Paul
Goggins: Before the Committee began, I was greatly
relieved when the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute said that he had got
out of bed on the right side this morning—we had an interesting
discussion
yesterday. I
thank the hon. Member for Tewkesbury for his support for the
instruments. He raised a number of questions, which were echoed in
other Members’
contributions. My
guiding principle in undertaking the reform was to ensure that the
available resource is concentrated on those who suffer the worst
injuries. For example, I have decided not to impose a cap because if
somebody sustained an injury that was so severe that their tariff award
plus any other compensation for loss of earnings or for care took them
over the £500,000 mark, that would reflect the severity of the
injury. I would not want a cap to prevent them from getting the amount
that was judged necessary to provide them with the support needed in
relation to their terrible
injuries. No
claim in Northern Ireland thus far has taken anybody beyond that
£500,000 mark, and obviously I needed to reflect on that also,
but were a case to come up, I would not want an artificial cap to
prevent such a payment. Primarily, I want to ensure that the money goes
to those who need it most.
Turning to
the hon. Gentleman’s point on mental anxiety, I do not deny that
people can suffer mental anxiety, but in this context mental anxiety is
regarded as being at a much lower level than any severe mental illness
or mental trauma that may have been suffered, and it did not seem
appropriate to put money into that area when we need to put it where it
is most
needed. I
can reassure the hon. Gentleman and the right hon. Member for Lagan
Valley that those people who suffer mental trauma or post-traumatic
stress disorder are regarded as having a very high level of suffering,
and that can be associated with any number of crimes, including, of
course, terrorist crimes. Those people are included in the new scheme;
the specific provision to deal with them is on page 29 of
it. The
hon. Member for Tewkesbury has my assurance that those people will be
catered for in that way, but in response to the question put by the
right hon. Member for Lagan Valley, I should say specifically that the
claim for compensation must fit within the normal pattern and must be
made within two years of the injury. That gives some context. None the
less, provision for severe mental trauma is included and compensation
for it is
available.
Mr.
Donaldson: For the sake of clarity, I would like to ask a
question. The Minister will be aware that, in cases of PTSD, the
condition can occur some time after an incident that involves criminal
injury. Therefore, is he saying that there is a time limit within which
claimants must lodge a claim? Also, can he clarify what the existing
regulations say and explain what difference, if any, there is between
those regulations and these
proposals?
Paul
Goggins: What I can clarify is that the claim must be made
within two years of the injury occurring. In any application of such a
regime, there needs to be a cut-off point and we judge a two-year
period to be a fair cut-off point. I am happy to write to the right
hon. Gentleman to set out the detail of the scheme and how it will
operate, but there must be a rule. If the time limit was open-ended and
never-ending, clearly the system would be difficult to administer. So,
we have that two-year cut-off point.
In relation
to the question of multiple injuries, which I think was raised by all
three Members who spoke, I again want to focus the resource on those
who suffer the most. The system in Great Britain is similar to that in
Northern Ireland for the first three injuries. The hon. Member for
Tewkesbury is quite correct: for the first injury, the amount awarded
is 100 per cent. of the tariff amount; for the second, 30 per cent.;
and for the third, 15 per cent. In Great Britain, the system then
ends. I
have decided, in the context of Northern Ireland, to continue to pay
awards at 10 per cent. of the tariff amount for the fourth injury and
any subsequent injuries. The amount awarded may not be a great deal of
cash, but once again, the more injuries that are sustained, the greater
the trauma for the victim of the crime. The more injuries that have
been sustained, the greater the severity of the injury to the
particular claimant. So, given my governing principle of getting the
compensation to those who need it most, it seems fair and sensible to
extend the system in that way.
Dr.
Howard Stoate (Dartford) (Lab): I want to clarify one
small point. If somebody sustained a relatively minor injury and
therefore received a relatively small tariff for the first injury, but
then sustained a far more serious second injury, and therefore received
only a third of the tariff for the bigger injury, they might find
themselves rather worse off overall than if they had received the more
severe injury before the less severe injury. I am a little concerned
that that might lead to a bit of an
anomaly.
Paul
Goggins: I am happy to reflect carefully on what my hon.
Friend says, but the first injury would be the most severe and serious
injury, and there would be 100 per cent. of the tariff
amount for that. The second injury would be less severe and there would
be 30 per cent. of the tariff amount for that, and so on. Therefore,
that is a fair way to ensure that the most serious injury leads to the
full award and subsequent injuries also lead to a sum relative to that.
I hope that that answers his question.
I want to
talk about the decision to retain the position in Northern Ireland
whereby compensation is paid into trusts for minors who are the victims
of serious violent crime. That system works well in Northern Ireland
and we saw no reason to change it. Again, that is in keeping with the
principle of ensuring that the victim benefits directly from the
payment, because it is held in trust until they are 18, when they can
use the money themselves for their own support. It works well and is
well supported, and in our consultation nobody wanted to change things,
so that seemed
sensible. Finally,
the hon. Member for Tewkesbury asked whether—if new conditions
were to emerge beyond those listed—it would be possible to add
to the 2009 scheme. Yes, it would, in the same way that we are adding
to the 2002 scheme. I assure him that interim payments can still be
made on the same basis. In Northern Ireland, that means that the
payment will be made in full, and we will then come back to Parliament
and make further amendments to the scheme. Therefore, there will be no
bureaucratic obstacle to victims of crime getting the compensation
appropriate to their case, but we can tidy up the legislation
subsequently. I
am happy to support the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley in what he
said about Victim Support, which is an impressive
organisation.
Dr.
Stoate: I have been reflecting on the Minister’s
earlier answer to me; perhaps I did not make myself clear. Let us say
that someone sustained an injury—a lost finger or
hand—and received a tariff price for that. If that person
subsequently developed PTSD or depression as a result of the injury and
had to come back for a second claim, what would happen to that
compensation if the second claim was for a higher tariff price than the
first?
Paul
Goggins: That is an interesting question, which I might
need to reflect on and get back to my hon. Friend. If it were a
separate claim, clearly it would be a fresh claim and there would be a
new award. If it were considered within the original claim, there might
be a need to consider the financial arrangements and I am sure that the
Compensation Agency would do that.
I am happy to
look into the detail of how such a claim would be administered, but the
principle that my hon. Friend is keen to emphasise is that the most
serious injury should get the maximum award. I offer him the assurance
that that is the case. I am happy to look at the administrative
procedures for ensuring that that happens and will happily confirm it
in writing. I am grateful to him for his
interest.
Mr.
Robertson: On a slightly separate point, may I go back to
the trust that has been set up for under-18s? As I said in my speech,
such an arrangement seems sensible, but are there incidences where that
money could be used to help the minor to recover from their injuries
before they reach 18? Has the Minister considered that, in the context
of what happens in Great Britain?
Paul
Goggins: That is an interesting question and one that I
have had the opportunity to face full on, in a specific case. Without
going into the details, an award was made to a minor and, at a certain
point—from memory, 16 years of age—it was felt necessary
to spend some of the money that was being held in trust to advance the
interests of that individual. It was possible to release some of that
money. There
was a mechanism to ensure that, at the point where the individual
needed it, she got the help that had been awarded to her. So, there are
mechanisms to ensure that opportunities are not missed just because the
money is held in trust. There are mechanisms to ensure that the money
is held for a minor, not for other people, but if there is a specific
need, we want to ensure that help is given when needed. I am happy to
confirm that there is judicial oversight for that system;
such action has to be justified and cannot be taken on a
whim. To
return to Victim Support, which is an excellent organisation in
Northern Ireland, I am pleased to say that the Northern Ireland Office
supports it to the tune of some £2 million a year for the
important work that it does, not least in this area. We are in the
middle of working on a five-year strategy for victims and witnesses,
which, again, Victim Support is deeply involved with. Like the right
hon. Member for Lagan Valley, I look forward to the day when that
strategy is run from Stormont, rather than from the Northern Ireland
Office, and it will be all the stronger for that. Victim Support is an
excellent organisation that does an important
job. I
hope that I addressed the issue of mental trauma and PTSD in earlier
comments. It is important that the most severely injured—we all
acknowledge that those injuries can sometimes be mental rather than
physical, but none the less are serious—are
addressed. My
final point is for the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute, who quite
rightly reminded the Committee that victims should always be seen as
individuals with particular needs and that we need to ensure that our
system can support them. They should be at the heart of our
concerns. Transitional
arrangements are simple: the new tariff operates from 1 April 2009, so
any injuries sustained before that date will be dealt with under the
2002 scheme, which is being added to by what we are deciding today. Any
injuries sustained after 1 April 2009 will be dealt with under the new
scheme, which we are also passing today. I hope that that helps to
clarify matters.
With the promise of one or two letters to be written to members of the
Committee, I hope, too, that it deals with the questions that have been
raised. Question
put and agreed to.
Resolved, That
the Committee has considered the draft Alterations to the Northern
Ireland Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme
2002.
Resolved, That
the Committee has considered the draft Northern Ireland Criminal
Injuries Compensation Scheme 2009.—(Paul
Goggins.) 3.1
pm Committee
rose.
| 
