HL Deb 24 July 1979 vol 401 cc1874-98

6 p.m.

The Earl of LONGFORD

My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.

Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(The Earl of Longford.)

House in Committee accordingly.

[The LORD ALPORT in the Chair.]

Clause 1 [Right to Compensation]:

The Earl of LONGFORD moved Amendment No. 1: Page 1, line 22, leave out ("in the case of a claim by a victim").

The noble Earl said: The object of this amendment is to leave no doubt that this might be a claim made not only by a victim but by a dependant. I beg to move.

The Earl of LONGFORD moved Amendment No. 2: Page 1, line 24, leave out from ("loss") to end of line 2 on page 2 and insert ("or a personal loss caused by bodily or mental injuries").

The noble Earl said: This is a drafting amendment. I think it is a more convenient way of making the same point as was made in the original wording. I beg to move.

Lord BELSTEAD

I think that the personal element is an essential factor in determining loss and therefore I should like to express my agreement with this amendment.

6.4 p.m.

The Earl of LONGFORD moved Amendment No. 3: Page 2, line 14, leave out from ("victim") to end of line 16.

The noble Earl said: This again is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.

On Question, Whether Clause 1 , as amended, shall be agreed to?

Lord BELSTEAD

Since this is the clause which provides the basic statutory right to compensation in the noble Earl's Bill, I should like to make it clear, before I say anything else on Clause 1, that I have no intention of voting against this clause. My purpose is to try briefly to explain the reason why the Government do not consider that the time is ripe for a Bill of this kind, but that is the limit of my intention.

Your Lordships may have read in the Press or heard on the radio of the announcement which was made yesterday in another place by my right honourable friend the Home Secretary as a reply to a Parliamentary Question for Written Answer. My right honourable friend and my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Scotland, yesterday published a revised version of the existing Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme, and announced that the scheme would be made statutory when there had been sufficient experience of the revision to enable any problems to be identified and to be solved.

The revised scheme is based on the recommendations of the interdepartmental working party which, after taking evidence from more than 50 people and organisations with special knowledge of the law relating to compensation, reported on the Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme last year. I think it is fair for me to say, taking advantage of all that expert knowledge, that the revised scheme arose from a report which obviously needed to be taken very seriously. This is neither the time nor the place to describe in any detail the improvements which the revised scheme announced by my right honourable friends yesterday make, but perhaps I may just refer to two of the improvements as I see them.

The most substantial change is the extension of the scheme to the victims of family violence. They have previously been excluded from compensation for criminal injuries, partly because of the difficulties in establishing the facts in such cases and partly because of the risk of the offender benefiting from any reward. The revised scheme also provides for a new method of calculating the upper limit of earnings on which a claim for compensation may be made, ensuring that some 98 per cent, of working people will be entitled to full compensation for any loss of earnings. On the procedural side the new scheme will allow for the first time the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board to re-open cases so that where there has been a serious change in a victim's medical condition within three years of the date of the final award, the board may reconsider its previous decision. For the first time the board will be required to give reasons when an award is refused or reduced, and for the first time the board is allowed to admit observers from the media to attend hearings, provided that the anonymity of the applicant and other parties is preserved.

The noble Earl, Lord Longford, may well say to me that if the Government accept the principle (as we do) of the statutory right to compensation to which Clause 1 will give effect, therefore the Government should welcome this clause and should table the amendments necessary to enable the Bill to put the new revised Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme on a statutory footing. It would be perfectly reasonable for the noble Earl to say that, and maybe that is what he will say to me. But it is really not as easy as that, for certainly the Government consider it essential that the new features of the revised scheme genuinely need to be tried out in practice before they are provided for in legislation, and without in any way wasting time it has really genuinely only been possible, so far as the Government are concerned, to make clear our intentions with regard to the future of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme.

Perhaps I may just explain what I mean by that. No one, for instance, has any real idea of how many cases of family violence will be brought before the board. I think one wants to see how that works out to ensure that the rules which the Government are intending to make in the revised scheme for the minimum compensation payable in family violence cases to be £500, will not be too onerous. But we need a little time to see how that will work out. Indeed, everybody needs a little time to see how it will work out.

Secondly, the revised scheme, if legislation is going to be based on that, is really very complex and detailed. Your Lordships will be able to check on the truth of what I am saying by simply glancing in the Library, where a copy of the scheme has now been placed. It consists of 25 paragraphs which cover all aspects of the board's work, including its constitution, procedures and the basis upon which compensation is to be calculated. To translate this or anything like it into legislation so as to strike the right balance between substantive and subordinate legislation and to tread the narrow tightrope between too great and too narrow a discretion for the board, really is a highly skilled exercise which requires a great deal of time and consideration. I accept that what the Government said yesterday in another place perhaps may not be absolutely to the taste of all your Lordships. We may not have got it absolutely right, but at least the scheme as it is being altered at the moment is not yet being put on the Statute Book, and there is time for everybody to decide whether it is right before the legislation is brought in.

Thirdly, I have to say this. Admirable though the noble Earl's intention is in this Bill, the Bill none the less in its present form could only be made to give statutory effect to the existing or revised scheme by a wholesale replacement of each of its clauses by new and entirely different clauses. If I may confine the examples of what I mean just to Clause 1, on which I am speaking, to base payment of compensation on the concept of loss rather than of injury is, if I may say so with respect, something which is misconceived. To make the compensation payable by the Secretary of State brings such payments, I think mistakenly, out of the legal and into the political arena. The territorial scope of Clause 1 is not as wide as that of the revised scheme which has been placed in the Library of your Lordships' House. The clause prevents the payment of any ex gratia award of compensation in circumstances when criminal injury is not involved.

Individually, these and other similar deficiences, the noble Earl might say, might be drafting points; but when one bears in mind that these sort of points are in every single clause of the noble Earl's Bill, I really think that to put this into legislation that would be acceptable to all your Lordships would mean drafting almost a different Bill. So I ask the noble Earl whether this is really the way in which he wishes to see legislation enacted in your Lordships' House. The Bill is most valuable in that there is no question but that it has hastened on yesterday's Government announcement which was the culmination of several months' work on the revision of the scheme. I have no intention of voting against Clause 1; there is no question of that at all. But I ask the noble Earl whether, when this Committee stage is completed, it does not perhaps make sense to wait a little longer, to see how the scheme works, and to wait for Government legislation which undoubtedly will quite genuinely have been contributed to by the Bill which the noble Earl is bringing before us this evening.

The Earl of LONGFORD

I am naturally very grateful to the noble Lord for the kind words he has said about the contribution that I and those working with me might possibly have made. It would be wrong not to express at any rate some measure of welcome to the statement made yesterday by the Secretary of State, repeated in essence today. Certainly, this is the first time since 1964 that a Government have come forward and really shown some positive interest in victims. It would be very wrong for me to ignore that fact and I am sure, speaking, if I am allowed to for the moment, on behalf of the victims, everybody should be grateful to that extent. The support for the victims' support scheme and other indications of increased interest are extremely welcome.

I am also glad that the noble Lord has said more clearly than was said the other day—though I realise that he was under certain inhibitions—that the Government agree that this scheme should be dealt with on a statutory basis. Where I am afraid I cannot agree with the noble Lord is that there is some reason for delay. There will be delay for a few months after this Committee stage before anything else can happen. But the noble Lord is no doubt very well aware that, taking the main change that is suggested by the Government as the inclusion of family injuries in the compensation provision, that was recommended by the departmental committee as something which could be done without legislation; so that it could be put into force tomorrow without legislation, and no doubt will be, and changed without legislation. If we were to introduce legislation, that does not make it harder to alter that, unless you insist that legislation is going to cover all the minutiae.

The noble Lord mentioned the very lavish scheme, but as far as I am concerned there is no question of trying to cover all these points in legislation. On my advice, there is no need to constitutionally. So I differ from the noble Lord if he is implying that a large part of the very detailed scheme now in operation would have to be included in the Bill. I do not accept that, and therefore we differ at that point. I feel that we have to keep on pressing the noble Lord. He has been kind enough to say that our pressure has accelerated the steps that have been taken. Well, perhaps it will accelerate future steps. I cannot fall in with the idea that if we just fold our hands and go to sleep again that will be serving victims.

Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 2 [Claims for compensation]:

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES (Lord Alport)

I have to advise your Lordships that if Amendment No. 4 is agreed, I will be unable to call Amendment No. 5.

6.15 p.m.

Lord BELSTEAD moved Amendment No. 4: Page 2, line 18, leave out from ("within") to first ("or") in line 19 and insert ("three years").

The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 4 and with it I would, if I may, speak to Amendment No. 6. The effect of these two amendments is to change the time limits which apply to applications for compensation. Under the clause as it stands at present application may be made within a year of the relevant injury or within 6 months of the victim's death, whichever is the later. If the proposed amendment is accepted, there will be a time limit for all appications of three years from the date of injury, subject to a power of the compensation tribunal to allow a longer period in exceptional circumstances. This amendment is in accordance with the revised scheme which the Government published yesterday.

I think that both the noble Earl and the working party, which the noble Earl has already mentioned in our debate this evening, consider that there should be a time limit on applications because of the difficulty of establishing facts after a period of time. This is clear from the drafting of the Bill. Clearly the chance of a successful application diminishes with the passage of time. I think it would be common ground for me to say that your Lordships would wish to encourage victims to apply as quickly as possible. On the other hand, it may well be that an injury which at first appeared insignificant may later cause grave problems, and someone who in the first instance may have thought it not worthwhile to apply may change his mind. The year which is suggested in this Bill is not really long enough to allow for any such change in circumstances.

There is, of course, no particular magic about three years, but we on this side of the House believe that it is long enough to show the victims of criminal injury that there is no intention of prejudicing their chances of compensation, yet short enough to allow facts still to be established where necessary. It is obviously possible that to apply a three-year time limit might very occasionally operate more restrictively than the noble Earl's proposal that there should be an alternative limit of six months from the death of the victim. But then the tribunal's power, which is in the scheme, to waive the time limit in exceptional circumstances could be brought in to overcome any difficulty of that sort. So in moving this amendment, and in speaking to the other amendment, I am asking your Lordships to agree, if you will, that it is better to have one simple, easily understood time limit for all applications than to differentiate between cases. The amendment is accordingly intended to simplify the clause as well as making it more generous to victims.

The Earl of LONGFORD

I am happy to endorse the proposal of the noble Lord. I am very glad that he should, if I may use the expression, incriminate himself in this Bill. I hope that in the end he will regard it as much his Bill as mine. The more amendments he moves which I am happy to accept, the better for both of us.

Lord BELSTEAD

It may be temerity to move amendments to the noble Earl's Bill, but it does not mean claiming paternity.

[Amendment No. 5 not moved.]

Lord BELSTEAD moved Amendment No. 6: Page 2, line 21, leave out from ("made") to ("and") in line 23 and insert ("or such longer period as the compensation tribunal may in exceptional circumstances allow").

6.20 p.m.

The Earl of LONGFORD moved Amendment No. 7 Page 2, line 31, leave out subsection (2).

The noble Earl said: I beg to move Amendment No. 7. This is the only important change which I am bringing forward to the Bill that was placed before the House and discussed on Second Reading. It is an attempt to meet criticisms levelled by, for example, the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, and the noble Lord, Lord Belstead. Quite frankly, it is an attempt to produce a Bill which it would be quite easy for the Government to introduce themselves with any amendments they thought appropriate. In other words, it is an attempt to get the Bill as far as possible into a shape which could be adopted by the Government. Although I am not resiling in any way from the idea of the local boards, I do not think that it is such a question of principle as deeply to separate myself from what is obviously the Government's point of view. So we are removing the whole plan for the local tribunals, bearing in mind that, under the existing rules and under any of the provisions that we are suggesting, it would be possible for the main board to meet in a number of places. I gather that that already happens and to some extent the number of places in which the main tribunnal could meet could be multiplied.

Bearing that in mind, and for the reasons that I have given, I wish the removal of this subsection, although two parts of it are inserted later. So far as local tribunals are concerned, they would go out of the Bill. I beg to move.

Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 3 agreed to.

Clause 4 [Exclusion of minimal compensation]:

THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES

I must advise the Committee that, if Amendment No. 8 is agreed, I cannot call Amendment No. 9.

6.23 p.m.

Lord BELSTEAD moved Amendment No. 8: Page 3, line 10, leave out from ("claim") to ("as") in line 13 and insert ("if the amount of the compensation would be less than such amount").

The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 8 and, with the Committee's permission, I should like to speak to Amendment No. 10. The Amendment of the noble Earl, Lord Longford, is Amendment No. 9 and if your Lordships agree to Amendment No. 8 his amendment would not be called. None the less, Amendment No. 9 suggests that the noble Earl realises that unintentionally the Bill makes less beneficial provision for the victim of criminal injury than either the existing or the revised Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme. The Bill allows only pecuniary loss to be taken into account when calculating whether the compensation payable exceeds £150. That means that if someone who was not a wage-earner was crippled for life, he or she might not be entitled to any compensation because his or her pecuniary loss might not exceed £150. In case that sounds fanciful, let me point out that pensioners, in particular, might be adversely affected. I think that the noble Earl and I have both picked this matter up in our different ways and it so happens that I am moving the amendment.

Therefore, briefly, Amendment No. 8 simply allows the total amount of compensation payable to be taken into account when considering the minimum payment, whether the compensation is for pecuniary or any other loss. It also makes the slight adjustment of referring to "less" than the minimum amount rather than more so that those whose compensation would be exactly £150 would, as at present, be entitled to that sum.

The second amendment, Amendment No. 10, is suggested with the revised scheme, which was announced yesterday, in mind. Under that scheme, although the minimum payment for most applications remains at £150, the minimum payment in cases of family violence is set at £500. That is partly to ensure that only the more serious cases are included, but mainly to make it easier to assess the impact of family cases on the cost and operation of the scheme. I was at some pains a few minutes ago to explain that one of the advantages of not putting the family violence provisions into legislation immediately is to see how they work out in the coming months before we move to legislation. With those few words I beg to move Amendment No. 8.

The Earl of LONGFORD

I support the noble Lord.

[Amendment No. 9 not moved.]

Lord BELSTEAD moved Amendment No. 10: Page 3, line 14, at end insert ("; and an order under this section may make different provision for different cases or different circumstances").

Clause 4, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 5 agreed to.

Clause 6 [Reduction in compensation where certain other payments are made to a claimant]:

The Earl of LONGFORD moved Amendment No. 11: Page 3, line 20, leave out ("pecuniary").

The noble Earl said: I beg to move Amendment No. 11. This is a drafting amendment.

The Earl of LONGFORD moved Amendment No. 12: Page 3, line 21, leave out ("may") and insert ("shall, as nearly as may be, apply the rules of law which would have been applicable if the tribunal were assessing a claim for damages in civil proceedings taken by the claimant against the malefactor for the loss in respect of which the compensation is claimed and shall").

The noble Earl said: I beg to move Amendment No. 12. This is perhaps the second most important amendment that I am bringing forward. The Bill was criticised at an earlier stage by the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, and the noble Lord, Lord Allen, for not making clear what would be the basis of compensation. I was advised at that time that that was not necessary because it would be understood that the basis would be the basis in civil actions. Anyway, it is now inserted clearly that the basis would be the basis in tort and therefore Amendment No. 12 is trying to meet the criticisms of the noble Lord, Lord Belstead. I beg to move.

Lord BELSTEAD

There is just one small point that is worth mentioning. The amendment rectifies one of the Bill's deficiencies by indicating the basis on which compensation would be assessed. However, as a result of the amendment, the side-heading to the clause as printed in the Bill is no longer accurate in referring only to reductions. I thought that the noble Earl would like me to point that out. If I have not quite made myself clear, what I have said will be accurately reported in the Official Report.

The Earl of LONGFORD moved Amendment No. 13: Page 3, leave out line 29.

The noble Earl said: I beg to move Amendment No. 13. The effect of this amendment, and one or two others which come later, is to meet certain criticisms made by the noble Lord, Lord Allen, reported at columns 259 and 260 of the Official Report. The amendments as a whole are intended to make it clear that it is to be mandatory for the tribunal to make deductions from compensation, for social security benefits and so on received by the claimant. The Bill was criticised by the noble Lord, Lord Allen, for failing to make that plain, so the effect of this amendment and others which come later is to rectify the situation.

The Earl of LONGFORD moved Amendment No. 14: Page 3, line 32, leave out from beginning to ("of") in line 33 and insert ("the claimant as a result").

The noble Earl said: I beg to move Amendment No. 14. This amendment is intended to deal with points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Allen, reported at column 261 of the Official Report. The amendment will provide that a claimant who receives damages must give notice of that fact to the tribunal so as to enable the Secretary of State to claim back the relevant repayment as defined by Clause 9(2) of the Bill.

Lord BELSTEAD

It is not entirely easy to follow what are, at any rate to me, technical matters, but I think I ought to say that the amendment which the noble Earl has just moved, and the previous one, have an unfortunate effect. Although they are an improvement on the Bill as drafted, they reduce the payment of compensation to a dependant by the amount of any insurance money or benefits relating to the injury, instead of those arising from the victim's death. The subsection, as amended by the noble Earl, is also more restrictive than the Government's revised scheme announced yesterday, in that under the revised scheme benefits and pensions which are received as a result of personal payments made by the victim need not be taken into account when assessing compensation. I am not particularly asking the noble Earl to respond to what I have said, but I thought it was right to place this on the record. These are some of the problems which the Government still see in the noble Earl's Bill.

The Earl of LONGFORD

I do not for one moment suppose that perfection has already been achieved. We have to go through two further stages. I shall certainly look very carefully at what the noble Lord said and expect to make the necessary adjustments at the next stage.

Clause 6, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 7 and 8 agreed to.

Clause 9 [Return of compensation where certain other payments are made to a claimant]:

6.31 p.m.

The Earl of LONGFORD moved Amendment No. 15: Page 4, line 21, after ("shall") insert— (" (a) within twenty eight days serve notice by post upon the tribunal of the receipt by him of any sum in payment of any such damages, compensation (other than com pensation paid under this Act), insurance money, benefit, pension or gratuity as are or is, as the case may be, referred to in subsection (2) below; and (b)").

The noble Earl said: I have already spoken to this amendment. I beg to move.

Lord BELSTEAD

This, of course, follows the word "shall", which is a requirement. I am not entirely clear what will happen if a claimant fails to comply with the requirement. I do not mean deliberately to ask a difficult question. This is a genuine question which the noble Earl needs to look at. There is a requirement here and the Bill does not say what happens if the requirement is not met. For instance, will the claimant be subject to ordinary court proceedings, or will the compensation tribunal have some special power further to reduce the compensation as a sanction? Those are the kind of questions which arise in one's mind. The noble Earl may wish to look at what I have just said before we come to the next stage of his Bill.

The Earl of LONGFORD

I would rather read what the noble Lord has said and then make the necessary rectifications.

The Earl of LONGFORD had given Notice of his intention to move Amendments Nos. 16 to 19: Page 4, line 37, leave out from beginning to ("the") in line 38. Page 4, line 40, leave out ("that dependant by virtue of the victim's death") and insert ("the claimant") Page 5, line 1, leave out from ("question") to end of line 4. Page 5, line 7, at end insert— ("(4) In this section "insurance money", "benefit", and "pension" have the meanings respectively assigned to them by section 6(2) above.").

The noble Earl said: These amendments are intended to meet points made by my noble friend Lord Allen of Abbey-dale. In view of the difficulties that have been presented by the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, I would rather not move these amendments but table them at the next stage in whatever form seems most suitable.

[Amendments Nos. 16 to 19 not moved.]

Clause 9, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 10 [Criminal Injuries Compensation Tribunal]:

The Earl of LONGFORD moved Amendment No. 20: Page 5, line 19, leave out ("who") and insert ("and two other members and the president and each of those members").

The noble Earl said: This amendment and the following amendments relate to a point on which my noble friend Lord Allen of Abbeydale dwelt quite considerably. His point was that all members of the tribunal should be legally qualified. These amendments will provide accordingly. It is an attempt to meet my noble friend's point and, indeed, this was a point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Belstead—certainly I understood that that was his point of view.

The Earl of LONGFORD moved Amendments Nos. 21 to 24: Page 5, line 21, leave out from ("Chancellor") to end of line 25. Page 5, line 28, leave out from ("for") to ("shall") in line 30 and insert ("the words "a president" to end of the subsection, the words "a president and two other members and the president and each of those members"). Page 6, line 18, leave out ("paragraph (a) of") Page 6, line 21, leave out from ("Session") to end of line 22.

The noble Earl said: I beg to move these amendments en bloc.

Lord BELSTEAD

I should like to speak to this group of amendments, and express my recognition of the fact that the noble Earl has taken the view that the Bill should be amended so that the members of the compensation tribunal do not need to be medically qualified. It is not that the medical qualifications are not most important with regard to the work of the board, but, as I sought to say on the previous stage of the Bill, the medical advice can be procured without including in legislation the fact that one, or more than one, of the members of the board needs to be medically qualified. Having said that, I cannot see why the members of the tribunal need to be appointed respectively by the Lord Chancellor and the Lord President of the Court of Session, when the members of the existing board have been appointed by my right honourable friends the Home Secretary and the Secretary of State for Scotland for 15 years without any apparent reason for complaint. However, I assume that this is because the noble Earl wishes to emphasise the legal nature of the tribunal's proceedings. I thought I would just raise that aspect again. It is right to raise this particular marker before we say goodbye to Clause 10.

The Earl of LONGFORD

I do not lay great stress on the fact that it must be the Lord Chancellor. I should also like to look at this again.

Lord WELLS-PESTELL

May I ask the Minister whether I understood my noble friend Lord Longford to say that all the members of the tribunal were to be legally qualified? If so, that is a most unusual course. Normally in matters of this kind the chairman of the tribunal is legally qualified. Does the Minister himself believe that all members of the tribunal should be legally qualified?

Lord BELSTEAD

In the revised scheme, which the Government announced yesterday, that is the situation: the chairman and the members of the board will be legally qualified. The reason for that is a matter which occupied the Members of your Lordships' House considerably during the Second Reading of the Bill. It is because the compensation is assessed in accordance with assessment of tort damages. It is necessary to have people who understand the assessment of tort damages—in other words, people who are legally qualified—to sit on the board. Therefore, my answer to the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, is that it is the right way to proceed.

Lord WELLS-PESTELL

If I may say so, this is still a most unusual course to take. Bearing in mind what the noble Lord has said, I should have thought it was essential that the chairman should be legally qualified, that he should be a qualified lawyer. But in assessing these matters other considerations must be taken into account, which do not require a legal point of view. I should have thought that we would be creating a very bad precedent. In a matter of compensation for injury there ought to be at least one lay person on the tribunal. I am quite surprised that we should be considering a tribunal all the members of which are legally qualified. I do not know whether there is a precedent for this. If there is, I cannot think of it, but I think it is a dangerous one. We have always had one or two lay people on tribunals who can bring other experiences to bear in assessing matters of this kind.

Lord BELSTEAD

I have listened very closely to what the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, has said because he has considerable experience of tribunal matters, although not necessarily perhaps criminal injury matters. I would remind him that the present system of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme is that, in the first instance, the hearings are held in front of a single member of the board. The Government claim—indeed I have no hesitation in claiming this—that this is a great advantage. It allows for hearings to be held as quickly as possible, although hearings are not held as quickly as everyone would wish; it allows for reasonable informality, and in the event people do not appear to object in any large numbers to the hearing in front of one member of the board.

However, if the applicant feels that the finding of the single board member is a wrong one, then it is open to the applicant to appeal to the board. Therefore, in the first instance, I would submit to the noble Lord that, for the reasons I have gone into, it is necessary for the single member hearing a criminal injuries compensation case to be legally qualified. It is when the matter goes to a three-man or three-men and women hearing that the noble Lord's remarks bite. I do not think I have anything more I would like to say, except that I should like to have another look at this scheme, and, if I feel there is anything else I should like to add, leave myself free to write about this to the noble Lord before the next stage.

Lord WELLS-PESTELL

I rather understood my noble friend to say that he was probably prepared to take back Amendments Nos. 21, 22, 23 and 24 to look at. I do not know whether it is his intention to do so, but, if he did and came back with a tribunal consisting of a chairman who was legally qualified and the other two who were not, would the noble Lord the Minister then resist these amendments?

Lord BELSTEAD

This is, in a sense, like putting in a paragraph in the middle of a page. I think perhaps it is a good moment, if the noble Earl does not mind my speaking once again on this, for me to repeat, in case I have seemed over-helpful, that the Government do not believe that the time is ripe (those are the words I used) for legislation. It is not because we do not like Private Member's legislation. We are delighted to see legislation from the noble Earl or any other Member of your Lordships' House, but there were good reasons why I got up on Clause 1 and said we thought the time was not ripe.

Secondly, there are still many things in this Bill which would need to be changed before the Bill could possibly become law. Therefore, the question put by the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, is hypothetical in this sense, because at the moment we have a Bill before your Lordships' House which I am afraid the Government do not support for the reasons I have tried to give, whereas we have the existence of the brand new revised scheme which the Government believe, I hope correctly, is the right way to proceed, at least for the next few months.

The Earl of LONGFORD

I was a little puzzled by what the noble Lord said about the initial hearing before the chairman of the tribunal, because at present in any cases known to me there is no hearing. The single chairman decides with the help of his advisers, and makes a decision on the basis of correspondence. The hearing is not possible until the next stage. That is the present situation, unless there are some exceptions known to the noble Lord and not to me.

I did not say that I was actually taking back this clause. I said I would look at it again—which may come to almost the same thing. I would hope that these amendments could be carried, but I am overwhelmingly convinced by my noble friend, to whom I owe a good deal of allegiance in these latter days. I would come up again, or at any rate make contact with the noble Lord and have a further argument about it. I might not have been so dogmatic in favour of the legal trio if I had heard the views of the noble Lord, but as of now I should like to move these amendments.

Clause 10, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 11 agreed to.

Clause 12 [Staff and expenses of compensation tribunal]:

6.45 p.m.

The Earl of LONGFORD moved Amendments Nos. 25 and 26: Page 7, line 15, leave out ("such local boards and") Page 7, line 21, leave out ("and local boards")

The noble Earl said: Amendments Nos. 25 and 26 are really consequential on the removal of subsection (2). Perhaps in passing, very meekly and mildly, I can express a little sadness that, having tried to meet the noble Lord on all the main points he raised last time, he has dredged up a whole lot of new difficulties. I feel very much like Sisyphus. I suppose if I satisfy him on some of these points his clever advisers will come up with some new conundrums. We thought we had met him on what he called the new fundamentals. These amendments are really consequential on the removal of subsection (2).

Clause 12, as amended, agreed to.

The Earl of LONGFORD moved Amendment No. 27: After Clause 12, insert the following new clause:

Tribunal's duty to give publicity to rights to claim compensation

. The tribunal shall, so far as is reasonably practicable, call the attention of victims and their dependants to their rights to claim compensation under this Act.

The noble Earl said: As the Committee will be aware, we have removed subsection (2), but that did not only refer to local boards; it referred to two other issues. I attach a lot of importance to this new clause, although its effect is not quantifiable. The new clause would read: The tribunal shall, so far as is reasonably practicable, call the attention of victims and their dependants to their rights to claim compensation under this Act".

Although the noble Lord is advised by those who are most directly concerned—presumably the members of the board—that their scheme has always worked almost perfectly, in fact there is great bewilderment about it. Only yesterday somebody sent in a card to see me. He did not even know about the scheme. He had been injured a long time ago and he wondered how he could get some compensation. He had consulted the police. They did not give him any help. There is a large section of the population—again I cannot quantify it—who do not know about the scheme at present, and if they do, do not know how to proceed, so I do not think that anyone can object to these words being put into the Bill which I hope will lead to more publicity being given.

6.48 p.m.

The Earl of LONGFORD moved Amendment No. 28: After Clause 12, insert the following new clause:

Right to legal aid

. A claimant, whose financial circumstances are such that he would be eligible for legal aid in civil proceedings, shall be eligible for the like legal aid in claiming compensation under this Act.

The noble Earl said: This provision was also in the original Bill in the now defunct Clause 2(2). This provides for legal aid on the same basis as in civil proceedings. On the last occasion, the noble Lord explained that if and when this scheme is placed on a statutory basis, legal aid is likely to be available. I am not asking for anything extraordinary, because we are proceeding on the assumption that this is going to be a statutory board if this Bill goes through. Therefore, in that case, there ought to be legal aid on the same basis as in civil proceedings.

Lord BELSTEAD

I am not a lawyer, but I do not think it is quite so straight-forward as the noble Earl suggests. Legal aid is not generally available for hearings before administrative tribunals. The Legal Aid Act 1979 provides for regulations to be made specifying the proceedings before tribunals for which legal aid for legal representation may become available. It is also the case that the 1979 Act has not yet been brought into effect, and regulations have not been made yet.

On the same ground—that we await what is to be done—what I have to say is that the Government see no reason for making special provision for the compensation tribunal in advance of that for other similar tribunals. If provision were to be made for legal aid for tribunals—and I am in no way suggesting that this is to be done—then serious consideration would need to be given to the desirability of legal aid for all tribunals, or none, or picking out certain ones. But there could be no case for suddenly finding that legislation had provided for the compensation tribunal as unique. Apart from that objection, which is an objection of principle, it is a little doubtful whether the provision of legal aid would be wholly beneficial to applicants.

The procedures of the existing Criminal Injuries Compensation Board are designed to be as simple and straightforward as possible, and there is a risk—the noble Earl may think this is special pleading—that a greater degree of legal representation will lead to more lengthy and complicated procedures. Applicants already have access to limited legal aid and advice as to whether to apply, or whether to accept a single member's decision. They can also be given help with the application form. I am not convinced that anything more is necessary; I am doubtful whether it is desirable; and I am very doubtful indeed as to whether we should be able to proceed in this form taking the compensation board in isolation. I hope the noble Earl will forgive me, but I am really registering total and fundamental disagreement with him on this particular point.

Lord WELLS-PESTELL

Although I have no axe to grind in this matter, knowing how many tribunals there are in the country and the fact that few of the applicants have the right to legal aid, I think the Minister is right to say that this is likely to be a real stumbling block. If this particular door were opened, I think there must be, because there already have been over the past few years, many claims from people who have to refer certain matters to a tribunal where no provision is made for legal representation. If legal aid were given in this particular case, I believe it would result in a flood of applications coming which for various reasons could not be met. I am wondering whether my noble friend feels this is a crucial matter at this time. If he feels it is not absolutely crucial then, in the interests of his Bill—and the Minister has acceded to pretty well all his requests tonight so far as amendments are concerned—he might feel that the amendment could be taken back and thought through again with a view to not pressing legal aid at this stage.

Lord WIGODER

I support what the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, said. Speaking as one who very much supports the extension of legal aid to all tribunals at the earliest practicable moment, to start off piecemeal in this way would nevertheless seem an unhappy way of proceeding. Has the noble Earl endeavoured to cost this proposal? If so, what has been the result?

The Earl of LONGFORD

Does the noble Lord mean the cost of this proposal for legal aid?

Lord WIGODER

Yes.

The Earl of LONGFORD

No, and it is almost impossible to cost any of these proposals. The Government have been quite unable to produce any estimates of cost and it is impossible to know how many people will take advantage of these provisions. That seems to be common ground generally; nobody has any idea, however rough, of how many victims there are who do not at present apply, so it is a completely obscure area.

I am afraid I regard this proposal as crucial, and I could not again raise my head in front of any victim if I were quietly to collapse in front of the eloquence of noble Lords on this subject. Legal aid is, I believe, crucial and, in any event, this is a mild proposal, the amendment simply saying: A claimant, whose financial circumstances are such that he would be eligible for legal aid in civil proceedings, shall be eligible for the like legal aid in claiming compensation under this Act.". I have only once been before a tribunal, although a good many people who have been victims have approached me, and I gave an account of that on Second Reading and will not go through it again. It was a pathetic affair. There was an almost illiterate man faced in the appeal by three lawyers, and of course he did not have a chance. It is really to prevent that sort of situation that I am insisting on this amendment being made; if it is within my power to insist on anything, I must insist on legal aid. Many people are represented by trade unions, but in so far as every claimant is left to his own devices, where he has no one to help him there can he many difficulties, and I must therefore press with all the strength at my command for legal aid.

Lord BELSTEAD

Perhaps I could ask one question of the noble Earl before we leave this subject. He gave as an example an appeal to a three-man sitting, and he said the applicant was not legally qualified whereas those who were hearing the appeal were legally qualified. He said the applicant did not have a chance. Why did he say that?

The Earl of LONGFORD

The applicant had up against him a high official—I will not describe him more closely than that—from the Criminal Injuries Board, so the real contest was between that high official and the illiterate working man. Thus, whether or not the three people were lawyers, unless they were great humanitarians they would probably have sided with the high official.

Lord BELSTEAD

People who are members of the board are there to do their best to assist, within the terms of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme, those who make application to them for criminal injuries compensation. They are there to do their very best for the applicants within the terms of the scheme. There is no question of the people who are on the board in some way being faceless officials; they are independent members of the board once they have been appointed. It is most important that I should make that clear, and should underline the value of the work which members of the board do.

The Earl of LONGFORD

I am not sure who the Minister is talking about when he refers to the "members of the board". The people I was talking about were lawyers who had been brought in to form a tribunal. The man's adversary, so to speak, was a high official who had had a lot to do with turning down the case at an earlier stage. That was the actual situation. I am rather surprised that such an illustrious lawyer, apart from anyone else, should rate so low the services of counsel. People are paid thousands of pounds—I hope the noble Lord is paid vast sums—to appear on behalf of applicants. Although it is a lovely picture to think of the three lawyers being quite unaffected by high-powered arguments, that is what advocacy amounts to and what advocates are paid for. I am afraid I must take my stand as firmly as I can on the principle of legal aid.

Clause 13 [Interpretation]:

The Earl of LONGFORD moved Amendment No. 29: Page 7, line 35, at end insert— (" "loss" has the meaning assigned to that word by section 1(4) above;")

The noble Earl said: This is consequential. I beg to move.

Clause 13, as amended, agreed to.

Remaining clauses and schedule agreed to.

In the Title [An Act to confer a new right to compensation for loss suffered in the course of certain criminal acts; and for connected purposes]:

6.58 p.m.

The Earl of LONGFORD moved Amendment No. 30: Line 2, leave out ("suffered in the course of certain criminal acts") and insert ("arising from certain acts of violence").

The noble Earl said: I am submitting this with a sense of diffidence, because I am relying entirely on the very expert gentleman advising me; I have no doubt he is right, but others may disagree. What we are now doing is removing the word "criminal" from the Long Title. It is pointed out to me—I think this is in accordance with existing practice, which is why the amendment has been drafted for me in this way—that it is not intended in our Bill (and I think this is following existing practice) to refer to "crime" or "criminal" because the Bill is intended to cover acts of violence, for example committed by a child or person of unsound mind in such circumstances that no crime or criminal exists, and therefore the word "criminal" is too wide.

Under this proposal, one would, in the Long Title, leave out any reference to "criminal acts" by making it consistent with the Bill in referring to "acts of violence." But we are left with this position—and this is where I feel rather more than usually in the hands of my expert—that it is possible to leave it out of the Long Title but still to leave it in the Short Title, which is what I am proposing to do. If anybody tells me, "That is exactly what you cannot do", my reply is, "Sez you!" I say the opposite, but I do not know who would be prepared to say that this cannot be done.

Lord BELSTEAD

If it is helpful to have the Government's view, I would say that I am a little perplexed, but I do not object.

Title, as amended, agreed to.

House resumed: Bill reported with the amendments.