Fourth Standing Committee
on Delegated Legislation
Wednesday 21 April 1999
[Mr. Barry Jones in the Chair]
Draft of Alterations to the Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme
4.30 pm
The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Paul Boateng): I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft of alterations to the criminal injuries compensation scheme.
May I say at the outset that it is a pleasure to appear before you in Committee, Mr. Jones. It is the first time for a number of us and we appreciate the wisdom and experience that you bring to the subject.
The criminal injuries compensation scheme was first introduced in 1964, initially as a common law scheme. For the first 32 years it operated as a non-statutory scheme, compensation being assessed on the basis of common law damages. The statutory scheme was introduced in 1996 and compensation is now assessed on the basis of a tariff or scale of awards for injuries of comparable severity.
The scheme is important and provides payment at taxpayersÕ expense to the blameless victims of crimes of violence. It is a significant contribution to the feeling that we need to engender in society, that we are committed to peopleÕs safety and security and that when they suffer, innocently, as a result of crime, they should receive some form of recognition from the taxpayer.
There was concern on both sides of the House that the scheme would suffer from the transition to a statutory scheme. That has not been so and it is now recognised as having been, on balance, a good move and one to which we are firmly wedded. All successful claimants receive awards according to a tariff of 25 bands ranging from £1,000 to £250,000. The tariff is set by reference to the awards made under the previous scheme. The current tariff lists more than 300 injury descriptions.
Since the introduction of the tariff scheme, more than 140,000 tariff claims have been settled with speed, which is welcomed by all who make claims to the CICS, and tribute must be paid to the hard-working members of the board and their officials who enable that to happen.
However, more than 240 claims cannot be settled because, although the injuries are serious enough to qualify for at least the minimum award, they are not listed in the tariff. That is why we brought the measure before the Committee this afternoon. We recognised that it was not fully comprehensive, that some less common injuries had inadvertently been omitted and that injury descriptions would need to be changed in the light of experience. The scheme, accordingly, provides for the Secretary of State to make provision for new injury descriptions and to introduce corresponding levels of awards, having first consulted with the Criminal Injuries Compensation Appeal Panel. That has been done and we invite Parliament to approve the necessary changes to the scheme by the affirmative resolution procedure.
Meanwhile, hon. Members will be relieved to know that those who have suffered injury can receive an interim award of up to half the total sum. The Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority, with the CICAP, recommended an additional 49 injury descriptions to the tariff and they are shown in the explanatory note. The tariff is identical to the augmented tariff for which approval is being sought, but it is possible to identify those injuries for which we are seeking to obtain awards.
We consider all the additions and award levels to be appropriate and we have taken the opportunity to make the tariff more consistent in its use of language and punctuation. That is important because it is vital that the scheme is understood as readily and easily as possible. We want to avoid lawyers having to be usedÑthat will be welcome to you, Mr. JonesÑand ordinary common sense should be sufficient in the main to secure a payment under the scheme, although lawyers will have to be used sometimes.
The measure is limited and modest, but welcome, and I commend the draft alterations to the Committee.
4.34 pm
Mr. John Greenway (Ryedale): I reciprocate what the Minister said. It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr. Jones. Unlike the Minister, you and I have spent happy hours in the Rooms of the Committee corridor. We have always got on well, and I am sure that that will be the case this afternoon, although I doubt that we will be detained too long.
Before our procedures were changed to bring measures subject to affirmative resolution to Committee, the scheme might have received a 90-minute debate on the Floor of the House. I know that hon. Members have other things to do, but the matter is sufficiently important for us to debate one or two aspects of it.
We understand the rationale for the changes, which are, at face value, straightforward and unexceptional. We recognise the difficulty of settling outstanding claims when compensation is justified, and the minimum award of £1,000Ñor in some cases moreÑis appropriate. From what the Minister said, I suspect that a constituent of mine, whose husband tried to murder her, is one of the 240 outstanding claims. Although she has no permanent injuries, she suffered extreme psychological distress. The Criminal Injuries Compensation Board offered her £3,000, and under the changes in the draft scheme, it appears that that is what she will receive. However, I suspect that because there was no clear reference to that in the tariff, she thought that she would be entitled to more. We appreciate why it might make sense to add some injury descriptions to the tariff. It would help to facilitate settlement of some outstanding claims and provide greater clarity to ease similar claims in the future.
It is worth dwelling on some of the examples given in the revised tariff. They include penetrating injuries to the the eyes that do not involve the permanent loss of the eye, fractures to facial bones, such as the jaw, which may or may not require surgery or a result in permanent disability, the dislocation of limbs, including wrists, ankles, shoulders and knees, and damage to ligaments and tendons which may or may not result in continuing disability. We believe that in a tariff-based system, those injuries have a place in the most comprehensive tariff. I am sure that the Minister would not want to criticise the way in which the original tariff was set, but it was not envisaged that such items would be appropriate.
All those injuries are commonplace, and frequently result from fights or assaults. Police officers often have such injuries. My son, who is a policeman, received a dislocated shoulder after trying to help someone who thought that he was going to arrest him, and he was off sick for some time. Such injuries occur when police officers make arrests or intervene during disorderly and violent conduct.
Courts often make compensation awards to serving police officers in those circumstances, and the police service is concerned about the non-payment of those awards. The Police Federation estimates that about one third of them are not paid. Although the matter is outwith the scope of the CICB, I trust, Mr. Jones, that you will regard it as a worthy matter for consideration. The hon. Gentleman will know that the Police Federation is suggesting, in the interests of fairness and equity, that the police authorities might meet any unpaid grants. I urge the Minister to consider that. Some of the injuries suffered as a result of the nail bomb in Brixton last weekend may be in the same category as some of the injuries that we are adding to the list. That reflects the importance of this matter.
We have no quibble with continuing to extend and improve the tariff-based system of criminal injuries compensation, which was introduced by the previous Government, as the Minister said, in 1995. It would be rich for him to expect me not to try to tease him a little about what his party said when that legislation was introduced. I merely refer the Committee to columns 741 to 750 of Hansard of 23 May 1995. The current Home Secretary moved an amendment and made an impassioned speech against the tariff-based system, which we are extending today. In addition, the GovernmentÕs consultation paper on possible changes to the CICSÑwhich we warmly welcomeÑis testament to how the responsibility of being in government takes precedence over whatever is said in opposition.
The GovernmentÕs assessment of the current scheme, as set out in the document, is about right. It is true that there was a small increase in expenditure for the board in the comprehensive spending review, but it was a small bump to meet outstanding claims. We have no quibble with that. It is fair to remind the Committee, however, that the previous Government were castigated for recognising that, under common law arrangements for awarding compensation, the £200 million annual cost of the schemeÑwhich had grown from £400,000 in 1964Ñwas projected to reach £570 million by 2000. That was one of the major reasons for the introduction of the tariff-based scheme by the previous Government, who rightly thought that that was unacceptable.
We welcome the MinisterÕs conversionÑand that of his right hon. FriendÑto a sensible basis for providing compensation for victims. It has the distinct advantage of certainty, which can make it easier to provide speedy compensation. I am sure that every Committee member would agree that that is a worthy objective. The Committee can also agree that this country has always had the most generous form of criminal injuries compensation in Europe. It is still a valid statistic that this country pays more to victims of crime than the other European Union countries put together, which we welcome. We are happy to agree with the Minister that the changes to the scheme are valuable, and we support their introduction. We look forward to discussing how to improve the lot of victims and their families in the future.
4.45 pm
|
