Parliamentary Debates (Hansard)
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Friday Volume 605 5 February 2016 No. 112 HOUSE OF COMMONS OFFICIAL REPORT PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES (HANSARD) Friday 5 February 2016 £5·00 © Parliamentary Copyright House of Commons 2016 This publication may be reproduced under the terms of the Open Parliament licence, which is published at www.parliament.uk/site-information/copyright/. 1199 5 FEBRUARY 2016 1200 House of Commons Riot Compensation Bill Consideration of Bill, not amended in the Public Bill Committee. Friday 5 February 2016 Clause 3 REGULATIONS ABOUT CLAIMS PROCEDURE The House met at half-past Nine o’clock 9.34 am Mike Wood (Dudley South) (Con): I beg to move PRAYERS amendment 1, page 3, line 16, at end insert— ‘( ) Regulations under subsection (3)(b) or (3)(d) must provide that— [MR SPEAKER in the Chair] (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 DEATH OF A MEMBER date the claimant first made the claim.” Mr Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Mr Speaker: It is with great sadness that I must the following: report to the House the death of Harry Harpham, the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough. Amendment 2, in clause 8, page 5, line 23, at end Harry entered the House at the last general election, insert following careers as a miner, a researcher for David “, except in the circumstances described in subsection (2A). Blunkett, now Lord Blunkett, and a representative of ‘(2A) Where a claimant’s home is rendered uninhabitable, the the National Union of Mineworkers at Clipstone colliery. amount of compensation may reflect costs that the claimant Harry was also a councillor on Sheffield City Council incurs as a result of needing alternative accommodation.” for 15 years, holding important cabinet responsibilities Amendment 3, in clause 8, page 5, line 26, at end in that time, and serving as deputy leader of the council. insert— Harry was a diligent constituency Member of Parliament, ‘( ) considerations that decision-makers must take into account who held the Executive to account on behalf of his in deciding the amount of compensation payable as a result of a constituents. Most recently, on Wednesday 20 January, claimant needing alternative accommodation (and the he asked the Prime Minister what support the Government regulations may include provision limiting the amount of time were providing to world-class companies such as Sheffield for which the costs of alternative accommodation may be Forgemasters. claimed),” Amendment 8, in clause 8, page 5, line 29, at end I must tell the House that Harry informed me a few insert— weeks ago of his circumstances. Let it be recorded that he first fought bravely his illness, and then bore it with ‘(3A) Money received by the claimant from emergency or stoicism and fortitude, continuing to battle on behalf of recovery funds, whether funded publicly or privately, in the his constituents to the very end. Harry will be sadly aftermath of a riot must not be taken into account by the decision maker when deciding the amount of compensation to be missed by us all, and our thoughts are with Harry’s paid. wife, Gill, and the wider family at this very sad time. This amendment would ensure that money received by the claimant for the purposes of emergency relief or recovery in the immediate Mr David Nuttall (Bury North) (Con): On a point of aftermath of a riot is not seen in the same category as order, Mr Speaker. As the House knows, I come from compensation under the purposes of this Bill and therefore reduce Sheffield, which is where I was born and brought up, so the amount a claimant might receive. I associate myself—as, I am sure, does the whole House— with your remarks. I offer my condolences to the family Mike Wood: May I convey my sympathies and add to of Harry Harpham and to all those who knew him. It is the tributes that you paid to Harry Harpham, Mr Speaker? a tragedy that he spent so little time with us in this I know that the sympathies of all right hon. and hon. House, and that we have been robbed of his help and Members will be with his family and friends at this advice. We will all mourn his loss today. 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 Mr Speaker: I thank the hon. Gentleman for what he were tabled by the right hon. Member for Tottenham has appropriately and graciously said. (Mr Lammy) but not voted on in Committee, and it seeks to clarify and extend the time limit allowed for Mr Nuttall: On a further point of order, I beg to someone to communicate their intention to make a move, That the House sit in private. claim, and the provision of details, evidence and support of such a claim following a riot. Following concerns Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 163), and raised in Committee, the amendment would allow a negatived. 42-day period as originally set out in the Bill, but it clarifies that that is from the date of the riot. As Ministers 1201 Riot Compensation Bill5 FEBRUARY 2016 Riot Compensation Bill 1202 [Mike Wood] through the compensation scheme. It would certainly not be right for such payments to be deducted from have made clear, that time limit should come with some compensation due under the Bill. flexibility, and I hope that in interpreting the date of the riot, authorities will have the good sense to show flexibility 9.45 am in making that date start at the end of the riot where That said, while I strongly support what the right appropriate, rather than necessarily the date on which hon. Member for Tottenham seeks to achieve, I cannot the damage was suffered. support his amendment because I do not think it would The main change in amendment 1 relates to the be right to extend the assurances given by Ministers in second period: the 90 days from the date the claimant relation to private funds to also cover public payments, first made the claim. That would mean, potentially, a whether from local government or central Government. minimum of 132 days from the date of loss in which we Having spoken to the right hon. Gentleman, I know expect businesses or residents to submit details of their that a particular concern is where funds, particularly claim and to provide the evidence to support it. I hope business-led, have been set up in the private sector and that that will provide some reassurance to Members initial funding has come from contributions by local who raised concerns in earlier stages. authorities. Amendments 2 and 3 were tabled following comments Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab): I am grateful made on Second Reading and in Committee, and for the manner with which the hon. Gentleman is representations made directly to me outside the Chamber, putting his points. Central Government or local government in particular by the right hon. Member for Tottenham will often put up the money to persuade big business to and my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon Central get engaged, because businesses want to see match (Gavin Barwell). As I made clear on Second Reading, funding. In those circumstances, I am concerned that while there are very good reasons for excluding that money will then be counted against those who go consequential losses from the claims that can be made on to claim compensation. against the police in the event of a riot, concerns were Mike Wood: The right hon. Gentleman makes an raised about what would happen if people’s homes were extremely important point, one with which I think we left uninhabitable following a riot. Social tenants would would all agree. That is why, to make sure that in that usually be rehoused and for owner-occupiers with building kind of joint venture we do not preclude local authorities and contents insurance, the insurance would normally or central Government from contributing to what are pay for the additional costs of rehousing. However, that essentially private, business-led appeals, I would not would still leave a significant number of people, particularly expect that kind of fund to be deducted from riot in the private rented sector, who could find themselves, compensation payments. This is not a black and white through absolutely no fault of their own, having to find issue, however, and to clarify the issue there are points new housing. They could struggle to find new housing in the spectrum where that kind of detail is far better at the same cost as their current mortgage or rent, and placed within regulations rather than in a clause of this that is what amendments 2 and 3 intend to tackle. They kind in the Bill. I therefore cannot support the amendment. seek to cover the costs of alternative accommodation, It is sensible that payments from public funds should whether in a bed and breakfast, a hotel or other short-term not be provided for the same purpose twice, because we rent. Amendment 3 clarifies that and allows the regulation have a duty to limit unnecessary burdens on the taxpayer. that could include in the provision time limits for such The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right in saying additional costs.