VICTIMS OF DRUG-RELATED CRIME

HC Deb 29 June 1993 vol 227 cc865-81

'.—( 1) The Secretary of State may, with the consent of the Treasury, pay such grants, to such persons, as he considers appropriate in connection with measures intended to assist the victims of drug-trafficking, drug-related crime or the misuse of drugs.

(2) Any such grant may be made subject to such conditions as the Secretary of State may, with the agreement of the Treasury, see fit to impose.

(3) Payments under this section shall be made out of money provided by Parliament.'.—[ Mr. Michael.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Michael

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Madam Deputy Speaker

With this it will be convenient also to discuss the following: New clause 7—Alleged victims of relevant offences— '.—In considering any application to withdraw a charge in favour of a lesser charge the court shall seek to be satisfied, where it considers appropriate, that a reasonable effort has been made to consult any alleged victim or victims of the said offence.'. New clause 8—Alleged victims of relevant offences ( No. 2)—— '.—In considering any application to withdraw a charge of causing death by dangerous driving in favour of a lesser charge the court shall seek to be satisfied, where it considers appropriate, that a reasonable effort has been made to consult the relatives of the victim or victims of the said offence.'. Amendment No. 12, in the title, line 21, after 'drugs', insert 'to make provision for consultations with victims of crime and the relatives of such victims where the prosecution proposes to withdraw a criminal charge in favour of a lesser charge.'.

6.15 pm

Mr. Michael

The effect of the new clauses is summed up in our proposed amendment to the title of the Bill because it amends the title to include victims.

Not enough has been done to consider the requirements and needs of victims of the mounting crime figures over which the Government have presided. The new clauses and the amendment seek to put that right. New clause 2 would establish a mechanism in parallel to the fund established by clause 72 to help the alleged victims of relevant offences. I shall refer to new clauses 7 and 8 and then return to new clause 2.

New clauses 7 and 8 relate to victims being consulted when a charge is reduced to a less serious one. The point must be obvious to anybody who has heard the complaints of their constituents about finding out that a charge has been dropped or reduced dramatically when, in the view of witnesses and those directly affected, it should not have been dropped. They relate to the criticism that seems rife at the moment of the Crown Prosecution Service which has been referred to earlier by hon. Members on both sides of the House, and particularly by my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng).

The low priority given to victims in the criminal justice system and the lack of consideration with which they are treated is worrying. All too often victims learn that the offence has been dropped or reduced to a less serious one, not from the prosecution but from newspaper coverage of court proceedings or when they attend court as a witness. It can cause enormous distress, particularly when a rape charge is reduced to one of sexual assault.

It seems extraordinary that the victim is not consulted or kept informed of developments, yet, despite the victims charter, it happens all too often. Part of the problem appears to stem from the fact that the Crown Prosecution Service believes that it should not contact victims directly as that would somehow ruin their impartiality. It seems a bizarre state of affairs. When the prosecution is considering withdrawing or reducing charges, it should consult both the police arid the victim.

I can confirm from conversations that we have had with police representatives that the police are unhappy with the present situation. It is symptomatic of the way in which victims are treated by the criminal justice system, and such lack of consideration pervades the system.

Victims are all too often unaware of what is happening from the time an offence is committed. They should be regularly provided with information about whether or not a suspect has been arrested, bailed, cautioned, prosecuted, convicted or sentenced. They should also be aware when someone is paroled or released from prison. They should not have to sit in the same part of the court as the relations of the defendant. They should be provided with help in court. Yet, as we saw in Committee, the Government have failed to provide funding for the Crown court witness service to develop and it has now stalled.

In addition, the Government have failed to provide finances for victim support and for all the schemes in the country that are ready to provide help for the ever-increasing number of witnesses.

The new clauses provide a mechanism whereby courts must be satisfied that a reasonable effort has been made to consult a victim when a charge has been reduced. That will have a powerful effect on the prosecution, who will be obliged to ensure that they keep the victim informed. It will therefore help to ensure that the criminal justice system works fairly for all affected by it.

New clause 2 would enable the Home Secretary to assist the victims of drug trafficking, drug-related crime or the misuse of drugs. Sometimes it is suggested that drug trafficking is a victimless crime. In some ways, it has the greatest number of victims, although they are not always named in any indictment and are more anonymous than is the case in many direct offences.

Drug users are in one sense the victims of drug trafficking, because they and their families ultimately pay the price of the drugs trade in this country. It must be acknowledged, however, that many communities also pay a heavy price for drug-related activities within them. Drug usage, and therefore the need for new clause 2, is growing.

The Institute for the Study of Drug Dependence estimates that, currently, 100,000 people—mainly young men—are dependent on heroin and that most of them inject. There is growing concern about the use of cocaine and crack. Seizures of that drug by Customs have risen ninefold over four years. That may reflect to some extent greater success in detecting drugs entering the country, but it also indicates a growing cocaine problem.

Since the 1980s, there has been a major expansion in the use of drugs associated with the rave dance youth culture. The drugs involved are mostly ecstasy, amphetamines and LSD. A new youth and drugs culture seems to be emerging, and new clause 2 would give the Government an additional instrument to tackle it at source rather than too late, as all too often happens.

Increased drug usage by young people is of particular concern. Since 1988, there has been an increase of 267 per cent. in the number of young people under the age of 17 found guilty of or cautioned for drug offences. The most recent national Gallup survey, commissioned by Wrangler and published last December, found that the number of under-25s taking drugs doubled between 1989 and 1992, and that 30 per cent. of 15 to 24-year-olds admitted to taking drugs. Workers in a national youth agency reported an upsurge in drug usage by young people over the past two years.

Even more worrying—and giving more point and urgency to tackling the problem positively—is research by Manchester university among 800 young people in schools on Merseyside and in Greater Manchester. In 1991, when they were aged 14 to 15, 59 per cent. of those young people said that they had been offered drugs and 36 per cent. had used them. One year later, the figures had doubled—59 per cent. of the youngsters said that they had tried cannabis, 22 per cent. nitrates, 25 per cent. LSD, 16 per cent. amphetamines, and 12 per cent. magic mushrooms. Those figures are worryingly high. We do not know how representative they are of the whole population because the north-west is traditionally an area of high drug use. That research certainly suggests a disturbing trend.

We have consistently made the criticism, and repeated it in Committee, that there is a lack of in-depth research that can be used to effect policy and to tackle problems where they arise. Against the picture of increased drug use, the Government have been cutting provisions to combat drugs. New clause 2 would provide a partial mechanism for dealing with that problem.

The Government are, for example, axing drugs advisory posts. Until the end of March 1993, there were 100 health education co-ordinators advising on drugs and alcohol funded by the Department for Education. They were based in local education authorities, and workers went to schools and youth clubs. The Department ceased that funding this year. According to latest estimates, only one third of authorities that previously had co-ordinators are likely to have someone in that post this year. That is a short-sighted cut, and is one way that the Government have failed to make the connection between the effects of the actions of one Department on another and of the actions of all Departments on the crime problem.

Residential provision for drug users will be decimated by the Government's failure to ring-fence those facilities. Many projects already find it difficult to survive. By cutting pay or staff, some are hanging on—but that cannot continue indefinitely, and projects will fold. The risk to individuals in the community are huge. Individuals at risk will not receive help, and failure to make that provision—with all the implications for society as a whole of HIV among drug users who inject—could literally prove lethal.

Those cuts are short-sighted in the extreme at a time of increased drug use. The Government must ensure that those vital services continue and that funding will be forthcoming. They cannot duck their responsibilities.

New clause 2 also takes into consideration the victims of crime. Only last week the Labour party produced a report on the strain being imposed on Victim Support, which is the national charity that helps victims. That organisation has inadequate cash to meet rapidly rising need. Earlier I said that crime has risen 121 per cent. while a Conservative Government have been in power. Help for victims of crime, burglary and acts of violence is urgently needed, as the increases have been greatest in those categories.

In 1992–93, 903,000 cases were referred to Victim Support, an increase of 19 per cent. over the previous year. With Government encouragement, Victim Support is expanding its work to victims of the most serious crimes who need specialised help—such as the victims of sexual offences and violence. That work is long-term and time-consuming.

The Government's failure to provide the money needed becomes even more incomprehensible when one considers the pitiful sums required. To cover all the outstanding applications for this year, Victim Support estimates that it needs just £500,000—a small sum compared with the Home Office budget of £5.9 million for that aspect of its work.

If the Government fail to provide that money, they will stand accused of total hypocrisy in pretending to espouse the cause of victims while denying those victims the help that they need. The Government must give urgent consideration to the needs of direct victims of drug offences and of those whose lives are wrecked by that vile trade.

The new clauses and the amendment concentrate on the needs of victims, who should be brought more centre stage in the criminal justice system. Local victim support schemes are being put under an unacceptable strain, with inadequate cash to meet rapidly rising need. If a lack of Home Office commitment allows those projects to fall, it would be short-sighted stupidity and could have tragic consequences for thousands of victims and witnesses. Such projects form a vital part of our criminal justice system, and against the background of a rise in recorded crime of 121 per cent. or more under a Conservative Government, it is a false economy not to provide the cash.

If the clauses are accepted and the long title of the Bill is amended to make reference to the victims of crime, that would restore the balance in the criminal justice system. Given the geography of the Bill, we are inevitably limited. The Opposition would like to do more. However, that change would be a modest step forward in treating victims of crime as they should be treated, and deserve to be treated, within our criminal justice system.

Mr. Anthony Coombs (Wyre Forest)

I want to raise one or two points on new clause 7, which deals with the consultation that the Opposition say ought to take place with victims of crime when applications are made to withdraw a charge in favour of a lesser charge.

I want to raise that matter because I have had a particularly difficult constituency case recently. I shall not mention any names for obvious reasons, but the case may give an indication of the importance of the matter. A reform in the law may not be needed, and the Opposition proposals—although well intentioned—may be difficult to carry out in practice. Charges ought to be a matter for courts and the prosecution service, rather than for victims of crime. The matter points up an important lacuna which presently exists in the law.

The case I shall refer to illustrates the distress that can be caused to victims if they are not consulted properly on a lesser charge being accepted, rather than the original charge that was put before the court.

My constituent is a young lady who, sadly, has been grossly harassed by a former boyfriend. Over a period, the police have come up with a great deal of evidence that seems to lead to the conclusion that not only harassment but blackmail was occurring.

6.30 pm

The evidence was produced, and was passed between the police and the Crown Prosecution Service, which then lost an important part of the evidence. The CPS has apologised subsequently through Barbara Mills to me on behalf of my constituent. Partly as a result of that loss of evidence, the court case was adjourned no fewer than five times. During that period, my constituent had to endure the same harassment that she had endured before from her former boyfriend. The harassment caused her to worry for her life.

The police continued to produce evidence, but when the case came before the court, the CPS said that it felt that the case might be thrown out if it tried for a further adjournment, and therefore that it would proceed with the case. Because it had lost evidence, however, the CPS decided that it would proceed on a lesser charge—a charge of affray—on which the defendant was likely to be found guilty. As a result, the defendant did not face a custodial sentence. The CPS said specifically that it should be informed of any further evidence of harassment to my constituent. The clear implication was that the defendant would be brought back before the court. The harassment allegedly—I use that word advisedly—has continued. The police have given evidence to the CPS, but it has refused to bring the defendant back before the court.

Much of what has occurred would not have done so had my constituent been adequately consulted on the day the matter was finally considered by the court about the lesser charge being brought against the defendant. She argues that she certainly was not consulted. I have communicated with the CPS in a fair amount of detail, and I am certain that she was not consulted adequately. If she had been, I do not believe that the problems that she faces would exist. The Government must bear that in mind when responding to the amendment.

It may not be possible to change the law on the rights of victims, but a code of practice for either the CPS, the police or the courts could be laid down stating that it is generally considered good practice that victims are consulted when lesser charges are likely to be laid and agreed to, possibly on a guilty plea, rather than greater charges—possibly carrying a custodial sentence in the case to which I referred—on a non-guilty plea. The gist of the Opposition amendment is important, and the spirit behind it is right. I hope that the Minister will he able to give a constructive response.

Sir Ivan Lawrence (Burton)

I do not know whether my hon. Friend the Minister intends to accept the amendments, but it is good that they are acceptable to both sides of the Chamber. I cannot allow the hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) to get away with the implication that it is time that the Government started to do something for victims, however, as the time has long since passed when we have indeed done something for victims.

Britain now has one of the best schemes for the treatment and care of victims of any country in the western world. I do not see why we should not be proud of that, and of the achievements of the Government in ensuring that that is so. We have counselling schemes, voluntary sector support and a criminal injuries compensation scheme which paid out more than £109 million last year —an increase of 50 per cent. on the previous year. A further £7.8 million will be spent this year on the nationwide network for victim support groups.

I was pleased to hear from my hon. Friend the Minister that the Government propose to increase the allocation to victim support groups again this year by an amount considerably in excess of the 1.5 per cent. rate of inflation. I am not saying that that is an adequate increase. Hon. Members espouse many causes which we think are sensible for which we would like an increase of much more than the rate of inflation in their allocations, but we know that the Government face problems with regard to their spending levels. Victim support grants have certainly not been ignored.

Mr. Mike O'Brien

Does the hon. and learned Gentleman share the concern of some of my constituents about the length of time that it can take for a case to be dealt with by the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board? Is it not the case, particularly where victims have a long wait for compensation for an injury, that the delay compounds the feeling of lack of care? The lack of resources currently available to the system and the delays which are occurring mean that the credit that the hon. and learned Gentleman gave to the Government for helping victims was perhaps laid on too thickly. That matter is causing concern to some of my constituents. Are those problems shared by any of the hon. and learned Gentleman's constituents?

Sir Ivan Lawrence

I do not seem to have had that problem in my constituency, although I recognise that it is a problem nationally. The case is exactly as the hon. Gentleman has outlined it, and that problem may have to be speedily addressed. I know that the chairman of the compensation hoard is worried about the matter.

The real problem is that the people who are making the assessments are busy practitioners and the length of time that they take to deal with such matters is becoming, as the hon. Gentleman suggested. a bit of a scandal. Something needs to be done and I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister will attend to the matter with speed.

Many of the points that were addressed by the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth are taken care of in the victims charter. That charter spells out clearly the Government's commitment to providing better help than ever before to victims of crime. Victims now have rights and entitlements that they never had before. The police, the courts and the Crown Prosecution Service have to give a great deal of consideration to the interests of victims to make it possible for them to give evidence in court in as relaxed an atmosphere as possible.

Victims should be protected in a number of ways from the old-fashioned treatment that they received previously. The charter demands that the police should respond to the needs of victims and take account of their views in deciding whether a lesser offence should be accepted and whether the offender should be cautioned. The Government have also required that, in most criminal investigations, an officer should be given sole responsibility for dealing with the needs of victims. It is precisely because of the attention that is now given to victims, particularly those of sexual offences, that women now come forward as never before to bring complaints of sexual attacks against men.

Previously women were humiliated by the courts and the judicial system, so they were loth to complain about rape or sexual attacks. Now they are not. They do not feel humiliated. They come forward and are encouraged to do so by a much more consumer-friendly judicial system, court system and police system. That is paradoxically one of the reasons why we appear to have an increase in crime. I doubt whether more sexual offences are taking place. It is simply that many more are coming to light because of the approach to victims, which makes their complaints rather more welcome than they have ever been before. I certainly hope that that is so.

In conclusion, although it is a good thing that Conservative and Opposition Members agree about the importance of victims, it would be a bad thing if we left the Chamber thinking that the Government had done nothing about them. The Government have done an immense amount and have mostly covered the points raised by the Labour party in its new clauses and amendment.

Mr. Maclean

This is an important little debate. I am glad that we have had it and that the view has been expressed from both sides of the House that victims are terribly important. I am also glad that my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Sir I. Lawrence) made the point so authoritatively that the Government have a good record in supporting the victims of crime—including drug-related crime, which is the subject of new clause 2.

The victims charter published in 1990 sets out the rights and expectations of people who have become victims of crime. Blameless victims of crimes of violence can receive compensation through the criminal injuries compensation scheme, the most generous compensation scheme for victims of crime anywhere in the world. I am sorry if I appear slightly nit-picking, but I must tell my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton that the scheme did not pay out to the victims of crime £109 million last year—it paid out £153 million.

Mr. David Trimble (Upper Bann)

I note the Minister's reference to the criminal injuries compensation scheme as the most generous in the world. I put to him the comparison with the scheme in Northern Ireland, which is on a statutory basis and gives individuals a right of appeal to the courts. I wonder whether the Minister might not like to improve the English scheme and put it on the same basis. Will he take this opportunity to disavow the rumours floating around that the Government wish to reduce the amount of compensation that victims receive by establishing some sort of tariff system?

Mr. Maclean

Even with the new tariff scheme, we shall still have the most generous victim compensation scheme anywhere in the world. I should not like to comment on the Northern Ireland scheme. The hon. Gentleman might accept that we should not be averse, with an accent like mine and an accent like his, to incorporating some of the best aspects of other legal systems in whichever part of the United Kingdom. I shall pass on the hon. Gentleman's comments to my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary.

Mr. Mike O'Brien

In the light of his comments about the tariff and the criminal injuries compensation scheme, can the Minister assure the House that no victim of crime who is able to make an application will receive less in real terms under the new scheme than under the previous scheme?

6.45 pm

Mr. Maclean

We are consulting widely on the proposed new tariff scheme. I alluded to criminal injuries compensation in the debate tonight only because other hon. Members raised it in discussing how generous our scheme is. I do not propose to get into the details of the tariff scheme now. We shall publish the details of it in due course. The hon. Gentleman will then be able to make his points. I merely make the point that we have a generous scheme because I do not want the record to stand with the impression that we discovered victims only during today's debate.

Victim Support has been mentioned. The Home Office is providing £8.4 million to Victim Support in the current year to provide help for the victims of crime. I must confess that I do not understand why the organisation should say—if that is indeed what it says—that it has a financial crisis. Its allocation in 1990–91 was £4.7 million. We told it then what its allocation would be for the next three years. It would receive a huge increase the next year to £5.7 million, a 40 per cent. increase to £7.3 million the following year and a further 15 per cent. increase to £8.4 million this year.

I understand that my predecessor told Victim Support well in advance, in 1990–91, the level of grants for the next three years. That gave it ample time to budget and plan its affairs with greatly increased resources.

Mr. Boateng

It could not plan and budget for the explosion of crime that has taken place in the past three years. It could not budget and plan for the pressure on local authority spending that is the result of the grant dispensation of the Department of the Environment, which has borne directly on the capacity of local authorities to support, as they would wish to do, victim support schemes. The Minister ought to show a little more sympathy to those schemes, which are often supported without funding by volunteers who give their time free and gratis with precious little appreciation. He ought to show a little more sympathy than he has just displayed.

Mr. Maclean

It is because the Government have not only uttered words of sympathy but backed them up with hard taxpayers' cash that I felt it appropriate to put on the record the huge increase in funding that has been given to Victim Support. I believe that, in 1986–87, the figure was about £1 million and in the year before that it was about £200,000 to £300,000. The Government have been generous.

I do not want to argue the case for and against Victim Support in the Chamber. I intend to meet the organisation in the reasonably near future to hear what it has to say and discuss its problems, and so that it can make representations to me.

Mr. Robert Maclennan (Caithness and Sutherland)

The Minister says that the money for victim support schemes comes from the taxpayer's pocket, but does not the criminal justice system also yield a substantial amount of money, through fines, which might be better deployed in helping victims?

Mr. Maclean

I would take that exhortation more seriously if the hon. Gentleman and his party did not have 200 or 300 other ideas as to how one could use the money raised from taxpayers.

Victim Support helps the victims of crime. It does a wonderful job in helping the victims both of violent crime and of non-violent crime such as burglary and fraud. It has helped more than 800,000 people, undoubtedly including many victims of drug-related crime, which I mention because it is the subject of the first amendment.

Measures to assist the victims of drug misuse include treatment and rehabilitation services. The Government are already making more than £24 million available to health authorities this year for specialist drug services. That provision is in addition to the hospital and general practitioner services available for the treatment of health problems other than addiction related to drug misuse.

Mr. Boateng

What about the victims of drug trafficking who have to inhabit the estates and tower blocks where lift wells, lifts and entrance halls are used by drug traffickers? What compensation will those victims of the offence of drug trafficking receive? One understands the work that is being done. [Interruption.] I hear the hon. Member for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman) say from a sedentary position that that is a silly point. She ought to know better. It is not silly to the many people whose lives are ruined by the activities of drug traffickers who make their housing estates a living hell. There is nothing silly about that. The hon. Lady would do well to keep her opinions to herself or at least have the guts to stand up and make a speech.

Mr. Maclean

Mr. Deputy Speaker——

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman (Lancaster)

I should like to answer that weak point.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse)

Order. That was an intervention. It is up to the Minister to decide whether he wants to give way.

Mr. Maclean

I give way.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman

Thank you, Minister. My point was that it is one thing to make awards, very rightly, to specific victims, but it is extremely difficult to compensate an entire housing block or all the people who use a lift. It is essential that aid is targeted. Opposition Members had no scheme when they were in office, but ours has been moving up steadily and I am in favour of it. However, it should not be dissipated in the way suggested by the hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng).

Mr. Maclean

The point is that, wherever our constituents may live, whether in housing estates or rural areas, if they know of neighbours, associates or people who inhabit the areas where they live who are indulging in drug trafficking, dealing or any other crimes, the first step must be maximum co-operation and liaison with the police. In such cases, we are all potential victims of crime, but I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman) that this is not a matter for criminal injuries compensation or a special scheme targeted to help people who may be living in an area where drug traffickers are operating.

We have the powers in this Act, supported by the Opposition, to crack down heavily on drug traffickers and confiscate their ill-gotten gains. We must continue with that pincer movement. Also, local people must report every incident that they come across of drug trafficking or drug-related crime.

Directly or indirectly, considerable support has already been provided across a broad range of services for the victims of crime and drug misuse. We covered much of the ground on this when amendments to clause 45 and a related new clause were considered at an earlier stage. I thought that I had satisfied the Committee that the powers that the Secretary of State already has to make grants for all aspects of drug prevention and education were sufficiently wide that this amendment would not be necessary. I merely say again that the Secretary of State's powers are sufficiently wide, and I do not believe that this is necessary.

I understand and respect the motivation behind the proposed new clauses 7 and 8. My hon. Friend the Member for Wyre Forest (Mr. Coombs) mentioned a sad and tragic case. I understand why he feels sympathy for the points that have been made in the debate. The interest of the victims is one area to which I want to pay particular attention in the coming months. I spent this morning sitting in the spectators' gallery of a London magistrates court. I then went to lunch with the magistrates and discussed their concerns about crime. Tomorrow I shall be meeting victims of crime and over the next few weeks I shall have a series of meetings with the victims of crime, the police and those at the sharp end. As I said in the House to my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, North (Mr. Carlisle) in the first debate that I addressed as Minister responsible for law and order, I intend to meet the victims and those at the sharp end before I meet the professionals with the theories about how we should deal with crime.

The victims charter has already been mentioned. A total of 31 of the 51 standards in that have already been met and my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary and I plan to establish whether the interests of the victim can be better protected in certain circumstances by complementing a caution with some sort of reparation or compensation to the victim.

It is important that we keep victims informed of the progress of a case. That is the Government's objective and we intend to turn our attention to that, but that is quite different from making the Crown Prosecution Service consult victims on the appropriate level of charge that should be made. It is the task of the independent Crown Prosecution Service to make an objective judgment in the light of the evidence available. The need to alter charges arises, quite properly, when the police, in bringing the prosecution, have over-charged, perhaps because of an over-optimistic view of the evidence or when the value of the evidence changes—for instance, following scientific analysis.

The code for Crown prosecutors—that is a public document, approved by Parliament—makes it clear that, when a case is brought to court the charges brought should reflect the criminality of the behaviour being prosecuted, and in the absence of any other criteria should be the most serious charges and can be supported by the evidence. The code also directs that the interests of the victim should be taken into account. I fear that to extend this by effectively imposing on the CPS a duty to consult the victim would raise expectations for the victim that could not, in reality, be realised.

Mr. Boateng

The hon. Member for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman) has clearly been mainlining on caffiene. I hope that I shall not engender her wrath by pointing out to the Minister the real concern that was expressed in Committee about the families of victims of road traffic offences—particularly death by reckless driving—who do not at the moment have any real place or status within the criminal justice system. The Minister was good enough to say that he would have a word with the Lord Chancellor's Department about that. I wonder if he will share with us the results of that word and whether he feels that those families should be informed before the CPS determines to drop or reduce any charges. Their suffering is all too often forgotten, and it is a cause of concern to many hon. Members on both sides of the House.

Mr. Maclean

I agree entirely. I have not yet had a chance to have a word with the Lord Chancellor or his Department, so I cannot tell the hon. Gentleman anything more than I told him last week in Committee, but I can reassure him that I shall have discussions on this and the other points that both he and my hon. Friends made in Committee about talking to the administrators of the courts about having separate facilities, for those giving evidence on the side of the victim and those supporting the defendant.

The Crown Prosecution Service must determine the appropriate charge to put before the court. It will be aware of the victim's loss in all cases, but the determining factor will have to be the available evidence. For those reasons, I hope that the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) will be prepared to withdraw the new clause.

Mr. Michael

I am glad that the Minister has accepted some of our arguments in this short debate. However, we want him to be more than a spectator, more than just a travelling voyeur, of the effect of crime on victims. We want action to help victims, just as in our first new clause we demanded a reduction of crime and, therefore, a reduction in the number of victims.

There does not seem to be any understanding among some Conservative members of the way in which good people in some areas, particularly in some of our cities, are affected by drug trafficking. In their homes and communities, they are the victims of drug-related crime. We must abandon no families or communities to that sort of misery. There must be no complacency in the House about the problem in so many of our inner cities.

My constituent, whose son was seriously damaged when a glass was pushed into his face in a pub, was horrified to find that the serious charge against the perpetrator of the action had been reduced, and that a very low penalty was imposed for the lesser crime heard by the court. I understand the anger, frustration and misery that she felt because she felt that she had not been given the opportunity to comment on the decision of the Crown Prosecution Service.

The intention is not to take away the objectivity of the Crown Prosecution Service. It must take the decision whether to prosecute and on what charge. However, the CPS should inform and consult and it should listen to those involved and understand the pain that is felt by the victim and the victim's family. How can the CPS listen and understand, as the Minister suggests, unless that opportunity is provided? That is why the consultation proposed in our amendment is so important.

The achievement of Victim Support has been tremendous over recent years, since I was involved in the early days in the setting up of the first of the Cardiff schemes 10 years or more ago. It has developed enormously. However, it needs to develop further.

I welcome the agreement of the hon. and learned Member for Burton (Sir I. Lawrence) to some of our points, but he was a little complacent when he suggested that the Government have done enough for victims. The Government have encouraged Victim Support to expand further, but they have not provided the resources to match the amount required. The Government said to Victim Support, "Expand to meet needs in those areas." What are the areas? Where is the money to meet that need?

Grant applications are outstanding for new posts in Bradford, Harrogate, north-east Leeds, Erewash, High Peak, Leicester, Loughborough, Handsworth, Telford, mid-Warwickshire, Wolverhampton, Cheltenham, Falmouth, Newquay, north Devon, Somerset, Westonsuper-Mare, Chiltern, Crawley, Greenford, Greenwich, the Medway towns, Newham, Redbridge, Swale, Waltham Forest, Manchester and Wigan.

Schemes are waiting for outstanding hours in Durham, Loughborough, Peterborough, Shrewsbury, Ely, Fenland, Forest Heath, south Norfolk, north Devon, Somerset, Stroud, Truro, Wiltshire, Bexley, Brentford, Chiswick, Crawley, Gosport, Greenwich, Hemel Hempstead, Newbury, Richmond and Sutton and Cynon Valley.

7 pm.

Those applications were made because Victim Support was encouraged by the Minister's predecessor to develop schemes to help victims. However, the problem is that the money has not been provided to meet aspirations that the Home Office encouraged.

The Minister said that the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board operates the most generous scheme in the world. Many victims are now excluded because of the increase in the threshold from £550 to £1,000, which precludes from consideration one in three victims of violent crime. The Minister refused to say whether it is true that he intends to increase the threshold to £1,500. If he does, it will add to the damage that has been done already by increasing the threshold. No, we cannot accept that the Government are doing enough for victims. It is only right that we should press the new clause to a vote.

Mr. Maclennan

The Minister's speech revealed what little interest he has in the views of hon. Members. It was clear that he had not troubled to use the time between Committee and Report to consult the Lord Chancellor's Department about the effect of new clauses 7 and 8. He was derelict in his duty in coming before the House without having properly informed himself of the view of the responsible Cabinet Minister.

The difficulties that the House experiences in not being able to question the Lord Chancellor are of long standing, but it will not do to put up a Minister to answer a debate who has not taken the trouble to inform himself of the position, especially as he undertook to do so. No doubt that will be noted in another place when the Bill is reconsidered.

All hon. Members are concerned about the problems of victims. We all know that, under this Government, the number of victims has risen inexorably year after year, and that the Government's instant criminal justice legislation in almost every Session has done nothing to stem the rising tide of victims. No victims suffer more than the victims of drug trafficking, drug-related crime and the misuse of drugs.

The Government's objection to the importation into the Bill of what is, after all, only a proposed power, not a requirement, to make grants to such persons is hard to understand. The Minister should simply have accepted the proposal, for it certainly does not impose a duty on him to make any amounts available; it simply allows the Secretary of State to intervene as appropriate in particular cases. The spectacle of the victims of drug-related crime in our inner cities gives rise to the deepest concern in our society today.

I have no doubt that Labour Front-Bench spokesmen were right to draw attention to the sense of outrage that is felt by many people whose relatives have been victims of a serious offence when that serious offence is dropped and a lesser charge preferred. I imagine that many hon. Members will have had experience of complaints from constituents in just such circumstances, because they do not find it satisfactory that the Crown Prosecution Service has not consulted in the manner proposed.

In seeking to decide the appropriate charge to bring, it is surely important to consider the consequence of the offence, and if that is to be taken fully into account, consultation with the victim would seem an appropriate step to take. It does not, of course, mean that the victim would have any say over the appropriate charge; it would merely provide the Crown Prosecution Service with evidence on which to make an appropriate judgment.

For those reasons, we shall support the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) if he decides to push the matter to a Division.

Question put:—

The House divided: Ayes 232, Noes 270.

Division No. 311]	[7.05 pm
AYES
Abbott, Ms Diane	Callaghan, Jim
Adams, Mrs Irene	Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)	Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Allen, Graham	Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Alton, David	Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)	Cann, Jamie
Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)	Chisholm, Malcolm
Armstrong, Hilary	Clapham, Michael
Ashton, Joe	Clark, Dr David (South Shields)
Austin-Walker, John	Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Barron, Kevin	Clelland, David
Battle, John	Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Bayley, Hugh	Coffey, Ann
Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret	Cohen, Harry
Bell, Stuart	Corbett, Robin
Benn, Rt Hon Tony	Corbyn, Jeremy
Bennett, Andrew F.	Corston, Ms Jean
Benton, Joe	Cousins, Jim
Bermingham, Gerald	Cryer, Bob
Berry, Dr. Roger	Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)
Betts, Clive	Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John
Blair, Tony	Dafis, Cynog
Blunkett, David	Dalyell, Tam
Boateng, Paul	Darling, Alistair
Boyes, Roland	Davidson, Ian
Bradley, Keith	Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)
Bray, Dr Jeremy	Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)	Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Brown, N. (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)	Denham, John
Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)	Dewar, Donald
Burden, Richard	Dixon, Don
Byers, Stephen	Dobson, Frank
Caborn, Richard	Donohoe, Brian H.

Dowd, Jim	Madden, Max
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth	Mahon, Alice
Eagle, Ms Angela	Mandelson, Peter
Eastham, Ken	Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Etherington, Bill	Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)
Evans, John (St Helens N)	Maxton, John
Fatchett, Derek	Meacher, Michael
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)	Meale, Alan
Flynn, Paul	Michael, Alun
Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)	Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Foster, Rt Hon Derek	Milburn, Alan
Foster, Don (Bath)	Miller, Andrew
Foulkes, George	Morgan, Rhodri
Fraser, John	Morley, Elliot
Fyfe, Maria	Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)
Galbraith, Sam	Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)
Galloway, George	Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Gapes, Mike	Mowlam, Marjorie
Garrett, John	Mudie, George
George, Bruce	Mullin, Chris
Gerrard, Neil	Murphy, Paul
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John	Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Godsiff, Roger	O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)
Golding, Mrs Llin	O'Brien, William (Normanton)
Gordon, Mildred	O'Hara, Edward
Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)	Olner, William
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)	O'Neill, Martin
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)	Patchett, Terry
Grocott, Bruce	Pickthall, Colin
Gunnell, John	Pike, Peter L.
Hain, Peter	Pope, Greg
Hall, Mike	Powell, Ray (Ogmore)
Hanson, David	Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)
Harman, Ms Harriet	Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy	Prescott, John
Henderson, Doug	Primarolo, Dawn
Heppell, John	Quin, Ms Joyce
Hill, Keith (Streatham)	Radice, Giles
Hinchliffe, David	Randall, Stuart
Hoey, Kate	Raynsford, Nick
Hoon, Geoffrey	Rendel, David
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)	Robertson, George (Hamilton)
Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)	Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)
Hoyle, Doug	Roche, Mrs. Barbara
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)	Rogers, Allan
Hutton, John	Rooker, Jeff
Illsley, Eric	Rooney, Terry
Ingram, Adam	Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)
Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)	Rowlands, Ted
Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)	Ruddock, Joan
Jamieson, David	Sedgemore, Brian
Janner, Greville	Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)	Shore, Rt Hon Peter
Jones, leuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)	Short, Clare
Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)	Simpson, Alan
Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)	Skinner, Dennis
Jowell, Tessa	Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)
Keen, Alan	Smith, C. (Isl'ton S & F'sbury)
Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)	Smith, Rt Hon John (M'kl'ds E)
Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)	Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)
Khabra, Piara S.	Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)
Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil (Islwyn)	Snape, Peter
Kirkwood, Archy	Soley, Clive
Leighton, Ron	Spearing, Nigel
Lestor, Joan (Eccles)	Steel, Rt Hon Sir David
Lewis, Terry	Steinberg, Gerry
Livingstone, Ken	Stevenson, George
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)	Strang, Dr. Gavin
Llwyd, Elfyn	Straw, Jack
Loyden, Eddie	Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)
Lynne, Ms Liz	Taylor, Rt Hon John D. (Strgfd)
McAllion, John	Tipping, Paddy
McAvoy, Thomas	Trimble, David
McCartney, Ian	Vaz, Keith
Macdonald, Calum	Warden, Gareth (Gower)
McFall, John	Wareing, Robert N
Mackinlay, Andrew	Watson, Mike
McLeish, Henry	Wicks, Malcolm
Maclennan, Robert	Wigley, Dafydd
McMaster, Gordon	Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)	Young, David (Bolton SE)
Wilson, Brian
Wise, Audrey	Tellers for the Ayes:
Worthington, Tony	Mr. Dennis Turner and Mr. Peter Kilfoyle.
Wray, Jimmy
Wright, Dr Tony
NOES
Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)	Dunn, Bob
Aitken, Jonathan	Eggar, Tim
Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)	Elletson, Harold
Allason, Rupert (Torbay)	Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Amess, David	Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)
Ancram, Michael	Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)
Arbuthnot, James	Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)
Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)	Evans, Roger (Monmouth)
Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)	Evennett, David
Ashby, David	Faber, David
Aspinwall, Jack	Fabricant, Michael
Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)	Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)	Fishburn, Dudley
Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)	Forman, Nigel
Baldry, Tony	Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Banks, Robert (Harrogate)	Forth, Eric
Bates, Michael	Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
Batiste, Spencer	Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)
Bendall, Vivian	Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)
Beresford, Sir Paul	Freeman, Rt Hon Roger
Biffen, Rt Hon John	French, Douglas
Blackburn, Dr John G.	Gardiner, Sir George
Body, Sir Richard	Garnier, Edward
Booth, Hartley	Gill, Christopher
Boswell, Tim	Gillan, Cheryl
Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)	Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair
Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia	Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Bowden, Andrew	Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Bowis, John	Gorst, John
Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes	Grant, Sir Anthony (Cambs SW)
Brandreth, Gyles	Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Brazier, Julian	Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Bright, Graham	Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)
Browning, Mrs. Angela	Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn
Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)	Hague, William
Budgen, Nicholas	Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie (Epsom)
Burns, Simon	Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Burt, Alistair	Hampson, Dr Keith
Butcher, John	Hanley, Jeremy
Butler, Peter	Hannam, Sir John
Butterfill, John	Harris, David
Carlisle, John (Luton North)	Haselhurst, Alan
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)	Hawkins, Nick
Carrington, Matthew	Hawksley, Warren
Carttiss, Michael	Hayes, Jerry
Cash, William	Heald, Oliver
Channon, Rt Hon Paul	Heathcoat-Amory, David
Chapman, Sydney	Hendry, Charles
Churchill, Mr	Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.
Clappison, James	Hill, James (Southampton Test)
Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)	Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)
Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)	Horam, John
Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey	Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Coe, Sebastian	Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Congdon, David	Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)
Conway, Derek	Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)
Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)	Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)	Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)
Cope, Rt Hon Sir John	Hunter, Andrew
Cormack, Patrick	Jack, Michael
Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)	Jackson, Robert (Wantage)
Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)	Jenkin, Bernard
Davies, Quentin (Stamford)	Jessel, Toby
Davis, David (Boothferry)	Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Day, Stephen	Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Deva, Nirj Joseph	Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)
Dickens, Geoffrey	Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Dorrell, Stephen	Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James	Key, Robert
Dover, Den	Kilfedder, Sir James
Duncan, Alan	Kirkhope, Timothy
Duncan-Smith, Iain	Knapman, Roger

Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)	Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela
Knight, Greg (Derby N)	Ryder, Rt Hon Richard
Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)	Sackville, Tom
Knox, Sir David	Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim
Kynoch, George (Kincardine)	Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas
Lait, Mrs Jacqui	Shaw, David (Dover)
Lawrence, Sir Ivan	Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Legg, Barry	Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)
Leigh, Edward	Shersby, Michael
Lennox-Boyd, Mark	Sims, Roger
Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)	Skeet, Sir Trevor
Lidington, David	Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Lightbown, David	Soames, Nicholas
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter	Spencer, Sir Derek
Lord, Michael	Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)
Luff, Peter	Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
MacGregor, Rt Hon John	Spink, Dr Robert
Maclean, David	Spring, Richard
McLoughlin, Patrick	Sproat, Iain
McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick	Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)
Madel, David	Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John
Malone, Gerald	Steen, Anthony
Mans, Keith	Stephen, Michael
Marland, Paul	Stern, Michael
Marlow, Tony	Stewart, Allan
Marshall, John (Hendon S)	Streeter, Gary
Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)	Sumberg, David
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)	Sweeney, Walter
Mawhinney, Dr Brian	Tapsell, Sir Peter
Mellor, Rt Hon David	Taylor, Ian (Esher)
Merchant, Piers	Taylor, John M. (Solihull)
Milligan, Stephen	Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)	Thomason, Roy
Moate, Sir Roger	Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)
Montgomery, Sir Fergus	Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)
Moss, Malcolm	Thornton, Sir Malcolm
Nelson, Anthony	Thurnham, Peter
Neubert, Sir Michael	Townend, John (Bridlington)
Newton, Rt Hon Tony	Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th)
Nicholls, Patrick	Tracey, Richard
Nicholson, David (Taunton)	Tredinnick, David
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)	Trend, Michael
Norris, Steve	Twinn, Dr Ian
Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley	Vaughan, Sir Gerard
Oppenheim, Phillip	Viggers, Peter
Page, Richard	Walden, George
Paice, James	Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)
Patnick, Irvine	Waterson, Nigel
Patten, Rt Hon John	Watts, John
Pawsey, James	Wells, Bowen
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth	Whitney, Ray
Pickles, Eric	Whittingdale, John
Porter, David (Waveney)	Widdecombe, Ann
Portillo, Rt Hon Michael	Wiggin, Sir Jerry
Powell, William (Corby)	Wilkinson, John
Redwood, Rt Hon John	Willetts, David
Renton, Rt Hon Tim	Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)
Richards, Rod	Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)
Riddick, Graham	Wolfson, Mark
Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm	Wood, Timothy
Robathan, Andrew	Young, Rt Hon Sir George
Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn
Robinson, Mark (Somerton)	Tellers for the Noes:
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)	Mr. Michael Brown and Mr. Andrew MacKay.
Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

Question accordingly negatived.