HC Deb 26 July 2000 vol 354 cc672-4W
Ms Moran

To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he will respond to the report made by Sir Kenneth Bloomfield following his review of criminal injuries compensation in Northern Ireland, published in July 1999. [133348]

Mr. Mandelson

After careful consideration of Sir Kenneth Bloomfield's detailed report on the fitness for purpose of criminal injuries compensation arrangements in Northern Ireland, I am today able to announce the Government' s broad proposals for the future of the scheme. The detail will be published next year for consultation in the form of a draft Order in Council.

I must first place on record my gratitude and thanks to Sir Kenneth Bloomfield and his colleagues on the review for a most diligent and thorough investigation into the legislation and workings of the current criminal injuries compensation scheme. Their terms of reference asked them to advise the Government on: the fitness for purpose of criminal injuries compensation arrangements in Northern Ireland in the light of the experiences of victims of terrorist violence… and their research led them to consider many harrowing accounts of death and injury from victims of criminal violence, and to judge the extent to which the compensation scheme met their needs. The review team submitted their report last July when Sir Kenneth said that it would be difficult to argue that the statutory scheme in Northern Ireland is ungenerous, taken as a whole. As a result, the main thrust of their recommendations is designed to re-prioritise the scheme.

Before addressing the report I must stress this Government's commitment to the provision of fair and equitable compensation for innocent and deserving victims of violent crime, and their particular desire to ensure proper arrangements to recognise the additional suffering of victims of terrorist violence and civil unrest in Northern Ireland.

The major structural change proposed by the review team is the introduction of a tariff-based scheme with the tariff calculated on the average value of awards in Northern Ireland. This will provide a more transparent and straightforward system, and will allow claims to be settled more quickly. I have decided to accept this recommendation and extend it to apply to all claims and not just to those arising from less serious injuries, as recommended by the review. This will provide for consistency in the value of awards. The review also recommended that a tariff approach would largely make legal assistance in the making of claims unnecessary, and I have accepted this conclusion. Legal costs will therefore no longer be met by the scheme. Instead, Victim Support (NI) will be funded to provide assistance along the same lines as they currently do in GB. I have also decided that the right of appeal to the court should, in the future, no longer be necessary as part of a tariff-based scheme. The review recommended retention of court involvement for reasons which were persuasive at the time, but which should prove less so as progress is made across a range of issues on the wider political front. I therefore propose to replace it with an independent appeals tribunal, along the lines of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Appeals Panel. This will allow appeals to be processed more quickly, with less formality, and with less potential for retraumatising victims.

I have also agreed changes as recommended by the review in eligibility for awards, and in exclusion from or reduction in awards. More flexible arrangements will apply under the new scheme to those claiming as a result of psychiatric illness, there will be more generous bereavement support payments to a wider group of relatives, and the current statutory time limits for lodging a claim will be replaced by a flexible approach which will allow claims to be made, in certain circumstances, long after the incident. Future cases will also be capable of being reopened for a limited period on strict medical grounds. It is also proposed to introduce a penalty points system to regulate the effect of previous criminal convictions on awards. The same provisions will also apply to convictions for terrorist offences.

Finally, to address the concerns raised by Sir Kenneth in his report over inadequate financial assistance to past victims of the Troubles, I am also promising a further commitment of funds from next April to take forward the implementation of his report into victims of the Troubles "We Will Remember Them". In total this will represent a substantial package aimed at alleviating the financial hardships and other suffering inflicted on many by violence during the Troubles. Details of how this money will be dispersed will be announced in due course.

In conclusion, I have accepted some two thirds of the 64 recommendations made by Sir Kenneth and his team. I believe these decisions, which were arrived at only after lengthy consideration, represent the best way to ensure for the future a fair and equitable system of criminal injuries compensation which will recognise the suffering of innocent victims of violent crime.