BASIS ON WHICH COMPENSATION IS TO BE CALCULATED (Hansard, 7 November 1995)

§ The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. David Maclean)
I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris)
With this, it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendment No. 2.

§ Mr. Maclean
Lords amendment No. 1 makes it clear beyond doubt that the scheme may provide for awards in fatal cases to include, in addition to the fixed-tariff award, additional amounts calculated in accordance with the scheme. That will allow payment to be made for such other elements as reasonable funeral expenses, loss of dependency and loss of parental support. Those elements are not fixed or specified, so provision could not be made for them under subsection (2)(d) as it originally stood. They will be calculated by reference to the circumstances of the case, rather than on the basis of the fixed tariff. The amendment simply ensures that such payments can properly be made.
Let me now deal with Lords amendment No. 2. On introduction, clause 3(1)(c) enabled provision to be included in the scheme in regard to repayment of compensation for breach of conditions subject to which an award was made. However, the scheme also needs to include provision for repayment in other circumstances, such as when the applicant receives compensation from other sources in respect of the same criminal injury, and when that other compensation was not taken into account when the award was made from our scheme. That simply replicates the situation under the present scheme, and is intended to prevent the applicant from receiving compensation twice for the same injury. As originally drafted, the Bill would not have allowed a provision to be included in the scheme providing for such recovery; it accordingly needed to be amended to permit recovery in those wider circumstances.

§ Mr. Alun Michael (Cardiff, South and Penarth)
I am particularly grateful to the Minister for accepting Lords amendment No. 1, which we pursued in the House. It makes the position clear beyond doubt in allowing awards in fatal cases to include funeral expenses and expenses incurred by loss of dependency and loss of parental support.
738 Will the Minister clarify the way in which the power conferred by Lords amendment No. 2 will be exercised? I understand the intention of the amendment, which is to ensure that money can be reclaimed.
I was hoping that the Minister would answer my question, but I apologise for interrupting the conversation that is taking place on the Government Front Bench.
It is obviously right to deal with cases in which there has been an oversight or a lack of information at the time when an award was made, so that no deduction has been made for the availability of compensation elsewhere; but the provision could also be used in "blanket" ways, and inappropriate amounts could be deducted. Will the Minister therefore clarify how the retrospective power that is given under the amendment will be used in practice? Will the ways in which it is to be used be specified in the scheme, to be published shortly in its final form?

§ Mr. Maclean
No retrospection is intended. In the present scheme, no one is compensated twice: that is a normal rule of government, the law and insurance law in particular. We never intended that, under the new tariff scheme, someone could receive double compensation. All the amendment does is clarify the law and ensure that the same rule as operated by the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board is carried forward into the tariff scheme. In practice, it will operate in exactly the same way as at present.
No blanket retrospection is applied—I do not know how that could apply. We should bear it in mind that, even moving as quickly as possible, it takes some time to process awards. The board and those operating the tariff scheme will want to receive full information on the means and situation of the victim and on any other income, expenses or money that he acquires. If they find that someone is receiving a full insurance pay-out, or, properly, that the criminal has been ordered to pay compensation to the victim and there is a compensation order against the criminal, so that the victim has received money from the criminal offender, they will reduce the award or not pay it. We are not, however, applying the provision retrospectively to take money back from people who have been properly paid. It merely continues the normal system.