| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Criminal Injuries Compensation (Northern Ireland) Order 2002
9.54 p.m.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 25th February be approved [21st Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in the name of my noble and learned friend Lord Williams of Mostyn.
The draft order was published as a proposal last June and laid before this House. Perhaps I may deal first with the proposed powers in the order. It contains an enabling power for the Secretary of State to make his scheme for payment of compensation to victims of violent crime. It is therefore not possible for the House to approve the details of the scheme until the order has been made which provides the Secretary of State with the necessary powers to do so. The draft scheme will itself be subject to affirmative resolution by both Houses so that there will be a further opportunity for more detailed debate on the scheme once the order has been made.
The order provides my right honourable friend the Secretary of State with the power to make a criminal injuries compensation scheme for Northern Ireland along similar lines to the scheme which has been operating in GB for some six years. This is not an absolute power but one which is restrained by the requirement to have the scheme affirmed by both Houses. Article 3 provides those powers.
Article 4 of the draft order then goes on to outline how compensation is to be calculated. The method of assessing compensation brings the arrangements in Northern Ireland broadly into line with provision in Great Britain.
The reason for the proposals is clear. What we are attempting to do is to reform the compensation arrangements for the benefit of victims of violent crime. The proposed tariff system has been drawn up on the basis that current average values of awards paid to victims of criminal injury in Northern Ireland under present arrangements are higher than equivalent injuries in Great Britain would attract, and the tariff amounts are therefore higher than the awards in Great Britain.
The draft order also provides for the scheme to compensate for loss of earnings, special expenses and, in fatal cases, for bereavement. The provision is the same and in effect adds considerably to the parameters of a strict interpretation of a tariff based scheme. The introduction of a more straightforward system of assessing compensation mitigates against a continuing need for legal intervention in the process of claiming compensation.
Article 5 provides that the Secretary of State determines awards of compensation. In practice, administrative arrangements for the determination of awards will remain largely unchanged, with the service delivery continuing in the hands of the compensation agencies.
Article 6 continues the theme of moving towards parity with arrangements in the rest of the country. It states that the scheme shall make provision for the review of decisions.
The draft order also sets out arrangements for the approval of the statutory scheme and for future alterations to the scheme. These provisions are contained in Articles 9 and 10. As I have indicated, the scheme cannot be made by the Secretary of State without the draft being approved by both Houses. Similarly, future alterations to the tariff, and other major changes, as set out in Article 10, are subject to an affirmative procedure.
My remarks in this opening speech would not be complete without a reference to two important issues for all draft legislation in Northern Ireland; namely, its compatibility with human rights obligations and with the equality standards under Section 75 of the Northern Ireland Act. On the first, I am advised that we are introducing arrangements which are compatible with standards required under the Human Rights Act and which meet, and in many cases exceed, the provision of the international convention dealing with compensation for criminal injuries.
The Northern Ireland Office has also carried out a fully satisfactory equality impact assessment, as required under Section 75 and Schedule 9 of the Northern Ireland Act, of the policy behind the proposed changes.
I hope that I have provided a comprehensive overview of the provisions contained in the draft order and their impact on the proposed payment of compensation for criminal injuries in Northern Ireland.
Victims of violent crime, far from being disadvantaged by the introduction of this legislation, will in overall terms benefit from these reforms. I commend the order to the House.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 25th February be approved [21st Report from the Joint Committee].—(Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton.)
Lord Glentoran: My Lords, I thank the Minister for bringing the order before the House. I believe that it will significantly improve the situation in relation to criminal injuries compensation. There has been a great
deal of consultation on the scheme. A lot of its basic content was initiated by the excellent report produced by Sir Kenneth Bloomfield. I have to declare an interest as I welcome the order, because Sir Kenneth Bloomfield has been a friend of mine for more than 40 years. He is a close personal friend in whom I have great trust and who has been a valuable servant to the state. I have great pleasure in supporting the order.
Lord Shutt of Greetland: My Lords, I, too, welcome the next steps in setting up the criminal injuries compensation scheme. I have a couple of points to raise. There was a fair amount of discussion about the issue in the Northern Ireland Assembly in November and in the Northern Ireland Grand Committee of the other place in December. I hope that when we come to the scheme due account will be taken of those deliberations.
I also note that paragraph 11 of the order, on advice, assistance and support for victims, says:
- "The Secretary of State shall inform persons seeking compensation for criminal injuries sustained in Northern Ireland of any body designated by him for the purposes of this Article as a body providing advice, assistance and support to persons seeking compensation for such injuries".
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, for his support. Like him, I pay great tribute to those who have been involved in bringing the proposals forward. I assure the noble Lord, Lord Shutt, that, as on all occasions, we shall give due and proper regard to the views of people in Northern Ireland, particularly those in the Assembly. We are not proposing that legal assistance should be replaced by Victim Support Northern Ireland. With a tariff scheme legal assistance to process an application through to a settlement will not be required. Therefore, the role of VSNI will not be to offer legal assistance but to help applicants with administrative procedure, in much the way that citizens advice bureaux might assist with social security claims.
However, VSNI has embarked on an intensive training programme for advice workers and volunteers to ensure that those involved with claimants are fully aware of the extent of service that needs to be provided. I assure the noble Lord, Lord Shutt, that the department will monitor very closely the service provided by Victim Support Northern Ireland to ensure that victims are getting the service that they need.
I thank both noble Lords who have offered their support.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Companies (Fees) (Amendment) Regulations 2002
10.5 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey rose to move, That the regulations laid before the House on 14th February be approved [20th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the effect of these regulations is to increase the fees for certain, microfiche based products provided by Companies House. The reason for doing so is that the demand for such products is declining steadily. New electronic search services available from Companies House are taking over as the primary medium for searching company records. Indeed, the increase in demand for the electronic services can be seen as a significant achievement in progressing the Modernising Government agenda.
As Companies House is an executive agency with trading fund status, it is obliged to recover the costs of the services it supplies through the fees it charges. The declining demand for microfiche products does not correspondingly reduce the costs for updating them and running the necessary processing and computer systems to ensure their proper storage, maintenance and retrieval. Consequently, the unit cost for producing a microfiche will rise significantly as demand falls.
On the current fee of £6.50, Companies House is making a loss estimated at £2.50 per microfiche. The predicted cost for next year is estimated at £11.50. As explained above, this is an untenable situation given the trading fund status of Companies House and the requirement that it recover its costs through fees charged for its services. In addition, Companies House has to fund future development programmes from fees it charges for its services. It is vital that the agency invests in new and up-to-date technology to provide more efficient and flexible services to its customers.
We therefore intend to increase the cost of a microfiche from £6.50 to £9. This represents a significant increase but it has to be set against a decline in volume from 600,000 units in 2000-2001 to around 300,000 anticipated for 2002-2003. Other options were considered, including that of doing nothing. However, that is not acceptable within the trading fund rules as it would mean Companies House making a substantial loss on its microfiche products. A second option was to increase the price by more, but that is unlikely to increase revenue as demand would be likely to drop even more than predicted as a consequence of demand and price elasticity. Increasing the fee by a lesser amount would simply mean the need for a further increase in the short term in order to ensure that Companies House recovered its costs.
The final alternative is to end microfiche availability completely and this is something that Companies House is looking at currently. It is, however, unlikely to be possible in the immediate future, but microfiche will in time become a specialist product for forensic
analysis or historical research, and be priced accordingly. Companies House proposes to stop updating microfiche records at the end of this year.The House was warned of the possibility of the likely increase in microfiche fees when a similar order was presented just over a year ago. This may well be the last such increase. More and more people are turning to the electronic information services now available from Companies House. These are becoming increasingly comprehensive and easier to access, as well as progressively cheaper. For example, since October last year, searchers have been able to purchase copies of company documents over the Web using their credit cards. The demand for such services is continuously increasing and this in turn will lead to lower prices for conveniently accessible, high quality, electronic information.
We are increasing these fees by regulations under Section 708(1) of the Companies Act 1985. Companies House also uses Section 708(5) for setting charges for the new electronic, same day and other specialised services. The flexibility afforded by Section 708(5) is vital for the pricing of new products whose development costs and take up may be uncertain or variable.
To conclude, Companies House is the key statutory registry for companies and company information in Great Britain. In modernising its services in line with government targets it has seen the demand for traditional microfiche products decline significantly while running costs remain broadly the same. I hope that the House will accept my explanation for the increase in these fees. I commend the regulations to the House. I confirm that, in my view, the regulations are compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights.
Moved, That the regulations laid before the House on 14th February be approved [20th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord McIntosh of Haringey.)
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page