11 Jan 2006 : Column 155
House of Lords
Wednesday, 11 January 2006.
The House met at half-past two of the clock: the LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Exeter.
Lord Coe—took the Oath.
Criminal Injuries Compensation
Lord Thomas of Gresford asked Her Majesty's Government:
What proportion of awards in criminal injuries compensation in the last financial year were directed to claimants in categories of compensation which are to be abolished.
The Attorney-General (Lord Goldsmith): My Lords, in our Green Paper issued in December, Rebuilding Lives—supporting victims of crime, we proposed refocusing the Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme around seriousness, with more seriously injured victims getting more money and less seriously injured victims getting better support services rather than financial compensation. The paper has invited views on this concept and on how this idea of seriousness might be defined. Decisions about the scheme will be shaped by answers to the consultation, which runs until 1 March this year.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord for his reply. Is he aware that in 1996–97 the then government budgeted for the payment of compensation to the victims of crime in the sum of £230 million—the equivalent of £265 million today—but we were told by the noble Baroness Lady Scotland in November 2004 that the current budget was only £163 million, a cut of about £100 million? We have not been given an answer to my Question regarding the percentage of claimants who are to be excluded. How does the noble and learned Lord reconcile such savage cuts in compensation with the blather that we have to put up with from this Government that the victim is being placed always at the centre of the criminal justice system?
Lord Goldsmith: Well really, my Lords. If the noble Lord would read the Green Paper, which I am sure he has, he would see all of the things that we have already done for victims—the witness care units and the new provisions that are being made now. There is less chance of being a victim of crime today than in 1981—the lowest for 25 years. As to the figures, the compensation scheme provided in this country for criminal injuries, on the most recent assessment, provided more than all other EU countries put together.
The noble Lord will understand why I was not able to answer his Question, because this paper is looking at which of the bands should become those where
11 Jan 2006 : Column 156
people do not receive financial compensation, which they often receive a year after the event, but receive practical support instead. So I entirely reject the way that the noble Lord put his supplementary question.
Baroness Wilcox: My Lords, I have read that wonderful document from cover to cover and we are very keen to encourage the noble and learned Lord in that endeavour, so my question is definitely for information. What consideration has the Minister given to the establishment of a separate compensation scheme to assist the victims of terrorist attacks perpetrated either in the United Kingdom or abroad?
Lord Goldsmith: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, not only for reading the paper, but for what she said in support. We are looking at how that issue can be dealt with. It emerged as a result of the events that we have sadly seen throughout the world. So we are looking both at ways of raising public awareness of insurance to deal with some of the immediate consequences of terrorist attacks and the option of setting up a national disaster charitable fund to provide immediate help to victims. These are complicated issues and the Government will make an announcement on them in due course.
Lord Soley: My Lords, does my noble and learned friend agree that, as he indicated, this is probably one of the best schemes in the world and we should all be very proud of it? But the problem has always been that if the scheme is spread too widely, those who are most in need, often from dreadful injuries, do not get sufficient help. That is really what we should be addressing in the consultation, which I am glad to hear will be going on until March.
Lord Goldsmith: My Lords, my noble friend is absolutely right. We want to look at removing, or at least raising, the cap, which at the moment prevents those with the most serious injuries getting the most compensation. But we also need to look at the lower ranges. Something like over 50 per cent of the awards are in the £1,000 to £2,000 range. We have done a survey to look at what people spend the money on. Very little of it is spent, for example, on the things that would deal directly with the effects of crime, such as cosmetic treatment or surgery or something of that sort, and that is partly because the compensation is paid very late. That is why we want to look at whether it makes more sense to provide immediate practical support to those victims and free up some cash for the most seriously injured.
Lord Tebbit: My Lords, will the noble and learned Lord give some consideration to the fact that compensation may be far too little in the event that victims who may need lifelong care may live far longer than expected or that it may be far too much if, sadly, they live for only a short time, in which case their families will inherit money for no good reason? Can we not give consideration to making the award in terms of
11 Jan 2006 : Column 157
an annual sum, which would be available to the victim for life and for life only? That would seem to deal with both those problems.
Lord Goldsmith: My Lords, the noble Lord makes a valuable and important point and it is one that we should be looking at in the context of the response to the Green Paper.
Religious Freedom
2.41 pm
Lord Anderson of Swansea asked Her Majesty's Government:
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Lord Triesman): My Lords, we continue to condemn all instances where individuals are persecuted because of their faith or belief, wherever they happen and whatever the religion of the individual or group concerned. We urge all states to pursue laws and practices which foster tolerance and mutual respect and protect religious minorities from discrimination. I refer the House and my noble friend to the 2005 annual report on human rights, which highlights much of the work that we have done in this area.
Lord Anderson of Swansea: My Lords, your Lordships will be aware of the increasing threats to freedom of worship, even in friendly countries on the Indian sub-continent. In several states of India, for example, there are anti-conversion laws, and Sri Lanka is considering similar legislation. The blasphemy laws in Pakistan are causing great anxiety, and in Bangladesh there are strong pressures for Sharia law. Has my noble friend made representations to those countries? Given this background, why has the Foreign and Commonwealth Office not convened the Religious Freedom Panel, which allows non-governmental organisations to make representations to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office? The panel has not met for more than two years. When will it be convened?
Lord Triesman: My Lords, I start by referring to the panel. It is perfectly true to say that it has not met for some time, principally because our focus in the FCO has been on the work of the EU presidency. But we have worked with the faith groups which are represented and with interested NGOs on religious freedom issues. I can say that we intend to fix a date for a further meeting of the panel within the next few months and we will be in touch shortly with panel members.
11 Jan 2006 : Column 158
We have been in touch with all the countries mentioned by my noble friend. We do not believe that the anti-conversion legislation in Sri Lanka is acceptable, and we make bilateral and multilateral representations. In India, although no specific cases of abuse have been raised with us, we are following the matter closely. In Pakistan, we are concerned at the discrimination faced by religious minorities and are actively engaged with the Government of Pakistan on the repeal or modification of its blasphemy laws. As I said in my initial response, we will pursue the issues of tolerance and religious freedom assiduously.
Lord Roberts of Llandudno: My Lords, with so many instances of denial of religious freedom in many ways, what strong action are the Government taking to ensure that every member state of the United Nations that signed the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948 accepts all that that declaration means? Article 18 says:
"Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance".
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |