TUC response to Green Paper on Reform of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme
Rebuilding Lives - Supporting Victims of Crime
TUC response
The TUC wishes to respond to the paper 'Rebuilding Lives - Supporting Victims of Crime.'
The TUC welcomes the general proposals to provide a wider range of support to victims of crime. It is aware that the most recent British Crime Survey estimated the number of incidents of violence experienced by workers in England and Wales at 655,000 in 2004/05. Crime, and particular violent crime is a major issue for many workers, and any extension of the level of support is to be welcomed.
The Consultation Paper claims 'The GB-wide compensation scheme is the most generous in the world. This is not the case. Many other countries compensate victims of crime more generously, but do so through state benefits rather than a tariff scheme.
The TUC has long claimed that the tariff scheme is in fact too low and too restrictive. Almost half of claimants receive nothing at all and of those who are successful 57% get less than £2,000.
The TUC is particularly concerned about a number of proposals that are contained in the Consultation Paper. These are:
- The proposal to review, with a view to removing, awards for 'less serious' crimes.
- The proposal to remove the right of victims in the workplace to claim from the fund.
- The proposal to remove the right of railway workers (usually drivers) who suffer trauma after seeing people commit suicide by jumping in front of a train or from dealing with the aftermath.
The TUC would however welcome
- The proposal to remove the upper limit of £500,000
- Efforts to speed up the process.
- The suggestion that the criminal record of an applicant no longer be taken into account.
It is of considerable regret that the Government is attempting to fund improvements to the scheme at the expense of those already claiming. This scheme predominantly helps low income claimants, with almost two-thirds of those receiving a payment earning less than £30,000. In addition those on benefit and those coming from black and ethnic minority communities are far more likely to be the victims of 'low level' crime. It is these people who will be most penalised by the proposed changes.
The TUC will limit its response to the specific questions relating to Chapter 2. Nevertheless in respect of the proposals in Chapters 3 and 4 we would warmly welcome the proposals for extending the provision and delivery of practical support.
Question 1
Compensation Orders
Compensation orders are frequently ignored, however they are also often ordered against people with no income or on benefit. Given that state benefits are generally the minimum required to sustain a person, and deduction from benefits will lead to considerable hardship, not only for the individual, but also their family. Compensation orders should not be seen as a substitute for a state compensation scheme. Victims need compensation early and, while we support the principle that the perpetrator should pay, in reality, given that much crime is drug-related, this is not practical in many cases.
Question 2
Maximum award limit
We strongly welcome proposals to increase the maximum award limit. Where a person will require long-term or even lifelong treatment as a result of crime, and there is no insurance coverage available, this should be provided for.
Question 3
Refocusing the scheme
The TUC could not support the suggestion that the scheme needs 'refocused'. This means removing many victims from the scheme because the nature of their injury is less serious. No real explanation is given as to why the lower payments should be removed apart from cost. There is no suggestion that these claimants have not suffered as a result of crime and the paper fails to recognise the severe emotional and psychological effect that low-level crime can have on the victim.
It is impossible to generalise about the effect that crime may have on a victim. The purpose of the scheme is not simply recompense financial loss or compensate for a severe impairment. Other forms of support, while welcome, should be seen as an addition to, rather than a replacement for, financial compensation. Great strides have been made in the development of victim support services, however, victims of low level crime are far less likely to access these, and those from deprived communities are also less likely to use these services.
The idea that the bottom tariffs should be effectively withdrawn would have a significant effect on people injured through work. Around 80% of claims by employees are for under £5,000. Most of these are public servants injured while going about their duty. However to those victims of crime these payments can make a major difference to them, not only financially, but also emotionally. It is, to them, recognition that their injuries are real and worthy of recompense.
Question 4
Payments in fatal cases
The TUC recognises that no financial payment can compensate for the loss of a life. We also agree that the figure must remain tariff based. However the current payment of £11,000 is certainly below the figure that society would expect to see paid out in these cases and we would welcome an increase.
Question 5
Retrospective awards
Generally we would welcome a provision that would give discretion to pay awards retrospectively.
Question 6
Interim awards
Financial help is of most benefit if it is received as soon as possible after the incident it relates too. We believe that there should be more provision for interim awards, in particular in serious cases where they should almost be automatic. However this should not be seen as a substitute for speeding up the process.
Question 7
Applicant's record
The reduction in award for those who have a criminal record is one of the most unfair aspects of the current scheme and we would welcome its removal. A person with a criminal record has already been punished to an extend deemed appropriate by the courts. To reduce their award in the case of an unrelated criminal act by another person is both unfair and perverse. The TUC would welcome the removal of this provision.
Question 8
'Anomalous' categories
Those who are victims of crime through work are not an 'anomalous' category. They are an important part of the scheme. It is not the case that the scheme substitutes for employers insurance.
The TUC has always argued that employers should indeed pay compensation if workers are injured as a result of negligence. This is correct because it is only right that they, not the state should pay and also because of the links with prevention. This is not the case here. It is highly unlikely that there will be any real preventative effect. It is very unusual for acts of violence to be readily foreseeable, and not all will be easily prevented by the employer taking preventative measures. The vast majority of incidents are the result of alcohol, mental illness or incapacity, or opportunistic crime and although security measures and proper staffing measures can reduce these, some violence will still take place. In addition the majority of victims are either front-line public servants such as NHS staff or low paid service workers employed in retail, hospitality or fast-food.
The cost of compensation to victims who got injured at work last year was £12 million. Within the context of the scheme as a whole, this is not a significant amount to the state, but an important amount to those individuals who receive it.
The proposal appears to be to withdraw these workers from the state scheme and replace it with nothing. It may be that the government proposes to transfer responsibility for employers although that is not clear. This was proposed in 2003 and rejected. Were employers to be made to cover these costs instead of the state it would be a false saving. Of the 'course of duty' payments made in 2004/05 which are listed in Annex 3a, over 90% were made to public service employees. In practice this would simply be an exercise in transferring the cost from one part of the public sector to another. In addition employers would be faced with a major bureaucratic burden on administering payments.
In respect of the proposal to remove payments to railway workers who suffer trauma from seeing people commit suicide, the Consultation Paper claims that this is an attempt to remove an anomaly, as similar payments are not paid to other transport workers. This payment was introduced in 1990 after a court case on behalf of this group failed, but the government accepted the validity of the arguments.
The TUC would contend that suicides on the track is a real problem, and not replicated on other transport systems. They arise from a specific criminal act, trespassing on the railway. No comparable offence exists on public roads.
The entire cost of these payments is under £400,000, and given that the Green Paper suggests looking at alternative ways of compensating this group, actual savings would be tiny.
Summary
In summary the TUC commends the Government for its proposals to increase the level of support for victims of crime, but does not believe that this should be done at the expense of those who are victims because of their work, or of those whose injuries are at the lower level. Not only would the real savings be minimal they would mitigate against people who have already suffered considerably through no fault of their own.
Stay Updated
Want to hear about our latest news and blogs?
Sign up now to get it straight to your inbox