Vol. 436 No. 3
13 Mr. M. McDowell asked the Minister for Justice if she will establish the Criminal Injury Tribunal on a statutory basis and restore the payment of compensation for pain and suffering to the victims of crime; and if she will make a statement on the matter.
60 Mr. O'Malley asked the Minister for Justice if she will establish the Criminal Injury Tribunal on a statutory basis and restore the payment of compensation for pain and suffering to the victims of crime; and if she will make a statement on the matter.
I propose to take Questions Nos. 13 and 16 together.
I could not undertake to indicate, by way of reply to a parliamentary question, what specific legislative proposals, if any, I have in mind. Any proposals I might have in relation to the subject matter of these questions would be brought before the Government for approval before being announced in the ordinary way.
The scheme of compensation for personal injuries criminally inflicted was introduced in 1974. The effective date of the scheme was 1 October 1972.
The scheme is operated on a non-statutory basis and ex-gratia payments of compensation are made in respect of personal injuries criminally inflicted. Since its inception to the end of 1992, the Criminal Injuries Compensation Tribunal has made awards totalling in excess of £40 million. In the five year period 1988 to 1992, 2,362 awards amounting to approximately £16.8 million have been paid.
The scheme was amended by a previous Government with effect from 1 April 1986 because of the escalating cost of the scheme to the Exchequer. As I stated previously, I would wish to be in a position to increase the provision for payment of compensation to victims of crime. We are concerned about it and Deputies can rest assured that we will do all we can about it in the context of the budget.
As in the case of all public services, funding for criminal injuries compensation has to be allocated on the basis of requirement, competing demands for other services, the limited financial resources available and the budget.
Will the Minister agree that the State's response to the victims of crime is seriously deficient? There is no compensation for pain and suffering and the present scheme only allows for out-of-pocket and medical expenses for which there is a two year wait once the award is made. The only significant social response to victims of crime, of which there are many, is a voluntary organisation called the Irish Association for Victim Support. In the absence of a commitment from the Minister to restore compensation for pain and suffering and place the Criminal Injuries Tribunal on a statutory basis, will he not at least commit himself to giving the Irish Association for Victim Support significant funding this year? It has requested budgetary support as it needs a significant injection of funds to allow it continue its excellent work. The organisation provides the only social response available to victims of crime.
I indicated already that, because of the escalating cost, the question of pain and suffering was taken out of the criminal injuries compensation provisions by a previous Government as and from 1 April 1986.
Who was in that Government?
It would cost approximately an extra £8 million to £10 million per annum to restore compensation for pain and suffering to our criminal justice system. Deputy O'Donnell must be aware, too, that to do so would require the introduction of legislation, and I am not in a position to make any such commitment at Question Time; it is a matter for the Government.
I understand that when a person applies for an award it takes a year for a decision to be made following which there is a waiting period of 20 months for payment. We can obtain only a certain amount of money from the Estimates each year for the scheme. The Minister will seek funding for the tribunal in this year's Estimates and if we can secure an improvement in our allocation the waiting period will not be as long.
The Minister has given a commitment to increase funding for the victims support group this year and because of budgetary constraints securing those funds involved a great deal of bargaining with the Department of Finance. Great credit is due to the Minister for securing the increased funding because we all know the difficulties that involves in the current budgetary position.
Will the Minister consider setting up a special fund under the National Management Treasury Agency in which the Government could invest a sum of money each year from which the Criminal Injuries Tribunal could draw down money rather than depends totally on yearly Estimate provision. Will the Minister agree that it would be worthwhile to build up such a fund which could be used solely by the Criminal Injuries Tribunal?
That is an interesting suggestion and I will bear it in mind. The type of fund to which the Deputy referred could be used in many ways, it might not necessarily be used to fund the expenditure to which we are referring. However, I would prefer to obtain the funding from the Estimates over the next few years.
Will the Minister agree that victims who appear before the courts are in a similar position to that of witnesses, they are literally summoned to appear in court? Will the Minister agree also that independent advice and representation should be offered to victims involved in court proceedings?
There is nothing to prevent victims from consulting their lawyers for advice. Obviously, Deputy Mitchell is referring to some type of mechanism provided by the State. I cannot make a commitment in that regard today but I will bear the suggestion in mind.
In relation to compensation for pain and suffering, the UK proposes to abolish such compensation and replace it with a scheme which I understand will be more restrictive than our scheme.
I accept there is a problem in respect of funding in this area. Nevertheless, will the Minister agree that only a tiny fraction of unpaid parking fines are processed and that this involves a great deal of money? The collection of fines needs to be carried out in a much more state of the art and scientific manner. For example, it is ridiculous to have gardaí issuing summonses in the flatlands of our cities. We need to introduce a system whereby that money can be collected to provide funds for the provision of compensation for the victims of crime.
That matter is being considered in the context of legislation which will be introduced in the next session.
As the Minister is an accountant as well as a lawyer, will he consider carrying out a value-for-money audit of the criminal justice system as approximately £500 million per annum is spent on the system? Is the Comptroller and Auditor General satisfied that efficiency, effectiveness and economy applies in the system? Savings from such an audit could be applied to areas such as the victims support group and other needy areas in the criminal justice system.
The question of victims support is only one areas in the Department to which we need to allocate extra funding. In regard to an independent audit, we are getting good value for the money we spend on the criminal justice system, but I wish we had much more money to spend. It is a question of a shortage of money rather than value for money, but there is no area of public expenditure in which we could not get more value for money. I will bear in mind the Deputy's suggestion, but it is a question of more money rather than more value for the money we have already.
