CRIMINAL INJURIES (COMPENSATION) (Hansard, 19 March 1963)

§ Mr. R. E. Prentice (East Ham, North)

I beg to move, That leave be given to bring in a Bill to compensate those injured by certain criminal offences against the person; to provide for their dependants and for the dependants of those killed by criminal acts; and for purposes connected therewith. My proposed Bill in is terms almost identical with those of one which I introduced to the House in November, 1959, and of a Bill similarly introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. C. Johnson) in November, 1960. We have returned to this matter again and again against the unhappy background that crimes of violence of many kinds have been increasing in recent years and that there has been a great deal of public discussion about the best way of dealing with offenders, but that, in our view, not enough public attention has been paid to the needs of the victims.

The purpose of the Bill is to make public provision for those who are injured by crimes of violence or for their dependants and for the dependants of those killed by murder, manslaughter, or in some other way. When these offences occur the victim is sometimes cared for by a private charity. Recently, close to my constituency, in the Borough of West Ham, there was a tragic incident in which two police officers were killed in the course of their duty. By public subscription a substantial sum was raised for their widows. But this usually happens only in cases which receive a great deal of publicity.

There are thousands of crimes of violence every year where little publicity is given to the offence and where the victim of the crime has little to fall back on except the opportunity to sue the criminal at common law. That opportunity is generally of little or no value. In many cases the criminal is not apprehended, and if he is apprehended he often has no means to pay damages. If he is sent to prison for a number of years he is even less likely to pay damages.

If I may quote an admittedly bad example, there was a case some years ago of a man who was set upon and beaten severely by two thugs. He was blinded 220 and injured in the head and in other parts of the body, permanently and seriously. He sued the criminals and was awarded £11,500 damages, but the criminals, serving gaol sentences, had no means to meet the award. Eventually, he took legal action to secure payment from them over a period and the court awarded him payment of £1 a month from the two men together. He would have had to live 442 years to collect the damages awarded by the court. That is an extreme case, but there are cases of people who are severely injured and who have no effective redress. Some of these people have been forced to live on National Assistance.

The case I put to the House is that public provision should be made for these people. There are two possible approaches to this problem. One is to have a system by which the injured party can sue the criminal or, if he is not apprehended, sue in court for damages and the court can award damages, the State paying the bill.

The other possible approach is the one contained in the proposed Bill, and that is that something equivalent to the Industrial Injuries Scheme—or another parallel might be the provision for war pensioners in the form of disability pensions and supplementary benefits—should be available to the victims. Or a scheme which was a combination of the two could be evolved. I am not wedded to a particular scheme. The one in the Bill which I presented originally was put in that form because it was the easiest way to bring it within the rules of order of the House governing the form of a Private Member's Bill.

As I have said, my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, South and myself have tried to bring Private Members' Bills before the House in recent years to deal with this matter, and we and other bon. Members have pursued it at Question Time. The Government appointed a working party to study it, as a result of which a White Paper was published in June, 1961, which contained a valuable analysis of the problems, considered the difficulties involved and drew attention to the various decisions which would have to be made about the nature of the scheme, and so on. But it did not give any substantial reason for supposing that a scheme could not be introduced at a 221 fairly early date. It contained no definition of the Government's intentions, and they have since said that they needed more time to think about it.

My submission is that the Government have had enough time to think about this matter. The White Paper was issued eighteen months ago. Since then, a number of people have studied the problem and have reported on it. A committee appointed by the Conservative Political Centre, of which the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney-General was the original chairman, produced a report pointing out that there was no fundamental obstacle to a scheme along the lines I am advocating. A committee under the chairmanship of Lord Longford which was appointed by "Justice" produced a most valuable report a few months ago. These reports confirm that there is no fundamental reason why a scheme should not be introduced at a fairly early date.

Of course, a number of decisions would have to be made. It would have to be decided to what extent the scheme should cover brawls within a family. It would have to be considered whether an argument between a husband and wife in which they knocked each other about should he included. It would have to be considered how we would cover, if at all, a case in which criminals, having committed a robbery, then argued about the division of the spoils and one injured another. It might be felt that that was not a proper case in which public funds should he used. But these are not very difficult decisions and they can be made. It is time that the Government outlined their policy on the subject.

I am offering the Government the opportunity to do something about this matter. I hope and believe that the House will give me leave to introduce the proposed Bill, but I am a little pessimistic about 222 what will happen to it if it is introduced. My challenge to the Government is that they should adopt it and assist its passage and move Amendments to meet their point of view on the various decisions which need to be made. The Government have been far too sluggish on this matter, as on many other matters, and the longer we delay the more people will be injured without their having the benefit of any system of compensation.

Public opinion supports the proposed Bill. I had ample evidence of this when I introduced a similar Measure over three years ago. No one has come out in fundamental opposition to its proposals. It would not cost a great deal of money. According to the White Paper, it would cost a little less or a little more than £1 million a year, according to the type of scheme adopted—approximately 6d. a year for every man, woman and child in this country. I do not think that any citizen would begrudge money spent in a cause of this kind. The reform which I am suggesting is simple and humane and should have been carried out some time ago.