that it is not the public who have driven up the costs. We should have heard more on this matter from the Secretary of State, and I hope that we will hear more at the end of the debate or in Committee about the circumstances in which jury trials will be retained. For example, if a High court judge were defamed, would we expect a jury to be retained in that case, given the presumption that it might be inappropriate to ask another judge to adjudicate in those circumstances? The Government need to set out the circumstances in which they think it appropriate to retain juries in these cases, given that reputation is a matter of public interest.

The gaping hole in the Bill, which Lord Lester examined thoroughly and which the Joint Committee debated, is the way in which it relates to corporations and companies. I am convinced that the Bill should act to limit some of the excessive powers of companies and corporations that often use these means to terrorise publications into not getting underneath the truth of what is going on in those companies. I am not convinced that a corporation or big business company is the same as an individual, or that the reputation of such institutions is the same as that of an individual. I certainly believe that, if we are to allow companies and corporations to use defamation law in this way, we ought at least to ask them to establish that they have suffered substantial financial loss, as was set out in the original Bill proposed by Lord Lester.

[Paul Farrelly]

I agree with my right hon. Friend on that point. Does he agree that equality of arms is one of the main issues in regard to the law of libel, and that there are remedies available to judges in the Defamation Act 1996 that have not been used effectively to achieve the early resolution of libel cases in order to avoid the inequality of arms being fully brought to bear in such cases, particularly those against investigative newspapers?

[Mr Lammy]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right to mention alternative dispute resolution in this regard. He will be aware that the Bill as it stands would not alter the situation that Dr Simon Singh found himself in, in the case involving the British Chiropractic Association. That should be a matter of concern to the House, and it demands debate and discussion in Committee. He will also be aware of the case of Ben Goldacre, a doctor and health writer, that of the cardiologist, Peter Wilmshurst, and that of Hardeep Singh, a journalist writing on Sikh issues. It is not entirely clear from those cases—although we have codified this area of the law, tidied up the justifications and raised the bar quite appropriately—that the position of the oligarch or corporation to challenge the idea of a balance of equity has been dealt with. The matter has been sidelined in the Bill; it has been forgotten about and we will probably not get the opportunity to return to it for some time. That is the biggest area of concern.

[Paul Farrelly]

The case of Simon Singh is a poignant one. Does my right hon. Friend agree that, in relation to that case, it was a quirk of the British legal system that allowed the British Chiropractic Association to sue in the first place? It could do so because it was an incorporated body, yet unincorporated bodies could not sue in their own name and would have had to leave it to individual members to bring a defamation case if they felt that they had been defamed individually.

[Mr Lammy]

That is a good point. It makes me think that, if we are unable to deal with the issue in this Bill, we might be able to return to it in the form of amendments to another Bill that is passing through the House. This is an important area, and it requires further scrutiny.

It is unfortunate that the Bill does not make a greater attempt to enable more alternative dispute resolution. Such practices are essential in relation to costs. What do most people want, when it has been established that they have been defamed? Most of them are not after lots of money; they simply want an apology that is visible and can be well seen. They want to establish negotiations, early on, and to come to an agreement through co-operation. It is a missed opportunity not to do more in the Bill to force people down that road, so that they can come together far earlier and avoid the costs that build up later. That is why I am concerned that everything is blamed on the jury; actually, there are other mechanisms available to reduce costs.

In the Joint Committee, we talked extensively about the level of exposure, in a civilised country, that we should expect the defamer—often a newspaper—to give to the apology that it makes, once it has been established that someone has been defamed. I am concerned that, when such apologies are published, particularly to members of the public, they occupy only the tiniest column space, lost in a wealth of other words. They are given nothing like the prominence of the original story that caused the harm.

[Zac Goldsmith]

Clause 12 goes some way to addressing that issue, in that it provides the court with the power to order a summary of its judgment to be published. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that that clause could be strengthened if the issue of due prominence were to be included?

[Mr Lammy]

The hon. Gentleman makes that point well. This is about the prominence given to the decision, and the fact that it is often nothing like as prominent as the original story. I do not think that the Bill has cracked that problem, but I hope that, as it passes through the Committee and goes to the other place, the matter will receive further scrutiny.

Much has been said about the internet, and I shall not add to it except to say that I am truly concerned about the position of young people, and young adults, in this regard. Many of us will be aware of Facebook bullying, for example, and I remain concerned that much of what is said about young people and young adults in such forums remains out there. The ability to fail, to make mistakes and to grow up in a private arena seems to have disappeared from our society. All of that now seems to be done in public. A lot of what used to be said by young people in the pub at the age of 17 or 18 would just disappear. Now, nothing disappears. It is visible for all to see. Many of us might have exercised this when employing a researcher. It is all there, and that is a matter of huge concern. Kicking this matter into secondary legislation is a concern, because it merits hard discussion. This relates to some of the issues being raised in Leveson, and those being raised in relation to privacy. The Joint Committee conducted its deliberations against the backdrop of super-injunctions and the issues that had arisen on the Twitter network just a few months ago.

The Bill is obviously needed, and it is good, but there are elements missing. Those elements were highlighted in the work of the Joint Committee and of Lord Lester, and I hope that they will garner greater scrutiny in the weeks and months ahead.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Stephen Phillips.

Independent Police Complaints Commission

David Lammy Excerpts

Tuesday 15th November 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab)]

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for giving me the opportunity to debate the Independent Police Complaints Commission, an organisation that has taken on increasing importance in recent months. It is right in such a debate to begin by thanking all local officers in Tottenham for the work that they do day in, day out. The vast majority of them serve us very well indeed. Some of those brave men and women serve their own community, and it is clear that they put others ahead of their own needs. All of them put their lives on the line to keep Tottenham safe, and I thank them for that.

However, for all the bravery of those officers, things very occasionally go wrong, and when they do individual officers must be held to account for their decisions and actions. There is no way of escaping Tottenham’s recent history: there is a history of people in Tottenham dying during or following police contact. I wish to God that this were not true, but anyone who has lived in Tottenham knows just how those deaths have strained the relationship between some of our residents and the police. With the death of Cynthia Jarrett in 1985, Roger Sylvester in 1999, and Mark Duggan this August, Tottenham’s history has been punctuated and measured by these tragic events.

Of course, deaths in police custody or following police contact are not only a Tottenham issue, as, for example, the unexplained death of Christopher Alder in Hull more than a decade ago shows us, and they are not just an issue for the black community. Recent years have seen the deaths of Ian Tomlinson and Jean Charles de Menezes due to police actions. But in Tottenham we do seem to bear our share of these tragic events.

It takes years—decades—of effort to build community relations and to foster a two-way sense of trust between residents and the people who should be their police. Despite a lot of good work, it is the list of deaths that everyone remembers. It is not just the fact that a person has died following contact with the police that is important; how the death is investigated and who carries out the investigation are just as important. That is what I want to discuss this evening.

Before describing how I think the IPCC can be improved, it is important to recognise that the journey to the creation of an independent complaints authority has not been short or without controversy and resistance, because we have come a long way indeed. In 1985 Lord Scarman produced his groundbreaking report on the Brixton riots four years previously. He was deeply concerned about the total breakdown of trust between the police and some of the communities they were supposed to serve. His report called for an independent body to be set up to investigate police complaints as a means of restoring trust.

Unforgivably, it would be another 19 years before the IPCC opened for business. Instead of the Government agreeing to what was so obviously needed, deckchairs were duly rearranged and the old Police Complaints Authority was set up to replace the Police Complaints Board, but it proved just as hapless. Changing a word in the title proved easier than changing the way of working, because in those days it did not matter whether it was the Police Complaints Authority or the Police Complaints Board that conducted the investigation. They were not investigations for the victim, their family or the concerned community; they were investigations by the police and for the police.

The opening of the Stephen Lawrence murder trial yesterday again brings the failures of the Police Complaints Authority into sharp public view. The Macpherson report on Stephen’s death highlighted these failures perfectly. It noted that the authority’s report on the Metropolitan police’s handling of the death was known as the Kent report, principally because the Kent police handled the inquiry into the Metropolitan police. The Kent report began making excuses for the Metropolitan police in its preface:

“The depth of detailed scrutiny applied in the complaints investigation could have found fault in most police criminal investigations. The reader of this report should bear in mind that the benefit of hindsight and the luxury of having time to assess all of the information that was available to the MPS is bound to reveal errors, omissions and flawed judgement.”

The Macpherson report highlighted the shocking extent to which the Police Complaints Authority examined whether racism impacted on the Met’s investigation, stating:

‘Many officers were asked directly whether racism had an impact upon their activities in the case. Predictably they replied in strong terms denying such impact. The result was the finding by Kent that: “Kent Police have found no evidence to support the allegation of racist conduct by any MPS officer involved in the investigation of the murder of Stephen Lawrence.”’

Scarman’s warning in 1985 about the lack of independent oversight of the police had become, 12 years later, the whitewash of the Kent police’s so-called investigation of racism in the Met. Like the Scarman report, the Macpherson report called for an independent body to investigate police complaints.

Thankfully, one Home Affairs Committee report later, the Government listened that time and the IPCC was set up in 2004. Make no mistake: the IPCC is certainly an improvement on what went before, as the police are not investigating themselves. We are pleased about that, but not very pleased, and certainly not content. The death of Mark Duggan tells us why we should not be content with what we have, because it is not yet good enough.

[Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)]

I congratulate my right hon. Friend on securing this important and timely debate. Does he share my concern, and that of members of the Home Affairs Committee, that several months after the current chair of the IPPC announced that he was leaving, there is still no replacement? We now understand that the job is to be advertised again. Does he agree that there needs to be a permanent chair to provide that organisation with good leadership?

[Mr Lammy]

I totally agree with my right hon. Friend. I was surprised when I found out that that important role in our country had been vacant for so long. I hope that when he comes to the Dispatch Box to reply to the debate, the Minister will explain that.

The IPCC has two roles, police scrutiny and public guardianship. It is charged with investigating complaints independently, and with the fullest scrutiny, but its role does not stop there. Given that it investigates on behalf of all of us, it must communicate and work with the public.

In the case of the death of Mark Duggan, it remains to be seen whether the IPCC fulfilled its primary duty to scrutinise the actions of the police on 4 August, but it is vital that the commission does all within its power to convince the Duggan family and the wider Tottenham community that its investigation is thorough, impartial and independent. Without that, we will be back to the bad old days of the Kent report and the police investigating police, and I hope that the IPCC do not take us there.

We wait to see whether the IPCC will fulfil its primary duty, but even in the days immediately after Mark Duggan’s death it was clear that it had failed completely and utterly in its secondary duty—that of guardianship. Mark Duggan’s family were forced to learn of the death of their son and father from watching television. That is beyond unacceptable. Why did nobody from the IPCC contact the family on the day of his death, when it had opened its investigation? Despite warnings from people throughout the community, the IPCC failed to communicate with the family until two days after the shooting, and even then it was unable to communicate anything of substance to them. That is not good enough.

Despite employing 15 media officers, the IPCC failed to make an appearance in the media to reassure a sceptical public—certainly in my community—that it would investigate Mark Duggan’s death thoroughly, impartially and independently. Its inability to fulfil that responsibility is difficult to explain. There was no direct communication by the IPCC to the affected communities in Tottenham in the hours and days after Mark Duggan’s death. Would it have been too difficult to hand-deliver a letter to residents of the affected areas, reassuring them of the investigation, explaining the known facts and appealing for calm and co-operation? No, it would not—but yet again, that did not happen.

In the absence of any word from the IPPC, a dangerous vacuum was allowed to open up, and rumours were allowed to take hold in the place of hard facts. That is not good enough. When the supposed facts were released to the media, they were quickly retracted. It was put out that there had been an exchange of fire in the incident that led to Mark Duggan’s death, but that turned out not to be true. Why did that happen? Again, that is far from what we would expect of an organisation with the role of public guardianship.

To this day, communication between the IPCC and Tottenham residents, as well as with the wider black community, appears sparse at best and unthinking at worst. That has to change. The magnitude of the IPCC’s task is immense, and some of the signs leave little hope in the strained community that I represent. Two thirds of people have heard of the IPCC, a number that has barely budged since the body was founded seven years ago, but one third of those think that it is part of the police—again, a figure that has barely budged. Ethnic minorities are even less likely to have heard of the IPCC, and they are more likely to believe that it is part of the police. That is the scale of the challenge awaiting us.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of any police investigations in other regions of the United Kingdom, such as Northern Ireland, Scotland or Wales, that could be a catalyst for, and an example of, an improvement on what he has described?

[Mr Lammy]

I am grateful for any suggestions, and I suspect that the Government will be, too. I know that communities beyond the black community have had concerns about how the police investigate the police, and I am sure that in Northern Ireland there are lessons that need to be carefully reflected on, developed and learned.

The IPCC has to do more to convince a sceptical public that it is truly independent and has learned the lessons of Scarman and Macpherson. I hope that the Duggan inquiry will go some way towards doing that, but the IPCC, given the way in which it handled those initial days, has made things hard and has not lived up to those expectations. What assurances can the Minister give the people of Tottenham that the Duggan inquiry will be thorough and independent? A good start would be to address the shocking statistic that 30% of IPCC investigators are former police officers, and far fewer are from an ethnic minority background. Investigators such as police officers must look like the communities they are working in, and the IPCC must never allow itself to appear simply as a replica of the old Police Complaints Authority. What assurances can the Minister give that those figures will change?

The IPCC can work only under its current powers, and it is time for those powers to change. At the moment the IPCC cannot compel a police officer to speak to it unless that officer is a named suspect in a criminal investigation. The IPCC needs the power to speak to everyone, including the police, right up to the top. Will the Minister assure me that the IPCC will be given the powers to compel police officers to co-operate with its inquiries?

At the moment the IPCC does not have the power to suspend a police officer pending an investigation. The officer involved in the Mark Duggan case has not been suspended and is still working. The Minister will understand that members of the community that I represent find that quite incredible. Will he assure me that the IPCC will be given the power to suspend police officers who have been involved in a death due to police contact?

At the moment the IPCC does not have the power to initiate its own prosecutions following an investigation. In the Roger Sylvester case, as in others, power is often handed to the Crown Prosecution Service, which then does not prosecute. There is an inquest that brings in an unlawful killing verdict, and the families feel very let down indeed. The initial inquiry should have that prosecution power in the first place. Will the Minister explain why the IPCC finds itself caught between the coroner, the CPS and the police in relation to its powers, and say whether he will review what powers are needed following the concerns that have been raised not only in the cases I have mentioned, but in successive cases over many years?

At the moment, the IPCC does not own the scene of an investigation until some time after an incident has taken place. The scene of the Duggan death was not owned by the IPCC until hours after the shooting. That has to change. Will the Minister assure me that the IPCC will own the crime scene right from the beginning in recognition that there can be tremendous concern and anxiety about the fact that the initial officers caught in the incident can effectively own the scene for hours before any degree of independence takes over? The IPCC budget is tiny. It is £35 million a year, which is less than that of every single force in the country.

[John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)]

I want to mention something I have learned from recent meetings with the IPCC. Is my right hon. Friend aware that a very limited and relatively small number of cases are managed cases, so the vast bulk of work that the IPCC is dependent on is dealt with by the police themselves?

[Mr Lammy]

With that budget, one can understand that the IPCC simply cannot get through the level of complaints that are being made. In fact, a sub-set of complaints is in effect being handled by the police. Again, we will need reassurances about whether the budget is appropriate for the sort of organisation that has to be armed to do this job independently and effectively. This is why there is a trust deficit in what the organisation does, and I hope that the Minister will respond to it.

The Minister will, of course, need to start by reviewing the many deaths that take place following police actions. Since 1999, according to the Library, 322 people have died in or following police custody, yet not one police officer has been jailed for any of those incidents. These are shocking figures. I ask the Minister to reflect on the sheer extent of those figures, whether he is content, and whether there should not be some independent review into that aspect of its work.

I hope that the Minister will commit to an inquiry into the disgraceful revelations regarding the handing over of the wrong body to the family of Christopher Alder, who died in police custody in April 1998. Mr Alder was a paratrooper who fought for his country, yet he was left to choke to death, handcuffed on the floor of a police station in Hull. The fact that his family found out just two weeks ago that the body they buried was not in fact his, and that he is in a mortuary over a decade later, is a disgrace and of tremendous concern in a civilised country. I hope that the Minister will undertake an inquiry and get involved. I am pleased to see my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz), the Chairman of the Home Affairs Committee, in his seat; I am sure that he is as concerned as I am.

We need a review of deaths in police custody. We need a review of the IPCC’s powers and resources, and we need to understand that it is truly independent. My community waits to see its conclusions in relation to the death of Mark Duggan, and I hope that the Minister can reassure them.

Gangs

David Lammy Excerpts

Tuesday 11th October 2011 Westminster Hall

[Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab)]

I am grateful for the opportunity to raise this important issue in the Chamber this morning, and I am grateful to my good and hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Mr Umunna), who had the original idea for this debate, and brings such issues to the House regularly. You will recognise, Mr Caton, that in August we saw some awful scenes of social unrest in this country that we had not seen for a considerable time. Following those riots, much has been said about gangs in our society.

As the MP for Tottenham, it is important to say that although I recognise that gang members were certainly caught up in the violence, the evidence made available to me by local police, the arrest sheets and the issues arising from the riots suggest that it would be wrong to infer that those riots were orchestrated by gangs, or at least that gangs were central to them. The issues are complex and many, and include policing. The riots involved not just people who do not have a stake in society, but those who got swept up in the social unrest and found themselves doing unimaginable things.

We have an opportunity this morning to reflect on gangs and gang membership, how we are tackling the problem, the other crime and violence issues relating to gangs, and some of the underlying causes. The starting point is that gangs are not new. We probably all recall reading “Great Expectations” at school, and recognise that gangs are not a new phenomenon in British cultural life. Indeed, in other periods of hardship, young men in particular have clustered together and caused mayhem and havoc for those around them.

A particular phenomenon has developed in London, and has accelerated over the last decade. Associated with the gang profile are members who are increasingly younger and often teenagers, and a growth in knife crime. The figures for knife crime rose last year, as did those for violent crime among young people, and those of us who represent London seats suspect that we are seeing a rise in knife crime as we speak. Drug-related activity is also associated with gangs.

The issue is of tremendous concern. I am aware of four knife crime victims in the London borough of Haringey in the last two weeks alone. During the summer, one gang member was stabbed twice on two separate occasions in as many months. That is the toxic and worrying nature of the issue. When trying to understand the problem in the context of what success looks like for young people in a constituency such as mine, I usually boil it down to five issues: education, employment, community, aspiration and parenting. I want to touch on those five issues in relation to gangs and why young people in constituencies such as mine are being seduced into gang membership.

Constituencies such as mine and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) are often described as inner-city constituencies, although I have never liked the phrase because it suggests that it is acceptable to have an inner city when I would like to live in just one city. Some crimes are associated with seats such as ours, but the profile of youth violence throughout London has changed. The face of gang membership is diverse, and seems to be associated as much with the inner city as with suburban London. Parochialism is manifest in gangs, and I constantly find it peculiar to see the turf wars that go on between one gang in the N17 and N15 postcode and another in the N22 postcode in Wood Green.

[Ms Diane Abbott (Hackney North and Stoke Newington) (Lab)]

Many incidents of gun and knife crime relate to conflicts between Tottenham-based gangs and Hackney-based gangs criss-crossing the border between the two boroughs.

[Mr Lammy]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. In days gone by, she and I have had to discuss attending funerals and memorial services for gang victims because of the sensitivities between those on one side of a street and those on the other side. In the Stamford Hill part of my hon. Friend’s constituency a wonderful young man, Godwin Lawson, who was an aspiring footballer, lost his life when he was brutally stabbed in the street one evening. His family have been so honourable in the tragedy that befell them. I remember walking with my hon. Friend in Stamford Hill where one side of the street was in her constituency, and the other was in mine. It seems that poor Godwin had simply strayed into a different patch, and died as a consequence. My hon. Friend has great experience of that, and we have seen hyper-parochialism develop throughout London.

Hon. Members in the Chamber will have similar experience of the obsession with postcodes. Many young people are worried that when they leave school, particularly secondary school, at 3 or 4 o’clock in the afternoon or travel on the bus to and from school they may cross postcodes and go into other areas. Parents who attend our surgeries say, “I don’t want my daughter or son to go to that school. I have to get to work, so they go to school on their own, and I am worried. They say that there are gang members on that bus, and that because they come from the wrong postcode there will be problems.” The local authority is co-ordinating and staggering school exit times to try to avoid such problems, but there are areas of London where young people who come from different postcodes meet—as one would expect—and things flare up. Gang activity is at the centre of that.

Over the past few years there have been gains in education, particularly secondary education, but all London boroughs have seen an increase in the number of children in care following the cases of baby P and Victoria Climbié. When I visit pupil referral units and look at the issues faced by children in care, I see a pattern that still prevails for young people in such circumstances. I am concerned that pupil referral units and help for children out of school remain, to some extent, a Cinderella service. Frankly, it should be a Rolls-Royce service if we are to support young people when they are at their most fragile, and prevent them from falling into trouble during those initial stages.

I have been clear that the rioting that we saw across London was of a complex nature. One important issue, however, is unemployment, and it falls to national Government to do something about that. The Northumberland Park ward of my constituency has Tottenham Hotspur football club at its centre, but it is also the ward with the highest levels of unemployment in London, with 20% of young people claiming jobseeker’s allowance. In some communities—I think of the Somali community and parts of the black community—that figure is double, and such unemployment stretches out for months and months. I am from Tottenham which, I remind the House, saw similar levels of unemployment during previous recessions in the 1980s. It is a tragedy that the parents who were unemployed then now have children who are unemployed—whole families who have not seen employment.

The issue is simple. As my mother used to say, “Idle hands make the devil’s work.” We need a firm grip on growth in our economy, and we must look at where jobs are and how we can get them to those families and young people. Most of my constituents who were in employment worked in the public sector—it has always been that way in the borough of Tottenham—but many of those jobs have been cut. Those employed in the private sector often work in retail and the service economy but, as the House will have seen from the latest figures, that sector is shrinking and no one is anticipating a boom Christmas sale period. It is hard for those twenty-somethings to get a foothold in employment and the economy. We have seen a growth in apprenticeships, but it is not clear that we have seen the scale of growth that is necessary, particularly in London and constituencies such as mine.

Despite all that we may learn from American senior police officers, unless they come with a growth strategy in their back pocket it will be pretty hard for my constituents to believe that staying off the street and in meaningful employment is a genuine prospect. One can knock on any door in the Northumberland Park ward and what people say is simple: why are there so many young people on the streets with apparently nothing to do? That is how people get caught up in gangs. As I have said, this is not a new subject; Dickens wrote about it—the Artful Dodger was effectively in a gang. A bit of petty theft here and a bit of small drug running there; that is how people get caught up in criminality, and before they know it they are carrying a knife for protection or, if really serious, a gun. That is the pattern we see.

[Ms Abbott]

I agree with everything my right hon. Friend has said about employment, but one aspect of the way that some young people are caught up in gang culture means that if they were offered a decent job tomorrow they would not take it, because they have grown accustomed to easy money and an easy life, and do not know what it means to get up and go to work at 8 o’clock in the morning, as our parents did. I do not want to take away from what he has said, but how to wean a generation away from a semi-criminalised subculture and into the world of work is a complex question.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Lammy]

My hon. Friend is exactly right. That brings me to the other ingredients of the debate—aspiration and community. It is clear that too many young people are losing all contact not only with work, but with what I call character-building activities, such that they can engage in that work. We live in hyper-materialistic, consumer-driven times. That affects us all, but I believe that it can affect the poorest most harshly. Middle-class families can introduce all sorts of things into the home, such as scouts, football or ballet classes, which will ameliorate some of the other possibilities in their children’s lives. That is not the case for many of my constituents, and youth services in the London borough of Haringey have been cut by 75%.

For a parent—I say parent, because it is often a mum struggling on her own—it is a challenge to create aspiration and compete with the drug dealer on the other side of the street who offers a quick way to get easy money, particularly while she is trying to hold down a job. Often, it is not even one job, but two, because we all know that here in London it is virtually impossible for a constituent such as that single mum to earn a living wage with just one job. That returns us to the issue of how to be there for our young people and what it means to be family in London: it is about not only absentee fathers who do not take their responsibilities seriously—something I have raised many times—but how hard life is for those who want to take their responsibilities seriously.

I think of a family who were challenged in court this summer because their 15-year-old daughter was caught looting. The parents did not turn up to court, and the judge said, “Where are the parents and what are they up to? This is typical.” I know the parents; indeed, the family have been known to me for many years. Dad is a minicab driver, and as a consequence works irregular hours to make ends meet. Mum has a small business. They are churchgoers. They are struggling with a large family and doing the best that they can, but they are a classic family working all hours just to make ends meet and are not able to be entirely on top of everything that their young people are doing because of what is required to make a living wage in the London economy.

Hon. Members know me well enough to know that it would be very unusual for me to make excuses for young people who, in the end, have moral choices and choose to pick up a knife and use it, or choose to deal crack cocaine. However, our economy is important. That is why I raise the issue of unemployment. The culture that surrounds our young people is important. That is why I raise the issue of hyper-materialism and how quickly and easily a young boy can get caught up in it. Before we know it, he is off with a gang, even though he has parents who are doing their best.

In the end, we are centred on how we deal with the issue. There are innovations that I want to see in the system. I congratulate the London borough of Waltham Forest—no doubt my good and hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy) will draw on this in her contribution—on the development of the Connect model. The measures to which I am referring involve getting around these young people in a co-ordinated way, intelligence sharing across the different stakeholders—the local authority, the health authority, the police, social services, youth services and others—intervening in chaotic families and saying to young people who we know are caught up in crime, violent crime and gang membership, “We will give you a chance if you take the services available to you. We won’t lock you up. If you take that chance, we’ll help you to get out of the gang, but if you don’t take that chance, we will be very heavy-handed through the arm of the law.” I am talking about giving them that possibility and, as a consequence, seeing the numbers fall from the dire and very concerning level in Waltham Forest of just a couple of years ago.

In Haringey, we look forward to applying the Connect model to how we begin to deal with gangs and gang membership in our borough, but we are doing so against a backdrop of a 50% cut in our youth offending service. I recognise that we are living in times of austerity. I do not want to rehearse the debate in the House about cuts, cutting too quickly and all the rest of it, but I do want to say that some services need to be immune to some of what is happening and the youth offending service must be one of them.

[Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)]

Some of the networks that are available and could be used in inner-city and urban areas throughout the UK are, of course, school networks. That is not a cheaper option, but one that should certainly be resourced. I am thinking of school breakfast clubs and post-school clubs, where young people are encouraged to stay on and become involved in activities that are more positive than some of the things to which the right hon. Gentleman has alluded.

[Mr Lammy]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. If a young person lives on the 15th floor of a tower block on one of my local estates, an after-school club is vital for their mother in seeking employment—if she is tempted to seek employment, who will take care of her child when school finishes? A breakfast club is essential if she has a cleaning job and Dad drives a minicab. In those circumstances, the young person getting to school early and getting a good breakfast is not an add-on; it is essential, but it is not clear that that is happening.

Let us examine the figures. Last year, knife crime rose by 8% in London. In addition, 43% of 11 to 13-year-olds and 50% of 14 to 16-year-olds said that knife crime and street violence were their No. 1 issue. Against that backdrop, we needed a youth offending service. We needed people to get to these young people early and work with them on intervention, prevention and persuasion. The service was developing, not mature, and was, in a sense, fairly new. I am alarmed that in the London borough of Haringey the budget has been cut by 50%.

In addition, some essential co-ordinated activity is not going on in a statutory way. Members of the voluntary sector often get together and debate these things, but it is not clear that there is any statutory obligation at all for the various services to be sat around a table, co-ordinating activities, profiling these young people and sharing intelligence.

Beyond the local authority, the activity that I have described is not happening London-wide. The border between Haringey and Hackney is porous, and the border between Haringey and Waltham Forest is porous. I am talking about co-ordinating intelligence. What is happening with these families? Which older brother went to prison last week? Which father found himself in trouble? Did domestic violence take place last week? It is essential that the various professionals have the ability to talk to one another and therefore know what is happening and or can predict what will happen, but that is not happening across London.

The Minister needs to examine that issue and needs to press the Mayor of London on it. There has been a lot of rhetoric and talk, but not a lot of action. The Mayor ran for office and won the election on the basis that he would reduce knife crime, so all of us must be very concerned that that is not happening. If anything, the problem has accelerated and got worse. Co-ordinated activity is essential. I am not saying that all this can be driven from the top, but it is possible to press for best practice, understand what is happening and see different professionals speaking to one another about those families and young people. That is not happening across London; it needs to happen, and much more purposefully. I hope that the Minister will say something about the youth offending services and teams that have been cut, and about what co-ordinated activity is planned across and beyond boroughs London-wide.

It is also clear to me that we are not sharing best practice and intelligence across the country, because I have been to other cities that are beginning to struggle with gang crime in their communities and they feel behind the curve in relation to some of the things that we have become familiar with in London.

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

It is important to put it on the record that there have been improvements in some statistics for some areas of serious crime, whether knife crime or gun crime, in recent years, although I accept that there is a tendency now to move in the wrong direction. We all know that just to bandy around statistics is not a sensible route forward. I very much take on board the idea that there needs to be far more co-ordination within London. The right hon. Gentleman referred to his own local authority perhaps being behind the curve compared with the neighbouring authority of Waltham Forest, which has put in place the Connect programme. It is important that, rather than getting into a sterile debate on statistics, which I accept happens on all sides in political discourse in London, we acknowledge that the Mayor and his predecessor have recognised the importance of dealing with gang crime and, in particular, the terrible statistics for knife and gun crime. Whether there is a slight reduction or not, any deaths that take place because of knife or gun crime are terrible tragedies, as the right hon. Gentleman pointed out.

[Mr Lammy]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. The point I am making is that, two years ago, the assistant borough commander, the head of the youth service and her representatives, and representatives of social services, health services and schools were sat around the table—routinely, every month—discussing the group of young people who were getting caught up in this situation, and that funds were coming through to support that activity. I am afraid that they told me last week that that has ended. They are engaged—meeting voluntarily, every six weeks—because they are so concerned, but there is no statutory framework for that activity, and neither is there the support and diversion activity that needs to happen.

The hon. Gentleman will appreciate from his long experience that what those young people need is diversionary activity and intervention. That requires resources. If he speaks to colleagues in Waltham Forest—my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow might say something about this—he will hear that they are concerned about resources. I think that this is one area in which we can make the plea for resources, because the consequences of under-resourcing will cost us so much more. The co-ordination and resources that must rightly follow, so that those professionals can do their job, are essential.

[Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)]

The right hon. Gentleman is clearly drawing on his extensive experience. To return to the issue of youth offending, is he calling for ring-fenced funding from central Government to go to local authorities, or does he believe that local authorities themselves have a duty to prioritise youth offending funding within their budgets?

[Mr Lammy]

I am not calling for prescription; it is not for me to prescribe how this should be done. That must be a matter for the Government. What I am saying is that this is a priority and a real issue in London. Youth services are being cut and reduced across London. It is easy to make the point that the London borough of Haringey, for example, should prioritise youth services at a time when it has to cut £40 million in year from its budget. I am worried, however, that I will be here with colleagues next year and that the figures will have gone in the wrong direction, because we will have been unable to prioritise the service.

As I said at the beginning of my speech, although I do not recognise a picture that suggests that gangs were behind this summer’s rioting and social unrest, it is clear that gang members were part of it. I have spoken to the manager of JD Sports in Tottenham retail centre and to the manager of Comet. I have also looked at some of the video and pictures of complete lawlessness, which ran for more than five or six hours—there were more young people in that shop that night, looting and robbing, than during the day—and I do not want my constituents to get accustomed to such things, because that would be dangerous for any society—those events have to be a one-off. Those charged with intervening in, dispersing and engaging with often chaotic families, as well as those who co-ordinate pupil referral units and ensure that young people in care are properly provided for, who work with families, who think about a living wage and about our economy, and who ask hard questions about where the jobs are in a constituency such as Tottenham, recognise that this is important.

Although I am pleased that the Government have said that they want to prioritise the issue, as a Back Bencher I want to scrutinise how that is done. We should, of course, speak to those from across the pond who have experience in this area, but I have now been the MP for Tottenham for 12 years and, when I began, knife crime and gangs were certainly not a major phenomenon of the capital city. In those days, the caricature was of yardie gangs—I am sure my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington will recall reading about them in the papers.

The situation has changed completely and we have a decision to make: are we going to see gangs and that terrible youth violence as a permanent phenomenon of our economy and country, as in parts of downtown America? We are on a cusp. We can either get over the problem with proper, co-ordinated quality effort, or I am afraid that it will be a permanent phenomenon of our modern economy.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—