Previous Section Back to Table of Contents Lords Hansard Home Page


Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: I am sure that everyone will have found this debate useful. I stress that there is no spirit of meanness in the selection in the scheme of the period of two rather than three years. As the debate indicated, this is a practical matter.

The Committee will have benefited greatly from hearing my noble friend Lord Carlisle and the noble Lord, Lord Macaulay of Bragar, with their experience of how the scheme works in practice and how the delay in bringing claims affects the ability of the board to

17 Oct 1995 : Column 696

determine them. When a change was made from three years to one year in the scheme which was found to be unlawful, that change was not made in a spirit of meanness on the part of the Government; it was made at the request of the board. The board had found that the practical difficulties of the kind ventilated in Committee today, made a shorter period of one year preferable. There are other points of view, and other factors point in other directions, as other Members of the Committee pointed out. For that reason, in bringing forward the draft scheme for the consideration of the Committee, the Government put in two years. That seemed to act as a compromise between the two views.

This is not something that should be set in stone and we do not feel that it is right to put the matter on the face of the Bill. If a change were to occur in the practice of keeping police records, it may be that a change in the period would be appropriate. In other words, it is a practical matter. However, for the reasons indicated, we believe that it is a good idea for people to put in their claims as early as possible. In that way they are more likely to be satisfactorily investigated and to be determined quickly; and people will receive the compensation to which they are due more quickly.

For those reasons it is a good idea to have a time limit of two years, always subject to the provision for discretion. In that regard my understanding is that the words, "in exceptional cases", to which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, referred, are in the current 1990 scheme and are therefore the words exercised by my noble friend.

Lord Carlisle of Bucklow: Does my noble and learned friend agree that while it is true that they are the words that are in the existing scheme, one always feels that one is stretching them far beyond their exact meaning? I am bound to say that the words suggested by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, would fit more easily into the way in which the scheme is run in practice.

Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: I was simply about to observe that, nonetheless, I note what is said and understand the points made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner. We will be happy to look at the words and see whether they are the words which would be most apt to provide the kind of discretion which in practice is exercised by the board. We all agree that the board should exercise its discretion to deal with the circumstances indicated to the Committee by my noble friend Lord Carlisle. For those reasons, we believe that the matter is best dealt with in the manner indicated in the scheme, with perhaps some adjustment to the precise wording.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I am afraid that this is another example of the Government saying, "The scheme must be rigid, but we do not really mean it". That is what is implied by the discussion in relation to the phrase, "in exceptional cases".

The noble Lord, Lord Carlisle, whose experience and judgment we take extremely seriously, admitted almost in so many words that he did not care for the words, "in exceptional cases", which occur in the existing scheme,

17 Oct 1995 : Column 697

and that the board "stretch" them. I do not know whether he used that actual word, but that is what he meant.

I do not like starting a new scheme with what appears to be a rigid system—a two-year time limit—and then saying, "We do not mean it because, though the scheme says that late applications will be received in exceptional circumstances, we all know that they will be dealt with compassionately and leniently". That is not a very good way to start a scheme, whether or not it is a good way to write legislation, and this will be subordinate legislation.

I am almost persuaded—but not quite—that this is largely a practical issue. Of course it is a practical issue to the extent that there are always people who will butt up against the time limit. But they have no specified incentive to do that. If an injury has been sustained, the incentive will be for the claim to be put in as early as possible so that the money can be obtained as early as possible. It will only be in exceptional circumstances anyway that, knowing that there is a two or three-year limit, people will put in their claims at the end of one year and 11 months or two years and 11 months respectively.

The fact that even with a three-year limit a very large number of claims were made and nearly as large a number of claims were allowed would tend to indicate that the time limit itself is not a desirable thing. If there is to be a time limit, surely the argument must be in favour of it, where one is dealing with a subset of personal injury, being the same as for other personal injury claims. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, confirmed, and as I said originally, claims for compensation for road accidents, for medical negligence and for injuries at work are all still on the basis of a three-year time limit. No one has suggested either that they should be changed or that there is any particular difficulty—for example, in terms of police records—in sticking to the existing rule. My noble friend Lord Macaulay had a valid point when he said that it would be worth suggesting to police forces that they should keep records for three years. I was disappointed that the noble and learned Lord did not take up that point in his reply. I gladly give way to him.

Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: I am sorry. I forgot to say that I shall of course draw the attention of the departments concerned to that matter. The point is well taken.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I am grateful. Of course it is to some extent an administrative matter. But anyone who has been concerned with claims of this kind and with Victim Support will agree that a substantial number of people take the rules literally as laid down and think that if they have missed the time limit there is no possibility of making a claim. If three years has worked successfully for a period of 30 years, if three years as a time limit is still applicable for the very much larger number of personal injury claims which are not criminal injury compensation claims, surely the balance of the argument must be in favour of there being a three-year period.

17 Oct 1995 : Column 698

With deep respect to the noble Lord, Lord Carlisle, what I think he is making is administrative judgments rather than seeking to have a scheme which is as transparent and as apparently fair to as wide a number of people as possible. I am not convinced either by his arguments or by those of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate. I wish to seek the opinion of the Committee on Amendment No. 37.

4.53 p.m.

On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 37) shall be agreed to?

Their Lordships divided: Contents, 93; Not-Contents, 143.

Division No. 2

CONTENTS

Ackner, L.
Addington, L.
Archer of Sandwell, L.
Avebury, L.
Berkeley, L.
Birk, B.
Blackstone, B.
Brooks of Tremorfa, L.
Bruce of Donington, L.
Callaghan of Cardiff, L.
Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.
Carter, L.
Chichester, Bp.
Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.
Dean of Beswick, L.
Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.
Donoughue, L.
Dormand of Easington, L.
Dubs, L.
Eatwell, L.
Ewing of Kirkford, L.
Falkender, B.
Falkland, V.
Farrington of Ribbleton, B.
Geraint, L.
Gladwin of Clee, L.
Glenamara, L.
Gould of Potternewton, B. [Teller.]
Graham of Edmonton, L. [Teller.]
Gregson, L.
Grey, E.
Halsbury, E.
Haskel, L.
Hertford, M.
Holme of Cheltenham, L.
Howie of Troon, L.
Hughes, L.
Hylton, L.
Hylton-Foster, B.
Inchyra, L.
Jay, L.
Jay of Paddington, B.
Jeger, B.
Jenkins of Hillhead, L.
Judd, L.
Kilbracken, L.
Kintore, E.
Kirkhill, L.
Lawrence, L.
Lockwood, B.
Longford, E.
Lovell-Davis, L.
Macaulay of Bragar, L.
McIntosh of Haringey, L.
Mackie of Benshie, L.
Mar and Kellie, E.
Marsh, L.
Mason of Barnsley, L.
Milner of Leeds, L.
Mishcon, L.
Monkswell, L.
Morris of Castle Morris, L.
Nicol, B.
Ogmore, L.
Peston, L.
Prys-Davies, L.
Richard, L.
Ripon, Bp.
Ritchie of Dundee, L.
Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.
Russell, E.
St. John of Bletso, L.
Seear, B.
Sefton of Garston, L.
Serota, B.
Shepherd, L.
Simon of Glaisdale, L.
Stedman, B.
Stoddart of Swindon, L.
Strabolgi, L.
Strafford, E.
Taylor of Blackburn, L.
Taylor of Gryfe, L.
Tope, L.
Tordoff, L.
Turner of Camden, B.
Varley, L.
Wallace of Coslany, L.
Whaddon, L.
White, B.
Williams of Elvel, L.
Williams of Mostyn, L.
Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.
Abinger, L.
Addison, V.
Aldington, L.
Allenby of Megiddo, V.
Alport, L.
Ampthill, L.
Arran, E.
Astor of Hever, L.
Balfour, E.
Barber, L.
Belhaven and Stenton, L.
Blaker, L.
Blatch, B.
Boardman, L.
Borthwick, L.
Boyd-Carpenter, L.
Brabazon of Tara, L.
Braine of Wheatley, L.
Brougham and Vaux, L.
Burnham, L.
Cadman, L.
Caithness, E.
Campbell of Alloway, L.
Campbell of Croy, L.
Carlisle of Bucklow, L.
Carnegy of Lour, B.
Carnock, L.
Carr of Hadley, L.
Carrington, L.
Chalker of Wallasey, B.
Charteris of Amisfield, L.
Chelmer, L.
Chelmsford, V.
Chesham, L. [Teller.]
Clanwilliam, E.
Clark of Kempston, L.
Cochrane of Cults, L.
Colnbrook, L.
Courtown, E.
Cranborne, V. [Lord Privy Seal.]
Davidson, V.
Dean of Harptree, L.
Dixon-Smith, L.
Dormer, L.
Downshire, M.
Dundonald, E.
Ellenborough, L.
Elles, B.
Elliott of Morpeth, L.
Elton, L.
Faithfull, B.
Fanshawe of Richmond, L.
Finsberg, L.
Flather, B.
Fraser of Carmyllie, L.
Gainsborough, E.
Gardner of Parkes, B.
Gisborough, L.
Goschen, V.
Gray, L.
Gray of Contin, L.
Gridley, L.
Grimston of Westbury, L.
Hardinge of Penshurst, L.
Harmar-Nicholls, L.
Harmsworth, L.
Harrowby, E.
Harvington, L.
Hayhoe, L.
Hemphill, L.
Henley, L.
Holderness, L.
HolmPatrick, L.
Inglewood, L.
Johnston of Rockport, L.
Lauderdale, E.
Layton, L.
Lindsay, E.
Lindsey and Abingdon, E.
Long, V.
Lucas, L.
Lucas of Chilworth, L.
McColl of Dulwich, L.
McConnell, L.
MacFarlane of Bearsden, L.
Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.
Mackay of Clashfern, L. [Lord Chancellor.]
Macleod of Borve, B.
Malmesbury, E.
Marlesford, L.
Merrivale, L.
Mersey, V.
Miller of Hendon, B.
Milverton, L.
Monk Bretton, L.
Monteagle of Brandon, L.
Montgomery of Alamein, V.
Mottistone, L.
Mountevans, L.
Mowbray and Stourton, L.
Munster, E.
Murton of Lindisfarne, L.
Newall, L.
Northesk, E.
O'Cathain, B.
Onslow, E.
Oppenheim-Barnes, B.
Orkney, E.
Orr-Ewing, L.
Pearson of Rannoch, L.
Pender, L.
Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.
Prentice, L.
Prior, L.
Radnor, E.
Rawlings, B.
Renton, L.
Rodger of Earlsferry, L.
Sanderson of Bowden, L.
Seccombe, B.
Selborne, E.
Sharples, B.
Shaw of Northstead, L.
Skelmersdale, L.
Stodart of Leaston, L.
Strange, B.
Strathcarron, L.
Strathclyde, L. [Teller.]
Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.
Swansea, L.
Swinfen, L.
Tebbit, L.
Teviot, L.
Thomas of Gwydir, L.
Trefgarne, L.
Trumpington, B.
Tugendhat, L.
Ullswater, V.
Vivian, L.
Whitelaw, V.
Wynford, L.
Young, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.

17 Oct 1995 : Column 699

17 Oct 1995 : Column 700

5.2 p.m.

Lord Archer of Sandwell moved Amendment No. 38:


Next Section Back to Table of Contents Lords Hansard Home Page