We have all become sensitised to the need to recognise the position of victims. One of the outstanding success stories is that, since the agreement, we have built a consensus that recognises the special needs and place of victims. I wish that that recognition were reflected in the draft legislation. It seems that the Government have not learnt the lesson that victims in Northern Ireland deserve special attention, sensitivity and care. Not only are the proposals presented to the Assembly inadequate, they are antipathetic to the interests of victims. The Ad Hoc Committee's report reflects the concern that we, as legislators, have for victims of violent crime in Northern Ireland. This is probably the worst piece of draft legislation that the British Government have presented to the Assembly for consideration.

The Ad Hoc Committee's robust critique of the Government's proposals has done a great service to the cause of victims. It has highlighted the gross deficiencies in the proposed legislation. The draft Order purports to reflect the Bloomfield report; it does not do that. The proposed legislation departs materially from the Bloomfield report, which did not recommend that all injuries should be governed by a tariff scheme. The Bloomfield report proposed that minor injuries should be considered by a tariff scheme.

Along with other members of the Committee, I have misgivings about adjudging even minor injuries on a tariff basis. However, serious injuries should surely not be adjudged on a tariff basis. Ken Bloomfield made it clear that he excluded serious injuries from any tariff scheme. He also said that he would retain the right of appeal to the county court for victims of violent crime. That is an important provision, because the right of appeal to the courts is a safeguard for everyone, particularly for the victims of violent crime.

If there is no right of appeal to a court, a victim's position with the statutory agency -the Compensation Agency - is seriously weakened. As Ken Robinson suggested, that hands over adjudication of compensation for victims to the executive. In the Western World at least, the separation of powers is regarded as a fundamental part of constitutional politics. In other words, the executive is separate from the judiciary. It is important that that separation is maintained, because it is a safeguard for everyone. The proposed legislation fuses the executive and the judiciary. There is no effective appeal to a judicial body. That is fundamentally wrong.

The Ad Hoc Committee considered the tariff scheme carefully and unanimously opposed it. The Committee believes that a tariff system is inadequate for safeguarding the interests of victims, as there is no individual assessment of the pain and suffering that someone has endured. As Bloomfield said:

Furthermore, the Judicial Studies Board, in its 'Guidelines for the Assessment of Damages in Personal Injuries', 3rd edition, 1996, states:

The proposed tariff system implies that everyone who breaks a leg endures the same pain and suffering. That is wrong, and that proposition should not be adopted into our law. A tariff system cannot properly compensate the victim of violent crime; it cannot compensate a person at all. The absence of individual consideration of pain and suffering goes to the heart of the proposals. We should not embrace the tariff system.

The tariff system is an invention of the civil servant mind. It attempts to bar code pain and suffering, and that cannot be done. Suffering is an individual experience, and it requires individual assessment. If one were to canvass opinion among victims who have suffered grievously, one would hear exactly that. Many victims have had misgivings about our judicial system and about their treatment by lawyers and others. Nonetheless, given the choice, they would opt for the court rather than for an anonymous system that would not, in my view and in the view of the Committee, compensate the individual.

The proposals remove the right of appeal to the courts. Instead, a board will consider the cases of victims who have been dealt with by the Compensation Agency. The board will act as a court of appeal. We know from experience what such boards are like. We know the difficulties encountered by people who appeal decisions on disability living allowance. We know that honest citizens who appeal to such boards go through severe trauma. We must not be fooled: the boards are not judicial bodies, and they will not bring the same judgement and discretion to the cases of victims as the courts do.

The amounts given in the proposed scheme do not reflect the current level of awards in Northern Ireland; they are grossly undervalued. They are supposed to reflect pain and suffering, but they do not. The evidence from the Law Society shows that victims' pain and suffering are being greatly undervalued.

The green book - the guide to personal injuries that lawyers and judges use - shows that quite plainly.

However, it gets worse. In cases of multiple major injuries, it is proposed that people should be compensated in full only for their worst injury. The compensation for the second most serious injury, even if it should be £50,000, can be reduced to 30% of that amount. The compensation for the third most serious injury is reduced to 15% of the possible amount payable. Therefore, a person is awarded 145% out of a possible 300%.

People's compensation is being deliberately undervalued according to this scheme, and the Government make no bones about it. That is the formula. Worse still, no compensation whatsoever is payable for the fourth and subsequent injuries. How can that be regarded as equitable or just? I ask anyone who is reasonable and objective to say that the scheme is fair and equitable. It clearly is not.

The scheme also compensates for minor injuries. In order to qualify for minor injury compensation, the claimant must jump over three hurdles. He or she must have three separate injuries; a black eye is not enough, a claimant must have other injuries as well. There must also be significant residual effects that last for more than six weeks, and the injured party must have made two visits to a medical person. There are three different hurdles to jump over, and that is unjust. The test is wrong and unfair.

On examining the system in more detail, it becomes obvious that people will not be compensated for pecuniary losses such as loss of earnings. Claimants must be out of work for 28 weeks before they can receive one penny of compensation for loss of earnings. That is clearly unjust - a child could tell you that that is unjust.

How does that square up with the Government's view that it is a new and wonderful system that will help victims? How could it possibly help a victim to lose half a year's earnings through no fault of their own and not receive compensation? How could that possibly be just, right or fair? And yet, the Government have the cheek to present these proposals to us and dress them up by saying that they are trying to produce a new system that is fair to victims and will help them. How can that possibly be, in present circumstances?

Although we received assurance to the contrary, this fact must be highlighted: the proposals suggest that private insurance and private pension awards, as a result of injuries, should be deducted from any pecuniary loss. People would not - despite the fact that they paid into their pension fund or insurance fund - be able to enjoy that money. Instead, it would be deducted from any pecuniary loss. Surely that is wrong and unfair. We received a letter from the NIO in which it explains somehow that that does not form the substance of its proposal. If that is the case, let us hold the NIO to that commitment. It is important to highlight that today, in case the Government should back-pedal.

The Government have turned off the tap of legal assistance to victims of violent crime by refusing to pay reasonable legal or medical costs. How can that be just? How does that advance the interests or status of victims? Victims who need legal assistance in this complex area of law will not receive it. Surely that is wrong, given that at present we are trying to help victims of violent crime.

The Government say plainly that they aim to save £7 million. Is that not a cruel assertion? That £7 million is important to victims of crime who require legal advice. It is wrong that the Government should refuse to continue to provide legal assistance. As Ken Robinson said, the Government are putting back only £400,000 to Victim Support Northern Ireland. Its staff have done a tremendous job in giving practical care and counselling to the victims of crime here. That is their role; their job is not to act as surrogate lawyers. Victims seeking compensation through this complicated process will be deprived of practical legal assistance. If people seek legal advice, they will have to pay for it themselves. That is wrong.

The Government then go even further to disadvantage victims by proposing that the limitation period for claims be reduced from three years to two. How can they justify that? They have included what they would call a "safety net" whereby, in the interests of justice, that limitation period can be altered. However, those boards will act as tribunals, and it will be difficult to argue for an extension of the time period. It is already difficult to gain an extension in the ordinary courts, which apply a three-year time limit, but it will be even more difficult to argue to a tribunal for an extension to the two-year limitation period.

Several parts of the proposed legislation would further disadvantage victims. However, there are some good aspects. For example, applicants for criminal injury compensation who have a criminal conviction will be given more flexibility. Madam Deputy Speaker, do you wish me to bring my remarks to a close?

A number of Members still wish to speak, so I invite you to draw your remarks to a conclusion.

I will finish by saying that those who are excluded from compensation because of previous convictions, particularly for scheduled offences, will be treated with greater discretion. One only has to look at the Creighton case, which has been foremost in our minds in considering this. If somebody has fully rehabilitated himself, it is surely fair and just that he be compensated.

My final point on this is that the Government have said that they sought certainty and simplicity for victims and sought to be transparent in dealing with them. Quite clearly, these proposals, in my view and in the view of the Committee, will provide greater uncertainty and frustration for victims of violent crime. This system will be much more complicated than the present one, and the House should send a clear message to the Government that it unanimously adopts this report to stop this bad legislation in its tracks.

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I assure Members that my speech will not be as long as that of the last Member. First, I want to record my appreciation and thanks to the Committee and research staff for all the work and help that they give to the Committee.

There are probably a number of points in this that could be welcomed. I agreed with Mr Ken Robinson when he talked about bereavement support payment and the less restrictive method of determining psychological injuries. However, overall I believe that NIO cynically used the Kenneth Bloomfield review on victims, which reported in July 1999, as an opportunity for a cost- cutting exercise on the criminal injuries system.

The introduction of the tariff system for injuries received cross-party and unanimous opposition in the Committee. It is unfair and inflexible, as it does not take into consideration an individual's particular circumstances. In most cases it would have the effect of reducing the amount of compensation to a fixed level. There is a sliding downward scale of compensation for multiple injuries, and the whole system is not index-linked but subject to a review in three years. The tariff system is already in place in Britain. It has been a source of controversy there, and there is general unhappiness with it. Indeed, the appeals panel has overturned in the region of 70% of the original decisions, which shows just how flawed the original process was. We should not take the view that because a system is in place in Britain, we must slavishly follow it here.

NIO then went on to argue that the introduction of a tariff-based scheme will so simplify the process that it will not require the services of a legal professional. Instead, Victim Support can do the job previously done by solicitors. I am sure that everyone here will agree that Victim Support does an excellent job helping victims of crime and the trauma that entails. However, I do not believe that it has the resources, the capacity, or the required legal background to fulfil the role that solicitors do. Victim Support has eight offices throughout the North of Ireland, with three full-time staff in each, and in the region of 200 volunteers whose hours vary from a few per week upwards. The intention is to recruit nine extra advice workers and about 100 extra volunteers. None of the people who work for Victim Support has legal qualifications, so compare that with the number of solicitors throughout the North of Ireland.

There are over 600 practising solicitors in the North of Ireland, who are easily accessible and have offices in all towns. If someone is a victim of crime, he or she can go to a solicitor for help and advice.

In tandem with these proposals, the NIO intends to make paid legal assistance unavailable to victims of crime. The Ad Hoc Committee objects strongly to that. The NIO is not saying that a solicitor cannot be consulted. However, it is removing any financial help to do so. Victims must, therefore, pay for legal advice, which discriminates against those who are less well off and those who are statistically more likely to be the victims of crime. It seems that the Government want to pay only lip service to equality obligations.

The Human Rights Commission and other organisations that gave evidence to the Committee raised concerns that that may be in breach of international human rights norms for the right to legal representation. It appears to be a cynical cost-cutting exercise by the British Government and the NIO. It is estimated that money will be saved in the long term because of reduced compensation costs. It is also estimated that in the removal of paid assistance the Government will save £7 million, while the cost of enlisting Victim Support would be only £0·4 million.

There was some improvement in the draft legislation on ex-prisoners, particularly those who were imprisoned for political reasons, through the removal of the explicit and discriminatory block to compensation for those convicted under the provisions of emergency law. However, considering that the majority of ex-political prisoners were sentenced to more than two and a half years' imprisonment, the proposed scheme will make no tangible difference to their situation.

The Secretary of State may also make a decision on the basis of other evidence that is available to him or her, which raises the prospect of intelligence reports that cannot be challenged. Paragraph 38 of the draft legislation, which deals with compensation in fatal cases, shows that while the explicit disqualification has been removed, implicit disqualification will remain. That is contrary to the search for a new, inclusive society, particularly when those who were caught up in the conflict, and their families, are still being discriminated against and punished.

Under the current legislation, and also under the proposed legislation, no distinction is made between people convicted of ordinary crime and people with political convictions. That is wrong. The majority of people who were in jail for political reasons would not have seen the inside of a prison but for the abnormal political conditions in the North of Ireland. The Good Friday Agreement recognises that the conflict was political and that it required a political solution. The British Government and the NIO should follow that through to its logical conclusion and distinguish between political and non-political convictions.

There should be compensation for loss of earnings. Awards should not be subject to reductions that take social security, healthcare and insurance benefits into account. There are problems in the current system with delay, transparency, communication and liaison. The legal profession recognises that. The Law Society of Northern Ireland has recommended that a working party, representing the judiciary, the legal profession, agencies and professionals working within the current system, and representatives of victims, should be set up to examine ways of improving the current system. That is a sensible approach.

I want to draw attention to wrongful action by the NIO in its treatment of the Ad Hoc Committee. When NIO representatives were invited to give evidence, the NIO initially tried to set the parameters of the debate. It attempted to rap the Committee over the knuckles when Committee members raised legitimate concerns, as is their right. That behaviour is unacceptable.

Recommendation 10 of the Committee's report states

Sinn Féin supports the report, and that recommendation in particular. I hope that the British Government and the NIO take heed of the Assembly's strong message. It should not use the new political dispensation to ride roughshod over the rights of people who are the victims of crime.

As Deputy Chairperson of the Committee I support the conclusions and recommendations contained i`n the report. The Committee considered all the evidence brought before it, bearing in mind that compensation for people who have suffered extreme pain and deaths because of violence from whatever source is a sensitive issue.

The Committee took evidence from people who are experienced in the problems associated with criminal injuries compensation, and I thank them for their contributions. I also thank the staff who serviced the Committee and the Members from all parties who played a constructive and valuable role as we reached our conclusions. It was a pleasure and a privilege for me to act as Chairperson on several occasions.

I consider the report to be fair and reasonable, covering all aspects, and I hope the Secretary of State, the British Government and our Government will abide by its recommendations.

I welcome the recommendations and congratulate the Committee on the extensive evidence taken. I concur with the comments of my learned Friend, the Member for North Belfast, Mr Maginness. He is correct that the fundamental principle is whether a tariff system should be used at all.

The use of a tariff system is fundamentally inequitable, because it treats individuals as a number each time and implies that every person's injury can be treated in the same way. That is absurd, and the Government should look at the comments of the House again. This is not an acceptable piece of legislation in its current form.

There is a caveat to that. I disagree with the Committee to some extent with regard to recommendation 5 in which the Committee suggests that the Secretary of State should not regard a person's criminal record when determining a reward when that person's actions, which may be indicative of that record, cannot be shown to be responsible for the act of criminal violence that resulted in the injuries for which compensation is sought.

I disagree. A person's past behaviour - in particular criminal convictions for serious offences - should be taken into consideration. If a person's behaviour in the past is indicative of a particular lifestyle which results in serious criminal injury, I am not comfortable with the concept that taxpayers should have to compensate him for having placed himself in that position.

However, I can see the problem with that. Having to demonstrate that a person is responsible for the act of criminal violence that resulted in the injuries is almost impossible unless it is somebody with a record of grievous bodily harm who starts a fight, gets injured and tries to claim compensation. Clearly that person is responsible.

However, a serial burglar's house may be burgled. He goes downstairs to confront the intruder and is injured, but the test should not apply, because he did not ask to be burgled. However, I do have a difficulty with saying that taxpayers should be forced to compensate somebody whose activities in the past were clearly antisocial and who does not deserve compensation, so I have some difference with the Committee.

What would the Member say if a person were involved in some petty crime in his youth then lived a normal life, but after 20 years something happened, and he submitted a claim for compensation? Would that person, in the Member's opinion, have disqualified himself twenty years ago?

No, I would not suggest to the House that any conviction of any sort should automatically disbar a person from receiving some form of compensation. Obviously it is something that must be taken into account; the individual circumstances of each person must be taken into account.

However, it is right that the Secretary of State should retain a degree of discretion. Where a person's behaviour and criminal convictions demonstrate a particular type of lifestyle - where that person is clearly involved in criminal activity on a constant and ongoing basis - they should not be eligible for criminal compensation. If a drug-dealing gangster such as Johnny Adair gets beaten over the head, there is no way that honest, decent taxpayers should have to foot the bill for compensation for someone like that. That is the position that I would take. It should not necessarily be applied to a person who, for instance, commits a minor offence as a youth. We can all perform indiscretions in our youth, and I do not see that that should have such a serious and deleterious effect on a person's entire life.

I would, however, make some distinction in relation to very serious offences, even those committed at an early age. I have a huge amount of sympathy for Mr Creighton's position, but I have some difficulty with the idea of somebody who was convicted of so serious an offence as throwing a petrol bomb at age 18 receiving compensation. When one looks at the devastation, mayhem and death that has been caused by petrol bombs in our society, one should realise that the consequences of throwing that petrol bomb - for the thrower, as well as those on the receiving end - could be life-altering. For that person, it is life-altering in the sense that they place themselves outside a particular category of our society. Where someone performs an act that is so damaging to society in general - an act that can cause death - that person should not receive compensation at a later stage. However, I broadly support the recommendations of the Committee.

For the Member's information, the Committee makes the distinction that he refers to at paragraph 73 of the report.

In recommendation 5, the Committee clearly suggests that

That is the recommendation with which I am taking issue.

I broadly agree with the rest of the report. The comments that I made earlier on tariffs were correct. You cannot treat injuries of a similar nature caused to different people in the same way. It is completely unreasonable to accept that the loss of an eye for one person is the same as the loss of an eye for another. If I were to have my legs injured, it probably would not be that deleterious to my lifestyle, but if Joe Brolly were to have his legs broken, it would probably be severely deleterious to his lifestyle - and probably also to his team's performance. Obviously, you must take into account the individual's circumstances and their lifestyle. That cannot be done under a tariff system, so for that reason I agree with the general thrust of the report.

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I commend the work done by the Committee staff, the Committee members and those who attended all the meetings. Considerable effort was needed to complete the work by the date that was given. I commend that and welcome the report, its findings and its proposals to Government.

Most of the points have already been covered. The purpose of the Bloomfield Report was to deal with criminal injuries in a normal situation - or "normality", as it is often called - and not the kind of situation that we have had here over the last long number of years. Therefore, I take issue with the point that you cannot make distinctions between particular injuries.

The purpose of injuries compensation is to allow a person, injured through any situation, to get his or her life back on track again. The abnormal situation that we have lived through here must be taken into account. It is different to what would generally be covered by such a scheme. The Committee recommended a fairer, more equitable, open and transparent system. However, that is not what the Government are offering us. The introduction of the tariff system, and the independent appeals panel, has been mentioned, and the role of the panel and the people who are likely to have recourse to it have been outlined.

The removal of paid legal assistance is of particular concern; it is to be replaced by help from Victim Support. Support from a local solicitor was always something that people could depend on, whether they were facing a tribunal, an independent panel or anything else. The solicitor is usually on the side of the applicant or the person defending himself. That does not always happen in tribunals. Those dealing with appeals or tribunals in relation to disability living allowance, or other such allowances, become desensitised to the interests of the individual. That could happen in criminal injuries appeals. The whole system would therefore work against the individual and the individual's ability to defend himself. People who have gone through trauma are not in a strong position to defend themselves. You would need to bring a couple of barristers with you to most tribunals just to survive and get through them or to get any compensation. I am not sure that that is the way to go.

There are positive aspects, and they have been mentioned. The Committee seemed to be almost totally opposed to the recommendations by the Government from the start. The Government are looking for a back-door method of cost saving and cost cutting, and they are using the Bloomfield report as a way of doing that. My Colleague Dara O'Hagan mentioned that we should not have to rigidly adhere to what they do across the water. That system was not right for us. I see no reason why we cannot have a system of our own, or why we cannot improve on the system that is already there and that is of benefit to individuals. We should take a proper look at that, rather than have a straightforward cost-saving exercise, which seems to be the sole intent of the Government.

The individual is losing out in cases involving trauma and physical or psychological injury. Cases should be dealt with on an individual basis, and, as has been mentioned, they should not be given bar codes. For example, a rape attack could impact on a person's future career and whether she could continue with that career. The consequential loss of earnings over the next few years, or damage to career prospects, is not compensated for. The person could lose a huge amount of money under the proposed system. We have been told that there is no upper limit, but I do not believe that, and solicitors do not believe it either. People will lose out badly.

We have agreed that paid legal assistance should continue to be available to people who wish to make application for compensation. The large number of people applying was mentioned. Often it is those who are most in need who are least able to pay for assistance. They probably are the majority of those applying. The Secretary of State, despite having some arbitrary powers, has not dealt with very many cases. That can hardly be considered an extra benefit.

There is also the question of deductions from the compensation to those who receive benefits or who have received a payment for health or other insurance. That poses the question of whether those on benefits enjoy equality with those who are in full-time employment.

I agree with recommendation 10 that the proposed legislation should not be introduced at this time. That is the key message for the Government. They must reconsider the situation.

It must be recognised that Victim Support Northern Ireland's original role was an important one. However, I am not sure that it can fulfil this role. In practice, it may be very difficult. That is for Victim Support Northern Ireland to sort out for itself.

The issue of prisoners is very important to us. Submissions that we received show that in a fair and just compensation system singling out people with convictions is unfair, unjust and a denial of basic human rights. For years, ex-prisoners have suffered discrimination and have had claims denied solely because they were ex-prisoners. Whether or not the victim of a criminal injury has a previous conviction should not be taken into account when his or her claim is being assessed.

Various types of crimes have been mentioned. I know of one person whose house was burned but who received no compensation because that person had a conviction for a traffic offence. Members may check the statistics if they so wish, but this is not simply about political prisoners: it affects people at all levels. Many people who have previous convictions have gone on to lead constructive lives. Should they be victims of criminal injury in future they will also be denied compensation. That is wrong. We should have a system that is different and that does not simply follow what has gone before. Go raibh maith agat.

Several useful points were made about the anomalies in the Criminal Injuries (Compensation) (Northern Ireland) Order 1988. Indeed, various victims' organisations made those same points in Sir Kenneth Bloomfield's first report, 'We Will Remember Them'. That was taken up when the compensation payments were reviewed. Some of those points concerned the use of language. The bereavement payment was always seen as offensive to victims and was misunderstood as a consequence. Therefore it was crucial that the word "support" was introduced. The extension of the bereavement support payment to those who are considered to be partners is extremely important.

There was unanimous support in the Committee for updating our legislation. There are anomalies in the Criminal Injuries (Compensation) (Northern Ireland) Order 1988, and the victims themselves are best able to point them out. One anomaly that is constantly highlighted is the treatment of those who suffer trauma and psychological injury as a result of witnessing a traumatic incident or who are present at the scene of a crime. They may not have been compensated but may endure a great deal of pain and mental illness as a consequence of what they have seen.

Over the years, survivors in Northern Ireland have made that point. Many have said that they should have been compensated for what they had observed and endured because it took an enormous toll on their ability to continue with work and on their ability to remain as they had been before.

Any new legislation is a concern, and, as other Members have said, there is no need to abolish something that only needed to be amended. The current legislation should be amended in a way that takes cognisance of the fact that those who are present at the scene of a crime should be eligible for compensation.

In a country such as Northern Ireland, where mental illness has been treated as so insignificant in the past, it is even more important that the terms "mental illness" and "psychological injury" are to be extended and moved beyond the simple descriptions of "disorders". Therefore psychological symptoms such as anxiety, tension, insomnia, irritability, loss of confidence, agoraphobia and preoccupation with thoughts of guilt and self- harm will be included under the terms of compensation.

Anyone who has spoken to a survivor of a terrible incident will have observed the guilt that that victim suffers because he or she has survived while others have died or been terribly injured. Therefore it is important that feelings of guilt that lead to mental illness, depression and loss of confidence are acknowledged as a cause of psychological injury and that such injury be included under the terms of compensation.

The third anomaly to be addressed - and which should have been addressed before now - is time limitations, particularly in child sex abuse cases. That is also a welcome change. The legislation should have been amended, and it is good that that point was picked up. Members must remember that the terms of reference are concerned not only with victims of the troubles, but also with victims in other areas. In many cases child sex abuse victims want to lock away the memory of what they endured, and it is only in their adolescence or as they approach the years beyond 18 that the memory of those events returns to them. Because of the time limitations in place, those victims were prohibited from claiming. Therefore it is good that that statutory limitation has been lifted.

However, it is possible to amend the legislation to take on board all of those changes. As other Members have said, the Assembly should not be abolishing access to legal aid, the appeals to the courts and compensation based on individual cases.

An example from current English case law will illustrate exactly what would happen here if the Assembly were to introduce the new scheme. Tariffs will be introduced under the schemes that are currently operating in England. The Northern Ireland criminal injuries compensation scheme 2002, which was presented to the Committee, lays out exactly how much a victim would receive for a finger injury, a broken arm, rape, sex assault, or any other injury.

Caroline Fairfax was raped at knifepoint by a serial rapist called Stefan Molliere. In the attack she was punched and badly beaten. Under the criminal injury compensation scheme of tariffs, she was awarded £7,500. She believed that that was an insult to all rape victims. She said that the attack almost ruined her life; it caused her to give up work; she had to move house; and, similar to many victims, she required counselling. The price put on a rape at knifepoint - by which she was also severely injured - was £7,500. There are many other similar cases in England where the tariff system is operating.

I urge Members not to let such a system be introduced to Northern Ireland. This afternoon I tried to compare what tariffs different injuries would equate to.

Under the proposed system the loss of a finger in an attack would cost the Northern Ireland Office up to £18,000. However, victims of severe sexual abuse lasting over three years - as there is a stipulation about how long the abuse may have lasted - with all the associated distress and mental illness would receive exactly the same amount. How can anyone decide that the loss of a single finger is the equivalent to sexual abuse that took place over three years? It is important to point out that each case should be decided on its individual merit. Therefore there is a reason for good legal advice.

Herein lies the criticism of the current system and why it needed to be changed. The current system is not transparent, and it is not sufficiently accountable. Therefore victims made an enormous number of complaints about that system. It could be made much more transparent and could be amended so that those victims understand what their rights may be.

Victims should also be entitled to appeal to the courts, so the loss of legal assistance is a concern. Undoubtedly, and other Members have mentioned this, there is the right to receive support from Victim Support Northern Ireland. However, that organisation made the point that one should look at what Kenneth Bloomfield referred to as less serious injuries and those that are more serious. Victim Support Northern Ireland is on record in Committee as saying that it would be in a position to look at the less serious injuries and assist people in that category. There is more legal complexity when one is addressing multiple injuries and more serious injuries.

Considering these serious points of view regarding compensation for criminal injury, the Committee was unanimous that this particular piece of legislation should not go forward. Members have addressed other issues that would lead to inequity. The withdrawal of benefits and the paying back of some benefits are two such issues. Currently, that is not that the case. However, if it were, it would be seen as a step backwards and not as an improvement.

These are the major points, and ultimately I would argue that discretion and flexibility should always be seen positively, not negatively. It is not too difficult to take cases individually. As we make the transformation from conflict into, we hope, a more peaceful society it would be nothing short of a disgrace if the Assembly were to support the current proposals.

I have had a relatively easy job today in that all of the Members who spoke were in support of the recommendations that the Committee has made. Therefore there are no questions that I need to answer, except perhaps the one that my Colleague from South Antrim, Mr Dalton, raised in his address to the Assembly. It is only fair to point out that the Committee's recommendation that he spoke about only extends to cases where the actions of the victim in no way contribute to his or her injuries. It was the Committee's view that if the perpetrator of a crime were injured then it is right that he or she should not be compensated for those injuries.

I thank everyone who took part in the debate for their contributions. I thank the members of the Ad Hoc Committee for their input during the weeks that we met. There has been a fair amount of unity in what we have said, what we have done and the work we have produced. I want to thank the Assembly Research and Library Services for its assistance, and I owe a debt of gratitude to the Committee Clerks who assisted us in our meetings over the past weeks.

<< Next >>