§ The Question was as follows:
§ To ask Her Majesty's Government how the compensation to former P. C. Hine of the City of London Police was calculated at £4,000, and why £2,750 was deducted for social benefits paid while he was incapacitated, leaving a residue of only £1,250.
§ The MINISTER of STATE, HOME OFFICE (Lord Harris of Greenwich)My Lords, in general, compensation under the Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme is assessed on the basis of Common Law damages. In order to prevent double compensation from Government funds, the Scheme requires that compensation assessed on this basis should be reduced by the value of any entitlement to social security benefits or analogous payments which arise as a result of the injury. Individual awards are not subject to Ministerial review. P. C. Hine, whose compensation has been assessed under the provisions of the Scheme by a single member of the Board, may, if he is dissatisfied, apply for a rehearing before three other members of the Board.
§ Lord MAISMy Lords, I thank my noble friend for his reply. I do not imagine that it gave him any more pleasure to give it than it has given me to receive it. Is he aware—perhaps he is not—that this is a case in which I have a certain amount of interest because I was alongside P.C. Hine before he was removed from outside the Old Bailey and I saw what had been done to him. I also visited him in St. Bartholomew's Hospital. He was not, in fact, expected to live through that first night but he did, largely due to very skilled surgery. I would ask my noble 1436 friend, whatever the rules and regulations may be, whether he considers it is just and right that a police constable, with a good career in front of him, who is crippled for life with the best part of one leg destroyed, whose future in the police force is limited to being a clerk in a police station, with all promotion gone, should receive £4,000—which in my view is totally inadequate?
§ Several Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
§ Lord MAISThen he has £2,750 deducted because of social security benefits, which, so far as I can see, anybody can collect whether a member of this country or not—
§ Several Noble Lords: Speech! Order!
§ Lord MAISI beg your Lordships' pardon. My last question is this. How can my noble friend reconcile that compensation paid to P.C. Hine with compensation amounting to nearly £12,000 paid to an enemy of the State who was really not injured?
§ Lord HARRIS of GREENWICHMy Lords, on the latter point, there are clearly a number of differences between the Northern Ireland Scheme and the Great Britain Scheme, which reflect differences in the origin and background and the circumstances in which they operate. Both Schemes are under review and an inter-departmental Working Party is looking at the Great Britain Scheme at the moment. But 1 must emphasise this point. I certainly accept that this is a most distressing case, but if Mr. Hine wishes this matter to be reviewed he can ask for the award to be considered by three members of the Board, rather than the single member who has reviewed it so far.
§ Baroness MACLEOD of BORVEMy Lords, can the noble Lord tell us why only one member of the Board was sitting on this case?
§ Lord HARRIS of GREENWICHMy Lords, that is the normal way in which hearings of this kind take place under this Scheme. But if Mr. Hine wishes this matter to be reviewed because he is dissatisfied, as he clearly is, it can be reheard by three members of the Board.
§ Lord BYERSMy Lords, would the member of the Board, who looked at this case and dealt with it, have known that this massive deduction would take place from the £4,000 award?
§ Lord HARRIS of GREENWICHYes, my Lords, indeed he would, because that is the basis upon which the Scheme is operated. But it is only right to say that some of the criticism to which the single member has been subjected is, in my view, rather unfair. The position is quite clear. If anybody in a case of this kind, which is a most distressing one, is dissatisfied, he can ask for the case to be reheard by three members of the Board; and that course is still open to Mr. Hine.
§ Lord MACKIE of BENSHIEMy Lords, does the Minister mean that the Board member's discretion as to the amount was unlimited'? Did he fix the £4,000 himself as a personal assessment?
§ Lord HARRIS of GREENWICHMy Lords, there is certainly an amount of Case Law so far as awards of this kind are concerned. But it was the decision of the single member to fix the award at this level. If Mr. Hine so wishes, the matter can be reheard by three members of the Board, as I have pointed out, and that is probably the most satisfactory way of taking the matter further.
§ Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONEMy Lords, without wishing to impute blame to anybody, or to prejudge the result of any appeal, is there not something manifestly "rotten in the State of Denmark" which permits such a disparity between the £1,250 net still left to the man who was permanently injured and the £11,000-plus which is drawn, without tax, by somebody who was, admittedly, ill-treated by our security forces?
§ Lord HARRIS of GREENWICHYes, my Lords. I am aware of the fact that there is a great deal of public anxiety on this point and, as I have indicated, the Schemes are being reviewed.
Viscount MONCKMy Lords, can the noble Lord, with his great powers of prognostication, tell us what would have happened if the social benefits paid to this unfortunate man had amounted to 1438 £4,500? Would he have had to pay back £500?
§ Lord HARRIS of GREENWICHMy Lords, if a situation of that kind had arisen, it would have been an even clearer case for asking that the matter be reheard and that, as I have indicated, is open to Mr. Hine at the moment.
Baroness WARD of NORTH TYNESIDEMy Lords, is it possible for the noble Lord to let it be known what arc the views of your Lordships' House on the subject?
§ Lord HARRIS of GREENWICHMy Lords, I think that they have been made clear this afternoon.