Being a victim of violent crime can truly turn your life upside down. The trauma involved can cause lasting psychological damage, and then there’s the impact of any physical injuries. Some victims are so physically and mentally scarred that they’re unable to work. Bills rack up, debts grow larger. The normal routine of life is totally destabilised, all because they were a blameless victim of violent crime.
That’s why innocent victims of crime need society’s help. That help might take many forms – friends and family providing moral support, therapy and advice sessions with trained counsellors, or financial support to help victims through the immediate period after the crime was committed.
And the importance of financial support is why previous governments established a scheme to provide modest amounts of compensation to victims. In fact, it was actually a Conservative government that placed the compensation scheme – the Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme – on a statutory footing back in 1996. The scheme is tightly managed – you are only eligible for compensation is you are a blameless victim and if you are a victim of violent crime.
CICS provides compensation for a range of injuries that are sorted into bands – bands from 1 to 25, with 25 being the most severe. Compensation levels depend on the severity of the injury, but in most instances the figures are only around a couple of thousand pounds. Although this is a small amount of money, it can make a real difference to a victim. In 2010, four-fifths of all compensation was for up to £5,000.
This government have a shocking track record on victims. Their sentencing proposals would have seen 50 per cent reductions for those pleading guilty at an early stage, dumped after outrage from victims. Abolishing indeterminate sentences saw public protection against the most serious and violent offenders weakened and the post of victims commissioner has lain vacant for over a year.
The latest chapter in this assault on victims is their plan to slash compensation paid out by CICS by £50million a year. Under their plans, 90 per cent of those receiving compensation would see their compensation either slashed or cut totally. Many serious injuries – such as permanent speech impairment, multiple broken ribs and post traumatic epileptic fits – will no longer receive any compensation. Others – including significant facial scarring, punctured lungs and permanent brain injuries affecting balance – will see compensation slashed. These are not mere cuts and scrapes as the government would have us believe – those receiving serious and long-standing injuries will be affected.
The government has put forward a number of explanations for these cuts, depending on the audience. We hear the scheme is financially unsustainable, but the government’s figures don’t add up. For a scheme that is demand led, it is remarkably stable – at around £200 million a year over the last four years. We hear that the scheme can’t cope under the surging levels of demand, but the annual number of eligible claims has stayed pretty stable at just under 40,000 a year for the past decade. We hear the scheme is poorly policed – but in 2009/10 only 57 per cent of applicants received compensation, demonstrating ineligible ones are weeded out. We hear that the scheme is too generous, but the compensation wasn’t generous in 1996 when the scheme was first established and there’s only been a single 10 per cent uplift since, more than eaten away by inflation. And the overwhelming majority of payments are for a couple of thousand pounds, enough to help tide victims over in the difficult weeks and months after the incident, but nothing more.
In order to get through their proposals, the government had to resort to stuffing a committee of MP’s full of government loyalists and lackeys – three parliamentary private secretaries and the vice-chair of the Tory party! But this was only after the original committee, that had been set up to examine these plans had to be abandoned in farcical circumstances when Helen Grant, the Tory minister, realised the vote would be lost. As an indication of the type of opposition, John Redwood – not your usual defender of public spending – said of the proposals ‘I did not come into parliament to see these things cut’. Needless to say, John Redwood was removed from the committee second time around when the proposals were shoved through. As usual, the Liberal Democrats were accessories to these cuts.
It’s not often I agree with John Redwood, but on this occasion he is dead right. Providing small amounts of compensation to innocent victims of crime is the right thing to do. Slashing it for 90 per cent of cases is the wrong thing to do. That’s why Labour has fought hard, working with victims groups and trade unions to oppose the cuts. Instead of the slap in the face this government keep offering victims of crime time and again, victims deserve much better.
—————————————————————————————
Sadiq Khan MP is shadow secretary of state for justice
—————————————————————————————