ADVICE TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Hansard, 29 June 1995)

§ Mr. Alun Michael (Cardiff, South and Penarth)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
I urge the House to support new clause 1, which would establish a proper system of independent advice to the Home Secretary about the way in which victims of violent crime are compensated. In Committee, the Minister made a number of concessions. He accepted our proposal that the adjudicators who deal with appeals should form the membership of an advisory body that would include trade unionists as well as employers and those with medical and legal experience, and he agreed that they should give wide-ranging advice, not just advice arising out of their experience on appeal cases.
So far, so good. However, the Government amendment is vague, and leaves everything to the Ministers. We are invited to trust the Home Secretary about the way in which the promise is delivered, and that is where the problem arises. The Home Secretary has demonstrated a total incapacity for seeking advice when that is necessary and for listening to advice when it is offered.
There was no lack of advice when the Home Secretary sought to change the criminal injuries compensation scheme illegally, without the blessing of Parliament. Labour told him not to do it, lawyers and victims' representatives advised him not to do it, and the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board told him not to do it—yet only after being dragged through the courts of the land and being told by the Law Lords that which we had told the Home Secretary all along did he finally and grudgingly accept that he was wrong.
1094 The Home Secretary seems just as unpopular when he seeks to give advice as when he is trying to avoid taking it. Yesterday, The Guardian recorded that the Home Secretary's unilateral decision to join the Prime Minister's campaign team was not, it was thought, greeted with much joy by the loyalists". That seems to have something to do with the Home Secretary's response to the manifesto of the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood). The Home Secretary said: it is not rooted in the real world and a few minutes later said that the manifesto substantially reflects Government policy. Those statements taken together sum up the state of the Conservative party, but the Home Secretary's colleagues may be forgiven for thinking that his words best describe the right hon. and learned Gentleman's frenetic, ill-judged attempt to cut the cash without proper regard for the victims of violent crime.
The amendment will not guarantee that the Home Secretary or his successor will listen, or that his judgment will improve—but it will at least ensure a statutory advice framework and that the whole system is out in the open. U-turns have been forced on the Home Secretary, which is why the Bill contains some provisions for loss of earnings and care costs arising from violent crime, inadequate though they are.
The fact remains that the Conservative party, on the Home Secretary's own figures, is cutting compensation to the victims of violent crime by £700 million over the next five years. When the right hon. and learned Gentleman is still disregarding advice to such an appalling extent and has ignored the possibility of consensus offered by Labour's clear promise, "If you don't cut the cash, we won't cut the cash," we need a system of independent advice at the heart of the Bill, not just promised verbally in Committee.
On Tuesday, the Minister sought to persuade us that we can leave it to him to make sure that an advisory system is implemented according to our principles. Since then, I have seen a letter in which the Minister personally rejected the possibility of receiving expert advice. The Association of Personal Injury Lawyers offered its help and advice. It sought to share its concern with the Minister in good time for him to give prior consideration to its views, instead of having a public debate.
In view of the fact that the last time the Minister ignored the association's advice, he ended up in the House of Lords losing an appeal, one might have thought that the Minister would jump at the chance. But no, the association received a letter dated 19 June from the Minister's assistant private secretary, saying in essence that the Minister was too busy.
The whole point of an adequate system of advice built into the Bill is to ensure that Ministers receive good advice at an early stage and consider it before coming forward with proposals. Hard, half-hearted, half-baked, headline-grabbing obstinacy by a Home Secretary who would not listen has turned criminal injury compensation into a live political issue, when it should be a topic for consensus.
Despite the history, we have sought to protect Ministers from their own worst instincts and the consequences of their folly, as we do in this new clause—which the Minister should accept as a positive and helpful 1095 contribution to the Bill. It would guarantee an independent source of advice when establishing or changing tariff levels or making provision in relation to loss of earnings, special expenses or fatal cases, and in relation to other key aspects of the scheme in clause 3(1).
That is vital, to ensure that changes to the scheme are made on the basis of expert advice and that the Government do not again fall into the trap of making proposals for criminal injury compensation that are opposed by anyone with knowledge of the effect of criminal injuries on victims.
It would have been more impressive when the Minister suggested that people who deal with appeals might also offer advice if there had been anything in the Bill or in the notes on clauses provided by the Minister to suggest that was his intention. I believe that he has given some way, sensibly, under pressure from the Opposition. It would be far better, however, for the changes that we recommended to be included in the Bill so that they become clear or transparent. They should be guaranteed for the future. We should not have to depend on the Minister's interpretation being continued by future Home Office Ministers.

§ The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. David Maclean)
There were lengthy debates in Committee about the need for an independent body to advise the Secretary of State on tariffs, the other heads of damage and the general running of a compensation scheme for criminal injuries. At first, it was suggested that yet another new body should be set up to fulfil that role. We, the Government, said that that was unnecessary, because there would already be an independent body with the necessary expertise to provide such advice—the appeals panel. We argued that it would be established to consider appeals against awards made by the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority.
We argued also that the panel, with members drawn from the present Criminal Injuries Compensation Board, the medical profession, commerce and industry, the TUC and other organisations, was the ideal body for the purpose. We made it clear that we would expect the panel to offer advice to the Government on any matters relating to the scheme, both when asked for such advice and of its own accord when it felt that matters should be brought to the attention of Ministers. Although it was not necessary, we amended the Bill in Committee to provide that the scheme included provision on the giving of advice by the panel to the Government.
We want the new, enhanced tariff scheme to be user-friendly. It should be flexible and capable of responding quickly to the needs of victims or to wider interests. We do not want a scheme that is hidebound by overly detailed rules and procedures that militate against speedy reactions to needs or demands because of an imposed structure that is overly bureaucratic. We want the panel to be able to operate flexibly. We do not want to restrict its freedom of action by imposing a duty on it to advise the Secretary of State on a range of prescribed issues, especially a duty that, while clear enough about the issues to which it relates, fails to make clear by what circumstances it is triggered.
Exactly when should the panel give its advice? The amendment refers to both formal and informal advice. It is yet another recipe for internal bureaucracy. I am content 1096 to leave the panel to provide whatever advice it thinks appropriate when it thinks appropriate, without it having to decide whether it is giving it as formal or informal advice.
The new clause would give the panel another duty. It would require it to report any formal advice that it gave to the Secretary of State. Clause 6 already contains a provision about annual reports to the Secretary of State by such persons as he thinks appropriate relating to the discharge of their functions. The report will be laid before Parliament. The scheme will make it clear that the panel will be required to produce an annual report as soon as practicable after the end of each financial year. That will have to cover advice that is given in accordance with the scheme.
The panel will be free to record any other comments that it feels it right to make about the scheme and its operation. There is no need, therefore, for the part of the new clause that requires a report to be made "each calendar year". I am happy for the panel to decide how it wants to give advice to the Government. It is unnecessary to include express provision for that.
I respect the point of view of the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael), as always, but I consider the clause to be unnecessary. We have made it clear that we shall look to the panel as a ready source of expertise and advice on any matters touching on the tariff scheme. We have made it equally clear that the panel is free to give unsolicited advice to the Government if it wants to do so. We have amended the Bill to ensure that the scheme will include provision for panel advice. We shall ensure that the scheme deals adequately with that. The over-prescriptive new clause before us is not necessary for that purpose.
The Government are interested in the contents of a new clause—the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth and I had an excellent relationship in Committee—to which we shall be coming shortly. We shall not be able to accept the exact wording of that clause, but we are interested in its contents. We may be able to go further with it. I cannot, however, accept new clause 1. If the hon. Gentleman does not withdraw it, I shall have to ask this packed Chamber to reject it.

§ Mr. Michael
The Minister continues to move in our direction in accepting the nature of advice that should be given. Our concern is that that matter should be in the Bill. The issue will be pressed strongly, not just in this House but in another place. However, as the Minister has at least recognised the importance of the issues that we have raised, and that there should be such a system of independent advice, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.