Criminal Injuries Compensation Board (Hansard, 13 June 1991)

§ Mr. Kenneth Baker

With the concurrence of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland, who is responsible with me for the criminal injuries compensation scheme in Great Britain. I have today placed in the Library the report of the wide-ranging management review of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board which we commissioned last year.

The review was carried out by a team of management services specialists from the Home Office and Treasury, co-ordinated by a private sector consultant. As well as examining in depth the board's operations, the team took account of practice elsewhere in the civil service, and outside.

In recent times the board has had difficulty in coping with rising business. But with the changes to the scheme and the 60 new staff we provided last year, it is now making great strides. It dealt with 53,000 claims in 1990–91, against 39,000 in 1989–90, and it expects to clear 625W around 60,000 in 1991–92. Last year, for the first time in 10 years, it dealt with more claims than it received, reducing its backlog, and it has been able to establish that the true level of backlog is much lower than it had reckoned.

Despite this encouraging picture the board needs to gear itself to do still better, cutting delays—which are often still unacceptably long—and further reducing its arrears, while coping with steadily increasing workload.

I therefore welcome the recommendations of the management review, which hold out the prospect of a faster service to applicants, and a much reduced backlog, with no increase in staff. This will be achieved by simplifying procedures, cutting out duplication, and better management. Board members will need to set better guidelines for decisions, improving consistency all round, and enabling staff to deal with the majority of cases, which do not require the special skills of a QC or similarly eminent lawyer. I look to the board and its senior managers to respond positively and quickly to all of these recommendations.

The report also makes some more radical suggestions.

Arrangements under the scheme have not changed much since the board was created in 1964, when it was far smaller and dealt with far fewer claims. The review team does not believe that a board of more than 40 members—drawn from the single discipline of law, and most of whom have other claims upon their time—can reasonably be expected to carry responsibility for managing the organisation effectively on its present scale.

The review recommends that I and the Secretary of State for Scotland should establish a small executive board, which should include members with business experience, and perhaps representatives of victims' interests. We think that this is a useful suggestion, on which we should like to have views from the board itself and from others with an interest in its work.

The review also questions whether the scheme compensates the right people and in the right way. In particular, it discusses concentrating the scheme on injuries attracting higher or lower awards, by varying or imposing lower or upper limits on what awards are payable; excluding more strictly those who by alcohol or drug misuse contribute to their own misfortunes; transferring responsibility for criminal injuries at work to employers; and simplifying the basis of assessment to allow decisions to be taken more consistently and quickly. Finally, it suggests that we should explore whether the insurance industry might administer the scheme on an agency basis, or whether criminal injuries compensation might be amalgamated with other private and public sector compensation schemes to work more effectively and economically. These issues go well beyond the scope of the management review but the Government recognise that there are serious questions which should be open to public discussion.