Laurence Turner MP: speeches 2025

Speeches

• 1 Jul 2025 · Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in this debate. I think every Member of this House would agree that welfare needs reform. I think about the constituent who was asked in a PIP assessment, “How long have you been autistic?” I think about other stories that are close to my heart, which I cannot repeat because they are not my stories alone to tell. The words come easily; the path to reform is harder, and I think many of us have walked that hard path in recent weeks. We have heard many points made in this debate, and in the short time available to me, I would like to respond to some of them. A number of Members have sincerely suggested that there is something inherently wrong about creating a system where people’s treatment depends on the date of application, but I ask, how many people in this Chamber who have been a negotiator or a trade union member have voted for an agreement that involved red-banding a particular rate of pay? I think every representative of every party that has served in government has passed cut-off points into legislation. I remember leaving school around the time that the statement system in special educational needs started to be phased out in favour of EHCPs, and the consequences of that are with us to this day. My hon. Friend the Member for Bradford East (Imran Hussain) said that we are being asked to place trust in Ministers, and in particular my right hon. Friend the Minister for Social Security and Disability. Following many discussions in recent weeks, I do have that trust, and I know that many Government Members have that personal trust. The fact that the review will now be co-produced with disabled people and disabled people’s organisations is a real and material change. In this age of snap judgments, when we are expected to respond immediately to every manner of change and when politics in public is rewarded more highly than the politics carried out in private, the party system perhaps is not in good repute. But I know that many Members—I am one of them—have wrestled with their individual concerns and the desire to have collective discipline, without which there is no party and no programme, and nothing would ever get done. These are good and honourable principles to have. They must be moderated by a willingness to listen, and however it came about, people have listened today. The changes that have been made, as Ministers and officials will know, have been the subject of many long and, at times, difficult conversations. We now have a Bill that removes the critical problem for many of us, which was that the change would have begun next November before the review was completed. That has been addressed. We are in the business of making material change for the people we represent. I think about the 10,037 PIP recipients in my constituency, with perhaps 1,000 more recipients of DLA, and the many more family members who will have the ease of mind of knowing that the changes we in this place have made will protect their income and security in life. The Bill still has some way to go over the course of the next week, but we must recognise progress when it has happened. I thank everyone in my constituency who has contacted me and taken time to meet. In all those discussions with officials and Ministers—

• 1 Jul 2025 · Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill · Hansard source

  More

  rose —

• 1 Jul 2025 · Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I am sure the right hon. Lady would not want an inaccurate statement to stand on the record. Unemployment fell under just two 20th-century Governments: the first Labour Government and the 1970 Government of Ted Heath. I know that she is repeating a standard Conservative party message, but it is a really cynical and silly misuse of statistics.

• 1 Jul 2025 · Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I will not, as I do not wish to deny other Members the chance to speak. All those representations were helpful and made a difference, and I am grateful to everyone who shared their story. I will be voting for the Bill tonight.

• 16 Jun 2025 · Independent Complaints and Grievance Scheme · Hansard source

  More

  I intend to speak briefly, and I draw the House’s attention to my role as chair of the parliamentary group for the GMB, the union that represents the largest number of workers on the parliamentary estate, and to my declarations to that effect in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. Parliament is, on the whole, a more professional, safer and more sober place to work than it once was. Such progress, however, is no excuse for complacency. Inappropriate and predatory behaviour can occur anywhere, but the risk factors are higher here, and I pay tribute to all the workplace representatives who have worked quietly down the years to raise standards and challenge poor practice in this place. I welcome the steps outlined in the motion to clarify and strengthen the ICGS, and I also wish to comment briefly on the Opposition amendments. The shadow Leader of the House said that amendment (e) will not be moved, but we did not hear about amendment (a), which is in the name of a Back-Bench MP, but is co-signed by the shadow deputy Chief Whip, the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Joy Morrissey). If I have understood the amendment correctly, it would strike out the scope for collective complaints, and it would block the investigation of complaints if a police investigation has not resulted in a conviction, even though the standard of proof is different for the two things. The amendments would also, as far as I can tell, prevent the reinvestigation of a complaint if a respondent succeeds in persuading or pressurising a complainant into withdrawing. That point was made powerfully by the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Marie Goldman). Amendment (a) could provide a cover for abuse, were it agreed. That is plain and apparent, and it is a matter of deep regret that it appears to have some degree of sponsorship from the Opposition. While I do not wish to depart today from the recommendations of the Kernaghan report, I will raise some matters on workforce representation. We have already heard that the workforce representatives in this place will continue to be consulted, and that is welcome. Can the Leader of the House confirm whether workforce representatives will be able to attend meetings of the assurance board in an observer capacity? It would also be good to hear whether there will be scope for direct representation of those workforce voices on the assurance board. That would improve its functioning. I know that she recently met GMB reps to discuss those same concerns, and I hope that she can comment further tonight. Finally, some 7,000 people provide support to parliamentarians. They all deserve to work in a modern environment, secure in the knowledge that there is a robust and independent process providing accountability and redress if they are mistreated. The politicisation of those processes in recent years is deeply regrettable, and I hope that cross-party support for them can be swiftly restored.

• 11 Jun 2025 · Spending Review 2025 · Hansard source

  More

  I was delighted to hear the official commitment today to backing the midlands rail hub. I thank the Chancellor and the Transport Secretary for listening to the, at times, persistent representations in support of this essential project. We inherited a set of engineering plans with no money behind them. Now there is a chance to turn them into something real, and that is good news for Birmingham and for the economy of the west midlands. At the centre of those works is Kings Norton station in my constituency. We need the works there to unblock the cross-city line. On a matter of literary heritage, Kings Norton is also the birthplace of Thomas the Tank Engine—the Reverend Awdry lived a few yards down the road. Would it not be a great tribute if spades could go in the ground for the 80th anniversary next year? Will the Chancellor and her officials work with local representatives so that we can understand which of those individual projects are going to be started first and finally restore Kings Norton station to its former glory?

• 4 Jun 2025 · Product Regulation and Metrology Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  We have heard arguments today, as we did in Committee, that this measured Bill is some mysterious route back into the EU. Does the Minister agree that, far from discovering a Trojan horse, the Opposition are trying to flog a dead one and that their arguments have been made up on the hoof?

• 4 Jun 2025 · Regional Growth · Hansard source

  More

  Transport in the midlands has been historically underfunded, and today’s announcement is a welcome turn of the tide. Many Birmingham City fans in my constituency will also strongly welcome the metro extension, and this feels like a good opportunity to congratulate the Blues on their record-setting, promotion-winning season. This is yet more good news. We are also campaigning for upgrades to the Cross-City line, and in particular to the Kings Norton station works, to make the most of this new investment. Will the Minister confirm that he and his Department for Transport colleagues remain open to constructive representations, so that we can finally make this important project happen?

• 2 Jun 2025 · Bus Services (No. 2) Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  I will not; I am sorry. I do not wish to deny another Member time to speak. A few days ago, under the version of the nBus scheme agreed by the previous Conservative mayor, Andy Street, operators exercised their legal right to hike seasonal fares, which they did by 8.6%. Low-paid bus commuters deserve better, and that is why we need the new powers that Labour is introducing in this Bill to better protect passengers from such increases in the cost of living. One of the great pleasures of following other members of the Transport Committee is that they have made points about the forthcoming inquiry report much more eloquently than I can. I hope that that report is published in time to shape the final drafting and implementation of this important Bill, which I look forward to supporting through its later stages.

• 2 Jun 2025 · Bus Services (No. 2) Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  It is highly unusual for major legislation on buses to be introduced so early in the life of a Government; in fact, I think it may be unprecedented. Buses are by far the most used means of public transport, but they have traditionally received less political attention than other modes, and Ministers deserve great credit for securing this legislation so early in this Parliament. It is difficult today to capture the extent of the hostility to bus regulation that existed in Government a little more than a decade ago, when the spirit that animated the Transport Act 1985 was still a moving force in transport debates. Although franchising could boast a successful record in London, there was visceral and ideological opposition to extending it. The coalition Government were actively hostile. Ministers even sought to exclude areas that pursued franchising schemes, then known as quality contracts, from receiving funding—an echo of the bad old days when the Thatcher Government threatened to strip the west midlands passenger transport authority of metro development funding unless its municipal bus operations were sold off. That lingering attitude changed when George Osborne struck a devolution deal with Richard Leese and the late Howard Bernstein that included franchising in Greater Manchester. That was less a turning point than a complete reversal. In fact, it was widely rumoured at the time that the Department for Transport did not know what the Treasury had agreed. That welcome revolution in thought, which found expression in the Bus Services Act 2017, was, however, imperfect and incomplete. Franchising powers were made available only to mayoral authorities that were picked and chosen in Westminster. The Act contained a delayed and vindictive sting: clause 22, which sought to bar new municipal operations, despite the great success of surviving municipal operators in places such as Nottingham and Reading. Reputedly, the clause was a very late addition to the drafting of the 2017 Act—so late that it had not been quality assured by Government lawyers. Indeed, Conservative Ministers were forced to concede that the clause would not prevent an authority from “acquiring shares in existing bus companies”, nor would it prevent the repurposing of an existing company that was unconnected to bus services. Despite the flaws in its drafting, clause 22, which was born out of spitefulness and political posturing, has had a chilling effect on authorities that might have otherwise pursued a municipal operation. This Bill remedies both failings, and we will have better bus services and better law as a result of its passing. There are other welcome provisions in the Bill. It will make it easier for operators and authorities to tackle antisocial behaviour and misogyny. It will make services more accessible for disabled passengers and accelerate the transition to cleaner, low-emission vehicles. All these measures will make a positive difference in my constituency, which sits at the intersection of Birmingham and the county of Worcestershire. It is a place where there are relatively low levels of car ownership, where a lack of audiovisual announcements makes it harder for some people to use the bus and where connections between our neighbourhoods are the poor relation to routes into the city centre. In May, under the leadership of the Mayor of the West Midlands, Richard Parker, the combined authority made the welcome decision to bring bus services back under public accountability and direction. That will enable better timetables, integrated ticketing and services that better connect the areas of highest unemployment with the business parks where new jobs are being created. It will also mean new powers over fares.

• 22 May 2025 · School Teachers’ Review Body: Recommendations · Hansard source

  More

  Thank you, Mr Speaker. There has clearly been some learning loss among the Conservatives, because they were late in submitting evidence for seven years in a row, causing chaos in schools’ budgets; they announced the outcome of the School Teachers Review Body process through written statements to this House; and, shamefully, they scrapped the school support staff negotiating body. Does the Minister agree that the protestations from the Opposition will come across to teachers as false and hypocritical, because they are?

• 16 May 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Does my hon. Friend accept that there may be a weakness in new schedule 1, in as far as it protects a person from actions taken by their employer? For example, it would not necessarily protect an agency worker who is contracted to perform a service, but the original medical body decides not to re-engage that person’s services.

• 15 May 2025 · Recalled Offenders: Sentencing Limits · Hansard source

  More

  In separate cases, two families in my constituency lost loved ones when they were murdered by offenders who were out on remand but should never have been. Will the Minister meet me and, if they wish, both families, so that they can have some assurance that lessons have been learned from these cases, and so that other families are not placed in the same horrendous situation?

• 15 May 2025 · Condition of Local Roads · Hansard source

  More

  In Birmingham, people are fed up, as they are in other parts of the country, of potholes and drains that go uncleared, after years of underfunding and short-term budgets, but unlike in other parts of the country, those services are provided under a historical private finance initiative contract. Will the Minister update the House on when a decision will be made about the future of that contract, and what steps she will take with the local authority so that Birmingham’s roads get better?

• 15 May 2025 · Condition of Local Roads · Hansard source

  More

  11. What recent assessment she has made of the adequacy of the condition of local roads.

• 14 May 2025 · Gaza: UK Assessment · Hansard source

  More

  I preface my question by saying that no Member of this House should doubt the dedication and compassion with which the Minister fulfils his duties. Over the past few days, the World Health Organisation has warned that Gazans face intergenerational scarring as a result of hunger in the territory. The WHO quoted figures produced by the Gazan Health Ministry, which held that 55 children have died as a result of malnutrition. What assessment do the UK Government make of the extent of malnutrition in Gaza and the number of deaths attributable to starvation as a result of Israel’s refusal to allow aid to enter the strip?

• 13 May 2025 · Product Regulation and Metrology Bill [Lords] (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to hear part 2 of the speech that my hon. Friend made on Second Reading. Does he agree that, contrary to what we have just heard, the clause broadly represents continuity with how legislation has worked in this area? One of the final acts of the last Government was to make the Product Safety and Metrology etc. (Amendment) Regulations 2024 under powers that have now expired. The Health and Safety Executive enforces standards based on regulations introduced relating to metrification between 1981 and 1992. For all the claims of change, what we are looking at here, broadly, is continuity.

• 13 May 2025 · Product Regulation and Metrology Bill [Lords] (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I rise merely to confirm that the trade does indeed continue, and that one of the two remaining proof houses is in the Digbeth area of Birmingham.

• 13 May 2025 · Product Regulation and Metrology Bill [Lords] (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  rose—

• 6 May 2025 · Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority (Review) · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That leave be given to bring in a Bill to require the Secretary of State to review the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority; and for connected purposes. From time to time, this House has asked itself the question: what value do we place on support for the victims of violent crime? I believe that this is the right time to ask ourselves that question again. Victim support can take many forms, including non-financial measures. We have got better, but we must get better still, at recognising the lifelong impact that violent crime has on a person. Victims would benefit from better sharing of information about support services, both public and voluntary, and the processes for accessing NHS diagnostic and therapeutic support. That information sharing should start with the police, the ambulance services and the Crown Prosecution Service, and I was pleased to hear recently from the CPS west midlands region about the enhanced victim support that is now in place. Nevertheless, there will always be cases in which financial loss has occurred, or financial remedy is a necessary or otherwise appropriate means of providing some measure of justice for those who have suffered assault. I think that Members in all parts of the House would wholeheartedly endorse the principle that, whenever possible, the perpetrators of violent crime should pay the costs of restitution. Indeed, it is a welcome and remarkable achievement that the amount recovered to fund support services through the victim surcharge—first introduced in 2007—has nearly doubled over the last four years. However, the criminal injuries compensation scheme exists because some offenders lack, or cannot be proved to possess, the assets or revenue to pay those costs—the so-called straw men of the justice system—and in still more cases, the perpetrators of violence are never identified. Crime statistics notoriously do not tell the full story, but in the West Midlands police force area, nearly one in five violent assaults are not prosecuted because no suspect can be named. I commend the chief constable, Craig Guildford, and the police and crime commissioner, Simon Foster, for their success in increasing the number and the share of identified assailants, but the point stands. The animating force behind the current criminal injuries compensation scheme was a Birmingham magistrate and the first secretary of the Howard League for Penal Reform, Margery Fry, who led a campaign in the 1950s under the clarion call of “Justice for Victims.” She argued that criminal injuries could not be narrowly considered to be a private matter between the assailant and the victim. Just as we provide for each other in times of sickness through national insurance, so too, she argued, a duty is owed by the state when it fails to prevent one citizen from injuring another. In her words, “the State … cannot disown all responsibility for its occasional failure to protect.” Today that same principle is set out by the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority, which says that payment is sometimes needed as an “acknowledgement of harm and an important gesture of public sympathy.” The criminal injuries compensation scheme is now an integral part of the justice system, even if it is—as the Chair of the Justice Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith and Chiswick (Andy Slaughter), put it last week—something of a “Cinderella service”. Nothing that I say today is intended as a criticism of the staff of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority; they work hard in difficult circumstances, given that staff numbers have fallen by a fifth since the current iteration of the scheme was introduced in 2012. The civil service people survey shows that they take pride and find professional fulfilment in their work, and, as someone who once received an award from the scheme, I remain grateful to them. Important and positive improvements have been made since, six years ago, the Victims’ Commissioner published an excoriating report. Let me say at this point how welcome it is to see the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Alex Davies-Jones), in her place. I know that she cares deeply about victim support as well as having specialist knowledge of this issue, and I am grateful to her for her thoughtful responses and conversations about it. However, it is also clear that failings remain within the system, as we heard last week when Members across parties contributed to a debate in Westminster Hall. I draw particular attention today to the delays that too many applicants still experience; a lack of signposting or integration with wider support services, and a general lack of public awareness of the scheme itself; the trauma of dog attacks on postal workers and other victims by new and banned breeds, the victims of which are mostly ineligible for compensation following changes to the scheme in 2012; the recommendations of the independent inquiry into child sexual abuse; a supposedly £500,000-a-year hardship fund, established 13 years ago, that is now essentially a dead letter—the criteria are so restrictive that no payments have been made from it in the last seven years; and the tariff system itself, as many serious and life-changing injuries are not covered at all. It is true that the upper cap on the scheme is generous by international standards, but the lowest limit of £1,000 has been frozen in cash terms since 1992. My hon. Friend the Member for Derby North (Catherine Atkinson) referred in this place to annex B of the scheme, which defines a “crime of violence” as including “a sexual assault to which a person did not in fact consent”. Those are words and ideas from another age. Even if the courts now adopt a more informed interpretation, the continued presence of that definition can only cause harm, and it must be struck from the scheme. These problems—and I believe, on the basis of my own casework and that of other Members, that they do to an extent persist—impose a heavy burden on the victims of crime. Like some other Members, I bear the physical scars of violent crime, alongside other scars of a different and more subtle kind. I have spoken previously, in another debate, about that experience, and I do not intend to repeat those words today. It is enough to ask hon. Members to take it on trust that delays, the seemingly arbitrary rules of the scheme, the manner of the communication, and, sometimes, poor decision making can add to the sum of the pain that victims feel—a pain that can only be partially outweighed by the release that the end of the criminal injuries process brings. A perpetrator might evade justice, but it is part of the nature of the trauma response that, at a slight or unexpected prompting, a victim may be compelled to relive that crime again and again. That is why the Victims’ Commissioner has called for an overarching review of the scheme to establish “whether it actually fulfils its stated remit: to acknowledge the harm suffered by victims of violent crime who have no other access to compensation, and to provide redress as part of a just and compassionate response.” That is what the Bill, which I beg leave to introduce, would achieve. The legislation would set out a simple requirement for a fundamental review, and for Ministers to report back to the House with proposals for further scrutiny and debate. I cannot stand here and claim that easy answers exist to all these questions. Although I note that, to the best of my calculations, the cost of the scheme appears to be falling in real terms, we live in straitened financial times. That is why it is better for reform of the scheme to be carried out in a deliberative manner, on the basis of accurate and recent evidence, and with the needs of victims as the primary concern. To that end, I take heart from the Minister’s statement; although she said that the Government do not plan changes to the scheme “at this time”, she went on to say: “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 also take heart from the Prime Minister’s statement of personal support for the victims of violent crime when this matter was raised with him a fortnight ago by my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington North (Charlotte Nichols). This issue touches the lives of people in every one of our constituencies. No amount of money can return someone to their mental or physical state prior to an assault, but a well-functioning, fair and compassionate scheme can bring victims some measure of justice. Question put and agreed to. Ordered, That Laurence Turner, Charlotte Nichols, Michael Wheeler, Andy Slaughter, Warinder Juss, Antonia Bance, Chris Bloore, Catherine Atkinson, Kevin McKenna, Mark Sewards, Tim Roca and Alistair Strathern present the Bill. Laurence Turner accordingly presented the Bill. Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 13 June , and to be printed (Bill 231 ).

• 29 Apr 2025 · Criminal Injuries Compensation · Hansard source

  More

  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.

• 29 Apr 2025 · Criminal Injuries Compensation · Hansard source

  More

  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. 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.

• 29 Apr 2025 · Criminal Injuries Compensation · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, 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.”

• 29 Apr 2025 · Criminal Injuries Compensation · Hansard source

  More

  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.”

• 29 Apr 2025 · Criminal Injuries Compensation · Hansard source

  More

  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.