HC Deb 19 July 1990 vol 176 cc666-7W
Sir Eldon Griffiths

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is his policy in respect of compensation for damage done to private property by convicted criminals who abscond from Her Majesty's penal establishments; what factors underlay his refusal to make payments to Mr. D. J. Burrows of Lakenheath, Suffolk, in respect of the damage done to his boat in October 1989 by two persons who had escaped from Hollesley Bay remand centre in Suffolk, and were convicted of breaking-in offences; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Waddington

The Home Office does not accept general responsibility for loss or damage caused by absconders from penal establishments. The courts have upheld that Home Office liability applies only where an escape takes place which is attributable to the negligence of staff, when they are under a duty to take steps to prevent an escape. There must be some failure to take proper care on the part of the authorities. In the case of Mr. Burrows there was no evidence of negligence by the staff involved at Hollesley Bay colony and the Department cannot therefore accept any legal liability for the damage to his yacht.

In certain circumstances ex-gratia payments may be made to owners of property stolen or damaged. This ex-gratia scheme is operated regardless of whether the abscond was due to any fault on the part of the staff of the establishment concerned. It simply accepts that in some establishments the conditions are such as to permit absconding if the inmate is so minded and in these circumstances compensation has been paid, for the sake of good will, to members of the public particularly at risk when they suffer loss. The Department makes such payments only where the loss or damage is not covered by insurance.

Mr. Burrows' boat was covered by an insurance policy, but the insurance company declined to meet his claim because, in breach of a policy condition, he failed to notify it until several months after the incident. The Department could have considered an ex-gratia payment to cover uninsured losses, such as an excess charge on the claim or a loss of no claims discount; but not to cover insured losses which Mr. Burrows has had to bear because of his failure to make a timely claim. Mr. Burrows was advised orally of the position on more than one occasion before he finally claimed from the insurance company. I am reviewing the case however to see whether the Department's actions contributed in any way to Mr. Burrows' delay in making a formal claim to his insurance company; and I will write to my hon. Friend.