Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme

Debate between Baroness Clark of Kilwinning and Karl Turner

Wednesday 7th November 2012 Commons Chamber

[Karl Turner]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, and do not think I need to comment further as he has made the point perfectly well.

The statutory instrument was brought back to Committee unchanged, but presented to a less vocal composition on the Government side. Without any shadow of doubt, that was simply to ensure that it went through under the radar. It is disappointing to think that the Minister, a family practitioner who has practised law and is bound to have come across victims of crime, would behave in such a terrible way. As right hon. and hon. Members know, the criminal injuries compensation scheme is the very last resort for innocent victims of crime, and I understand that it helps between 30,000 and 40,000 victims every year who genuinely have no other recourse to compensation.

I will restrict my remarks to reiterating what the Government proposals will do. Terror victims, people injured in violent dog attacks and many hard-working shop workers will lose out on compensation that is intended to put their lives back to where they were before any injury or loss. Almost half the victims who apply for compensation for crimes in bands 1 to 5 will no longer be eligible for a compensatory award. Bands 1 to 5 include injuries such as permanent speech impairment, partial deafness that lasts more than 13 weeks, multiple broken ribs, post-traumatic epileptic fits, and burns and scarring causing minor facial disfigurement.

To be ready for the Government’s defence, I today spoke to a colleague in civil practice to check whether that is the position, and was told that it is—according to that solicitor, we are certainly not talking about the least serious injuries. Rates for bands 6 to 12 will be slashed by between £1,500 and £2,500, or 60%. Injuries in that category include significant facial scarring, permanent brain injury resulting in impaired balance and headaches, and serious injury to both eyes.

I also spoke today to Mr Andy Parish, a postman and constituent. He is concerned about postal workers who have been attacked by dogs, many of whom are scarred and disfigured for life. He told me that many have lost fingers in terrible, unprovoked attacks by dogs. I am very worried that those workers, who have been permanently injured while trying to make a living, will no longer be able to receive compensation.

[Katy Clark]

My hon. Friend makes a powerful point on injuries suffered by postal workers who are attacked by dogs. In fact, the majority of victims of dog attacks are children. Does he therefore agree with communication workers that compulsory insurance for dog owners should be introduced, to ensure that compensation is available when people are attacked?

[Karl Turner]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point for me. She is absolutely right: dog attacks do not happen just to postal workers; children are often the victims. In fact, the impact assessment carried out as part of the consultation identified that the highest proportion of such victims were children. Many of the attacks are caused by irresponsible dog owners who do not have the financial means to pay any compensation whatever. I urge the Government to consider the calls to introduce compulsory third-party insurance, as my hon. Friend suggests.

Another problem is that people will have to pay £50 for their medical records, including physical and psychiatric records—any medical assessment that needs to be carried out to evidence their injury will need to be paid for. That will present financial and practical difficulties for many at the worst time, when they have experienced, for example, a terrible dog attack. They are not working, but will have to come up with that money.

I am dismayed that the Government have failed to listen not only to Opposition Members but to their Back Benchers. In my submission, these are heartless cuts to compensation for innocent victims of crime. The Government will not get away with it when it comes to the general election.

Financial Support (Students)

Debate between Baroness Clark of Kilwinning and Karl Turner

Wednesday 15th December 2010 Westminster Hall

[Karl Turner]

Not at the moment. Many hon. Members are eager to speak, so you will forgive me, Ms Clark, if I do not give way.

Debbie, who lives on Bransholme, does not have the luxury of ambitious parents. She says her parents do not understand the value of further education. She says that they cannot afford to, and will not, pay for her to study, but that EMA does just that. Darren lives on Greatfield estate. His parents are among the lowest 10% of earners in the country, earning just less than £16,000 a year. He needs to pay board, but he cannot afford to. However, his EMA allows him to contribute to the family pot. EMA allows individuals to break through the boundaries and access further education. It puts an end to generation after generation of young people being locked out of further education. It truly enables social mobility.

It is illogical that, on the one hand, the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions is emphasising the importance of breaking the cycle of welfare dependency, while, on the other, the Education Secretary is removing the support that would enable young people to do better for themselves. If we want families to break free from welfare traps, surely it is important that we instil in our young people a thirst for education, and underline the importance of that. Offering students EMA provides them with an incentive and support to help them along the way. If Gary is without his EMA he will be without his A-levels, and therefore without his physics degree. The domino effect continues. Science and the state will be without that young talent. Can the Government honestly say that they will withdraw their support for Debbie to complete her course, denying her the chance of achieving her true potential? What about Darren, who will no longer be able to complete his NVQ in fashion design? Should he be locked out because he simply cannot afford to do the course without financial support?

I have not even mentioned the unprecedented hike in tuition fees. Even those who are lucky enough to make it through further education will have a mountain to climb on the other side as they face the prospect of £9,000-a-year fees. Let us imagine the situation, in which any of the 16-year-olds whom I have mentioned managed to complete access-to-university courses without support, but then are faced with the prospect of convincing their parents, who are of modest backgrounds, that they are about to embark on a three-year degree course that will cost them £27,00—and no doubt an awful lot more, when accommodation and living are taken into account. I know what my parents would have said to me. I left school at 16 with few qualifications. I ran a business for a while and eventually, when I was financially stable, I went off to do A-levels before completing a law degree. I eventually qualified as a barrister in 2005 at the age of 34. When I was nearing the end of pupillage, I was possibly the most elderly pupil at the Bar; so I know what a struggle it is to get educated.

I have no doubt that without the Labour Government’s lifelong learning agenda I would never have had the academic success and confidence to reach the dizzy heights of membership of the Bar, and of being elected to this place. We should make no mistake. The Government’s policy on further and higher education is not progressive. It is shamefully regressive. It effectively does away with further and higher education for those who cannot afford to pay for it. The Government are more than happy for further and higher education to become the privilege of the few. Those who can afford an education will pay for it and those who cannot simply will not have one. That is the reality of the Government agenda. I hope that hon. Members will forgive me if I appear angry, but the subject makes me extremely annoyed. The Government will not easily be forgiven by those young people, who are locked out of further and higher education.

EMA is important not only to the family and the student; it has a wider social benefit. Why do the Government insist on washing their hands of post-16 education, leaving the next generation unable to get access to the qualifications that they require to improve their lives? We hear a lot of talk from the Government about fairness. Is this fair? Is it productive, or is not it narrow-minded, ideological, regressive and wholly flawed? I know where I stand. I ask the Minister to look again and to think very carefully about the choices that are being made, and about the aspirations of our constituents. I ask him to put the brakes on and allow Gary, Debbie and Darren, my constituents who have bothered and troubled themselves to e-mail me about their stories, the chance to improve their situations for the benefit of us all. I cannot support the Government’s attempts to create a divide in the education system between those well off enough to pay and those less fortunate, who cannot. For those reasons I will actively oppose the Government every step of the way.

[Katy Clark (in the Chair)]

Order. I remind hon. Members that a considerable number still want to speak; the shorter the contributions, the more I can call.