| Home Page |
Column 459
House of Commons
Thursday 22 June 1995
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[Madam Speaker in the Chair ]
PRIVATE BUSINESS
Bell's Bridge Order Confirmation
Mr. Secretary Lang presented a Bill to confirm a Provisional Order under section 7 of the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act 1936, relating to Bell's Bridge; and the same was read the First time; and ordered to be considered upon Wednesday 28 June [Bill 143.]
Accommodation Level Crossings Bill [Lords] ( By Order ) Order for Third Reading read.
To be read the Third time on Thursday 29 June.
Queen Mary and Westfield College Bill ( By Order ) (Queen's Consent, on behalf of the Crown, signified.)
Order for Third Reading read.
To be read the Third time on Thursday 29 June.
City of Westminster Bill [Lords] ( By Order ) Order for consideration read.
To be considered on Monday 26 June at Seven o'clock.
London Local Authorities (No. 2) Bill [Lords] ( By Order ) Order for consideration read.
To be considered on Thursday 29 June.
Oral Answers to Questions
HOME DEPARTMENT
Fire Authorities
1. Mr. O'Hara: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received on the reduction in services that fire authorities will have to make as a result of expenditure shortfalls. [28397]
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Michael Howard): Representations have been received from a number of hon. Members and others. My approval is required under section 19 of the Fire Services Act 1947 when any reduction in the number of fire stations, fire appliances or firefighting posts in a brigade is proposed.
Mr. O'Hara: Is the Home Secretary aware that, according to figures provided by the Association of Metropolitan Authorities, our fire services face a
Column 460
funding shortfall of £90 million? The situation is so serious not only in my area of Merseyside but in other parts of the country that at least one authority, North Yorkshire, is considering charging motorists for attending car crashes--the so-called "cash as you crash" plan. When will the Home Secretary finally face up to the serious in-built underfunding of a vital area of our emergency services?Mr. Howard: It is all very well for Labour Back Benchers to complain about underfunding, but the shadow Chancellor and the shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury keep telling everyone that the Labour party will not spend any more money. Only one fire authority--South Yorkshire--sought a redetermination of its capping limit, and the application was successful.
Mr. John Greenway: Notwithstanding what my right hon. and learned Friend has said, is he aware of the grave concern in places such as Filey and Scarborough about the reductions in fire cover that have had to be made because the standard spending assessments for big shire counties such as North Yorkshire are inadequate? May we now have a thorough review of the Home Office fire standard and the standard spending assessments that should go with it so that the big rural areas get the fire cover that they need?
Mr. Howard: My hon. Friend will know that the standard spending assessment formula is being reviewed. Of course we shall take the concerns of North Yorkshire and others into account in that context. However, I see no reason why the nationally recommended minimum standards of fire cover cannot be maintained throughout the country.
Mr. Beith: What is the logic of a system under which the Home Secretary tells fire authorities what standard of cover they must maintain but the Department of the Environment then tells them that because of their SSAs or capping they cannot spend the amount necessary to achieve that level of cover? That happened in Northumberland and Shropshire, and it is happening in North Yorkshire. Are not the public, who are thus at greater risk, the sufferers of all that?
Mr. Howard: The right hon. Gentleman totally misrepresents the facts. It is the duty of every authority to provide fire cover in accordance with national minimum standards. I have made that clear time and again. Authorities that are not single-service authorities must assess the priorities for their budgets so that cover is provided. If single-service authorities were capped they had the opportunity to make an application for redetermination of the cap. As I have said, only one fire authority made such an application, and that was successful.
Sir Donald Thompson: May I make a special plea for the fire authority in my constituency, which has unusual topographical and geographical features? Will my right hon. and learned Friend reconsider my plea?
Mr. Howard: The special features of my hon. Friend's constituency-- they are indeed special, and he has drawn them to the attention of every local government Minister for the past 10 years--will be carefully taken into account in the review of the SSA.
Column 461
Electoral Registration
2. Mr. Barnes: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make it his policy to introduce a rolling electoral registration system; and if he will make a
statement. [28398]
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Nicholas Baker): The report of our post-election review concluded that more work was needed before a decision could be taken on a rolling register. Ministers are considering the report.
Mr. Barnes: Is not the current electoral registration system pathetic? An Office of Population Censuses and Surveys report showed that between 3 million and 4 million people are missing from electoral registers. People register in October, but the register--which lasts for a full year--does not come out until February and is 16 months out of date by the time it is completed. Does the Minister realise that the annual death rate among over-18s is 630,000, which means that about 800,000 names--some 2 per cent. of the electorate--should not be on the registers? It is disturbing for people to find that the names of their loved ones are still on electoral registers and that they are receiving electoral communications. Would not a rolling register be the answer to the problem?
Mr. Baker: I should like to take the opportunity to correct some of the figures that the hon. Gentleman has given. There is not enough information to give a wholly reliable and accurate figure, as the hon. Gentleman found out from correspondence with my office, but according to the best figures available there were 42.624 million names on electoral registers in 1994, compared with an estimated resident population of 44.780 million--a difference of 2.156 million. The working party has looked at a rolling register and while it certainly concluded that it might result in a more up-to-date register, it decided that it would not improve registration. We are considering a detailed analysis of a complex matter, but experience in Australia, which has a rolling register, suggests that house-to-house checks are still necessary. That experience hardly suggests that a rolling register is as accurate as the hon. Gentleman seems to think.
Mr. John Marshall: Does my hon. Friend agree that the real scandal of electoral registration was the campaign organised by certain hon. Members to discourage people from registering and to encourage them to become tax dodgers?
Mr. Baker: My hon. Friend is quite right. We spend a great deal of money on advertising the desirability of registering, and I am glad to have my hon. Friend's support for that campaign.
Mr. Trimble: Does not the issue require more urgent attention? In addition to the problems mentioned by the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North -East (Mr. Barnes), is there not an increasing problem in certain areas of England with false registration and other forms of electoral fraud? Does not that stem from the fact that registration officers and party workers who are dealing with extended families with similar names have difficulty in identifying who is who? Must not that issue be tackled?
Column 462
Could it not be tackled and cured by the adoption of identity cards--an additional reason for such cards that does not appear in the Home Office consultation paper?Mr. Baker: We are certainly looking at all the ways of improving registration, although not at the particular example mentioned by the hon. Gentleman. According to the OPCS figures to which the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes) referred, the number of people registering to vote in England and Wales rose in 1995 by 88,000 to a total of 38.765 million. I am pleased to say that--no doubt as a result of the hon. Gentleman's advocacy--electoral registration in Derbyshire, North-East rose by 0.5 per cent., more than the national average.
Prison Searches
3. Mr. Barry Field: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what measures he is taking to prevent drugs from entering prisons and to ensure prisoners are properly searched. [28399]
The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Michael Forsyth): A number of measures are in place to ensure that we take effective action to prevent drugs from entering prisons. These include the greater use of sniffer dogs, closed circuit television in visits areas, the introduction of closed visits for people who are found to be involved in drug taking or handling in prison and the introduction of mandatory testing.
Mr. Field: My right hon. Friend will be aware of the exceptional case in one of the prisons on the Isle of Wight where a prisoner had drugs secreted up his backside. As the British Medical Association does not allow doctors to perform internal searches of prisoners, he was not able to be arrested and he got the drugs into the prison. Is he further aware that prisoners shuffle their chairs over to the other side of the table during open visits to partake in intimate embraces with their visitors, during which drugs are passed? Why cannot the chairs be nailed to the floor? Why should not closed visits be the norm and open visits be earned as a privilege? Can my right hon. Friend explain why Judge Tumim continues to berate routine searching for drugs yet criticises the presence of drugs in prisons?
Mr. Forsyth: The judge must answer for himself on those matters. My hon. Friend wrote to me in, I think, November about the case that he mentioned in his question. I have been reviewing the policy on internal searches when drugs are believed to be concealed. We shall shortly consult on how we might strengthen the law in that regard. My hon. Friend asks about closed visits. I can go some way towards meeting his request in so far as closed visits will apply where prisoners are suspected of taking drugs or where visitors have brought drugs in for prisoners.
My hon. Friend asked about visiting areas and I agree that we need to take further steps to ensure that visits are not used for any purpose other than those for which they are intended. The Director General of the Prison Service will see that surveillance and the strict enforcement of rules are carried out.
Mr. George Howarth: Is the Minister aware that Judge Tumim has reported that, for example, about 80 per cent.
Column 463
of inmates in Styal prison were routinely involved in the taking of illegal drugs? What have been the results so far from the introduction of mandatory drug testing in prisons? He has already mentioned some ideas, but what further measures will he consider to try to stem this tide of illegal drugs in our prisons?Mr. Forsyth: Of course I am aware of the comments about Styal prison. Mandatory testing, which is an important part of the fight against drugs, has been successfully introduced on the basis of a rolling programme. Evidence shows that it is not only identifying drug misuse but that it is welcomed by a number of prisoners who see it as a step forward. Mandatory testing will enable us to identify drug misuse and tackle the sources of drugs. It will also enable us to ensure that proper systems of treatment are in place. Prisoners will be given treatment and support to get them off drugs so that when they leave prison they do not continue to take them, reoffend and find themselves returning to prison.
Sir Ivan Lawrence: Is my right hon. Friend aware that we welcome his latest proposals to stop personal contact between prisoners and visitors in top security prisons and in prisons where drug offences have been suspected? It has been a source of puzzlement to many of us over the past few years why there is not a glass partition between visitors and prisoners sentenced for more serious cases. For some reason there has been reluctance to have such a partition. Will he take on board the fact that most people would like such a restriction to be imposed on prisoners?
Mr. Forsyth: As my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Field) said, we have introduced closed visits for exceptional risk category A prisoners as a matter of course. We have said that we shall introduce closed visits where prisoners have been found to be abusing visits and are involved in drug taking or the handling of drugs. I do not think that it would be right to introduce closed visits for all prisoners. Where prisoners are found to be involved in illegal practices, closed visits are justified, but the purpose of prison is to punish the prisoner, not families, and it is appropriate that families should be able to visit prisoners in an open situation--provided the rules are observed.
Juvenile Offending
5. Mr. Peter Bottomley: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is his estimateof the offending rate and the detection rate of crimeby 16-year-old boys and girls currently and 10 years ago. [28401]
The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. David Maclean): For boys aged 16, the offender rate has fallen from 10,900 per 100,000 in 1984 to 9,300 in 1993. For girls aged 16, it has risen from 1,600 per 100, 000 to 2,200 in 1993.
I am afraid that it is not possible to measure detection rates for different age groups.
Mr. Bottomley: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on joining the Privy Council and you, Madam Speaker, on your honorary doctorate. Monitoring the offending rate for different age groups is as important in respect of general crime as it was in the successful attack on changing the culture of drink driving. If we seriously want
Column 464
to reduce the number of victims, we have to stop the flow of 1,000 or 2,000 people a week who, for the first time, commit serious crimes.Mr. Maclean: I thank my hon. Friend for his kind remarks. He has tremendous knowledge of and experience in dealing with young people through the Church of England Children's Society, where he was a leading expert. He is absolutely correct about the careful monitoring of young offenders and potential young offenders. I want to monitor not only 16-year-olds but those considerably younger who begin to go astray for the first time. We intend to see what measures we can take to keep them on the strait and narrow. If they wander off it, we shall need an appropriate range of penalties rising progressively up the scale.
Mr. Tipping: The Minister will be aware that a disproportionate amount of crime is committed by the persistent young offender. What new initiatives will he take to try to resolve that problem?
Mr. Maclean: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. A disproportionate amount of crime is committed by a tiny number of young people. We shall take the measures that his party has consistently voted against in the past two years. Despite the Labour party voting against the powers to deal with that hard group of young offenders, the powers are on the statute book and we shall introduce them as soon as possible.
Mr. Harry Greenway: Does my right hon. Friend agree that there would be less crime among 16-year-olds if school discipline were more effective? School discipline would be more effective if moderate corporal punishment were restored to the heads and staff of schools as a proper sanction against under-16s who misbehave? Would that not stop many of them appearing before the courts?
Mr. Maclean: My hon. Friend knows that children spend considerably more time under the influence of others rather than school teachers. Their time in the evenings and at weekends in the family home is even more important than the time they spend in school. Of course, teachers have responsibility but I would not put the sole responsibility for bringing up properly educated, well-disciplined children on teachers alone. Others in society have a responsibility: first and foremost, parents.
Prison Service (Staff Morale)
6. Mr. MacShane: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement about the current level of staff morale within the prison service. [28402]
Mr. Michael Forsyth: A survey carried out in 1994 showed that two thirds of prison staff were either satisfied or very satisfied with their job.
Mr. MacShane: Is the Minister aware that, as the summer is becoming hot, the same survey showed that nine out of 10 prison staff said that they felt that Prison Service management did not have enough regard for those who have face-to-face dealings with prisoners, which suggests that morale is rather low? Can he give an assurance that if there is any incident later this summer, Ministers will accept their responsibility instead of, as in the past, passing the buck to anyone else down the line?
Mr. Forsyth: I am slightly astonished that the hon. Gentleman should seek to link any incident with how
Column 465
Ministers should or should not take responsibility. Is he seriously trying to send out a message that if people riot in prisons, it will somehow affect our attitudes? If he is, that would be very irresponsible. Whatever happens in the Prison Service, we will follow the established procedure, which is to establish the facts and hold those responsible to account. If he is concerned about morale in the Prison Service, would not it be better if he and his colleagues gave the service a little credit for the good work that it does every day of the week in looking after 51,000 of the most difficult people in the country?Mrs. Peacock: Is my right hon. Friend aware of some prison officers' concern about the notice that they have to give prisoners before searching their cells for drugs? Why is that notice needed?
Mr. Forsyth: There is no requirement for notice to be given, and I share my hon. Friend's consternation when it is. However, it is a matter for governors, who are responsible for the conduct of prisons, and some governors have sometimes given notice. I share with my hon. Friend and, I believe, most hon. Members, a determination to ensure that effective drug searches are carried out in our prisons. We are reviewing the amount of property that prisoners are allowed in their cells so that more effective searches can be carried out--and quickly.
Criminal Compensation
7. Ms Estelle Morris: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement regarding the current situation in respect of compensation for victims of violent crime. [28403]
10. Mr. Winnick: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement regarding reductions in compensation to victims of the most violent crimes. [28406]
Mr. Maclean: We are currently putting through Parliament a Bill that proposes an enhanced tariff scheme. It envisages compensation payable to victims rising from £175 million to £260 million over the next five years. The scheme will continue to be the most generous in the world.
Ms Morris: The Minister's answer bears no relation to reality. The truth is that the Government are cutting compensation to the victims of crime. Does he not understand that he is sending a message to victims of crime that they have a Government who do not care about them, when he should be sending the message that they have a Government who are intent on cracking down on crime and protecting them from violent crime?
Mr. Maclean: The reality is that, once again, a member of the Labour party is saying that she wants to spend more money, whereas the shadow Chancellor is saying that Labour will not do so. Labour has not spelt out clearly how much it will spend on the victims of crime whereas we have spelt out in the Bill how much we shall spend. In 1978, the cost of compensation was £10 million; in 1987, it was £52 million; and last year we spent £165 million on the victims of crime. Over the next few years, we shall increase the amount given to victims of crime to £175 million. We estimate that, in future years, we shall spend £190 million, £205 million, £240 million and £260
Column 466
million. We have spelt out the increases; why will not the Opposition spell out clearly what they intend to do? It is just another uncosted manifesto pledge.Mr. Winnick: Was not the Leader of the House right when he wrote to warn the Prime Minister in March that the Government's intention to reduce compensation to the victims of serious crime would put the Government on the wrong side of the argument? Is not it typical of the Government that, although crime has risen substantially in the past 16 years--many parts of the country are crime ridden--they are punishing financially the victims of serious crime? It is no wonder that they are held in such contempt across the country.
Mr. Maclean: Once again, the hon. Gentleman had written his little supplementary question before he heard the figures, but we have come to expect that from him. I read out how much we project will be spent on the victims of crime over the next few years, and it is an unprecedented amount. The Labour party is keen to quote everything European, so why does it not mention the fact that what we alone will spend on the victims of crime will be more than every other country in Europe put together--and more even than the mighty United States of America?
Mrs. Gorman: Does not Britain have a support system for victims of violent crime--with whom, of course, we all have the greatest sympathy-- which includes social services, counselling and medical services to ensure that a victim of crime, even without any form of compensation, has the best care under the welfare state? Is not it important that we avoid the route taken in the United States where the victim of almost anything--from an exploding Coca-Cola can to a real crime--expects to be rewarded financially for the awful things that he has been through?
Mr. Maclean: My hon. Friend is right to mention the United States. The amount of compensation paid to victims of crime in this country is higher than the total paid in the United States, which has a much higher population and a much worse violent crime rate. We have a proud story of success in looking after victims of crime. My hon. Friend is also right to draw attention to the fact that all the other branches and organs of the state provide support. She might have mentioned Victim Support, which has received unprecedented support from the Government as a voluntary organisation, with huge percentage increases each year since it was set up.
Mr. Fabricant: Does my right hon. Friend agree that another aspect of compensation to victims of crime is the punishment that is given to those who have committed the crime? Has not the Labour party consistently opposed the Government's legislation to increase punishment? Is not the Labour party soft on crime and even softer on punishment?
Mr. Maclean: I know that the Labour party wants to pretend that it is tough on crime, but we know its track record. We know that it voted against the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, the Public Order Act 1986, the Criminal Justice Act 1988, giving the Attorney-General a power to appeal against over-lenient sentences, and the Criminal Justice Act 1991. In the light of that record of voting against every single measure that makes a difference in bearing down on crime, new
Column 467
Labour, during the passage of the most recent Criminal Justice Act, was able to abstain on Second Reading and Third Reading.Mr. Michael: The public know full well that it is the Conservative Government who have presided over the doubling of crime, and it is the Conservative Government who have voted down every constructive approach by the Opposition to tackle guns, to tackle crime and to nip things in the bud with young offenders. The public know that it is the Government who want to cut the cash for victims, whereas the Opposition have told Ministers, "If you do not cut the cash available for the victims of crime, we will not cut the cash available for the victims of crime." Will the Minister confess that, over the next five years, he will cut the cash for victims of crime by £700 million?
Mr. Maclean: The whole House enjoyed the hon. Gentleman's outburst-- not even his hon. Friends could keep a straight face as he was speaking. The Labour party has voted against every criminal justice measure that we have taken, which has increased the penalties for crime. That is the measure of the hon. Gentleman, who now protests that he cares about crime. We do not need any form of weasel words--"If you don't cut the cash, neither will we". We have put in the Criminal Injuries Compensation Bill the extra money that we are giving victims. Why will not the Labour party spell out its bottom line? It is because its shadow Chancellor has said, "No costed promises in the manifesto; do not tell the public what it will cost."
Convicted Prisoners
8. Mr. Robathan: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is his policy regarding the provision and use of telephones by convicted prisoners serving their sentence. [28404]
Mr. Michael Forsyth: Official telephones are available for urgent or compassionate reasons only and, as a privilege, prisoners have access to a cardphone.
Mr. Robathan: May I congratulate you, Madam Speaker, on your honorary doctorate and welcome my right hon. Friend's answer. Is he aware of the great unhappiness that is caused to the families of victims of crime and, indeed, of murderers such as Winston Silcott and others in Parkhurst, who are allowed to give interviews on the media? Does he agree that the decent people of the country are amazed and appalled to discover that prisoners can telephone the newspapers and the other media? Does he further agree that the use of a telephone is a privilege, which should be earned, and should be taken away when it is abused?
Mr. Forsyth: I agree with everything that my hon. Friend has said. The rules have been changed recently to prevent prisoners from telephoning the media in the way that my hon. Friend has described. The most recent example was prisoner Rose who escaped from Parkhurst prison and then rang up "The World at One" and gave an account of how he had escaped. I was surprised by that incident because the BBC production guidelines make it clear that criminals should not be given an opportunity to glamorise their crimes or to give details of crimes that
Column 468
could be copied. It is clearly a matter for the governors of the BBC and I am sure that all hon. Members will agree that it is time that they put their house in order.Mr. Tony Banks: It makes a change to listen to prisoners rather than Conservative Members on "The World at One". Can the Minister say how many prisoners have access to mobile telephones? Is it not a fact that a number of prisoners are using mobile phones to order drugs?
Mr. Forsyth: No prisoner should have access to a mobile telephone, and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will welcome the measures that have been taken to reduce the amount of property that prisoners can possess and to improve searching for items of that kind. As for prisoners, I should have thought that with the Opposition Front Bench it is the hon. Gentleman who is the prisoner these days.
Crime
9. Mr. Peter Ainsworth: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received regarding recorded crime in 1994; and if he will make a statement. [28405]
Mr. Howard: I have received a number of representations on recorded crime. Although the level is still far too high, the reduction in the past two years has been the biggest for 40 years and I congratulate the police on their success in that achievement.
Mr. Ainsworth: My right hon. and learned Friend will know that burglary is one of the most distressing crimes. Is he aware that last year the number of burglaries in Surrey fell by 21 per cent? Will he join me in paying tribute not only to the police but also to the often unsung heroes on the crime prevention panels who do so much good in the fight against crime?
Mr. Howard: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend and I am grateful to him for emphasising the importance of crime prevention panels. The truth is that we shall make the greatest progress in the fight against crime when we have a real partnership between the police and the public. The strides that have been made in coping with crime across the country, particularly in Surrey, demonstrate exactly what can be done.
Mr. Sheerman: How reliable are the crime statistics? Is it not a fact that in most constituencies victims of burglary are so sick of being burgled that they do not even bother to report it? The fact is that crime is spiralling and burglary is spiralling, but people do not bother to report it to the police.
Mr. Howard: It is a remarkable fact that when recorded crime was rising we did not hear any complaints from Labour Members about the reliability of the figures, but now that it is falling--as a result of effective work by the police--the Opposition are keen to rubbish the figures at any and every opportunity. If the hon. Gentleman does not think that the figures in his area are reliable, I suggest that he take up the matter with his chief constable.
Mr. Stephen: Will my right hon. and learned Friend discuss with his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment ways in which the building
Column 469
regulations could be changed to ensure that new houses and flats are built in such a way as to be as secure as possible against burglary?Mr. Howard: My hon. Friend makes an important point. We have made considerable progress in recent years in incorporating crime prevention features in building design. I dare say that more than be done. As my hon. Friend suggests, I will take the matter up with my right hon. Friend.
Mr. Straw: Does the Secretary of State recognise that in 1994 the crime rate was still double what it was when Labour left office in 1979? A key reason for the doubling of crime has been the huge increase in the amount of harassment and intimidation of local communities by anti-social criminal neighbours. In view of that fact, will the Secretary of State recognise the total inadequacy of current provision? Instead of arguing complacently that there is no need for changes in the law of the kind that Labour has proposed, why does he not give our proposals the same wholehearted welcome as they received from the Police Superintendents Association for England and Wales on Tuesday and recognise that our proposals in "The Quiet Life" document tackle the root of the problem of anti-social, criminal activity in neighbourhoods?
Mr. Howard: Because the hon. Gentleman knows full well that the proposals that he announced this week add nothing to those measures which are already part of our law and those which we have announced already. If we take the two together, all that we have is a bit of pretence of precisely the kind that we have come to expect from the Labour party on this and on other matters.
Mr. Elletson: Does my right hon. and learned Friend realise that much of the recorded crime in my constituency and other coastal resorts throughout the country is committed by the thugs, louts and yobboes who have been imported into those areas to live in the hundreds of DSS hostels that have sprung up all over the place? Will he ensure that the Government take proper account of that fact in their response to the consultation paper on licensing DSS hostels?
Mr. Howard: My hon. Friend makes an important point and a large number of hon. Members will have great sympathy with him. I certainly accept that it should be taken into account in the response to the document to which he referred.
Victim Support Groups
11. Miss Hoey: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what further support he will consider giving to local victim support groups. [28407]
Mr. Maclean: Victim Support receives generous financial support from the Government. We increased our grant to the organisation last year by £1.6 million--from £8.4 million to more than £10 million--a rise of 20 per cent., and we have increased it further this year by another 8 per cent.
Miss Hoey: Is the Minister aware of the excellent work by the victim support group in Lambeth, particularly the pioneering work on trauma counselling and extra security measures for pensioners who have been burgled? Will he look again at the Home Office criteria for funding Victim
Column 470
Support nationally so that the new and innovative work by local groups can be funded by Home Office grants and given extra resources?Mr. Maclean: I am well aware of the wonderful work by Victim Support around the country and of the various innovative schemes run by enthusiastic volunteers. However, the Home Office does not fund individual schemes: we fund the national organisation, which distributes funding to local groups, and that is as it should be. I would not want to get involved in making hard decisions between individual local schemes but prefer to let the professional national organisation do it. As for the overall resources, I remind the hon. Lady that in the past eight years Victim Support has received additional Government funds of 55 per cent., 43 per cent., 21 per cent., 20 per cent., 28 per cent., 15 per cent., 20 per cent. and the extra 8 per cent. this year. That is unprecedented financial support for any voluntary organisation.
Mr. Ian Bruce: What are the Government doing to support witnesses? The whole House will appreciate that when it is necessary for witnesses to come forward in order to convict guilty people we need to support those witnesses during the difficult time before and after they give evidence.
Mr. Maclean: My hon. Friend is right. We recognise that many convictions depend on the evidence of witnesses. That is why we are keen to support the Crown court witness schemes that Victim Support is setting up throughout the country and to see whether any further measures need to be taken to deal with intimidation of witnesses. That is why we welcome the measures that the Lord Chancellor's Department is taking in the design and construction of all new courts to ensure that the needs of the victims are given every bit as much importance as those of the criminal.
Dr. Howells: Is the Minister aware that a good deal of Victim Support's work arises from crime associated with hard drugs and that heroin and crack dealing is killing young people in our communities? Nine heroin- associated deaths have already occurred in mid-Glamorgan this year. What is the Minister doing to ensure that the police are given the necessary resources and direction to clear our streets of hard drug dealers?
Mr. Maclean: I am surprised to hear such a question from the Principality, where there has been generous funding of police forces this year. Throughout the whole of England and Wales, our police service has been funded on average by an award of more than 3 per cent. Our police service does an excellent job in tackling drugs, but it is only one of the partners that we want to encourage to do more about drugs. That is why the central drugs co-ordination unit published its strategy for pulling together all sectors of Government to ensure that we concentrate on removing the temptation of drugs from young people in the first place and bearing down hard on those who do it. If the Opposition had supported many of the measures in the Criminal Justice Act that they voted against, perhaps the problem would not be so severe.
Several hon. Members rose --
| Next Section
| Home Page |