Victims of Crime (Hansard, 23 January 2003)

§ 9. Mr. Martin Salter (Reading, West)
What action the Government are taking to strengthen support for young people who are victims of criminal assaults by other young people. [91813]

§ 10. Mrs. Helen Clark (Peterborough)
What action the Government are taking to reduce the number of young people who are victims of crime. [91814]

§ The Minister for Policing, Crime Reduction and Community Safety (Mr. John Denham)
Young people are often the victims of youth crime. Actions such as the street crime initiative have not only reduced street crime overall; they have reduced the extent to which young people have been the victims of crime. In July last year, we introduced new support in the court system for vulnerable and intimidated witnesses, many of whom are young people required to give evidence. In addition, £2 million of the £28 million that we give to Victim Support is designed to support vulnerable and intimidated witnesses.

§ Mr. Salter
Considering that one in four permanently excluded school children admitted, in the 2002 MORI youth survey, to stealing a mobile phone, mainly from other young people, does the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Skills agree that further work is needed to deal with the problem of permanent exclusions to counter the traumatic effect of youth-on-youth crime?

§ The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Skills (Mr. Ivan Lewis)
I sympathise with my hon. Friend's point. There is a direct link between permanent exclusion and street crime which we must address. We cannot duck the issue; behaviour and discipline have become a major issue in our schools. Teachers have difficulty with that, and it undermines the ability of young people to learn. There must be support for teachers and head teachers because, in some circumstances, the only option available to them is permanent exclusion.
What is different now is that from September we have insisted that any child who is permanently excluded must have access to full-time education and objective advice to get them reintegrated into mainstream education as soon as possible. In addition, we are putting a tremendous amount of resources into preventive work, so that young people's behaviour does not deteriorate to such an extent that permanent exclusion is the only option. In excellence in cities areas, learning mentors in units in schools allow teachers to withdraw young people for a short time to work on a one-to-one basis and get the behaviour sorted out before they return to class.
160WH We must also focus on teacher training. We must give teachers the skills and confidence to manage some of the behaviour and discipline problems that they have to face. In some circumstances, permanent exclusion is the only option, but we must make resources available for preventive work so that young people do not drift into criminal activities.

§ Mrs. Clark
I am grateful for that reply from the Under-Secretary, as well as for the reply by the Home Office Minister. Will they join me and, I am sure, hon. Members on all sides of the Chamber, in sending condolences to the family in Peterborough of Ross Parker, a 17-year-old killed about a year ago in an unprovoked attack by three young men older than him, who have now been convicted and sent to prison?
Will Ministers also join me in congratulating the Peterborough community in general, the police and the Jack Hunt school led by Chris Hilliard, where Ross was a student, on the tremendous way in which they have worked together to overcome the divisive effects of that tragic incident? Will Ministers visit Peterborough and the school, and perhaps meet Ross's family?

§ Mr. Denham
I certainly join my hon. Friend in sending condolences to Ross Parker's family. I know that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary spoke to them at the time of the murder. I pay tribute to Ross's parents for their clear commitment to ensuring that that tragic event should not prove to be a divisive event in Peterborough. My hon. Friend has said what needs to be said about the work that people have done locally. A huge effort has been made in Peterborough to prevent that event from being even more damaging. If my hon. Friend thinks that it would be of value to the community, I will certainly consider visiting her constituency.

§ Richard Younger-Ross (Teignbridge)
Does the Minister accept that one of the best ways to help a young victim of crime may be to ensure that the period between the incident and the trial is as short as possible? Cases in my constituency have taken over a year to come to trial, and schools that have approached me on the matter are concerned about the impact of that on the victim's education, as well as the damage that the long-drawn-out period does to the perpetrator of the crime.

§ Mr. Denham
That is an important point. Members will be aware that when this Government were elected in 1997, it took 142 days on average for a case involving a young offender to come to court. We made that a priority, and for a number of months the average has been less than half that. Some cases will take less time to come to court, just as some will take more.
It is also important that we provide good support to young people who are required to appear at those trials, whether they have been victims of crime or are witnesses. Among other initiatives, including Victim Support, which we have discussed, I have talked to the Department for Education and Skills about ways in which the Connexions service could provide additional support to young witnesses who are about to go through 161WH the trauma of reliving their experience in court. It is important that we support young victims of crime through a very difficult time in their lives.

§ Mr. David Hinchliffe (Wakefield)
What consideration are the Government giving in the development of their child protection strategy to assaults on children by their parents? Are the Government considering removing the "reasonable chastisement" defence in respect of physical punishment?

§ The Minister of State, Department of Health (Jacqui Smith)
As my hon. Friend knows, the Government carried out a consultation on the issue. Although I know that my hon. Friend and other colleagues disagreed with it, many people felt that the law should not be changed to achieve what people see effectively as a ban on parents smacking their children.
My hon. Friend referred to the defence of reasonable chastisement. After the changes to human rights legislation, it is necessary for any court in this country which is considering a case of assault against a young person in which the defence of reasonable chastisement is being used, to consider the age and, if necessary, gender of the child and the kind of assault that was undertaken. The court must seriously consider whether the case constituted assault.
With the exception of reasonable chastisement, exactly the same law applies to adults and children. My hon. Friend and others believe that we should make it impossible for parents to smack their children. As I have said previously, that would not help us in the important job, to which my hon. Friend rightly draws attention, of preventing serious abuse against children. There is a clear distinction between a parent smacking their child—something that many of us may deplore—and violence against a child. It does not help us to make that distinction by changing the law as he suggests. We have asked the Attorney-General to keep the defence of reasonable chastisement under review, and assure him that we continue to monitor the situation. I share his concern that we need to tackle abuse against children. That should be our top priority.