HL Deb 27 March 2001 vol 624 cc224-40

10.51 p.m.

Lord Bassam of Brighton

rose to move, That the draft scheme laid before the House on 5th March be approved.

The noble Lord said: My Lords, the Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme was first introduced in 1964. The scheme provides payment at taxpayers' expense to blameless victims of violent crime. For the first 32 years, the scheme was non-statutory. Compensation was assessed individually in each case based on common law damages—in other words, what the applicant might have expected to receive in damages in a successful civil action.

The terms of the original scheme were modified in 1969, 1979 and again in 1990. But the scheme was changed more fundamentally with effect from 1st April 1996 with the introduction of a statutory scheme under the previous administration. This scheme broke the link with common law damages and moved away from individual assessment. Compensation is now assessed on the basis of a tariff or scale of awards for injuries of comparable severity.

All successful claimants get an award from the tariff, ranging in 25 bands from £1,000 to £250,000. More seriously injured victims may receive additional payment for loss of earnings/special care and, in fatal cases, loss of dependency/parental support can be paid. The maximum amount payable for any one claim is half a million pounds.

The old scheme was administered by the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board (CICB). The current scheme is run by the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority (CICA). There is a two stage appeals process. An applicant who is unhappy with a decision by the authority can apply to have that decision reviewed by a senior member of the authority's staff. If still unhappy with the reviewed decision, an applicant may appeal. When the board was wound up on 31st March 2000, the remaining old scheme cases were transferred to the authority for resolution by legally qualified members of the panel.

I should like to take this opportunity to pay particular tribute to the distinguished chairmanship of the CICB by the noble Lord, Lord Carlisle of Bucklow. Indeed, since the board was wound up on 31st March 2001, the noble Lord has continued to serve as a member of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Appeals Panel, dealing with the remaining old scheme cases.

Some of your Lordships may recall that the tariff of injuries was amended in March 1999 to add a number of injuries that had not been included in the original tariff and to amend some others in the light of experience of running the scheme for three years.

At the same time, the Government published a consultation paper entitled Compensation for Victims of Violent Crime: Possible Changes to the Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme. The paper sought views on how the scheme might further be improved. However, the Government made it clear at the outset of the consultation exercise that any changes must be within current legislation and existing planned financial provision for the scheme.

The consultation paper was sent to individuals and organisations with an interest, to the media and to members of the public on request. Respondents included victims' organisations, academics, trade unions, the legal profession, police, charities and individual victims. With such a wide range of respondents, there were many differing, often conflicting, views on what should be done. However, it became clear that there were four main areas for change that had widespread support: increasing awards for rape and child abuse; reflating the tariff levels; increasing awards for serious multiple injuries; and extending eligibility for fatal awards to partners of the same sex.

In addition to those main areas of change, the Government took the opportunity to consult the authority and appeals panel on how the layout of the tariff of injuries might be improved. The result of that work is a comprehensive package of improvements to the scheme. The package will increase the compensation paid to victims of violent crime by £20 million in a full year and will make the scheme easier to use. I shall comment briefly on each of the changes.

The first change is increased awards for sexual assault and child abuse. Many respondents thought that compensation for rape and child abuse was too low, although none really tackled the thorny problem of by how much. The Government have looked carefully at this complex area and propose a significant increase in awards for rape and sexual assault and for serious sexual and/or physical abuse of children. For example, minimum awards for rape will increase by almost 50 per cent, from £7,500 to £11,000. The maximum payable for serious physical child abuse will more than double. The Government also propose to introduce additional compensation payments for victims infected with HIV/AIDS.

The second main change is an uprating of the tariff levels. Some respondents argued that the value of the tariff awards had been eroded by inflation since their inception in 1996. However, across the board reflation of all tariff bands would be very expensive and the Government do not consider that that is necessary or represents the best use of the available resources. Awards at the top and bottom end of the tariff are still broadly consistent with damages typically awarded by the courts, but there is more divergence in the middle bands. The Government therefore propose to uplift tariff bands 7 to 23 inclusive by 10 per cent. That will significantly increase the compensation payable to many more seriously injured victims.

The third main change is increasing awards for serious multiple injuries. Compensation for serious multiple injuries is calculated according to a formula. It is currently 100 per cent of the tariff award for the most serious or highest value injury, 10 per cent of the second and 5 per cent of the third. Many respondents thought that the formula was too low, although it was based on practice in civil courts. Experience of running the scheme supports that view, so we propose to increase the formula to 100 per cent, 30 per cent and 15 per cent.

The fourth main change is extending eligibility for fatal awards to homosexual and lesbian partners. Currently, only parents, children, spouses or longterm heterosexual partners of homicide victims can qualify for a fatal award. We believe that there are no grounds for continuing to exclude long-term homosexual or lesbian partners. The appalling bombing in 1999 of the "Admiral Duncan" pub in Soho highlighted that issue in a distressing way.

There are other detailed changes that I shall not go into here. The authority and appeals panel have thoroughly reviewed the scheme, bringing to bear all their expertise and experience of running the scheme since 1996. In the light of their advice, the Government propose to refine many of the injury descriptions and change the layout of the tariff to make it clearer and easier for victims to use. The Government also propose some textual changes to the scheme to remove possible ambiguities and provide greater clarity where experience has suggested that that will be helpful. If approved by your Lordships' House, the revised scheme would come into effect on 1st April 2001. Provision was made for the estimated cost of the improvements in the 2000 spending review.

I hope that, from what I have said, noble Lords will agree that the proposed package of changes will greatly improve the scheme for the benefit of victims of violent crime and that the wide-ranging changes proposed will make the most effective use of the available resources. For those reasons, I commend the draft alterations to the House.

Moved, That the draft scheme laid before the House on 5th March be approved.—(Lord Bassani of Brighton.)

11 p.m.

Lord Thomas of Gresford

rose to move, as an amendment to the above Motion, at end insert "but that this House regrets that the Government have failed again to bring compensation for injury and death caused by criminal activities back up to the level of common law damages for injury and death caused by negligence, as was paid for many years under the original scheme".

The noble Lord said: My Lords, for 30 years successive governments of both Labour and Conservative administrations acted with reasonable generosity towards the victims of violent crime. They provided through the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board compensation based upon what the victim would have received if he or she had successfully sued the criminal in the civil courts—the common law basis for damages for personal injuries.

The proposals to sweep away that system in 1994, introduced by the then Conservative administration without parliamentary debate, and to replace it with assessments based not upon the individual needs of the victim but on tariffs met with harsh criticism. Mr Tony Blair, then the Shadow Home Secretary, said that nothing so exposed the government's claims about law and order as the scrapping of the current system of compensation. In speaking during the consideration of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill of that year, he said that thousands of people would be worse off under the new arrangements and many would be substantially worse off.

In the Queen's Speech of that Parliament, he pointed out that the new system would cause manifest injustice because huge variations in individual circumstances would simply be lumped together. Thus, an elderly man blinded in a criminal attack would receive the same compensation as someone with his working life ahead of him. That was Mr Tony Blair in his Opposition mode.

In this House on 2nd March 1994, the noble Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, as he then was, quoted Article 4 of the European Convention on Compensation for Victims of Violent Crimes, which this country ratified in 1990. That article read: Compensation shall cover according to the case under consideration at least the following items: loss of earnings, medical and hospitalisation expenses and funeral expenses, and, as regards dependence, loss of maintenance". The noble Lord, Lord Irvine, said that, as he read Article 4, every case was an individual one which had to be considered on its own facts. He continued: The current compensation scheme treats every case as an individual case. It has regard to particular circumstances of each individual crime and the loss that he or she has suffered arid will suffer". The awards cover, in just the same way as in personal injury awards in these cases, what is called "special damages for past losses"; for example, earnings, medical expenses and general damages, and compensation for pain and suffering caused by the injury itself, together with compensation for future loss of earnings.

That was the criticism at that time. In response, the Conservative government introduced the Criminal Injuries Compensation Bill in 1995. When he introduced the Bill, Mr Michael Howard said that the reason for doing so was that the number of unresolved cases under the old scheme had risen inexorably to over 100,000 and the costs had escalated rapidly. I understand from the most recent figures available to me that outstanding cases now stand at 90,000—that is, a difference of 10,000 compared with the position as it was prior to the introduction of this scheme.

However, a concession was made that earnings after 28 weeks and the costs of special care for incapacity which exceeded 28 weeks would be met. Payment for dependency after death would also be made, subject to an upper capped limit. The figures quoted in the Explanatory Notes to the Bill were that, without the change being made, the costs of the existing scheme by 2001, which is where we are today, would be £460 million.

The attitude of Mr Straw, as Shadow Home Secretary, was to move an amendment to the Bill in 1995. The amendment read: This House declines to give a Second Reading to the Criminal Injuries Compensation Bill because it is based on cutting the cash available to compensate victims". I like the alliteration in that. Mr Straw had it absolutely right. The amendment went on, because its proposals fail adequately to reflect society's obligations to assist victims to recover from their experience of crime: and because it fails to place victims at the centre of the criminal justice system".—[Official Report, Commons. 23/5/95; col. 741.] Mr Straw said that the then Labour opposition's primary objection was that the government had no mandate whatever for what they were doing and that they had been dishonest with the electorate. He said: The Bill cuts the total projected budget by more than £700 million, or 40 per cent., over a five-year period. Such cuts are bound to result in much lower awards for many victims, despite the concessions that have been forced out of the Home Secretary and which are contained in the Bill".—[Official Report, Commons, 23/5/95; col. 744.] Mr David Maclean, replying to the debate for the Conservative government, said that in five years' time—that is, now—the amount expected to be paid out was £260 million under the new tariff scheme. Again, the most recent figures that are available to me suggest that £200 million is the current level, and that that is a cap within which the scheme is, by policy, kept.

One might have thought that the Labour Government would have done something during the past four years, having regard to those statements of principle that three of its principal proponents had made in previous years; not a bit of it. Scandalous inequalities have surfaced from time to time. Noble Lords will recall the case of the Austrian tourist and mother of two who was gang-raped by eight youths and thrown into the canal near King's Cross. She was awarded £10,000: £7,500 for the first rape plus £2,500 for the remaining seven rapes; that is, £330 a rape. The noble Lord, Lord Mackenzie of Framwellgate, who, I am sorry to say, is not in his place tonight, said of that case that there is something wrong with a system which gives less compensation to victims of crime than those who suffered some sort of psychological problem because of alleged harassment in the workplace. He said that it needs to be looked at closely. I do not often agree with him, but I agree very much with the sentiments that he then expressed.

At that time—in 1998—a teacher in Coventry brought a civil action for common law damages after she had been chasing a nine year-old boy in a class and had suffered a whiplash injury. She was very properly awarded the sum of £82,500 for the injury that she sustained and the consequent trauma thereafter. Lisa Potts, on the other hand, who was slashed many times with a machete by a violent adult male, which is a rather worse experience than chasing a child around a class, received an initial award for her injuries of £8,000. She had to appeal it, and it was increased on appeal to nearly £50,000, although she had hoped for very much more. Of that sum, £20,000 was for post-traumatic stress disorder—that is, for something that will permanently disable her—and £28,784 for loss of earnings. Then she received, in addition, £750 for damage to her arm and £250 for scarring. Infinitely more would have been given by a court, having regard to that lady's dreadful injuries. Until today, only 10 per cent of the normal level is allowed by the CICA for the second injury in the same attack and 5 per cent for a third attack. Those are the derisory figures that she was awarded.

The Minister referred to the changes to the present scheme. The generosity that is expressed in that scheme would have benefited Miss Potts because the proportions would have been 30 per cent and 15 per cent respectively, which would have increased her award by a miserly £2,000. Instead of very nearly £50,000, she would have received £51,000.

I go along with the Salvation Army War Cry of 24th February last, which stated, In a land fit for heroes and heroines, justice must be seen to be done. The system is not being fair to Lisa or other victims of crime. The criminal injuries compensation scheme must reflect more fairly the value of human life. Today a group of young children owe their lives to Lisa. This country still owes her". We gave her the George Medal, but we did not give her adequate compensation for the dreadful injuries she suffered. A six year-old child who was injured in the same attack and severely scarred across the face received £7,950. Due to the tariff system, she received precisely the same for that horribly disfiguring injury as if she had been in her eighties and not a young girl of six with the whole of her life to lead.

Again, the Government may be impressed by the Trades Union Council motion passed in 1988—they used to be impressed by motions passed by the TUC. Motion 96 was in these terms: Congress calls upon the General Council to contact all constituent unions for the purposes of obtaining information regarding the disgraceful tariff system employed by the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority. The victims of criminal acts should be at the forefront of the Government's concerns. Since the introduction of the current tariff system by the previous Government, victims of crime are too often being denied adequate compensation, thus denying them acceptable quality of life". Mr Straw indeed, as the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, said, announced in September 1998 to the Superintendents' Association in Bristol that he was ready to review the system in the light of the recent cases of Lisa Potts and others that had attracted enormous adverse publicity to this Government. But he stressed that no new money would be made available. It is only now, in the dying days of this Parliament, that there is any move to raise the tariff, and that is only by the figure of £20 million—10 per cent. It does not even keep pace with inflation over the period since the introduction of the tariff scheme on 1st April 1996.

What else is being done for victims? When we were considering other legislation, we heard that this Government had victims close to their heart. We are told the Victims Charter of 1996 will be reviewed. That is a good thing; it does not cost a penny. There is now a new buzz word—attrition—which we have never heard before. The money that is being put into the criminal justice system is for two purposes, said Mr Straw last month; that is, cutting crime and catching more criminals. He said, To show victims that something can be done we have a new target to bring more offenders to justice, the attrition target". That new buzz word means nothing.

As for the measures to protect vulnerable witnesses which we passed in 1999, they are to be introduced in the Crown Court during 2001–02 and in the magistrates' court in 2002–03. What is to happen for victims? There will be better services; £4.6 million will be spent on introducing victim personal statements so that victims can tell the court what happened; £4.2 million will extend witness support services to magistrates' courts and the Crown Prosecution Service will spend an extra £3 million on making direct contact with victims, either by letter on in face-to-face meetings to explain decisions to drop or alter charges. That is the Victims Charter. By their alterations to this scheme the Government have gone along with the tariff system which, instead of providing £460 million by 2001, as was thought Five years ago, now produces £220 million. So they have saved more than half the possible cost of that and are spending £11 million on services that victims generally do not want and which are completely valueless for victims of crimes that are never solved.

Are this Government going to be dishonest with the electorate, a phrase which Mr Straw used about the Conservatives? Are they really going to claim that they have done something for the victims of crime by the introduction of this scheme today when the reality is that they have connived to maintain the tariff system that they once condemned and thereby, as I have said, to cut criminal injuries compensation by half the projected figures? If they attempt to claim credit for this miserly increase in the scheme, the Prime Minister, the Lord Chancellor. the Home Secretary and the Labour Party will do their reputations a grave disservice. I beg to move.

Moved, as an amendment to the above Motion, at end insert "but that this House regrets that the Government have failed again to bring compensation for injury and death caused by criminal activities back up to the level of common law damages for injury and death caused by negligence, as was paid for many years under the original scheme".—(Lord Thomas of Gresford.)

11.15 p.m.

Lord Carlisle of Bucklow

My Lords, I start by declaring an interest as someone who, for the past 10 years, was the part-time chairman of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board until its demise in April last year and who, since that date has, as the Minister said, accepted to sit on the board of the new authority for the purpose of clearing up those cases which the board had not dealt with but which still have to be dealt with under the provisions of the old scheme. I am grateful to the Minister for his kind remarks.

Yesterday I voted against the ban on hunting because I do not believe it is cruel and I do not believe in cruelty. Therefore, knowing that the Minister has sat here from 2.30 this afternoon, solidly answering every debate, I shall try to be reasonably brief in my remarks on the draft scheme, some of which are critical, some welcoming.

I start by referring to the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, who was a distinguished member of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board. There is no doubt that, from the point of view of the victim, the previous non-statutory scheme paying common law damages was far more favourable than the scheme we have today, for two reasons. First, as the noble Lord, Lord Thomas said, the level of common law damages is higher than the figures that we see in the tariff today. One only has to look at the JSB guidelines, which are now treated as a bible by those who work in the courts, to see that at almost every level the figures of awards advised as suitable for common law damages are higher than those given in the tariff. Secondly, as the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, said, of its very nature the tariff cannot take account of the different effects of similar injuries on different people.

I have slightly different quotes to those used by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas. However, I share his view of the real hypocrisy of the Government who, having attacked the introduction of the scheme as they did in opposition, now put it forward as a scheme of which they are proud and which they claim to improve. They are now putting forward a scheme which they opposed and voted against, not only at Second Reading, but at Third Reading in the House of Commons. Having looked back on those debates, the basis on which they voted against it at Second Reading was, as the noble Lord, Lord Thomas said, that it was accused of being based upon cutting the cost of compensating the victims of crime and at Third Reading because it provided for a tariff system in respect of criminal injuries without flexibility to deal with special cases. They criticised in particular the fact that the Government were introducing a scheme with awards which were three years out of date by inflation terms without any arrangements for updating, with the implication that it should be updated on an annual basis.

Yet the Government are now introducing a scheme which in reality, as regards the figures in the tariff and despite today's increase, is lower in value than the awards given for individual injuries when the scheme was introduced. However, one must be realistic and face the fact that it is not possible to return to the original common law damages scheme.

The reason I say that is to be found in Annex B of the consultative paper put out by the Government on this issue. It relates to the volume of applications made to the board. Perhaps I may give one or two examples. I became chairman in 1990. In the year 1990–91, there were 51,000 applications at a cost of £109 million in compensation. By 1995–96, when Mr Michael Howard introduced the Bill in another place, there was an increase in the number of applications to 75,000 and in the amount of compensation to £179 million. Today the number of applications is still higher and the amount of compensation is £205 million. I accept that the Government are entitled to examine the cost of the scheme.

Going back to 1980, there were 24,000 applications and £21 million was paid in compensation. In 1970, there were 7,000 applications and £20 million was paid in compensation. In the scheme's first year in operation, in 1965–66, there were 2,500 applications and £403,000 was paid in compensation. I realise that with that growth in the volume of applications it is impossible to assess each case individually in the way we were assessing them: each being examined individually by a qualified lawyer.

Although I have no doubt that the scheme gave greater benefit in the end to the victim, I accept that changes had to be made. That is why, unlike the Government, we did not oppose the scheme which was eventually put before Parliament. What we as a board opposed was Mr Michael Howard's initial proposals. They were defeated legally on appeal before the Law Lords in the House of Lords. The scheme which he proposed would have made savings entirely at the cost of those who had been worst injured.

Eventually, when the scheme presented to Parliament by the government of the day avoided that effect, it was inevitable and necessary that we should move at least in part to a tariff scheme.

Here I join forces with the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford. Having moved to a tariff scheme and cut the link with common law damages, both we and victims are entitled to expect that the Government will not preside over a scheme where in real terms the value of awards to individuals for injuries steadily decreases. That is the effect of the Motion that is before us tonight. Although the scheme was introduced in 1996, it was accepted that the figures provided by the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board's computer in 1994 were already two years out of date. Since then there have been four or five years of inflation. The 10 per cent increase in overall expenditure by the Government, which I accept for the purposes of the argument, does not begin to match inflation over the period. In terms of value, the amounts proposed are less than when the scheme was introduced under such criticism from the then opposition, now the Government, in 1996.

Further, tonight we are debating figures which the Government intend should last for the next few years. Therefore, as inflation continues, the value of awards will drop. The answer is that in real terms we are spending less, and intend to spend less in future, without any assurance from the Government that the scheme will be reviewed and revalued. Nor do I understand why the lower levels of compensation—any award up to £2,500—have been left out of any increase. Clearly, the value of awards at that level has dropped in real terms since 1994. The awards tend to be for temporary rather than permanent injuries and relate to the very people who miss out because the Government. do not compensate for the first 28 weeks of any unemployment. Therefore, in making an increase to take account of the fall in the value of money over the period, which is presumably the intention, it is wrong to leave out a large proportion of those people who receive lesser awards. I have no doubt that that is because of the Government's desire to reduce the cost of the scheme.

I turn from my critical remarks about the proposals for the tariff to one or two changes to the scheme itself. Some are simply clearing-up measures which are obviously welcome. I believe that three of them are of importance. I entirely welcome the proposal to make it clear that in future the authority has the right to make a non-exhaustive trust where a large sum of money may be given for the future care of a person who, sadly, dies. At the moment the money goes to dependants irrespective of their relationship to the individual rather than back to the state, which I believe is perfectly reasonable.

I welcome that in part the Government are to put right the total nonsense or iniquity, as the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, said, of the situation that arises in multiple injury claims which led to the publicity in the case of Miss Potts and others. The scheme provides that, for multiple injuries, the individual receives 100 per cent for the first injury, 10 per cent for the second and 5 per cent for the third. Therefore, one ends up with the ridiculous situation where for serious scarring of a person's face there is an award of £750 because it is the second injury, so one receives only one-tenth of its value. The Government have increased the scheme payments from 100 per cent, 10 per cent and 5 per cent to 100 per cent, 30 per cent and 15 per cent. Frankly, I still do not believe that that is enough. I believe that for the second injury one should have gone to 50 per cent. But I ask more than that. I ask why, where there are injuries which are totally discrete and which do not relate to one another, is there a case for having any reduction at all?

Perhaps I may put it to the Minister that one matter that might be considered seriously in the longer term is to review the working of the scheme to see whether certain cases which raise problems of this kind can he referred directly to the panel, who are all experienced lawyers and well conversant with personal injury work, as against being decided first under the tariff. If one could get some hybridity into the scheme it would be to the great advantage of victims of crime.

Funnily enough, no comment has been made about the third point that I want to raise. As the Minister knows, tucked away in the scheme is a new power. That is a right to withdraw or reduce an award where the member of the staff—that is what it is in the tariff situation—believes that the excessive consumption of alcohol contributed to the circumstances which gave rise to the injury and therefore that should lead to a reduction in the award made.

I hope that the Minister will explain to this House how that power is intended to work. At the moment the scheme provides that one is entitled to take into account the conduct of an individual. Therefore, if someone because of his alcoholic state chooses to pick a fight or get involved in an argument with someone which when sober he would not do, then that is clearly conduct which can be, and is, taken into account, in deciding whether he has justified any award at all, or at least a reduced award. But what does it mean when, totally unconnected with a person's conduct, the board is entitled to reduce or refuse an award because the person is affected by excessive consumption of alcohol? Does that mean that the happy drunk—if I may use that phrase—going perfectly quietly home without causing trouble to anyone who is then mugged on the street should have his award reduced although he himself in his own conduct has done nothing wrong?

That issue needs to be thought through. We looked at it on many occasions. The fact is that alcohol which leads to an individual causing or putting himself in a situation where he is in part responsible for what happens can be covered by conduct. All we are doing here is saying that one need not give an award to anyone who is thought to have had too much to drink although that drink has had nothing to do with the injury which he has sustained.

I accept that the tariff scheme means that the Government decide what the country can afford to spend on compensating the victims of crime. The Government must accept that the scheme that they are putting forward tonight does not, as the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, has pointed out, enable them to claim that they are increasing the volume when in practice, in real terms, they are reducing that volume.

What is being done is a move in the right direction. It should have been done earlier. There were four years in which some obvious anomalies could have been corrected. I believe that we should have an undertaking from the Minister that in future the scheme will be reviewed on a regular basis rather than merely just before the date of an approaching general election. We should look further than that and see whether we can make changes to the scheme which, by making it basically a tariff scheme but with a hybrid side that allows some cases to be looked at individually—it could be contrived in that way—would enormously help the average victim of crime.

I apologise to the House. I have spoken for far longer than I should. I apologise for the cruelty that I may have caused to the Minister.

Viscount Astor

My Lords, I am extremely grateful to my noble friend Lord Carlisle for speaking with such clarity and expertise. I am also grateful for the length of his speech because it enables me to say that my noble friend asked all the important questions that needed to be asked of the Minister and asked them with much greater understanding and clarity than I could have managed. My noble friend showed quite early on in his speech that when those in opposition find themselves in government they find that the dead hand of the Treasury squashes all their fine aspirations.

The noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, drew attention to the anomalies of the system and referred in particular to the award to Lisa Potts. Do the Government think that that award was fair? They have come forward with a scheme. Have they done so because of that award? Some newspapers assume that that is the case. Was that one of the reasons? Can the Minister give an assurance that the kind of anomalies that have happened in the past will not happen following the introduction of the scheme today? Will raising the tariff by 10 per cent achieve what it is meant to achieve? From what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, and by my noble friend, it is clear that it will not. It is not enough money and it will not make a large difference. I shall be interested to hear what the Minister has to say about that.

I want to ask one more question. However, before I do so, I should like to say something on behalf of my noble friend Lady Young. If my noble friend were present she would be somewhat surprised and perhaps horrified by paragraph 38 of the scheme, which extends the awards to same sex partners.

As your Lordships will know, Dr Shipman was convicted of a number of murders and the police and the Crown Prosecution Service consider that there may be many more cases. There is a difficulty in bring further prosecutions. Where the police consider that there is a case but for various reasons do not proceed. those affected are having difficulty getting compensation. There is a problem in obtaining evidence and corroboration of that evidence. The Minister may not be able to deal with that detailed point today, but I should be grateful if he could look into it and perhaps write to me.

From this Bench, as in another place, we give a general welcome to the scheme. However, as always, I have to say that it is not quite enough and it is a little too late.

11.40 p.m.

Lord Bassam of Brighton

My Lords, I have listened carefully to the points raised and I shall try to respond as fully as I can. We consulted closely with those involved in the scheme and have taken account of their views. The changes that the Government are inviting Parliament to make represent some far-reaching improvements to what is already probably the most generous scheme in the world. Experience of running the tariff scheme has demonstrated that it is achieving its twin objectives of making costs more consistent and predictable as well as providing a better service to victims. Victims get their money more quickly, with greater transparency. Furthermore, there is less scope for misunderstanding about how much money they might get.

For those reasons, the tariff scheme is here to stay. I do not believe that there is any real prospect of going back to the old arrangements. Indeed, I think that the noble Lord, Lord Carlisle, agreed with that, much as he may have disagreed with the way in which we are approaching this matter. I suspect that the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, also sees little prospect of our returning to the old arrangements, even though he saw them as being far more generous than the current scheme. He predicted that that would be the case. However, it would be far too costly for a state scheme funded by the taxpayer. Furthermore, a system of refined, individual assessment dealing with as many as 80,000 applications a year would require a greatly inflated bureaucracy to achieve acceptable levels of speed and efficiency.

Any compensation scheme dependent on public funds must strike a balance between the needs of the victim and the interests of the taxpayer. It is inevitable that there will always be a measure of argument and dispute as regards where that balance should be struck. However, a state compensation scheme funded by the taxpayer cannot reasonably be expected to match the damages awarded in the civil courts where personal or corporate liability has to be established. The state is not liable for the criminal acts of others and a victim can always sue an offender if there is a reasonable prospect of securing damages.

The scheme no longer aims to provide individually tailored compensation covering each and every element of damage that might be awarded in a successful civil suit. That said, awards made under the tariff in many areas are broadly consistent with the guidelines drawn up by the Judicial Studies Board, referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Carlisle, for the assessment of personal injury damages in the courts. Furthermore, victims are free to pursue their attacker if known and if it is worthwhile.

In truth, with hand on heart, I do not believe that there ever can be a right amount of compensation. People often comment that no amount of money can compensate for the hurt, loss or damage that they have suffered. One suggestion put forward in the consultation paper was that the lower tariff should be cut out altogether so that larger compensation could be paid to the more seriously injured victims. However, I have to say that there was very little support for that proposition.

The simple fact is that, last year, the scheme paid out over £206 million to over 43,000 victims. The average award was over £4,700. As I have mentioned, our scheme is probably the most comprehensive and undoubtedly the most generous to be found anywhere in the world. We pay out more than all the other schemes in Europe added together. It is worth reiterating that point. Those who criticise our scheme perhaps should bear in mind that, under many schemes abroad, victims receive far less or even no compensation at all for their pain and suffering.

The noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, the noble Lord, Lord Carlisle, and the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, made the point that, when in opposition, we opposed the introduction of the tariff scheme. But we and others, including Victim Support, have since changed our minds about its merits. That may not be a defence that people will readily accept, but it is frequently the case that when an opposition comes to government and has full command of the facts and circumstances surrounding key issues, they take a different view. We are entitled to do so from time to time and it is important that that is recognised.

Noble Lords made a number of points. The noble Lord, Lord Thomas, suggested that there was a cap on spending. As far as I am concerned, there is no cap on spending, but we obviously provide an estimate in the expenditure plans of what we expect to spend on the scheme. It is worth saying in response to the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, that in 1999–2000, 85 per cent of tariff scheme cases were settled within 12 months compared to only 44 per cent within 12 months in the last year of the old scheme. That demonstrates one of the important changes in the scheme to bring greater efficiency and speed of resolution.

It is also worth saying to the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, that loss of earnings and special care dependency are assessed individually within the scheme, and the issues of pain and suffering are covered by the tariff. So those issues are reflected in the way in which the scheme works.

The noble Lord, Lord Thomas, raised a more general issue about victims, and, I think, tried to chide the Government by criticising our approach. He suggested that some of our promises on behalf of victims were rather more wordy and vacuous than was the reality. I cannot accept that. We have a very good record on supporting victims and ensuring that they get justice within the criminal justice system. Since 1997, we have doubled the grant to the voluntary sector organisation, Victim Support, from £11.7 million to £25 million per year. This has enabled Victim Support to introduce a national telephone helpline for victims and a witness support service in the magistrates' courts to complement the service already provided in the Crown Courts. In addition, it has provided many other improvements to services generally.

In October 2001, victims' personal statements will be introduced to enable those who have suffered from crime to explain more personally its effects, in their own words, to decision makers within the criminal justice system. That is a welcome reform and has attracted widespread support.

The changes to the Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme we have been debating mean that about £20 million more each year will be paid to the victims of violent crime. On 27th February, the Home Secretary launched a consultation paper to review the Victims Charter and to seek improvements. The paper seeks views on the issues, among others, of the establishment of a statutory right for victims and the introduction of a victims' ombudsman. All of those proposals have been widely welcomed.

The noble Lord, Lord Thomas, made reference to the settlement for Lisa Potts. It is perhaps worth reflecting that Lisa Potts would have received some 19 per cent more under the revised scheme. That is a reflection of the seriousness with which we take these issues and the way in which we want to achieve further improvements.

I listened very carefully to what the noble Lord, Lord Carlisle, said. His comments were very helpful. In fact, both noble Lords who have a long involvement in the running of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme made important points, which I shall study at some greater length.

It is worth reminding ourselves that the noble Lord, Lord Carlisle, said that three of the four main changes to the scheme were very welcome. I am grateful to him for that. He suggested that we should perhaps have a more regular review of the way in which the scheme operates. Certainly, we shall undertake to review the scheme—it will require to be reviewed at fairly regular intervals—to ensure that it accurately matches the demands and rigours of the criminal justice system and gives fair consideration to victims. That relates to the earlier point made by the noble Lord, Lord Carlisle, that victims are entitled to expect that a government will not preside over a scheme which is devalued over time. That is an important issue and one of which we must take careful cognisance.

The noble Viscount, Lord Astor, raised a specific point about the Shipman cases. In fairness to the question, I do not think that I can give a reasoned response across the Dispatch Box. However, I take the point. I undertake to try to ascertain what difficulties are being experienced. Obviously, it is distressing to those involved and I do not want to see that distress continued if there is something that the Government can do to ensure that those who are caught up in the horrific murders perpetrated by Shipman are properly and fairly treated.

It is important to bear in mind that the Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme is one of the most generous and comprehensive in the world—a fact that is often overlooked, particularly by media critics. There is no right amount of compensation. The Government have listened carefully to the comments and criticisms made in relation to the scheme, and we have listened throughout the process of consultation. We want to ensure that we make best use of the available resources to provide more compensation where it is most needed. It is for those reasons that we have made specific changes to the scheme.

It would be wrong of me not to pick up the reflection made by the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, on behalf of the noble Baroness, Lady Young. I know that if the noble Baroness were present she would make the point that he made across the Dispatch Box. I should say to her, as I say to the noble Viscount, that I profoundly disagree with her view. I believe that the way in which we are extending the scheme to cover homosexual and lesbian partners is right in modern times. The appalling attack on the Admiral Duncan pub gives expression to why that should be the case.

I commend the proposed improvements to the House. They have received support—and criticism; I acknowledge that. I invite your Lordships to approve the draft alterations to the scheme.

Lord Thomas of Gresford

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his careful response to the points made by myself and other speakers. I commend the noble Lord on his tenacity in "sticking it out" until this time, clearly suffering from the same kind of cold from which I am suffering. We shall not allow our germs to mingle across the Chamber, not even through the air.

I am grateful also to the noble Lord, Lord Carlisle of Bucklow, for his wise and considered counsel, derived from many years of experience. The noble Lord reminded me that I should have declared an interest as a member of the board until 1993. I resigned on the day the tariff scheme was introduced. I have always regarded it as a matter of principle and I hope I have reflected that in my remarks.

The noble Lord, Lord Carlisle, made reference to the gap that is opening up between the £260 million projected five years ago and the £205 million that is actually paid at the present time; and to the gap that exists between the projected £460 million of general damages and that same low figure today. The noble Lord was saying that the value of the awards is going down and down. I should like in particular to pick up his point that the revision of the scheme now is lo last for however many years in the future, while inflation continues to weaken the value of the awards. Therefore, we have a scheme that is not even static; it is moving downwards.

Perhaps I may also support the comments that the noble Lord made regarding the need for a regular review. It was in September 1998 that Mr Straw said that he was going to review the scheme, but that was in response to pressure from the press as a result of the Lisa Potts award, and other matters that were publicised at that time. It has taken until now for anything to be done. If the Government were to give us an undertaking that the scheme will be looked at on a regular three-year basis, they would do a great deal to rehabilitate themselves in my eyes. However, for the moment, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

On Question, Motion agreed to.