---

Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme 2008

My Lords, like the noble Lord, Lord Henley, I see that my colleague, Mr David Howarth, dealt comprehensively with the scheme in another place just a few days ago. I will therefore keep my remarks brief. Like Mr Howarth, I am pleased that the scheme does not pursue some of the ideas in Rebuilding Lives that would have been rather damaging. I particularly welcome the fact that the Government have not proceeded with a proposal to exclude victims who suffered the crime at work, as that would have been quite unjust. A suggestion was made in the consultation paper that the employer should take on that burden and pay compensation through insurance. That would have undermined the entire scheme, so I am glad that it is not being proceeded with. I hope that the Minister can assure us that there is no intention at any point to bring that idea back. I have two specific points about the detail of the scheme. Paragraph 35(1)(d)(iii) deals with care costs, but there seems to be a change from the 2001 scheme in that regard. The new scheme restricts care costs to applicants’ core costs, such as the cost of helping them with bodily functions and meal preparations, whereas the previous scheme seemed to deal with all one’s care costs. Why has that change been made? Is it justifiable to place the extra cost on the individual victim? In a similar vein, I have a question about the earnings limit. Financial loss under the criminal injuries compensation scheme is restricted, unlike civil liability damages, to one and a half times average earnings, so someone cannot get whatever earnings they have lost; they are limited to one and a half times the average. However, the definition of ““average earnings”” appears to have changed from the one used in the 2001 scheme. In 2001, ““average earnings”” were defined as ““gross average industrial earnings””, whereas in the new scheme they are defined as ““median gross weekly earnings””. Why has that change been made? What difference is it expected to make? On the face of it, given that earnings are skewed with a very long tail at the high end, changing that average, which meant ““mean””, to this average, which means ““median””, represents a reduction in the amount of money available. On the other hand, changing from industrial earnings to earnings in general might have the opposite effect. What is the change expected to do? Besides that, we have covered the ground fairly comprehensively between the two Houses, and we on these Benches are broadly content with the scheme.