I welcome the officials from the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Mr. Noel Synnott and Mr. David Hickey. They will brief the committee on proposals for a Council directive concerning the victims of crime. Members have been circulated with the background briefing documentation on the proposed directive. I ask Mr. Synnott to make a brief presentation.
Council Directive on Victims of Crime: Presentation.
Mr. Noel Synnott
I will keep it as brief as possible. I am sure members of the committee are aware that Ireland has an existing scheme of compensation for personal injuries which are criminally inflicted. It was established in 1974 arising out of the Dublin and Monaghan bombings. For financial reasons it was amended in 1986 to remove payments in respect of pain and suffering from payments. It is a non-statutory scheme and it covers compensation of all expenses related to injuries sustained as a result of a crime of violence, including loss of earnings. However, it does not include compensation for pain and suffering, which is specifically excluded. It also does not include property loss or property damage or money lost as a result of the crime of violence. It covers loss of earnings, future loss and dental work. If a person has been incapacitated, the scheme is generous in terms of looking after the individual for the rest of his or her life.
Following widespread consultation, the EU Commission in October 2002 proposed a directive in relation to compensation for the victims of crime. This directive has, as its basis, Article 308 of the European Communities treaty. It proposes to seek to set minimum standards for compensating victims of crime and provides for the right of EU citizens to compensation if, as visitors to other EU member states, they suffer a crime of violence.
There has been two meetings of the working group to date. At the first meeting, the member states sought a legal opinion on the basis of what the Commission was proposing. At the second meeting, the legal opinion was discussed. The opinion more or less states that the Commission has the power to provide that citizens of EU countries visiting other EU countries should be treated as if they were members of that country, but it does not provide that there can be harmonisation or a setting of minimum standards. That is not provided for in the treaty.
What is the timescale in terms of putting this directive on a legislative basis in this country?
Mr. Synnott
When the directive is finalised we would have two years to implement it.
Are there extra financial implications for provisions in the directive?
Mr. Synnott
That depends on how it progresses. If it progresses along the lines of the legal opinion, that is, if it is restricted to ensuring that citizens of EU countries visiting us are covered, we already provide that. Our existing scheme covers anybody on the territory of Ireland. It does not matter where they come from or where they are going to. It will be recalled that an Italian schoolboy was assaulted in Fairview Park and suffered great damage. Our scheme covered him. It paid him approximately €2.6 million to provide for his future care and to cover his future loss of earnings, etc. I am sure members of the committee will recall that an Australian woman was attacked in Galway and she was also covered. No financial implications will arise from the directive as it appears to stand, but we will not know until it is finalised.
Will you return to the committee if a financial implications arises about which we should be informed?
Mr. Synnott
If there is a financial implication there is almost an onus on us to return to the committee.
I understand from the summary of the proposal that the intention is to provide adequate compensation for losses suffered. Does any part of the proposed directive suggest what level it might be at?
Mr. Synnott
The proposed directive will possibly be limited by legal opinion to the effect that the Commission will not have the right to set minimum standards. Two countries in the European Union do not have a criminal injuries compensation scheme. As I understand it, the legal opinion states that Article 308 of the European Communities treaty does not give the Commission the power to impose a requirement on any member states to provide a criminal injuries scheme. On that basis we would not have to change our existing scheme. We would only have to ensure that anybody visiting Ireland would be covered. It will then become a question of ensuring that, say, a visitor from Ireland to Germany making a claim for an incident in Germany will be able to apply for help to our compensation authority in terms of form filling and so on, and, similarly in respect of a German visitor to Ireland seeking help from the German authorities to pursue a claim in this country.
Do you have many claims in a year?
Mr. Synnott
Approximately 300 per year. Before pain and suffering was excluded from the scheme it had risen to approximately 2,000 per year. The number of claims then fell to approximately 100 per year and the level has increased slowly up to approximately 300 last year.
How much did the scheme cost last year?
Mr. Synnott
Last year we paid €3.4 million in claims. There is no average quantum for, but the minimum claim is, I understand, £50 or €63.50. After that claims could be of any amount, depending on what the person has suffered. It could be as high as €2.5 million.
Was that figure included in the sum of €3.4 million?
Mr. Synnott
The claim for €2.5 million was in respect of an incident a number of years ago. Last year there would have been a number——
What was the largest claim last year?
Mr. Synnott
Approximately €400,000. Ongoing pre-1986 claims would form part of the annual amount.
I thank you for your forbearance in waiting to give evidence to the committee. I also thank you for attending, answering our questions and giving us new information. Will your office be dealing with EU matters in the future?
Mr. Synnott
I cover a range of issues, including criminal injuries compensation, but I will not be dealing with all EU matters. It depends on the issue.
I propose that we formally report back to the EU scrutiny sub-committee of the Committee on European Affairs and to the Houses that this committee has completed its scrutiny of this proposal, provided that the Department reports to the committee if further financial implications arise. Is that agreed? Agreed.
The joint committee adjourned at 6.40 p.m. until 2.30 p.m. on Tuesday, 4 March 2003.