The Riots

Meg Hillier Excerpts

Thursday 13th October 2011 Westminster Hall

[Mr Nick Raynsford (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab)]

I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak on a subject that has rightly attracted a great deal of attention and comment. I congratulate the hon. Member for Croydon Central (Gavin Barwell) on securing the debate, and on his speech, which demonstrated a thoughtful, serious and insightful analysis, almost all of which I agree with—I hope that that does not embarrass him.

The three issues that I intend to cover are the causes of the riots, the immediate response by the police, emergency services and other public authorities, as well as the general public, and longer-term considerations, including measures that might help to prevent a repetition.

I shall start with the causes, and the factors that contributed to the worst outbreak of civil disturbance that the country has experienced in at least 30 years. In the immediate aftermath of the riots, we heard some over-confident and sometimes simplistic analyses of the causes. The hon. Gentleman rightly illustrated the fact that the extent to which people wanted to blame it entirely on criminality, or entirely on social and economic factors, was wide of the mark. Clearly, some people involved were criminals with previous convictions, and some of the activity was straightforward criminality. The extent to which many criminals descended on a retail parade in Charlton when they received a message that it was unprotected and open seemed to suggest straightforward criminality. It was certainly an orgy of looting.

That leaves the question of why the outbreak of theft should have occurred on that particular occasion. What was the trigger that prompted the multiple incidents in London and other cities during the period 6 to 9 August? Similarly, it is too simplistic to attribute the riots only to social and economic factors, even if it remains true that in general the more deprived areas bore the brunt of the rioting. In my constituency, Woolwich probably has the greatest deprivation, and it was the epicentre of the rioting, whereas more affluent areas such as west Greenwich were largely unscathed.

In trying to understand why the riots occurred, I spent some time reviewing the evidence, including some revealing CCTV footage from Woolwich town centre. I watched it with our police borough commander, Richard Wood, and I suspect that I went through a similar process as did the hon. Gentleman, who undertook a similar review of the evidence with his borough commander.

The CCTV evidence from Woolwich makes it clear that the incidents that occurred in the early part of the evening of 8 August, while groups of youths were gathering in and around General Gordon square, which is the heart of Woolwich town centre, could be categorised generally as antisocial behaviour. However, from around 8.15 that evening, the mood changed, and within a short time a police car had been attacked and set on fire, a public house had been looted and set on fire, and a large-scale riot had begun to take root. It caused extensive damage to other premises in General Gordon square, as well as adjoining Powis street and further away on trading estates along the Woolwich road into Charlton as far as the Greenwich peninsula.

In my view, the change from a potentially problematic display of antisocial behaviour to a full-blown riot occurred when the group of young people who had gathered in the area realised that the police did not have the numbers or capability to stop them. Within a very short time, from their understanding, the police were powerless to prevent disorder, and the situation in Woolwich and the surrounding area was out of control.

I want to stress four specific points. First, the London borough of Greenwich had not suffered the disturbance that had affected other areas, such as Tottenham and Lewisham, on the previous days, and there had been no serious incidents or riots early in the evening of 8 August in Woolwich, so under existing procedures—within the Metropolitan police in London and more widely with other police authorities—for mutual aid, some officers were withdrawn from the borough of Greenwich to provide assistance elsewhere. That is why police numbers in Woolwich were inadequate to cope with the riot when it took place. I want to make it clear that that was not a local failure, but it reflects on the arrangements applying throughout the Metropolitan police area because there were simply insufficient police to contain the riot when it kicked off in Woolwich.

Secondly, I referred to the people gathered in and around General Gordon square as youths. That does not mean that they were predominantly young people. Yes, some juveniles were involved, and some young people under 18 were arrested and charged, but in my judgment the majority of those involved were over 18, and were probably in the age bracket 18 to 25, although some were older. There were some shocking images of people who should have been exercising a mature influence clearly egging on other rioters and benefiting from the chaotic situation.

Thirdly, those involved in the riots, and those who were consequently charged with criminal acts, came from different ethnic backgrounds. The Greenwich and Woolwich constituency is a diverse community with representatives of many different ethnic groups. That diversity applied equally to those involved in the rioting. It is not the case that one single ethnic group was responsible or even disproportionately involved.

Fourthly, those involved in rioting did not seem to come disproportionately from one location, one part of London or one particular type or tenure of housing. It is important to understand that.

[Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)]

Has my right hon. Friend given some thought to the suggestion that some people should be evicted because of their involvement in the riots? I know that his borough has taken a particular stance on that, and I wonder whether he has any comment to make on it.

[Mr Raynsford]

I entirely understand that if someone has been guilty of trashing their home, their estate or the area immediately surrounding where they live, it would be appropriate under normal procedures for action to be taken to seek possession of their property because of their behaviour, but a different issue arises if people who have been charged and even convicted of a criminal offence are then deprived of their tenure when they would not be so deprived if they had been convicted of such an offence outside a riot. In the example that I gave, if someone stole some DVDs or videos from an electronics shop during a riot and was, as a result, subject to possession proceedings, it would send an odd message if that applied in that case, but not in the case of someone who had been convicted of stealing videos from an electronics shop in other circumstances. That seems to be the nub of the problem. Tenancy laws must be applied, and they must be applied in relation to the tenancy and its surrounding area, not used as a second means of punishing people who should be punished under the proper processes of the law.

--- Later in debate ---

[Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is the first time that I have spoken under your chairmanship, Ms Clark. Welcome to the Chair.

We have had an interesting debate. I intend to be brief, so I will skip over some of my comments rather than repeat the contributions of others. I echo other Members in supporting the comments made by the hon. Member for Croydon Central (Gavin Barwell), particularly about not demonising young people. I found it hard to disagree with nearly everything that he said, but I am angry that the Secretary of State for Justice has spoken about feral children and the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions has spoken about ghettoes. That is a slur on my constituency and many others, and on many of my friends and neighbours and the friends of my children. I hope that the measured comments made by the hon. Member for Croydon Central and most colleagues here are more reflective of the reality of the Government’s thinking than the knee-jerk reactions to media headlines.

We need to be aware of stereotypes. The pictures and the arrest record—I have seen the pictures myself, as have other Members—show that a number of older people wearing work clothes were involved in looting. There is still work to be done. We are analysing the figures in Hackney to see exactly who was involved—the figure keeps changing, so I will not quote anything now. CCTV has been instrumental in solving this, and I am pleased to hear a strong feeling from all parties in the House that CCTV is here to stay and has a role to play. When people talk about civil liberties, I simply ask whose civil liberties they mean. My constituents want more, not less.

The majority of those involved in Hackney—on Clarence road and the Narrow way, which is in the heart of my constituency and was at the heart of the troubles—were over 18 years old. About 16 businesses were very badly damaged. We were very fortunate that we did not suffer the same problems as Croydon and Tottenham. That was largely down to the very good work of the fire service, which sat in our excellent CCTV centre and ensured that any dangerous fires were dealt with quickly and that others were allowed to burn out. That was really important and shows that, with good co-operation across the emergency services, some of the worst aspects that hit other places can sometimes be prevented.

I agree that race has been subject to an unfortunate stereotype. I echo the comments made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy). The comments of illustrious academics and the way in which they were made on “Newsnight” were very unhelpful, have caused great ill feeling in my constituency, and do not reflect the general people whom I represent, whatever their colour or background.

I know that the Minister does not represent the Home Office, but he is a representative of Her Majesty’s Government, so I point out to him that they need to look at the issue of police numbers. Surely it is time to rethink. We had issues about the number of police available in Hackney on the night of 8 August. They were able to hold a line but no more. The fact that it took two to arrest people meant that it was impossible to do the arrests while maintaining the line and preventing further damage and looting to property in my borough. That meant that people such as Siva Khandian, a shopkeeper whom many will have seen pictured in newspapers, had his shop completely ransacked and looted. Others suffered similarly. Residents in Clapton square were scared stiff because cars were burning outside their homes. I do not blame the police, but it meant that there were real challenges. If this is a time for cross-party consensus, we should pause for thought and look at the numbers of police available in London. I join the Mayor of London, with whom I agree on this occasion, in saying that we need seriously to make sure that we have the policing numbers available to tackle such problems and, crucially, to deal with our ongoing community issues.

I want to touch on the issue of stop and search. I do not have time to develop my arguments, because many other Members wish to speak. My right hon. Friend raised some interesting points. I, too, am not against stop and search, but I think that attitude is an issue—the attitude of the police, in terms of courtesy and respect as they carry out a stop and search, as well as the attitude of those who are stopped and searched. I hear strong views from young people and their parents, who feel aggrieved that their children and they themselves are stopped frequently. There are also young people who tell me, “I’m glad that I was stopped, because I know that a person carrying a knife or a gun will also be stopped.” In Hackney, when there have been serious complaints about officers and they have been identified, some have been dismissed from the service of the Metropolitan police because of their attitude during stop and search. The Metropolitan police need to publicise that more. I urge the Minister to take that back to his colleagues at the Home Office, because parents and young people come to me so often to raise their concerns and it is difficult to pinpoint what action to take. I am not pinpointing individuals—I am sure that there are confidentiality issues—but it is important to say that the police have standards and where they have the evidence they will act and remove bad apples from the cart.

It is also important that the community makes complaints that are specific and not generalisations. I am sure that many Members have attended meetings in which people rail against the police in general terms. When I and others, including police officers who are present, ask them for specifics, they respond with nothing. As a Member of Parliament, I need those specifics—I am happy to be a third-party reporting body and pass them on, and I do when I get them—but I rarely get them. They are important.

We are short of time, so I will ask some particulars of the Minister. The Riots Communities and Victims Panel is visiting a number of areas in which riots took place, but, as I understand it, Darra Singh and his team do not, at present, intend to visit Hackney. Why is that? I do not necessarily expect an answer, but will the Minister at least write to me to explain why that is the case? We could then look at getting Darra Singh and his team to visit, which would be helpful, because I think there are lessons that we can pass on to other areas.

The Home Office has agreed to meet me, as the Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch. I am concerned that, due to personnel changes in the ministerial team, that agreement has slipped. The Government report on this issue and gangs in particular is due out at the end of this month, but we are already halfway through it. I hope that the Minister will take that concern back to his Home Office colleagues.

Has a Communities and Local Government Minister met with key groups in Hackney that are doing interesting work? The trading places scheme is funded by the council through the Crib youth group, led ably by Janette Collins and her colleagues. It gets young people to trade places with key professionals, including police officers, to do exactly what I think the hon. Member for Croydon Central suggested—getting people to understand each other’s points of view. That is proving successful and lessons could be learned for other areas. It is important that it is looked at and replicated, if necessary.

On evictions, my right hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Mr Raynsford) talked about knee-jerk reactions, about which we must be wary. Evicting people because of riot involvement sounds easy, but we need to beware the law of unintended consequences. Let me be clear: those involved in these riots deserve punishment. My constituents are clear about that, too. However, at two recent Clapton conferences in my constituency Hackney residents demonstrated a real understanding of the complexities of the situation. They were talking about wider issues than the riots alone, but they recognised that, in some cases, antisocial behaviour, particularly by the youngest, is a result of chaotic family backgrounds and situations. Under the proposals that some have made, those differences would not be highlighted and people could be evicted and more problems created as a result. Where do these people go? Will they be put into the private sector, unable to pay and keep up with rent? What would that do to other members of the household?

Hackney council supports the same tough approach as I do to crime and antisocial behaviour. Prior to the events of 8 August, it had already begun a wider review of tenancy agreements that included possible changes to conditions relating to antisocial behaviour, gang activity, domestic violence and irresponsible dog ownership. The council is also discussing similar proposals with other large landlords in Hackney. The issue, however, is more legally challenging than it is made out to be. I do not have time to go into that, but a legal definition of “locality,” for instance, limits what can be done. I am all for eviction, where necessary, under the current tenancy agreement, but to say that people should be evicted just because of the riots is an issue that needs to be addressed. Issues relating to home owners versus tenants are also important. We all also need to bear in mind the many intergenerational households in my constituency and elsewhere as a result of the shortage of family homes. That could mean three generations of a family being put out with nowhere to go.

In a debate yesterday, I talked about the impact on young people of the cuts to education maintenance allowance and so on, so I will not go into that, but it is worth highlighting some good news stories and how the community rallied around. Residents raised more than £20,000 for Siva Khandian, who owned the convenience store in Clarence road that he saw his neighbours looting. Street sweepers worked through the night, clearing up as the riots continued around them. Council officers put in extra unpaid hours, to support businesses in particular. Police slept in the corridors of the police station, because it was not worth their while to go home—they wanted to be there and cancelled their leave. Residents came to clean up the next day. Residents and businesses joined forces for a street party in Clarence road on 15 August. Jamie Cowen, the managing director of Your Square Mile, contacted me and said that he has some money that he wants to make sure goes to the riot-affected areas. People across the board—I have named only a few—have made a big difference.

I do not have time to go into the issues surrounding gangs, but I am sure that we will have time to debate them again. I emphasise to the Minister that we have good experience of what integrated gang intervention can do. Gang violence dropped by 59% in six months after our joint multi-agency gang intervention unit, based in Hackney town hall, was formed. There are some lessons to be learned there. Early intervention is vital. Important youth work is taking place with younger children from the age of eight onwards. In the schools that I visit, there is a real issue with eight and nine-year-olds getting hooked into gang culture. A small number of people are involved in gangs, but the wider fear is my big concern—the parents who take their children out of school and to different areas, and the fact that young people are afraid to walk the streets.

Of those involved, young people were not in the majority. However, if these events mean that we focus on gangs, the fear of walking down the street and other fears that young people have, some good can come out of the terrible events of that weekend in August.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Field]

Very much so. The pure economics of the matter show that if you can reach that small number of families, huge amounts of money can be saved. Otherwise, if we do not reach those families, there are wasted lives that will be put to shame.

The focus of the “Your Choice” programme is on having key transition stages from primary to secondary school. However, it has also developed targeted gang exit programmes, cross-border gang mediation to try to break down the postcode rivalry that lies at the bottom of many of the problems surrounding gang culture in London, and support to get young people into sustained employment and training. We all appreciate how difficult that is, and I fear it will be for some time to come as elements of the economy continue to deteriorate. We also need intensive support to be given to parents and families in the holistic way that my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Mary Macleod) described.

We want to try to provide families with a real choice: take the services on offer and become real members of the community, or face a range of enforcement options. That choice is based on evidence of what works, including tried and tested programmes in Westminster, such as the successful gang exit programme. Only 5% of youngsters on that programme received a conviction compared with 42% before the strategy began.

[Meg Hillier]

Does the hon. Gentleman have any experience of gang injunctions in his constituency? We have had great difficulties getting them to work in Hackney. Has he had any conversations with people in his borough or with other Ministers about them?

[Mr Field]

We have not had any in my constituency. As I mentioned the other day, one of the issues surrounding the Churchill Gardens estate in my constituency is the worrying sign that we are getting close to a tipping point and that the gang problem will become much more intense than in certain parts of the northern end of the borough, which the hon. Member for Westminster North (Ms Buck) represents. That is clearly not something I am entirely aware of.

I appreciate that other hon. Members want to speak, so I will just say a couple more things. It is important to recognise that turning around the lives of what are regarded as problem young people and families takes time, patience and, inevitably, resources. All too often, local authorities have to rely on one-off funding pots, which often fail to deliver an impact or may deliver that impact only in the very short term, with the problem ultimately reoccurring before too long.

The programme that Westminster is trying to develop requires a sustainable funding stream to ensure that the council can intervene early and support young people to make the right choices in their lives. If we can secure sustainable funding, we will aim to intervene early and support children as young as the age of five through that programme. Westminster city council has secured funds to deliver the bulk of the programme for the current tax year, but it wants to be able to deliver a sustainable programme over three to five years. I have made representations on that and, as I mentioned the other day, I am someone who believes in getting the deficit down and who has tried their level best to recognise that that means not standing up, even at a constituency level, for programmes when cuts are being made. This is probably the only exception. We need to look at the provision of youth services. If we are to have a genuine long-term impact, one of the legacies of trying to ensure that the riots do not happen again must be that we examine those services.

In Westminster—I am sure this is replicated in all London boroughs and, indeed, in boroughs outside the capital represented by hon. Members here today—we have had a substantial reduction of some £828,000 from the funding of our youth services as a result of the emergency Budget in June 2010. That was followed by a further £513,000 reduction in the current tax year. In the light of the rioting, all local authorities will be keener than ever not only to secure money for their programmes but, I hope, to ensure that we can improve the lives of the most vulnerable. As is so often the way in life, the prevention will end up being considerable cheaper in the medium and longer term than the cure that will otherwise be before our eyes.