At the outset of the debate, I wish to declare an interest: I am president of the Uxbridge Victim Support Scheme, which, like the National Association of Victim Support Schemes, is greatly concerned with compensation for criminal injuries. I have taken this position recently, and I am proud to occupy it.

As the House knows, I am also parliamentary adviser to the Police Federation of England and Wales. However, I wish to make it clear that I am not speaking on its behalf in tonight's debate, if for no other reason than that police officers now account for less than 10 per cent. of all applicants to the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board and it therefore follows that 90 per cent. are civilian innocent victims of crime.

On 23 November last year, my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary announced, in reply to a parliamentary question from my right hon. Friend the Member for Westminster, North (Sir J. Wheeler), that the Government had decided that introducing a simplified procedure based on a tariff structure offered the best prospects of providing quicker payments to claimants through a means that is fair, straightforward and understandable. He went on to say that further work was needed to develop the practical aspects of these new arrangements, and that that work should be completed by the first half of this year, when a white paper would be published setting out the details of the proposed new arrangements. He expects them to come into operation this year.

Following that announcement, I decided to apply for an Adjournment Debate because I believe, first, that compensation by the state for criminal injustice is a vital part of our British way of life; and secondly, that we should be very careful before we move away from the present satisfactory scheme to one which, although it might be quicker, might well provide the claimant with what I can only describe as rough justice.

It is worth recalling why the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board was brought into existence and why the scheme came about in 1964. It was realised that, in most cases, victims of crime could not bring civil proceedings for compensation against their assailants, because those assailants would be without funds.

The Government of the day recognised that the fact that there are increasing numbers of victims of crime was a sign that society itself had somehow failed the victim by allowing him or her to be assaulted. That being so, perhaps it is right that the Government should ensure that victims receive compensation.

Compensation is treated by victims as a very important part of their recovery, fulfilling as it does their desire for some sort of justice, and the payment of compensation, coupled with the successful prosecution of the offender, is usually a large factor in their recovery.

Victims of crime need proper compensation to reimburse them for their out-of-pocket expenses and to recover from any financial embarrassment that might have resulted from the assault. They also need it to deal with the interests of justice from a personal standpoint.

One important feature of the new tariff-based scheme upon which the Home Office is working could be the complete prohibition of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board making awards for past or future loss of earnings. That is an important point. I hope that I am wrong about that, but if not, it means that 90 per cent. of civilian applicants who suffer injuries so serious that they are unable to earn their livelihood could be obliged to rely on existing social security benefits, which usually would in no way make up for the shortfall in income. It would not be right for any new scheme to deprive innocent victims of crime of the right to recover income lost through violent crime.

The essence of a tariff scheme such as my right hon. and learned Friend is contemplating is to identify types of injury and to give a standard figure of damages for each injury, rather like the Northern Ireland model. If that is the case, I trust that the figures will be increased by the rate of inflation. However, my concern and the principal reason for raising the matter is that huge anomalies are bound to occur.

The recent guidance given to the judiciary and the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board by the Judicial Justice Board identifies types of injury and, according to the seriousness of the injury, gives a bracket within which compensation would be appropriate. The brackets are often wide because it is recognised that each case is individual and turns on its own factors, and that it is impossible to fix a figure appropriate for any type of injury. One broken arm is often different from another broken arm.

The present scheme allows experienced lawyers to study all aspects of the case and to reach an appropriate valuation in accordance with the principles of common law. The system is fair, and puts the criminal victim in roughly the same position as a claimant in a civil case. It must be remembered that there can be no duplication of state benefits. All benefits paid by the state, all private pensions and much private insurance are taken as a credit against damages to reduce the state's outlay.

If a victim is injured by the use of a motor vehicle as a Weapon—in other words, if a victim is deliberately run down—that victim can apply to the Motor Insurers Bureau for compensation under common law. If a victim is injured by a very differently shaped piece of metal, such as a crowbar, something which we would all deplore, that victim would have to apply to the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board and would obtain much less by way of damages. Can that distinction be justified?

My other worry is that, in many types of injury, it will be impossible to provide any meaningful tariff for damages. Facial and bodily scarring, post-traumatic states, stress disorder and sexual abuse, including rape, are obvious examples. How can any standard figure be set for those injuries? Why should not the present system continue, under which damages are assessed by a lawyer, usually a Queen's counsel, who is experienced in the art?

I cannot believe that my right hon. and learned Friend takes the view that changes in the present scheme are necessary to improve the access of victims of violence. That is obviously not the case. I have the terrible feeling that my right hon. and learned Friend's proposed changes to the present scheme are to save the Government money. In other words, the proposals are what is commonly called Treasury-driven.

If that is the case, I do not think that the Treasury is in any position to press my right hon. and learned Friend to save money. At a meeting of the Public Accounts Committee, held on Monday of this week, the deputy secretary who is the accounting officer for an organisation called Forward, a wholly owned Treasury organisation providing catering to the civil service, had to admit to substantial maladministration, to the loss of up to £1 million, to the payment of cash sums to ghost workers who did not exist and also to other malpractices.

When I read the papers for the meeting of the Public Accounts Committee on Monday of this week, I was reminded of my late right hon. and noble Friend Lord Ridley of Liddescale, to whom I pay tribute, who in 1979 introduced the Ghost Workers (Abolition) Bill. I obtained from the Library a copy of my late right hon. and noble Friend's speech. I was able to deploy it to considerable effect in the Public Accounts Committee and to demonstrate that Her Majesty's Treasury was in the business of employing ghost workers. I thought that that was a particularly splendid tribute to the work in this House of my late right hon. and noble Friend.

If the Treasury cannot even run the modern equivalent of a whelk stall, in the form of the civil service catering department, it is hardly, I suggest, in a position to tell my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary to start saving money by reducing compensation to the victims of violence.

According to the National Association of Victim Support Schemes, which is to issue a report entitled "Band Aid for Victims?" tomorrow morning: the current scheme has some serious deficiencies". One of these is the long delay before awards are made. However, the report also points out that this situation has been improved and that the proportion of cases resolved within a year has increased from 25 per cent. in 1990–91 to 49 per cent. last year. The chairman of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board, my right hon. and noble Friend Lord Carlisle of Bucklow, himself reminded the victim support association at its annual conference: he who gives twice gives quickly. The improvement in the speed with which the board deals with claims has to a considerable extent resulted from pressure from activity, including the management reviews carried out by my right hon. and learned Friend and in particular by the Home Affairs Select Committee. As a result, working procedures and the turnover of claims has increased enormously. The position is in no sense the same as it was three or four years ago.

I warmly congratulate the board on making the improvements it has. If those improvements are allowed to continue, there can be little doubt, by any standards that my right hon. and learned Friend cares to adopt, that the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board is likely to be meeting its targets. As you know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, targets and milestones—the jargon of management consultants in 1993—are very important and very dear to the hearts of the Treasury, the Public Accounts Committee and this House. There cannot therefore be any justification for changing the scheme, and any suggestion that it can be improved by cutting benefits simply does not stand up to examination.

The present scheme, in fact, excludes classes of people from receiving benefit. It excludes those who have criminal convictions, those whose way of life makes it inappropriate that they should receive compensation, and those who consented to the risk of injury by indulging in, say, a good pub fight. Those restrictions are bound to continue to apply, so the innocent victims—those who are left—will merely suffer potentially vast diminution of benefits.

I wanted to wind up by putting to the Minister of State some questions that I know he will answer with his customary diligence.

How would a tariff scheme take sufficient account of the personal circumstances in a rape case? These cases are tremendously difficult and require careful consideration—not a cheque for £500. How would a tariff scheme take account of the average and future working life of a claimant? Would a man of 75 be paid the same for the loss of a limb as a man of 30 who had 35 years of working life left?

How would a tariff-based scheme take account of the effect of scarring on a young woman with her life ahead of her and with prospects of marriage and a family, compared to the effect on, say, a woman in her 50s or 60s or an older man, whose marriage prospects would not be lessened to the same degree?

How would payment for, say, a broken nose or a broken jaw be calculated? Under the present scheme, the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board considers medical and police evidence most carefully. If it did not do so, the payment could be too great.

I do not believe that a tariff system would be quicker than the present system, bearing in mind the need to take into account police evidence and medical reports. If those were to be dispensed with, justice would fly out of the window. Anyone reading the 28th report of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board will be deeply impressed by the fact that, in the year ended 31 March 1992, the board received 61,400 applications, as against 50,820 in 1990–91.

I urge my hon. Friend not to replace the excellent scheme that we have at the moment with a cheaper, tariff-based scheme—a scheme based on rough justice. If the Home Office decides to do that, I for one will have the greatest possible difficulty in supporting it.