lord of the blog

« Cycling safety | Main | Palestine »

Friday, January 13, 2006

Criminal Injuries Compensation

I intervened in a question on criminal injuries compensation on Wednesday. There is a consultation going on at the moment and if anyone wants to add their views they have untill March to do so.

Anyone with particular experience or knowledge would I'm sure, be welcome to give their views.

http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/ld199697/ldhansrd/pdvn/lds06/text/60111-01.htm#60111-01_star0

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.

The idea of removing cash compensation for small injuries and replacing it with "immediate practical support" is nannyism at its worst.

"Compensation" is a payment to "compensate" for something bad that has happened. So if I get assaulted, and my injuries are such that the CICA deems them worth 2,000 pounds, I'm going to spend it on something that will make me feel better, such as a holiday, or a large number of pints of beer, or making my mortgage a little less onerous. These things will provide me with a good feeling, and so compensate for the pain and temporary disablement inflicted by the criminal.

The "practical support" proposed appears to include tea and biscuits with a counsellor - whilst a cup of tea is always welcome, any pleasure it would bring would be outweighed by the pain involved in having to talk to some well-meaning wally.

The suggestion of Lord Tebbit, to pay an annual pension to those who suffer the sort of life-altering injury that leaves them needing to pay for care, rather than to pay a fixed lump sum, seems like a sensible one.

Hi Clive
I agree with you that we have a good criminal injuries system compared with most other countries in the world. Not many would think that more money is awarded every year in the UK than in the whole of the USA! There you can only get medical expenses only. As a solicitor who practises in this area my experience is that the scheme is too slow. I have one client who applied for compensation in 1998 and his case has not even been listed for hearing yet! Some Soho bombings cases are in the same position, which is a disgrace. I have one July 7th case for a client who was on the no 30 bus and his case is being rushed through with amazing haste! So much for consistency! I have written a couple of letters of complaint recently, the last one marked for the Chief Executive, and it was ignored. The Authority is under-resourced and whilst the scheme is good on paper in practice is has significant failings. I am concerned about knocking the small cases out of the scheme because so many cases fall in the £1-2k bracket. If you are the innocent victim of violent crime a small payout makes a big difference. It recognises the hurt and distress you have suffered. It is certainly not a windfall. To exclude those people will adversely affect the recovery and rehabilitation of a significant section of the innocent victims of crime. I certainly agree with lifting the cap on awards of £.5M; there are so few cases each year it would cost little to abolish the cap.