Brussels Terrorist Attacks
Mike Wood Excerpts(8 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mrs May
Yes. We have been very clear that we need to see more being done within the European environment and across Europe on firearms. I am pleased to say that, following representations, the European Commission has produced a new draft directive on firearms. I am very clear that we should ban dangerous semi-automatic weapons. That discussion is taking place, but we are clearly pushing for greater ability across the EU to deal with the movement of firearms.
Mike Wood (Dudley South) (Con)
I worked in Brussels for seven years, and my thoughts are naturally with friends and former colleagues in Belgium, as well as with the families of those who were murdered and maimed yesterday morning. Effective security co-operation with other European Union countries is obviously vital, but will my right hon. Friend also consider how we can effectively exchange appropriate security information with allies through membership of other international organisations, such as NATO and the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe?
Mrs May
My hon. Friend is right. We need to ensure that we use every available opportunity, when appropriate, to exchange security information, support and intelligence, and to work together. That is why, as I said earlier, we have the “Five Eyes” co-operation, which is very important to the United Kingdom. We work within the European Union, but other organisations are involved as well. As I said to an Opposition Member earlier, in the United Nations there has also been a greater understanding of some of the measures that need to be taken.
Investigatory Powers Bill
Mike Wood Excerpts(8 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Anne McLaughlin
I am speaking as fast as I can; I cannot possibly give way. I am very sorry.
Such leads must be followed up in a targeted manner, and we must protect our much valued civil liberties and the freedoms for which, so we are told, Britain is famed.
I find it disturbing and somewhat frightening that the Home Secretary has refused to accept the recommendation, by one of the three parliamentary Committees that have detailed their concerns, to exclude from the Bill the use of surveillance powers for the economic wellbeing of the UK. From the passion and determination with which British politicians of all hues fought to keep Scotland in the UK, and if we accept, as I do, that they did so not just for Scotland’s own good, it is clear that they believed that our independence would have an adverse impact on the UK economy. Notwithstanding the fact that I do not necessarily agree with that premise, I am interested to know whether all independence campaigners are vulnerable under this legislation.
Anne McLaughlin
No.
As Members may have heard, the First Minister of Scotland has recently announced a new initiative, starting this summer, to argue for independence, so it is best that we know.
Campaigners have rightly been somewhat alarmed to read clause 1(3), in which the Government tell us that some of the protections enjoyed by citizens of the UK—indeed, the only protections explicitly named in the Bill—exist
“by virtue of the Human Rights Act 1998”.
The Government are not only pushing the Bill through hastily and to a tight timetable, but asking us to accept protections in a piece of legislation that they are doing their utmost to scrap. We want a Bill that we can fully support. For us, we do not yet have such a Bill.
Mike Wood (Dudley South) (Con)
I was opposed to the 2000 Act, and I had concerns about the 2014 Act. If our starting point is whether changes would make things easier or harder for some hypothetical despotic regime, both Acts clearly shifted the powers of the state and gave the security services significant new powers without providing corresponding safeguards to protect the rights and freedoms of the individual. However, with three independent reviews, three parliamentary Committees during the pre-legislative scrutiny stage and Ministers who have clearly been prepared to listen and to make changes, this Bill is far better than any previous ones.
I still have concerns about shifting the balance between individuals and the state, but I am satisfied that the proposals will introduce powers that are proportionate to the risks faced. They will bring greater transparency to the system and the process. The powers will be controlled by more effective authorisation mechanisms and independent oversight. The proposals are proportionate because, as is widely recognised, the future is increasingly digital, and we have a responsibility to respond as such.
The internet is a fantastic opportunity and it opens incredible doors—even though I think of myself as tech savvy, I find it dispiriting to see that my five-year-old son can use my iPad better than I can—but it also, of course, opens doors for those who would do us harm in relation to both national security and some of the most vulnerable members of our community.
We often hear about the precautionary principle: the idea that where there is even a small risk of great harm, it is appropriate to take whatever action might avoid it. In this case, the risk is not small or hypothetical—unfortunately, with paedophilia and child sexual exploitation, we see the risk week after week—and the Bill could help to tackle that risk. We know not just that the risk of international terrorism is significant, but that if the security services do not have the powers to tackle those threats, it is absolutely certain that we will be victims. That is why I will support the Bill this evening.
Oral Answers to Questions
Mike Wood Excerpts(8 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mrs May
I remember the days when the hon. Lady and I served on the council of the London Borough of Merton. She took an interest in domestic violence and support for its victims and survivors then, and she continues to do so now. Of course, the Government have put extra money into refuges and supported various domestic violence services. It is a terrible crime and we need to deal with it.
Mike Wood (Dudley South) (Con)
What assessment has been made of the number of connections police forces have made to the child abuse image database since it launched?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Karen Bradley)
My hon. Friend raises the very important issue of the child abuse image database, which was introduced by the Government and is leading the world in tackling online indecent images of children. We now have all 43 forces connected to the image database and are starting to see real results in protecting children.
Riot Compensation Bill
Mike Wood Excerpts(8 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mike Wood (Dudley South) (Con)
I beg to move amendment 1, page 3, line 16, at end insert—
‘( ) Regulations under subsection (3)(b) or (3)(d) must provide that—
(a) the time period within which a claim may be made ends no earlier than 42 days from the date of the riot;
(b) the time period within which details and evidence must be submitted ends no earlier than 90 days from the date the claimant first made the claim.”
Mr Speaker
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 2, in clause 8, page 5, line 23, at end insert
“, except in the circumstances described in subsection (2A).
‘(2A) Where a claimant’s home is rendered uninhabitable, the amount of compensation may reflect costs that the claimant incurs as a result of needing alternative accommodation.”
Amendment 3, page 5, line 26, at end insert—
‘( ) considerations that decision-makers must take into account in deciding the amount of compensation payable as a result of a claimant needing alternative accommodation (and the regulations may include provision limiting the amount of time for which the costs of alternative accommodation may be claimed),”
Amendment 8, page 5, line 29, at end insert—
‘(3A) Money received by the claimant from emergency or recovery funds, whether funded publicly or privately, in the aftermath of a riot must not be taken into account by the decision maker when deciding the amount of compensation to be paid.
This amendment would ensure that money received by the claimant for the purposes of emergency relief or recovery in the immediate aftermath of a riot is not seen in the same category as compensation under the purposes of this Bill and therefore reduce the amount a claimant might receive.
Mike Wood
May I convey my sympathies and add to the tributes that you paid to Harry Harpham, Mr Speaker? I know that the sympathies of all right hon. and hon. Members will be with his family and friends at this difficult time. Even from the short time in which we saw Harry in this House, it is clear what a loss he will be.
Amendment 1 is a consequence of amendments that were tabled by the right hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy) but not voted on in Committee, and it seeks to clarify and extend the time limit allowed for someone to communicate their intention to make a claim, and the provision of details, evidence and support of such a claim following a riot. Following concerns raised in Committee, the amendment would allow a 42-day period as originally set out in the Bill, but it clarifies that that is from the date of the riot. As Ministers have made clear, that time limit should come with some flexibility, and I hope that in interpreting the date of the riot, authorities will have the good sense to show flexibility in making that date start at the end of the riot where appropriate, rather than necessarily the date on which the damage was suffered.
The main change in amendment 1 relates to the second period: the 90 days from the date the claimant first made the claim. That would mean, potentially, a minimum of 132 days from the date of loss in which we expect businesses or residents to submit details of their claim and to provide the evidence to support it. I hope that that will provide some reassurance to Members who raised concerns in earlier stages.
Amendments 2 and 3 were tabled following comments made on Second Reading and in Committee, and representations made directly to me outside the Chamber, in particular by the right hon. Member for Tottenham and my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon Central (Gavin Barwell). As I made clear on Second Reading, while there are very good reasons for excluding consequential losses from the claims that can be made against the police in the event of a riot, concerns were raised about what would happen if people’s homes were left uninhabitable following a riot. Social tenants would usually be rehoused, and for owner-occupiers with building and contents insurance, the insurance would normally pay for the additional costs of rehousing. However, that would still leave a significant number of people, particularly in the private rented sector, who could find themselves, through absolutely no fault of their own, having to find new housing. They could struggle to find new housing at the same cost as their current mortgage or rent, and that is what amendments 2 and 3 intend to tackle. They seek to cover the costs of alternative accommodation, whether in a bed and breakfast, a hotel or other short-term rent. Amendment 3 clarifies that and allows the regulation that could include in the provision time limits for such additional costs.
During the passage of the Bill, in particular on Second Reading, Members on all sides brought to the attention of the House heart-wrenching stories of hardship as a result of the 2011 riots. Those stories explain the thought process behind amendments 2 and 3. I still do not believe that consequential losses should be covered, but it would not be just if people were made to suffer unnecessarily in their hour of need. I am certainly not prepared to see people effectively rendered homeless while they wait for their homes to be inhabitable once again. I must stress, however, that covering a consequential loss in this way must be the exception, not the rule. It is intended only to assist individuals to recover costs incurred while staying in alternative accommodation following a riot. The details of the provisions will be clarified in regulations.
I turn to amendment 4 tabled by the right hon. Member for Tottenham. At every stage of the Bill, he has raised a number of valid concerns. He has been an extremely effective spokesman for his constituents and for businesses in his constituency. Ministers made it clear on Second Reading and in Committee that we would not expect payments made through charitable funds, or other appeals of that kind, to affect the payments made through the compensation scheme. It would certainly not be right for such payments to be deducted from compensation due under the Bill.
Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab)
I am grateful for the manner in which the hon. Gentleman is putting his points. Central Government or local government will often put up the money to persuade big business to get engaged, because businesses want to see match funding. In those circumstances, I am concerned that that money will then be counted against those who go on to claim compensation.
Mike Wood
The right hon. Gentleman makes an extremely important point, one with which I think we would all agree. That is why, to make sure that in that kind of joint venture we do not preclude local authorities or central Government from contributing to what are essentially private, business-led appeals, I would not expect that kind of fund to be deducted from riot compensation payments. This is not a black and white issue, however, and there are points on the spectrum where that kind of detail is far better dealt with in regulations than in a clause of this kind in the Bill. I therefore cannot support the amendment. It is sensible that payments from public funds should not be provided for the same purpose twice, because we have a duty to limit unnecessary burdens on the taxpayer. The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right in saying that there are occasions when public funds contribute to private appeals. I hope the regulations drawn up to implement the provisions in the clause will allow for such initiatives.
Mr Speaker
Does the hon. Member for Dudley South (Mike Wood) wish to contribute further?
Mr Lammy
There are parts of this country that routinely experience flooding, as I said in Committee, and there is considerable experience in the system in relation to how we deal with those communities and how the insurance industry reacts in those circumstances. Floods happen more frequently in our country than riots, but a similar catastrophe befalls those who find themselves caught up. I hope that the bureau that will be set up as a result of this Bill can draw on the experience in those areas.
I have heard hon. Members in those areas raise concerns about loss adjustors and the manner in which they treat our constituents. In circumstances in which everything has been lost in the flood or burnt to the ground in a fire, the individual concerned is expected to go and find a receipt for a stove or oven that they now have to claim for. How are they going to find that receipt? Where is it? It is a miserable situation, and I am afraid that during the riots we found the performance of loss adjustors very patchy, and some of them behaved quite inappropriately to my constituents.
However, as I have indicated before, we have a situation of insurance, underinsurance and no insurance at all. That is why we have the Riot (Damages) Act 1886 and why we should inquire as to what the appropriate levels of this newly introduced cap should be. For all those reason, this clutch of amendments address that point. As I have indicated, they are largely probing amendments. I look forward to hearing what the hon. Member for Dudley South (Mike Wood) has to say both about regulations and the need for greater clarity. Perhaps this House might have a greater role in determining that figure, scrutinising it and returning to it over time, because I fear that £1 million may well look very different to people in the wider country in 10 or 15 years’ time, long after the Bill has passed through both Houses.
Mike Wood
Let me start with amendments 5 and 6, tabled by the right hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy), which would either remove or raise the compensation cap. Although I fully understand his reasons for asking that the level of the cap be considered, I am unable to support either amendment. As I have stated at earlier stages in the legislative process, we simply cannot continue to have a situation in which the public purse is subject to unlimited liability.
Neil Kinghan’s excellent independent review of the reforms necessary after the 2011 riots set out convincingly and comprehensively the reasons for retaining the principle of strict liability for police forces when the basic contract to uphold law and order, to which the right hon. Gentleman has referred, breaks down, and that police should be liable for the costs of that. However, Neil Kinghan went on to say that it is not reasonable to expect those liabilities to be unlimited. That is why he put forward a number of alternative ways of controlling liabilities—capping them—in order to deliver a fairer deal for police forces and the taxpayer.
The effect of either amendment would be to impose a still higher liability on police forces and therefore on the taxpayer. The right hon. Gentleman asks how the £1 million figure was reached. The Home Office put the figure forward in response to an earlier consultation, and it received widespread support. At present, the cap is generous. It has been set to make sure that it would have protected as many of the claims made in 2011 as reasonably possible.
Analysis by the Home Office and the Association of British Insurers estimates that, had a £1 million cap been in place in August 2011, 99% of claims paid then would still have been paid in full; that compares with about 33% had we continued with the alternative option of a cap on turnover of business, which Neil Kinghan ended up recommending. The £1 million cap is far more generous to the victims of riots and recognises exactly the points made by the right hon. Member for Tottenham: of course such victims are in no way to blame and could have done nothing to prevent their loss. We want to make sure that they continue to be compensated, within a reasonable limit.
I also take note of the right hon. Gentleman’s point about big businesses and the important role they play in our high streets. However, like most businesses, big or small, they have a responsibility to insure themselves adequately—not only against riots, but against a broad range of risks. The £1 million compensation cap applies directly to riots, as defined in the legislation. We would similarly expect such businesses to insure themselves against fire and looting caused by arsonists and against gangs of people rampaging riotously, although perhaps made up of fewer than 12 people and so falling outside the scope of normal riot legislation.
Damage caused by looters or gangs on the rampage is every bit as serious, but police forces would not have liability unless negligence could be demonstrated. There is a need for adequate levels of insurance and it is not unreasonable for businesses with assets running into millions to take out such insurance. Setting a cap at £10 million would largely benefit insurers far more than big or medium-sized businesses on the high street, as they could subrogate those claims under the Bill and the existing scheme. Furthermore, of course, they tend to provide the insurance for big business.
The most pertinent example from the 2011 riots was the claims, which have not yet been settled, arising from the destruction of the Sony warehouse in Enfield. Those run into tens of millions of pounds. That money would go entirely to insurers if the claims ended up being accepted. From the Home Office research, it seems that increasing the £1 million cap to £10 million would have affected six uninsured businesses in 2011—six businesses among all those affected, at a massive cost to the taxpayer without any real benefit to our communities. That is why the £1 million cap has been widely welcomed by Members as well as by the insurance industry. The Government have published their intentions in response to the consultations following the 2011 riots on reforming the compensation arrangements. The £1 million cap was very widely welcomed in that response by stakeholders who took part in the consultation.
Mr Lammy
I beg to move amendment 10, page 6, line 17, at end insert—
(a) after any riot in relation to which compensation was paid under this Act; and
(b) after each period of five years beginning on the date that section 8 came into force.”
This amendment would require the Government to undertake post-legislative scrutiny.
Amendment 10 is about making and returning to the House with a proper assessment after there has been a riot and after the Bill has taken effect. With all that has been written by Mr Kinghan, all the work that has gone into the production of this Bill—I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Dudley South (Mike Wood) for everything he has done—and all that I, and shadow Ministers, have sought to do through it, we have learned a lot from the 2011 riots. Much of what we have learned finds effect in this Bill.
All riots are different. The hon. Gentleman said earlier that the 2011 riots were a particular case in that they were in London, and that he therefore believes that, in terms of regional impact, the £1 million cap is set about right. He will understand, though, that in the past few years we have seen anarchist groups marching in our country and things sometimes getting out of hand. They have marched in parts of the capital that have very expensive retail areas. We do not know where a riot could take place; they are all a bit different.
Given the impact of those riots and our understanding of them, and in terms of how this Bill works and its effectiveness, the issue of what compensation was paid out is hugely important. That is what amendment 10 speaks to. I sincerely hope that Conservative Members understand that and might be able to indicate that they do see the need for a mechanism, given that we are now updating the legislation. We are putting in place new mechanisms such as the bureau, which has not been discussed this morning but was discussed in Committee and on a previous occasion. It would therefore be very beneficial to provide for some assessment after a riot takes place; we do not know when. I hope that I might get some comfort from the hon. Member for Dudley South or the Minister following my decision to table this amendment.
Mike Wood
Although I absolutely agree with the right hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy) that the effectiveness of legislation needs periodically to be reviewed, I am less convinced of the need to set that out in the Bill. Of course, we all hope and pray that there will be no repeat any time soon of the kinds of riots we witnessed in August 2011, but should such riots occur in future it would be absolutely appropriate to consider how well the legislation is working and whether any changes are required, which is what happened following the 2011 riots.
The amendment proposes that the legislation should be reviewed after any riot, but that means that that provision would be triggered by any relatively small disturbance that leads to a claim being made under the riot compensation scheme. That would be unnecessarily bureaucratic and it is certainly not needed, because, as I have said, there is a Government commitment in place to review all new legislation within three to five years of the date it receives Royal Assent. That timeframe provides an opportunity for post-legislative scrutiny in the early years and consideration of non-legislative processes and support systems. I would like us to go further after that three to five-year period.
Mr Lammy
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, if there had been an assessment mechanism in the ineffective Riot (Damages) Act 1886, it might have been better legislation in the first place? There might be a riot—we hope not—during the period of three to five years. I understand that he may not accept the amendment as drafted, but surely the Government should be prepared to consider some sort of assessment mechanism after a riot, which, thank God, happens so infrequently in our country. Perhaps that could happen in the other place when the Bill receives further scrutiny.
Mike Wood
The right hon. Gentleman makes the point that I was about to move on to. Although the initial three to five-year period provides an important chance to reflect on the early years and to consider whether all the commas are in the right place and all the details are right, it is important that regular reviews take place after that period. I hope the regulations will allow for such reviews. If there is a repeat of anything like what happened in August 2011, it is inconceivable that there would not be a review. That should be a given. Outside of the times of serious riots—which, of course, we hope will last many years or even decades—it is important to have some sort of periodic review, but I do not believe that there is a particular case for this Bill to carry a specific provision for post-legislative scrutiny. As I have said, such a provision could be triggered by a fairly small and limited disturbance, but we must make sure that it does not take another 130 years before we next review whether the legislation is working.
Lyn Brown
I completely get where the hon. Member for Dudley South (Mike Wood) is coming from—frankly, if I were the Minister in charge of his Bill, I would encourage him to say exactly what he has just said—but I am worried about where we are going with this. It has taken us 150 years to revisit the issue and there have been a number of disturbances—nay, riots—in this country during that time, and even when there have been really big riots, the system of dealing with victims has been wholly inadequate. I am concerned that we will find ourselves in 150 years’ time—well, we won’t, because we’ll be dead by then—saying, “Oh, yeah, we didn’t have very effective legislation. We had things for those old-fashioned things called cars, but the hover vehicles we’re driving around in now aren’t covered by this Riot Act.”
I say gently to the hon. Gentleman that even minor disturbances can wreck lives. We must make sure that any future Government have not only warm words to say to victims of riots, but effective legislation on the books so that they can help those victims effectively. I gently say to the Minister, who I have got a lot of time for—he has done an excellent job so far this morning—that we need to be more warm in our consideration of this Bill, so that we can ensure that the people who come after us in 150 years do not say the same kinds of things that we have been saying, with a little frustration, over the past few weeks.
Mike Wood
I thank right hon. and hon. Members from all parts of the House who have participated in debates on Second Reading, in Committee and here today. In particular, I thank Ministers and shadow Ministers for their supportive and constructive approach. I thank the right hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy), who has spoken persuasively and passionately on behalf of his constituents, and my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon Central (Gavin Barwell), who has done a lot of work in support of the Bill but cannot speak in the Chamber today because of his other responsibilities.
On Second Reading, I stressed our responsibility as Members of Parliament to bring forward legislation that protects the most vulnerable from harm. That is why I am proud to promote this Bill, which proposes to help individuals and businesses recover from the devastating impact of widespread public disorder in communities. I spoke on Second Reading about my family connection, growing up as the son of a west midlands police officer during the football riots and other disturbances of the 1980s. I told the story of my father being bitten in the stables, and I said that I thought it was safe for me to do so, because my father rarely watches BBC Parliament. Sadly, he listens to BBC WM, so I was not able to keep that as secret as I had hoped.
Like all right hon. and hon. Members, I hope that the Bill will never be used. However, following Neil Kinghan’s review, it is abundantly clear that we need modern legislation that gives us clear guidelines and provisions in the event of any future riots. After the 2011 riots, many vulnerable communities were left counting the cost. The coalition Government responded by pledging to cover the costs incurred by the police to compensate homeowners and businesses under the measures set out in the Riot (Damages) Act 1886. Then, as today, it was clear that the “current”—130-year-old—legislation is outdated and inadequate in providing compensation in the modern world. The language is archaic, and it is unclear in what circumstances claims can be made. That means that decision making after a riot is difficult and time-consuming. There are too many inconsistencies, and it is not fair to those who need support or to those who pay the bill. That is what we need to change with this Bill.
The aim behind the Bill is to protect communities from the devastating losses to which I have referred. It makes much needed changes to address the concerns that have been raised, while still providing support to households and businesses affected by riots. It proposes to end the unlimited compensation afforded through the 1886 Act, while making sure that victims of riots receive the support that they need. The new compensation cap has been discussed at some length, so I will not add anything further. Suffice it to say that the new provisions will not just save money but improve and modernise the claims process to bring it up to date and make it fit for the 21st century.
The old Act’s short timescales for submitting and evidencing a claim are simply not feasible for many potential claimants. As the House will remember, temporary changes were made to the timescales at the time of the 2011 riots in order to provide a more realistic timeframe. The Bill is intended to put that change into legislation.
The time period set out in the original legislation is clearly not long enough. Many homes and places of business are inaccessible for a considerable period after disturbances of the kind we saw in 2011. Allowing a period of 42 days after a riot to submit a claim and a further 90 days to evidence the claim and provide the details to support it will provide people with a fairer deal at a time when they need the extra breathing space and time to think about and prepare such a claim. As has been said, in many cases they will have to work out whether they ever had a receipt, let alone whether they know where the receipt is after a fire or a riot.
The minimum time allowed is now stated in the Bill. I emphasise that it is the minimum time: it remains entirely within the Government’s competence to decide to have a longer period if and when they think that that would be appropriate. As the Minister said earlier, we must ensure that there is flexibility so that people are not unfairly disadvantaged in extraordinary circumstances —for example, when, whether through illness or for another reason, it is not reasonable for them to submit paperwork within the timeframe set out in the Bill.
The reason for switching away from replacement value—old-for-old, as it were—to new-for-old is one of basic fairness for the victims of riots. It is not reasonable to expect people whose homes or businesses have just been devastated by riots, first, to find out what loss adjusters think is the current value of machinery, equipment or property however many years after their purchase, and then to try to source a replacement product of equal value. On Second Reading, I gave the example of a four-year-old dry cleaning machine. It would be difficult to source it, because such machines do not show up every day on eBay. Switching to new-for-old, as most of the insurance industry has done, is sensible, more efficient and, above all, fairer.
Many Members have welcomed the riot claims bureau, which will have responsibility for managing riot compensation claims. The Bill is intended to ensure that there is greater consistency, particularly, as we saw in the 2011 riots, when riots spill over into more than one police force area. In such a case, it may be appropriate for the Secretary of State to assume such powers to ensure that someone can expect the same kind of service, timescales and treatment wherever they make a claim. Again, that is an issue of basic fairness for people affected by riots. The provision will be used if the rioting breaks out in or spreads across more than one area, and for that matter, if the local police decide that they do not have the capacity or expertise to consider such claims—why should they do so? That will particularly affect smaller police forces.
The Bill will allow local policing bodies and the riot claims bureau to place the day-to-day management of claims in the hands of experts. That is significant because although we expect our police forces to do an extremely important job—they do their job extremely well and we can be proud of the role they play—it is not reasonable to expect them to carry out claims handling or loss adjusting. Allowing police and crime commissioners to utilise people trained to play such a role makes sense and enables commissioners to retain full control over financial decisions.
As I have said, the Bill provides for the first time for motor vehicles covered by third-party insurance. It was pointed out on Second Reading that 1886, the date of the current legislation, was coincidentally the same year that the diesel engine was first demonstrated. Unsurprisingly, therefore, the legislation on which we currently rely was not designed around the world of the motor car. We do not know what the nature of riots will be in the future, but there may be widespread damage to motor vehicles. It does not seem fair, and it would not be equitable, for people’s motor cars—if they do not own their own home, their car is probably the most expensive thing they own—to be outside the scope of a compensation claim if they are not covered by their own insurance.
The purpose of the compensation scheme is not to pick up bottomless bills for criminal activity, but to provide a safety net for those in greatest need, while recognising the police’s responsibility to maintain order. That is why we must absolutely recognise the serious implications for communities recovering from major public disorder. Since the 2011 riots, my right hon. Friends in government have worked tirelessly, first by commissioning the Kinghan review and then by holding the Home Office consultation that followed it.
It would be wrong for millions of pounds of public money to be handed over—in essence, to insurance companies—for people who are in a position to insure themselves. That was the thinking behind the cap, and it is also why I limited the extension for motor vehicles to people who would not be covered by their motor insurance.
The provisions in the Bill provide a balance between the responsibility of the police to maintain order and the Government to protect the vulnerable, and the interests of the taxpayer. It retains the principle that the police are responsible for maintaining order, ensures that local accountability remains in the right place and provides local communities with the mechanisms they need to recover quickly from serious disorder.
We all hope and pray that riots of the kind, and certainly of the scale, that we saw in August 2011 will not happen in the future, but hoping for the best can never be an alternative to preparing for the worst. The Bill is about preparing for the worst. I hope it will proceed through the other place as swiftly as reasonably possible so that we can put in place the system we will need should riots take place. The Bill provides a fair deal for the victims of riots and for those who will have to pick up the bill for serious damage caused by them in our communities. I commend the Bill to the House.
Riot Compensation Bill
Mike Wood Excerpts(9 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mike Wood (Dudley South) (Con)
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
As elected representatives in this House, it is our responsibility to take forward legislation that protects the most vulnerable from all types of harm. I am privileged to promote this Bill, which will help individuals and businesses recover from the devastating impact on communities of widespread public disorder. I am the promoter of the Bill, but much of the work has been done by others. I owe a particular debt of thanks to officers and staff of this House and of the Home Office for the advice, help, support and industry that they have provided in preparing the Bill.
There are many features of this place that come as a surprise to newly elected Members, even those of us who took a close interest in Parliament before getting here. One of the most surprising of all is just how popular a Member who appears high up in the ballot for private Members’ Bills suddenly becomes. Unfortunately, that popularity dissipates almost as quickly as it arrived once the Member has settled on a Bill. Nevertheless, I am pleased to bring forward this Bill today.
As I am sure all Members will agree, this is a Bill that I hope will never be used, but it is better to prepare now by ensuring that we have the necessary rules, procedures and structures in place during a time of calm, rather than putting off such thoughts until those measures are urgently needed.
This issue has a particular personal relevance to me. Growing up as the son of a west midlands policeman, I was all too aware from a young age of the impact of riots on local communities and on those responsible for policing them. I remember as a nine-year-old child waking up to see the horrific footage of the Handsworth riots in September 1985. It brought home in the most literal sense the terrible reality of a breakdown in law and order. My father, as a mounted policeman, had been called into work early in response to the violence and destruction that I was then seeing on television. I remember coming home from school just as my father returned home earlier than usual, his hand bandaged and his face pale. I am sure that Members can imagine what was going through my mother’s mind.
As we are among friends—and, perhaps more importantly, as my father is not a regular follower of BBC Parliament—I might be safe in letting Members into his little secret. That day, he had gone into the police stables to prepare his horse, where I am afraid he was bitten by a squirrel. Fortunately, that was the most serious injury my father suffered in those riots.
Tragically, others were not so lucky: two brothers were brutally burned to death in the post office they ran. Two other people were unaccounted for and a further 35 were injured. More than 1,500 police officers were drafted into the area, potentially put in the line of danger. They each have families who I am sure are every bit as proud of them as I remain of my father. About 45 shops were looted and burned, and lasting damage was done to community cohesion in Handsworth. Other riots across the country that autumn, including the Broadwater Farm riot in London, showed similar violence and destruction.
Twenty-six years later, a series of riots, starting in Tottenham and spreading across much of London and then into other major cities, were a horrible reminder of just how fragile public order can be. The August 2011 riots left many vulnerable communities counting the cost of some of the worst and most destructive public disorder in a generation. The human and social cost was immeasurable, nowhere more so than in the senseless murder of Haroon Jahan, Shahzad Ali and Abdul Musavir, who were deliberately run down while trying to protect their community in the Winson Green area of Birmingham.
Here in Greater London we saw horrific images of the Reeves furniture store burning down. This family run business had been built up over years, but it was destroyed in minutes. The image was broadcast all over the world and it continues to haunt us. Elsewhere around the country, large cities experienced similar destruction, with businesses destroyed, property wrecked and dreams up in flames.
In the heat of the riots, many people were surprised to learn that, under current legislation, responsibility for compensating victims of riots lies entirely with local police forces. The legislation dates back to 1886 and is basically a consolidation of legislation going back to the 18th century, so the word “current” does not seem entirely appropriate. The system requires polices forces—the Metropolitan Police Authority, the common council of the City of London and, elsewhere in the country, police and crime commissioners—to pay out millions of pounds in riot compensation, much of it to large businesses and insurance companies, while lacking the flexibility to respond effectively and promptly to the needs of individuals and small businesses that need their payments, and need them quickly. Against a background of tight budget constraints, potentially limitless liability for police forces is unfair and unsustainable.
James Berry (Kingston and Surbiton) (Con)
I thank my hon. Friend for promoting the Bill. If the police are to be held liable for the acts of third parties—of rioters—would it not be fairer for the victims to have to prove that the police were themselves at fault before compensation could be paid out of the public purse?
Mike Wood
I will respond to my hon. Friend’s intervention in more detail later in my speech. Although I have some sympathy for that argument—the causes of riots can be extremely varied and in many cases they are not the direct result of police action or inaction—I think there are both principled and practical reasons to maintain the current principle of strict liability. One such practical reason is that, if someone is unable to afford insurance and has suffered losses during a riot, it is very unlikely that they would have the means to bring a court action to establish that the police had been negligent and thereby claim damages through the usual legal means.
Mr David Burrowes (Enfield, Southgate) (Con)
My constituency was a victim of the riots in 2011, when there were huge disturbances on the streets of Enfield. For some businesses in my constituency and in Enfield North the problem was not just liability and who would pay, but the time it took to be paid. The delay was an ongoing victimisation of those businesses and their prospects of continuing. Will the Bill help to improve the decision-making process and lead to such businesses getting the money they deserve?
Mike Wood
A key purpose of the Bill is indeed to have a more effective, streamlined and clear mechanism or procedure to enable those businesses and individuals to get the compensation they need within the timeframe necessary to make a difference in getting their lives and businesses back on track.
In 2011, the coalition Government responded to the riots by agreeing to cover the costs incurred by the police in compensating homeowners and businesses under the Riot (Damages) Act 1886. That was one part of the package that the then Government announced in response to the scale of the destruction suffered in some of our major cities. I am sure that Members on both sides of the Chamber recognise the importance of the creation of a high street recovery fund immediately after those riots, which helped local communities to decide for themselves on measures, specific and relevant to their area, that would get their high streets back on their feet. However, we cannot necessarily rely on future Governments choosing to underwrite police force liabilities or investing additional moneys in rebuilding areas hit by riots.
Julian Knight (Solihull) (Con)
This issue is not just about the riots of 2011; many other localised riots have led to very extensive and expensive bills for local police forces. For instance, the total bill for the rioting in Bradford in 2001 amounted to £450 million, even though it was a localised riot.
Mike Wood
I fully agree. In the region we both know best, the west midlands, there were the Handsworth riots in 1985, which I have already mentioned, and of course the riots in the same part of Birmingham in 1981 and 1991. Such localised riots have a huge impact on the local community, and cause huge cost to businesses and individuals directly affected.
We need to act now to build a new compensation system that works. As my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes) said, that system needs to be fair to the people and businesses affected by riots and fair to the taxpayers who, ultimately, will always foot the bill.
In the wake of the 2011 riots, work was conducted by the independent Riots Communities and Victims Panel, which looked at both the root causes of the disturbances and the prevention of future riots. Other studies were conducted specifically to examine the response of the police. Although the Government have done a lot of valuable work on the causes and the immediate responses to the riots, now that we have had time to reflect on and learn from those terrible events, it is right and necessary to ensure that the current legislation is updated to make it fit for the 21st century and to enable the victims of riots to be adequately compensated.
Recognising criticisms of the limitations of the 1886 Act, the Home Office undertook an internal review, and my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary then commissioned a full, independent review of the legislation. The reviewer, Neil Kinghan, spent months collecting evidence from riot victims, the police, insurers, loss adjusters and many others before publishing his conclusions. He made recommendations concerning a number of areas of the existing framework. Many of those recommendations are brought forward in the Bill.
Neil Kinghan accepted that there remains a need for legislation that provides for riot compensation to victims, but that the existing legislation is simply not good enough. Fiddling around the edges of the legislation would not be enough to make it work for the 21st century. We need to repeal the 1886 Act and replace it with new legislation that reflects the world as it is now, rather than the world as it was in the 1880s. The Bill seeks to make that change by updating the legislation and modernising the compensation system, making it fit for purpose in today’s world.
This is not the first time that changes to the Riot (Damages) Act have been considered. Under the last Labour Government, there was a public consultation on full repeal of the Act, but in the end, no changes were made. I do not believe that simply repealing the 1886 Act is the answer. While there is a superficial attraction in removing the strict liability that police forces have for damage to property suffered during a riot, there is general acceptance that there are principled and practical reasons for its retention.
Neil Kinghan’s review agreed that the first duty of the police is to maintain law and order. When that law and order breaks down, resulting in a riot, it is right for the police to be held to account and to pay appropriate compensation. On a practical level, strict liability provides simplicity for the victims of riots and a clear framework for the police. Requiring victims to demonstrate negligence or other direct fault would not be equitable in the circumstances. It would require evidence that is often extremely difficult to collect in the immediate aftermath of a riot and would inevitably lead to increased conflict between local police forces and the communities that are hit by rioting.
The 2011 riots underlined the importance of maintaining this historic protection for the public, as it provided a number of people with a vital means of support when they needed it most. It is right that people are provided with the financial means to repair, renew and recover so that they have the confidence to return to their roles at the heart of our communities.
The independent review found near consensus in favour of retaining the police’s strict liability—a finding backed by the report of the London Assembly’s budget and performance committee on the aftermath of the riots. It is right that we protect communities from such shattering losses by doing what we can to help them back on their feet. However, what cannot be right are the lengthy bureaucratic delays suffered by those who need our help, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate referred, and the idea that the country has a bottomless purse to draw from to pay for damage caused by criminals.
The Bill makes much-needed changes to address those concerns, while still supporting households and businesses affected by rioting. Although, as I have said, I accept the arguments for retaining the principle of police liability for riot damages, I do not accept that we can continue with limitless liability. Whether through police budgets or central Government, the public purse cannot be expected to pick up costs that are the reasonable responsibility of private insurance.
The Bill proposes to end the unlimited compensation afforded through the 1886 Act. Instead, it will set a cash cap, set at the appropriate level of £1 million, on each individual claim. The Government determined in their early review that if such a cap were in place in 2011, 99% of the claims made after the riots would have been compensated in full, but the limit would have saved the public purse tens of millions of pounds in compensation for the very largest claims.
As prudent homeowners, most people hold some form of insurance for their property. The same is true of most business owners. In the most recent cases, more than 80% of the compensation has been paid as reimbursement to insurance companies. Despite that, measures to cap compensation have been supported in principle by their largest representative body, the Association of British Insurers.
Antoinette Sandbach (Eddisbury) (Con)
Clearly, property values will differ throughout the country, and many members of the public do not read the fine print in insurance documentation. What is to stop insurance companies excluding riot from their cover? If that does happen, what will happen to those who suffer losses greater than the ones mentioned in my hon. Friend’s Bill?
Mike Wood
Of course we recognise the difference in property values around the country, but we have to accept that basic responsibility for buildings insurance, and indeed contents insurance, needs to be with private insurers. I would certainly hope that we can work together with the insurance industry to make sure that there is a fair response so that the premiums that most people believe they are paying to cover them for damage, however it is caused, really do cover them.
These new provisions are not just about saving money; they are also about improving and modernising the claims process. The short timescales in the old Act for submitting and evidencing a claim were not feasible for many potential claimants. The original 14-day period was extended to 42 days under the Government’s emergency amendment for the 2011 riots. Those riots demonstrated that the period was not long enough in certain cases. Many homes and places of business were inaccessible because they were designated crime scenes. In a number of claims, full details could not be provided because of a dependency on external processes as seemingly unrelated as planning permission.
The Bill will allow regulations to be made to extend those periods. Initially, a claimant need only lodge notice of a claim 42 days after the incident. By lodging notice of a claim, they will then have another 90 days to gather the evidence to substantiate the quantity and nature of the losses. That means that riot victims can focus on their most immediate needs in the shortest term and worry about paperwork further down the line when they are in a better position to deal with it.
Regulations to the Bill will change the way that compensation is calculated from the old-for-old replacement payments system, based on the current value of property, as depreciated, to a new-for-old system to allow people in the majority of circumstances to replace their property in full. That will considerably ease the decision-making process.
Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab)
Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the areas that experience riots are often the most deprived in our country? In those communities, increasingly, particularly in London—in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon North (Mr Reed), and certainly in mine—many constituents speak English as a second language. I can think of a constituent who had a heart attack after the riots. Forty-two days is still a very short time after experiencing shock of this kind.
Mike Wood
I recognise the right hon. Gentleman’s point. It is important that alongside any new legislation and regulation we have the co-ordination at a community level to support the people he mentions, who, as he says, are often in our most vulnerable communities.
The basis for switching from old-for-old to new-for-old is one of basic fairness for riot victims. It cannot be fair for them to be expected to engage in extensive negotiations on the book value of a three-year-old dry cleaning machine, as was the case in one claim in 2011, and then to have to search for such a machine at the specified price just at the point when they are trying to rebuild their homes or their businesses. A new-for-old system is already used in most private insurance policies, and it would mean that victims could set about the important business of getting their lives, homes and businesses back on track.
Mr David Nuttall (Bury North) (Con)
My hon. Friend is right to say that new-for-old replacement will be welcomed by businesses that are affected by a riot, but often the most worrying and biggest problem for such businesses is the consequential losses that arise from that destruction and loss of property. Will he explain why those losses will not be covered, and why they are expressly excluded?
Mike Wood
As my hon. Friend says, the Bill would explicitly restrict a police force’s liability to direct losses, and it would exclude the consequential losses to which he refers. This is a question of fairness and affordability, because the potential impact on the public purse would be enormous should the riot compensation scheme be extended to cover full consequential losses.
Mr Nuttall
There is a cap, so any claims would be limited and caught by that cap. Bearing in mind that that exclusion exists, does my hon. Friend agree that it is extremely important that all businesses—especially small businesses—are made aware of the limitations of the Bill, and the need for them to take out insurance to cover otherwise uninsured losses?
Mike Wood
My hon. Friend makes an excellent point, and businesses need to do as he suggests. This is about what private insurance should reasonably cover. Although direct losses tend to be relatively easy to quantify, consequential and other indirect losses can be more difficult to quantify, and they cause much more difficulty for public authorities when assessing and paying for those claims.
Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)
It has been interesting to listen to my hon. Friend’s contribution so far. Does he agree that the limit is about finding a balance between what is legitimately covered by private insurance, and compensation for those who were caught up in a riot through no fault of their own? Does he also agree that not many people would have been aware of the Riot (Damages) Act 1886 until after the 2011 disturbances?
Mike Wood
My hon. Friend is right, and in conversations I have found that a surprising number of right hon. and hon. Members from across the House were similarly unaware that police forces bear those liabilities. We should be under no illusions that most members of the public are much better informed.
Let me return to the principle of switching to a new-for-old system. From the perspective of public finances, much of the additional cost of such a change can be expected to be offset through savings on spending on the loss adjusters needed to calculate second-hand values. It is much simpler and more efficient to assess the cost of a new replacement product, which is why so much of the insurance industry has moved to such a process.
Mr Steve Reed (Croydon North) (Lab)
Was the hon. Gentleman referring to the case in Croydon North of Mr and Mrs Hassan? They had recently bought a dry cleaning business with old dry cleaning machines. It was burned to the ground, but because they were offered only like-for-like funding they could not re-establish their business or get their livelihood going again. They went into serious arrears and were threatened with the loss of their home because they could not pay the mortgage. Surely that is unacceptable and needs to change.
Mr Lammy
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way again. His point about new for old is incredibly well made.
There are many small business owners in areas that have experienced riots. I think of my area in particular, which is unfortunately one of the few areas of the country to have experienced two riots in a generation. Those small businesses are under-insured because of the cost of insurance, which is because those areas have had riots. Unless we want such areas to be completely boarded up, like cities in the States such as Detroit, we ought to think carefully about consequential loss. We should not place further insurance burdens on the private sector. After all, the fact that a riot has occurred is not the fault of a business.
Julian Knight
Does my hon. Friend hope, as I do, that if the Bill moves forward today it will encourage the industry and the Association of British Insurers to engage further with business owners and make them aware of such things as business disruption cover? In addition, they could make them aware of the Bill’s provisions.
Mike Wood
That is precisely what I have been calling on the ABI and other insurance bodies to do leading up to today’s debate.
I turn to the Bill’s provisions on a riot claims bureau. It sets out that the Secretary of State may assume responsibility for managing riot compensation claims. That is appropriate if rioting spreads across more than one police force area, as it did in 2011. It may also be appropriate at the request of a local policing body, particularly in one of the smaller police force areas, should the volume of compensation claims prove challenging to manage and be beyond its capacity. It is not about taking away local policing bodies’ financial autonomy. It is merely about providing capacity, consistency and additional oversight where necessary.
Mr Steve Reed
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for being so generous with his time. He mentions compensation being paid to victims. Is he aware that when local communities came together to raise and distribute funds to support businesses, families and individuals who had been financially affected by the riots, those funds were then deducted from the more official compensation payments? Does he agree that that was completely wrong and went against the intentions of people who generously donated to help their fellow citizens recover from the terrible circumstances in which they found themselves?
Mike Wood
I would certainly hope that money raised to support local communities would be used for that purpose. Of course, we would want to avoid double compensation, with damages being repaid twice so that people were not just put back in an equivalent position to before the riots but received additional payments on top of that. I do not think that that would be appropriate. I do think that after a riot money should be retained more at a community level and invested in rebuilding community cohesion.
The structure of a riot claims bureau would include, in its running and financial decision making, a role for a police and crime commissioner or equivalent, or their designated representative, as well as insurers and loss adjusters. The Bill would allow local policing bodies to place the day-to-day management of claims into the hands of experts in the loss-adjusting profession. That is clearly a better alternative to expecting police forces to retain such responsibility in-house. Companies already have the capacity available to manage major insurance-related incidents, as has been seen in their response to major weather-related events. Moving responsibility for the management of the process to those who understand it best would allow police and crime commissioners to utilise fully industry experts, while retaining full control of the financial decisions for which they are democratically accountable.
The Bill provides, for the first time, cover for some motor vehicles. Understandably, motor insurance and damage to motor vehicles was not considered in the 1886 Act. It is time, nearly 130 years later, to address that. Most insurance companies cover riot damage in comprehensive motor vehicle policies, the type held by the overwhelming majority of the country’s motorists. The Bill would not seek to replace that coverage. The intention is to provide compensation for motorists not covered by comprehensive insurance. Where the vehicle is held in accordance with the law, it would be covered under the Bill: it would cover third-party claims that meet basic minimum legal requirements for insurance, or vehicles that are exempt from requirements for insurance.
Kevin Foster
My hon. Friend is being extremely generous in giving way. Does he agree that part of the reason for updating the legislation is to address its core purpose, which is to compensate those who might lose their business and equipment? In the modern era, as opposed to 1886, many people will have their tools and their business based in a motor vehicle.
Mike Wood
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. In fact, I wonder if he has read the next passage of my speech. The Bill is indeed about creating a safety net not only for vulnerable people but small businesses and the self-employed.
The purpose of the compensation scheme is not to pick up unlimited bills related to criminal activities, but to provide a vital safety net. We should recognise the serious implications for communities recovering from major public disorder. They include many of my constituents who work in Birmingham and were affected by the 2011 riots and earlier riots. It is the role of Government to protect the most vulnerable and ensure they are not unduly disadvantaged, whether at home or operating their businesses. It is not reasonable to expect a statutory compensation scheme backed by the taxpayer to provide the same coverage as insurance for which one pays considerable insurance premiums. Since 2011, the Government have done significant work on the causes and effects of the riots, but it would be wrong to hand over millions of pounds of public money to individuals and businesses that should have insured themselves against losses, and likewise, insurance companies that benefit from the premiums paid by millions of households every year should not expect the public purse to indemnify them against limitless losses.
The Bill would allow for a balance between the responsibility of the police to maintain order and the responsibility of the Government to protect the vulnerable and make adequate provision for insurable risks. It would retain the principle that the police are responsible for maintaining order, provide that local accountability remains in place and ensure that communities have the right mechanisms in place to recover quickly from serious disorder. It seeks to make an outdated 19th century Act relevant to the world in which we live, and to create a fairer, faster and more affordable system. I commend it to the House.
Dr Huq
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I will continue.
Now the place is half the size and split into two units, although the takings are thankfully back to normal. As my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon North said, further follow-up financial support should be considered at local government level. I have not found any measure proposing that in the Bill, although perhaps I have not looked at it closely enough. Ealing council’s panel report said that larger sums were available in subsequent phases—£157,426 of allocations in total.
I accept that the problem with these sort of events is that they are unforeseeable. Nobody would have guessed on 7 August that this would have happened by 8 August: these things occur out of the blue. We are living in a time when local government budgets are being squeezed like never before, so I would be interested to hear how this Bill fits with local government provision. Ealing is losing £96 million in this parliamentary term.
Clause 8 sets the limits for damages at £1 million, as the hon. Member for Dudley South described. Disappointingly, however, subsection (2) states that the
“compensation must reflect only the loss directly resulting from the damage”
to the property and
“not…any consequential loss resulting from it.”
That is disappointingly short of what Ravi and others said would have made a real difference. Perhaps in extreme cases such as these, an agreement could be reached with the insurers for a limited amount more. It need not all come as a burden to the public purse, as some allowance could be made for special cases.
Mike Wood
I certainly understand the hon. Lady’s point on behalf of her constituent, but will she recognise that the independent reviewer specifically considered the issue and concluded that extending the scope of the Riot (Damages) Act 1886 to cover consequential losses would be a step too far currently and might leave the door open for far greater liabilities?
Dr Huq
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I would feel happy if this issue were addressed to some limited extent. One would expect the Association of British Insurers to be on the side of the insurance industry, but it has found this aspect left wanting in this legislation—it could perhaps be explored at future stages.
Mike Wood
I strongly agree with what the right hon. Gentleman is saying, but does he recognise that the key part of this Bill, putting the riot claims bureau on a statutory footing, will address exactly the kind of issues that he identifies, such as the unnecessary and unacceptable delays in getting the money that is needed to the people who are trying to rebuild their lives and their businesses?
Mr Lammy
The hon. Gentleman is right, of course. The riot claims bureau will be a step forward, but let us be absolutely clear about it. It sounds good, does it not, the riot claims bureau? We get the sense of bureaucrats hard at work somewhere in the Home Office as we speak. No one is staffing the riot claims bureau as a result of the Bill; I suspect it will be brought together rapidly in the event of a riot.
It is important to ensure that the expertise and knowledge are present, that there have been practice exercises and that there is understanding of the sorts of communities that experience such things. There must be a sense that we must put small businesses first on these occasions, because often the big businesses can defend themselves. Members might remember from the riots the atrocious behaviour of the head of JD Sports, who said that it was great that people were breaking down windows to grab trainers because it showed how important his products were. I would suggest that that chief executive can defend himself, but he was in a very different position from those on the high street.
I pay tribute to Sir Bill Castell, chair of the Wellcome Trust and one of the great industrialists of our country. He was chair of the High Street Fund, which did so much to support small businesses across the country. I will never forget Sir Bill ringing me up just a day after the riots, determined to make a difference and to bring big business together to support small business and to bring those funds to individuals. I will also not forget Bill’s consternation that months later funds had not been paid out under the Riot (Damages) Act and that when those funds were paid out, despite the fact that the High Street Fund was a charity relying on contributions from big business, they were discounted against that money. I say to the hon. Member for Dudley South, will we see that happen again?
In these circumstances, when there is philanthropy and charity and when human beings come on side and say that they will support somebody, that should not be discounted against the obligations of the state. We should not be saying that it is for charity to pick up the tab and reduce the burden that we all face as taxpayers when consents break down in this way. I know that Sir Bill felt very strongly about that and I hope that we might get an answer about what will happen in the future in this regard.
I come back to the point about the expertise. Will the bureau have the expertise? How many people will staff it? How will it be brought together? How will it be different from the patchy performance we have seen? For example, I understand that the police in Manchester performed quickly and were able to pay out quickly, although they had a smaller group of businesses involved, whereas the Met were woefully slow in paying out. That led to the then Leader of the Opposition coming to the Dispatch Box during Prime Minister’s questions and asking when businesses would receive their funds. He did that well over a year after the riots—the Met’s performance was that poor. It is important to understand what the bureau will look like and to make sure that it is not just a fancy name, but will work effectively.
I come to the role of loss adjusters. The hon. Gentleman is right that new-for-old compensation will mitigate some of the insensitivity that so many business owners said they experienced as they were quizzed about the age of their products, whether they were sure those products were in the premises, where they were in the building, why they could not get into the building, why their English was not good enough to fill in a form, and so on. I hope new for old will lead to a better system.
In these circumstances there should be a loss of earnings component. If we were able to pay out relatively quickly, the loss of earnings component would be reduced, which was not the case last time round when the process was so poorly handled. Many of us may not be here for the next set of riots in our country. I hope we are not here—I hope it is that far away—but if the claims process goes on for a long time, there is a terrible loss of earnings for small businesses. I can think of a wonderful mechanic’s business that was burned to the ground. It sat next to the iconic Union building in Tottenham that was also burned to the ground. I think of the wonderful Cypriot owner. He came to see me, devastated by the flooding and destruction of his family business. The road was shut off, the building next to it had been burned down and it was months before he could get into his business premises. He had a heart attack. He was laid low at home, panicking about the pressure of finance and money. I will remember that man and his family for the rest of my life. So I believe that loss of earnings should be a component of the compensation. Consequential earnings are also fundamental when the state breaks down in this way.
The cap of £1 million is right and totally understandable. It is important, though, that that cap is sufficiently high to compensate the vast majority of businesses. I think that that probably is the case, but I would like reassurance that it is index-linked and will rise. It is £1 million today, but what will it be in 50 years or 100 years? In areas of the country that are fragile, where there is deprivation or pockets of deprivation, we must not scare big business away because it fears that it would not be adequately compensated in the event of a riot. We must not do what has happened in other parts of the world, particularly the United States. It is important that private insurance is available for larger businesses for which, if they were to suffer a loss, it would be substantially more than £1 million.
It is easy to see how a relatively small business with stock could lose more than £1 million over several months in the circumstances. I am a little bit nervous about what the effect of the cap may be and whether it will harm regeneration and the prospect of those communities moving forward towards prosperity through regeneration. On the whole, people do not tend to riot if they have a job and a mortgage, but in parts of the country that cannot always be guaranteed, so it is important that big business is there, small business is supported, the £1 million cap is not too low, and that we are sure the insurance industry will provide support beyond that £1 million.
We need to be clear that under-insurance is common in the kind of communities that saw rioting in 2011 and communities where riots have historically taken place in this country. Because of the delicate margins with which businesses operate in such communities, there is often under-insurance. It was the people who were under-insured who paid the heaviest price last time round. They were able to claim from the High Street Fund, but that was discounted down the line. They were the ones who found it hardest to get payments under the Riot (Damages) Act in good time.
The 42 days feels like a long period. People know the riot has happened to them. They must know that there is some means of compensation. People say that on the news, but it does not reach them because they are in shock, because everything they own has been burned to the ground, and they have no paperwork, they have no ID, they do not know who they are. This is not just about shops; it is about homes as well. I am worried about the 42-day period. I can think of many constituents who would not meet that.
Kevin Foster
My hon. Friend makes a strong point. That partly reflects the change of era. There was terrorism in the 1880s, but its impact was very different from what a Semtex explosion would do today. The nature of terrorism has changed so greatly, as we saw in the recent attacks in Paris, with the use of automatic battlefield weaponry. In 1886, an automatic weapon was a Gatling gun, which needed a crew to operate it. Sadly, today’s automatic weapons can be carried quite easily. It is therefore absolutely right that we update the legislation. We should give the Bill a Second Reading and then in Committee look in detail at how we can make it suitable for the modern era. On political activity, for example, were the recent events at the Cereal Killer Cafe a disturbance or a riot? My hon. Friend sums up the issues perfectly. In Committee we will look in detail at where we should draw the lines, using modern language, not language that was suitable in the late 19th century.
It is also worth dwelling on the fact that the current legislation—it seems laughable to describe something from the 1880s as current—means that there is strict liability on the police. As has been mentioned, the areas that have been affected by rioting tend to be those areas that rely most on their local police force. If the local police force ends up picking up the bill for a very large amount of riot compensation, ultimately that is likely to be paid for either by putting additional taxes on communities that are least likely to be able to afford them, or by cutting police provision, and that would be in an area that had just suffered rioting and might therefore require more police provision. I respect the Government’s intervention after 2011 to prevent that from happening, but that is not guaranteed for the future. That is another reason why it is vital to update the legislation so that it is not just one community taking the risk.
As we heard in an earlier speech, some police forces could be bankrupted by a large-scale riot that affected particular commercial interests in their area. That is just not a sensible position to be in. That could also act as a disincentive to have economic activity in the local area. If we know that for some reason there might be a public order disturbance—even a once-in-100-years scenario —and that a particular economic interest could be damaged or destroyed, we would know that ultimately we might end up copping the whole bill for compensation. A review of that situation is long overdue.
Therefore, I also think that it is right to include the £1 million cap. Statistics from the House of Commons Library suggest that about 99% of claims made in 2011 would be covered under these proposals. To be clear, this will not be denying justice to thousands of interests; it is about having fairness between the large interests that are the most able to protect themselves and the smaller interests that find it the most difficult.
Mr David Nuttall (Bury North) (Con)
I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I hope that none of the properties I own is ever affected by a riot, but that is a theoretical possibility.
I rise to speak briefly in support of the Bill. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley South (Mike Wood) on introducing it this morning. It is a pleasure to debate a Bill that does not seek to add further cumbersome regulations or which creates more problems than it seeks to solve.
We have heard a lot about what happened in London in 2011, but, as the right hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy) mentioned, Manchester and Salford were also affected by riots in the summer of 2011. In August 2012, it was reported that Greater Manchester police had paid out £442,000 for uninsured claims and £584,000 for insured claims under the Riot (Damages) Act 1886. It was a very big story locally. The right hon. Gentleman mentioned JD Sports, which has its headquarters in the borough of Bury. It was one of the companies affected when its store in Manchester was looted.
As hon. Members have said, the riots demonstrated the need to look again at the 1886 Act and to update what is widely accepted to be archaic and out-of-date legislation. While updating it, however, we will still maintain the principle that as the police are responsible for the maintenance of law and order, they should be liable if law and order breaks down and a riot breaks out. The Kinghan review, which was set up to look into how the 1886 Act could be improved, decided that maintaining such a statutory principle was the best way forward, but we could have provided for these losses to be dealt with as losses for uninsured motorists are dealt with through the Motor Insurers Bureau. I agree that we should maintain the existing principle from 1886.
The legislation has to deal with the competing interests of taxpayers, whom the Government want to protect by restricting the amount that is paid out, and uninsured businesses and individuals, who need to be protected when they are affected by loss. It makes absolute sense in the 21st century that the legislation should cover vehicles.
I agree that there is a simplicity in having a cap on claims of £1 million, but the amount needs to be kept under review. We do not want to think in 40 or 50 years’ time, “Oh dear, we should have reviewed that £1 million limit because it is woefully inadequate.”
Mr Nuttall
My hon. Friend is right that that ability is written into the Bill, but it requires the Government to take a proactive approach and make use of it.
Mike Wood
With the leave of the House, I would like to thank right hon. and hon. Members from both sides of the House for the positive and constructive points they have made in the debate. I will certainly reflect on those points, and I look forward to discussing them in more detail should the Bill proceed.
Given that the debate has already run for rather longer than I expected, I will not repeat the important points that have been made in the debate and in my right hon. Friend the Minister’s response to it, except to say that we all pray that the measures in the Bill will not be needed, but we must never allow hoping for the best to prevent us from preparing for the worst. I hope that Members will support the Bill, and I commend it to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read a Second time; to stand committed to a Public Bill Committee (Standing Order No. 63).
Immigration Bill
Mike Wood Excerpts(9 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Gavin Newlands
I wholeheartedly agree. The Bill will create a situation whereby landlords will have to be 100% sure that no illegal migrants are living in their property. Failure to abide by this could result in the landlord facing a fine of £3,000 and a jail sentence of five years. The vast majority of our landlords will not be qualified, or have the time, to distinguish between a legal and an illegal migrant.
Mike Wood (Dudley South) (Con)
Surely the hon. Gentleman recognises that that is exactly why landlords can just refer the issue. The Home Office will then, I understand, rule on it within 48 hours.
Gavin Newlands
I think perhaps the hon. Gentleman has not heard about the difficulties faced by the helplines. More resources are required.
To protect themselves, many landlords will operate a blanket approach and will not take the risk of accepting any tenant who was born overseas or who has a foreign-sounding name. The Bill will also make it easier for landlords to evict tenants who are found to be living here illegally. They will be able to do that without a court order. We should be concerned that that sort of practice could be carried over to other tenants who are living here legally. We do not have to guess, fear or anticipate the problems that the Bill will create for tenants. The Government are, shamefully, not willing to publish their review of the west midlands pilot before pushing ahead with the Bill, but reports from it suggest that the right to rent policy encourages discrimination towards migrant groups.
Part 4 of the Bill is particularly odious. We should be reminded that the immigration appeal route exists for a reason: to correct a wrongful decision. The Immigration Act 2014 drastically reduced the number of appeals available, but the Bill removes them entirely for some people. The “deport first, appeal later” policy that was included in the previous Act led to 230 foreign nationals being deported in the first year of its being implemented. I ask the Immigration Minister to make clear, in his closing remarks, how many of the 230 completed the appeal process.
The Bill will create drastic consequences for all members of our migrant community and it sends the wrong message to the international community about what kind of country we are. The Bill will turn communities against one another, extending the powers of the state to unparalleled levels and creating a big brother society where ordinary members of the public will be expected to act as the UK Government’s very own immigration agents.
In short, the Bill is about pandering to the UK Independence party and the right-wing element of the Conservative party. It is ill-considered, deeply divisive and lacking in compassion and any human decency. It will inevitably lead to increased racism. If the Bill is passed it will not be in my name, the Scottish National party’s name or Scotland’s name. I urge the Government to reconsider.