House of Commons Hansard Debates for 23 May 1991

Column 1063

dangerous dogs and to ensure that they are muzzled. The Minister should consider that act with the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.

It is also important to introduce a compulsory insurance scheme against third-party accidents. The dog registration scheme is important. The Telegraph and Argus does not always endorse my point of view, but in a useful editorial it stated :

"It should not be forgotten Ministers are responsible for the fact that the law over dog control is in a mess. Nicholas Ridley, when Environment Secretary, abolished the dog licence because the fee had been left unchanged for so long that it was costing more to collect than it brought in for the Government Because of their obsession with cutting official controls"--

the Government--

"opposed the alternative of modernising the dog licence by raising the fee to a sensible level with a national computer register of owners and exemptions for special cases like guide dogs for the blind. The money would have been given to local authorities to employ more dog wardens to deal with the growing menace."

The Telegraph and Argus conducted a telephone poll which showed overwhelming support for that point of view. Such a scheme is eminently sensible and I strongly urge the Government to consider all my points and the points that my hon. Friends will make and then introduce legislation as a matter of urgency.

10.37 am

Mr. Max Madden (Bradford, West) : I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) on introducing the debate, and as I agree with everything that he said, I will be extremely brief. My hon. Friend referred to the picture of Rucksana Khan which jolted the Government, after 12 years of inaction, into trying to do something to control dangerous dogs. Many of my constituents have been concerned about dangerous dogs and the control of dogs in general for a very long time. They suspect that Cabinet Ministers are not seized of the urgency of the problem because many of them do not come into daily contact with dogs, certainly not with stray dogs, and most definitely not with dangerous dogs.

My constituents and the constituents of every hon. Member in the Chamber today come into contact with such dogs. Every day they must run the gauntlet of stray and dangerous dogs. They have to live next door to dangerous dogs. Indeed, one of my constituents lives in a block of flats where there are dangerous dogs. A mother rang me recently to tell me that she is too terrified to visit her daughter who lives in a block of flats because the tenant downstairs has three dangerous dogs. Her daughter is too terrified to go out or to allow her child to go out because they must pass the dogs which live below them. In the case of Rucksana Khan's attack, the owner of the dog lived in a one-bedroomed third-floor council flat. I do not think that such a situation can be tolerated any longer.

I warn the Government that, unless they do things that have the popular support not only of the overwhelming majority of the public but of dog owners, their efforts to tackle the problem will fail, and fail sadly and miserably. We saw with the poll tax that, if the Government seek to do things that do not have the popular consent and support of the overwhelming majority of citizens, they are bound to fail. The Government must take action that commands general support, and in particular the general support of dog owners.

Column 1064

There is no doubt that the central issue to success in this matter is the early introduction of an effective dog register. There are 8 million dogs in this country. There are 10,000 American pit bull terriers, it is believed, and 1,000 are thought to be in the city of Bradford. We must know where those dogs are and who owns them. If we are to take effective action, a dog register is vital.

My hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South referred to the poll that was conducted by the Telegraph and Argus. It is very revealing. When asked whether they supported a dog register, 785 people said yes, and only 47 said no. When asked whether they supported muzzling, 873 people said yes and just 60 said no. When asked whether they supported import bans, 740 people said yes, and just 16 said no. When asked whether they supported the humane destruction of extremely dangerous dogs, 824 people said yes, and 130 said no.

Therefore, I urge the Minister at least to say that the Government are willing urgently to reconsider introducing a dog register. That is the central pillar on which we can build effective and comprehensive legislation to deal with the control of all dogs and tackle the menacing problem of extremely dangerous dogs. If when they present their Bill the Government do not respond to public opinion, I and many other hon. Members will seek to amend it to introduce a dog register. I hope that we can do that on a free vote. I have no doubt that, if that happens, a dog register will be supported and introduced. However, I would much prefer that to be done with Government support and through Government legislation. I hope that the Minister will say that the Government are beginning to change their minds and to come into line with public opinion.

10.42 am

Mr. Ian McCartney (Makerfield) : I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) for giving us the opportunity to debate this issue. I shall make just a few remarks and will reserve my other comments for the Second Reading debate.

As someone who has worked as a voluntary supporter for the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals for many years and has owned Staffordshire bull terriers, I endorse the comments of my hon. Friends the Members for Bradford, South and for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden). The debate is not only about fighting dogs. Dangerous dogs are in a number of categories, including those that are specifically bred for fighting either as breeds or as cross breeds. For 10 years we in the animal welfare movement warned that the Government's inactivity in banning the introduction of American pit bull terriers would lead to a massive overproduction by breeders for the purpose of supplying the dog-fighting market. Breeders cannot tell a bitch to have one or two pups. Each time a breeder breeds dogs for the dog-fighting market, a huge surplus finds its way into the open market for those who want such dogs for a macho image and for those who, unfortunately, believe that such dogs can, with training and control, act as normal family pets, but that has not been and never will be the case.

Straying feral dogs are dangerous. For millions of years, dogs have had instincts of aggression, territorial packs and scavenging. When dogs stray or become feral, those instincts become even more apparent. Because of

Column 1065

those instincts, they become dangerous and regularly attack many hundreds of people. Many estates and communities are being terrorised by large packs of stray and feral dogs. There is also the problem of family pets that become dangerous because of a lack of training and control or the social environment of their owners.

It is no solution to isolate American pit bull terriers and fighting dogs in the short term. We cannot deal with the problem of dangerous dogs if we do not introduce a dog registration scheme. How can we tackle the issue of those who breed for dog fighting and those who breed for financial gain if we do not have a registration scheme to identify dog breeders, owners and fighters who are responsible for the problem in the first place? How can we tackle the issue of stray feral dogs if we do not have a dog registration scheme? A dog registration scheme would bring accountability to those who irresponsibly get rid of their animals or who, through lack of training or control, allow their animals to become dangerous to themselves and others in the community.

The isolation of the pit bull terrier and other fighting breeds will not resolve the issue. Hon. Members will have to discuss the matter again in five years. People involved in dog fighting will simply switch to the cross -breeding of English bull terriers and Staffordshire bull terriers. If we are interested in protecting the traditional dog breeds of the United Kingdom, we must introduce a registration scheme. Without such a scheme we shall see a switch to other dogs and aggression being bred into other breeds. Pit bull terriers are already being used for fighting and badger baiting. The matter is complex. Unless the Government are prepared to take on wider issues than that of registration, hon. Members will debate dangerous dogs again and again. People will be killed, accidents will proliferate and people will be damaged for life. People involved in dog fighting and badger baiting will continue the evil and awful trade that they call a sport. Family pets such as the Staffordshire and English terriers will be exploited for dog fighting and badger baiting.

I plead with the Government to make registration an essential core of the legislation. Without that central core, the issue will not go away and will become worse. In the end, the British public will decide. The public are sick and tired ; they have had enough. They often cannot go safely about the streets of London because of the dangerous animals that roam our streets. It is time to take action against such animals.

10.47 am

Mr. Peter Hain (Neath) : I welcome the excellent initiative of my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) in promoting this issue. I wish briefly to draw attention to the plight of 130,000 postmen and postwomen throughout Britain. In Wales last year, 600 postmen and postwomen were attacked by dogs. Nationally, the figure is 7,400, causing 5,300 days lost in absence at a cost to the Post Office of £0.5 million ; that is an increase in days lost through absence of 12.5 per cent. Those attacks are increasing relentlessly, making Postman Pat's life a misery. Postmen and postwomen are worse off

Column 1066

than sheep. At least farmers have rights of redress in respect of dog attacks on sheep. Postmen have absolutely none.

I ask the Minister to respond to two issues. First, the proposals that the Government have introduced are confined to public places. Postmen complete their deliveries on private property. Will the Government protect them?

Secondly, only a handful of attacks on postmen and women in recent years have been committed by pit bull terriers. The overwhelming majority of attacks were by other breeds of dog. The Government's case is unsustainable. We need not their piecemeal proposals, but a comprehensive system to make dog owners accountable, to protect postmen and women and to protect the general public. Until a dog registration scheme is introduced, the Government's proposals will be seen as nothing more than a public relations exercise.

10.49 am

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mrs. Angela Rumbold) : I am grateful to the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) and to the hon. Members for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden), for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney) and for Neath (Mr. Hain) for bringing this matter to the House this morning. I have every respect for the sincerity and depth of feeling of all hon. Members about the matter. The backcloth to the debate has changed markedly over the past day or two. In the first case, as the House will know, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary announced yesterday several measures aimed specifically at dangerous dogs. The principal and most important measure was a total ban on pit bull terriers and other fighting dogs. As the House knows, we propose to ban ownership of the American pit bull terrier, the Japanese tosa dog and any other dog of a type commonly bred for fighting. The ban on the import of such dogs is already in place.

The hon. Member for Makerfield warned us that the ban might not be sufficient in the future because other dogs may be bred for fighting. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has already said that there will be a facility in his Bill to add to the schedule other dogs that are known to be bred for fighting.

The ban is aimed specifically at fighting dogs. These are dogs which have been bred to be aggressive, to care little about the pain that they suffer, to fight without regard for the injuries that they receive and to be entirely fearless. Once such dogs start to fight, they cannot be stopped and they are quite unpredictable. Many people in papers and discussions have likened the dogs to loaded guns. We are all agreed that there is no place for such dogs in our society. We must take urgent steps to rid ourselves and our society of the dogs once and for all. It would be irresponsible to equivocate because measures are needed urgently. I am grateful to Opposition Members and all hon. Members for being willing to see urgent measures brought before the House and action taken immediately.

Mr. Harry Barnes (Derbyshire, North-East) : The Minister mentioned urgency. It will still take some time for a considered piece of legislation to be introduced in the House. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) said, it could have been introduced earlier. In the meantime, could not emergency legislation have been introduced yesterday or today to require the muzzling and keeping on a lead of dangerous dogs? If such

Column 1067

a measure became inappropriate or was included in later legislation, it could be amended in the later legislation. But something could have been done. Nothing will change until the legislation is introduced.

Mrs. Rumbold : The hon. Gentleman is right that we have not been able to introduce legislation in the past 24 hours. However, we shall introduce the measure within a week or so. We are preparing the legislation as urgently as possible. It is important that the measures are as comprehensive as possible and that they achieve the support of as many people as possible.

Alongside the measures that we intend to introduce, the Government have decided to create a new criminal offence which will be along the lines of, and a development of, the offence outlined in the consultation paper. The Town Police Clauses Act 1847 does not apply to back gardens, as the hon. Member for Bradford, South rightly said. The Act applies only to public places. The hon. Member for Neath may be interested to know that, during consultation on the existing legislation, considerable support was expressed for making the offence under that Act apply to private property. I hope that we shall introduce such a measure. I hope that that will go some way to meeting the anxieties of the hon. Member for Neath about attacks on postmen and women.

The hon. Member for Bradford, South raised several points on the existing law as it relates to the types of dogs that we have discussed during the past few days. There is some misunderstanding about the criminal law as it stands. It seems that people do not appreciate that it is already an offence to allow unmuzzled ferocious dogs to be at large. It is with that offence, under the Town Police Clauses Act 1847, that many people are charged when their dog has caused injury to others.

The new offence will apply more widely and I hope that it will be easier to enforce. It will attract higher penalties than the current offence. Those who allow their dogs to cause injury to others must know that they will be liable to the criminal law. It is essential that that is clearly understood.

However, there will be other cases where the law does not have the flexibility that perhaps it should have. There may be cases where it seems right to a court to order, not the destruction of the dog, but muzzling or some method of control suitable to the circumstances. We feel that it is right that the courts should have such additional powers and the Bill will provide them. I hope that that will meet the anxieties of the hon. Member for Bradford, West about dogs on housing estates. In my constituency, too, there are several housing estates where tenants own dogs that can cause anxiety to others.

Alongside those measures, the existing powers of the court, now reinforced by the Dangerous Dogs Act 1989, guarantee the destruction of any dog that is dangerous, regardless of whether a criminal offence was committed or can be established. These powers will remain in place. It is very important to be able to ensure that any dog that is dangerous, of any type or breed, can be put down certainly and without delay. Failure to bring in a dog for destruction renders the keeper of the dog liable for disqualification, as well as fines up to level 5, depending on the circumstances. In such cases it is not necessarily the owners who are at fault. If a dog becomes dangerous and is perceived to be so, that dog is a danger to other people

Column 1068

and to human life. That dog is the weapon which must be destroyed. It is absolutely essential that all hon. Members and the public understand that.

As the House will know, last summer the Government issued their consultation paper, "The Control of Dogs". The responses were many and various. However, on two points the general public were unanimous. The first was the widespread desire for the new general criminal offence which my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary announced yesterday, together with increased powers for the courts to muzzle dangerous dogs. The second was the universal public dislike of dogs such as the pit bull terrier which represent such a danger to small children such as Rucksana Khan. We have taken up both points in our recent proposals and I hope that the House will welcome them with the same enthusiasm as the public expressed during the consultation process.

The hon. Member for Bradford, South had a particular interest in the Dangerous Wild Animals Act 1976. This is Department of the Environment legislation and I understand that there are the usual technical difficulties in adapting it to the purpose of keeping dangerous dogs. But I do not wish to dwell on technicalities. The purpose of this legislation is to control wild animals, wild in the sense that they live in the wild rather than that they are particularly aggressive. It provides for, in effect, private zoos in which animals can be kept for their own safety and the safety of the public.

Dogs such as the pit bull terrier are not wild animals in that sense. They are domesticated animals which have become fierce through breeding.

Mr. Madden : Will the Minister give way?

Mrs. Rumbold : I shall give way in a moment.

I agree that the Dangerous Wild Animals Act sets down requirements which could be used to keep pit bull terriers in conditions of high security, but, I have to ask the House, why do people want to keep dogs like this?

Mr. Madden : Before the Minister completes her speech, will she make it clear to the House and the country that she is willing to test, in the House, support for and opposition to a dog register, which has been the central theme of every contribution to the debate?

Mrs. Rumbold : I cannot think what a dog registration scheme would have done to prevent Rucksana Khan from being savaged. I cannot think what such a scheme would have done to help those who have been seriously hurt, wounded or damaged as a result of violent acts committed by dogs that were out of control. The people who own the dogs to which we have been referring will never come forward to become the registered owners of dogs.

When our backs are turned, those who keep dogs such as pit bull terriers will take them to the pit or train them with heavy weights. They will use live cats as bait. They can use a zoo, as it were, to breed an even more dangerous dog. To put such people alongside those who would be responsible about animals is not to be realistic. We should have no part in the breeding of dangerous dogs. The dog is a companion animal. It has been bred for hundreds of years to be responsive to humans, gentle and kind. We must give no succour to those who wish to change this breeding to make dogs fierce. As dogs are all of one species, fierce animals can be used to cross -breed with breeds of good temperament to produce fierce

Column 1069

versions of dogs. We must do everything that we can to avoid that. When my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State introduces legislation, that is what we shall endeavour to do.

I hope that it is common ground that we all want dogs of any sort to be of good and reliable temperament. There is no place for dogs which have to be kept in what I would term, to refer to another part of my responsibilities, category A conditions. It makes no sense to have dogs kept in wire cages outside. I hope that there will be universal support for the measures that my right hon. Friend will introduce shortly.

11 am

Mr. Andrew MacKay (Berkshire, East) : On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You will recall that in the past two days there has been a series of points of order, raised especially by the hon. Members for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) and for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham), about tabling questions to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health on national health service trusts. It was suggested by those two hon. Members that the Clerks in the Table Office were not allowing such questions to be tabled.

Mr. Speaker rightly told me yesterday that no hon. Member wantonly misleads the House. I am sure that you will have noticed, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that in column 784 of Tuesday's Hansard Mr. Speaker made it clear that he would investigate with the Table Office whether the Clerks had given the indication to which the hon. Members for Huddersfield and for Copeland referred. As some of my hon. Friends, including the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Riddick), have learnt most clearly that the Clerks did not give such an indication, and as inadvertently two hon. Members have misled the House, it would be immensely helpful to the House and to clear the good name of the Clerks, who are always completely neutral, independent and above party politics, if Mr. Speaker were to make it clear--not through you now, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but before the House rises--that the allegations made by the two hon. Members to whom I referred were entirely false.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean) : I am grateful to the hon. Member for what he has said and especially for his reference to the Clerks. My recollection is that Mr. Speaker made the position clear in his statement yesterday. I shall, of course, cause investigations to be made in view of what the hon. Gentleman said.

Mr. Bob Cryer (Bradford, South) : On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I wish--

Mr. Deputy Speaker : Order. I shall take the hon. Gentleman's point of order, but the House is cutting into the time of the hon. Member for Basildon (Mr. Amess).

Mr. Cryer : It is a convention of the House--I am sure that the hon. Member for Berkshire, East (Mr. MacKay) knows this--that when we name other hon. Members during points of order, or when raising issues in other ways, we give them notice so that they have the opportunity to appear in the Chamber to respond to whatever is said about them. I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman troubled to do that.

Mr. Deputy Speaker : It is customary to do so.

Column 1070

Active Citizenship

11.3 am

Mr. David Amess (Basildon) : The concept of active citizenship means different things to different people. It is all-embracing. I believe that active citizenship, when it is healthy, makes for a stable and well-ordered society. As I said, it means different things to different people, and as a Conservative I suspect that I place an emphasis on it different from the emphasis that it is given by socialists.

I am proud to say that active citizenship in Basildon is thriving. Indeed, it is leading the way. I intend, Mr. Deputy Speaker, with your permission, to indulge in an unashamed roll of honour to salute all the active citizens in my constituency.

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Esher (Mr. Taylor), who has given his name to an excellent document entitled "Releasing the Community Spirit". Many excellent ideas are set out in that document, which provides a framework for the active citizen. It is well worth reading.

I am aware that my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Home Office, is a modest person. He would be the last to entice anyone to praise his efforts. However, I intend to give him praise, for his name is engraved upon the hearts of my constituents. I think that he has visited my constituency no fewer than four times. On each visit he has been responsible for making fundamental improvements to the lives of all my constituents. First, in 1986-87, he was the Minister with responsibility for new towns. He made sure that those who lived in what were termed concrete camps of properties in Vange, who bought them with the best of intentions, were enabled to purchase them back. I cannot over-emphasise how much that has meant to my constituents. My right hon. Friend the Minister of State visited the police station in Basildon and saw at first hand where it was intended to build the new court house. There was an argument about linking the police station with the new court house via an underground tunnel. My right hon. Friend returned to the Home Office and made sure that there would be a tunnel linking the two buildings.

Some years ago, my right hon. Friend replied to an Adjournment debate on St. Luke's hospice. It was while he was a Minister at the Department of Health and Social Security that privately, behind the scenes, he encouraged local residents to pursue the project. I congratulate the Government on their many initiatives to encourage active citizenship, perhaps the most recent of which was the pledge that £4.5 million of taxpayers' money would be used to support Crime Prevention Week. Sadly, the socialists in Basildon tried to take full credit for the scheme. In fact, it was a Home Office initiative. I am delighted to tell the House that Crime Prevention Week proved to be an enormous success in Basildon. It was successful during the week in question and the many continuing projects will bring enormous benefit for the residents of Basildon in the years ahead.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. John Patten) : I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his kind remarks about our attempts to help Basildon in the past. Is he aware that the attitude of the Labour party in Basildon towards Crime Prevention Week--it claimed responsibility for that excellent and successful concept--ran full in the face of

Column 1071

national Labour party policy? The Labour party chose to condemn national Crime Prevention Week and to condemn the actions of all citizens who voluntarily played a full part in making the scheme a success. Perhaps those at Walworth road should talk to the representatives of the Labour party in Basildon.

Mr. Amess : How right my right hon. Friend is. Basildon socialists are frequently out of step with socialists nationally. That is why two Thursdays ago there was a9 per cent. swing to Conservative party candidates in my constituency. The leader of the Labour group is a treasurer at Walworth road. It must be an increasing worry to those concerned that his advice is being taken by the Labour party. I hope that when my right hon. Friend replies to the debate he will give details of what local businesses are doing to assist in all the Government initiatives, because I am fed up with people knocking local business. As my hon. Friend the Member for Esher wrote in the excellent document to which I referred, local businesses have been magnificent in their support of active citizenship.

I am not ashamed to say that I am proud to be British. This is the finest country in the world and I am fed up with the British disease of continually knocking ourselves. If we are not moaning about the weather, we are always saying that the grass is greener on the other side. It is not and it is time that we followed the example of others and beat the drum for Britain.

I am proud to live in Basildon, which is the finest new town in Britain and is the beacon of the south. Because some unkind articles have been written over the years about my constituency--we did not necessarily take offence at the article on Essex man and Essex woman--I initiated the "I love Basildon" campaign, which enabled people to wear attractive badges and display bumper stickers on their cars and in shops. It was an extremely effective campaign which said, in effect, "We live in Basildon and we are proud of our town." The campaign was specifically aimed at the national problems of litter, graffiti and vandalism. Conservative Members believe in leading by example and that is why I undertook, late at night, to go on what I called anti-vandal patrols. I approached groups of youngsters on street corners and asked why they were there and not attending our local youth clubs and other activities provided in the town. Their main complaint was that, as they were under age and could not drink alcohol, commercial enterprises in the town were not prepared to run discos providing non- alcoholic drinks. Local businesses rallied round magnificently and I am delighted to report that in Basildon we are providing discos at which youngsters can enjoy non-alcoholic drinks.

We also worked with such enterprising people as the Guardian Angels, not in an unorthodox fashion but to demonstrate that we were concerned with individual responsibility. There is no earthly reason why people should drop sweet papers on the floor, throw cigarette ends out of car windows and so on. Throwing litter and rubbish on to the floor costs the nation money and at this time, when we are concerned for the well-being of the economy, we must make sure that every penny is well spent. There is no reason why huge sums of money should be wasted because we have a litter problem.

Local people have set up working parties on the Westminster model and, on a voluntary basis, are clearing

Column 1072

up some of our estates and more unsightly roads. I am delighted to report that local schools responded magnificently to national spring-clean week, which proved extremely effective.

Why, when somebody changes the lettering on a street sign so that the name of the road becomes a dirty or swear word, is there never anybody present to see the graffiti happen? I assume that not adults but children are responsible for such graffiti. The parents of those children should accept responsibility for the unsocial behaviour of their offspring. Nobody who indulges in graffiti can be considered an active citizen, in Basildon or elsewhere.

I pay tribute to the police in Basildon. When I became a Member of Parliament, we had one local police station. We now have three, thanks to the support of the Home Office. We have a police station at Pitsea, a new one being built at Laindon and our central police station in Basildon.

We have a magnificent new court house, where people gather in a civilised fashion. Gone is the overcrowding that used to take place in Billericay magistrates courts. In those days there was enormous pressure on the counselling given by social workers and the new court house has raised morale among the members of the probation service and among chief officers. I am delighted with the support that the Government gave to our new court house.

Like the police throughout the country, the police in Basildon are absolutely magificent. I would not wish to be a policeman. It is an extremely difficult job and the men and women in our police force, under increasingly difficult circumstances, because of the change in behaviour of the population generally, face great difficulties. We should congratulate and encourage the police in all their endeavours.

Mr. John Patten : If the police are doing such an excellent job in Basildon and nationally, which the Government and people generally recognise to be the case, and if they are doing an extremely fine job in crime prevention, why does my hon. Friend think that it is now Labour party official policy to take responsibility for crime prevention from the police and give it to local councils? Does he think that the Labour party does not really trust the police?

Mr. Amess : Certainly. I cannot think of a worse scenario than local socialists in Basildon having control of the police force. That would be outrageous and my right hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the point.

Mr. Ian Taylor (Esher) : I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his comments on my pamphlet. He does a remarkable job for the people of Basildon and we are hearing much of his own activities behind the praise that he is giving to others. Is not it interesting to note that where there is a good police force, the people respond to it, with citizens wanting to assist and taking a more active part in neighbourhood watch and similar schemes? Has he noted the increasing awareness among younger people of what they can do for youth crime assistance with the police, rather than being on the wrong side of the law? All such matters are part of the community working properly and my hon. Friend's efforts are helping to make sure that that happens in Basildon.

Mr. Amess : I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention and he is right. I was about to deal with the question of neighbourhood watch schemes and the other

Column 1073

initiatives to which he referred. Yesterday I had the pleasure to attend the 10th anniversary of the victim support scheme in Basildon. It is a magnificent initiative, again supported by the Government, and the chairman said in his annual report :

"Until recently victims of crime had long been neglected by the community."

My hon. Friends and I feel passionately that the real victims of crime are not given enough attention. The initiative in Basildon has addressed that problem. He went on :

"The Police, the Probation Service and the Judiciary were primarily concerned with the offender. The victim might be asked to give evidence but there was no organisation to help victims of crime". Does the House understand the role of the active citizen in victim support, which is dependent on untrained volunteers--ordinary men and women who, after selection and training, have time to visit victims? A leaflet on the group says of the volunteers, who are not paid for their sacrifices :

"Volunteers are caring people who are able to listen and respond to the victim's needs. Information on these and on the agencies and services available to them is given to volunteers during training, enabling them to offer victims a confidential service on behalf of the community. Each volunteer carries an identity card issued by the Police."

The victim support group is so dedicated that, when the new court house opened, it initiated a fund-raising team to serve tea and coffee there. It has enjoyed tremendous success with the continuity of its co-ordinators. Although this is a sad and serious project, they have embarked on a scheme to study the causes of murder and manslaughter.

The group has asked me to raise with my right hon. Friend the Minister one point concerning the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board. A person in receipt of state benefits can be penalised if he receives a lump sum because state benefits are taken into consideration. I hope that my right hon. Friend can comment on that. My hon. Friend the Member for Esher mentioned the neighbourhood watch scheme. A retired gentleman called Ken Coulter is what is called the divisional controller in Basildon. Every day of the week, he is in Basildon police station working on the scheme on behalf of the community. It is thanks to his efforts and those of his team of volunteers that there are now 600 of these groups in Basildon representing 171,000 residents and guarding 62,000 properties. There are 186 liaison officers and 8,962 people in the youth section. It is a magnificent effort. Our local neighbourhood scheme has piloted a pet watch scheme, which co-ordinates the activities of residents who are naturally upset when they lose their pets. Their contribution to our local society is profound.

Underpinning all this has to be education. I am delighted to say that our schools are doing a magnificent job, in partnership with the police, in educating our young people. Sadly, we lost our way in the 1960s, when we set young people a bad example and in the past decade we have been paying the dividend. Our schools are now in a healthy state. Local police come in regularly to show young people how they can help in developing the concept of active citizenship. I salute the efforts of the police.

Frequently, young people come to my surgery with suggestions for new projects. Only on Saturday, six young people, six or seven-year-olds, asked for my support for an

Column 1074

environmental project in Langdon Hills and brought me beautiful coloured drawings. They were going to work with the local community in clearing up their estates.

How sad it is to hear of a minority of parents who expect teachers to do it all for them. Education is a partnership. Schools are responsible for children between 9 o'clock and 3 o'clock, but parents must take full responsibility for their children outside those hours and at the weekend.

Basildon has many voluntary organisations for the handicapped. Sports for the disabled are run by two groups. There is nothing so moving as to go along to these annual sports days and see disabled men and women participating in sporting activities in a way that able-bodied people would find impossible. They never allow disability to hold them back. A wonderful woman, Mrs. Childers, is chairman of PHAB--the physically handicapped and able bodied organisation--which does a wonderful job. I am sad that the socialist council is threatening to take away its transport facilities and those of other similar organisations and is trying to blame such measures on the Government, who are not to blame.

A great deal of magnificent work goes on at Valery lodge, which was inspired by a woman who, sadly, has since died of cancer and her husband, who is blind. Basildon also has a town crier

organisation--talking books for the blind. Volunteers meet to produce these tapes, which blind people enjoy. We have the friends of Elmbrook school, which is attended by severely disabled people who have actually climbed to the top of Big Ben.

I have already mentioned St. Luke's hospice. It took a German woman, Trudy Cox, her husband Les and their family to show British people that if one is determined, anything is achievable. We do not have any millionaires living in Basildon, or if we do, they are keeping a low profile. If I knew about them, I would immediately try to sign them up as members of the Conservative party. Despite that, in six years, through tombolas and raffles, the hospice has raised over £1 million.

Mr. John Patten : That is extraordinary.

Mr. Amess : It is quite extraordinary. Last year, the Duchess of Norfolk opened the hospice. Knowing that we have a number of social problems in Basildon, with many people on low incomes, she was able to see at first hand what a magnificent job people had done. Five weeks ago, we were privileged to have a visit from the Princess of Wales. She was deeply moved by the wonderful achievements of Trudy Cox and others in building the hospice.

I congratulate the Women's Royal Voluntary Service, which has 500 members and supplies meals on wheels and book services. The Basildon hospital league of friends has been going for over 25 years and has raised, by the efforts of its 300 members, £25,000. I am the unpaid, voluntary spokesman for the National Association of Hospital Broadcasting Organisations, the largest unpaid voluntary organisation. I should be grateful if my right hon. Friend the Minister would tell the Treasury that the association would be delighted if VAT on hospital radio broadcasting equipment were zero-rated and if the Broadcasting Authority would give the association its own frequency.

The marriage guidance council, RELATE, of which I have the privilege to be president, also does a magnificent job, as do the team of volunteer Samaritans at Little

Next Section

Home Page