| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Hogg: Will the Minister just clarify something? He is obviously right to want to enlarge the meaning of "premises". Would the word "place" include, for example, a ship and an agricultural hopper that is used for the storage of grain? Those are not buildings. They are not land. A ship is a structure. A hopper is a structure on land. Is the word "place" apt to include everything?
Mr. Ingram: I am glad that the right hon. and learned Gentleman thinks that I am right to introduce the amendment. It is nice to get my score card marked up in that way. My understanding and the advice that I have is that the term--it is a legalistic term--does mean any place; we have broadened the definition to mean any place.
Knowing lawyers, they may want to chew over all that further. For the sake of argument, they may try to define that further, but I think that we have covered everything.
I hope that it does not become a matter of dispute because the measure is about trying to ensure that no inhibitions are placed on the recovery of the remains, wherever they may be.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 6, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 7 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Mr. Öpik:
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The First Deputy Chairman:
With this, it will be convenient to discuss new clause 2--Compensation for families of victims--
Mr. Öpik:
The debate is slightly different from the earlier one, which seemed to be about technical details. The new clauses arise primarily from discussions with my noble Friend Lord Redesdale, who has taken time to approach families of "The Disappeared", to assess their current circumstances and how the Bill might impact on them.
Under existing legislation, it is clear that victims and families of victims can claim compensation for up to three years after what we may call "the incident"; that is, not the date of death, but the date of the incident. It is an important distinction.
The families of these victims have been unable to claim compensation because they do not have even the remains of their relatives. Essentially, their deaths are still technically unconfirmed as no bodies have been recovered.
It is fair to argue that the families of those victims have suffered rather more than many families in the troubles, and that is saying something. As well as suffering the loss of their relatives, they have been unable to bury them and to grieve for them properly. As I said during Second Reading, they have literally been robbed of the opportunity to grieve, to put the issue behind them and to move forward.
In that context, payments towards the cost of funerals will not bring back the victims of those terrible atrocities, or alleviate any of the pain and anguish that the families have suffered in the past 20 years, but they will go a long way towards giving the families some peace of mind that their relatives will be given a decent and proper burial, without the worry of the financial implications, which can be substantial.
I tabled new clause 2 to enable families of "The Disappeared" to access the money that they will be denied due to the three-year rule. I have some indication that, from a legal perspective, there may be significant difficulties in providing that compensation. If that is the
case, I will be grateful for clarification from the Minister. Will he describe as best he can the restrictions and obstacles to enabling the compensation to be available?
Even if that is the case, I will ask the Government to explore the options. It seems that the families of the victims are effectively being punished twice: on account of what happened to their family member; and on account of the limitations that are technically built into the compensation programme, which deny them the opportunity of compensation because more than three years have passed since the disappearance.
I look forward to hearing the Minister's comments about new clause 2. I hope that he can give some good news and at the very least explain, or give some reassurance, that the Government take the question of compensation seriously.
Rev. Martin Smyth:
Has the hon. Gentleman considered the conflict with other legislation? Those who have disposed of and murdered these people have often claimed that it was because they had breached terrorist regulations. As I understand it, there is legislation in place that says that no compensation is payable to those who have been party to terrorism. Has the hon. Gentleman considered that? Is that one reason why he has tabled the new clause?
Mr. Öpik:
The hon. Gentleman is right to bring up that matter, because I suspect that it is one of the complications involved in setting up a compensation programme. That is why I am asking the Minister to comment. I do not have a legal background, and I have not been able to determine the specific issues of compensation. I hope that the Minister will be able to offer us some clarification.
I hope that the Government will go along with the context of new clause 1, as it would be tremendously helpful to the families of "The Disappeared" not to have to worry about the big financial burden that a funeral entails. The families have suffered far too much already, and an act of good will, whereby the Government agree to bear the cost of the funerals, would show both compassion and empathy.
Dr. Godman:
I support the new clauses in principle. To his credit, the hon. Gentleman has raised some important issues. Despite what the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) said about the alleged terrorist involvement of some of the victims, I would have thought that most of them were entirely innocent. I am thinking about two of the families that I met. I would like confirmation from my right hon. Friend the Minister that some help would be given to families on low incomes.
I think that the Northern Ireland Department of Health and Social Services would be amenable to applications for assistance, but would that be confined to those on the state pension or income support? The plea of the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik) should be given a sympathetic hearing.
I think that access to compensation should be as straightforward as possible and there should not be the usual lengthy legal delays.
Rev. Martin Smyth:
The hon. Gentleman may have misunderstood my point. I do not think that every victim
Dr. Godman:
The hon. Gentleman is to be complimented on his assiduous campaigning on behalf of the families. The last people whose claims I would believe about some of the victims' involvement in terrorism are members of the IRA. I know that one 20-year-old victim who was alleged to be involved had a mental age of about eight or 10, according to his doctors, so I would treat such claims with scepticism.
Compensation should not be delayed and we should certainly consider helping victims' families, and especially those on low incomes, with funeral expenses.
Mr. William Ross:
The new clauses are interesting and I hope that the Government will take them on board and try to be helpful. Whether we like it or not, the Compensation Agency is bound by the law and has no discretion whatever. The hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik) drew attention to the existing schemes. I am not sure when the first of the victims disappeared. We have no way of knowing the date of the death caused by the earliest murder--I do not like the term killing, because these were cold-blooded murders, and we should say so bluntly.
Ministers will be aware that the compensation legislation was updated and greatly improved in 1978. I remember clearly that the relevant order was one of the few to be withdrawn and rewritten, not least because Mr. Enoch Powell was a prominent member of the party at the time and was deeply involved in the arguments on the subject. A scheme was developed that, despite the demerits that it is said to have, has many merits and has been very useful to many people over the years.
My only significant reservation about the compensation scheme is that people get a lump sum. Sometimes it is a large sum that they are unable to handle and they dissipate it and are left with nothing. Members of the armed forces and the police get most of their compensation in the form of a pension scheme, which is index-linked and gives them a continuing income over a long period. That is a much better system and perhaps it should have been considered for others. Perhaps we should consider that principle right across the law on compensation for injuries.
I am concerned about the time scale. If the individuals were killed at an early stage, it would be possible to argue that their fate became known only at a late stage, within the time frame that would allow a claim for compensation for murder to be made, but even in those favourable circumstances, that claim might have to be made under the pre-1978 legislation, which was not very good. A long time has elapsed, but some of those individuals might well have been the breadwinners for relatives who are now elderly. There is a real problem.
We will still be left with a difficulty in regard to those whose bodies are not recovered. I do not know what on earth the Government can do about it if we start paying compensation in respect of those whose bodies are recovered, but have to refuse it in respect of those whose bodies are not. The remains may be completely irretrievable, as we have discussed.
'.--The Secretary of State shall pay the cost of the funeral of any person which arises from the work of the Commission.'.--[Mr. Öpik.]
'.--Families of persons whose remains are located through the work of the Commission shall be eligible for compensation under existing schemes operated by the Secretary of State.'.7.30 pm
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |