RESPONSE FROM THE POA TO GREEN PAPER – “REBUILDING LIVES – SUPPORTING VICTIMS OF CRIME”

INTRODUCTION

The POA believes that the Government launched its first attack on victims of crime when it abolished the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board (launched in 1964) replacing it and its system of compensating victims of crime with the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority and its tariff based system of compensation in 1996. The POA was one of the Unions who fought against its introduction at the time.

This new Scheme was revised in 2001 but the injustices introduced by stealth in 1996 remained.

In December 2005 the Government issued a Green Paper, titled “Rebuilding Lives – supporting victims of crime” – the POA believes this was an opportunity to review the injustices of the 2001 Scheme and remedy those. That opportunity has not only been ignored but the POA believes that the current Proposals set out in the Green Paper worsens the position of those for whose benefit the Scheme exists and specifically, all those who they represent in the Prison Service, Special Hospitals and other secure Institutions.

THE CURRENT 2001 TARIFF SCHEME

There are many injustices in this Scheme which the POA and Lees Lloyd Whitley (their Solicitors – “LLW”) have campaigned against since its introduction. Frank Rogers, a Partner in LLW with 30 years experience of dealing with the Scheme in all its guises highlighted many of these in a speech at the Learning & Development Conference jointly hosted by the POA & NAPO in March 2005 asking Martin Narey, then with NOMS, to work with the POA in campaigning for justice for POA Members.

These injustices include the following –

• The fact that compensation is calculated by reference to fixed tariffs and not the individual circumstances of each case. Until 1990 compensation was calculated by the CICB in the same way as a Judge would when dealing with a civil claim;
• An Applicant who sustained 3 separate injuries has compensation for the second and third most serious injuries reduced by 70% and 85% respectively. No compensation at all is payable for a 4th specific injury;
• No compensation is paid for loss of earnings for the first 28 weeks of absence – not a problem for POA Members who should remain on full pay throughout the entire absence period but this is an issue for many others;
• “Special Expenses” – are defined as including physical aids, treatment costs, and private health care. These are only payable by the CICA when an Applicant is absent from work for longer than 28 weeks and suffers a loss of earnings as a result. This will not arise for POA Members so all sorts of treatment costs (Physiotherapy, Dental, Chiropractor etc) have to be funded by the Applicant thereby reducing the real value of any Award made for the injuries sustained;
• it is subject to a maximum level of compensation (£500K to include compensation for injury, loss of earnings and special care) – making it impossible now for a POA Member to get the Award as was achieved for a Swinfen Hall POA Member of just under £1m. Views on whether this upper limit should be increased are requested by the Government;
• if injury is sustained accidentally while preventing the commission of further offences then the Applicant has to have taken an “exceptional risk” – in the context of a secure Institution this is often difficult to prove and leaves Members with no recourse having been seriously injured while doing their public duty;

THE GREEN PAPER

The Ministerial Foreword was written by Fiona Mactaggart MP Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for the Home Office.

The opening sentence is consistent with the title – but in our view gives false hope to the reader –

“The Government is determined to better meet the needs of victims of crime.

The Scheme is like any Government creature – it is subject to fiscal control and monitoring so is the problem that the number of victims of crime has soared out of control making the cost of administering the CICA unsustainable? Even if that is the case surely where a system designed to compensate victims of crime exists the amount it pays out should not be subject to Key Performance Indicators so loved by this Government?
The Foreward continues

“The good news is that the number of people who are victims of crime has fallen by 40% compared to ten years ago.”

Home Office statistics show that the chance of being a victim of crime is at its lowest for more than 20 years – this will not ring true with POA members given the nature of their occupations. She goes on to say –

“Many victims need better practical support, as quickly as possible after the crime, such as help with improving home security and services that provide emotional support. ……On the issue of financial support, many victims of crime could be better served by radically improving practical and emotional support, rather than through relatively small payments from the CICA, which arrive a long time after the incident……………………So we propose a major simplification of the compensation scheme and increasing the amount of support provided to most victims of serious crimes….”

For the purposes of this preliminary response to the Green Paper we will focus on how the proposed changes will impact on POA Members but we also bear in mind the implications for all victims of crime.

We ask you to consider the following –

• the size of the POA membership in public and private sector Prisons, Special Hospitals, Immigration Detention Centres and other secure Establishments;
• the threats faced by POA Members – assaults, psychiatric trauma, exposure to contamination from bodily fluids, Hepatitis, HIV,TB etc;
• the unique nature of the work POA Members do;
• the number of Applications submitted by the POA to the CICA each year;
• the fact that at local and national level the Prison Service can fund from existing resources Counselling and other similar support;
• “home security” is rarely an issue when a POA Member is assaulted at work but equally how often is expenditure incurred by the Employer as a result of lessons learnt from an assault?

and ask this question – is there an argument for having a separate Scheme for compensating individuals such as POA Members and, for example, the Police? In our view the Scheme should be fair and should be equally fair for all but, if the Government is insistent on further diluting the benefits the Scheme provides then maybe it is time this debate was opened? The whole thrust of the Green Paper in terms of Emotional & Practical Support is aimed at the need to provide these services to members of the public
where there are issues to resolve that are not normally relevant to POA Members. Accordingly, the basis of the existing Scheme is being redesigned for reasons that are not valid so far as POA Members are concerned.

The CICA say they award about £170m in compensation to between 35,000 – 40,000 victims of violent crime which the Government boasts is more than all the other equivalent European Schemes put together – something to be proud of but in our view something surely to build on not dismantle?

STATISTICS

These are figures taken from the Green Paper –

• between 65,000 – 70,000 Applications are received by the CICA each year;
• between 35,000 – 40,000 Applications are successful;
• 57% of the Awards made are between £1,000 – £2,000;
• only 11% of successful Applicants receive Awards of £5,500 or more;
• the average cost to the CICA to resolve a case is £305;
• on average over the last 5 years 296 Prison Officers got £0.9m. Our figures show that in the period 2001 – 2004 (4 years) Awards were made to POA Members totalling £5,396,958 so these Home Office figures need to be challenged!

Annex 3a to the Green Paper lists the following “Course of Duty Compensation payments to Prison Officers between 1.4.04 – 31.3.05

TARIFF BAND	AMOUNT	CASE NUMBERS	AMOUNT PAID
1	1,000	101	102,950
2	1,250	18	22,650
3	1,500	35	54,125
4	1,750	1	1,750
5	2,000	35	94,292
6	2,500	33	87,338
7*	3,000	2	6,225
7	3,300	13	44,415
8*	3,3500	1	3,675
8	3,800	3	14,078
9	4,400	9	40,275
10*	5,000	2	36,075
10*	5,500	5	27,500
12*	7,500	9	363,851
12	8,200	2	17,150
13	10,000	4	41,420

The Tariff bands marked * do not exist so it is not clear where the Home Office have taken these figures from!

The awards up to Tariff band £4,400 are separately totalled which may be significant. If these were excluded then 251 Prison officers would have been denied compensation totalling £471,772. In terms of Government savings that is a drop in the ocean but to those individuals it would represent a real kick in the teeth. What we ask would it do for morale and recruitment or Staff retention?

SERIOUSNESS

This is to be the new basis for assessing whether compensation should be payable. A clinical definition of this is to be formulated. Those POA Members who do not meet the criteria for “seriousness” will then receive no compensation but “would benefit instead from improved support services.”

We doubt that this is what is required by them or that it would have any real beneficial effect.

The Green Paper states –

“There is clear evidence from the BCS that the most common type of support that victims of violent crime want is someone to talk to about the crime and protection from further victimisation………….”

Is there evidence that this is what POA Members want? We very much doubt it so we again raise the issue as to whether there is now an argument for a separate Scheme for those working in secure Establishments?

If Compensation up to Tariff Band 6 (£2,500) was withdrawn then the following are some of the Injuries that would no longer entitle a POA Member to anything –

INJURY	AWARD
Temporary Mental Anxiety	1,000
Mental Illness: up to 28 weeks	2,500
Scarring: minor disfigurement	1,500
Concussion: lasting at least 1 week	1,500
Blurred vision: over 13 weeks	1,750
Dislocated jaw	2,000
Fractured cheekbone - surgery	2,500
Loss of 2-3 front teeth	2,500
Moderate ligament injury	2,000
Strained back: 13 weeks +	2,500
Fracture of 2 or more ribs	1,500

The above are just examples of a whole range of injuries that would in future entitle an injured POA Member to no compensation at all.

EXCLUDE ASSAULTS AT WORK…………..?

We cannot understand how this proposal has been formulated for the simple reason that POA Members are invariably assaulted at work.

The Government suggest that by compensating those injured at work “could be seen to act as a disincentive to make the workplace safe and do everything reasonably possible to protect their employees”

It is wholly unrealistic to suppose that Employers could reasonably prevent ALL assaults at a secure workplace so where would this change leave POA Members if implemented? Views are requested on
“…whether there are violent crimes that cannot reasonably be guarded against by employers and for which society as a whole should continue to provide compensation”

KEY ISSUES FOR POA MEMBERS

• no reduction in the lower level of compensation currently standing at £1,000;
• increase the upper level of compensation from £500,000;
• pay “Special Expenses” irrespective of entitlement to full pay;
• remove the need to prove an “exceptional risk” was being taken when trying to prevent the commission of further offences;
• abolish the discount on Awards for second & third injuries;
• abandon any consideration to make Employers responsible for assaults at work;
• consider a two tier Scheme with one version being designed to acknowledge the unique considerations that apply to POA Members;
• damage to morale if these proposals are implemented, risk of assaults increasing, recruitment issues;

On 8.12.2005 The Times covered the release of this Green Paper by stating –
“Victims of crime are to be given the address of a local locksmith and offered therapy or medical treatment under government plans to strip tens of thousands of people of the right to financial compensation for their injuries.
Those less seriously hurt could get vouchers for cosmetic surgery or treatment to repair damaged teeth, instead of cash. Victims of repeated crime could have a safe room built.”

- we ask you what consideration has been given to the risks POA Members face on a daily basis in drafting these proposals?

Frank Rogers
Lees Lloyd Whitley – POA Solicitors
On Behalf Of The POA
7.3.2006