HL Deb 22 July 1988 vol 499 cc1621-2

151 Clause 104, page 75, line 23, leave out paragraph (b) and insert—

'(b) assault;'.

152 Page 75, line 26, leave out 'in Scotland, 'the offence of.

153 page 75, line 37, leave out 'in Scotland, 'the offence of.

154 Page 75, line 38, leave out 'or false imprisonment or, in Scotland, abduction' and insert—

  1. '(ja) false imprisonment;
  2. (jb) abduction:.

155 Page 75, line 39, leave out from beginning to 'and' in line 40 and insert—

(k) trespass on a railway;'

156 Page 76, line I, leave out subsection (3).

157 Clause 105, page 76, line 23, after 'the', insert 'law of England and Wales or'.

158 Page 76, leave out lines 24 to 26.

Earl Ferrers

My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 151 to 158 en bloc. I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 160 to 162, 164, 165, 171 to 177, 311 to 313, 315 to 318, 318A, 320, 32113 and 324 to 331.

These amendments make drafting changes in the provisions which put the criminal injuries compensation scheme on to a statutory footing. The result is provisions which are clearer, will be easier to use by the criminal injuries compensaton board and will be less open to misinterpretation.

I can assure your Lordships that there is no change of substance. The amendments either contribute—with Amendments Nos 163 and 166, which we shall discuss in a moment—to a re-ordering of the material in Part III in Schedule 7 or are genuinely minor drafting changes.

Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 151 to 158.—(Earl Ferrers.)

Lord Irvine of Lairg

My Lords, earlier we had considerable discussion in this House about the best means of achieving the result which was generally agreed on all sides to be desirable, that train drivers who suffer injury or nervous shock as a result of railway suicides or suicide attempts and the like should be entitled to claim compensation from the board. As I understand it, Amendments Nos. 155 and 156 represent the Government's solution to the problem.

I have one doubt in my mind. It may be ill-founded. I seek this reassurance from the noble Earl. Is it indeed correct to say that trespass upon a railway is an offence under the law both of Scotland and of England and Wales as opposed to being merely a civil wrong? It may be that it is a criminal offence and is covered by some by-law or regulation of which I am quite unaware. If it is a criminal offence, there is no problem. If it is not, the Bill seems simply to be assuming that it is when it is not. The consequence is either that compensation will still be unavailable or that we may have criminalised by the back-door conduct which was never criminal before. I simply seek information on this point.

Lord Renton

My Lords, I can assist the noble Lord. In England—I cannot speak to the law in Scotland— it is a criminal offence but one which is triable only summarily, if I remember aright.

Earl Ferrers

My Lords, I can give the assurance which the noble Lord, Lord Irvine, requires, that trespass is a criminal offence.

On Question, Motion agreed to.