Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Bill [Lords]

Public Bill Committee, 1 July 2004.

Standing Committee E

Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Bill [Lords]

Dame Cheryl Gillan (Conservative, Chesham and Amersham)

On a point of order, Dame Marion. I wonder whether you can help me. I think that it is only fair to raise the following matter at this stage in proceedings.

The Bill started in November 2003 in another place. On 4 March, it was the subject of a complaint by Baroness Anelay, who voiced the Opposition's views on the fact that even though the Bill had already been in the other House for three months 17 pages of Government amendments on mental incapacity were suddenly tabled on the eve of the eleventh hour. At that stage, my noble Friend asked for recommittal proceedings, which were quietly brushed aside.

What is so sad about this Christmas tree Bill is that almost nine months later and four sittings before the end of the agreed time for the scrutiny of the Bill by this Committee, the Government have again tabled a series of significant amendments that make a great deal of difference to the Bill. This is not the first time that that has happened. So serious are the amendments that they involve yet another adjustment to the long title—I think that it has now been adjusted three times.

I would like your advice, Dame Marion, about what can be done. The Government's action is not in the spirit of the way in which we have tried to co-operate with them on the Bill, or in the spirit of effective scrutiny of the legislation. It shows that the Government are so chaotic that they cannot get their act together in nine months to present the House with a suitable draft Bill. It robs those organisations outside the House who have been intimately involved with the passage and process of the Bill of the opportunity to consult and feed back their views on important clauses. Once again, the spectre of recommittal in the other place is raised because their lordships have not had a chance to scrutinise large chunks of the Bill.

Dame Marion, can you advise me whether it would be in order to ask for recommittal of the Bill in another place, and whether there is any way that we can prevent such activity by the Government, which looks like sharp practice?

David Heath (Liberal Democrat, Somerton and Frome)

Further to that point of order, Dame Marion. I share the hon. Lady's dismay about such a significant group of amendments being tabled at this stage of the Bill's passage. The Bill has not been making quick progress through its parliamentary stages. It has suffered repeated delay both in another place and between the two Houses—we seemed to wait an inordinate amount of time for it to make further progress in this House.

Although it would be inappropriate to talk about the content of the amendments, and I do not intend to do so, it is right to say so that they are both significant and, in large part, leftovers from the previous enactment, the Courts Act 2003, in connection with which they should have been considered. It is stretching the good nature of the Committee to introduce major amendments at this stage, when we had been making good progress and felt that we were doing justice to the Bill. I fear that we will not now have the opportunity to scrutinise the new amendments, and the other place will certainly not have such an opportunity unless the hon. Lady's request is acceded to.

Marion Roe (Conservative, Broxbourne)

I listened carefully to what the hon. Members said, but the points of order are not a matter for me. The tabling of the amendments was carried out in accordance with the correct procedures. What happens in the other place is certainly nothing to do with me. The points of order are, in fact, matters for debate between the hon. Members and the Minister.

Clause 25 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 5 agreed to.

Clause 26 - General functions of Commissioner

David Heath (Liberal Democrat, Somerton and Frome)

I beg to move amendment No. 54, in clause 26, page 16, line 15, at end insert—

'(d) ensure that the Domestic Violence Advocacy Service established under section [Domestic Violence Advocacy Service] is maintained in each local justice area;

(e) make a report to the Secretary of State on the operation of the Domestic Violence Advocacy Service, and in particular:

(a) the accessibility of services offered to victims of crime;

(b) the adequacy of resources made available through the Domestic Violence Advocacy Service Fund for the purposes; and

(c) any other matters related to the provision of services to victims of domestic violence.'.

Marion Roe (Conservative, Broxbourne)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Amendment No. 87, in clause 29, page 17, line 8, after '28', insert—

'and section [Domestic Violence Advocacy Service].'.

New clause 30—Domestic Violence Advocacy Service—

'(1) In this section, ''Voluntary organisation'' means a charity or an organisation operating on a not-for-profit basis.

(2) The Secretary of State shall establish, maintain and develop a national service known as the Domestic Violence Advocacy Service for the purpose of promoting the availability to victims of services of the descriptions specified in subsection (3) and, in particular, for securing (within the resources made available, and priorities set, in accordance with subsection (6)) that victims have access to services that effectively meet their needs.

(3) The descriptions of services referred to in subsection (1) are—

(a) the provision of help in developing and implementing a plan for ensuring the safety of the victim and the safety of the children of the victim as a priority;

(b) the provision of general information, relevant to the victim, about the law and legal system and the availability of legal services,

(c) the provision of help by the giving of advice as to how the law applies in the particular circumstances of the victim,

(d) the provision of information as to the availability to the victim of relevant support services offered by other agencies,

(e) the provision of assistance in accessing services relevant to the victim that are offered by other agencies,

(f) the provision of help in relation to legal proceedings, whether in the family, criminal or civil courts.

(4) The services of the descriptions specified in subsection (3) shall be accessible to victims at any hour and on any day and shall be provided by persons of the same sex as the victim where requested by the victim.

(5) The Secretary of State shall establish and maintain a fund known as the Domestic Violence Advocacy Service Fund from which services of the descriptions specified in subsection (3) shall be funded as part of the Domestic Violence Advocacy Service.

(6) The Secretary of State shall prepare a code setting out the criteria according to which he will decide how to fund services as part of the Domestic Violence Advocacy Service.

(7) When preparing the code referred to in subsection (6) the Secretary of State shall consult all relevant bodies (and, in particular, voluntary organisations) who are able to communicate the views of victims of domestic violence.

(8) The Secretary of State may accredit, or authorise others to accredit, voluntary organisations providing services of the descriptions specified in subsection (3); and any system of accreditation shall include provision for the monitoring of the services provided by accredited organisations and for the withdrawal of accreditation from any providing services of unsatisfactory quality.

(9) The Secretary of State may fund services as part of the Domestic Violence Advocacy Service by—

(a) entering into contracts with voluntary organisations for the provision of services by them,

(b) making payments to voluntary organisations in respect of the provision of services by them,

(c) making grants or loans to voluntary organisations to enable them to provide, or facilitate the provision of, services,

(d) establishing and maintaining voluntary organisations to provide, or facilitate the provision of, services,

(e) making grants or loans to individuals to enable them to obtain services,

(f) doing anything else which he considers appropriate for funding services.

(10) The Secretary of State may by order require accredited bodies providing services of the descriptions specified in subsection (3) to discharge those services in accordance with the order.'.

David Heath (Liberal Democrat, Somerton and Frome)

Having got the earlier skirmishes out of the way, I welcome you to the Committee this morning, Dame Marion.

I should say straight away that amendment No. 54 is not the substantive amendment in the group. In a way, it serves as a paving amendment for new clause 30, which has received all-party support and on which other hon. Members will wish to speak.

Amendment No. 54 proposes that the suggested domestic violence advocacy service could usefully and sensibly fall within the remit of the commissioner for victims and witnesses. The commissioner would be a proper arbiter of the effectiveness, efficiency and adequacy of the service. I do not want to pre-empt the arguments that will properly be made by other Committee members in support of the creation of the domestic violence advocacy service; I will simply say that I am indebted to those outside the Committee

who have promoted the concept, particularly Davina James-Hanman, director of the Greater London domestic violence project, to whom I have spoken on the subject and who has provided an excellent briefing.

As the Greater London authority made clear, an advocacy service would be a significant improvement on present facilities in terms of addressing issues of domestic violence, reducing the suffering of victims and creating an atmosphere in which domestic violence is less likely to occur—that, after all, is the thrust of this legislation. Such a service would also reduce demands on other services that might be provided. [Interruption.] I am very disconcerted by the fact that someone's phone is ringing; it is not mine.

Marion Roe (Conservative, Broxbourne)

Order. There seems to be a noise coming from somewhere in the Committee Room, and it should not be.

David Heath (Liberal Democrat, Somerton and Frome)

I can only assume that it is coming from the Conservative Whip's jacket.

Dame Cheryl Gillan (Conservative, Chesham and Amersham)

Oh, it's this one.

David Heath (Liberal Democrat, Somerton and Frome)

The hon. Lady has a record of difficulties with phones over the past week that does not bear repeating. I have some sympathy with her, because on this occasion the problem was not her fault.

To return to the serious point that I was making, we believe that the establishment of a domestic violence advocacy service would be a significant move towards reducing the effects and incidence of domestic violence; most important, it would assist the victims of domestic violence. The amendment would help the support network to be genuinely national and comprehensive. The commissioner would have locus in ensuring that that happened, and would report to the Executive and to Parliament in that respect. I commend the amendment to the Committee.

Vera Baird (Labour, Redcar)

I am indebted to the Greater London authority, Women's Aid and Southall Black Sisters, all of which support the proposition that a domestic violence advocacy service ought to be developed and that, in accordance with the framework set out in new clause 30, it should be funded by the Government.

The purpose of such a service is clear and well known to the whole Committee. The victims of domestic violence—primarily women—have great difficulty in making complaints. A well-known statistic is that it often takes 35 incidents before a woman will complain, and in that model the level of violence escalates as time passes. There are a number of reasons why it is difficult for women to make complaints. The abuser, usually her partner, might have the money and own the house. His and her families could be close, or his family might help with child care so that the woman can go out to work, so what would she do for money if she complained about him and could not work? He would have to leave or, worse still, she would have to leave and go to a refuge. What then? The children would lose their father, be poor and emotionally upset. The family might break up, all because she could not put up any longer with something that, after all, had not killed her—so far.

Those well-known factors all make it difficult for women to come forward, and we must combat them if the Bill is to be successful.

The Bill deals primarily with how to get cases to court and what to do then. If women are not supported at the early stages and encouraged to make complaints, the subsequent steps will never be taken. This point is somewhat counter-intuitive given the factors that I have set out, but when a woman finally makes a complaint, the agencies all too often do not take the case forward with the enthusiasm or give her the support that one would wish. The police and the Crown Prosecution Service have taken huge steps recently, but it is clear from a joint thematic report by the inspectorates of both organisations published a few months ago that their response is still sometimes half-hearted. The reforms that are clearly well embedded in the thinking of policy makers in both groups have not yet dispersed down and throughout the organisations. Women who find the strength to make complaints therefore sometimes receive a weak response.

In New Zealand there is a system of advocates to support women. Once an officer has calmed down a domestic violence situation to which he has been called, he has the job of calling in the advocacy service, subject to the complainant giving her permission, which almost always happens. There is a 24-hour call-out programme to bring an advocate out to befriend the woman. The best way of describing an advocate is as a befriender and supporter of the victim of domestic violence who helps to steer her through everything that follows the complaint.

The factors that I mentioned earlier often lead to difficulties. The woman might have to leave home and will need refuge accommodation and somewhere to go after she does so. She might need support and help for her children if she takes them with her. If she remains in the home and the perpetrator leaves, safety measures must be taken—locks must be changed, the police must be informed and the perpetrator's whereabouts must be known. Her benefits position is likely to change because the family is breaking up. She might need counselling, support and a multiplicity of things that she will be totally unable to manage for herself given her distressed state after taking a major step about which she may still be uncertain. The victim might have to go to the civil courts, notwithstanding the action that we have taken to integrate the two systems conveniently, and she might need help to master the complexities of court procedure. Having taken the step of complaining, she might be unable to drive the agencies forward with the criminal prosecution. A skilled advocate can assist her with all those matters. Such advocates will, through their organisation, be well-connected with the range of services available and will be able to support the complainant throughout the process.

I had the privilege of talking about New Zealand's system of advocates with the Attorney-General of New Zealand, Margaret Wilson, when she visited this country a couple of weeks ago. She said that domestic violence is no longer a hot issue in New Zealand in the way that it continues to be in this country. She

attributes that to the success of the advocacy system: a powerful message has been sent that the state is on the side of the person who makes a break from domestic violence, and that has played an integral part in reducing the problem.

Such a system has helped in various states where it has been adopted to increase conviction rates because of the fortitude that it brings to the complainant, who can sustain her complaint through the criminal justice system. The star turn—if I can describe it that way—is San Diego in the United States where not only has there been a vast reduction in repeat domestic violence offending, but a 75 per cent. reduction in domestic violence homicides.

Reference has been made to the substantial costs of policing domestic violence. It is estimated that each of the 500,000 domestic violence calls to which officers responded in 2000 cost the taxpayer an average of £1,027, suggesting an annual policing cost of more than half a billion pounds. That figure does not, of course, include the cost of those agencies that help in such situations. By contrast, it is thought that the cost of an advocate's support of a domestic violence complainant from start to finish is likely to be about £780. Cost is, of course, a secondary matter—supporting women through court procedures is the primary purpose of the system. However, those figures show that there can be a cost saving, which everyone will appreciate. An advocacy service could be an important and cost-efficient system.

It is hard to find an argument against such a system except that it will cost money to set it up. Some advocacy systems are already in place. There is an excellent one in Cardiff to which my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, North (Julie Morgan) has given much support. Another is in place in Croydon, and two weeks ago, when I opened the new premises of Victim Support in Redcar, I discovered the embryo of an advocacy service in that town. A person who used to work for Women's Aid has now moved to Victim Support, taking all of her expertise and contacts with her, and she fulfils the role, although one person is not enough even in a small borough such as Redcar.

I have a strong sense that my hon. Friend the Minister is sympathetic to the need for an advocacy system and, if the Bill is to justify the effort that has been put into its drafting and progress through the House, it is not possible to argue that it will be effective unless support is injected into it at the beginning. I beg to move amendment No. 87 and new clause 30—

Marion Roe (Conservative, Broxbourne)

I correct the hon. and learned Lady. She cannot move anything. I have already put the question.

Dame Cheryl Gillan (Conservative, Chesham and Amersham)

I shall try not to move anything but my colleague's jacket, Dame Marion.

I support the hon. and learned Member for Redcar (Vera Baird) and the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath). The amendments are extremely significant. I hope that the copious notes in front of the Minister do not suggest that he is about to reject the amendments. I acknowledge that they might need some improvement, although they have been worked

on by devoted and dedicated people, but I hope that he will take seriously the points that have been made because the amendments lay out an excellent blueprint for a domestic violence advocacy service, which could be duplicated and replicated throughout the country.

Present provision is patchy; more is needed, and there is evidence from the areas where there is a form of advocacy service that it is of invaluable benefit to the victims of domestic violence. The hon. and learned Member for Redcar has an amazing track record in this area. While researching on the internet the other day, I came across the fact that she had been to Africa to talk about the subject to members of the legal profession there. Domestic violence is not an isolated problem, but there are few lessons that we can learn from countries close to us. People have to go to Australia and New Zealand to see effective advocacy services that have been operating for some time.

The proposals in the amendments and the new clause would establish a victim-centred service, which would go a long way to providing a comprehensive system of aid and assistance. However, as we discuss those proposals, I would like us to consider some broader points. The hon. and learned Lady mentioned the provision of a 24-hour helpline; I agree with her about that. Evidence from other countries shows that when solicitors or lawyers man such a helpline, it is even more effective. Goodness forbid that I should say that lawyers are particularly useful members of society in any forum, but in this case I acknowledge that they are essential to the process, because of the complex problems that are brought to the helpline.

A helpline should be accessible not only to victims but to other service providers such as refuge workers, police and lawyers. Experience in other countries has shown that that is a great benefit, because it is not only victims who require assistance with complex problems; those to whom she turns for help might not be entirely familiar with what is available and what can be done on her behalf.

The capacity to negotiate on behalf of victims who have experienced difficulties with service providers, such as the police or courts, and the ability to lodge complaints on their behalf, is also a vital part of the service and should be available at any stage, because victims of domestic violence may find as their case progresses that the services that they are receiving are less satisfactory than when they first approached an agency to help them.

Advocacy is important because it assists women with their particular problems. An advocacy service would also permit the services that are provided to victims to be monitored and provide us with a vehicle for improvement, which is not currently available. I should be interested to see what information and analysis the Home Office holds in respect of existing organisations and their effectiveness and whether it has made any critical analysis of the current services. I would like the Home Office to produce a report, perhaps annually, to evaluate and help in the organisation and joining-up of services throughout the country.

Non-English speaking victims must have good communication lines into help and advice services. The network and the advice service must be able to support victims from ethnic minority backgrounds. Another point that emerged in other countries is the desirability of anonymity. Some research showed that women were reluctant to phone a domestic violence advocacy service in case the dialling code and number appeared on their telephone record, and the very act of contacting an advocacy service became a tool and weapon to be turned against them. Some thought must be given to that, particularly at Government level, to ensure that there is an anonymous route for victims of domestic violence to seek help.

Over the years, the military have fought discrimination, drugs and alcohol abuse; domestic violence is another area on which they need to focus. It destroys families and scars children in civilian life, but in the services it can affect military readiness as well. I am interested to hear whether the Minister has had any discussions with the Ministry of Defence about an advocacy service for the armed services or a route through which victims of domestic violence can find assistance. If he does not accept the amendments, I hope that he will make proposals on what he will do.

I was looking at a timeline for the Australian advocacy service, which is based in and around Sydney, and I was alarmed to find that although funding was sought to provide a specialist legal service in April 1986, it took many years for the service to come to fruition. Even though demand was high and an independent evaluation of the project in the first year found that the model in use was directly relevant and appropriate, funding was reduced: there was a 20 per cent. cut in the original funding, which had a dramatic impact on the direct services for women. Funding was eventually fully restored in 1997. The organisation is innovative and unique, and I hope that if the Minister has not had an opportunity to study some of the reports on the Australian domestic violence advocacy service, he will examine them in future.

If the amendments are not acceptable, I ask the Minister please not to wait so long to produce joined-up Government thinking on this matter. Many people have spent a lot of time and put a lot of effort in the proposal, and the service is much needed to help the victims of abuse in this country.

Julie Morgan (Labour, Cardiff North)

I rise to speak in support of a universal domestic violence advocacy service. However good we make the law and however much effort we put into the Bill, it will not be effective unless there is a support service for women. That is key to preventing domestic violence and repeat domestic violence. As my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Redcar said, we in Cardiff are fortunate to have such a service, run by the women's safety unit. The services proposed in the amendments are exactly those provided by that organisation, which has made a huge difference to women in Cardiff.

I have probably said this before, but when a woman who is in distress because of her partner's violence comes to my surgery, I have an outlet for her. I phone the women's safety unit, which offers an immediate

service. Its staff go to her home, or arrange an appointment if she does not want to be seen there; they can visit in the evening or contact her during the night. It is a tremendous service and the staff respond enthusiastically and offer a great deal of support. They see their key role as getting in there, helping to support the woman and ensuring that she accesses services. They look after the children and contact the housing department or social services if necessary. Their aim is to keep the woman in the home, and usually they succeed because they put such effort and resources into doing so.

One of the key aspects of the women's safety unit is its composition. The staff come from different disciplines. There is a serving policewoman, which I believe is unique in the UK, and people from Women's Aid, Black Women's Aid, the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children and the probation service. The group's staff and the way that they work so cohesively under the inspired leadership of Jan Pickles mean that they are all individually able to offer the advocacy service. Their different professions mean that they have strong links with the courts, the police and the Crown Prosecution Service. They all meet at the Cardiff domestic violence forum, which I chair.

I cannot say too strongly what a difference the service has made to the approach to domestic violence in Cardiff. It is now accepted that advocacy is a key priority for different agencies in the city. As a result of its advocacy, there is a domestic violence court, where all such cases are listed together. I cannot emphasise enough how much help it has given to women in that situation. A smaller unit is starting in Caerphilly and I would like that sort of model, perhaps in a different form, to provide a service throughout the UK. The key element is cost, which is the one thing that perhaps might make it difficult for Ministers to accept the proposals.

Sandra Gidley (Liberal Democrat, Romsey)

Is the hon. Lady aware that some research shows that having an advocacy service reduces costs in the long run? It is short-sighted to use cost as an excuse, because overall there are benefits rather than costs.

Julie Morgan (Labour, Cardiff North)

Absolutely. The proposal cuts down the costs in the long term, but in the present system, it is difficult to obtain the initial start-up costs. I know, because I tried to get start-up funding for the service, and it was not easy. It started as a one-off Home Office-funded pilot project, with £300,000 for one year. After that, we had great difficulty in ensuring that it was funded jointly by the Home Office and the Welsh Assembly; it is now totally funded by the Welsh Assembly. The hon. Lady makes an important point, but we should not underestimate the difficulty of getting start-up funding for projects of this sort.

The Cardiff model is definitely the one that we want to expand. The women's safety unit spends a lot of time travelling around the country, going to conferences and so on, to say what it is doing and to spread the success of the project in Cardiff. The figures for Cardiff are distinctly different from those for the rest of Wales. The number of cases being reported and the number of women taking cases to court have gone, up as we would wish, and the number of repeat

offences has gone down. Those significant research findings back up the work of the women's safety unit and its effect can be clearly seen in the fact that the figures for the rest of Wales are so different from the ones for Cardiff.

Dame Cheryl Gillan (Conservative, Chesham and Amersham)

I am particularly interested in what the hon. Lady has to say. She will agree with me that once a service is established, any cut in the funding is very damaging. Has she any idea what it would cost to roll out the programme as a pilot throughout Wales, for example, so that full coverage of a large area could be evaluated? Obviously, the funding results in savings, not only in human terms but also in financial terms.

Julie Morgan (Labour, Cardiff North)

I do not know exactly what it would cost to roll out the project in the whole of Wales, but it cost £300,000 for one year in Cardiff, which is the biggest centre of population in Wales. Some people working in the unit were seconded by their organisations, so that would be an additional cost. In other areas, especially rural ones, a different model might be needed.

Vera Baird (Labour, Redcar)

I do not know whether my hon. Friend has seen the briefing from the office of the Mayor of London, which estimates that the cost of a national advocacy service, not just one in Wales, might be about £45 million per annum.

Julie Morgan (Labour, Cardiff North)

Yes. I support the proposal in the amendments, but because of the up-front costs, it is clear that it is something that we may have to work towards. However, the law will not by itself achieve what we want for women who suffer from domestic violence; the support that the advocacy service can provide is also needed.

Sally Keeble (Labour, Northampton North)

I strongly support a national advocacy service. Several types of service are already in place, but they are a hotch-potch, without the underpinning of a role defined in statute.

Two organisations in my constituency deal with domestic violence: the Sunflower centre, an outstanding, multi-agency centre, which was funded by the Home Office with a £100,000 grant to start with; and a Bangladeshi women's association, which does work on domestic violence and without which it would be impossible to get into some of the difficult issues that face Bangladeshi women.

Both agencies provide the types of service that colleagues have spoken about, but the main thing that they do is to stop the women being victims. There is a strong strand of empowerment in their thinking. Both agencies are located in the voluntary sector, and I see them transform women who have come out of horrendously violent relationships into independent and reasonably confident women. As part of its empowerment course, the Bangladeshi women's association brought a group of women to Parliament for a day. You may remember, Dame Marion, that I wrote to you about translation services for them. Such activities are a part of giving them confidence, making them understand how legislation works and so on.

Existing services do not have a statutorily defined role. They have to operate on the basis of good will and therefore work somewhat on the margins. The second issue may be linked to the first, in that the services do not have secure funding. The Sunflower centre, which has achieved enormous results, operates hand to mouth from year to year, although it should be one of the flagship services that the Home Office provides, because it is stunningly good.

The services seem to be well located in the voluntary sector, but there is a strong need for inter-agency working and strong links with different agencies so that they can deliver through the criminal justice system, social services and the benefits system. Having good links with the black ethnic minority communities, as the Bangladeshi women's association has, is key, as are the services for children and the location of the services in safe settings. The Sunflower centre is over a hairdresser's shop, so women do not feel conspicuous if they go in—a hairdresser's is a fairly normal place to go and no one watching would get the idea that the women might be going there to complain about domestic violence.

I hope that, if my hon. Friend the Minister cannot support the amendment, he can carry out some form of stock take, as was done in respect of refuge services, and see exactly what is out there. Perhaps he has done so already. I hope that he will then draw from best practice, perhaps do a mapping exercise to show where services are and what the results are, and try to provide secure funding and to build constructive support for these organisations. The Bill is great, but we need agencies out there that can deliver for us. They need to be centred on the needs of the women and, above all, to stop them being victims and to empower them.

Robert Walter (Conservative, North Dorset)

I shall deal specifically with the question of cost. I do not know whether the figure from the Mayor's office of £45 million, which the hon. and learned Member for Redcar cited, is accurate, but I have no reason to dispute it. That said, £45 million on one side of the equation is quite a small sum when compared to the benefits that emerge on the other side of the equation. We are trying to take a joined-up approach by creating a system in which a number of voluntary organisations can be brought into play for the benefit of victims.

At all stages of the proceedings on this long-overdue Bill, it is the victim about whom we must be concerned. If we can create a framework in which the victim finds it easier to access all that is available to them, the proposals are thoroughly worth supporting. By using existing organisations as well as others that might come into play, we might lift some of the burden from victims of domestic violence and reduce the costs that flow from their being unable to access joined-up services.

My hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan) stressed the importance of anonymity when people are accessing services. If we introduce the proposed service, its telephone number—freephone, one hopes—should not be easily traceable or appear on telephone bills, because violent

partners often examine telephone bills to find out what calls have been made by their victims. British Telecom provides a list of numbers called almost as a matter of course, so the information may be easily accessible if no action is taken. I would be particularly concerned about that, but otherwise the proposed service should be supported. I hope that we do not hear from the Minister that we will not proceed with it simply on the ground of cost.

Ann Keen (Labour, Brentford and Isleworth)

I simply want to place on record the fact that Refuge supports the new clause and amendment.

Paul Goggins (Labour, Wythenshawe and Sale East)

Good morning, Dame Marion. It is good to see you in the Chair.

Our debates in Committee and in the House are always enriched when we speak from our constituency experience, especially our direct experience of constituency surgeries. That has certainly been the case this morning. I pay tribute to the services that my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Redcar opened in her constituency, to the Sunflower centre mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Ms Keeble) and to the services in Cardiff referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, North, with which she has been directly involved.

As my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Redcar said at the outset, the police and other criminal justice agencies are much better at responding to the needs of victims of domestic violence.

Sally Keeble (Labour, Northampton North)

Will my hon. Friend also give credit to the Bangladeshi women's association, which does outstanding work in difficult circumstances? I am sure that their members would appreciate their work being recognised by the Minister.

Paul Goggins (Labour, Wythenshawe and Sale East)

I certainly will. I was trying to give a flavour of my acknowledgement of the tremendous work that is being done. I appreciate that the group referred to by my hon. Friend faces many challenges in its work, and I pay tribute to it.

We recognise that advocacy services are a key element of support to victims of domestic violence. Many organisations already use advocates to great effect and projects have shown that they can be cost effective. Members on both sides of the Committee have made that point, and we acknowledge that ultimately the use of advocates can sometimes save, rather than cost, money.

The hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham asked about evaluation; it is important that we evaluate all that we do and all the needs that we see. I draw her attention to the recent report on specialist domestic violence courts and fast-tracking systems, which was undertaken on behalf of the Department for Constitutional Affairs and the CPS. It found that advocacy services are crucial to the success of the courts. I confirm also that early indications from the crime reduction research programme on advocacy services that is due to be published this summer are also very positive. I hope that the hon. Lady is reassured that we take evaluation seriously. All the

evaluation that we are doing indicates positive developments.

Dame Cheryl Gillan (Conservative, Chesham and Amersham)

Has the Minister evaluated or set in train a process to evaluate the examples given by Committee members?

Paul Goggins (Labour, Wythenshawe and Sale East)

I shall deal with that shortly. The hon. Lady mentioned anonymity, as did her hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset (Mr. Walter). That is one of the important issues that we weigh in the balance as we assess the importance of the services and the right way to proceed.

I hope that the Committee will be assured that the Government agree that domestic violence victims may need the support across a range of services at a time when they are most vulnerable, traumatised, and not in a position to help themselves. We are considering the case for the greater use of independent advocates in supporting victims through the criminal justice system and providing wider support to victims in dealing with the many statutory agencies that may be involved in their cases.

The hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham asked about our discussions with the Ministry of Defence and the possible use of advocacy services by the military. At this stage, we have not had detailed conversations, but as we assess the role that such services can play and if we decide to develop an advocacy service we will want to see how that dovetails with the needs of the military.

Dame Cheryl Gillan (Conservative, Chesham and Amersham)

The Minister has struck a cold blow at my heart by saying, ''If we ever consider advocacy services.'' I presume that that is a precursor to rejecting the amendments.

Will the Minister undertake to have a conversation with the Ministry of Defence and report back to the Committee on whether the military would be appropriate group in whom to test a domestic violence advocacy service? They seem a cohesive group of people who, together with examples from the other pilots, could provide the sort of back-up that the Minister will require before he, such is his generosity of spirit, forms a service.

Paul Goggins (Labour, Wythenshawe and Sale East)

I hope that Committee members will not see my comments as a blow and that they will be encouraged to hear that we are making a careful assessment of the role of advocacy services, their cost effectiveness and the real part that they can play in providing the support needed by domestic violence victims when they are at their most traumatised.

Vera Baird (Labour, Redcar)

Of course everything has to be carefully assessed, and my hon. Friend says that the Government are making an assessment of services' cost effectiveness and importance. However, he has already referred to advocacy services as capable of being cost effective—he has called them crucial. What more does he need to know?

Paul Goggins (Labour, Wythenshawe and Sale East)

My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, North captured the mood of the debate well when she said that we might need to move towards establishing a service. Starting from the current evaluation, we have to establish at what pace we can move, what services to support, and so forth. I am

trying to give encouragement to my hon. and learned Friend and others. We take the issue seriously. We are at an important point, because we are considering how we spend money, how much money we spend and what we spend it on. All I can say to my hon. and learned Friend is that the issue is very much in our minds during those discussions.

Sandra Gidley (Liberal Democrat, Romsey)

It is always slightly depressing to hear the word evaluation, because it sometimes seems to be just another word for procrastination. We see that a lot in the health service. I accept the Minister's good will, but will he undertake to consider examples from other countries as well? In San Diego, there has been a joined-up approach and a good advocacy service for about 15 years, and the number of domestic homicides has been reduced by about 75 per cent. The effect has been so powerful that President Bush, with whom I rarely agree, is putting money into further schemes. If we wait for evidence from Britain alone, it will be a long time before anything is on the statute book.

Paul Goggins (Labour, Wythenshawe and Sale East)

Of course we will weigh the evidence and experience from other countries. That is important. It is also important to acknowledge that the Government are currently investing in advocacy services. My hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North mentioned an investment of £100,000, and my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, North mentioned a £300,000 grant to get services started. We are not inactive. The question is to what extent we can extend and improve that service, and that is the subject of our current assessment. The amendments talk about creating a statutory service. We certainly do not want to create additional bureaucracy. There is a clear consensus in the Committee that we want ever more effective services at the sharp end of the problem, and that is the direction in which we are looking.

On a more technical note, new clause 30 is probably broader than intended. It sets out services of which a domestic violence advocacy service would promote the availability, but it does not define those services with specific reference to victims of domestic violence. As such, presumably any victim as defined by clause 29 could seek to obtain them.

As we do not intend to create a statutory service, amendments Nos. 54 and 87, which bring the domestic violence advocacy service under the remit of the commissioner for victims and witnesses, are unnecessary. We are learning from experience and looking closely at the development of services for victims of domestic violence so that they can receive the advice, help and support that they undoubtedly need. I hope that hon. Members will be assured that the Government treat the issue with the utmost seriousness. In that spirit I ask that the amendment be withdrawn.

Vera Baird (Labour, Redcar)

Can I just complete the equation and ask my hon. Friend for his comments on the estimate from the Mayor of London's office that a national advocacy service could cost around £45 million per annum? Does he accept that an advocacy service would need to reduce domestic violence by only 1 per cent. to be cost effective, and overseas experience

shows that such a reduction could be easily achieved? If it could achieve a 10 per cent. reduction, which on overseas models is challenging but realistic, there would be a net saving to the Treasury of about £400 million.

Paul Goggins (Labour, Wythenshawe and Sale East)

I am not in a position to comment on the specific figures that my hon. and learned Friend quotes. Although £45 million is a significant sum, there may in the end be a financial saving and, of course, a saving in terms of the lives and the quality of life of the victims of domestic violence.

Vera Baird (Labour, Redcar)

I can see that the Government support the proposals and simply want to take their own route to get to what the clause seeks to achieve. Can my hon. Friend help me on the timeline, so that we can be satisfied that he will come back with some proper evaluations within a reasonable period?

Paul Goggins (Labour, Wythenshawe and Sale East)

I cannot give my hon. and learned Friend a specific commitment on time. In view of our deliberations on spending generally and our deliberations in Committee on this issue, this is an important time to engage in such considerations. I can promise that the issues are being treated with great seriousness.

Ann Keen (Labour, Brentford and Isleworth)

I thank my hon. Friend for the way in which he is assessing the new clause. Perhaps we should put it on the record that Opposition parties are also willing to spend the necessary sums. I wonder whether that has been cleared with their Front Benches.

Paul Goggins (Labour, Wythenshawe and Sale East)

I acknowledge the comments of my hon. Friend, who is in a good position to know about these matters.

The debate this morning has been about taking a long-term view that can provide a cost-effective service in terms of quality of life and, indeed, the saving of lives. I assure the Committee that we are considering this very carefully, but we do not believe that we need to reflect those considerations in the Bill. I conclude my remarks by asking once again that the amendment not be pressed.

David Heath (Liberal Democrat, Somerton and Frome)

That was an excellent debate and I am grateful to all the Members who contributed. The Minister's response to it, however, was wishy-washy in the extreme. He said, ''We are evaluating, thinking, moving in the right direction.'' Today, he had the golden opportunity to make the Bill do what it says on the tin. He could have created something that would have transcended changing the criminal law and urging an alteration in attitude across the country; he could have provided genuine support for the victims of domestic violence in every town and village in the country, but he flunked it.

Sally Keeble (Labour, Northampton North)

We have heard how some Labour councils and the Government have supported domestic violence projects. Can the hon. Gentleman say how many Liberal Democrat councils have funded such projects in their areas?

David Heath (Liberal Democrat, Somerton and Frome)

A considerable number, but I shall not list them all. That kind of partisan point is unhelpful.

Sally Keeble (Labour, Northampton North)

It was not meant in a partisan way.

David Heath (Liberal Democrat, Somerton and Frome)

It was a partisan point. I hoped that we were all looking to improve facilities, not only in our cities where the problem is greatest, but throughout the country. Current voluntary provision is patchy: although often supported by local authorities of all political persuasions throughout the country, it is often not provided in areas of serious need, such as rural areas, which have not yet been mentioned in the debate. I know that the original proposal came from the Greater London authority, but no one is more isolated than a person living in the sort of area that I represent—a very rural area—where there is no obvious recourse. Although some excellent voluntary organisations supported by our local authorities provide help, it is difficult to get to them, and nobody is more isolated than the person in an abusive relationship living in a rural setting who feels that they have nobody to whom they can turn.

The amendments could have represented a real breakthrough in providing an advocacy service that could have made a difference. The fact that we can make comparisons with other countries where such a service has been well established and has made a difference makes it all the more alarming that we in this country are moving so slowly towards achieving the same objective.

Dame Cheryl Gillan (Conservative, Chesham and Amersham)

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that this was hardly a surprise move on the part of any Committee member, not least the hon. and learned Member for Redcar, since the Bill has been on the stocks for nine months? In an Adjournment debate the other day, the Home Office did not put up the Minister with direct responsibility to respond to it but another Minister in the Department, which was disappointing. There has been plenty of time for the Minister to have taken into consideration all the hurdles—I will not call them barriers—that have been put up, and for the Government to have prepared a more generous response.

David Heath (Liberal Democrat, Somerton and Frome)

I agree. My difficulty with the Government's response is that I know that they have a vague idea that they would like some form of advocacy service dealing in the wider sense with criminal law. I do not disagree with that, but I do not think that it will do the job that is proposed in relation to the specific issue of domestic violence. We need a bespoke service providing support for victims of domestic violence.

We have heard from the hon. Member for Cardiff, North about her experiences in her constituency; all of us could point to evidence of excellent work that is done in our constituencies by often underfunded and overstretched voluntary organisations. The problem with not having any statutory organisation or underpinning of that structure is that provision is piecemeal, there are vast deserts where there is none, there is no benchmark for that provision, and it is not the sort of comprehensive provision that both supports the victims and discourages the crime.

If we want evidence that we can discourage crime in this way, we have only to look at the areas of the world where such an advocacy system is up and running to

see a real reduction in the incidence of crimes that fall into the category of domestic violence. Even without the cash saving, that should be enough to persuade Committee members and the Government of the wisdom of this move. I am deeply disappointed because, despite its benign attitude, the Home Office is not prepared to do anything. I hoped that the Bill would make a difference in a much wider area. I am not decrying its intentions or certain elements in it, but I hoped that we would move beyond statute to implementation. Although I accept that there have been improvements in procedures and attitudes, it does not go far enough.

There are often good intentions at senior levels—among Ministers, chief constables and senior officers—but sometimes the performance at the lowest levels is not as we would wish. This measure would have done something about that, and at the end of the day the House will have to make a decision on it. I give notice that we will return to this matter on Report. I do not know in whose name amendments will be tabled and I do not care, as long as there is a debate on the issue. We will have to have a Division on Report, because we must make it clear to the Government how important we feel this provision is. The Minister has a little time to think about what his response will be when we debate the matter in the Chamber in a few weeks.

Dame Cheryl Gillan (Conservative, Chesham and Amersham)

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the speed with which Government amendments can be tabled at the eleventh hour shows that the Government will have no problem introducing suitable amendments on Report?

David Heath (Liberal Democrat, Somerton and Frome)

The Home Office can move mountains when it chooses. We are asking it to choose to do so on this important issue. For now, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Sylvia Hermon (UUP, North Down)

Clause 26 deals with the general functions of the commissioner. I think that we would all agree that the functions set out in subsection (1) are laudable. It states that the commissioner must

''promote the interests of victims and witnesses'',

take steps to encourage

''good practice in the treatment of victims and witnesses''

and advise on the updating of the code of practice, which we discussed on a previous occasion.

I want the Minister to explain to the good people of Northern Ireland why they have been forgotten with regard to the functions of the commissioner for victims and witnesses. The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome described his response as ''wishy-washy''. In fairness to the Minister, I pay a warm tribute to him for his great courtesy in speaking to me about the Bill before Second Reading. I mentioned to him that there had been a victims commissioner in Northern Ireland, but I hope that I did not mislead him at that stage into believing that we still had a victims commissioner in Northern Ireland.

The commissioner, Sir Kenneth Bloomfield, was appointed in 1997, when Mo Mowlam, the predecessor of the hon. and learned Member for Redcar, was Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. The victims commissioner's remit in Northern Ireland is available on the Northern Ireland Office website. Sir Kenneth Bloomfield was commissioned by the Secretary of State to examine the feasibility of providing greater recognition for those who had become victims in the past 30 years as a consequence of events in Northern Ireland; he was the victims commissioner dealing with victims of the horrible 30 years of violence. He did a superb job. If one looks at the Northern Ireland Office website, however, one could be led to believe that he still holds that position. He published a report in 1998, entitled ''We will remember them'', which is a seminal work for victims of the troubles. However, his remit never extended to victims of general crime, or to victims of domestic violence in particular.

Sir Kenneth's term of office ended when he presented that report, but as I said, the Northern Ireland Office website does not indicate when he stood down or when his term as the victims commissioner ended. Having spoken to him last Friday evening when we met at a social function, I explained to him that I had given a press interview for which I had relied on information from the Northern Ireland Legal Services Commission's website in relation to his work as the victims commissioner. That website says that he was victims commissioner from 1997 to 2003, but that is not the case; Sir Kenneth himself explained that his term was time-limited to when he presented his report.

Will the Minister reflect on a response that he gave to me on Second Reading, in which he said that there was a different system in Northern Ireland, and that there was a victims commissioner? I apologise if I gave the impression to him that Sir Kenneth is still in post. He is certainly not still in post, and his remit never extended beyond the victims of the troubles. Will the Minister explain why clause 26 deprives the people of Northern Ireland—victims and witnesses—of the benefit of the functions of the commissioner? Why should not that be included in the Bill?

Paul Goggins (Labour, Wythenshawe and Sale East)

This debate gives me the opportunity to apologise to the hon. Lady for the clear misunderstanding on Second Reading. I said at the outset of our deliberations that the passage of a Bill, particularly through Committee, is a learning experience for everybody, and I now understand more clearly both the remit of the victims commissioner and the time scale during which he served. In our private discussion, the hon. Member for North Down explained the work that he had done, and she expressed the view that I might learn something from him. That was very much the spirit in which I sought to pursue those discussions, so I hope that she accepts my apology for the misunderstanding. I understand more clearly now.

More substantially, the hon. Lady makes the point that the people of Northern Ireland are forgotten in relation to these issues. I do not agree. I know that she is dissatisfied about the way in which these services are

being developed in Northern Ireland, and she expressed that disappointment and displeasure the other day. My view is that we seek a similar outcome, but take a different route. The Under-Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Mr. Leslie), mentioned the other day the criminal justice review and the sub-committee that is currently dealing with some specific issues.

I understand and acknowledge that the hon. Lady remains dissatisfied at the pace with which the measure is being taken forward. No doubt she will continue to discuss the matter with my ministerial colleagues in the Northern Ireland Office, but we cannot seek to advance it through the Bill. I say to her that the people of Northern Ireland are not forgotten, but that the route to developing adequate and proper services for victims of crime in Northern Ireland, whatever the crime, is a responsibility that is firmly in the hands of my ministerial colleagues in the Northern Ireland Office.

Sylvia Hermon (UUP, North Down)

I am grateful to the Minister and accept his generous explanation and apology. I remind him and other members of the Committee that clause 1 of the Belfast agreement, signed on Good Friday in 1998, stated—it was voted for in the referendum in Northern Ireland and in the Republic of Ireland—that Northern Ireland in its entirety remains part of the United Kingdom unless and until the people of Northern Ireland vote otherwise. I remind him that criminal law is not a devolved issue; responsibility for criminal law and for victims and witnesses remains firmly here at Westminster, not in the Northern Ireland Office.

Paul Goggins (Labour, Wythenshawe and Sale East)

I repeat the point that the development of services in response to the needs of victims of crime, of whatever nature, is in the hands of my ministerial colleagues in Northern Ireland. I have had discussions with them on the issue and have made the hon. Lady's dissatisfaction clear to them, although I am sure that they were already aware of it.

David Heath (Liberal Democrat, Somerton and Frome)

I observe that the Home Office always goes into a flat spin whenever Northern Ireland or courts martial are mentioned. I support the contention of the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon). When the jurisdiction clearly falls within the remit of this Parliament and the Department, albeit in conjunction with the Northern Ireland Office, it is not acceptable that matters in Northern Ireland are often forgotten until someone has the good sense to point them out.

Paul Goggins (Labour, Wythenshawe and Sale East)

I am either in a flat spin or wishy-washy—take your pick. I stand accused of both by the hon. Gentleman. At the risk of being repetitive, I say to hon. Members that the criminal justice review 2000 in Northern Ireland made various recommendations in relation to victims. I am assured by colleagues that those recommendations are being acted on, and it is clearly their responsibility to do so. I ask the hon. Member for North Down to accept that explanation, even if she does not agree with the pace at which those services are being developed.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 26 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 27 to 29 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 30 - Authorities within Commissioner's remit

Paul Goggins (Labour, Wythenshawe and Sale East)

I beg to move amendment No. 90, in clause 30, page 17, line 34, at end insert—

'(1A) An authority specified in Schedule 6 that has functions in relation to an area outside England and Wales is within the Commissioner's remit only to the extent that it discharges its functions in relation to England and Wales.

(1B) Subsection (1A) does not apply in relation to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office.'.

Marion Roe (Conservative, Broxbourne)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment No. 4, in schedule 6, page 36, line 27, at end insert—

'9A HM Treasury.

9B The Cabinet Office.'.

Amendment No. 49, in schedule 6, page 36, line 31, at end insert—

'11A The Police Service of Northern Ireland'.

Amendment No. 50, in schedule 6, page 36, line 32, at end insert—

'12A The National Criminal Intelligence Service

12B The National Crime Squad'.

Amendment No. 51, in schedule 6, page 36, line 32, at end insert—

'12A The United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority Constabulary

12B The Ministry of Defence Police'.

Government amendment No. 91.

Amendment No. 52, in schedule 6, page 37, line 2, at end insert—

'13A Any authority that is maintaining a body of constables in England, Wales or Northern Ireland.'.

Amendment No. 55, in schedule 6, page 37, line 13, after 'court', insert '(including a court martial)'.

Paul Goggins (Labour, Wythenshawe and Sale East)

I fear that in the remarks that I am about to make I will offer further irritation to the hon. Member for North Down, and I apologise for that in advance.

The amendments seek to extend the remit of the commissioner for victims and witnesses to include additional specified authorities. I shall comment briefly on each authority in turn and explain our thinking on whether it should be included or excluded from the commissioner's remit.

First, I shall deal with the Treasury and the Cabinet Office. Members of the Committee will see that all the Departments listed in schedule 6 as being currently within the commissioner's remit are responsible for the delivery, or oversight of delivery, of direct services to the public. Although the Treasury and the Cabinet Office have important and significant roles, they do not perform either of those functions.

Dominic Grieve (Conservative, Beaconsfield)

It is novel to hear the Minister say that the Treasury performs no

public service. That may be evidence of the truth, but it seems to me that the Cabinet Office certainly provides and delivers public services. It presides over the delivery of public services by a variety of routes—indeed, it interferes in the delivery of many public services. Why can it not be included?

Paul Goggins (Labour, Wythenshawe and Sale East)

Neither of those Departments delivers services directly to the public, which is why we do not think it appropriate for them to appear in the list.

Mrs. Gillan rose—

Paul Goggins (Labour, Wythenshawe and Sale East)

I seem to be stirring up great excitement.

Dame Cheryl Gillan (Conservative, Chesham and Amersham)

I would like to hear the Minister's definition of delivering services to the public, because Her Majesty's Treasury is taking on responsibility for Customs and Excise and various other matters, and Customs and Excise delivers services directly to the public.

Mr. Walter rose—

Paul Goggins (Labour, Wythenshawe and Sale East)

I shall give way again.

Robert Walter (Conservative, North Dorset)

Further to that point, the Treasury is of course responsible for the Inland Revenue, which might well have evidence that is of considerable use to the commissioner in respect of domestic violence proceedings, as it would have access to the financial records of both parties in a violent situation.

Paul Goggins (Labour, Wythenshawe and Sale East)

I hope to be able to satisfy all hon. Members. They will see that, under schedule 6, Customs and Excise is listed as one of the bodies that is under the remit of the commissioner. It is the Treasury and the Cabinet Office that we are seeking to exclude from the list.

Dame Cheryl Gillan (Conservative, Chesham and Amersham)

It is ironic that the Inland Revenue is not in the list. Immediately after I mentioned Customs and Excise, I saw that it is listed in paragraph 10 of the schedule, so it was a poor example. However, the Inland Revenue is a good example. It is strange that it is not included in the list, because amendments have been tabled this week to provide powers enabling us to obtain information about individuals from financial institutions. However, direct services are provided by the Revenue, too.

Paul Goggins (Labour, Wythenshawe and Sale East)

I do not want to prolong this debate. I could ask what precisely the Revenue would have to do with victims, but in the spirit of trying to reach consensus whenever we can, I undertake to look carefully at the list in the light of the hon. Lady's comments to see whether there is any merit in her argument, although at this stage I do not feel that there is.

Dominic Grieve (Conservative, Beaconsfield)

I apologise if I have given an impression of slight astonishment, but the list in schedule 6 is very comprehensive. On the face of it, the activities of the Health and Safety Commission, as opposed to the Health and Safety Executive, seem rather far removed from domestic violence; yet the Minister has seen fit to include both those bodies, so he must have seen some causal connection.

My hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham makes a good point about the Treasury.

Indeed, I stand by what I said about the Cabinet Office; it has a considerable remit. I find these distinctions difficult to make. I understand clearly that some Departments are public service delivery Departments, but the Minister has gone a long way down the road of including lots of Departments and agencies that do not have an immediate causal link. I am pleased about that, but will he consider the other ones, too?

Paul Goggins (Labour, Wythenshawe and Sale East)

May I gently point out that the Bill relates to victims, and not just to domestic violence? That is an important point.

David Heath (Liberal Democrat, Somerton and Frome)

I want to try to be helpful to the hon. Member for Beaconsfield, because it is a little odd to list nine Departments but not the others. Would the Minister consider it sensible to have a catch-all provision mentioning ''any other Department providing services directly to the public'' or something of that sort? That would simply ensure that, if services were moved from one Department to another one that was not listed in the schedule, secondary legislation would not be needed.

Paul Goggins (Labour, Wythenshawe and Sale East)

I shall certainly not commit myself to a catch-all clause at this stage, but I agree to review the list in the light of the comments of the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham, as I have already undertaken to do. I am satisfied as things stand, but there is no harm in taking a little time to reflect further to see whether the conclusions that had been reached were correct.

Sylvia Hermon (UUP, North Down)

When the Minister is reviewing the matter, will he look again at the definition of victim and witness? It is clear that a victim is a victim of an offence; a witness is a person who participates in criminal proceedings. The wording of clause 30 is too wide because it allows the Secretary of State to list for other authorities functions of public nature. That is where the difficulties lie. Nothing defines the remit in respect of what the Secretary of State can add to the list. Problems in respect of the Inland Revenue, the Cabinet Office and so on would be resolved if the wording were changed so that authorities had a role in the criminal justice system in England and Wales, which would reflect the definition of victims and witnesses. Without that, even the BBC could be regarded as delivering public services.

Paul Goggins (Labour, Wythenshawe and Sale East)

I hope that the hon. Lady will accept my assurance that I will add her comments to those of the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham as I reflect on matters. I do not think that there is a problem, but I shall look carefully at the issue. There is no harm in my taking a little time to do that.

May I move on—if I dare—to why we want to exclude the Police Service of Northern Ireland from the list? When drafting the Bill, we discussed with the Northern Ireland Office the possibility of extending the provision to Northern Ireland. The conclusion that was reached was that it would not be appropriate for two reasons. First, given that Northern Ireland is a small jurisdiction the view was that the role of a

commissioner might conflict with the effectiveness of the criminal justice inspectorate. Secondly, there were worries that the commissioner's work may cut across the responsibilities of individual criminal justice organisations. It was decided therefore that the remit of the commissioner should not be extended to Northern Ireland.

Amendment No. 50 proposes to include the National Criminal Intelligence Service and the National Crime Squad within the commissioner's remit. Again, that was considered when the Bill was being drafted and, because of the nature and extent of the work of those bodies, it was concluded that they should be outside the commissioner's remit. Amendment No. 51 suggests including the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority constabulary. That organisation has little day-to-day contact with victims and witnesses of crime and it is therefore unnecessary for it to be included within the remit of the commissioner. However, the Ministry of Defence police, a civilian police force whose investigations into crimes against individuals can result in prosecutions in either civilian or service courts, will for the purposes of the Bill be treated as part of the criminal justice system and should therefore be added to the commissioner's remit.

Government amendment No. 91 was tabled to that effect and, at the same time, I tabled amendment No. 90 to make clear that organisations are only within the commissioner's remit in so far as they discharge their functions in England and Wales. The one exception is the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, because we want the commissioner to have power to review the services and support provided by the Government to those of our citizens who are victimised when travelling overseas.

Sylvia Hermon (UUP, North Down)

Will the Minister clarify the impact of his amendments Nos. 91 and 90? The jurisdiction of the Ministry of Defence Police is obviously limited to England and Wales. However, I remind him that in my wonderful constituency of North Down I have the Palace barracks at Hollywood. A serious issue arose when two outstanding Scottish arrest warrants were issued for a Scottish soldier, so the Ministry of Defence police were involved. The warrants were not served on the soldier punctually while he was serving in Northern Ireland, following which, while he was driving a car, a constituent of mine died. Her parents are obviously victims and continue to suffer. They have not received a decent, honourable response from the Ministry of Defence. That complicated real-life scenario unfortunately involved the death of a young constituent. Why should the Ministry of Defence police not come within the remit of the commissioner in relation to victims and witnesses? The soldier was serving in a barracks in my constituency.

Paul Goggins (Labour, Wythenshawe and Sale East)

I regret the death of the hon. Lady's constituent and the pain that her constituent's parents must be going through. She said that they have not received a response from the Ministry of Defence, so I shall draw its attention to her remarks. None the less, we believe that the remit should remain in England

and Wales only, with the exception that I mentioned whereby the Foreign Office would fall within its scope in order to cover citizens who are victimised when travelling overseas.

I am sure that the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome will be interested to hear that amendment No. 55 would include court martial proceedings in the commissioner's remit. Although some parts of the Bill extend to courts martial, we decided that it was not right to include court martial proceedings within the commissioner's remit, given the nature of army law and the specialised and distinctive support that is available to victims. The question is one of balance and, on balance, we decided not to extend the provisions.

With that, I shall ask for support for Government amendments in the group—

David Heath (Liberal Democrat, Somerton and Frome)

What about amendment No. 52?

Paul Goggins (Labour, Wythenshawe and Sale East)

Sorry. I was forgetting about amendment No. 52, which would include

''Any authority that is maintaining a body of constables in England, Wales or Northern Ireland.''

Our preferred approach is to specify which bodies of constables should be included within the commissioner's remit, rather than leave things open-ended. With the exception of the Ministry of Defence police, I therefore reject the proposals.

Robert Walter (Conservative, North Dorset)

I should allow the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome to speak about amendment No. 52 himself, but I think that the proposal is excellent, because it is all-embracing. One of the bodies of constables not included in the list in the Bill is the Royal Parks constabulary. Violence is quite often committed in the royal parks, so I would have expected the Royal Parks constabulary to be a relevant body of constables to be included in an all-embracing clause.

Paul Goggins (Labour, Wythenshawe and Sale East)

I am sure that the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome will pick up that point when he speaks, so I shall leave it to him to respond. Notwithstanding that, I have indicated that I seek support for the Government amendments in the group.

Dame Cheryl Gillan (Conservative, Chesham and Amersham)

I was heartened by part of the response from the Minister, who is obviously going to re-examine the issue. His problems could be solved by including the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, to cover the Royal Parks constabulary before it moves, and Her Majesty's Treasury to cover the Inland Revenue. Miraculously, the Government seem to have accepted the proposals that the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome has advanced. I do not want to pre-empt anything, but I congratulate him unreservedly on achieving a first in the Bill.

I hope that I have not got anything wrong—I am sorry if I have, but I need an explanation from the Minister. Schedule 6, which is headed ''Authorities within the Commissioner's remit'' has a bearing on clause 27(1), which states:

''If he is required to do so by a Minister of the Crown, the Commissioner must give advice to the Minister of the Crown in

connection with any matter which . . . is specified by the Minister, and . . . relates to victims or witnesses.''

However, clause 27(2) says:

''If he is required to do so by or on behalf of an authority within his remit, the Commissioner must give advice to the authority in connection with the information provided or to be provided by or on behalf of the authority to victims or witnesses.''

Does that mean if an authority if not within the commissioner's remit as defined by schedule 6, he is not required to give advice under clause 27(1)? Clause 27(3) says:

''In this section 'Minister of the Crown' includes the Treasury.''

It seems to me that subsection (3) is otiose if Her Majesty's Treasury is included schedule 6. Also, there is a lacuna, because even if expressly required to give advice to, for example, the Ministry of Defence, the commissioner does not have to do so because that authority is not within his remit. It appears that there is a gap in logic between the list and clause 27. There may be a perfectly straightforward explanation, but it is strange that the Minister should reject these amendments without considering a complex problem that has arisen from the interpretation of schedule 6 alongside clause 27; it would be much easier to generalise in this list and make it more comprehensive.

Something else worries me. A small part of the Bill will take up time because this list will have to be amended in secondary legislation. I do not think that it is unfair to say that the Government change departmental briefs as often as some of us change our socks. Departments win and lose power, and we suddenly find that responsibility for certain topics have nipped across into the bailiwick of a different Department. This schedule will take more trouble than it deserves, as it is only a minor part of the whole process.

I will not press my amendment to a Division because the Minister has given me an assurance that he will review the workings of the provision. I hope that he will come up with something that will not take parliamentary time from the many other important matters we have to discuss and that addresses the problem I have with clause 27 and the list.

David Heath (Liberal Democrat, Somerton and Frome)

I have a number of amendments in this group. The Minister almost pre-empted some of the remarks I wanted to make by dealing with certain points. However, what he has said has not satisfied me.

I started from the basic premise that any activities of a public body that impinge on the victims or witnesses in a case should fall within the remit of the commissioner. Any person acting in the office of constable might have an impact on the victims or witnesses in a criminal case. Although the vast majority of those acting in the office of constable are included within the remit, some are not, and that is inexplicable to me. That is why I tabled amendment No. 50, which deals with the National Criminal Intelligence Service and the National Crime Squad. NCIS does not have a direct operational role in terms of making arrests but it provides information that is of vital importance in managing prosecutions, and the NCS acts directly with the local constabulary in arresting and charging. Therefore, it is nonsense not

to include NCIS and the NCS within the remit of the commissioner. They should be included; they are police organisations and they will have an impact on some victims and witnesses in the exercise of their duties.

I am very pleased that the Government have accepted half of amendment No. 51. I cannot imagine how the Ministry of Defence police got left out, but they are now included. I think that the problem of the Home Office and the Ministry of Defence sometimes not quite communicating manifested itself again, but things are now clear. However, why not include the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority constabulary? I accept that it does not arrest many people in the average year; it is largely a protecting body rather than an investigating body. However, it can arrest people.

Dame Cheryl Gillan (Conservative, Chesham and Amersham)

It is a guarding constabulary.

David Heath (Liberal Democrat, Somerton and Frome)

I thought that the hon. Lady said from a sedentary position that it cannot arrest people, and I thought, ''Well, yes it can.'' It can arrest people and a prosecution can be brought on the basis of that arrest. Therefore, it clearly can affect a victim, or more particularly a witness, in a case.

Mr. Grieve rose—

Vera Baird rose—

David Heath (Liberal Democrat, Somerton and Frome)

I have a choice; I will give way to the hon. and learned Lady first.

Vera Baird (Labour, Redcar)

I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman remembers the CND Snowball campaign of a few years ago, where activists went to installations such as Sizewell and systematically cut one strand of the fence and stepped on to the site. The UKAEA police were involved in policing that. I am not suggesting that there should be another campaign, but that one brought the police into contact with a large number of witnesses and any similar anti-nuclear protest would do so again.

David Heath (Liberal Democrat, Somerton and Frome)

I remember those protests, but let us not go there. However, the hon. and learned Lady makes my point. Why should the UKAEA constabulary be excluded from the remit of the commissioner for victims and witnesses simply because it does not arrest many people in the average year?

Dominic Grieve (Conservative, Beaconsfield)

I agree with the hon. Gentleman, and I want to return to one point that the Minister might reply to in the debate on schedule 6. The Health and Safety Commission comes under the commissioner's remit, although I find it difficult to see the link between victims and witnesses and that commission, as opposed to the Health and Safety Executive. However, if the commission is included, I cannot think of a good reason for excluding the UKAEA police.

David Heath (Liberal Democrat, Somerton and Frome)

I am grateful for that, although I can understand why the Health and Safety Commission is included. That is because its general function is not only to supervise and make recommendations on activities, but to make recommendations to an authority that is within the remit. If the Health and

Safety Executive is behaving in a way that gives cause for concern to the commissioner, the commissioner may then make a recommendation to the Health and Safety Commission about that. That is the relevance, and I hope that I have at least partly answered the hon. Gentleman's point.

Dominic Grieve (Conservative, Beaconsfield)

The hon. Gentleman has answered my question, although I shall wait to hear from the Minister too. I have no objection to the Health and Safety Commission being included, but to widen the issue, we should remember that the Inland Revenue prosecutes. I have prosecuted for the Inland Revenue, and there are victims and witnesses of activities related to it.

David Heath (Liberal Democrat, Somerton and Frome)

The hon. Gentleman is right. When approaching the Bill, I thought for a long time about whether it was necessary to propose to include other prosecuting authorities, especially those that are not governmental but do prosecute in the public interest. One example would be the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, which mounts prosecutions in the public interest. It was established by charter and is outside government apparatus, but it clearly has a role in the context of victims and witnesses.

Dame Cheryl Gillan (Conservative, Chesham and Amersham)

What about local authorities?

David Heath (Liberal Democrat, Somerton and Frome)

What indeed? The hon. Lady makes a good point, as local authorities mount prosecutions in respect of trading standards, and I do not believe that they are adequately covered by the inclusion of the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister. Before another hon. Member pops up to mention something else—[Interruption.] Does the hon. Member for North Down have another ''What about?''

Sylvia Hermon (UUP, North Down)

I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman has invited me to pop up. Will he speak to his welcome amendment No. 49, which proposes including the Police Service of Northern Ireland? That will give me an opportunity to intervene on him again and correct the Minister.

David Heath (Liberal Democrat, Somerton and Frome)

The hon. Lady could have intervened without my invitation. I tabled the amendment on the PSNI because, having heard what she had to say on Second Reading, it seemed essential that the commissioner's remit be extended to Northern Ireland and that the PSNI be listed with the constabularies of mainland Britain excluding Scotland.

Sylvia Hermon (UUP, North Down)

In dealing with amendment No. 49, the Minister alluded to the fact that the PSNI would not be included because we have the chief inspector of criminal justice in Northern Ireland. That is right, and the Justice (Northern Ireland) Act 2002—thankfully, proper legislation rather than just an Order in Council—created the office of the chief inspector of criminal justice. However, according to section 47 of that Act, the

''Chief Inspector may not . . . carry out inspections or reviews of individual cases''.

That means that the chief inspector does not deal with the rights of victims and witnesses to make complaints against the PSNI.

David Heath (Liberal Democrat, Somerton and Frome)

I am grateful to the hon. Lady and hope that the Minister responds to her point. I have another point about the PSNI. It may give evidence or it may have arrested a person who is charged within the jurisdiction of England and Wales. There is no reason why it should not do so, so why on earth should it not be within the commissioner's remit? As I read amendment No. 90, the PSNI is not an authority specified in schedule 6, so it is not included. It therefore seems to me that, were someone arrested by the PSNI but tried in a court in England and Wales, perhaps on associated offences or a joint charge with a police force in England and Wales, the PSNI would not be part of the commissioner's remit. That seems extraordinarily odd.

Amendment No. 52 contains the catch-all phrase mentioned by the hon. Member for North Dorset. It is a catch-all in two ways. It includes the constabularies that are not listed. I had the Royal Parks constabulary in mind, but the amendment would catch others. My other point is important. I know that the Home Office likes to forget about police authorities, preferring to deal directly with chief constables and take police authorities to court when they do not do what they are told, but police authorities exist and have functions and the amendment would therefore include them. The practice in a constabulary may be such that it should be brought to the attention of the police authority. Paragraph 11 of schedule 6 refers to

''A police force for a police area in England or Wales.''

I do not think that that term includes the police authority for the area, but it should do. The amendment refers to

''Any authority that is maintaining a body of constables in England, Wales or Northern Ireland.''

That term includes police authorities, is used in statute and is recognised as such. The Minister may not be prepared to accept my amendment. The words ''Northern Ireland'' may have made him shy away from it; I do not know. But will he please consider the fact that the schedule does not include police authorities? That is extraordinary. It includes the Health and Safety Commission, but not police authorities. Police authorities have a function to perform and should be included in the remit.

Amendment No. 55 uses the term ''court martial'', which I know causes a problem. The Minister dismissed the amendment because he believes that the relevant matters will be dealt with under military discipline, which is different. Well, I have to say to him in the gentlest possible terms that in a court martial the defendant is usually a member of the armed services, but I know of no rule saying that the victim or witnesses in the case must be. They will often be civilians and outside the terms of any system that is in place in the Ministry of Defence. Such people should be within the remit of the general functions of the commissioner for victims and witnesses. Not to include courts martial in that sphere means that no one is considering the interests of civilian victims and

witnesses in the ambit of the court martial system. I hope that the Government will address that omission.

Paul Goggins (Labour, Wythenshawe and Sale East)

This has been an interesting exchange and debate. As I made clear, I will give further consideration to at least one or two aspects of it. In this part of the Bill, we are seeking to strike a balance between the needs of individual victims and their right to expect proper support and good services, and the need not to overburden Departments that do not provide services to victims. The balance can be struck in different ways, and I will think about some of the suggestions made by hon. Members, although we believe that what we are presenting is a reasonable balance.

We want to include the Health and Safety Commission because it oversees the work of the Health and Safety Executive. It deals with all manner of victims, including victims of train crashes, accidents on building sites and so forth.

Dominic Grieve (Conservative, Beaconsfield)

I appreciate the Minister's point and I do not object to it, but the reality is that the commission deals with policy issues with the Government, and the executive carries out all the day-to-day functions of health and safety enforcement, which brings it into contact with witnesses and victims. It seems slightly speculative to consider where the commission's remit would likely fall for scrutiny by the commissioner. I have no objection to the measure, but it seems a rather extreme example of the Government casting the net very wide, and I can juxtapose that with other areas where they have cast the net rather narrowly.

Paul Goggins (Labour, Wythenshawe and Sale East)

I acknowledge and appreciate the hon. Gentleman's support for the amendments.

The hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham raised a point about clause 27. Any Minister of the Crown can ask for advice from the commissioner, but that is different from the commissioner dealing with a body and making recommendations without being asked. That relationship is clearly different. Also, the transfer of functions can be dealt with in the transfer of functions order that will be made in any event.

The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister is intended to cover local authorities, and we do not want to add to the burdens placed on individual local authorities. In any event, and crucially, the commissioner is not supposed to deal with individual cases. Participation at local level is therefore less appropriate. That relates to the issue raised by the hon. Member for North Down, as well. The commissioner operates in relation to the services rather than the individual victim.

I can only repeat the point that I have already made about Northern Ireland: within the scope and scale of that jurisdiction, it was felt that there would be the potential for too much conflict between different bodies with responsibility. As for courts martial, I repeat to the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome that the nature of Army law and the specialist support available led us to the conclusion that that should fall outwith.

In respect of amendment No. 52, we clearly did not want to create unnecessary obligations for police

authorities, such as NCIS or the Atomic Energy Authority constabulary, which do not deal with victims. However, I will reflect further on the points that the hon. Members for Somerton and Frome and for Chesham and Amersham raised and will come back to Committee members in due course.

Dame Cheryl Gillan (Conservative, Chesham and Amersham)

Perhaps my memory is imperfect, but did the Minister deal with the issue of the management of the Royal Parks police?

Paul Goggins (Labour, Wythenshawe and Sale East)

That will be considered during the deliberations that I will undertake. I hope that that satisfies the hon. Lady.

Amendment agreed to.

Sally Keeble (Labour, Northampton North)

I beg to move amendment No. 129, in page 17, line 41, at end insert—

'(4) The Commissioner's remit will also include Anti-Social Behaviour Orders pursued by local authorities.'.

This is only a probing amendment. It is imperfect, and I am not even sure that it falls in the right place, but it raises an issue that has been raised before in this Committee, and it is important in terms of the public perception of crime. Although it might be implicit in the legislation that it can be used to deal with antisocial behaviour, it is not stated explicitly. Given the concern about antisocial behaviour among the general public, it is important to make it clear that the Bill can deal with that.

I did wonder where in the Bill the amendment might go. Although I hope that the Minister can assure us that he will return with an amendment, I realise that it might go in a different place—perhaps in the clause relating to general functions or that relating to victims and witnesses.

The problem with antisocial behaviour is that it often has no specific victim. The graffiti, stone throwing, noise levels or football playing in an area might be such that people are terrorised and stay indoors. They might perceive themselves to be victims—they will certainly perceive themselves as having been victimised—but they have not been on the receiving end of a specific crime. For that reason, it was hard to think of a way of amending clause 29 in the way that I intended without making it so general that anybody who disliked something in their street could claim to be a victim. There may, however, be a way of changing the provisions on victims and witnesses.

I also wondered about an amendment to schedule 6. With hindsight, I am rather glad that I did not table one, given the debate that we have just had. However, tabling a similar amendment to clause 30 or another clause might require consequential amendments to schedule 6.

If we are serious about the commissioner considering the needs of victims and having oversight over policy generally, it would be profoundly damaging to leave out antisocial behaviour or to have any fuzziness about it. It is probably the issue about which we, as constituency MPs, get the most complaints, certainly in the context of law and order. Of course, policy and statute on the issue have been

developing quickly in recent years, and there have been two rounds of legislation and a host of different policy papers. We also have the new special prosecuting force to carry things through. The commissioner will play an important role in scrutinising dispersal orders and some of the newer orders to see how effective they have been in dealing with the concerns of local communities that are, in broad terms, the victims of such crimes. However, this is a new and developing area and may not, therefore, have been clearly thought through.

There is also an issue about the perception of who is responsible for law and order. I do not want to get into a huge debate about schedule 6, but if the commissioner is to consider antisocial behaviour, it is surely important to recognise the role that local authorities play in dealing with it. That is why I included a reference to local authorities in the amendment. I am sure that the Minister will correct me if I am wrong, but, in most instances, local authorities take the lead in seeking antisocial behaviour orders and several other orders. They then work in partnership with the police. We must also take into account the role played by local crime and disorder partnerships. If the Bill is to deal with antisocial behaviour properly, as I believe it must, the Government must give some thought to the way in which the commissioner relates to those agencies most closely involved in prosecuting this area of statute. I listened carefully to what the Minister said about schedule 6. He referred to the reason for not including local authorities and mentioning only the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister. Generally speaking, I accept that that is fair enough, but, in relation to antisocial behaviour, the Bill might need to include some clearer reference to local authorities and the local crime disorder partnerships.

I do not intend to press the amendment to a vote, but I hope that the Minister will give a commitment to take it away and come back with some more elegantly and properly drafted amendments that apply to the right bit of the Bill and which will give effect to what I suspect that the broad mass of the general public want: a commissioner who deals with antisocial behaviour, and proper recognition of what constitutes a witness and a victim in this important area.

Dominic Grieve (Conservative, Beaconsfield)

The hon. Lady has done the Committee a good service in tabling the amendment. She is absolutely right to highlight what strikes me as a major hole in the Bill. Her amendment probably does not relate to the right part of the Bill, because the real problem is the definition of victims and witnesses in clause 29. Clause 29 clearly limits the definitions. A victim

''means a victim of an offence''

and a witness means somebody who gives evidence in ''criminal proceedings''. An ASBO relates to none of those things, yet we know from our experience as constituency MPs, and the Minister knows, that the process by which one persuades and encourages a witness to come forward and give evidence to obtain an ASBO is as traumatic and difficult as in criminal

cases. Witnesses are sometimes as subject to difficulties as witnesses giving evidence in a criminal case. On the face of it, there is an enormous hole. The commissioner will not be able to intervene to scrutinise whether the process is being conducted properly.

ASBOs are the responsibility of local authorities and, as we noted earlier, local authorities are not included in schedule 6. That will raise problems even in relation to straightforward criminal proceedings. It is certainly my experience—other members of the Committee may agree—that ASBOs are often used to deal with noise nuisance. The local authority may well initiate separate criminal proceedings in noise nuisance cases, but again the commissioner will not be able to look at whether the local authority is handling things correctly.

The hon. Lady has touched on an enormous area that has been left as a hole, a blank sheet. I hope that the Minister will reconsider how best to tackle the issue. I entirely agree with the hon. Lady that ASBOs must be covered, because they are a category of court proceeding involving victims and witnesses that is of major public concern and, if ASBOs are working, of developing interest.

Vera Baird (Labour, Redcar)

Although this note is in a minor key, related to the importance of ASBOs, which my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Ms Keeble) has rightly put her finger on, we are initiating a new kind of proceeding in the Bill: post-acquittal proceedings for a restraint order. They will be civil proceedings, and none of the witnesses involved will be protected by the activities of the commissioner.

Dominic Grieve (Conservative, Beaconsfield)

The hon. and learned Lady makes an extremely good point that reinforces the fact that a grey area has developed over the past four or five years—it is the Government's doing—at the meeting place of civil and criminal law, where enforcement proceedings are brought for the purposes of public benefit as opposed to being private civil proceedings. In that area, there are undoubtedly victims, who are often frightened. The commissioner is supposed to be reporting on trying to improve the processes for facilitating their attendance at court. However, we are leaving them out of this section of the Bill. I cannot believe that it is impossible for the Government to deal with that.

The situation is rectifiable—not through the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Northampton, North, but it is rare for any of us to table amendments that are acceptable to the Government—and I hope that the Minister will come back to the matter on Report. By judicious amendment of clause 29, which concerns the definition of victims and witnesses, and by saying that they can also be categorised as victims or witnesses in ASBO proceedings, we will get what we need, although that still leaves the issue of local authority coverage in schedule 6. I hope that the Minister will take those two areas on board.

Paul Goggins (Labour, Wythenshawe and Sale East)

I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North for raising this issue. I do not need to expand at length on the

problems that antisocial behaviour causes in our constituencies. They are a matter of the greatest importance, and we seek to tackle them, not least through the Anti-Social Behaviour Act 2003. It has always been our intention that the commissioner should have a role in relation to coverage of antisocial behaviour. I accept that the Bill, as drafted, does not make that as clear as it should. In raising the point, my hon. Friend, supported by the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve), has drawn our attention to the need to do more to make explicit the precise remit of the commissioner in relation to antisocial behaviour.

Dominic Grieve (Conservative, Beaconsfield)

I am delighted to hear the Minister's comments. However, I think that the point goes further. Unless I have misunderstood the definitions in clause 29, the poor old commissioner is specifically prohibited from looking at victims and witnesses in ASBOs.

Paul Goggins (Labour, Wythenshawe and Sale East)

That may be the case, and I shall certainly reflect carefully on it. That is not our intention, which is why we may well need to come back with suitable amendments on Report.

Two issues have been raised. One is about the definition of victims and witnesses in clause 29; the hon. Gentleman has referred to it, as has my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North. Clearly, we will need to look very carefully at the definition of victims and witnesses.

My hon. Friend drew attention to schedule 6. I explained earlier that the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister will provide an overview of local authorities. None the less, as we consider the issue and the implications of the Bill, we will come back to my hon. Friend, the Committee and the House on Report.

We need a little time to reflect on these matters. I ask the Committee to be patient and to give me the time to consider them. I promise that I will bring suitable amendments on Report so that we can ensure that what we originally intended, which was that the Bill and the role of the commissioner should relate to antisocial behaviour, is the case.

Sally Keeble (Labour, Northampton North)

I am perfectly satisfied with that answer. As I said, the amendment was in what seemed to be the most catch-all clause, and was simply intended to make sure that proper proposals would come forward. I take the point made by the hon. Member for Beaconsfield about victims and witnesses. One slight caveat is that if the definition of victim is opened up too much, it could become virtually meaningless. Real care and thought need to go into it, and I certainly could not produce something that I would think could deal with the issue.

Dominic Grieve (Conservative, Beaconsfield)

The matter can probably be cured by including ASBO victims not in the category of victims, but of witnesses. That would probably cover most, although not necessary all, likely contingencies. The hon. Lady will recognise that those of my constituents for whom I have corresponded with the police, who have said that they would obtain an ASBO, can be defined in many instances as victims of seriously unpleasant behaviour.

Sally Keeble (Labour, Northampton North)

We could have a big debate about the definitions in each clause, and it may be that as the work is done and proposals come forward, they will give effect to what is needed. That will also give the general public the security of knowing that their fears and concerns, and their desire for a peaceful, law-abiding community, will be taken on board. The new commissioner will deliver what they want to see, so I am extremely happy with what my hon. Friend the Minister said. I beg to ask leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 30, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 6 - Authorities within Commissioner's remit

Clause 31 - Disclosure of information

David Heath (Liberal Democrat, Somerton and Frome)

I beg to move amendment No. 53, in clause 31, page 18, line 17, at end insert—

'(e) a Member of Parliament for the constituency in which the victim, witness or other person affected by the offences is resident'.

Marion Roe (Conservative, Broxbourne)

With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 23, in clause 31, page 18, line 28, leave out subsection (7) and insert—

'(7) Nothing in this section authorises the making of a disclosure which contravenes the Data Protection Act 1998 (c.29).

(7A) Notwithstanding subsection (7), any disclosure or processing of information under subsection (1) for the purposes set out in subsection (2) in performance of functions referred to in section 13 shall be deemed to be necessary to be processed for the exercise of any such functions for the purposes of the Data Protection Act 1998, in particular Section 35 (disclosures required by law or made in connection with legal proceedings etc) and schedules 1 (data protection principles), 2 (conditions relevant for the purposes of the first principle: Processing of any personal data) and 3 (conditions relevant for the purposes of the first principle: Processing of sensitive personal data) of that Act'.

David Heath (Liberal Democrat, Somerton and Frome)

I am a signatory to amendment No. 23, which deals with the Data Protection Act, but I shall be happy to let the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham make the points necessary to introduce it.

Amendment No. 53 deals with a narrow, but important issue: the position of Members of this House in dealing with constituents who find themselves in a court procedure. It is a great shame—I mean no disrespect whatever to the Minister—that the Solicitor-General is not here for this part of the Bill. She is very much apprised of these issues, not least because one of the starting points for my thoughts on the process was the situation that arose in a case presided over by Mr. Justice Mumby, in

which the Solicitor-General's sister was involved, when documents were passed to the Solicitor-General and the Minister for Children. I know that the right hon. Lady is aware of the problem that arose—she became aware for a variety of reasons, not least because she made a statement about it to the House—but I understand that serious consideration has been given in the Law Officers' Departments, in conjunction with that of the Leader of the House, as to how the difficulty can be circumvented.

It may be extraordinary to have to put into law a provision to allow Members of Parliament to do their work, but what emerged from that case is that there is an issue about Members of Parliament having dealings with their constituents under the circumstances involved. That stems from the courts' interpretation of the Administration of Justice Act 1960. It was clearly held by Mr. Justice Mumby that to share a document relating to an individual with a Member of Parliament—in that case, with a Minister—constituted contempt of court. It has been extrapolated from that that anybody involved in a case, particularly a family court case, who shared their circumstances with their own Member of Parliament would or could be in contempt of court. That is simply not on. There must be a way for our constituents to discuss such matters with us without finding themselves in jeopardy from the courts.

In response to questions, the Leader of the House acknowledged the need for urgent action to put the position back to where we thought it had been. Since then, however, we have heard nothing. I do not think that I am divulging any confidences in saying that the matter has also been addressed, albeit superficially, by the Committee on Standards and Privileges, of which I am a member, because there is concern about the issues of privilege involved.

One issue is the use of anonymised information for the purposes of developing policy, and that is important. Until now, it has always been assumed that the use of anonymised reports is okay, even when a case is still in progress. It now appears that that is not the case.

An individual may have particular points to raise with their Member of Parliament, although not for the purposes of intervening in the case. As we all know, that would be wrong; it is not for Members of Parliament to intervene in a court case. However, the individual's point may raise a public policy issue, which a Member of Parliament, as an assiduous constituency Member, may wish to raise in the House, with Ministers or in some other context.

It is important for Members to know, on occasion, what is happening in the courts, because that might affect the matters that we consider in a Committee such as this. It may well be that this very day, there are court cases that would impact on the provisions that we are bringing forward. If that were the case, I would hope that there would be provision for somebody to take the matter to their Member of Parliament—their own MP; I did not mean an MP in a generic sense—and for it to be considered. However, as I understand the state of the law at the moment, that would constitute a contempt of court.

My amendment would not deal specifically with the wider spectrum of issues that I raise; I am using it as an opportunity to raise a wider issue on behalf of a large number of MPs who have expressed concern. It relates only to the functions of the commission. It would establish firmly that the commissioner, although he will not normal deal with individual cases, would nevertheless be entirely in order, with the permission of the individual concerned, in sharing the information with a Member of Parliament, if more general issues were raised of which we ought to be aware and which we ought to be able to discuss.

I hope that, because of my use of the device of the amendment, the Minister will tell us what progress the Government have made in dealing with the issue, when we are likely to see a statute, if one is necessary to correct the position, and what opportunities there are for making legislative changes. I understand that legislation may well be needed to make a better situation—

It being twenty-five minutes past Eleven o'clock, The Chairman adjourned the Committee without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned till this day at half-past Two o'clock.

Standing Committee E

Clause 31 - Disclosure of information

Joe Benton (Labour, Bootle)

I remind the Committee that with this we are discussing amendment No. 23, in

clause 31, page 18, line 28, leave out subsection (7) and insert—

'(7) Nothing in this section authorises the making of a disclosure which contravenes the Data Protection Act 1998 (c.29).

(7A) Notwithstanding subsection (7), any disclosure or processing of information under subsection (1) for the purposes set out in subsection (2) in performance of functions referred to in section 13 shall be deemed to be necessary to be processed for the exercise of any such functions for the purposes of the Data Protection Act 1998, in particular Section 35 (disclosures required by law or made in connection with legal proceedings etc) and schedules 1 (data protection principles), 2 (conditions relevant for the purposes of the first principle: Processing of any personal data) and 3 (conditions relevant for the purposes of the first principle: Processing of sensitive personal data) of that Act'.

David Heath (Liberal Democrat, Somerton and Frome)

Welcome to the Committee this afternoon, Mr. Benton. When we broke off this morning, I was about to complete my comments on the amendment.

I feel that the law should not introduce a barrier between a constituent and their Member of Parliament. Secondly, public policy issues often arise from cases. Given that cases of the kind in question can often take many years to resolve, by way of different hearings and proceedings, it cannot be right that the public policy issues that arise cannot be shared with Members of Parliament and, thereby, the House.

I hope that the Minister can reassure us that the Government are dealing with those issues and will present sensible proposals for dealing with them in due course.

Dame Cheryl Gillan (Conservative, Chesham and Amersham)

Welcome to the Committee, Mr. Benton.

I have great sympathy with the case that the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) has made. Major issues have been raised recently about what a Member of Parliament can or cannot do about information brought to him or her by a constituent. I, too, look forward to the Minister's comments, because the amendment seems to be a perfect vehicle for a fuller exploration of the matter. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for tabling it.

I am also grateful to the hon. Gentleman for supporting amendment No. 23, to which I shall speak.

Victim Support particularly wants it to be considered, because it wants to ensure that all victims of crime obtain services for which they are eligible under the victims code. Victim Support is concerned to ensure clarity about the disclosure of information, and data protection in particular.

The debate is not a new one, because it was conducted in another place. However, Victim Support feels strongly about clause 31, and the amendment is intended to make it clear that nothing that a service provider does that complies with the victims code will put it in breach of the Data Protection Act 1998.

During the Grand Committee debate in the House of Lords, Baroness Scotland stated that she was confident that the current arrangements for passing information to Victim Support complied with the Data Protection Act 1998. That is a reassuring statement because it confirms, for example, that the police can pass on to Victim Support information about victims, who will then receive support. However, there have been misunderstandings in the past about the freedom to pass on such information, and I am sure that the Minister will understand why Victim Support hopes to have the correct situation put on the record in the House of Commons.

There is a justification for the amendment and a need for the Bill to reassure all service providers that compliance with the code will not put them in breach of the Data Protection Act 1998. The experience of Victim Support has shown that it is not sufficient for the practical implications of the Act to be tackled through protocols for information sharing and further guidance. Concerns are bound to remain in the minds of some data protection officers in view of the overriding requirements of the Act.

Amendment No. 23 is intended to assure the necessary flow of information to Victim Support to enable it to continue to provide services to victims. The Minister could easily accept the amendment, not least because there appears to be agreement across Government. I would have thought that the Government wanted to give assurances to organisations such as Victim Support by adding this small amendment to the Bill. I hope that the Minister will find favour with it and not reject it, as he has done with all other amendments bar one.

Paul Goggins (Labour, Wythenshawe and Sale East)

I reassure the hon. Lady that although I keep urging hon. Members not to press amendments, that does not mean that we are not listening to the points being made. I shall continue to do that.

I understand why the hon. Lady has tabled amendment No. 23: to put it beyond doubt that compliance with the victims code of practice will not put individuals in breach of the Data Protection Act 1998. However, I am concerned that making an explicit link between that Act and the disclosure of information for this purpose, however important it appears to be, is likely to lead to further confusion. It could, for example, lead other public authorities to believe that such a provision is required of them before they have to make their own disclosures, rather than

relying on compliance with the general principles of the Data Protection Act.

The amendment is unnecessary and would cast doubt on the legality of existing arrangements and data sharing in other contexts.

Dame Cheryl Gillan (Conservative, Chesham and Amersham)

Most police forces operate the agreed process for making referrals to Victim Support. Is the Minister satisfied that the relevant Home Office circular—44/2001, I think—is sufficient, or are there plans to amend it in the light of the Bill?

Paul Goggins (Labour, Wythenshawe and Sale East)

I was about to come to that very point. I am aware of the hon. Lady's and Victim Support's anxieties about the effect of data protection legislation on their work with victims. However, administrative protocols, which have been approved by the Information Commissioner, are in place for passing victims' personal details from the police to Victim Support. We are aware that there are sometimes breakdowns in the arrangements and that considerable efforts then have to be made by Victim Support to put matters rights. We acknowledge that the protocols are in need of review, and we intend to work with Victim Support, the police and the Information Commissioner to establish how guidance can be improved.

Sir Michael Bichard's inquiry into data protection issues arising from the tragic events in Soham recommends the development of a new and separate code of practice to help drive up standards and supersede all existing guidance on data protection. The Government have accepted that recommendation, and it would provide an ideal vehicle to address Victim Support's concerns. I hope that that gives some reassurance to the hon. Lady.

Amendment No. 53 is designed to include Members of Parliament in the list of relevant authorities for disclosure of information. The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome spent quite a chunk of his remarks discussing the Mumby judgment and related issues. We recognise and understand the difficulties that that judgment raised for MPs and how they help constituents involved in family proceedings. The disclosure of information in family proceedings is an issue not only for Members of Parliament, but for the police, the Crown Prosecution Service and other professional agencies. During the passage of the Children Bill in the other place, my hon. Friend Baroness Ashton agreed to consider those matters further and return to Members during this House's consideration of that Bill. I reassure the hon. Gentleman that, far from being complacent and inactive, we are considering such issues very carefully, although we will not address them in this Bill; we will do it in the Children Bill.

We must remember that the purpose of the clause is to facilitate compliance with the victims code, not investigations into its breach. The Parliamentary Commissioner Act 1967 provides the legislative framework for dealing with complaints, and as that legislation does not give MPs the power to get information, there is no reason why we should

introduce that power. Similarly, should colleagues wish to bring to the attention of the commissioner for victims and witnesses the wider issues raised by a particular case—and, of course, for the commissioner to provide a response—we do not need to legislate for that to happen. Members will be able to communicate with the commissioner in the same way they do now with other public authorities.

I hope that I have addressed hon. Members concerns.

David Heath (Liberal Democrat, Somerton and Frome)

I am grateful to the Minister for his response. I did not suggest that he was being complacent or inaccurate. I merely wanted to know what progress had been made. I have now heard from him that there will be amendments to the Children Bill. I assume that that will happen within a reasonably short time, because I think that the Children Bill is about to return to this House, although I have forgotten the exact sequence of events.

I would be grateful if someone in the Minister's Department or the Department for Education and Skills wrote to give an outline of what will be proposed—perhaps not the precise amendments, but their scope. There is a great deal of disquiet about this matter, not among Members because the impact is not on us, but on the people who come to see us; it is they who are in contempt of court. It is serious for our constituents that they may inadvertently find themselves on the wrong side of the law by doing something that they believe to be their right, which is to consult their MP about an issue of great importance to them. One hopes that the change will be sufficiently comprehensive to deal with the range of issues that may emerge; once that is the case, people will feel much easier.

I understand the Minister's point on amendment No. 23. I hope that his words will reassure the sponsors of the amendment, but I suspect that they will still have concerns about the impact of the proposals.

Dame Cheryl Gillan (Conservative, Chesham and Amersham)

I agree entirely. Despite the Minister's assurances about the review process, one problem to do with victim support is that data protection officers and chief constables fear that passing referral information could bring about personal liability. When those fears exist, the number of referrals goes down dramatically. It has been estimated that a quarter of the country is adversely affected as individuals move around. There is a serious need for the Minister to take those fears into account.

David Heath (Liberal Democrat, Somerton and Frome)

That is right. If we want an illustration of the extraordinary views that are held about the application of the Data Protection Act 1998, we have only to think of the Soham situation and the Bichard inquiry to see that the legislation can be wildly misinterpreted by people who ought to know better.

There is a need for guidance, and it needs to be explicit. Without that guidance, if people can get the wrong end of the stick, they will. They do so for defensive reasons, because they do not want to be prosecuted and find themselves at the wrong end of proceedings having to defend their actions, or having to pay to defend them if they are a public body. We

must have clarity. I shall study carefully what the Minister said, but we will probably need further explicit guidance before everyone is reassured.

Having said that, I look forward to reading the amendments to the other legislation. I should be grateful if the Minister can say whether he will write to me.

Paul Goggins (Labour, Wythenshawe and Sale East)

Another Department has the lead on the issue, but I shall draw the hon. Gentleman's remarks to the attention of my noble Friend, Baroness Ashton of Upholland. I am sure that appropriate communication will happen at the earliest opportunity.

David Heath (Liberal Democrat, Somerton and Frome)

I am most grateful. The interest shown in the matter by the Leader of the House, the Standards and Privileges Committee and the Speaker of the House was clear at business questions a few weeks ago. There is a general feeling that something needs to be done in the short term to correct the current position. Given the hon. Gentleman's assurances, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 31, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 32 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 33 - Grants for assisting victims, witnesses etc

Vera Baird (Labour, Redcar)

I beg to move amendment No. 88, in clause 33, page 19, line 30, at end add—

'(3) The Secretary of State may make grants to voluntary organisations under this section for the purpose of providing appropriate protection and support services for children who have suffered impairment due to seeing or hearing ill-treatment of another person. Any payments will be subject to such conditions as he considers appropriate.'.

Although I tabled the amendment, I should have preferred to defer to my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson) because it falls within his area of interest concerning children. He is not present, however, so I shall press on.

This amendment, which I discussed with my hon. Friend and others, is advocated by Women's Aid and a large number of organisations, including Refuge, which are concerned about the impact on children of having seen or heard the ill treatment of another person, usually in the context of domestic violence.

David Heath (Liberal Democrat, Somerton and Frome)

I have sympathy with the intention behind the hon. and learned Lady's amendment. My noble Friends tabled such an amendment in another place and spoke to it. Does she agree, however, that although it is important for us to have this debate and receive the assurances that I hope the Minister will give us, the power is already contained in the clause, without amendment, to provide the sort of assistance that we want?

Vera Baird (Labour, Redcar)

It appears to be possible that grants could be paid to people under clause 33(1)

''in connection with measures which appear . . . to be intended to assist victims, witnesses or other persons'',

but I am not sure about that. I ask the Minister to make clear what he envisages that wording allowing. At the moment, the situation is not a happy one.

The amendment presents a clear understanding, which the Government also have, of the potential damage to children from domestic violence. The Government recently made it clear that three quarters of children on the at-risk register live in households in which domestic violence occurs. The Department of Health acknowledges that domestic violence is a major indicator of risk to children and that perpetrators who are violent to their partners are frequently violent to their children.

There is an understanding that goes beyond the danger of physical injury to a child, as well as a parent, which is that a child will suffer from the trauma and shock of being exposed to violence inflicted by one party—usually one carer—on another. The amendment is intended to ensure that the use of the word ''victims'' in the clause is wide enough to permit the Secretary of State to give grants to children who have not physically been injured but who have witnessed very unpleasant things.

A recent book, ''Children's Perspectives on Domestic Violence'', written partly by Professor Liz Kelly of London Metropolitan university, consists in part of children who lived with domestic violence saying what they needed and what they suffered in that situation. Their replies were described as being astonishingly clear and consistent. The most commonly cited need was, not surprisingly, safety, but the next most common was someone to talk to. In the book, a nine-year-old girl speaking from her own experience said that people

''need someone to talk to. Because, if they were like me, sometimes I'm really sad and I need someone to talk to''.

She said that people may not be able to

''speak to the mum because maybe their mum don't want to talk about it. I think they should have someone to talk to.''

Clearly, that is not a desire for a chat; it is a profound need for a proper channel of communication with someone responsible, so that children who suffer exposure to violent behaviour can talk about the stresses that they suffer, their incomprehension and the impact that the behaviour has had on their development.

Children in the study also stated that the support services that they valued most in their sad youthful experience of domestic violence were those provided by children's support workers in refuges. Refuge organisations in England provide accommodation for about 23,500 children a year, and support services for about 110,000 children a year. They try to offer a wide range of services, including play, outings, and one-to-one support of the kind that I mentioned, involving advocacy and after care. Such organisations are the only widespread, dedicated source of support for children who have experienced domestic violence. However, children's support services in refuges are not mentioned in ''Every Child Matters''.

There is always the law of unintended consequences, and Women's Aid has made it clear that recent Government initiatives—unintentionally, I am sure—are effectively reducing support services for children in that category. Women's Aid relates that children's services in refuges are starved of funds, because the funding comes through the ''supporting people'' programme, and its funding regime is not aimed at children. However, children make up two thirds of the refuge population.

National standards for day care for under-eights have set staffing ratio and minimum space standards that only some 40 per cent. of refuges can ever afford to meet. Some refuge organisations have had to cut back drastically on the services that they offer. Women's Aid is carrying out a survey to find out in detail how refuge organisations are responding to the national standards, but it seems as though only 25 per cent. of organisations will be able to comply with national standards.

Women's Aid points out that children who have been involved in proceedings relating to violent parents need to be assessed properly. In May 2003, Women's Aid carried out a survey of 170 refuge organisations and domestic violence services. Some 83 per cent. of those services, which are at the cutting edge of expertise in terms of children who suffer from domestic violence, say that the ability to assess children is currently limited, because assessments during proceedings tend to be one-off interviews with someone whom the child does not know. That means that the child does not have the opportunity to receive a service that is absolutely necessary even for adults: the opportunity to talk about the most intimate aspects of family life. We are talking about a relationship built on trust, and it is much harder to achieve that with children.

In the Women's Aid briefing, there are plenty of expressions of the fact that it is difficult for children to disclose material at one-off interviews. There is a strong suggestion in the material before us that, in private law proceedings, issues concerning children and arising from domestic violence and abuse are not being got at adequately. The amendment makes clear what the Secretary of State is prepared to do and how widely the clause can be interpreted. Children who experience domestic violence must have safety and support urgently.

Dame Cheryl Gillan (Conservative, Chesham and Amersham)

Although the amendment is a probing one, I support it because it provides an opportunity to hear the Minister's views. There is a lacuna in looking after children. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre is not in Committee, because he has done much work on the subject.

It is obvious that children do not have to be physically or verbally abused to be hurt by domestic violence. Even hearing, or seeing, the abuse of one parent by the other can take a huge toll on kids and make a lasting impression. Children can also be the direct target of domestic violence and be hurt intentionally by an abusive parent, get caught in the middle of a particularly violent domestic incident and

be hurt accidentally or, in some cases, even be killed. I remind the Under-Secretary that I have some outstanding written questions on the statistics concerning the deaths of children, to which I have not yet received a response. Whether those statistics exist is another matter, but I hope that an answer is forthcoming.

As a result of domestic violence, children can develop a physical or mental problem that could last a lifetime. They can grow up believing that violence is a normal part of family life and be more likely to be abusive as adults if they are males, and more passive and withdrawn if they are females. The children often live in daily fear of what to expect at home. Their lives can be filled with confusion, chaos, anger and tension, which can lead to a lifelong fear and inability to trust others.

The children can be isolated by an abusive parent who shuts off the family from outside help or support. They can feel responsible themselves for such abuse because they feel that they are powerless to stop it. I have a constituency case in which that is exactly what is happening. Not to put too fine a point on it, I am having difficulty in finding the correct route down which help can be provided to the child. At present, my constituent is dealing with a real and living problem. I do not want to breach any confidences in respect of the case, but at some stage this afternoon I may take the mind of the Minister, because I have to deal with the case before the end of the day.

Young children can become very anxious. Many complain of tummy aches, wet the bed or find difficulty in sleeping. They have temper tantrums, and they start to behave as if they have mental health problems themselves. Boys seem to express their distress outwardly, while girls are more likely to internalise their stress. When I was researching the problem, I came across a helpful list that had been published by an American organisation called Turning Point. It listed the symptoms for which people in contact with such children should keep a weather eye. It includes unusual or unexplained injuries, headaches, stomach aches, signs of neglect, withdrawal such as playing alone and having no friends, depression, low self-esteem, use of violence to solve conflicts, trouble falling or staying asleep, sleeping during school, flashbacks, difficulty expressing emotions, school problems including lengthy absences, and acting over-responsibly—as if the child is the adult of the family and takes control.

The ongoing effects are alarming. I have looked at research showing that boys who have witnessed the abuse of their mothers are 10 times more likely as adults to abuse their female partners. Children who are abused in homes with domestic violence are 1,500 per cent. more likely to be neglected than other children. In homes where fathers assault mothers, the daughters are 651 per cent. more likely to be sexually abused than girls in non-abusive homes. Children of abused mothers are six times more likely to abuse drugs or alcohol, and are at a higher risk of running away.

A 1992 United States study showed that 63 per cent. of imprisoned kids between the ages of 11 and 20—I appreciate that these were American kids—were doing time for killing their mother's abuser. By reflecting on those statistics from Turning Point, I put on record the fact that this problem will cost society and the taxpayer a lot of money in the long term unless it is dealt with in its initial stages, when it first comes to the attention of the relevant agencies.

That is why I support this probing amendment and want to hear what the Minister has to say about it. Our children are our future. We have to protect them and minimise the damage done to them when they live in or around an abusive domestic relationship.

Julie Morgan (Labour, Cardiff North)

The case for the needs of children who are in households where domestic violence occurs has already been made, and I do not have to go into the issue again. However, there is a gap in provision, and refuges in Wales are certainly short of play workers and support workers.

Let me cite the example of a woman living in my constituency who depended on the support provided for her children. She was living in temporary accommodation and was traumatised by her experience of domestic violence and racism. Her mental health was in such a bad state that she was unable to leave the accommodation. She was totally dependent on support workers from BAWSO, the black women's refuge, to take her child to school, take him swimming, buy him things and enable him to have any semblance of a normal life. I am talking about addressing the physical needs of the child, as opposed to the mental needs that have been mentioned. That case strongly brought home to me the situation of such children, who may have been traumatised by witnessing domestic violence or even being caught up in it.

It is essential that there should be help at a very early stage. There is a big gap in provision, and we have to concentrate resources in that area, otherwise the problems that begin at an early age will be worse when they come to be addressed later.

David Heath (Liberal Democrat, Somerton and Frome)

A powerful case has been made in support of the intention behind the amendment. I do not want to detract from that case; indeed, I support it wholeheartedly. The amendment was tabled by my noble Friend Baroness Thomas of Walliswood in another place for what was, I am afraid, a brief debate whose timing was not perfect; only she and Baroness Scotland of Asthal participated.

However, two things emerged. First, it is my conviction that there is a gap in provision that needs to be filled. Secondly, the amendment is not, strictly speaking, necessary to enable the Government to fill that gap, because the permissive power is already set out in clause 33. I did not seek to pursue the amendment, because I thought that we could do the job as well with a stand part debate. Nevertheless, we have had the debate on the amendment. The Minister now needs to repeat, as I am sure he will, the Home Office view that the clause already provides the necessary power, but he should go a lot further. He should say that he recognises the issue and the fact that

we do not deal well with the children of those in abusive relationships, and acknowledge that we need to provide support in that area.

The Minister should also flesh out the comments made by Baroness Scotland in another place. She suggested that this is one of the matters that are under consideration for inclusion in the action plan that is being drawn up under the national strategy for victims and witnesses. I want the Minister to state explicitly that this matter will be included in that plan. We can then stop pursuing it, because we will be satisfied that he has heard the comments that have been made by the voluntary organisations from which the amendment came and by hon. Member on both sides of the Committee.

The Government need to address the matter and to provide support for the organisations that are trying to deal with the difficult issues associated with support for children. The Minister must say that that is a priority for the Government and that it will be contained in the plans that they propose to introduce. If he can give me that assurance, we will all be satisfied and feel that we have done our job in the Committee. If he is unable to do so, we will have to return to the matter until we get a satisfactory answer from the Government.

Robert Walter (Conservative, North Dorset)

I rise to support the amendment, because, unlike the hon. Gentleman, I think that it is right that it should be included in the Bill.

Children are often the forgotten victims of domestic violence, and we would be doing them a disservice if we did not highlight that fact in the clause by introducing the amendment or something similar. My hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham referred to various statistics about the number of children involved. All statistics in this area seriously underestimate the effect on children of domestic violence in the home.

I do not have any statistics, but I would like to share some anecdotal evidence with the Committee, as it emphasises the point. Some Committee members will know that my wife has been very involved in highlighting the problem of domestic violence. Last year, she happened to be in the hairdressers and she was talking to a young girl who had just started work, aged 16, as an apprentice hairdresser. She was washing my wife's hair and they were talking about what my wife was doing. For a couple of minutes the girl related her experiences of domestic violence in the home. She said that that was the first time that she had felt able to tell anyone, although she was talking to a complete stranger. Nobody had ever asked her before. As a result, she wrote down her experiences. They were very moving and they have been made into a short film.

The only reason why I tell this anecdote to the Committee is that, during the production of that film, I was involved in a meeting with a member of the production crew—a man in his mid-thirties. He explained why he wanted to be involved and related a story about when he was five years old. His sister stabbed his father with a butter knife, because he was

attacking the man's mother. He also said that nobody had asked him what effect it had had on him.

In both those instances, as one dug a little deeper, it seemed that the mothers just wanted to cover the situation up. They did not want to talk about it—certainly not with the children—and they did not want to encourage the children to be involved with any outside agencies.

Those are historic examples, but the Bill should include a provision that makes it incumbent on those responsible for considering the victims of domestic violence to dig deeply to find out how it affects children. As well as physical damage, the children often suffer enormous psychological damage.

Dame Cheryl Gillan (Conservative, Chesham and Amersham)

Does my hon. Friend agree that, if a child requires treatment, it can often be an indication that the mother is suffering domestic violence? The woman will invariably seek medical help for her children rather than for herself. The fact that a child requires medical treatment can be extremely helpful in identifying domestic violence. It is therefore even more essential that resources are made available; the money can help build up a wider and broader picture.

Robert Walter (Conservative, North Dorset)

I agree entirely. It is important that we make resources available. Although we are talking primarily about helping the child—the innocent observer of physical abuse and domestic violence, and in many cases the victim—as far as the other agencies are concerned, the children add an extra perspective to the assessment of the crimes committed in their homes.

Ann Keen (Labour, Brentford and Isleworth)

I am not an expert, but at an international conference two or three years ago hosted by the Metropolitan police, I had the opportunity to chair an afternoon seminar. A delegate from Cyprus said that, in that country, if a child is in the home when the perpetrator is abusing someone, the perpetrator is also charged with child abuse. Could we consider making a similar provision?

Paul Goggins (Labour, Wythenshawe and Sale East)

I am grateful to all hon. Members who have contributed to the debate; their evidence and harrowing stories have moved us all. In passing, I can tell the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham that if I can assist with the case that she had in mind, I shall be happy to do so.

We should remind ourselves that clause 33 is intended to give statutory authority for Government grants to be paid to voluntary sector bodies. That is entirely in line with Treasury best practice. We do not suggest in the clause what the level of funding might be, and neither do we say how the grant should be distributed between the various organisations. The Secretary of State may pay grants to any organisation that appears to him to assist victims, witnesses or others affected by such offences, and I confirm that children are definitely included in that definition. The amendment's mention of children is therefore unnecessary.

Hon. Members will appreciate the fact that funding for Victim Support has risen from £11.7 million in

1997 to some £30 million this year. The charity offered its community services to almost 80,000 victims of domestic violence in 2002–03, and it will have taken account of the needs of the children affected by the violence, referring them to other agencies when necessary. Similarly, its witness service offered support to about 30,000 children and young people who were victims or witnesses of crime.

My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Redcar (Vera Baird) mentioned a book by Liz Kelly. I have not had the opportunity to read it, but I shall certainly take an urgent look at it. Like several hon. Members, I was invited to a presentation organised by Women's Aid in which children spoke from their personal perspective about some of those issues. My hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Wyre mentioned that event on Second Reading; it was a moving occasion.

The hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham referred to parliamentary questions to which she awaits answers. I am considering the answers, and I will make sure that she receives them as soon as possible. There is no intention to block them.

Dame Cheryl Gillan (Conservative, Chesham and Amersham)

What I said was less a criticism and more an inquiry, because it is probably quite difficult to come by the information that I asked for, which makes my point that we need more information and statistics.

Paul Goggins (Labour, Wythenshawe and Sale East)

I can confirm that we have some information, and the hon. Lady will have it as soon as we can make it available.

For children who are not victims or witnesses of crime, the children, young people and families directorate of the Department for Education and Skills has the policy lead at national level. However, it is for local authorities to decide how best to provide support and services for children in need in their areas, including children in women's refuges.

It is important that the needs of such children are met. The Department for Education and Skills made it clear in its response to the ''Safety and Justice'' consultation paper that it will look at overhauling the support services available to children at risk as a result of domestic violence through the implementation of the proposals in the Green Paper ''Every Child Matters'', and it will consider how to address support needs specific to children who are affected by domestic violence. We are working with the Department for Education and Skills to decide how best to take that work forward and to support those children better in future.

The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome asked about the action plan for victims and witnesses, and I can confirm the comments made by my colleague in the other place about what is part of that action plan. I hope that that reassures him.

I hope that my other remarks give some reassurance to hon. Friends and Opposition Members. The cases they outlined are harrowing. The need is urgent, we are looking at the matter closely with the Department for Education and Skills, and we will ever seek to

improve the way in which we deliver support to children in need.

Sylvia Hermon (UUP, North Down)

It is delightful to see you back in the Chair this afternoon, Mr. Benton.

The Minister will recall that just before we adjourned for lunch there was a query about the definition of victims in terms of offences, and, in particular, antisocial behaviour. Clause 33 states that grants will be paid

''to assist victims, witnesses or other persons affected by offences.''

Children, as well as adults, are victims of antisocial behaviour. Can the Minister confirm that there will be a revision to take that into account?

Paul Goggins (Labour, Wythenshawe and Sale East)

I gave an undertaking this morning that we would look carefully at the definition of victims and witnesses in clause 29; we will also take on board the hon. Lady's comments. I hope that I have been able to reassure Committee members, and that my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Redcar will consider withdrawing the amendment.

Vera Baird (Labour, Redcar)

I am grateful to all contributors to the debate. In significantly different ways, they have made clear the sense that there is a gap in provision and that it is very important that children should be fully recognised as victims of domestic violence, even when they have not been physically injured, so that their needs can be adequately provided for.

I am reassured by what my hon. Friend the Minister said. He is clearly letting the Committee understand that clause 33(1), which refers to assisting

''victims, witnesses or other persons affected by offences'',

is wide enough to cover children who have been victims but who may not have been injured by being punched, who may not be victims of an offence or have physically witnessed an offence, and yet who were on the premises or around the situation when it occurred.

I wanted an assurance that the Minister understands the needs of those children and that the clause is wide enough to ensure that the help that they need can be delivered after proper investigation through the appropriate channels. Because that has been made clear, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Sylvia Hermon (UUP, North Down)

Clause 33 highlights the Government's higgledy-piggledy approach to the Bill's application to Northern Ireland. Curiously, this clause does extend to Northern Ireland. Although the Minister is perfectly content for the people of Northern Ireland to be left without a commissioner for victims and witnesses, he intends grants to be paid to victims and witnesses there who are affected by offences. I do not want him to withdraw the application of the clause to Northern Ireland, but I want to bring to his attention the curious fact that the Northern Ireland Office website states that the Government have to date committed more than

£18.25 million in support of measures for victims of the troubles, including for the memorial fund.

Will the Minister clarify what consultation took place between the Home Office and his ministerial colleagues at the Northern Ireland Office—in particular the Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, the hon. Member for Basildon (Angela Smith), who has responsibility for victims in Northern Ireland—on the extension of clause 33 to Northern Ireland? Secondly, will he clarify whether those who have been victims of the troubles and who have rightly benefited from applications to the memorial fund will also be able to apply for a grant under the clause?

Vera Baird (Labour, Redcar)

I seek further clarification on the breadth of the clause. I was pleased to hear the assurances that the amendment evoked from the Minister, but I wonder whether the clause falls foul of the argument levelled against it in an earlier amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Ms Keeble). Before the Secretary of State has the ability under this power to pay a grant, it is required that the individuals, or the groups representing individuals, must be those that intend to assist victims, witnesses or other persons affected by offences. That clearly means criminal offences, which is usually what people who have been witnesses or victims have been involved in.

In order for grants to be triggered, does there have to be a conviction so that offences are clearly entered on the record? Would a person who brought proceedings, and who had suffered to some extent from the consequences of another's actions, but who failed to bring home the full implications of a technical offence, be excluded from receiving support from the grant-aided funding set out in the clause?

Another problem is caused by couching the clause in terms of assisting victims of or witnesses to offences. Will victims of or witnesses to antisocial behaviour, which may not amount to a criminal offence, but which will be dealt with through civil proceedings in pursuit of an antisocial behaviour order, be covered? On the face of it, they will not, yet, as has been said, they are likely to have been just as traumatised and to be in need of just as much support as witnesses at criminal trials.

David Heath (Liberal Democrat, Somerton and Frome)

The hon. and learned Lady is making an important point. I just question her interpretation. A lot of the groups that may be included in the definition will also deal prophylactically with issues associated with crime or domestic violence, and so on, and will seek to avoid an offence being committed. They may find it difficult to differentiate in their work between that which prevents an offence from being committed and what assists afterwards. I hope that the Government are not over-prescribing, and therefore over-defining, what such grants might be used for.

Vera Baird (Labour, Redcar)

I take the hon. Gentleman's point, and I should think that the Minister has done so, too. What he says is right. The key is couching the terminology widely enough to ensure that the Government help the people whom they want to help. They want to help people who are affected by

antisocial behaviour and need support, just as much as they want to help people who have suffered from crime and need support. It is a way of ensuring that people who take civil proceedings, or are a party to suffering that goes to a civil court for a solution rather than to a criminal court, will be protected. I want to reiterate that distinction, because I am not sure that it was made powerfully enough, although I heard the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) raise it in connection with the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North.

The problem with clause 29 is that it is about criminal matters, and the problem with clause 33 is that it is only about offences. Antisocial behaviour orders are not criminal proceedings, and what occurs prior to an antisocial behaviour order being imposed is not an offence.

Paul Goggins (Labour, Wythenshawe and Sale East)

I was remiss of me not to respond during the debate on the amendments to my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ann Keen). I will look carefully at her suggestion, because I am not able to give her a firm, clear answer now.

On clause stand part, my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Redcar, as ever, makes a number of important points. In relation to the provision of services to victims, it is not necessary that there is a conviction. I hope that that offers her some reassurance. On her other point, we will, as I promised this morning, consider the whole Bill and the role of the commissioner, and so on, so that it is clear that their remit covers antisocial behaviour.

After our previous discussions, I can only say to the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon) that I share her pleasure that the clause is extended to cover Northern Ireland. I reassure her that I have had close consultations, personally and organisationally, with colleagues in the Northern Ireland Office—in particular, the Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon, to whom the hon. Lady referred. The clause legitimises current arrangements, and in that sense it does not introduce anything new. As the hon. Lady's suggested, the victims associated with the troubles would qualify under the clause.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 33 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 34 - Amendments and repeals

David Heath (Liberal Democrat, Somerton and Frome)

I apologise to the Committee for delaying its proceedings for just a moment. This is a case of ''If not now, when?'' I have a passion for legislative tidiness.

The clause deals with other Acts that are to be amended, repealed or revoked. Once the Government have had their way on schedule 7, there will be an amendment to, rather than a revocation or repeal of,

the Colonial Prisoners Removal Act 1884. We do not have a great number of colonial prisoners now—

Dominic Grieve (Conservative, Beaconsfield)

We have some.

David Heath (Liberal Democrat, Somerton and Frome)

I am sure that they could be redefined so the 1884 Act is no longer necessary.

Dominic Grieve (Conservative, Beaconsfield)

I can think of one case from the Falkland Islands, which was interesting at the time it arose, although the prisoner may have been released by now. The Falkland Islands had no facilities to house him, and he had to be transferred to the United Kingdom.

David Heath (Liberal Democrat, Somerton and Frome)

Obviously, there are still British overseas territories to be catered for, but I would like that to be done either under their own statute or under the more general statute. We keep some rather antiquated statutes around simply because of inertia—because no one can be bothered to rework them into something more current. That complicates the law. To the 1884 Act—which I suspect was designed for the colonies of Australia, New Zealand and Canada, our dominions at that time—on the statute book for the sake of the one person on the Falkland Islands seems nonsense. I wish that, when drafting legislation, we would try to consolidate where possible. To repeal an Act of doubtful utility and some antiquity and re-insert the provisions into another Act under a consequential amendment would be a better way to order our business than to require people to look through a great number of old statutes to find the one that applies. I leave that for the Minister's consideration.

Paul Goggins (Labour, Wythenshawe and Sale East)

I am sure that we all admire the hon. Gentleman's liking for legislative tidiness. However, the Colonial Prisoners Removal Act 1884 is still used, as the hon. Member for Beaconsfield said. It is old and has been amended on many occasions, but there are no current plans to consolidate.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 34 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 7 - Minor and consequential amendments

Paul Goggins (Labour, Wythenshawe and Sale East)

I beg to move amendment No. 95, in schedule 7, page 38, line 32, at end insert—

'Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 (c.53)

In section 1(3) of the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 (meaning of ''sentence'' for the purposes of that Act), after ''other than'' insert—

''(za) a surcharge imposed under section 161A of the Criminal Justice Act 2003;''.'.

Joe Benton (Labour, Bootle)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Government amendments Nos. 96 to 100, 94 and 101.

Government new clause 35—Surcharge payable on conviction.

Government new clause 36—Increase in maximum on-the-spot penalty for disorderly behaviour.

Government new clause 37—Higher fixed penalty for repeated road traffic offences.

Paul Goggins (Labour, Wythenshawe and Sale East)

I must ask for your forbearance, Mr. Benton, and that of the Committee as I go into the amendments.

The amendments add a surcharge to criminal convictions in the courts, to fixed penalty notices for road traffic offences and to penalty notices for disorder. The proposal to add a surcharge to criminal convictions and fixed penalty notices was one a number of measures set out in the consultation paper ''Compensation and Support for Victims of Crime'', which was issued on 12 January. There was overwhelming support for more and better services for victims of crime, although opinion was divided on the introduction of the surcharge. The majority of objections were to the addition of the surcharge to fixed penalty notices for speeding. The amendments will add the surcharge only when a driver seriously or persistently speeds and/or seriously or persistently commits other endorsable motoring offences that attract fixed penalty notices.

Dominic Grieve (Conservative, Beaconsfield)

What does that actually mean?

Paul Goggins (Labour, Wythenshawe and Sale East)

In practice, it means that the surcharge will apply to anybody who currently has points on their licence or has been disqualified at any point in the previous three years.

Dominic Grieve (Conservative, Beaconsfield)

To be clear, if a driver gets speed-camera'd—if I can use that expression—as happens frequently in my constituency, he pays a £60 fine and gets three penalty points. If that is the first time that it has happened and there are no other points on his licence he will not be surcharged, but if it happens to him again he will be.

Paul Goggins (Labour, Wythenshawe and Sale East)

That is correct. If he has no points on his licence he will not be surcharged, and if he has points on his licence he will be.

Our aim is to make offenders pay a small sum to a fund for the victims of crime. The fund will provide practical and emotional support to a range of victims. There is no provision for the establishment of the victims fund because we can do that without primary legislation by agreeing with the Treasury that a certain portion of the Consolidated Fund will be ring-fenced. A recent precedent for that is the recovered assets fund, into which were paid the proceeds of crime recovered through confiscation orders.

To assist the Committee, I will go through the proposed arrangements in some detail. I will speak first about the surcharge and criminal convictions. New section 161A of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 would impose a duty on the court to order payment of

the surcharge with a criminal conviction except when the court makes an absolute discharge or mental health disposal. However, a compensation order would take priority over the surcharge, and if the court considers that the offender should pay compensation and has insufficient means to pay the surcharge as well, it must reduce the surcharge accordingly—if necessary, to nil. The Secretary of State would have power to prescribe further exceptions. If the experience of operating the surcharge shows that certain categories of defendants are being unfairly penalised by it, we envisage using that power.

New section 161B deals with the amount of the surcharge, which it states will be specified by order of the Secretary of State. That will enable higher surcharges to be ordered for more serious offences. However, the intention is that the surcharge should be a relatively small amount: on our current figures, up to £30, so as to maximise payment by the vast majority of offenders to a wide range of victims.

Subsection (3) of new clause 35 would have the effect of ensuring that the surcharge will be treated as a fine for the purposes of collection and enforcement. Under subsection (4), the new provisions in the Courts Act 2003 on the collection and enforcement of fines would apply. Subsection (5) provides that the Secretary of State may amend the way in which the relevant provisions of that Act apply to the surcharge: the measures are being piloted and the evaluation of the pilots may necessitate changes. Section 97 of the 2003 Act provides a power to amend the provisions in light of the pilots, but that would not extend to the surcharge, which will not be part of the pilot. The order-making power simply makes sure that we can ensure that the Courts Act provisions in their final form apply properly to the surcharge. It would be subject to the affirmative procedure by virtue of amendment No. 94. Amendments Nos. 95 to 101 are consequential to new clause 35.

We also aim to add a small sum—£5 is proposed—to penalty notices for disorder. That would enable those who perpetrate such offences and wreak such havoc in our neighbourhoods to give something back to victims. The victims fund will support victims of antisocial behaviour and disorder. That can be done principally through secondary legislation. Section 3 of the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001 allows the Secretary of State to increase the amount of penalty payable under a penalty notice for disorder and to amend the prescribed form for a penalty notice. Our intention is to use that existing power to increase the penalty payable and to include on the penalty notice a statement that part of the penalty will go into the victims fund. We can then make administrative arrangements for the amount representing the surcharge to go into the fund.

However, new clause 36 amends section 3 of the 2001 Act to increase the maximum penalty that may be prescribed; currently, it is one quarter of the maximum fine payable. The amendment will ensure that the amount of the penalty representing the surcharge is taken into account by providing that the maximum is one quarter of the maximum fine plus one half of the

surcharge payable. I stress that our proposals in the consultation paper would not require an increase in penalties for disorderly behaviour to the extent that the additional headroom would be needed. The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that the surcharge is taken into account in fixing the maximum penalty payable.

On higher fixed penalties for road traffic offences, again the aim is to add a small sum if a person has seriously and/or persistently committed endorsable offences punishable by fixed penalty notices. We have listened to the consultation responses and believe that that is the right way forward. The victims fund will provide support to the many victims of road traffic accidents. In exactly the same way as for penalty notices for disorder, most of that can be done by using the existing power to increase the amount of a penalty in section 53 of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 and by making administrative arrangements for the amount representing the surcharge to go into the victims fund. Section 88 of that Act requires us to consult representative organisations before making any secondary legislation.

New clause 37 broadens the section 53 power to enable the surcharge to be added only for persistent offenders—those who already have points on their licence or have been disqualified from driving in the last three years. Without the provision we would not be able to differentiate persistent offenders and other offenders.

Dominic Grieve (Conservative, Beaconsfield)

There is an alternative, is there not? Fixed penalty offences could be entirely exempt from the surcharge scheme on the basis that if a person is photographed by a speed camera and the circumstances or speed are such that he is not dealt with by a fixed penalty, he can always be summonsed to court and fined more than the fixed penalty there. The fixed penalty system could therefore be taken out of the surcharge scheme quite simply and without difficulty.

Paul Goggins (Labour, Wythenshawe and Sale East)

That may be true, but the purpose of fixed penalty notices is to deal swiftly and fairly with people who break the law. That is our purpose and there is no reason why such people should escape the surcharge just because they have been subjected to a fixed penalty notice.

Hon. Members may be aware that a review of penalty points for motoring offences is under way. We intend it to feed into the decisions that we make about the surcharge. If any primary legislation follows the review, we will consider whether we need to make further changes to reflect any new system.

New clause 37 also amends the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 so that we can make regulations dealing with the situation where a conditional offer has been made of a fixed penalty notice and the driver is subsequently identified as a persistent offender. The fixed penalty clerk may issue a separate notice asking him to pay the surcharge. The power is necessary because where conditional offers are issued, for example in the case of speed cameras, we do not

currently have the technology to discover whether or not a person is a persistent offender at the time that the conditional offer is sent off.

David Heath (Liberal Democrat, Somerton and Frome)

The hon. Gentleman keeps on using the word ''persistent'' and, indeed, it was used by the Home Secretary. He is asking us to believe that a persistent offender is one who offends twice and might do so within the space of 50 yards.

Paul Goggins (Labour, Wythenshawe and Sale East)

No doubt the hon. Gentleman will give us his definition of ''persistent'' later in the debate. I have given the Government's definition of a persistent offender, which is one who has penalty points on his licence or has been disqualified within the last three years.

The technology is developing and we hope that the regulations will only be a temporary measure before we can go down the more efficient road of collecting the surcharge at the same time as the fixed penalty.

I am sure that the Committee agrees that it is right that, whenever possible, offenders should be made to pay for the consequences of their crimes. A small contribution towards a fund to provide much-needed support for a wide range of victims is a fair and logical step. It will build on and complement existing services, including the criminal injuries compensation scheme and the grant aid that we pay to Victim Support, which is made at the taxpayers' expense, to offer practical and emotional support.

I asked for the Committee's forbearance and I am grateful for the careful way in which hon. Members have listened to the complex amendments that we have tabled. I look forward hearing their responses.

Dominic Grieve (Conservative, Beaconsfield)

I am grateful to the Minister for his peroration. I hope that he will not take it amiss if I say to him that I hope that he understands everything that he has just said, because it has been difficult to follow.

It is extremely regrettable that such an important series of amendments has been introduced at such a late stage, because it means that the ordinary probing of proposals that takes place by means of the tabling of amendments in Committee becomes impossible and, as a result, sensible debate becomes much harder. I am sure that the Minister accepts that. The truth is that we shall have examine the provision as it appears on the Bill and discuss it again on Report, but I fear that we shall have insufficient time to propose the detailed amendments that I wanted to be tabled in Committee. It is a bad state of affairs.

Dame Cheryl Gillan (Conservative, Chesham and Amersham)

Does my hon. Friend agree that, even if we were left with a short, imperfect time for scrutiny in this House, we could improve the scrutiny of these and later provisions if the Government allowed recommittal of the Bill in another place? Surely that is the logical solution to the problem. If the Government are playing fair, that is exactly what they will do in the other place.

Dominic Grieve (Conservative, Beaconsfield)

I agree entirely. Unless there is recommittal, the other place will be unhappy when the Bill goes back to it and it has to consider such major amendments.

In an attempt to do justice the proposals, I wish to make several points. As a general principle, is it proper that in addition to any other penalties they receive, criminals should be surcharged in order to supply a victims fund? The Government and we are probably at one on that matter. As a basic idea, it has much to commend it. The general problem with it, which the Government have half acknowledged by backing down slightly in respect of certain road traffic offences, is the widespread public perception—I do not think that it is inaccurate—that when the Government impose surcharges or extra penalties, the targets from whom they are most likely to succeed in drawing income are the generally law abiding, and not the generally criminal. The danger the Government face is that such a process can bring the law into disrepute.

I have mentioned my experience of having carried out a citizen's arrest. When the story got out some six weeks later, I was contacted by the press and an article was written about it. The Minister will know how I felt: we spend months trying without success to interest people in policy, but the moment that there is a human interest story of, to my mind, considerable banality, we suddenly find that everyone wants to speak to us. During the next 24 hours, I found myself in radio studios being asked to explain my action and then listening to people who had phoned in. I found it an illuminating experience.

What came over the phone was an absolute avalanche of anger that people in the country feel about crime and the system in general. In the context of the citizen's arrest, the anger centred on the belief that the police had only come because I was a Member of Parliament, and that if the people who had phoned in had tried to do anything they would have been arrested. I shall try to encapsulate their attitude towards the police and law enforcement as best I can. They expressed the view that they were sheep, let loose in society, supposedly to be guarded by sheep dogs—the various law enforcement agencies—but the law enforcers were useless at protecting them from the predatory wolves around them, and astonishingly good at biting their heels over every minor regulatory breach that they might commit. We in this country are facing a crisis of public confidence in law enforcement and the police, which is fuelled by such a perception. The perception might be erroneous, but I do not have the slightest doubt that it is real.

I do not know about other hon. Members, but a large number of my constituents own cars—the area has one of the highest levels of car ownership in the country—and because of my constituency's location and the fact that it is a wealthy area, many are burgled. The public juxtapose the overzealousness of the police in respect of motor cars with their inadequacy in respect of burglaries. That is a corrosive force, given the way in which society is developing in my constituency and, I suspect, nationwide. The letters of complaint that I receive about what seem to be perfectly reasonable police law-enforcement methods worry me, pointing as they do to a general reduction in the status of the police in the communities that they serve.

I have to declare an interest. I am not yet a persistent offender, but I have discovered that, because of the number of speed cameras in my constituency, 27 years of undetected faults in my driving were lost when I received my first fixed penalty notice for exceeding the speed limit. In my defence, I must say that I thought that the speed limit was 40 mph, but it was 30 mph, and I was driving at 38 mph. I am a believer in speed cameras, but it follows that if at any time in the next 18 months, before the offence is taken off my licence, I happen to be snapped by one of the dozens of speed cameras that Thames Valley police have thoughtfully installed around my constituency—their density is greater there than almost anywhere else in the United Kingdom—I will have become a persistent offender.

Robert Walter (Conservative, North Dorset)

A villain.

Dominic Grieve (Conservative, Beaconsfield)

My hon. Friend says from a sedentary position that I would be a villain. I would certainly have to pay the further surcharge.

I do not want to make it an article of faith, but the level of resentment that the measure will create will be spectacular. It does not differentiate the person who is being given the regulatory rap over the knuckles and the person whom the public perceive is a criminal. The Minister may be right to say that all of us—including the Solicitor-General, who qualifies in the offender category because of speeding when taking one of her children back to school or university—should accept the sort of society in which we live, but the proposals will cause huge public resentment.

The Government have half acknowledged that. Faced with that response, the Home Secretary sensibly gave the impression that he would think about it again. He then came back and gave the impression—I suspect that it is what most of the public think—that the fixed penalty notice will be exempt from the procedure. The public will discover, to their displeasure, that that is not the case.

Meg Munn (Labour/Co-operative, Sheffield, Heeley)

I am feeling increasing consternation. I remember the time not that long ago when people thought that having an extra drink or two was not a problem, but public perception changed and drink driving is now considered not to be the done thing. Speed kills. If speed cameras stop people speeding, if they make people think about the speed at which they are driving, I will strongly support them. I do not see why the hon. Gentleman wants to whip up the public view that we should not do this.

Dominic Grieve (Conservative, Beaconsfield)

The hon. Lady has not been listening to the main thrust of my argument. I do not suggest that reducing drivers' speed and getting them to conform with speed limits is undesirable—indeed, I hope that I made it clear, as I do in letters to my constituents, that many benefits will flow from an overall reduction in people's driving speeds. I do not wish to go off at too much of a tangent, but there are arguments that some of our speed limits are bizarre and that they have become very complicated. As a result, it is often difficult to tell what the speed limit is, so drivers tend to adjust their speed to what they think is reasonable for safety's sake, but then find that it is not the limit

that they expect. There are roads in my constituency where the speed limit reduces just as it enters a rural area.

Joe Benton (Labour, Bootle)

Order. The hon. Gentleman is wandering slightly off the point. He is going off at a tangent. Can I bring him back to amendment No. 95?

Dominic Grieve (Conservative, Beaconsfield)

I acknowledge that, and all I will say in mitigation is that I was induced to go in that direction by interventions. In fairness, I hope that you will allow me some latitude, Mr. Benton, because we have to look at the sort of offences that the Government are trying to cover.

The Government made an acknowledgement when the fixed penalty procedure was introduced: they acknowledged that there is a distinction between motoring offences that can be dealt with by a fixed penalty procedure and those that cannot. If somebody is caught on a speed camera driving at 60 mph on a 40 mph stretch of road, he cannot be given a conditional offer. Quite properly, he will be required to attend at the magistrates court, where he will be fined a sum that might be much more than the fixed penalty of £60 and his licence will be endorsed.

I am trying as best as I can to help the Government. They would be wise to draw their distinction at the point between being regulatory to achieve an end and where the court expresses anxiety by summoning the person before it. If they do not, the perception already abroad among my constituents that they are facing iniquitous revenue-raising devices will grow. My hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham shares that view because her constituency also has many speed cameras designed to regulate the way we drive. People will juxtapose that revenue-raising device with their perception that when they make complaints seeking the state's protection for their households and families the service that they get is entirely inadequate. The Government must think about that corrosive force.

Tony McWalter (Labour/Co-operative, Hemel Hempstead)

Part of our deep feeling about the proposal relates to the Government's reference to persistent offenders. Even within the category of fixed penalty offences there is a definition of the persistent offender: he is the person who has committed the offence four times and loses his licence. Whether or not people share my hon. Friend's feelings—I do—that is a much better definition than the one involving a person who inadvertently commits an offence twice and is put into a different category.

Dominic Grieve (Conservative, Beaconsfield)

I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. That, too, is an approach that commends itself, and the Minister might seek to adopt it.

There are a number of ways to impose a surcharge that people perceive to be fair while also allowing the Government to raise their revenue. Fairness must underlie the way in which justice is administered. The heavy hand of the state imposing surcharges in regulatory settings will have a highly negative impact when there is a perception that offenders who commit offences of dishonesty or violence will often not pay the surcharge because it will never be successfully

extracted from them, and when there is also a continuing crisis in public confidence about the protection that the state gives.

I urge the Minister to consider what I have said and listen to what other Members have to say on the subject—I detect that other Committee members share my anxieties. He should go away and think again so that on Report we see an approach that commands widespread acceptance throughout the House. If the Minister does that, it will go down in history as a rather sensible move. If he does not, he will find that this becomes a subject of considerable contention and irritation that will do no good to the public participation of right-minded people in the general process of crime prevention, to co-operation with the police, and to confidence in the criminal justice system. I sincerely ask the Minister to think again. The Government are making a mistake.

David Heath (Liberal Democrat, Somerton and Frome)

Of course, I share the hon. Gentleman's views on the genesis of these proposals. It was difficult to take in all the details, and perhaps we will need to come back with further amendments.

With regard to the overall scheme being proposed, there is a proper connection to be made between the compensation paid to victims of crime and idea of the perpetrators of the crime providing some, if not all, of it. On Second Reading, I categorised that as a crude form of restorative justice, but it is right that we should be able to make that connection.

Are we talking here about a scheme that establishes such a connection? There are a number of problems, and we touched on one of them when we debated a money resolution to enable payments to be made into the consolidated fund. I have a serious worry that sums will be paid into the consolidated fund and disappear into the maw of the Treasury; a sum will then be voted by the Treasury to the Home Office for the purposes of a victim's compensation fund. Thus, there will be no direct connection; indeed, there will be something worse than no direct connection—suspicion. There will be the suspicion, with which we are familiar because it has already been aroused in the public mind and in the minds of those who, for their own reasons, wish to be unsympathetic to the concept of the speed camera system in traffic control, that we are introducing a revenue-raising device rather than a proper system for the prevention and regulation of crime and the recompense of victims. That is a real concern that we need to return to.

We come to the question of what are the appropriate offences on which such a surcharge should be levied. I have a simple moral: do not buy a pig in a poke from the Home Secretary. He could not have been clearer on Second Reading when he said that the measure was not going to apply to the vast swathe of motoring offences. The import of what he said was, ''We believe it's right that persistent and serious breakers of traffic law should pay towards this. Doesn't everyone agree? However, that is not what we are going to do because we've listened to views during the consultation process.'' I was fool enough to accept at face value what the Home Secretary told the House,

and to congratulate him on having listened to people and on deciding that the people who pay into the compensation fund should be the muggers, not the motorists. Now, we hear the extraordinary definition from the Minister that a persistent offender is someone who is caught on two speed cameras.

I understand the difficulties that the hon. Member for Beaconsfield has in making his case; that has nothing to do his personal position on the matter, but is because of the views of some of his hon. and right hon. Friends, who have given the impression—rightly or wrongly—that they do not want speed cameras anywhere because they get in the way of people who want to drive their Jags too fast. I am sorry, but that is the impression that has been given.

Dominic Grieve (Conservative, Beaconsfield)

The hon. Gentleman is being slightly unfair. No doubt people have differing views, but I reiterate that I have been a consistent supporter of speed cameras in my constituency. I am aware of their beneficial impact.

David Heath (Liberal Democrat, Somerton and Frome)

I was being careful to separate the hon. Gentleman's views from what appear to be the views of some of his colleagues. The hon. Gentleman has been consistent on the matter, and I applaud that. My party and I have been absolutely clear; we think that there are huge benefits to speed cameras. We do not believe the propaganda that has been put about, and we have seen the evidence of genuine reductions in accident, casualty and death rates as a result of the judicious imposition of speed cameras. Our argument is not against the speed camera.

If the Government carry on with the proposals before us, however, they will undo at a stroke their efforts of the past few months to establish a proper case for speed cameras. They will lose the sympathy of all those who have been won over by the strength of the evidence. That would be an extraordinarily stupid thing to. They would undermine their case if they extended the surcharge to those caught by two speed cameras doing a few miles per hour over the speed limit because of inadvertence or forgetfulness.

As the hon. Member for Beaconsfield said, people often do not know the speed limit at a particular point. I pass two speed cameras on the Embankment when I drive through the City of London on the way back to my flat in London, and I have yet to discover what the speed limit is there. I have assumed that it is 30 mph, and I am probably right. I always make sure that I am below 30 mph on that entire stretch of road.

Dominic Grieve (Conservative, Beaconsfield)

There are 20 mph limits.

David Heath (Liberal Democrat, Somerton and Frome)

Yes, there are 20 mph limits. I do not believe that there is a sign anywhere on that stretch of road to suggest what the limit is. That situation applies to a lot of motorists; they are genuinely in doubt about the speed limit at the point of a camera. Those of us who use the M3 and A303 out of London know that to our cost, because there are a lot of speed cameras there.

I have never been caught by a speed camera—touch wood—because I try hard not to break speed limits. Ever since I was chairman of a police authority, I have tried hard to keep within the law, and I have never

been convicted of a motoring offence. I am very happy with my personal performance. However, I recognise that many people are caught whom I would consider careless, not dangerous, drivers. Speed cameras are there to remind them to keep within the limits. I am not arguing against the speed camera. However, I do not believe that making such people compensate the victims of violent crime is a necessary corollary or a logical step to take.

The hon. Member for North Dorset (Mr. Walter) suggested that we might already have a definition of a persistent offender: the person who loses their licence because of points. He is absolutely right; that is one definition. We also know that, where someone has seriously exceeded the speed limit, they are taken to a court. Again, I have no quarrel with that, and I certainly have no quarrel with anyone who is convicted of the other motoring offences, such as reckless or dangerous driving. They should fall into this category, because they are indulging in criminal and dangerous behaviour. That is not the problem. However, by taking an over-prescriptive attitude, the Government are making a huge mistake, and the public will simply not be with them.

The Minister has a popular proposal here, in general. It is a good idea for people to pay something towards the restoration and compensation of their victims, but the exercise will be devalued if people do not see that connection: if they see the money going directly to the Treasury, see no link between the amounts raised and disbursed, and see the measure concentrating on people who get caught doing 4 or 5 miles over a 30 or 40-mile-an-hour speed limit and become a persistent offender by driving through two speed cameras, rather than one.

The Minister did not make it clear—and I cannot find it in the amendments, although it may be there—whether someone who uses a system of work in substitution of the payment of a fine would also do that in payment of surcharge, and whether the same rate would apply. We considered that yesterday, and it seems logical to include it in the same system, but perhaps he could explain how it is linked to the proposals.

I am still sceptical about the effectiveness of fixed penalties for criminal and antisocial behaviour. Perhaps the Minister could say how many fixed-penalty tickets have been issued since the legislation received assent and what order of use they have, because I doubt whether that is the most effective way to bear down on antisocial behaviour. It is most important that the Minister thinks again about the abuse of the word ''persistent''—that is simply an abuse, rather than what we mean, or what anyone understands, by persistent behaviour. If he persists with that usage, he will devalue the raft of proposals that he is introducing—and today he has used the word more than twice.

Dame Cheryl Gillan (Conservative, Chesham and Amersham)

I need further and better particulars from the Minister on the proposals. Notwithstanding that, I should like to place it on the record that I am grateful to him, and through him I thank his officials, who have tried to do the impossible in bringing me up

to speed on these late-tabled amendments. They are a credit to the Home Office and to the Minister.

On a reading of the summary of the responses to the Home Office consultation paper, it seems that despite more than 1,000 people accessing the information on the internet, the Minister received only 106 responses. However, in the executive summary, he makes it clear that a majority of the respondents tended to concentrate on the proposal to add the surcharge on criminal convictions and the fixed penalty notices for disorder and road traffic offences, and many focused exclusively on speeding.

Is the Minister willing to publish the 106 responses in full, so we can better understand the response to the consultation? Although he acknowledges that a few respondents misunderstood the proposals, many others concentrated on specific issues that concerned them. I have a sneaking suspicion that most of the 106 responses focused on the matter with which we have been preoccupied today. It would be helpful if, when we return to this matter on Report, the responses could be made available in full to the Committee. That should not be too difficult a job for the Department; it is just a matter of photocopying them and placing them in the Library. It would help us better to understand how the Department arrived at its thinking, because the Minister has pressed ahead, despite all the publicity and the obvious public outrage caused by the proposals around the speed camera element.

I should also like to know not only what the Minister understands the term ''persistent offender'' to mean, as Opposition Members have asked, but what he understands a ''serious and persistent offender'' to be. The Government's position is also outlined on page 5 of the response document:

''The surcharge on motoring Fixed Penalty Notices will only apply to serious and persistent offenders.''

A persistent offender may have been done twice by a speed camera, but if they had been going only 3 mph above the speed limit, would that be serious? The response document does not say ''serious or persistent offender'', but refers to a ''serious and persistent offender''. I would like to probe the Minister on his understanding of the term ''serious''.

It is obvious to me that a serious offender would be somebody going at 110 mph in a 30 mph zone. The offence of a close relation of mine who was caught doing 34 mph in a 30 mph zone at 2 o'clock in the morning was not serious, although I have to say that it was persistent, because he was done twice.

Robert Walter (Conservative, North Dorset)

Does my hon. Friend think that somebody who had paid a fixed penalty notice for speeding on one occasion and who was then stopped by the police for having a defective light would be a serious and persistent offender?

Dame Cheryl Gillan (Conservative, Chesham and Amersham)

My hon. Friend makes a good point. I hope that the Minister will be able to respond to that.

I would like to know how the Minister envisages the scheme starting. For example, if I had six points on my driving licence after having been caught by speed cameras twice—I have not, I hasten to add—would I be exonerated? Would the scheme start when the legislation came into effect or would the clock already be ticking? If I were caught a third time, would I already be much more likely to face the surcharge?

I would like clarification on whether any ring-fencing is envisaged for road traffic accident victims. If I heard the Minister correctly, he made that linkage earlier. What discussions he has had, particularly with RoadPeace, which is a first-class organisation? Has he had any responses from RoadPeace on the proposals?

The Home Office recently made a move to which Conservative Members were diametrically opposed—the reclassification of cannabis. Under the new Home Office provisions, it is intended that police officers should concentrate on more serious offences involving hard drugs and take their foot off the gas when dealing with people in respect of cannabis. That was recently reconfirmed by the Home Office in the Daily Mail, in an article entitled ''Police demand a U-turn over softer law on cannabis''.

Any of my constituents caught twice by one of the hundreds of speed cameras in the Thames valley area will not understand why they face a surcharge while the police are turning a blind eye and going easy on cannabis users and possessors. As the matter stands, the police face a problem. Cannabis users are blowing smoke in policemen's faces and challenging them, and establishing a pattern of behaviour and rules of engagement is a problem for the local policer force. The Minister should be very worried about that. If he wishes to be seen as taking a fair approach, he will have to provide a pretty good explanation to the good citizens of Chesham and Amersham, Beaconsfield and probably of all our constituencies. They will not understand how our police forces can be asked not to pursue what is still a criminal offence in order to allow them to concentrate on other offences, while our poor speeders get done for a surcharge.

Dominic Grieve (Conservative, Beaconsfield)

My hon. Friend makes a good point. We discussed the use of cautions in the past when we debated the Criminal Justice Bill. They are widely used in circumstances in which individuals admit to carrying out acts of dishonesty or even violence that most right-minded people would consider criminal. I have no objection to that. In certain circumstances, it is the correct course of action. However, those people will not be obliged to pay a surcharge.

Dame Cheryl Gillan (Conservative, Chesham and Amersham)

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The Minister will have to go a long way to convince us and the wider public of his argument. They have been exercised about such provisions before, and they will be exercised again if he proceeds along the lines set out in the Bill.

Vera Baird (Labour, Redcar)

I have not followed what the hon. Lady has been saying. To be honest, I have not followed much of the Opposition have said during the debate. It has been suggested that what is predominantly middle-class car crime should be exempt from the penalty process—on what basis, I am not sure. Is it or is it not

a good thing for the police to concentrate on hard drugs and not waste the time of drug squad officers on soft drugs? Of course it is. Such a policy must be pursued. Surely she accepts that that is important and understands that it has nothing to do with letting off people who speed. They are dangerous. If people speed twice, they are fools. They will have been told once about it and given an opportunity to learn their lesson. In the context of road safety and my children, people are persistent if they speed twice.

Dame Cheryl Gillan (Conservative, Chesham and Amersham)

I do not accept the premise on which the hon. and learned Lady based her intervention. She will correct me if I am wrong, but I am not aware of evidence that people caught by speeding cameras are almost exclusively middle class. That is an extraordinary way to express an argument. I am not diminishing the dangers of speeding, but my constituents will not understand the police soft pedalling and not pursuing the commission of a criminal offence when others could be committing a persistent offence along the lines set out in the Bill. They could be caught twice within the same time frame, within a minute. People will not understand the Government's priorities.

Vera Baird (Labour, Redcar)

Should not the hon. Lady concentrate her energies on trying to satisfy her constituents that they are wrong to resist the process? With great respect, it is silly of her to argue that because some criminals are not caught, people who misbehave and are caught should not face an appropriate penalty.

Dominic Grieve (Conservative, Beaconsfield)

It is not the penalty; it is the surcharge.

Dame Cheryl Gillan (Conservative, Chesham and Amersham)

Absolutely. The police walk away from people who are seen to commit a crime in front of them to reduce the time that they spend on paperwork and the bureaucracy of processing the crime, and to spend more time on other crimes. The hon. and learned Lady does not have a point, and I shall pursue my argument.

Let us consider the magnitude of the sums involved. They range from £5 to £30. As soon as I read about such small sums, I asked myself what the cost of their collection would be. There is no doubt that the moment we start to take a penny or a pound—or £5 billion in the case of pension schemes—out of the taxpayer's pocket, there will be a cost of collection.

Dominic Grieve (Conservative, Beaconsfield)

That must particularly be the case in respect of fixed penalty notices. The system that is envisaged requires further reconsideration and the sending out of new letters. Given administrative overheads, that will add considerably to the cost.

Dame Cheryl Gillan (Conservative, Chesham and Amersham)

Those words were almost taken out of my mouth. It is interesting to note that the tax that costs the least to collect is value added tax. In that instance, in effect, the taxpayer acts as the tax collector for the Government. However, there are enormous costs in collecting capital gains tax, inheritance tax and other taxes. Will the Minister tell us what proportion of the fines will eventually end up in the compensation fund? The cost of collecting a sum as small as £5 could be anything up to £5, if not more. I hope that he will respond to my questions.

Vera Baird (Labour, Redcar)

I want briefly to add to what I said in my intervention.

The hon. Lady obviously does not appreciate that speeding is likely to be a middle-class crime. The hon. Member for Beaconsfield acknowledged that his constituency has one of the highest rates of car ownership in the country. In mine, 60 per cent. of people cannot afford cars and have to use a bus or a bike or walk. It is a fairly straightforward fact that car ownership and affluence go together.

Dominic Grieve (Conservative, Beaconsfield)

I accept the point that the hon. and learned Lady makes. Of course, it is equally the case that there are huge variations in the distribution of speed cameras around the country, depending on whether the police force concerned has implemented a scheme for them. Doubtless because of the high level of car ownership and great use of roads in their area, Thames Valley police have sensibly concentrated on speed cameras, but the chances of being caught for a speeding offence are almost non-existent in some parts of the country. She may wish to bear that in mind and add it to the equation when considering who is speeding where.

The truth is—I defy the hon. and learned Lady to deny this—that there is not a single member of this Committee who, after a day's motoring, would be able to say that they had not breached the speed limit at some point during the day.

Vera Baird (Labour, Redcar)

The hon. Gentleman completely misses the point. If there is an unequal distribution of speed cameras around the country and a high proportion of them in the Thames valley, that is one thing. I drive every Friday and Sunday on the A66 in Teesside, and I know that there are many speed cameras on it and on major roads. I do not believe that the police distribute cameras according to affluence or keep them away from people in poorer areas. He completely misses making any point at all.

It is common for middle-class people to say that they should not be surcharged or punished for relatively minor crime as other people get away with worse crimes. I remember very well seeing an example of such an attitude when I was much younger and lived in a small village in County Durham. It was not half as posh as the next village. The people in the posh village used to have a lock-in every night at the local pub. They had a fine time and nobody particularly minded. Sometimes one or two of them rolled home in a peculiar condition late at night. On one of those occasions one of them rolled a little too close to the middle line on the road and caused a road traffic incident, and it was not surprising that the police decided to swoop. They booked a large number of middle-class people for late-night drinking—and quite right, too. The outrage that came from that public house about how the police should have been out catching burglars instead of interfering in the harmless pleasures of ''people like us'' is not something that I would recommend considering when we legislate to deal with criminal activity across the board.

The Government are right that people who speed more than once—I make no bones about the fact that I am guilty of having speeded more than once—should

learn not to do so. They present a danger on the road, not least to children, and they should pay a surcharge into a fund that will compensate victims of road traffic accidents, which are regularly caused by speed alone and nothing more.

Dame Cheryl Gillan (Conservative, Chesham and Amersham)

I cannot imagine what has led the hon. and learned Lady to twist my comments towards some sort of class war. That is not what I intended and I do not believe that the words crossed my lips.

The point that I was making is that people will not understand why they are caught by cameras when people committing criminal offences under the noses of the police are allowed to escape being charged with their offence on the instructions and intentions of the Home Office. I do not believe that they will understand that situation, irrespective of their income, their position or what the hon. and learned Lady likes to refer to as their class in society.

Vera Baird (Labour, Redcar)

I can give the hon. Lady many explanations, but comprehension I cannot give. She should go back to her constituents and tell them that it is fine if they complain that people are being let off crime, but that they should not complain when they are rightly required to pay a surcharge for victims of crime because they have committed a crime.

Paul Goggins (Labour, Wythenshawe and Sale East)

I apologise for the way in which I presented the rather technical information that had to precede our discussion. I always prefer to be conversational and interesting, but, frankly, the amendments are technical and I needed to place the details on the record.

Dominic Grieve (Conservative, Beaconsfield)

I can assure the Minister that he was as conversational and as interesting as he could possibly have been in the circumstances.

Paul Goggins (Labour, Wythenshawe and Sale East)

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who knows, as do other members of the Committee, that the reason why the amendments were tabled so late is that they flowed from consultation that began in January this year. I am pleased that we were able to publish our response to that consultation to coincide with Second Reading.

Despite our differences in this afternoon's debate, it is clear that there is a good deal of common ground in relation to the principle that the offender should pay something back to support the victim. It is important to underline the importance of that principle.

There has also been an interesting discussion about whether certain types of crime are middle class, working class and so on. I want to make two points to the hon. Member for Beaconsfield about the perception of crime. We must do more to bear down on and deal with serious crime. He and I spent a considerable amount of time last year considering the Criminal Justice Act 2003 and the Sexual Offences Act 2003, both of which deal robustly with offending by increasing penalties when that is appropriate. We have backed that up with record numbers of police officers, community support officers and so on.

The person who speeds twice may not commit an offence that is as heinous as some that we had to discuss when considering the Sexual Offices Bill, for example, but none the less, such a driver is an offender and it is entirely proportionate that, having offended twice, they should pay something back to victims—£5 in the case of someone caught on a speed camera. Were the hon. Gentleman to be caught again—I do not think for a moment that he will be caught again in the next 18 months—he might consider, on reflection, that it is entirely proportionate to contribute £5 to those who suffer from road traffic accidents.

In my constituency, two parents whose 12-year-old son was mown down by a driver travelling at 50 mph suffered enormous heartbreak. If we have a measure here that helps to reduce people's speed and, even if the worst happens, helps to support those people in the grief that they suffer, that is entirely proportionate and sensible.

Dominic Grieve (Conservative, Beaconsfield)

I appreciate the Minister's point and to some extent it is a matter of perception. Many people in this country drive and must observe regulations, but inadvertence or misjudgement may lead them to break those regulations. The poorer members of the community, not my wealthy constituents, find that the fixed penalty is a real imposition on their budget. It is of no concern to wealthier people; similarly, the £5 surcharge will be of no financial concern to them, even if it irritates them. I assure the Minister that many of my constituents are not wealthy and are on well below average incomes, but feel just as strongly about this issue. The point is that their perception of the extent of their criminality is clearly very different from the one espoused by the Minister and the hon. and learned Member for Redcar, and I am not sure that their view is necessarily wrong. In a regulated environment we all quite frequently commit regulatory breaches. That is what troubles me about this measure, and I do not think that it commands public support.

If the Minister goes down this road and implements the proposal, it will almost certainly become an election issue, and if it does, the Government will be the losers. I am trying to do the Government a favour by pointing out the shortcomings to them.

The rest of the debate is in Hansard.