HL Deb 30 October 1979 vol 402 cc341-6

3.20 p.m.

The Earl of LONGFORD

My Lords, I do not intend to move the Motion that the Report be now received, as I intend to ask your Lordships' permission to withdraw the Bill. I am advised that it would be appropriate for me to make a fairly general, though I hope not very prolonged statement, about the matter. The House was kind enough to give my victims' compensation Bill a Second Reading on 3rd July, and on 24th July it passed through the Committee stage. I tried hard between the Second Reading and the Committee stage to modify the Bill in response to points raised by the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, and other speakers on the earlier occasion. However, the Minister—courteous as always—made me feel remarkably like Sisyphus—for no sooner had one set of objections been met than a whole lot of new ones were brought forward. The Minister paid friendly tribute to the drafting of the Bill, which was indeed a thoroughly professional job. Even so, he made it clear that this Bill, however amended—even if it received a Second Reading here—was most unlikely to obtain Government support in the House of Commons, and without that support, for various technical reasons, constituting, as it would, a financial charge, the Bill could not succeed.

The Minister made it clear that the Government had set their face against any legislation on this subject at this stage; that is to say, until they had had the chance to study the operation of certain improvements in the existing Criminal Injuries Scheme, which they would be introducing. Those improvements, which have since been made available to us in detail, are by no means insignificant. I hope that I can welcome them in general without being committed to any of them specifically and without disguising my serious regret that some of the most important issues have not been dealt with.

The most obvious weaknesses in the present scheme are the fact that such a large proportion of the public—and this can hardly be disputed—know nothing about it; they do not even know that it exists; and the fact that a high proportion of the rest of the public are unable to make use of it because of the absence of legal aid. I had no idea when I drafted these remarks that legal aid would be in our minds at this precise moment. We are told that the Government are proceeding generously in that direction, though the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has just told us that there are areas which they have not yet been able to enter. We can only hope that they will regard this as one of the crucial areas which they will enter as soon as possible. Under this ex gratia scheme there is also, of course, the absence of any appeal to the courts of the land, which is a grave blemish. There are other defects. Nevertheless, this is a move in the right direction and should be welcomed as such.

The Government have also promised a grant of £15,000 to the national headquarters, which will seek to co-ordinate the growing number of voluntary victims' support schemes. At a time when other social services are being cut or restricted—rightly or, as many of us think, wrongly—it would be churlish for a spokesman on behalf of victims not to express gratitude for this small beginning, which I hope will lead to major developments later on.

When I moved the Second Reading of my Bill, I pointed out that it was in no way a complete charter for victims. Indeed, that could not be claimed even for the more comprehensive report produced by the committee of which I was chairman a year earlier, which we debated in this House at that time. Nothing that I am about to say should seem to diminish the urgency for a much wider and bolder approach than anyone, including myself, has yet undertaken. In all humility—at any rate, in a qualified kind of humility—I am perhaps entitled to point out that since I raised this matter in the House in 1962 there was not a full debate on it until I raised it again in 1978, 16 years later.

The Minister has generously acknowledged that our Bill has accelerated the Government's initiative. Ministers are not always so generous, and therefore I throw myself before him in enormous gratitude for that tribute. I am happy to believe that that is indeed so. The committee of which I am chairman considers that it would not serve a useful purpose if we pressed ahead with this particular Bill at present. We shall be returning, sooner rather than later, to the issues involved not only in the present Bill but in the whole cause of victims generally. There are matters on which we shall certainly press the Government hard, as opportunity offers. We shall be pressing for far-reaching improvements in the amended compensation scheme. We shall continue to urge that it should be placed on a statutory basis as soon as possible; and indeed the Government have made it plain that that is their intention as soon as they have sufficient information to go on. We shall be making suggestions, whether or not in the form of a Bill I do not yet know, for greatly improving the machinery of the law courts in regard to victims and for greatly extending the assistance to victim's support schemes. It was not until I was concerned with the drafting of this Bill that I realised how expensive it is to get a Bill drafted. Our Bill cost perhaps £700 and I was told that we got it at a cut rate; that it was only the generosity of very expert draftsmen that enabled us to get it at that price instead of at £2,000. It should be more widely known that it is very expensive to get a Private Member's Bill drafted, so that job usually falls to very powerful organisations if a Bill is at all complicated.

I hope that the whole aspiration of reconciliation between the criminal and the victim will receive far more attention than it has hitherto. As I know from first-hand experience, the criminal who tries to apologise to his victims—which one would think was an altogether laudable aspiration—is not greatly encouraged. There is nothing in the rules about it; officials can spend much time trying to find out how this can be done. But I would not like to say that without remarking that one particular criminal, who has made elaborate efforts, has received much kindness from individual officials and chaplains.

For the first time in the 30-odd years that I have been a Member of this House, we have a Government which, whatever their other merits and demerits which are not at issue this afternoon, have actually shown a positive interest in victims. For that the chief credit must no doubt go to the Home Secretary, but not a little of it surely should be allocated to the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, and his officials. I take the opportunity of thanking the noble Lord for the sympathetic interest he has shown since it fell to his lot to deal with victims. My last words must be adapted from those used by a much more famous person: "We shall return". My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw the Bill.

The LORD CHANCELLOR

My Lords, I understand that the noble Lord has asked leave that this Bill should be withdrawn. Is it your Lordships' pleasure—

3.30 p.m.

Lord BOSTON of FAVERSHAM

My Lords, before the Motion is put by the noble and learned Lord and before we part from this matter this afternoon, perhaps I might add a word or two to what my noble friend Lord Longford has said. In view of the points which my noble friend has made this afternoon I feel sure that your Lordships will consider that he has taken the appropriate course today, but I should not want this moment to pass without a word of tribute to him. There is no doubt that he has performed a most valuable service in introducing this Bill and in having it debated. It has helped to draw attention to this important matter and it has given impetus to the improvements which are being made and to the consideration of further reforms. Therefore my noble friend has, in my submission, earned both our thanks and our congratulations.

The PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE, HOME OFFICE (Lord Belstead)

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl for his decision to withdraw his Bill. I am conscious of the long hours of careful study and deliberation which must have been devoted to the preparation of the Bill, not only by the noble Earl but also by his advisers. This leads me to express special appreciation for the course which the noble Earl has decided upon. I can assure him that all the hard work which has been put into the preparation of the legislation will not have been wasted. There is a great deal in the noble Earl's draft which will be of assistance to the Government when the proposed Bill on this subject is presented.

In his remarks, the noble Earl drew attention to three particular weaknesses of the existing scheme, as he sees it. Each of those matters was discussed in Committee, but I should like to repeat an assurance which I gave to your Lordships on a previous stage of the Bill; namely, that steps are being taken to make the existence of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme as widely known as possible. May I add that I am genuinely grateful to the noble Earl for his generous words and for his warm welcome for Government support for the National Association of Victims' Support Schemes.

There is one other word which I ought to say. The revised Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme, which came into effect on 1st October, contains a number of significant improvements, the most notable being the removal, subject to safeguards, of the provision which formerly excluded cases of violence within the family from eligibility for compensation. The revised scheme has been warmly welcomed, and the Government are confident that this expanded and revised version of the scheme which has operated successfully for over 15 years provides the right framework and basis for the permanent statutory arrangements for compensating victims of criminal injury for which the noble Earl has called.

The Lord Bishop of NORWICH

My Lords, may I follow briefly on what the noble Lords, Lord Boston of Faversham and Lord Belstead, have said, because this is a subject with which I personally have been concerned for many years. I should like to support them in thanking the noble Earl for the immense amount of work that he has put into getting matters as far forward as this. I should also like to say how grateful many of us are for the tremendous work that the small working party—in their own time and at their own expense—have also put into this subject.

Whatever else we may have done, it is now well known throughout the country that there is here an area of social concern and of compassionate caring which is moving forward but which still needs to move to completion. I hope very much that having got as far as this, and with the encouraging assurances which the noble Lord on the Government Front Bench has given to us, this will not be the last time that we shall hear of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Bill, but that it will be coming forward, perhaps in a wider and stronger form in the future. I hope that this may be something we shall hear of again quite soon.

Bill, by leave, withdrawn.