More should be done for victims of crime' is a popular but often empty slogan.

The victim's charter and the recommendations which the government has accepted from the report of the Royal Commission on Criminal Justice are a valuable statement of what victims can expect from the criminal justice system.

The government's white paper, 'Compensating victims of violent crime', announces some important changes in the form and administration of the criminal injuries compensation scheme.

But there is still no clear understanding of what victims ought reasonably to expect from the government as a whole or from society more generally.State compensation is a central part of the answer, but there has been much confusion about its purpose and much dissatisfaction about the arrangements for payment.

In 1992 the charity Victim Support therefore set up an independent working group to go 'back to basics' and consider these issues from first principles.

Its report was published in December, at the same time as the government's own white paper.Not surprisingly, members of the working group found that it was a complicated subject.

As well as defining the purpose of compensation and the principles and criteria on which it should be paid, they had to answer difficult questions about its relationship with health service and social security benefits; the responsibilities of employers; the role of insurance; the procedure for obtaining compensation from the offender; and the extent, if any, to which victims of crime should be treated differently from victims of illness, natural disasters or accidents and the justification for that dif ference.The working group defined the purpose of state compensation for victims as being 'to recognise on behalf of society the experience which victims have suffered; and to help [them] to recover from it and to live as normal a life as is possible in the circumstances'.

Like the white paper, its report acknowledges that a financial payment can seldom be regarded as equivalent to the loss suffered, or as a means of restoring the victim to the situation as it would have been if the crime had never been committed.

Like the white paper - but recognising the concern which many lawyers feel on this point - it sees no need to continue the present link with common law damages, and prefers a simpler, more open scheme based on published rates of award - a 'tariff'.

Like the white paper, it wants awards to be made reasonably quickly, in an understandable and predictable manner.There the comparison ends.

The working group wanted the recognition of victims to extend well beyond blameless victims who have suffered serious injury, and well beyond the compensation scheme as such.

Its scheme would cover those excluded under the current and intended arrangements because their injuries are not serious enough to qualify; it would extend to those who suffer psychological distress as a result of crimes such as burglary; and it would cover those who are excluded because of a previous conviction for an unrelated offence.It would give this extension a higher priority than maintaining the higher levels of existing awards.

Compensation for loss of earnings would not be averaged out across the general level of awards, with 'winners' and 'losers', but would be dealt with separately as part of the structure of social security benefits, or covered by employers or insurance for those whose earnings are above social security level.

Help from social security would also be available for those who suffer serious hardship as a result of loss or damage to their property.

Compensation payments would not, as now, affect or be affected by any entitlement to social security benefits.The report emphasises that arrangements for compensation, however generous, must be matched by other forms of recognition and support - from family and friends, from support schemes such as Victim Support, from the National Health Service, from insurance and from employers.These are not all matters for the government, but the government has important responsibilities in giving a lead, setting an example and making sure that there is adequate support and funding for victims' services.An important section of the report deals with the administrative process for making compensation awards.

The process should be open and accessible, with well understood opportunities for disappointed applicants to make representations, to submit appeals and ultimately, if necessary, to seek judicial review.The exercise of discretion should be clearly structured, and judgments on whether an applicant is 'innocent' or 'deserving' should be avoided.

Reliable support and advice, including legal advice if needed, should be available to applicants.Levels of award, and the operation of the scheme more generally, should be regularly reviewed by an independent body appointed for that purpose, with energy and imagination to make sure that the scheme is kept properly up to date.There should be a full annual report, with enough detail to show whether there might have been discrimination on grounds of race, gender or class.

The new scheme should be placed on a firm statutory basis.The government might at first be alarmed by the potential cost of the arrangements which the working group has proposed, and their ramifications for other policies and programmes of expenditure.

The working group has therefore suggested a programme for their progressive implementation over a period of years.Its report now deserves to be seriously considered alongside the white paper - remembering that a 10% increase in expenditure on prisons is equivalent to more than a 100% increase in expenditure on compensation for victims.