HC Deb 20 March 1995 vol 257 cc10-1
11. Mr. O'Hara

To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what representations he has had about the operation of the compensation recovery unit; and if he will make a statement. [12998]

Mr. Roger Evans

A number of representations have been received.

Mr. O'Hara

Whether the Minister views the CRU from the conceptual, legal or moral point of view, he will find that its whole basis is fraudulent, that it represents a breach of the national insurance contract with the electorate and that it is one of the meanest contrivances of a mean-minded Government. Will he therefore give a commitment at least to review the many anomalies in a system which impacts so acutely on damaged lives?

Mr. Evans

That is a grossly over-exaggerated statement. The existing system was simply unacceptable and arbitrary and that is why the Public Accounts Committee condemned it. It was a subsidy out of public funds to the negligent and the partly negligent. In the case of disabled people in receipt of mobility or attendance allowance, it was also a system that allowed the whole sum to be deducted in full without any future limit whatsoever. The Government's proposals are an improvement on the existing system. Of course, we will consider the report by the Select Committee on Social Security in due time.

Lady Olga Maitland

Does my hon. Friend agree that negligent employers and their insurers should fulfil their responsibilities, rather than pass them on to the taxpayer?

Mr. Evans

Yes.

Mr. Dewar

Will the Minister confirm that the average sum recovered in the 60,821 cases dealt with between April 1994 and the end of February 1995 was more than £15,000? Even if there is a case for recovery where wage loss is included in the settlement, how can he defend a situation in which the compensation for pain, suffering and loss of facility is clawed back by the Treasury? Is that not indefensible?

Mr. Evans

No. The average sum recovered during the operation of the scheme is a modest £2,200 per case. On the disaggregation of the award or settlement, only a small fraction of the cases are ever fully and properly determined by a judge. That is highly desirable because it saves money for everyone involved and speeds up the settlement process. Any attempt to disaggregate a settlement that was entered into freely is impractical to organise without considerable expense and would not be as satisfactory as a trial in every case, which would be unthinkable