That this House has considered compensation for criminal injuries.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship for the first time, Dr Murrison. At the outset, I thank the members of the Backbench Business Committee for agreeing to allocate this debate and all hon. Members, across parties, who supported the application. I also thank those constituents and members of the public who have been in touch in advance of the debate. Criminal injuries are, by their nature, not easy matters to discuss, so I am grateful to all the people who took the time to recount their experiences.
I am also grateful to all the Members present today, in particular my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington North (Charlotte Nichols), who has already done much in this and the previous Parliament to highlight some of the problems that we will talk about in this debate. It is also good to see the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) in his place. I should make it clear that, I will be talking about the criminal injuries compensation scheme as it operates in Great Britain, but I am aware that different arrangements apply in Northern Ireland, and I am glad that that perspective will be represented today.
It is also important at this early stage to pay tribute to the staff of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority. Nothing in the opening of this debate is intended as a criticism of them. They work within parameters that are broadly set by us in Parliament, and with staffing numbers that have fallen by 19% since the current iteration of the scheme was introduced in 2012. The civil service people survey reveals that they take pride and find purpose in their jobs, and I am grateful to them.
The question of how the victims of serious physical and mental criminal injury may be fairly compensated has occupied this House for many decades. We are, to the month, at the 60th anniversary of the introduction for the first full year of the original, non-statutory scheme, which was introduced in recognition of the fact that there will always be cases in which the perpetrators of serious violence cannot be identified or awards cannot be recovered from their assets or incomes.
In preparation for this debate, I was delighted to learn of a local connection: the guiding and determined force behind the original scheme was the Birmingham magistrate and first secretary of the Howard League for Penal Reform, Margery Fry, who up to her death was a tireless campaigner for better support for the victims of crime and for the principle that perpetrators must, wherever possible, pay the cost of restitution. Those are principles that I am sure Members on both sides of the House will endorse today.
However, there is another, unhappy point of emerging agreement on the criminal injuries compensation scheme: it does not adequately serve the people it is meant to aid. As the Victims’ Commissioner put it in 2019, victims of violent crime reported
“delays, uncertainty about next steps and poor communication. To many, fairly or unfairly, the Scheme seemed calculated to frustrate and alienate.”
I thank the hon. Gentleman for tabling an incredibly important debate. I came upon this issue recently in dealing with the case of a 10-year-old boy in my constituency who was shot in a quiet residential street. It has taken five years to get him compensated for the injuries that he suffered, which will be lifelong. Does the hon. Gentleman share my concern about the sheer length of time that it takes to get victims compensated, the bureaucratic and sometimes impersonal approach, and the inadequacy of the sums being received by people, particularly children, who have received lifelong injury?
The hon. Member raises what sounds like a truly shocking case. All my sympathies are with that child and his family. I agree wholeheartedly with the point she makes about timelines and the nature of communication through the scheme, which I—and, I am sure, other Members—will come on to in the course of this debate.
At the time, the Victims’ Commissioner further recommended that the Ministry of Justice
“examine the Scheme with a view to making it simpler and accessible to victims wishing to apply on their own behalf, reducing the reliance on legal representatives.”
Also in the last Parliament, the all-party parliamentary group for adult survivors of child sexual abuse reported that “almost all survivors” who contributed to its inquiry
“had a negative experience of applying to CICA for compensation.”
I recognise that some progress has been made in the last six years, which must be welcomed. The last Government retrospectively removed the “under the same roof” rule for crimes committed between 1964 and 1979. It had long been recognised that the rule prevented the awarding of fair compensation to victims of historical domestic abuse and childhood sexual abuse during that period. Progress has also been made more recently on reducing the paper-bound nature of the scheme.
However, we cannot reassure ourselves that the scheme is in good health. As has been said, victims of violent crime can face long delays before they access compensation. For residents in Birmingham, the average time between application and award is still more than a year. That average can be dragged upwards by the most complex cases, but even apparently simple cases can take many months to resolve. Applicants to the scheme are not effectively signposted to wider support or assisted to navigate the processes for accessing services, such as the diagnosis of post-traumatic stress disorder through the NHS.
The reasoning that underpins the tariff system is hard to understand, and the apparently arbitrary limits to the scheme can produce outcomes that are, to the layperson’s eye, perverse. The two-year normal claim limit is out of line with the three-year limit for civil claims for injury.
Does my hon. Friend agree that it is totally inconsistent to have a time limit of three years for ordinary personal injury claims, but a time limit of only two years for Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority claims? There is a reason why there are time limits—memories fade and evidence becomes less reliable—but does he agree that there should be consistency here?
My hon. Friend is very learned and experienced in these matters, and I wholeheartedly agree. The discrepancy is hard to explain, especially as the pre-1996 non-statutory scheme explicitly aligned the criminal injuries time limit with that for civil claims.
There is some evidence that victims who have legal representation often receive greater compensation than they would have done had they acted alone. That is not a desirable outcome, especially when people with more limited means are more likely to become the victims of crime. The scheme’s tariff has not been updated since 2012, and its upper and lower bounds had been frozen for many years before that, despite inflation. Indeed, the lowest tariff of £1,000 has remained frozen since 1992—a real-terms erosion of 54%.
The process can feel cold and impersonal. As one member of the public with recent experience of the scheme who wrote to me in advance of this debate put it, the lack of “timelines or guidelines” means that
“victims are continually left in limbo and retraumatised by a process that is meant to help.”
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for securing this debate and for the way he is setting out the problems with the scheme, which is something of a Cinderella service. As he said, the tariffs have not changed, and the upper limit has not changed for almost 30 years. What gives away the situation even more is the fact that, although the average sum awarded in the last year is about £8,000, the amount increased sixfold on appeal. That, and the fact that only 3% of injured victims of crime actually receive compensation, suggests that there are things wrong with the scheme.
My hon. Friend, the Chair of the Justice Committee, makes an important point. We must also consider the number of victims of crime who are so exhausted by the process that they choose not to appeal, even though they may have grounds to do so. His scrutiny in this area is very welcome.
Changes made to the scheme have an unhappy history in this House. Some Members may recall the very contentious changes made to it in 2012, with the express intent of reducing expenditure by between £40 million and £60 million a year. At the time, in the face of sustained scrutiny, including from Members on the then Government Benches, the Minister of the day, the hon. Member for Maidstone and Malling (Helen Grant), announced:
“a hardship fund of £500,000 per year which will provide relief from hardship for very low-paid workers in England and Wales who are temporarily unable to work as a result of being a victim of a crime of violence.” —[Official Report, 27 November 2012; Vol. , c. 14WS.]
That concession secured support for the relevant secondary legislation. The fund is still in existence, but its criteria are too tightly drawn. An applicant must be paid no more than £5,700 a year, the equivalent of statutory sick pay, and they must apply to seek it not within two years of an injury, but within two months of an injury, in order to qualify.
Far from the fund supporting low-paid victims of crime by £500,000 a year, the Ministry of Justice told me recently that only £4,100 has ever been paid out of it, and no payments at all were made in the seven years to 2023-24. I suspect that the very few workers who were eligible to apply were unaware that it exists. The hardship fund is a dead letter; it would be better to scrap it than to claim that special support is available to low-paid workers when, in practice, it is not.
My hon. Friend refers to low-paid workers; we know that retail staff are among the victims who experience a really shocking amount of violent crime within the workplace. Will he join me in paying tribute to the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers for the work it is doing to ensure that its members who are victims of violent crime in the workplace can access the CICA scheme?
I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention, and I agree with her. USDAW’s Freedom From Fear campaign, which has been running for many years and covers a number of important issues, including the importance of fair access to compensation, is to be welcomed, and USDAW should be congratulated on the changes that it has already secured in this House.
Another high-profile change was the tightening of the criteria, so that the scheme only applied to injuries caused by deliberate violence inflicted by a person. That change excluded most dangerous dog attacks, and in practice compensation for such attacks can only be secured if it can be shown that a dog was directed to attack by its owner. It seems to me a serious flaw that a child or postal worker might be mauled by a dog and left with life-changing injuries, and the keeping of that dog may itself be an offence under the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991, but there would be no route for the victim to claim compensation, especially if the owner of the dog cannot be identified.
The Communication Workers Union continues to campaign on this issue; ahead of this debate, it drew attention to figures showing that each year 200 Royal Mail workers lose a finger or part of a finger after a dog attack. I encourage Ministers to look again at this issue, especially in light of the growing number of animals belonging to new, and now-banned, breeds such as the XL bully since 2012.
As has already been said, compensation for criminal injuries is an important issue for workers in public-facing roles more generally, and I am grateful to USDAW, GMB and Unison, as well as the CWU, for their work to draw attention to the risk of violent assault to their members. And for the avoidance of doubt, I draw attention to the support provided to my constituency party by GMB and Unison.
The changes to the scheme that I have referred to were made under the previous Government, but I wish to press the Minister on two further and more recent points. First, shortly before Easter the Ministry of Justice published its response to the consultations undertaken between 2020 and 2023. In that response, the MOJ said that there would be no immediate changes to the scheme, in part because of resource constraints.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Murrison. I thank the hon. Member for Birmingham Northfield (Laurence Turner) for setting the scene. Nothing tells a story better than when it is a personal one, as his was, and he did it very well. It is never easy for someone to tell their own story, but well done to him.
This is an important debate. As the hon. Member said at the beginning, the system in Northern Ireland is very different from that in England, Scotland and Wales, but the principle of what the scheme is trying to achieve is the same. I thank him for bringing this issue to Westminster Hall for debate. It is also a pleasure to see the Minister in her place, and I very much look forward to her reply to all the questions we will be asking her.
There is no excuse in today’s society for crime, especially violent crime, which can devastate lives both physically and mentally. We cannot always see the impact of crimes on somebody when we look at them, because some people hold their emotions in check internally. We often feel that we hear horrific stories every day of people who have fallen victim to violent crime. As the hon. Member stated, many will be aware that the legislation for Northern Ireland is slightly different from that for the rest of the United Kingdom. It would be great to add a Northern Ireland perspective to this debate, and I wish to do so.
The scheme provides compensation to victims and, in addition, to the families of loved ones who have since passed away due to the impact of violent crime. The hon. Member talked about the scheme that applies in England, Scotland and Wales; in Northern Ireland we have slightly different credentials for the scheme. According to the latest figures available, roughly 12,000 to 15,000 applications for criminal injuries compensation are received annually in Northern Ireland, so the number of people who go through the process every year is quite large. Historically, around 60% of those claims have been successful, while 40% were declined due to not meeting the eligibility criteria.
On the issue of entitlement, does my hon. Friend agree that it is important that those who feel badly affected by some abuse or attack know and understand the system, but at the same time the system has to bear down on the very small number of people who abuse the system, in deference to those who are quite entitled to and should seek compensation because of the attacks they have suffered?
My hon. Friend is right to highlight the point that some people abuse the system. I have to say that I have not come across any, to be fair, so I cannot make a statement about that, but it is in the very nature of any system that there are always those who try to take advantage of it.
There have been ongoing concerns about and issues with the compensation scheme as it is. Many state that there is a complete lack of awareness about the scheme in general, and people are unaware that something like it even exists. I suppose my main question to the Minister is: what will be done to highlight the system to those who qualify, and to encourage those who should apply to do just that? This has to be addressed through raising awareness—“Know your rights” is how I would put it. People who have gone through harm are deserving of something. For those who have lost a loved one as a result of violent crime, no amount of money will take that pain away, but they are deserving, based on the trauma they have experienced.
Many victims may just wish for it all to go away, and I suspect that some may not want to pursue a claim even if they qualify. One of the big issues is that the process is undoubtedly traumatic for many. Having to relive their experience during an application can be retraumatising, as they have to live through the horror—the memories, the trauma and the pain—twice.
I want to talk about sexual or domestic violence crimes, and those reliving the passing of a loved one. In 2023, it was ruled that victims of non-touching sexual abuse are eligible for compensation under the CICS. Many people—especially young people—have fallen victim to that crime and have gone on to feel its effects for years and years. It is inconceivable how those young people deal with what happened to them. I look to the Minister for clarity. She has always been positive in her answers to those who have raised these matters, and I know she is very much on top of this subject, so I look forward to her response. The CICS applies in such cases in England, Scotland and Wales, so will the Minister kindly see whether, through the Department of Justice, our legislation in Northern Ireland can be strengthened along the same lines?
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Murrison.
My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Northfield (Laurence Turner)—I am proud to say that he truly is a friend—laid out perfectly the historical context in which the criminal injuries compensation scheme was devised and the economic, moral and financial case for change, given that it has failed to meet its objectives. I am one of the co-sponsors of this debate, and I want to support my hon. Friend’s core argument and lay out an aspect of the scheme that cannot be understood by those for whom it is an abstract point of law or procedure.
Rape and sexual assault have a conviction rate of a pathetic 1.5% or so, so vanishingly few victims ever get justice through the courts. Of course we need to use every lever of Government to bring down the number of offences and drive up the number of perpetrators convicted, but to focus entirely on the criminal justice element is to miss the point when it comes to supporting victims. CICA provides a twofold civil remedy. First, it provides a level of financial restitution for the experience. Secondly, and most importantly, it is state recognition of the person’s experience as a blameless victim of violent crime. That vindication is an important part of the process of closure for people who have been victims of the most hideous crimes, including where a perpetrator has not been apprehended or where a conviction cannot be secured.
A constituent who was a victim of rape told me:
“I’ll probably never know why the jury decided not to convict in my case. The compensation awarded wouldn’t actually cover the cost of a copy of the trial transcript. The process of closure for me began with that letter from CICA, that seeking justice hadn’t been in vain despite the enormous personal cost.
Beyond the nightmares I still have replaying that night, replaying the trial, the court room, replaying every indignity meted out upon me over a truly miserable three year period; it is there. In black and white. On the record. This happened to you. He is a rapist. We believe you. That’s what that piece of paper meant.”
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Murrison. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Northfield (Laurence Turner) on securing this debate, and on his powerful and personal speech. It is an honour to follow the speech from my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington North (Charlotte Nichols), who was eloquent and forceful.
The criminal injuries compensation scheme is an important fund of last resort for many victims of crime who cannot seek compensation through litigation. In the 17 years that I was a barrister, before I was elected last year, I represented many victims of crime at its tribunal. I saw the difference that it could make, but also the limitations and restrictions imposed on the scheme in 2012, which seemed more about saving money than ensuring that victims got compensation for the harm that they had suffered.
I rise to raise a specific concern related to a feature of the scheme that I think is indefensible, and one that the courts have sought to temper. Ultimately, the scheme itself should be changed so that it has a legally sound and consistent basis, and so that it makes sense. It may come as a surprise to many listening that the criminal injuries compensation scheme applies a different legal test from that applied in our criminal courts when it comes to consent.
Unlike our criminal law, the criminal injuries compensation scheme does not recognise that some people cannot legally consent. According to annex B, paragraph 2(d), only those who does not “in fact” consent can receive compensation. That means that if a victim says yes to sexual activity, even when under the age of 16, they are taken to have consented. A child abused or exploited over many years, who knows no better than to agree when an abuser proposes sexual contact, will not be taken to be a victim of a crime of violence because they consented.
If the House wants to be horrified by a legal principle that is still good law, it should read the decision of the Court of Appeal in a case called August from 2000. In that case, a 13-year-old boy, described by the then Lord Chief Justice in the criminal proceedings as “already corrupt”, was paid for sex by a 53-year-old man, but was held not to have been a victim of a crime of violence because he had allegedly consented.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Murrison. I thank and congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Northfield (Laurence Turner) on securing this important debate and on his moving and eloquent speech. The fact that he only received £1,000 compensation for the very significant injuries he sustained is an indicator of the inadequacy of the scheme.
Throughout my career as a personal injury solicitor before I became an MP, and now as an MP, I have tried to be a steadfast advocate for access to justice so that victims of injury, including victims of crimes of violence, can receive suitable redress. Compensation for injury does not just represent a recognition of the harm inflicted upon victims but provides the support and financial redress necessary so that victims of injury can start to rebuild their lives.
I would like to follow on from what my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Northfield said about the criminal injuries compensation scheme. It is a national asset. It is there to compensate people who have been physically or mentally injured due to a violent crime, and those whose loved ones have died as a result of a crime of violence. But the scheme clearly needs reform. Too often, the system is falling short, leaving victims unsupported and failed. Too many are blocked from access to justice by an arbitrary time cap, and many are left behind by the long and confusing claims process.
The tariff system for assessing compensation means that victims are simply not properly compensated, and the compensation that they receive is inadequate in comparison with the injuries that they have suffered. They then have the problem of lodging an appeal, which again is very time-consuming and difficult, and yet another barrier to justice.
My hon. Friend is making a very informed speech, as did the hon. Members who spoke before him. Does he agree that, with each year that passes without re-examination of the tariffs, the gap will grow between the award that someone may be able to secure—if a perpetrator is identified and the victim is able to bring a civil case—and the compensation that they may receive through the scheme? Will that not add to the sense of frustration and injustice that many victims feel?
My hon. Friend makes a valid point. I remember dealing with criminal injuries compensation claims when they were assessed in the same way as personal injury claims. When the tariff system was introduced, it was apparent to us that it was simply inadequate.
The Government should commit to review the current two-year time limit, for the reasons I have mentioned. Often, police will recommend that victims wait to apply for compensation until after criminal proceedings have concluded so that trial outcomes are not prejudiced. That effectively means that the victim has no time to make a claim for compensation, because they are out of time by the time the criminal proceedings conclude.
The other problem that I hope the Minister will look at is that victims who have suffered traumatic injuries, or abuse such as child sexual abuse, do not come forward with their experiences until many years later, which means that they are automatically excluded from the scheme.
Another point that has not been raised so far in this debate is the requirement for the incident—the crime of violence—to have been reported to the police as soon as possible. In my experience, those working in hospitals and schools often report the violent incident to their line manager and believe that that is adequate for the matter to be reported. I totally understand the purpose of the scheme, in which the victim must co-operate with the police to secure a prosecution, but the requirement for the victim to report the matter to the police when the matter has already been reported elsewhere is a barrier. When I dealt with these claims, I often found that a claim was turned down because somebody working in a hospital or a school had reported the matter to their line manager, but not reported it to the police as soon as possible.
Although the system has an honourable purpose, it is not doing what it is meant to, because people are missing out on their chance to secure justice and redress for their injuries. In 2023-24, only 8% of injured victims of violent crime in the UK applied for compensation. Compensation for criminal injuries must remain an essential part of our justice system, but the current system is inadequate, slow and inaccessible for too many victims. It is clear that we need reform to ensure that those who suffer from violent crime are given the support and financial redress that they deserve so that they can move on and rebuild their lives.
It is a pleasure to speak under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Northfield (Laurence Turner) for securing this debate.
There is an interesting paradox at the heart of this scheme. The fundamental eligibility requirements are that
“You must apply as soon as it is reasonably practicable“
and that
“this should normally not be later than two years“
after the incident occurred. That is the time limit for adults, which can be extended “due to exceptional circumstances”. If the person was under 18 at the time of the incident, an application must be received by their 20th birthday if the incident was reported to the police before their 18th birthday, or
“within two years of the first report to the police, if the incident was reported to the police on or after“
the person’s 18th birthday.
I was sexually harassed as a teenager—nothing that would have met a criminal standard—and it never occurred to me to apply for these sorts of things. That is not something that enters the head of someone aged 18, 19 or 20, let alone the victims of child rape and sexual abuse. First, we should accept and implement the recommendations of the independent inquiry into child sexual abuse. That is a basic moral requirement. Secondly, we should look at the “exceptional circumstances” rules, which allow someone who did not manage to apply as soon as reasonably practicable, or within two years, to apply if
“due to exceptional circumstances an application could not have been made earlier; and the evidence provided in support of the application means that it can be determined without further extensive inquiries by a claims officer.”
That is a much tighter exception than most legal “exceptional circumstances” exception rules. It basically requires that there be no work to do on the part of the agency that would be required to investigate. I do not understand why whether people get compensation is determined by what inquiries a claims officer would be required to make. I do not think that represents justice.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Birmingham Northfield (Laurence Turner) on securing the debate. I commend him on behalf of my party, and I am sure everybody in this room, for the bravery that he exhibited in sharing his own story of victimhood and engagement with the criminal injuries compensation scheme.
Victims and survivors in Eastbourne and beyond deserve dignity, respect and meaningful support when someone has violated their safety, their rights, their property and the law that is there to protect them. While no amount of compensation can take away the damage that such acts cause to those victims and survivors, compensation can, as has been described already, represent a powerful acknowledgment from the state about what happened to an individual survivor, and the sum awarded—to be spent on whatever it might be—can contribute towards their healing. Often it is spent on trying to access court transcripts, even though they are extremely expensive, or on therapy to overcome some of mental impacts of the crime.
For too long, victims and survivors of crime have been trapped by not only the trauma of their experiences but a criminal injuries compensation system that fails to recognise their suffering in a fair and humane way, often retraumatising them. The criminal injuries compensation scheme has become a maze of bureaucracy, and is unknown to swathes of victims and those who support them. I think we can all agree that it is in urgent need of reform.
First, the scheme must be simplified in order to make sure that it is as accessible as possible to victims and survivors. When people like the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) encourage people to apply if they feel entitled, there should be minimal barriers. Submitting a claim involves a lot of paperwork. According to the Victims’ Commissioner, 40% of victims feel as though they have to secure legal advice to apply for this compensation. That often means giving away a share of their relatively small amount of compensation, which has not been uprated in line with inflation. I would argue that, in cases where there have already been criminal court proceedings, even one additional sheet of paper to fill in is too many.
The hon. Member is making a very informed speech. On his point about the complexity of the application, I recently had cause to see the application form for the pre-statutory scheme, and it was simpler than the form that victims have to fill out today. Does he agree that something has gone quite wrong here down the years, and that we should be looking to make the process as brief as possible, and leave those detailed checks to the Government agencies that have already dealt with the victim and crime?
I could not agree more that the burden of bureaucracy should not be on the victim. Having spent almost two years going through a police process as a victim, and then a very traumatising Crown court trial, the last thing that I wanted to do was rush to fill in application forms for compensation before the imminent two-year deadline from reporting to the police, which the hon. Member for Wolverhampton West (Warinder Juss) described, was about to be hit, so I did not apply.
For exactly the reasons that the hon. Member for Congleton (Sarah Russell) described, it takes more than two years to process a crime. In my case, it took many decades, and I still process those crimes today. The system is not conducive to that healing process. A question that I asked was essentially, “Is this system for real? After dragging me through what is a shocking, adversarial and dehumanising criminal process, you’re going to ask me to jump through more hoops just to prove that what has happened to me has happened to me? You can go and take your paperwork and stick it where the sun don’t shine.” The sun shines in Eastbourne a lot, as many folks in this room know, so it did not have to go far.
In scenarios where a court case has happened, and where the evidence has already been presented once, it must be possible for the criminal injuries compensation scheme to access that evidence with the consent of the victim and make some kind of compensation assessment without dragging the victim through another legal ordeal from square one. I would be interested to understand what exploration the Government have undertaken in this area.
Inefficiency costs time, and, to the point made in an intervention by the hon. Member for Hornchurch and Upminster (Julia Lopez), who is no longer in her place, no victim should have to wait years and years for their claim to be assessed, as is too often the case today. Alexis Jay, in her IICSA report, also suggested that, in cases where proceedings have already gone to court, there could be merit in empowering a judge to order the payment of criminal compensation from offender to victim. I would be interested to know what assessment the Government have made regarding the merit of that suggestion too.
I thank the hon. Member for his speech and particularly for his reference to ISVAs and victim support. In the Warrington area, there is no support available through either the NHS or third sector organisations for people under the age of 18 who have been victims of violence. That is why the CICA scheme is so important: it gives victims the ability to get specialist therapy outside the NHS and the charitable sector. Does he agree that ISVA services need to be far better funded, so that they can offer much more bespoke support to victims throughout the UK, including child victims?
I could not agree more with the hon. Member. As someone who has used an ISVA service myself—I am not sure that I could have gone through the process without it—I think that the value of those services cannot be overestimated. It is of great sadness to me that across our country there are what I would describe as ISVA deserts, where it is very difficult to access those services. This should not come down to a postcode lottery. People should not be victims of these terrible crimes in the first instance, but if they are, then wherever they are in the country, they should be able to access those critical services and support to help them to navigate their trauma, their survival and their recovery beyond.
I welcome the fact that the Government have taken steps to protect funding for organisations tackling violence against women and girls, but we know that there are victims and survivors beyond this cohort who will be left with less support at a time when they need more.
The test of a civilised society is how it treats its most vulnerable members. Right now, we are failing that test. Victims and survivors of crime deserve more than our sympathy; they deserve action. They deserve more than a criminal injuries compensation scheme that retraumatises those it is meant to help; they deserve a scheme that is fair, fast and fighting for them. The Liberal Democrats stand ready to work with the Government as they prepare the update to the victims code and forthcoming legislation, with a view to helping to achieve just that.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison. I congratulate the hon. Member for Birmingham Northfield (Laurence Turner) on securing the debate, and thank him for being willing to share his personal experiences. His doing so has been incredibly valuable. Similarly, I thank the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Josh Babarinde).
The criminal injuries compensation scheme is one of the most important parts of our justice system. It does not simply punish wrongdoing but, crucially, offers some measure of direct justice—some attempt to right a wrong for those whose lives have been changed by violence and abuse, as incomplete as that attempt may often be.
In 2020, the previous Conservative Government published the findings of a comprehensive review of the scheme as part of a wider review of a first ever cross-Government victims strategy. It found that overall the scheme was operating well. The Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority was dealing with more than 30,000 applications a year and had a high satisfaction rating of 95% from applicants who had been in contact in the preceding period. Those levels of satisfaction had been broadly maintained. Today’s debate has already highlighted that, within broad levels of satisfaction, there can often be serious and consistent individual failings, which it is important we do not take for granted.
However, the review also recognised that changes and improvements could be made, and a consultation was launched on a number of areas to make the scheme simpler, more transparent and easier for victims to understand and engage with. Those included the approach to classifying and compensating for disabling mental injuries, overhauling how brain injury is represented and reforming the groupings of other injury types. The review also proposed changes to bereavement awards.
Members may be aware that there was a need to launch a further, targeted consultation on the unspent convictions rule to ensure that it was fully and comprehensively reviewed for possible reform. Under that rule, an applicant’s compensation award could be reduced or withheld depending on the sentence imposed for an unspent offence they had committed. The Supreme Court has previously found that the unspent convictions rule was lawful and that the rationale underlying it was legally sound. The judgment also rejected the notion that vulnerability that leads to later offending should require any special exemption from the rule, on the basis that the criminal justice system should already include measures to allow any vulnerability of victims to be taken into account at the time of their prosecution and sentencing.
Does the hon. Gentleman see that there is some irony in his asking why our current Minister has not responded to a 2020 consultation, when his Government, which was in power for another four years, did not do so?
I think I have clearly laid out the timetable and the sequence of events, particularly in terms of the courts requiring a further consultation, and the sensible decision to respond further to the inquiry consultation. I am interested in actually getting a response; I appreciate that the hon. Member seeks to make a party political point, but that is fine.
It is slightly disappointing not to see a comprehensive response, notwithstanding the hon. Member’s concerns, as I think that the 2020 consultation and the many proposals in it—some of which were implemented on an interim basis—were important. Does that mean that the Government have now entirely rejected some of the other changes I have outlined, or will the letter set out in more detail which changes will or will not be taken forward, and the reasons why? It is important for the Government to do that.
Although the scheme may be working well overall, we should continue to consider where challenges remain operationally. We know that the experience of applicants varies regionally. For example, in Birmingham, which includes the constituency of the hon. Member for Birmingham Northfield, the average time for a compensation decision was over 490 days in 2022. While there has been some improvement, wait times are far too long for some individuals, even if the majority receive their compensation in a timely manner.
We have heard from a number of Members today about individual cases and their personal experiences. It is important that we hold the Government to account in terms of ensuring that as many people as possible, and as great a ratio of applicants to the scheme as possible, receive an adequate service.
The true measure of our commitment to victims is not the volume of our pronouncements, but the effectiveness of the systems we create to maintain them. I want to finish by saying that the criminal injuries compensation scheme has always been about more than money: it is about recognising harm and restoring dignity. The Conservative Government took that responsibility seriously. We listened, we consulted and we left a clear foundation for action. Now it is for the current Government to build on that foundation, and we will hold them to account, simply because victims deserve nothing less.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Murrison. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Northfield (Laurence Turner) for securing this important debate. I thank all hon. Members who have taken part; the strength of feeling is palpable, and I have heard them all.
I was deeply moved by hon. Members’ personal stories about being victims of crime and the impact it had on them. I thank them all for their courage in speaking out about their experiences so eloquently. Doing so is powerful, and it illustrates their views on the criminal injuries compensation scheme and on the experience of applying for compensation. I commend their desire to see improvements to the scheme and its operation. I also echo the thanks from my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Northfield to the brilliant staff who operate the scheme so tirelessly for the work they do every single day to support victims of crime.
I have a long-standing commitment to supporting victims of crime. Since I took on responsibility for this scheme, I have been struck by the bravery of victims of crime who speak out about what they have been through and how it has affected them. Sometimes I am contacted directly by victims, and sometimes I am contacted by Members of this House. Other times, I listen to and learn from high-profile figures, including the Victims’ Commissioner for England and Wales, and the organisations that work so tirelessly to support victims. Whatever the medium for conveying individual stories, I am constantly reminded of the importance and responsibility of my role as the Minister responsible for victims and for violence against women and girls. This debate has added to my awareness and sense of purpose when it comes to doing all I can to support victims.
The criminal injuries compensation scheme has a long history, with the first non-statutory scheme launching in 1964. It has changed over time, including when it became a statutory scheme in 1996. However, its purpose has remained constant: to recognise the harm experienced by victims injured as a result of violent crime. The scheme is a last resort for compensation, where someone cannot obtain compensation from the perpetrator directly or via a civil claim.
If we create a right to be made aware of the scheme and a claimant can demonstrate that they were not made aware of it, could we amend the rules for exceptional cases reviews so that that automatically counts as an exception?
I welcome my hon. Friend’s suggestion, which we can of course consider. We will be consulting on a new victims code in due course. The Victims’ Commissioner meets me regularly to talk about compliance with the victims code and how we hold agencies accountable for their failure to uphold it, so that can be considered.
As well as compensation, the Ministry of Justice provides funding for vital victim and witness support services, including community-based services, in addition to the funding that we give police and crime commissioners to allocate on the basis of their assessment of local need. Across Government the financial situation is difficult, and we await the outcome of the spending review, but the Government will be considering how we can best provide the support that the victims of crime need and deserve.
As a proud Welsh MP, I reassure the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) that I am due to meet my counterparts in the devolved nations very soon to discuss how we can best support victims of crime wherever they reside in these isles.
I reassure hon. Members that they have all been heard today, in the same way that I have heard the respondents to the consultation. Their message to me is that we need change, with less consultation and less talk, because we need action. Listening to their experiences, views and suggestions will help me to consider how we can best improve the system, make it effective and workable, and provide victims with the justice that they long for and deserve.
I am very grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Northfield for his contribution to this important debate and for all his work in supporting victims of crime.
I will not detain Members long, but I wish to thank everyone who has spoken in this debate for their informed speeches and for their tone. It is right that we scrutinise and criticise the records of Governments past and present—that is one of our critical functions—but all hon. Members have approached the subject with the seriousness and sensitivity that it deserves. We all share the common aim of having a scheme that delivers more for the victims of crime.
From the Back Benches, we heard from the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon). Although he described some of the differences in Northern Ireland, I was struck by the similarities with the frustrations experienced by victims in England, Wales and Scotland. My hon. Friend the Member for Warrington North (Charlotte Nichols) made a speech combining powerful empathy with an acute reading of the technical challenges that still exist in the scheme.
I thank my hon. Friends the Members for Derby North (Catherine Atkinson), for Wolverhampton West (Warinder Juss) and for Congleton (Sarah Russell), who enriched the debate with their professional experience and expertise. In particular, I was struck by the extremely important issue that my hon. Friend the Member for Derby North highlighted, which needs remedying. It should be a matter of concern to us all that apparent dead letters in the law can be reanimated with a sometimes surprising lack of scrutiny.
From the Front Benches, we heard from the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Josh Babarinde), who spoke for himself as well as for his party. He has described his own experiences before in this place and has used those experiences to bring forward his own legislation on related matters. I thank him for his speech.
We heard an account from the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Dr Mullan), and it was very important that we heard such an account from the Opposition in this debate. He highlighted an issue that perhaps needs further scrutiny, which is the satisfaction rates that have been claimed. I have to say from my own experience of the scheme that I do not recall ever being asked to give a satisfaction rating. I wonder whether there are issues with how people are asked and what the response rate is; I must say that the 95% figure he cited is surprising to me.
I thank my hon. Friend for his summing up. I want to pick up on that point. When the White Paper on changes to the scheme came out in 1993, more than two Governments back, the then Government said that the changes they wanted to make to the scheme were driven by a desire to “provide a better service” to claimants, although they admitted that the main aim was to cut costs. It is clear from today’s debate that it is important to ensure that change is driven by providing a better service, rather than by cost-saving measures. Does my hon. Friend agree that that needs to be the core focus, above any other consideration from the Treasury?
I am delighted to hear a reference to a White Paper from 1993. I am a great believer in the theory that obscurity is a source of strength, and my hon. Friend has provided some evidence for that.
The Treasury takes a legitimate and necessary interest in annually managed expenditure. On the other hand, there is a real risk that changes made at relatively short notice, with curtailed time for scrutiny in this place, could deliver a worse service. That must be avoided at all costs, as we have seen from some negative experiences with past changes to the scheme.
Building on the Minister’s welcome commitment to continue to work with Members of this House and victims across the course of this Parliament, I hope that we can secure the positive changes that she wants to achieve. I thank all hon. Members who supported the application for the debate, including some who are unavoidably absent, such as my hon. Friend the Member for Worsley and Eccles (Michael Wheeler) and the hon. Member for South West Devon (Rebecca Smith), who gave notice that unfortunately they have been detained by other matters. This is the first debate on the important subject of criminal injuries in this Parliament, but I am sure that it will not be the last. I thank you for your chairship, Dr Murrison, and I thank everyone for their contributions.
Thank you. Contributions are always more powerful when they are rooted in personal experience, as we have heard today.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered compensation for criminal injuries.
Sitting suspended.
The decision not to accept recommendation 18 of the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse has understandably caused disappointment and reignited wider criticism of the scheme. The Government cited two factors: protection of universality, which means treating all applicants in the same way, and cost. If the scheme is not to be amended to provide different criteria for victims of childhood sexual abuse, what other steps will the Ministry now take, such as the provision of enhanced guidelines on the circumstances under which an out-of-time application would be accepted, taking into account our modern understanding of the lifelong effects of this horrendous crime?
On resourcing, will the Minister accept that although the nature of the scheme means that expenditure varies year on year, the cost of compensation has actually fallen on average—that is the trend—after inflation is taken into account. Although the number of applications has risen, that appears to have been driven by an increased number of ineligible claimants. The scheme overall costs less than it did before 2012—less in cash terms, I believe, than under the pre-statutory scheme—and, as mentioned, CICA’s headcount has fallen.
Reforms are needed, but I am concerned that we seem to be talking again about protecting the sustainability of the scheme. I know the Minister has a strong personal commitment to this issue and to enhancing support for victims of crime more generally. I hope she will be able to reassure us that any future reforms of CICA will seek to improve victim support, including in its compensation elements.
Our constituents expect us to bring our knowledge, our judgment and the benefit of our experiences to this place. Like some other Members of this House, my interest in this matter arises partly through my direct experience of the scheme. By their nature, such matters are difficult to talk about; if I stumble, I ask for Members’ patience.
Some six years ago I was on the wrong end of an attempted robbery. I was left concussed, my arm was dislocated and one of the joints in my right hand was shattered. I was physically unable to leave the house for a month, and I had a frozen shoulder for a year. There are long-term physical effects: I have premature arthritis and permanent loss of movement on my right-hand side. By any common-sense judgment they are serious and blameless injuries, arising from violence, but with one minor exception: annex E of the scheme does not recognise them as such.
There was—and is—also a psychological effect. An event of that kind changes a person. I am changed in ways that I still find difficult to talk about. I have learned that recovery is not some happy state that is one day achieved: it is a process that follows its own timetable at an uneven pace, towards a destination that can never be fully reached. In my case, the perpetrators were never identified. I incurred substantial costs because the assault happened almost on my doorstep. Although I would be unlikely to recognise the perpetrators, they would have recognised me.
At the conclusion of the investigation, the police referred me to the criminal injuries compensation scheme. My experience of the scheme is typical of the delays and impersonal contact that have already been described, and does not require repeating. What I will say is that when a person is compelled to relive their experiences, within a system that they feel they have to fight against, the original injustice is continually visited anew.
At the conclusion of the process I received the lowest tariff award of £1,000. That was given because there was some post-surgical scarring—the only injury that qualified under the scheme. In truth, that aspect was the least consequential effect of the assault. The criteria felt—and still feel—arbitrary. I received an apologetic letter from one of the administrators of the scheme, and I remain grateful for that human touch. The award did not, as it does not for many, cover the costs of travel and accommodation for surgery or physiotherapy—but, three years on from the assault, I was just glad to have some official recognition and did not pursue an appeal.
I do not say any of this to attract attention or sympathy, or to suggest that my experience was in any way exceptional. The point is that it was not. Like many victims of crime, my hope now is that some good might come from adverse experience. In that respect, I agree with the Minister when she wrote:
“The clear message to me is that we need change, and I will be considering how Government can best provide the support that victims need and deserve.”
I hope we will hear more about those plans today.
I am encouraged by the Prime Minister’s clear and personal statement of support for victims of crime in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington North last week. I am glad to have the opportunity next Tuesday to introduce to the House a ten-minute rule Bill that aims to secure the wholesale review of CICA and the scheme that the Victims’ Commissioner called for in 2019. The victims of violent crime deserve better, and I hope the Bill will secure cross-party support.
It is important to note that victims are often unaware of the grounds on which they can apply. With this speech I wish to raise awareness and ensure that those who do not know their rights or what they can do are able to apply as a result. One of the big issues is that the perpetrator does not actually have to be charged with anything for someone to be able to claim compensation. That is important to note. If someone feels threatened or has been abused visually, even if not physically, a compensation system is in place. Applications can still be made two years after the incident occurred, provided it was not reasonable for an application to be made at the time. It is important to record these elements of the system.
It is a sad reality that so many people are victims of crime that leaves a devastating impact, physically and mentally. The effects are the same for people of all ages. No amount of money can bring back a loved one or remove the mental torment of the past, but something can be done to ease the burden on so many. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s commitment to doing just that—it was never in doubt, by the way, but I look forward to her confirming that—not just here in England but across this great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
Every victim deserves vindication, but among the largest barriers is the time limit. The Victims’ Commissioner —the indomitable Baroness Newlove, who is incidentally a constituent of mine—recommended to the Government back in 2019 that it be amended in her landmark report “Compensation without re-traumatisation”. We are still waiting.
The time limit pressures victims into choosing between pursuing justice in the courts and a civil remedy—lest the defence infers a financial motive for coming forward—leaving them with a high statistical likelihood of ending up with neither. However, if the expectation is that victims should pursue both at the same time, or even in close succession, that is wildly unrealistic given just how much the criminal justice system retraumatises a person and puts far too much onus on the victim all at once. That is not a reasonable expectation for us in this place to have of the dozens of constituents I have signposted and supported through this process. It is a huge thing to do, and we can never fully appreciate just how much it grinds a person down unless they have been through it.
The fact that many of those who apply will be turned away because of arbitrary time limits, or that many will be dissuaded from applying at all for the support that they are entitled to in the expectation that that will happen, leaves victims without the ability to get closure. It leaves them frozen. In Warrington, 349 victims have already made a successful CICA claim in the past five years; from the crime statistics for our area alone, I know that there is massive under-claiming. Then there are all the cases that will not show up in those statistics, including those dealt with in the family courts. Currently, no agency is responsible under the victims code for informing victims about the scheme; the expectation is that that falls to the police or local support services.
I know that the Treasury has anxiety about this, but if we get anywhere near our target of halving violence against women and girls, the scheme will pay for itself. Until such time, victims cannot continue to pay the price. While there is no amount that would ever make being a victim of violent crime worth it, surely the least that they deserve is the amount that was intended back in 2012—not a fraction of that, as its value is eroded further each year by inflation.
For all the things that successive Governments have seen fit to spend money on, it breaks my heart that none have thought this scheme worth consideration. While we work to improve victim support services generally, there will always be a role for CICA. Unfortunately, CICA is compensation for state failure to keep people safe and, too often, to deliver justice. That compensation should be significantly uplifted at the comprehensive spending review to ensure that its value is a fairer reflection of the debt that society owes to those victims that it has let down. Awards must be index-linked to inflation, so we do not end up having the same debate in 15 years’ time.
The time limit should be amended in line with the recommendations of the Victims’ Commissioner, and we should ensure that the framework aligns with the rest of our system, including with our increased understanding of the harms of non-contact sexual offences. I hope that all hon. Members will support the ten-minute rule Bill tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Northfield next week, so that we can start this vital reform. I look forward to the Minister’s response today.
It is true that in the years since the case of August, the courts and tribunals have sought to narrow the principle a bit. A few years after, the Court of Appeal found—some may consider unsurprisingly—that submission is not “real consent” and, in another case, it directed a focus on the applicant’s “relative vulnerability”, “subservience” and “lesser responsibility” as relevant factors, though many may be surprised that any responsibility in those circumstances was found. Far more recently, the Court ruled in the case of RN vs. CICA that sexual abuse causing non-physical injury is included within the scheme. However, the very fact that these sorts of workarounds have had to be introduced shows the indefensibility of the underlying principle. We cannot, and should not have to, rely on tribunals to apply legal rules creatively to seek to achieve just outcomes.
I understand that the Conservative Government left us with the public finances in tatters and public services on their knees, and I understand the concern about expanding the number of victims who might be eligible for compensation, but I hope that the Government will consider this clearly inconsistent approach between our criminal law and the law when it comes to compensating victims, and fix it.
Significant numbers of claims are being refused; in 2023-24, nearly 2,000 were refused because they were not submitted within the time limit, and another 765 were refused because of a failure to report as soon as reasonably practicable. What we do not have statistics on, as far as I am aware, is the number of people who do not apply in the first place because they know that they would not meet the eligibility criteria. I suspect that it is substantial. It seems to me that whether someone hears about the scheme in the first place, or can meet the requirements, is very much an accident of their life chances and various other factors. That is no way to determine whether people should receive compensation.
At the moment, we are listing Crown court cases for more than two years hence. The police can take more than two years to investigate a crime. About 21% of claims under the criminal injuries compensation scheme take more than two years to conclude; in fact, 2.8% of them take more than five years to conclude. We habitually accept, and have done for some time—although we may not like it—that it can take the state more than two years to deal with a crime, but we do not accept that it can take more than two years for a victim to deal with a crime. That seems, to me, a fundamentally irrational and indefensible position.
In this country, we let people make a breach of contract claim six years after the breach of contract occurred, but we will not let them take more than two years to process their trauma. That is not, in my opinion, the right position for the state to take.
As a survivor of abuse myself, which I have spoken about in this Chamber, in the House and elsewhere, I personally found the prospect of the criminal injuries compensation scheme process too much to engage with.
Secondly, the scheme must be more visible, because so many victims are unaware of it. Fewer than four in 10 victims recall being told by the police about the scheme, according to the Victims’ Commissioner. Significant numbers of victims and survivors are therefore missing out on the compensation that they need to rebuild their lives. I was not told about the scheme by the police; I was first told about it by an incredible child abuse solicitor, Dino Nocivelli, who I was connected with through a friend of a friend. As has been said already, awareness should not rely on who someone knows. The system is failing victims and survivors by leaving them in the dark.
Thirdly, victims and survivors must receive the support they need to navigate the system. I have touched on some of the complexities, as have other hon. Members. In my case, although I did not end up applying, I discussed the scheme with my ISVA—independent sexual violence adviser—from SurvivorsUK, Alan Robertson, to whom I pay tribute. ISVAs play a critical role in giving survivors the practical guidance and confidence to navigate our justice system, of which the criminal injuries compensation scheme is a part.
One of my key concerns, which I have expressed several times before, is that charities report that their capacity to provide support is being diminished by the national insurance contributions hike and the cut to core funding for police and crime commissioners. Those are debates that the Ministry of Justice will need to have had with the Treasury. Some charities that provide such guidance and support to victims have told me, and said publicly, that these measures are tantamount to a 7% real-terms funding cut.
Following that judgment, there was further impetus to consider change, as the Government rightly sought to respond to the final publication of the independent inquiry into child sexual abuse, which made further recommendations regarding the scheme, as a number of Members have touched on. The 2023 consultation focused on time limits and the scope of the scheme. It considered the inclusion of online abuse in the definition of a crime of violence. It also looked at whether children who suffered abuse should have longer to apply for compensation. It also raised the question of whether non-contact offences should be brought within the eligibility criteria.
The variety of consultations and additional areas for reform reflects what has been a rapidly evolving area of political and public concern. That has created a greater and greater focus on groups of victims, as our understanding of the nature and impact of sexual abuse, particularly historical sexual abuse, domestic abuse and online harms has broadened. Across the consultations, hundreds of responses were received and difficult questions were explored in detail. However, before a final response could be published, the 2024 general election was called.
Last month, the current Government sought to move forward to resolve those pieces of work and to progress on the basis of this extensive background. However, they have also decided to make no changes at this time to the scheme’s scope or time limits or to the unspent convictions rule, and it is important for the Minister today to clearly explain why.
I recognise the concerns about singling out particular categories of offending and about the unintended consequences of such changes. However, concerns arise when the guidelines that do exist that attempt to allow for exceptionality do not operate as well as they should. If the Government choose not to make formal changes to the rules, there is an even greater emphasis, as the hon. Member for Birmingham Northfield said, on ensuring that the guidelines that do exist that operationalise the exceptionality clauses function as they should.
On unspent convictions, the Government have laid out their reasons for not making changes—again, that is on the grounds of not wanting to create unintended consequences for victims. However, a proposal for reform was put forward that would have allowed the Government to maintain an overall bar on people seeking compensation despite their offending, by considering whether lower-level offences, such as community offences, could be removed from the disbarring applications, or where there could be a significant gap between the injury suffered and the nature of the indexed offence. That would be universal, rather than singling out particular types of offending. I would be interested to hear why the Government did not take forward that suggestion.
I would also like the Minister to explain further the Government’s failure to provide a comprehensive response to the 2020 consultation, which suggested many reforms. The Government have said, to quote directly from the Minister’s foreword to the Government response:
“I have decided not to publish a substantive response to the 2020 consultation as the victim support landscape has changed substantially since 2020. I am concluding that consultation by writing to the Justice Select Committee notifying it of my decision.”
Through the scheme, we meet domestic and international obligations. The scheme for Great Britain remains one of the most generous in Europe and the world. It pays compensation for physical, sexual and mental injuries and also for things associated with those injuries, such as loss of earnings and special expenses. It also provides compensation to families bereaved by violent crime, to acknowledge their loss and provide support to dependants.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Northfield said, the previous Government announced a review of the scheme in 2018. They held their first consultation in 2020. This was wide ranging, looking at various aspects across the whole scheme. There was a second consultation in 2022 on the scheme’s unspent convictions eligibility rule. The third and final consultation was in 2023 and considered the scheme’s scope and time limits. The second and third consultations of course included consideration of the recommendations of the independent inquiry into child sexual abuse, often referred to as IICSA. The last Government did not respond to any of the three consultations before the election was announced last year.
One of my key priorities when I became Minister was to consider how to conclude the previous Government’s review. I saw how many individuals and organisations had taken the time—and, in many cases, expended a great deal of emotional energy—to respond thoughtfully to the issues considered in the consultations. They deserved to know the outcome following their contributions.
At the forefront of my mind as I considered how to respond to the consultations were the IICSA findings and recommendations. There is no doubt that sexual abuse and exploitation of children are the most heinous crimes. It takes a great deal of strength for victims to come forward, seek justice by reporting the crime to the police, and access support and compensation to aid their recovery.
Earlier this month, I published my response to the 2022 and 2023 consultations, which concerned the IICSA recommendations. As has been mentioned, I also wrote to the Justice Committee about the 2020 consultation, concluding that consultation and informing the Committee of my decision not to publish a substantive response to it.
My conclusion was not to amend the scheme at the present time. I have made no secret of the fact that that was a difficult decision to reach. In the same way that I have listened to and learned from hon. Members today, I learned from the respondents to the consultations. I understand and hear their calls for change, and I am considering how we can best support victims with whatever they need through an improved and effective service. Although my decision was difficult, it was the right one for the scheme and the victims of violent crime it supports.
I fully appreciate the basis for IICSA’s recommendations that the scheme be amended and expanded for victims of child sexual abuse and exploitation. I also acknowledge that many of the consultation respondents called for change in the way that IICSA recommended. However, it is my belief that all victims can feel a need for their suffering to be recognised, no matter the nature of the violent crime that harmed them. That belief aligns with the core principle of the scheme: that it is universal. That ensures that all victims can equally access the scheme. We cannot have one rule for certain victims and one for others, who have experienced other, often deeply damaging, crimes. Payments are based on injury or bereavement arising from violent crimes, regardless of the nature of the crime. That is why I decided not to amend the scheme as IICSA recommended.
Importantly, the scheme continues to be subject to scrutiny. The Victims’ Commissioner for England and Wales recently proposed reform of the scheme’s time limits in her report on court backlogs. I responded to the report on 25 April, and I am considering the report of the Women and Equalities Committee, which recommended that the scheme be expanded to enable victims of non-consensual intimate image abuse to access compensation.
That leads me to explain a bit more about why I decided not to respond substantively to the 2020 consultation, which covered all aspects of the scheme as a whole. I appreciate that my decision means that the many people who responded to the consultation will not see change as a result of their contributions, and that the concerns they expressed will not be answered. The key reason for my decision is that the landscape in which the scheme sits has changed significantly since 2020. The questions were asked in a totally different context. Government provision and support for victims has developed, and at the same time demand for that support in all its forms has grown substantively. To put it simply, the context has moved on.
My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Northfield and others spoke eloquently about their experience several years ago, but I am hopeful that some of those challenges would not arise today. The Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority, which administers the scheme, has worked hard since 2020 to improve its service. For instance, all applications can now be made online, so there is no longer the need for the onerous paperwork that hon. Members described. All its staff have undertaken trauma-informed training, and it now has dedicated caseworkers for the most complex cases. It also runs awareness training sessions for stakeholders who support victims, including the police, ISVAs and independent domestic violence advisers. All those measures help to improve victims’ experience when applying for compensation.
There are of course other challenges, as we have heard today, and I assure hon. Members that we are not resting on our laurels. We are committed to continuously reviewing and responding to feedback from stakeholders. CICA undertakes user research, cross-agency work and outreach activity. That facilitates sharing experiences, learning and collaboration to improve its service. I also always welcome feedback from hon. Members, their constituents and victims about the service.
We are working hard for victims more generally. The Victims and Prisoners Act 2024 aims to improve victims’ experience of the criminal justice system. It makes it clear that victims require services under the victims code, and it strengthens agencies’ accountability for its delivery. My hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Sarah Russell) and others asked how we raise awareness and ensure people know about the right to access compensation. The victims code includes the right to be told about compensation. We are now implementing the reforms in the Act, and we aim to consult on a revised victims code in due course. We await the report of Sir Brian Leveson’s independent review of the criminal courts, where we should be making it easier for victims to seek civil remedies directly from perpetrators.
The victims Minister set out an overview of the contributions to this debate. I was struck by her comment that changes to the scheme will not be made at the present time. It is important that if changes are made to the scheme, they are not driven by a short-term desire for cost-savings; they must be motivated by the improvement of the service for victims.