Previous Section Back to Table of Contents Lords Hansard Home Page

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, that was an extraordinary answer. First of all, the Minister attempted to say that his analysis was of more serious injuries. When challenged, he had to admit that it was not an analysis of more serious injuries but an analysis of all injuries from band 1; in other words, all those included in the tariff which is £1,000. The brief ought not to have used the phrase "more serious" when in fact it relates to all injuries in the tariff.

31 Oct 1995 : Column 1387

Secondly, the Minister said that those multiple injuries were extremely rare. We knew that. That is the basis on which I said that there was no significant increase in public expenditure. Particularly at level 12 and above, which is what I was talking about in the amendment, they will be extremely rare. They will be a tiny proportion of the multiple injuries at level 1 and above, which include multiple minor injuries, that the Minister was analysing to give support to his conclusion that 10 per cent. and 5 per cent. were generous figures.

I am afraid that the analysis simply does not add up as an answer to the case that has been put. It certainly does not add up to combine in the same answer the admission that these cases are extremely rare and the claim, the estimate, that the cost will be £2 million. I do not believe that the Government could possibly know that it will cost £2 million. I do not believe that they have done an analysis of multiple injuries at level 12 and above. To be fair, I do not think that they have had time to do it since the amendment was tabled. If they had done an analysis of the multiple injuries at level 12 and above, they should have been able to come forward with an estimate of what the awards would have been under a common law scheme.

No, the answer is self-contradictory. It does not hang together at all. I am sorely tempted to take the opinion of the House on the matter. In fact, I shall do so.

5.39 p.m.

On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 11) shall be agreed to?

Their Lordships divided: Contents, 66; Not-Contents, 131.

Division No. 3


Ackner, L. [Teller.]
Addington, L.
Airedale, L.
Archer of Sandwell, L.
Bancroft, L.
Barnett, L.
Beaumont of Whitley, L.
Blackstone, B.
Broadbridge, L.
Brookes, L.
Brooks of Tremorfa, L.
Callaghan of Cardiff, L.
Carlisle of Bucklow, L.
Clinton-Davis, L.
Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.
Craigavon, V.
Dean of Beswick, L.
Derwent, L.
Donoughue, L.
Dormand of Easington, L.
Dubs, L. [Teller.]
Falkland, V.
Farrington of Ribbleton, B.
Geraint, L.
Gladwin of Clee, L.
Graham of Edmonton, L.
Grey, E.
Harris of Greenwich, L.
Haskel, L.
Healey, L.
Hollis of Heigham, B.
Hylton, L.
Hylton-Foster, B.
Jenkins of Hillhead, L.
Jenkins of Putney, L.
Kilbracken, L.
Kintore, E.
Kirkhill, L.
Lockwood, B.
McIntosh of Haringey, L.
McNair, L.
Mallalieu, B.
Merlyn-Rees, L.
Monkswell, L.
Monson, L.
Morris of Castle Morris, L.
Nelson, E.
Nicol, B.
Ogmore, L.
Rea, L.
Richard, L.
Robertson of Oakridge, L.
Rochester, L.
Seear, B.
Sefton of Garston, L.
Slim, V.
Stoddart of Swindon, L.
Strabolgi, L.
Thomas of Walliswood, B.
Thomson of Monifieth, L.
Tordoff, L.
White, B.
Wigoder, L.
Williams of Elvel, L.
Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.
Young of Dartington, L.


Addison, V.
Ailsa, M.
Alexander of Tunis, E.
Ashbourne, L.
Astor of Hever, L.
Belhaven and Stenton, L.
Blake, L.
Blatch, B.
Boardman, L.
Boyd-Carpenter, L.
Brabazon of Tara, L.
Brookeborough, V.
Brougham and Vaux, L.
Burton, L.
Butterworth, L.
Cadman, L.
Campbell of Alloway, L.
Chalker of Wallasey, B.
Charteris of Amisfield, L.
Chesham, L. [Teller.]
Clark of Kempston, L.
Clinton, L.
Courtown, E.
Cranborne, V. [Lord Privy Seal.]
Crickhowell, L.
Cross, V.
Cumberlege, B.
Davidson, V.
Dean of Harptree, L.
Denton of Wakefield, B.
Dilhorne, V.
Dixon-Smith, L.
Downshire, M.
Eccles of Moulton, B.
Eden of Winton, L.
Ellenborough, L.
Elles, B.
Elton, L.
Fairhaven, L.
Ferrers, E.
Finsberg, L.
Fraser of Carmyllie, L.
Gardner of Parkes, B.
Goold, L.
Goschen, V.
Gray of Contin, L.
Grimston of Westbury, L.
Harding of Petherton, L.
Harmar-Nicholls, L.
Harmsworth, L.
Hayhoe, L.
Henley, L.
Hertford, M.
Hogg, B.
Holderness, L.
HolmPatrick, L.
Hood, V.
Hooper, B.
Hothfield, L.
Howe, E.
Huntly, M.
Inglewood, L.
Ironside, L.
Jenkin of Roding, L.
Kimball, L.
Kingsland, L.
Layton, L.
Leigh, L.
Liverpool, E.
Long, V.
Lucas, L.
Lyell, L.
McColl of Dulwich, L.
Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.
Mackay of Clashfern, L. [Lord Chancellor.]
Massereene and Ferrard, V.
Melville, V.
Mersey, V.
Miller of Hendon, B.
Monk Bretton, L.
Montgomery of Alamein, V.
Mountevans, L.
Mowbray and Stourton, L.
Munster, E.
Newall, L.
Norrie, L.
Northesk, E.
O'Cathain, B.
Oxfuird, V.
Parkinson, L.
Pearson of Rannoch, L.
Pender, L.
Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.
Prentice, L.
Rankeillour, L.
Rawlings, B.
Rawlinson of Ewell, L.
Renfrew of Kaimsthorn, L.
Renton, L.
Renwick, L.
Rodger of Earlsferry, L.
Romney, E.
St. Davids, V.
Saint Oswald, L.
Sanderson of Bowden, L.
Seccombe, B.
Sharples, B.
Shaw of Northstead, L.
Skelmersdale, L.
Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L.
Stanley of Alderley, L.
Stevens of Ludgate, L.
Stodart of Leaston, L.
Stokes, L.
Strathcarron, L.
Strathclyde, L. [Teller.]
Sudeley, L.
Tebbit, L.
Teynham, L.
Thomas of Gwydir, L.
Torphichen, L.
Tugendhat, L.
Ullswater, V.
Vestey, L.
Vivian, L.
Wade of Chorlton, L.
Wakeham, L.
Westbury, L.
Wise, L.
Wyatt of Weeford, L.
Wynford, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.

31 Oct 1995 : Column 1389

5.48 p.m.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 12:

After Clause 3, insert the following new clause—

Injury for which no provision is made in Tariff

(".—(1) If an application for compensation is made in respect of an injury for which no provision is made in the Tariff, but which appears to the claims officer to be sufficiently serious to qualify for at least the minimum award, the claims officer shall refer that application to the chairman of the body of adjudicators appointed under section 5(3) for determination.
(2) The chairman of the body of adjudicators may make a recommendation to the Secretary of State as to the amount of compensation which that injury should attract if subsequently included in the Tariff.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 12 returns in a different way to an issue which was debated at some length in Committee. I refer to the issue of injuries for which no provision was made in the tariff; that is, for gaps in the tariff.

The scheme recognises that gaps will inevitably arise in the tariff. There is no shame in that or reason for disagreement about it. The number of injuries recognised by the tariff has increased, from 187 to 310, since the first tariff was drawn up in 1994. There is no doubt that that process will continue as we refine our understanding of the nature of injury to the human body. It will certainly continue if the Law Commission report on psychiatric injury results in a completely new range of mental injuries in addition to the physical injuries already recognised in the tariff.

The scheme makes provision for those injuries. It makes provision for when a judgment is taken by those running the scheme that an interim payment should be made of 50 per cent. of what is considered to be the relevant amount under the tariff. There is then a procedure for consideration as to whether the new injury should be included in the tariff and, if so, at what band. There is a provision also—it is not entirely ungenerous—that if it is decided that such an injury should not be included and therefore there should not have been a payment, the 50 per cent. payment will not be taken away; but that if such an injury should be included and it is given a band higher than the amount already paid, the amount shall be paid at a higher rate.

So far, so good. It is a reasonable first stab at an attempt to compensate for injuries which are not already included in the tariff. What we are suggested here is that it could be done better. Without in any way breaking the rules under which the tariff is set up and administered under the scheme, we are suggesting that the claims officer, the person at the first level responsible for identifying this new injury,

    "shall refer that application to the chairman of the body of adjudicators...for determination".

In other words, the chairman of the body of adjudicators shall determine that particular application and make an appropriate payment. The second part of the amendment states:

31 Oct 1995 : Column 1390

    "The chairman of the body of adjudicators may make a recommendation to the Secretary of State as to the amount of compensation which that injury should attract if subsequently included in the Tariff".

In other words, the payment has been made; it has been made in good faith; it has been made at the highest possible level within the system; and the way is open for amendments to the tariff to be introduced with the leave of Parliament if the matter is considered sufficiently important.

It is not a matter of enormous importance. I do not suppose that new injuries will appear on the tariff more than perhaps half a dozen times a year. The amounts of money concerned are not very great. But what we suggest enables a swift determination of a claim which is thought by the chairman of the body of adjudicators to be reasonable to be made; and it enables the full amount which is thought by the chairman of the body of adjudicators to be reasonable to be paid without delay to the person making the claim, without waiting, as the scheme presently provides, for parliamentary approval before the second 50 per cent. of the final amount is paid to the individual. In other words, parliamentary delays should not be the occasion for delays in payment to the applicant—to the victim of crime.

I suggest to your Lordships that there is no significant effect on public expenditure but I suggest also that there is a worthwhile improvement to the practical way in which the scheme is administered and thought to be just. I beg to move.

Next Section Back to Table of Contents Lords Hansard Home Page