Examination of Witnesses (Questions 80-83)
21 JANUARY 2004
MR JOHN
SPELLAR MP, MR
BRIAN GRZYMEK
AND MS
ANNE MCCLEARY
Q80 Mr Beggs: How significant an issue
is "scar viewing" in relation to the awards for the
varying degrees of disfigurement under the new Tariff Scheme?
Is it understood how difficult it is for claimants to provide
ongoing viewing of the scars?
Mr Spellar: The actual report
which was commissioned from Professor Greer was not so much of
those with what I would describe as visible scarring, but the
questions of privacy and modesty and who was engaged in that.
That is why I am pleased the report has really endorsed the professionalism
of the legal profession in that regard. With regard to disfigurement,
I will refer to the Agency for the details on that.
Ms McCleary: The first thing I
should perhaps point out is that Professor Greer was looking at
the old scheme, he was not looking at the new Tariff Scheme. The
new Tariff Scheme provides for a hierarchy of tariffs in connection
with physical disfigurement scarring based on fairly broad-brush
approaches. We do not envisage that we are going to need to view
scars as often as we would have under the old scheme, but one
of the things which Professor Greer has identified is the fact
that many applicants believe that it is in their interests to
have their injuries viewed by the compensating organisation. Many
want to go through that procedure. What we are hoping to do under
the Tariff Scheme, if somebody approaches us and asks us to view
their scar, is to consider it, but we will have to ensure that
the circumstances for doing so are suitable, it is carried out
in a professional, sympathetic and understanding fashion and that
the people concerned feel that it is what they want to do and
they know what they are going to go through whenever it actually
happens. They know what they are doing and they decide that is
what they want to do.
Q81 Mr Beggs: Does the Minister plan
consultation on the outcome of the review and how wide would that
consultation be?
Mr Spellar: Most of the work which
has been undertaken is of a relatively limited application. It
is very much an issue of looking at practices with the legal profession.
Given the broad scope of the review, the broad conclusions, I
think this was likely to be relatively narrow, but if others have
views we will take those into account.
Q82 Mr Clarke: Parliament is not infallible,
we make mistakes. Sometimes in our rush to introduce new legislation
we forget to take the requirements out of the old and that certainly
was the case in respect of the legislation for the Tariff Scheme
and the impact on child sexual abuse cases. We know that those
who were unfortunate enough to have been abused before 1988, where
the perpetrator lived in the same household, are debarred from
compensation. There has been a judicial review. We could not have
taken much pleasure from the fact that the law protected us from
continuing to disbar those very few cases, but taking into account
that most victims of child sexual abuse only come to terms with
that abuse in their late teens and early twenties, there will
be more cases. Can we have some sort of undertaking from the government
that they will review the impact that the legislation has on those
cases, make sure that we are fairer and that the legislation is
all-encompassing?
Mr Spellar: As you and the Committee
may well be aware, one such case has resulted in a judicial review
of the legislation. The applicants allege that it contravenes
human rights legislation and the outcome of that judicial review
will therefore inform our future policy in this area. We await
that before moving away from the legislation that we have taken.
Q83 Mr Clarke: My understanding was that
the judicial review rejected the applicant's case and upheld the
view that such cases are debarred.
Mr Spellar: Even then I do want
to look at the reasons which were given, whether they were purely
on legal grounds, and then to look at how we review that. We are
awaiting the outcome of that judicial review and then we will
need to examine the case. Following that, when we know the outcome
of the judicial review, we will then look at the details, including
the reasons given in that case.
Mr Clarke: I am very grateful for that
undertaking.
Chairman: We have no more questions about
the Compensation Agency.
| 
