Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme 2012

Lord Davies of Coity Excerpts

Wednesday 25th July 2012 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon]

My Lords, I will also speak briefly to the draft Victims of Overseas Terrorism Compensation Scheme 2012. I am grateful to the Minister for his presentation of the two draft instruments before us. I am also grateful to the Association of Personal Injury Lawyers, the trade unions—USDAW and the CWU—and the Association of Convenience Stores for their excellent briefings, all of which expressed deep concerns.

The Minister said that we needed a system able to respond to the needs of victims, and then he made it sound like a very reasonable step to cut £50 million from the criminal injuries compensation scheme. He did not say so, but I suggest that the catalyst for the proposed changes is the cuts faced by the justice department and the notion that we are all in it together. As is evident from the amendment, we on these Benches fundamentally disagree. Victims do not choose to be victims; they have suffered through no fault of their own, and in proposing the draft Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme 2012 the Government are putting deficit reduction before humanity. I do not underestimate the need to reduce the deficit, although the Government have cut too far and too fast. Nor do I dismiss the need to introduce changes to the scheme from time to time. As the noble Lord rightly said, my own Government considered changes but we chose not to make them. I am sure that when the noble Lord was himself in opposition, he applauded that fact.

Why are the Government seeking to exclude 42% of innocent victims of crime from the scheme and making life more difficult for those who might still be eligible? Like the Association of Personal Injury Lawyers, I believe that the withdrawal of compensation from innocent victims of crime goes against the very purpose of criminal injuries compensation and ignores a view held by successive Governments for decades that victims of crime deserve more than words. What is happening to similar schemes in other European countries that are also coping with a financial crisis? Are they cutting entitlements for victims or do they regard compensation for victims as a matter of national honour? I suspect that they would not agree that innocent victims of violent crime should bear the brunt of austerity.

In the foreword to the Government’s consultation on the criminal injuries compensation scheme—CICS—the Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice says that the current scheme for providing compensation to victims of violent crime,

“has never been properly funded”,

and must be put on a “sustainable footing”. As the Minister said today, the document painted a picture of schemes that were not sustainable and had historic liabilities of nearly £400 million. However, as he will know, these figures are disputed.

The 2011-12 accounts, together with an analysis of the previous three years’ figures, show that the scheme is both stable and sustainable, with an average annual cost to the MoJ of existing tariffs of £192 million, and that historic liabilities have been reduced to 73 cases, estimated at less than £153 million. So why is the budget being cut by £50 million? In relation to the consultation, I also take issue with the very partial and extraordinarily subjective references to the results of the consultation in the Explanatory Memorandum, which do not reflect many of the real concerns expressed during the consultation.

The noble Lord gave a clear explanation of the CICS and the band system, but frankly it is not acceptable that the first five bands, which represent almost 50% of all payments, are going to be cut. They will be not cut just a little, but abolished. In human terms this means that more than 18,000 people a year who have quite serious and permanent injuries will receive nothing.

These include injuries such as partial deafness, post-traumatic epileptic fits, and burns and scarring causing minor facial disfigurement. To date these people, if their claims are successful—which is not easy—might receive between £1,000 and £2,500 compensation. The Minister said this is a small amount. Indeed, for some of us it is, but for others this money is not just compensation and recognition of an injury. It means being able to cope, not having to cross the line into a personal financial crisis, and retaining the dignity and self-esteem that enables them to continue to work or to seek work.

Among the people we are talking about are shop workers, far too many of whom are subject to physical assault, and the thousands of post men and women who are attacked by dogs every year. Of course, the other bands are not unscathed. Indeed, compensation for claims between £2,500 and £11,000 would be slashed by up to 60%. These claims are for injuries such as permanent brain injury resulting in impaired balance and headaches, fractured joints resulting in continually significant disability, and punctured lungs.

In addition, victims of violent crime who are still eligible for compensation under the new scheme and who are unable to work due to their injuries will also suffer as a result of changes to the scheme. The Minister suggested that changes along these lines were necessary for simplification. However, people will be worse off due to the changes in the arrangements for future loss of earnings, which will now only pay statutory sick pay—currently £85.85 a week. If someone were to work a 37-hour week on the minimum wage before they were injured, they would be worse off by £139.15 per week, which could result in serious financial hardship.

Then, there is the failure to take into account the current employment market. To be eligible for a loss of earnings payment, the victim will have to have been in regular paid work for at least three years immediately before the date of the incident giving rise to the injury. What would happen to a person who sustained the injury while moving between temporary jobs, or who had a period of unemployment in those three years?

I recognise that, as the noble Lord, Lord McNally, said, the Government have proposed to retain awards at their current level in respect of domestic violence, sexual offences and physical abuse, and I welcome that. But what compensation would a woman be entitled to if, for example, she were the victim of rape and other physical abuse such as a broken arm and the loss of an eye? Would she be entitled to compensation for rape and each of the other two injuries sustained?

There are many questions to be answered about the proposed new scheme, but most importantly I believe that thousands of innocent victims of crime will be considerably worse off through no fault of their own, and because of the pernicious cuts in legal aid that have been debated long and hard in this House they will find redress much more difficult in future. For these reasons, I hope that noble Lords will support my amendment.

I turn briefly to the draft Victims of Overseas Terrorism Compensation Scheme, which is welcome, and I endorse the views expressed by the Minister. I am glad that the Government intend to show solidarity with British and European Union victims who are part of our community and have been caught up in acts of terrorism overseas, by making payments to those who have been seriously injured and who could not have reasonably anticipated the significant threat to their safety or security when travelling abroad.

I pay tribute to my noble friend Lord Brennan, who cannot be in his place today, who introduced a Private Member’s Bill in 2007 which led to a section on victims of overseas terrorism in the Crime and Security Act 2010, and as a consequence, as the Minister said, to the statutory instrument before us today.

One important question for the Minister is: why is the scheme not retrospective, so that payment can be made to the victims of acts of terrorism in Bali, Sharm el-Sheikh and Mumbai? I understand that the cost of such payments would be between £3 million and £5 million, and to exempt the victims would seem to me rather mean-spirited. However, the Minister said that there would be an ex-gratia scheme backdated to 2002. I would be grateful if he could give me some further information on that point. I look forward to the answers from the Minister, and I beg to move.

[Lord Davies of Coity]

My Lords, we have all heard about the big society. We have all heard that we are all in this together.

I am driven to the belief that the proposed cuts in the draft Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme 2012 are another example of the most vulnerable people in our society being expected to make the greatest sacrifices.

Before coming to your Lordships’ House 15 years ago, I was an officer of USDAW, the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers, for 28 years, the last 12 of which were as general secretary. Then as now the retail sector was dominated by women workers, a large number of whom were part-time workers struggling to combine employment and home responsibilities and duties. All these workers are in the front line when criminal activity is perpetrated by the most vicious of criminals. Yet this coalition Government are now going to deny criminal injuries compensation to many of these workers.

The Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers, which has never merged and has represented shop workers for over 150 years, demonstrates that this Government have ignored in their consultation all opposition to these proposed cuts. Some 50% of victims currently eligible for compensation will receive nothing if these cuts go through. Over 40% of the remainder would see their compensation reduced by £1,500 to £2,000. This is not a great sum for a millionaire, but by any standard a great sum to a shop worker already on low wages and injured by vicious criminals. If this proposal goes through, what next, I ask? Child labour, then slavery?

If there is to be a vote on this draft Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme 2012, I for one will be voting against the government cuts.

House of Lords: Reform

Lord Davies of Coity Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd June 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord McNally]

No, not again, Brucie.

[Lord Davies of Coity]

My Lords—

[Lord McNally]

No, I am not taking any more interventions.

Much has been made in this debate of the recommendation in paragraph 61 of the Cunningham committee report, which says:

“Our conclusions apply only to present circumstances. If the Lords acquired an electoral mandate, then in our view their role as the revising chamber, and their relationship with the Commons, would inevitably be called in to question, codified or not. Given the weight of evidence on this point, should any firm proposals come forward to change the composition of the House of Lords, the conventions between the Houses would have to be examined again. What would, could or should be done about this is outside our remit”.

As a member of the Cunningham committee, I was happy to sign that paragraph. The conventions between the two Houses were examined on a regular basis throughout the 20th century and to say that they will be re-examined is no more than a statement of the obvious. What is equally obvious is that how they should be examined and with what outcome was outside the remit of the Cunningham committee. The idea that the Cunningham committee is somehow holy writ and that the conventions and relations between the two Houses would fall like a portcullis at the time of the passing of the Bill is simply absurd.

What is clear is that the relationship between the two Houses has always evolved and will continue to evolve in the future, particularly over the transitional period. The fact remains that the relationship between the Houses is underpinned by the Parliament Acts and the conventions. The House of Commons remains the primary Chamber; nothing in this draft Bill changes that. Nor are we suggesting any short, sharp shock in these proposals; rather, there is what old Fabians will recognise as “the inevitability of gradualness”.

I am interested in the points made by the noble Lords, Lord Wills, Lord Davies, Lord Brooke, Lord Kakkar, and others, about whether codification is necessary. I hope that the committee chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Richard, will look at that issue and take evidence. But there will be a lengthy transitional period of two Parliaments, which will allow transfer of knowledge. Noble Lords would not be prevented from standing for election or being considered for appointment to the reformed House.

Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill

Lord Davies of Coity Excerpts

Wednesday 15th December 2010 Lords Chamber

[Lord Mackay of Clashfern]

My Lords, it is worth noting that the clause referred to by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, is from the general statute dealing with referendums. This is not a question for just this referendum; it may be a question of whether what has already been put into the general procedure is sufficiently accurate. I think that I am right in saying that at the moment a party-political broadcast in connection with a referendum is allowed, so long as that is not the principal or main purpose, or some such phrase, of the broadcast. It may be that what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, and others have identified is a question of whether or not that general provision is wise or whether it should be modified. The question may go somewhat further than just this referendum and that issue needs to be looked at.

[Lord Davies of Coity]

Perhaps I may ask a question. The Minister said that he would have to resist the amendment if it was pressed. Does he agree that that would not remove the problem and that the Government would still have to deal with it even if they won on a Division?

[Lord McNally]

That is quite right and we would deal with it. However, I am suggesting that we have discussions about it without preconditions. I am grateful for the intervention of my noble and learned friend. He raises another issue that we can take on board when we look at the matter. I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, is not the only one who supplies lifeboats, although he is not here today.

Political and Constitutional Reform

Lord Davies of Coity Excerpts

Monday 5th July 2010 Lords Chamber

[Lord McNally]

The noble Lord, Lord Tomlinson, is showing off his history again.

These missing 3.5 million citizens are a concern, and it is a concern that many of them can be identified as young people, people from ethnic minorities and the very poor. The reason why they are not registered is a matter that we all have to address, and I fully agree that there has to be more of an effort to get them on to the register. On the other hand, if you have between 92 percent and 93 per cent of your electorate registered, with all the churn that goes on, that is not a bad record for a functioning democracy.

What is more unacceptable is the idea of holding elections on Boundary Commission boundaries that, by the time the election is held, are over 10 years old. That is how you get your elections out of kilter. However, I take the noble Baroness’s point. We will certainly make every effort to get people registered and involved in our political system. One of the good things about this exercise is that nobody has suggested that our Boundary Commission has been anything other than absolutely above reproach in the way in which it has carried out its work, except that it has been extraordinarily slow in doing that work. We will talk with the Electoral Commission and the Boundary Commission to see what resources they need to do a better job quickly.

Whether or not AV is a “miserable little compromise” is a matter of judgment, but it is interesting that the party opposite opted for AV for the very good reason that it retains the link with the single constituency. I see the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, nodding in agreement. I find one of the refreshing and enlivening things about coalition is that, after you have fought an election with firm vigour, you sit down with your coalition partners and you manage to convince them about a referendum on voting reform, while they manage to convince you that AV would be the best solution to put to the country. That is the kind of healthy give and take—

[Lord Davies of Coity]

My Lords—

[Lord McNally]

No, sit down. We have 20 minutes. So eager are the Opposition to start asking me further questions that I will just say that I think that I have covered most of the points that the noble Baroness raised and I look forward to questions from the Back Benches.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord McNally]

We put forward proposals for the very good reason that we think they are very sensible, and we assume that both Houses of Parliament will endorse them.

[Lord Davies of Coity]

My Lords, with regard to the referendum on the alternative vote, can the Minister answer this simple question? We understand that both parties that make up the coalition Government will campaign in opposite directions. If that is the case, what impact will that have on the electorate?

[Lord McNally]

I have no idea. However, I am sure that, as with previous referenda, we will have people of good will taking honest opinions about voting yes or no and campaigning on them—and may the best side win.

Immigration: Refugee and Migrant Justice

Lord Davies of Coity Excerpts

Monday 28th June 2010 Lords Chamber

[Lord Thomas of Gresford]

My Lords—

[Lord Davies of Coity]

My Lords—

[Lord Strathclyde]

My Lords, there is room for both. Let us listen to the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord McNally]

Again, dealing with the last point first, I am not even sure whether that is under review, but I certainly cannot give an answer. On the matter of money owing, a case from RMJ will be heard on Wednesday, so I am not sure how much I can comment on it, other than to say that it is the view of the Government and the LSC that no moneys are owing to RMJ. Indeed, when the books are finally balanced, it may prove to be the other way around.

[Lord Davies of Coity]

My Lords, in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Bach, the Minister said that he had to strike a balance. He also said that he did not know what it was going to cost. How does he strike a balance when he does not know what it is going to cost?

[Lord McNally]

Because Ministers have to take a view on whether paying out money to an organisation that has gone into administration is a better deal for the taxpayer than making the adjustments necessary to give the clients—as I said at the beginning, the clients are our first priority—the legal coverage that they deserve. Of course, during this period of adjustment, we do not know the final cost, but a decision had to be made. As I said, sometimes Ministers have to make hard decisions and we made this one.