---

Column 1122

Richards, Rod

Riddick, Graham

Robathan, Andrew

Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

Sackville, Tom

Sainsbury, Rt Hon Sir Timothy

Scott, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

Shaw, David (Dover)

Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

Shersby, Sir Michael

Sims, Roger

Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

Soames, Nicholas

Spencer, Sir Derek

Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

Spink, Dr Robert

Spring, Richard

Sproat, Iain

Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

Steen, Anthony

Stephen, Michael

Stern, Michael

Stewart, Allan

Streeter, Gary

Sumberg, David

Sykes, John

Tapsell, Sir Peter

Taylor, Ian (Esher)

Taylor, John M (Solihull)

Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

Temple-Morris, Peter

Thomason, Roy

Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

Thornton, Sir Malcolm

Thurnham, Peter

Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)

Tracey, Richard

Tredinnick, David

Trend, Michael

Twinn, Dr Ian

Vaughan, Sir Gerard

Viggers, Peter

Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

Walden, George

Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

Waller, Gary

Ward, John

Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

Watts, John

Wells, Bowen

Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John

Whittingdale, John

Wiggin, Sir Jerry

Willetts, David

Wilshire, David

Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)

Wolfson, Mark

Yeo, Tim

Young, Rt Hon Sir George

Tellers for the Noes: Dr. Liam Fox and Mr. Timothy Wood.

---

Column 1122

Question accordingly negatived.

---

Column 1123

Clause 5

Appeals

5.45 pm

Mr. Michael: I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 4, leave out lines 7 and 8 and insert--

`(b) for the appointment by the Lord Chancellor of a legally-qualified chairman of that body.'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 2, in page 4, line 22, at beginning insert

`Subject to the agreement of the Lord Chancellor,'.

No. 3, in page 4, line 28, at end insert--

`(7A) For the purposes of subsection 3(b) above, a person is legally- qualified if he is a barrister, advocate or solicitor of ten years' standing.'.

Mr. Michael: Amendment Nos. 1, 2 and 3 seek to amend the Bill to ensure that appeals are dealt with properly. There has been considerable concern for a number of years that appeals should be dealt with in a proper and a transparent manner. The key sentence in the Franks report of 1957 states:

"tribunals should properly be regarded as machinery provided by Parliament for adjudication rather than as part of the machinery of administration".

That is a particularly important principle, but it is not observed by the Bill or enshrined in it. We made progress in Committee with regard to adjudicators' responsibilities for giving advice, both as a body and individually on the basis of what occurs in particular appeals, and to perform by looking at the wider context of the operation of the criminal injuries compensation scheme and the ways in which it must operate in order to deliver compensation to victims effectively.

However, a system of transparency has not been established. The quotation from the Franks report makes it absolutely clear that the appeals mechanism should be a proper judicial or semi-judicial approach, rather than being simply another step in the administrative process. If that principle is to be observed, it is important to establish proper machinery for appeals and adjudication, which we believe should appear in the Bill.

Amendment No. 1 states that the appointment of a legally qualified chairman of the body dealing with appeals shall be made by the Lord Chancellor. That is not a new principle and it has been established elsewhere, but it is right to adopt it in this case. The Council on Tribunals commented on the qualifications of tribunal chairmen in its model rules of procedure:

"The constitution, general structure and composition of tribunals will, as a rule, be a matter for the enabling Act".

The council's advice accepts that there are exceptions and sets them out, particularly in relation to the Finance Act. That general principle is right, but is not included in the Bill's phrasing. The council added:

"The division between what appears in the Act and what should appear in the rules may well be the result of Parliamentary or professional interest in the subject matter or jurisdiction; equally it may be arbitrary."

---

Column 1124

I believe that all hon. Members agree that it should not be arbitrary, but properly considered and decided by the House. The council continues:

"It is usual where a presidential system is to be established for that to be done in the enabling Act, which will also prescribe the necessary qualifications for the President and his terms and conditions of service".

It is difficult to understand why that should not be the case in the Bill. In Committee, the Minister said that there would be simple cases of an abuse of process or undue delay in which there was no merit, which a single adjudicator could examine and dismiss. Even so, in the general run of appeals where there is an issue to be decided, there should be a proper tribunal, properly chaired. Above all, the chairman of the appeals body should be legally qualified in the terms of amendment No. 3, to ensure that the system operates effectively. The Minister said that in appointing adjudicators, it was the Home Secretary's clear intention to select not just legally qualified individuals but persons experienced in employment, trade union work and medical matters. There should be that spread of experience, but it is important also that the jurisdiction of the Council on Tribunals should apply and that a legally qualified person should chair the appeals body to ensure that proper procedures are observed.

The principle of a legally qualified chairman is enhanced by accepting the normal practice in relation to tribunal chairmen, whereby his removal or that of other individuals should be subject to the Lord Chancellor's agreement. In Committee, the Minister said that he was keen that there should not be the remotest opportunity for interference by the Home Secretary in the body that will deal with criminal injuries compensation when the Bill is enacted and the scheme implemented. He wanted to ensure that there could not be interference by Ministers, using a form of words that--as I said earlier--was ill advised because it could bear other interpretations, such as excluding from the appeals body the jurisdiction of the ombudsman. The Minister at least paid lip service to the principle of non-interference that we seek to enshrine in the Bill.

If it is ensured that persons appointed by the Home Secretary undertake their duties under the chairmanship of the overall body of a legally qualified individual appointed by the Lord Chancellor, there can be no doubt of the objectivity and transparency of the Bill's arrangements. If the removal of individuals is also subject to the Lord Chancellor's agreement, as with other tribunals, that will provide the public with a measure of comfort and clarity, that the body will not be the creature of the Home Secretary. The amendments will be helpful to the Minister in enshrining the principle that he agreed should be the one governing appeals --objectivity and a lack of interference by Home Office Ministers. In other words, it would be a proper judicial or quasi-judicial body, whose fairness would be transparent, and the independence of the persons who made appeal decisions would be obvious. I hope that the Minister will accept these three minor but important amendments.

Mr. Maclean: Clause 5(3)(b) enables the scheme to provide for the Secretary of State to appoint a chairman of the appeals panel from among the adjudicators who make up its membership. Amendment No. 1 would

---

Column 1125

amend that power, so that any such provision of the scheme would require the Lord Chancellor to appoint the chairman. It would also require the chairman to be legally qualified, and amendment No. 3 defines "legally-qualified". Amendment No. 2 would require the Lord Chancellor's agreement before the Secretary of State could remove an adjudicator from office under the powers provided by clause 5(7). I listened carefully and respectfully, as usual, to the hon. Gentleman's opinions, but the amendments are not appropriate to the purpose of the Bill or the scheme. The most obvious objection is that the Lord Chancellor has no direct interest in the running of the scheme. It therefore makes no sense to involve him in responsibility for appointing the chairman of the appeals panel. The Home Secretary and the Secretary of State for Scotland will have overall responsibility for the running of the scheme, and in appointing a chairman of the appeals panel, they will have to consider wider questions about the requirements of the post in the context of the efficient running of the appeals panel and its advice-giving role to the Secretary of State.

For the same reasons, it would not be appropriate to require the Lord Chancellor's agreement to the removal of an adjudicator from office. I have no doubt, however, that we would consult the Lord Chancellor in the unhappy and, I hope, remote event that we had to consider removing a legally qualified adjudicator from office. We would also consult as appropriate on the question of appointing a legally qualified chairman. Although this does not need to be stated in the Bill, of course we would consult the Lord Chancellor as appropriate on appointing a legally qualified chairman. Such matters are part of the Government's normal modus operandi.

As to whether the chairman should be legally qualified, our responsibility is to see that the most suitable person is appointed as chairman. The needs of the scheme and the needs of victims are paramount. As the House knows, we intend to appoint adjudicators from a wide range of backgrounds. It is certainly our firm intention that the first chairman at least should be legally qualified, but it would be wrong to rule out absolutely any possibility that at some future date it might be appropriate to appoint a non-lawyer as chairman. Legal questions frequently arise in the running of the scheme, and if the chairman was not a lawyer but, for example, a doctor, we would expect him to consult the legally qualified adjudicators as necessary. But to insist on a legally qualified chairman is an unnecessary restriction.

I listened carefully to the hon. Gentleman's points, but if we accepted the amendments, they would place an unnecessary restriction on the scheme's operation and the modus operandi for appointing a legally qualified chairman and other adjudicators. I cannot accept the amendments.

Mr. Michael: It is intriguing that something is a clear principle when it is wanted by a Minister, but is said to introduce unnecessary restriction when proposed by anyone else. The Government are always inconsistent in dealing with such matters, as we have seen today. It is sad that relations between the Home Secretary and the Lord Chancellor are so bad that a requirement to ensure transparency and fairness in the appointment and

---

Column 1126

removal of adjudicators is viewed as introducing convoluted and bureaucratic delay. I dare say that matters will improve in the near future.

Amendment negatived.

Order for Third Reading read .

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time.-- [Mr. Howard.]

---