Riot Compensation Bill
Debate between Mike Wood and David Nuttall(9 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
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.
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.