Knife Crime

David Lammy Excerpts

Tuesday 27th November 2012 Westminster Hall

[Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab)]

I am grateful to have the opportunity to contribute to this important debate, Mr Davies. I congratulate the hon. Member for Clacton (Mr Carswell) on securing the debate and on the manner in which he made his remarks. I fully agree with aspects of what he said, in particular on the importance of the criminal justice system, but in some areas I would choose to differ.

I have now been in the House for 12 and a half years. Tottenham is my home and the community I grew up in, and when I first became its Member of Parliament, it had been in the news for many but not great reasons—I am not now talking about the football club—so I expected the tough, gritty inner-city issues to be my fare. One would expect London’s housing crisis and its immigration challenges, and issues such as welfare benefits and crime and disorder to be mainstream stuff for the Member of Parliament for Tottenham to bring to the House for debate, discussion and even disagreement, both with one’s own Government and that of other parties. What I did not expect 12 and a half years ago was that serious crime, such as murder, would escalate from being an issue affecting individuals and small communities to a serious national problem.

My period in the House has coincided with Operation Trident, which was set up to look at gun crime in parts of—I emphasise “parts of”—the black community. People use the phrase “black-on-black violence”, but it is not one that I have ever been comfortable with, and I have voiced that on several occasions. A small group of criminals, who were trading in drugs that originated in the Caribbean and America, made their way here through drug-trafficking routes and created a gun crime problem in certain neighbourhoods and communities in London. Legislation covering guns, together with serious enforcement by the police, bore down on that problem, and to some extent it has been contained, but in our capital city and our major cities we still see guns go off and we see crime related to guns. At the same time, the problem of knife crime has increased.

[Sir Bob Russell (Colchester) (LD)]

Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm for the record that three times as many people are killed by knives as by guns?

[Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab)]

I am happy to confirm that that is exactly the case, and that goes to the point that gun crime morphs into knife crime. We saw knife crime morph from something we associated with particular tough, inner-city environments into a real problem across London, Manchester and Birmingham. It is significant that the hon. Member for Clacton is raising this as an issue in his community. This is a moment to pause and ask ourselves what has really happened, and why teenagers and young people so callously take life in this way. It is a criminal justice and enforcement issue, but only in part. There are underlying causes in our society which we must uncover.

There was a time in the 1980s when many of us would have looked across the Atlantic to north America and wondered whether drive-by shootings in cities such as Los Angeles and New York were just part and parcel of life in that country and had to be accepted, or whether the authorities would bear down on the problem and deal with it. Knife crime in this country is at that junction.

When we debate this issue, I think of so many families whom I have comforted in my surgery because they have lost children to knife crime in north London. The names do not now take up whole pages and sections of newspapers, but are small columns because knife crime has become such a regular occurrence in our country. Teon Palmer was 23 when he was stabbed to death in Edmonton last month. Pavel Zekaj was stabbed to death outside Burger King in Wood Green last month. Kevin Duhaney from Bruce Grove in my constituency was stabbed to death in Hackney over a girl, and his mum had to fundraise £7,000 for a funeral. Steven Grisales was 21 when he was stabbed to death on his way to Silver Street station in Edmonton where he was pelted by conkers by a gang of youths.

The case of Godwin Lawson touched me greatly, as did his parents. He was a wonderful and incredibly talented young man who went to a great secondary school. He was just 17 and doing so fantastically well at football that he had been picked by Oxford United. He was training in Oxford to become a great footballer of the next generation, and perhaps to play for Spurs one day. He came back to north London for a weekend to see his family and friends, and when walking innocently down the road in the Stamford Hill area of my constituency he was stabbed to death for no reason other than being on the wrong side of the road and looking in the wrong way at someone in a gang of youths. He lost his life. I pay great tribute to his parents, who set up the Godwin Lawson foundation.

What lies behind such actions? Why are young men—on the whole it is young men, but sometimes it is young women—choosing to pick up knives? Why do they need that weapon? Is something going on in our society in how young men are forming a mature understanding of masculinity? Should we look at that in a more meaningful way? Does it matter that the young men who commit those crimes have so often not had responsible male role models in their lives? Is fatherhood a feature, and are we willing to discuss that, or is it irrelevant that there is an absence of responsible role models, be it a father figure or a school teacher? Does it matter that some of our primary schools have an absence of male teachers? Does it matter that we are living in a society that has made decisions similar to those in the United States of America, which have led us down the road of rampant materialism and consumerism, creating deep feelings of violence and misogyny, and leading to a culture in which whole groups of young men think it is okay to stab someone for no reason? Is that relevant to the debate and, if so, what are we going to do about it? I think it is relevant.

I was deeply disturbed to be contacted by a games console company a few months ago, which was putting together a game for which it was using the Tottenham riots as the backdrop. Is that acceptable? The company rang my office to ask me whether I wanted to feature in the game. What kind of society are we living in if it is okay to profit from something that caused so many Londoners and others across the country so much despair, and indeed, in which five people in Britain lost their lives? Does this matter?

I have come to the view that only five things are the ingredients of a successful society and country: education, employment, community, aspiration and parenting. We have a lot of discussion about education in the House and, although there is still much to do in our schools, my sense is that teachers are doing a hell of a lot, and there has been a great deal of attention on that area of policy.

We see problems when we look at the environments that so many of the young men who are committing this crime come from. They are from some of the toughest housing estates in the country, and particularly, from some of those tower blocks—such as the one that I grew up in; Broadwater Farm in Tottenham—that have gone from being working-class environments to workless-class environments. That workless class is not just about our GDP; it is about the character and dignity that comes from work, and particularly, about what surrounds the masculine culture in the environments that these young men come from and thrive in. If there is a culture of sitting around and doing nothing, then we get decay, and then we get petty criminality. There is a lack of value, particularly as regards women, I might say, so we get domestic violence and so on. We see repercussions from income not coming in. There are neighbourhoods and estates where those things happen. I know—because I have visited them—that those environments are to be found in places such as Essex and Kent, and particularly in some of the seaside towns.

There is the business of aspiration and what one aspires to. Is someone aspiring to have the latest pair of trainers? If they do not have them, are they prepared to stab someone who does, or to break into Foot Locker or JD Sports, as we saw during the riots? What we are aspiring to is hugely important. How do we create a culture in which the idea of aspiration is deeper and more meaningful than some of the frankly lightweight and superficial ideas of it that we see? I do not want to knock shows like “The X Factor”, which I enjoy, but I worry that there is a dominant idea that aspiration relates to being in the public eye, like a pop star, when it can just mean doing meaningful work, and contributing to and raising a family. Those are much simpler notions of what genuine achievement is.

There is also community. One thing that we saw during the riots in Tottenham was that the idea of community is problematic, because there can be communities within communities. There, we saw a community on Blackberry Messenger, which was exclusively made up of young people and was closed—the police could not see it—who communicated with each other and caused mayhem and violence across our country. Communities within communities exist on Facebook, on Twitter and in some unhealthy counter-cultures and sub-cultures that we are tolerating in a world that says, “Choice is everything. You can choose to be in that community or not.” The problem is that if someone’s child is knifed as a consequence of the violence and the obscene ideas of human life that exist in those communities, my God, they wish that someone had intervened in a meaningful way, to give a different vision of what was possible.

Of course, we come back to parenting, recognising that, in the end, two thirds of a young person’s life is spent out of school, so it is not sufficient for us to berate schools and tell them to do all the work. Parents matter, but it is also about recognising that where there is only one parent struggling in one of these housing developments where people are not able to make a living wage, so they cannot be with their kids because they are doing two jobs and do not have the time, that can militate against parenting and against being family. It is also about recognising that far too many of the young people caught up in this problem have been through our care system in this country, where the state was meant to be in loco parentis, but basically failed. That has been captured very well by Plan B in his film “Ill Manors”, which hon. Members should get on DVD, if they have not seen it. It is a good illustration of what goes wrong. I want to emphasise to the hon. Member for Clacton that yes, there is a criminal justice context to this issue, but we have to get to the bottom of some of the reasons for it.

The police, through the gangs initiative that was launched by the Government last year, are doing a lot around enforcement, certainly in communities such as mine. We are seeing many young people who are caught up in gang activity and knife crime being arrested and put through the criminal justice system. The problem is that I am not at all convinced that prison, with its recidivism rates, or Feltham and institutions like it are yet at the point at which I can say with full confidence that young people will come out reformed, and they will not get caught up in crime again. We seldom want to discuss that in the House.

The Mayor of London launched the important Heron initiative in Feltham prison, which was designed to work with young people before they left. There were bespoke services to help young people into employment, to work on drug addiction, and to work on the things that they needed outside, but unfortunately, the results of that were poor. It looks as though the scheme has been scrapped by the Mayor because it was costly, and the payment-by-results method that he hoped would underline it did not work.

There is a lack of ideas in this area. The Mayor said that he wanted to create a generation of mentors, which is hugely important in this area, and I am sure that young people in Clacton will need that. However, if people do not have the time to be a mentor, that is a problem. It is hugely disappointing that although he announced that he wanted 1,000 mentors when he was first elected in 2008, the Mayor has managed to get only 28. That, too, is an area that will need a lot of attention if we are to halt the decline.

I heard what the hon. Gentleman said about stop-and-search. Blanket section 60 notices, as we saw in the run-up to the riots last year, are not the way forward for Britain’s young people. Those notices designate a whole constituency as somewhere that the police can stop and search. In Tottenham, we saw the figure rise from 50 such searches in January 2011 to 237 searches in July of the same year, and we can recognise what is significant about that July, coming, as it did, the month before we saw serious unrest in London.

Doing intelligence-led, informed stop-and-searches is not the problem; the problem is when the police get lazy, frankly, about who they stop and search. We have found in London that the issue is about the police officer distinguishing between a young man on the way to the gym or university wearing a hoodie, and a young man carrying a knife. In the end, in our model of policing—policing by consent—we must carry communities with us. Our policing relies on good young people working with the police and, ultimately, not being in fear of them.

I caution the hon. Gentleman to ask himself whether stop-and-search will help, and to reflect on the underlying causes of the problem. In this era, when there is enforcement activity, the diversion and engagement of young people will be really important. That will require resources, and it will require us to understand fully what works, but it will also require us to be honest about the phenomena in our wider culture that are bringing us closer to the United States than to some of our continental European cousins, and that are driving warped senses of masculinity so that teenagers think that masculinity can be found in a knife or a gang, rather than in watching football or doing something constructive in their local community.

Intercept Evidence

David Lammy Excerpts

Thursday 18th October 2012 Commons Chamber

[Jim Fitzpatrick (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)]

I am very interested in my right hon. Friend’s last point and he is making a powerful case for allowing intercept evidence to be used in court. However, he says that there might be exceptions for counter-terrorism. Might there be exceptions in serious and organised crime cases so that they can be exempt from automatic disclosure? There is a difference between evidence that should be allowable and used in court and cases when authorities need to prevent the source of their evidence from being disclosed to prevent the exposure of how it is obtained.

[Mr Lammy]

My hon. Friend raises a very important point. Of course, serious and organised crime is dealt with by a particular agency and it would be for a Home Secretary to determine whether it would fall within the scope of any provisions.

Let me move on to the other steps that can be taken to ensure that we do not compromise and that we separate the material from the means. Successive Home Secretaries have been concerned about the means, when there is really a need to separate the means from the material provided.

[Sir Alan Beith (Berwick-upon-Tweed) (LD)]

I have great respect for the right hon. Gentleman and for the particular problem that has led him to take this position. I hope, however, that he does not underestimate the complexity of the task—something I have also been engaged in—of finding a way to achieve what we all agree is desirable. A combination of the disclosure requirements that operate in English courts, and article 6 of the European convention on human rights, could lead to massive requirements for retention and transcribing, and that could impair the operating efficiency of our security and intelligence services.

[Mr Lammy]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman who I know has huge experience in these matters. Inquests have been with us since shortly after the Domesday Book, and if other major jurisdictions can crack this complexity, surely we in our developed democracy should be able to do the same.

Surveillance evidence has long been admissible in court. The police can eavesdrop on a conversation in a pub, and use the evidence in court. Someone’s phone conversation can be recorded on a microphone hidden under a desk and played back in court. If something is recorded, it is fine. There is only a problem if the conversation is contemporaneous, which seems strange.

If someone’s call is intercepted in a foreign country where intercept evidence is admissible—that is the case in every country other than the United Kingdom—that material can come before the courts. That is absurd. If sensitive material gathered by any other means can be heard in court, from transcripts of telephone surveillance to the account of an informant—informants are obviously important in this context—why can we not find a way to make contemporaneous intercept evidence admissible, handling the sensitivity of that material with due care?

We must dispose of the notion that intercept evidence is categorically more sensitive than evidence gathered by other means such as surveillance or informants. Evidence of any other kind is handled based on the sensitivity of the material, but that is not so with intercept evidence, which is the only evidence that has a blanket, categorical ban. In practice, it means that evidence from a phone interception of a conversation detailing a planned robbery is categorically inadmissible in court. At the same time, detection of a human trafficking ring through highly sensitive material provided by an informant faces no such categorical ban.

Of course, no hon. Member would wish to compromise the gathering of intelligence, but I wish to put to one side the notion that because maintaining records of intercept evidence may require logistical consideration, it is not worth doing. If intercept evidence recorded in another country is good enough for the eyes and ears of the British public, how can we maintain the position that evidence intercepted on our soil is not? If America, Canada and Australia allow intercept material to be used in court, one might suppose that the logistical hurdles are not insurmountable.

It simply does not hold true that removing the ban imposed by section 17 of RIPA would hamper the secret services from developing interception technology without exposing their methods to the public. Admitting intercept evidence in court would not restrict the way such evidence is collected any more than existing legislation. The British justice system already has a system that allows prosecutors to disclose material without disclosing its source. Given the strong similarity between admissible surveillance evidence and inadmissible intercept evidence, surely a similar system of disclosure could be applied. Indeed, a framework for making intercept evidence permissible in court already exists in public interest immunity plus. Public interest immunity is already used in cases where admissible surveillance data are heard. I see no reason why a similar safeguard cannot be applied to intercept evidence that has been made admissible in court. As with all difficult tasks, implementing a comprehensive safeguard will not be straightforward, but we cannot afford to give up on challenging the ban.

Yes, the Government have received legal advice against public interest immunity plus in the light of European Court of Human Rights rulings on similar cases from Finland in 2008, and public interest immunity may need refining, but to take the ECHR rulings as a definitive rejection of the principle of a Home Secretary or senior judge assessing the material and deciding which bit is relevant would go too far.

The alternative in amending the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 would allow a coroner to fulfil their role in determining the cause of death in mysterious circumstances. Such amendments were proposed in the Lords to the Coroners and Justice Act 2009. They proposed that the coroner nominated by the chief coroner should be able to see the intercept material and make a decision on its disclosure. Material would only be redacted when strictly necessary and in proportion to the public interest. If we wanted to go further, we could confine the role to the senior coroner in such cases.

I am not concerned with the question whether the state should intercept private communications between individuals. My concern lies with the ludicrous situation that there is a statutory ban on using material gathered through interception in court, despite a clear legal case for admitting it. That is a bizarre situation that leaves a family in my constituency without a full inquest into the death of their son more than a year since he was killed. That stubbornness might prevent there ever being an inquest into the death of Mark Duggan. That is unconscionable following the scenes of last August.

As it stands, section 17 represents legislation that obstructs, restricts and obfuscates—bad legislation. It is the House’s duty to return to the matter. Will the Minister say when Chilcot will end the reviewing period—it seems to have gone on for ever? The arrangements are small but necessary, and I hope we can make them. I do not want to compromise the important interception work that is done in cases throughout the country, but we should at least allow a senior coroner or judge, or the Home Secretary, through the use of public interest immunity, to look at the material and redact what is necessary to ensure that the means are not compromised.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Lammy]

I am grateful for the support I have received from across the House. I do not think that an inquiry is the way forward in a case of this magnitude and given the nature of an inquest. However, I have heard the Minister’s remarks about the inquest powers of a judge alongside a coroner, and I will look into that.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House notes with concern that the inquest into the death of Mark Duggan may never commence under the current arrangements for the use of intercept evidence in courts and inquests; and calls on the Government to review its approach to open justice, in particular the use of intercept evidence in courts and inquests.

Riot (Damages) Act

David Lammy Excerpts

Monday 14th May 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab)]

I am very grateful to have the opportunity today to debate this issue, which is very important to my constituents and, I suspect, to many others in London. All of us in this House tonight, and others beyond, have insurance. We value our homes, our possessions and all the things we have worked hard to accumulate, and it is natural that we seek to protect them. Insurance exists to cover unforeseen events. Some events are more unforeseen than others. Although burglaries, house fires and floods are unfortunate in the extreme, they are all possibilities that insurance is intended to cover and they are, to some extent, foreseeable.

Living in a stable democracy such as ours, it is often easy to take the rule of law for granted. Last August, we saw that rule break down, with rioters destroying the homes and businesses of their neighbours, robbing them of not only their property, but their livelihood. In that context, it is the role of the police to maintain order, so it is to the police that we look when that has failed and we have paid the price for failure. Were the police and the state not to foot the bill, the costs would be passed to individuals and traders. That would result in rising premiums and entire communities losing out. It was not the fault of those who saw the riots, so it is right that the state helps to bring them back to a position where they can get on with their lives.

This evening, I wish to discuss four issues, the first of which is the overly bureaucratic and unprofessional manner in which the Riot (Damages) Act 1886 has been administered. The second is the hypocrisy of Ministers, the Mayor of London and even the Prime Minister himself in promising to support Tottenham’s riot damages—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. May I say to the right hon. Gentleman that he should not refer to identified Ministers using the word “hypocrisy”? He is a versatile individual and he has an extensive vocabulary. I am sure that he can find another way to make his point, and I trust that he will now do so.

[Mr Lammy]

I am grateful for that, Mr Speaker. May I therefore refer to the extreme inconsistency between the statements made to this House and the promises made to victims shortly after the riots by those I referred to, and what we actually see taking place?

The third issue I wish to discuss is that, under the coalition that champions the big society, philanthropic donations are now counted against riot compensation claims. Finally, I wish to draw attention to the differential treatment afforded to the Metropolitan police compared with that offered to police authorities in Merseyside, Manchester and Salford.

Although this debate draws on the experiences of riot victims in my constituency, I know for a fact that Members in other riot areas have been affected, and many are in the House as I speak. This is not the first time that compensation for riot victims has been discussed in the Commons. Some nine months ago, the Prime Minister made two promises, neither of which he has honoured. To the victims of the riots he proclaimed,

“we will help you repair the damage, get your businesses back up and running and support your communities.”

In the same debate, the Prime Minister promised that the Government would

“ensure the police have the funds they need to meet the cost of any legitimate claims”.—[Official Report, 11 August 2011; Vol. 531, c. 1053.]

Seven months later, the Leader of the Opposition pressed the Prime Minister, demanding that he provide proper, clear information about the processing of claims. I, for one, have heard nothing about that. The Prime Minister promised to put the process details in the House of Commons Library after that discussion with the Leader of the Opposition. I therefore ask the Minister when the Prime Minister intends to provide the House of Commons Library with that information.

Between 6 and 10 August 2011, more than 5,000 crimes were committed including five fatalities, 1,860 incidents of arson and criminal damage and 1,649 burglaries, 141 incidents of disorder and 366 incidents of violence against the person. In London alone, more than 171 residential and 100 commercial buildings were affected by fire at a cost of millions. The disturbances last August saw thousands of shops damaged and there were more than 3,800 claims under the Riot (Damages) Act in London alone, with liabilities estimated to be between £200 million and £300 million.

Some shop owners had insurance, of course, but others did not. In that regard the Act represents an important means of financial support. Sevill Hassan, who owns a hair salon on Tottenham High road, was away on holiday when the riots broke out in August. She returned to find her shop front damaged and equipment stolen and looted. She was between insurers at the time of the riots and had not yet sent off her cheque to her new insurer. Sevill did manage eventually to secure a £3,000 payment under the Act, but 18 months later she is still struggling to keep her business afloat.

Despite being labelled by many as arcane and out of date, the Riot (Damages) Act can and in many cases has helped victims of riots, particularly individuals and small businesses without a property insurance policy thanks to a clause added to the Act following the Brixton and Toxteth riots of 1981. Indeed, the Act was used as recently as 2001, following the Bradford riots, and so although the original Act might date back to 1886, there is no excuse for the Home Office’s failure to administer it in a clear and efficient way.

When one speaks to individuals and businesses who have submitted claims through the Act, its limitations become apparent. A number of the limitations relate to the manner in which it is administered and the majority could have been avoided or minimised had the insurance industry processed its own claims. Why have the Home Office and the Metropolitan police been unable to process their claims as successfully? Perhaps that is why, when representatives of the insurance industry went to the Home Office on 18 August, after the riots, they offered to do the job for the Met. Why was that offer from the Association of British Insurers and the industry rejected out of hand? The industry processes claims every day of the week, but the Department said, “Oh no, we can do it.” Nine months later, that has not happened.

Loss adjusters were appointed by the Home Office to manage claims. On making their claims, a number of individuals were treated insensitively by insurers and loss adjusters, many of whom failed to appreciate the devastating impact of the damage caused during the riots. Victims of the riots tell me that they were asked to provide receipts, and ask how they can do so when their business has burnt to the ground. That was the insensitivity shown to them. I have heard from traders in Tottenham who claim to have been treated like criminals, rather than victims of crime.

People with insurance were able to claim directly through their insurers, but in a constituency such as mine many people found themselves having to submit through the Act—if they were underinsured, for example. That is why this is so important. The Home Office did well to extend the period in which to make a claim from 30 to 42 days, following lobbying from the ABI. However, it took a long time to update the claim form from the 1800s. Many constituents were unable to understand the archaic language and the requirements, or did not know whether to use the form at all. As of 9 May, the Metropolitan police had received a total of 3,427 claims. Just over a quarter of those claims—912 of them—have been settled to date, and a total of just over £6 million has been paid out to victims. That works out at an average of just £7,000 per claim. There are 707 ongoing claims. I can only assume that the remaining 1,800 claims —52% of claims received—were rejected. I would be interested to know whether the Minister can reconcile the figures and say what has happened to the claims that have not been dealt with.

[Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab)]

My right hon. Friend is making a powerful speech on behalf of his constituents. Does he share my concern that some people, including my constituents Sue Murphy and Peter Turnbull, whose car was smashed up by the group who attacked Nottingham’s Canning Circus police station, are being offered nothing more than warm words by the Government, because vehicles are not covered by the Act? Should the Government not have done more?

[Mr Lammy]

Yes, and my hon. Friend will recall the burned-out cars on Tottenham’s High road. Many of my constituents have raised the same point. That is why we need an updated Act. I hope that the Government will not recoil from having an Act at all, because it is important that in such circumstances, victims are compensated by the state.

My hon. Friend will also recall that on 27 February, Boris Johnson said:

“All uninsured claims submitted under the Riot Damages Act have been processed through a bureau set up by the Home Office.”

He said that Met

“officers have been instructed to treat these applications as a matter of priority and they guarantee that once a completed and documented claim is received, an offer (Discharge Form) will be sent within five working days.”

For more than 707 people in London, that has not happened, so why was that claim made in February? Bad bureaucracy and poor administration is more than inefficiency; it prevents business owners, many of whom have dedicated their working lives to running a business, from picking up the pieces and moving on. For many riot victims—I stress that they are victims, not simply clients—an unprocessed claim form means a loss of income, sleepless nights and the brutal reality of losing a business or shutting up shop.

The Minister knows my constituency well. I have had constituents who have ended up having heart attacks as a result of their business going under with no compensation. That is how serious this is for small businesses, which are finding things hard because of the double-dip recession.

In response to questions on 13 March, the Home Office Minister, Lord Henley, told peers that 90% of businesses and individuals who had insurance had “received full or part” compensation. By the same date, just over half of uninsured victims had received money under the Riot (Damages) Act. Why the discrepancy between those who had insurance and had their claims processed by private insurers on the one hand, and those who were reliant on the state on the other? Their experience was completely different. It is often the most deprived, and those with the most marginal businesses, who are still waiting to receive money. That includes, of course, home owners who are relying on the Act. Given that both insured and uninsured businesses were victims, how does the Home Office justify the discrepancy in their treatment? If private insurers were able to process claims more efficiently, why did the Home Office decline the offer from the ABI?

Does the Prime Minister agree that nearly eight months after the riots, it is unacceptable that only half of the uninsured claims in London have been paid out? Nine months on, there is a significant lack of information in the public domain regarding processing and payment of the claims. Unfortunately, no statistics on claims made in Tottenham have been released. Many aspects of the Act are still shrouded in mystery. There is a significant grey area surrounding the relationship between philanthropic donations and compensation received under the Act. According to the Act, all philanthropic donations should be deducted from the eventual compensation settlement.

I want to pay tribute to the work of people such as Sir Bill Castell and the Prince of Wales, both of whom rang me up within hours of the riots, offering their help. Sir Bill set up a big high street fund, working with big business to help small business, only to find that that money has now been offset against the Riot (Damages) Act. Either we believe in the big society or we do not. What is the answer? What kind of society are we living in, when many victims of the riots who have had barely a few hundred pounds from that grant are still waiting for payment to get their businesses back on track?

People say to me that when we see a tsunami or an earthquake in a developing country, we are able to act and get the funds there. Why is it any different in a major democracy and a major developed country such as ours? It must be totally unacceptable that nine months later people are expected to wait. Of course they are not waiting. They are seeing their businesses destroyed and the high road lose its vibrancy. They are feeling abandoned. I remind the Minister that the cry that we heard after the riots right across the country was, “Where are the police? Where are they?” Now we are hearing a similar cry, and I hope the media will remain true to those people and continue to press their case. They want to know where the state is, or have we rolled the state back so far that for true victims it no longer exists?

Can the Minister assure me that measures will be taken to ensure that individuals and organisations are not put off making philanthropic donations to businesses affected by the riots, given the situation that we are in? Can the Prime Minister assure the House that information on payments made under the Riot (Damages) Act, as he said to the Leader of the Opposition, will be put in the House of Commons Library or, as he said, that he will return to the House to make a statement as swiftly as possible? I want to allow the Minister ample time to come back to me on these points, but I end by reminding her of the case of Niche Mufwankolo, who is the landlord of the Pride of Tottenham pub.

On the night of the riots, Niche fled through an upstairs window, while downstairs rioters smashed windows, looted televisions, broke and stole his sound system and set fire to furniture. He escaped from the roof of his pub at knifepoint, and the Metropolitan Police Authority responded to him by offering just £22,000 of compensation, some £70,000 less than the claim that Niche had submitted. It should be noted that VAT was excluded from claims relating to building damage, loss and damage of contents and loss of stock, just one of the reasons given for Niche’s payout being dramatically less than anticipated. To add insult to injury, the Met lost the original invoices submitted by Niche, preventing him from making further claims.

There is a huge disincentive to appeal against any offer of compensation, as people have been waiting for months to get back on their feet, and small businesses do not have the time to be caught up in such bureaucracy.

Many of us will have had different views about those involved in the riots, but I hope that all of us support the victims. That is why I have brought the debate to the House this evening. I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say.

Stephen Lawrence

David Lammy Excerpts

Tuesday 24th April 2012 Commons Chamber

[James Brokenshire]

I certainly pay tribute to the work of the Lawrence family. As I think I said in my opening response, I am sure that if it were not for their tireless fight for justice, we would not have seen the convictions that we have. I do not want to speculate on what the response may be once we see the outcome of the response from the Metropolitan Police Service. However, let me say to my right hon. Friend that the Government take the issue of corruption in the police service extremely seriously. That is why we have established the Leveson inquiry, why the Home Secretary commissioned the Independent Police Complaints Commission to provide a report on corruption in the police service, and why she commissioned Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary to consider instances of undue influence, inappropriate arrangements and other abuses of power in police relationships.

[Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab)]

Will the Minister update the House on investigations involving the other defendants in the original trial? Will he also say why the Home Secretary has such confidence in an internal review given all that has happened in the Met in relation to allegations of corruption, and why in this case it is not thought that the IPCC should be engaged in any review?

[James Brokenshire]

In response to the right hon. Gentleman’s first question, what I can say is that the police have been very clear that investigations in relation to this matter continue, and it is right and proper that all appropriate lines of inquiry are followed through. I say in response to his second question that I think it is appropriate for the Metropolitan Police Service to be able to look at this matter and provide a response, and then for the Home Secretary to determine what the next steps should be.

Oral Answers to Questions

David Lammy Excerpts

Monday 19th March 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab)]

The Home Secretary will recall that, following the riots last summer, there was widespread concern about the absence of policing, the police being outfoxed by technology, particularly BlackBerry Messenger, and an absence of intelligence. Following the Kirkin report, what will change, this summer and next?

[Mrs May]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for raising an important point about the policing of the riots last summer. Following the riots, I brought together representatives of the Metropolitan police, the Association of Chief Police Officers, BlackBerry, Twitter and Facebook to look at the use of social media and social networks during the riots. Further discussions are taking place between ACPO, the individual forces and those organisations to ensure that the police are in a better position to deal with the wealth of information that becomes available on those social networks.

Oral Answers to Questions

David Lammy Excerpts

Monday 12th December 2011 Commons Chamber

[The Minister for Immigration (Damian Green)]

As my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary said a few minutes ago, the number of colleges that did not register when the new proper accreditation system came in was more than 470. Some but not all of those will have been bogus colleges, so we have swept away a vast raft of bogus colleges. Reputable colleges can now be assured that we have a proper accreditation system. If they satisfy that system, their students and the wider community will know that they are genuine colleges.

[Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab)]

I wrote to the Secretary of State two weeks ago asking her to review the Independent Police Complaints Commission’s handling of the Mark Duggan case. Given the catastrophe that was this morning’s pre-hearing inquest and the family’s declaring no public confidence in the IPCC, will she now look at its handling of the case and the thoroughness of this investigation?

[Nick Herbert]

I have just replied to the right hon. Gentleman. I have spoken to the acting chairman of the IPCC about the matter and the investigation, and he has assured me about the investigation’s integrity. We therefore see no reason at the moment to order any review. It is important that the investigation takes its course properly.

Oral Answers to Questions

David Lammy Excerpts

Monday 7th November 2011 Commons Chamber

[Damian Green]

I am delighted to welcome the hon. Gentleman to his position as shadow Minister for Immigration. I remember fondly when, in government, he talked about the

“huff and puff in many of the tabloid newspapers”—[Official Report, 16 June 2003; Vol. 407, c. 15.]

complaining about immigration. I am sure that he will provide a lot of that in future years. I am sorry, but I have already answered his question. It is the way in which we use people that makes our borders more secure. I suggest that he pauses before he keeps using the phrase about waving people through, because nobody has been waved through the border. However, under the previous Government, as he will hear from the Home Secretary later, people were waved through.

[Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab)]

12. What assessment she has made of the effectiveness of policing in Tottenham on the first night of the public disorder of August 2011, following the Metropolitan Police Service statement of 24 October 2011.

[The Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice (Nick Herbert)]

My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has commissioned the chief inspector of constabulary, Sir Denis O’Connor, to undertake an urgent review of public order policing in the five forces most affected by the disorder, which we expect to receive shortly. We will ensure that the lessons from that review are taken forward.

[Mr Lammy]

I am surprised that the Minister did not comment on the statement of the Metropolitan police, which said that their policing on the first night of the riots was not good at all. He will recognise the frustration and anger in Tottenham at the scale of the damage to Tottenham High road. What will he and his Department do to encourage other Departments to ensure that my constituency is regenerated?

[Nick Herbert]

I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman realises that it is right for us to wait for the report by the independent inspectorate and to take careful note of what it says about the policing that took place. Clearly things did go wrong and we have to learn the lessons. The Government are committed to doing so as, I am sure, are the Metropolitan police. As the Prime Minister has made clear, this is not just about the security response, but about the social response and the preventive measures, which I know the right hon. Gentleman is keen to promote, that can deal with this situation and stop such things happening again.

Public Disorder

David Lammy Excerpts

Thursday 11th August 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab)]

The events of last week started with the death of Mark Duggan, one of my constituents, during a police operation. In the immediate aftermath of the incident, there were reports of an exchange of fire between Mr Duggan and the police. We now know that two shots were fired and that they both came from police weapons. A grieving family and my constituents deserve to know the truth about what happened that night. The IPCC investigation must be thorough; it must be open; and it must be seen to be independent.

Other serious questions need answering. Why did the Duggan family first hear about the death of their son not from a police officer, but when the news was broadcast on national television? Why, when they arrived at Tottenham police station to ask questions and to stage a peaceful protest, were they made to wait for five hours before a senior police officer was made available to them? Why, when that peaceful protest was hijacked by violent elements, were a few skirmishes allowed to become a full-scale riot, with far-reaching consequences? Mistakes have been made by the Metropolitan police, and this must be subject to a full public inquiry.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Lammy]

I will not give way; forgive me.

On Sunday morning, I stood amid the burning embers of Tottenham High road. There is no connection between the death of a young man and the torching of the homes of Stuart Radose and 25 other families in the Carpetright building. There is no connection between the treatment of the Duggan family and Niche, the landlord of the Spirit of Tottenham, being held at knifepoint while his pub was ransacked. I could go on. This violence was criminal, and we condemn it utterly.

Tottenham has brave and very resilient people—I have no doubt that we will get through this together—but as the TV cameras begin to move out, I urge the Government and the House not to forget the people of Tottenham. In the House and beyond, we must also begin a much more difficult discussion: we must address why boys and girls aged as young as 11 engage in the kind of violent and destructive behaviour witnessed this week, and as we do so, I urge hon. Members on both sides to avoid reaching for easy slogans and solutions.

These riots cannot be explained away simply by poverty or cuts to public services. The fact that the vast majority of young men from poor areas did not take part in the violence is proof of that. Many young men showed restraint and respect for others, because they have grown up with social boundaries and a moral code. They have been taught how to delay gratification and to empathise with others rather than terrorise them. Those values were shaped by parents, teachers and our neighbours.

[Andrew Selous (South West Bedfordshire) (Con)]

The right hon. Gentleman and I are both members of the all-party group on fatherhood. Does he agree that we can do more to encourage fathers to be committed to the mothers of their children and to their children?

[Mr Lammy]

I certainly agree that that is the major issue this country must confront, but a “Grand Theft Auto” culture that glamorises violence must also be confronted; a consumer culture fixated on brands that we wear rather than on who we are and what we achieve must be confronted; a gang culture with warped notions of loyalty, respect and honour must also be confronted. A civilised society should be policed not just by uniformed officers, but by notions of pride and shame and of responsibility towards others. In this House and beyond, we have some deep thinking to do about what that means.

Although that is true, there is another side to the story. On Tuesday, the Prime Minister warned that those involved in the rioting were risking their own futures. I am afraid the problem is far greater than that. Those lashing out—randomly, cruelly and violently—feel that they have nothing to lose. They do not feel bound by the moral code that the rest of society adheres to; they do not feel part of the rest of society. We cannot live in a society where the banks are too big to fail, but whole neighbourhoods are allowed to sink without trace. The problems of those neighbourhoods have not emerged overnight, but the events of the past week are a wake-up call.

Following the race riots 10 years ago, the Cantle report warned of white and black communities living “parallel lives”. Today the same is true, but the polarisation is not between black and white; it is between those who have a stake in society and those who do not; those who can see a future through education and those who cannot; those who can imagine doing a job that is respected and well paid and those who cannot; those who might one day own their own home and those who will not.

I repeat that nothing justifies what we have seen this week, but I remember what it means to grow up poor, to live without a father as a role model, to feel frustrated and angry about my circumstances, to want to lash out and to consider the idea of picking up a bottle and joining in with the crowd. I was steered away from those things by my mother, by an elder brother, by my pastor, by great teachers, role models and youth workers, and I thank them all for that, but I was also steered away by the promise of something different—by the idea that, one day, I might go to university and get a decent job. That idea is what we have to realise for so many people in the coming weeks, months and years.

Higher Education (Student Visas)

David Lammy Excerpts

Tuesday 8th February 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Bacon]

I will not give way. I am sorry, but I must make some progress, because I must leave time for the Minister to answer and this is only a half-hour debate.

The UK higher education sector is a major export in a market that is set to grow rapidly. Professor Steve Smith of Universities UK told the Select Committee on Home Affairs that higher education is by some estimates the seventh largest export sector in the UK—others have put it as high as the third largest—and the market is growing by 7% a year. As the Home Secretary has pointed out, the combination of international fee income and personal off-campus expenditure by international higher education students alone already approaches £5 billion. That has become a vital income stream for universities and for the wider economy.

As I have mentioned, Professor Edward Acton told the Home Affairs Committee:

“In a tricky funding period, most universities plan to expand international numbers in the immediate future. The ability to do so reflects and enhances the performance and reputation of UK HE internationally: it is a Performance Indicator in international league tables. Culturally, the international student presence is key to ensuring our Home students prepare for and excel in a global graduate market”.

The UK’s international alumni provide a healthy anglophile network among public and private decision makers in every one of our trading partners. The key question for universities is whether the Government intend to promote or restrict our recruitment of bona fide non-EU students in higher education. As Professor Acton stated in his submission to the Home Affairs Committee:

“The answer might seem obvious, so forthright are No. 10, the Foreign Office and BIS on the matter and so vast are the economic, financial and cultural benefits to universities and the country.”

The Foreign Secretary announced in January that

“as British Ministers fan out across the world in the months to come we will be promoting British education as well as our economy as a whole.”

On his recent Asian trip, the Prime Minister emphasised

“how much we want to welcome international students to Britain”

and that international students are a

“great way of forming a partnership between our countries”.

Professor Acton and Universities UK fear that the UK Border Agency is set on a course which, if it is not altered, will drastically reduce legitimate higher education recruitment with a grave threat to pre-university pathway courses, which produce an income for universities of £1 billion a year. It is very important at this point to distinguish, as Professor Acton does in his paper, between sub-degree courses and pre-university pathway courses.

The Minister will know that the international passenger survey is deeply flawed and that the Treasury Committee said three years ago that it was not fit for purpose if that purpose was to play a central role in estimating international migration. I urge him to continue engaging with the universities sector, which has offered to pay for speedy research to provide the conclusive cross-check suggested by Professor Acton in his paper. We cannot wait for several years while e-Borders gets sorted—we need action sooner than that. The Select Committee has explored these matters in depth and raised many interesting issues, such as the role of accreditation bodies and whether they should be merged, the place of post-work study and the requirement or otherwise to return to one’s home country. However, I shall not dwell on those issues because there is precious little time left.

I shall concentrate on just two issues, the first of which is pre-university pathway courses. Yesterday, I visited the highly impressive £38 million INTO building at the university of East Anglia, which provides pathway courses for 700 students each year, half of whom go on to study for degrees at UEA and about half of whom go on to university studies elsewhere. That aspect of university provision is now a critical part of the international offer. Many countries do not have the equivalent of a second-year A-level and their students simply are not ready to start a university degree course without further preparation. In providing such preparation, universities such as UEA are taking a sensible entrepreneurial step to safeguard their future growth and to help safeguard the UK’s higher education market and make sure that it prospers.

The second issue, which relates to the intervention of my hon. Friend the Member for Poole (Mr Syms), is the importance of the English language in the mix. At a time when French universities have started offering university courses in the English language because of the richness of the potential English-language instruction market, I need hardly stress how important it is for the UK not to damage inadvertently that market in the UK. I can speak personally for the adage that there is no place to learn a language as good as the country concerned. I was a student in Berlin, where I attended lectures in English and German, and I acquired a new respect for any student studying overseas in a language that is not their mother tongue. That is an extraordinarily difficult thing to do without help. We are spoilt in the UK because English is the world’s language of business and academia. We are so used to hearing a high standard of English among educated northern Europeans such as Swedes, Germans and Dutch—at the B2 standard or higher—that we assume it is easily attainable, but it is not. Those countries have invested a huge amount over many years to get to where they are now. The B2 standard of English is not often achieved in southern Europe and is seldom achieved in east Asia. Any measures that include a requirement for a B2 standard of English as a condition of entry will have a significant, damaging effect on the market for overseas students coming to the UK.

This goes beyond language. UEA has developed the innovative Newton programme in which overseas students come to the UK to do A-levels in the sciences, mathematics and economics in a university environment and have the opportunity to attend lectures with university undergraduates in those disciplines. That is a great way of marketing the university overseas and attracts some of the highest calibre students. If there were ever an area that cried out for joined-up government it is this.

I really want to hear from the Minister on one issue above any other: do the Government intend to promote or reduce the UK’s recruitment of bona fide non-EU students in higher education? We have to get out of a big hole. It is simply critical, at a time when the Government are asking universities to be more entrepreneurial, to seek out new customers and to offer new courses that meet the needs of those customers; and at a time when the whole economy needs a lift, which the university sector can provide, that the right hand and the left hand of our Government each know what the other is doing and that we do not inadvertently choke off what should be a crucial part of this country’s recovery.

Temporary Immigration Cap

David Lammy Excerpts

Monday 20th December 2010 Commons Chamber

[Damian Green]

I shall be happy to do so, Mr. Speaker. The Government’s policy is to operate an immigration cap, and to operate an interim cap on the way to a permanent cap as part of a much wider set of measures that will bring immigration down to sustainable levels. The only thing that I can say about the previous Government’s policies is that immigration was running at totally unsustainable levels, causing social tension and pressures throughout the country. I am surprised that the shadow Home Secretary did not take the opportunity to apologise for that.

[Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab)]

Did the Minister consult the Attorney-General? Given that he has said he is going to reimpose the cap, can he now tell us what the status is of those who have applied during the period?

[Damian Green]

This is the third time I have been asked that question, and I will give the same answer for the third time. Until we get the details of the judgment we do not even know whether we will appeal against it, so until then it is impossible to discuss sensibly the status of those who applied and were turned down between July and now. [Interruption.] As I have said, Labour Members can keep asking that question, but they will keep getting the same, truthful, answer.