The dispute over the future of the government's criminal injuries compensation scheme reflects a complicated mixture of political, financial and constitutional arguments, with underlying appeals to principles of equity and social justice.

Victims of crime could be forgiven for wondering what it is all about and where it will lead.The criminal injuries compensation scheme, first introduced in 1964, is based on common law damages.

It aims to pay qualifying victims the same amount as they would receive for a successful claim in the civil courts against a defendant of means.It has generally been regarded as a success.

It was one of the first compensation schemes to be introduced anywhere in the world, and is one of the most generous - although claims that victims are treated more generously in this country than elsewhere must take account of the structure of other social benefits, which are difficult to compare.

It also conforms with the European convention on compensation for victims of crime which was adopted in 1983.The scheme has, however, been in trouble for several years.

Because it is based on individual assessment and common law damages, but also has a number of important exceptions and qualifications, it is complicated and slow to administer.Even more important from the government's point of view, expenditure on the scheme is difficult to control.

Attempts to limit the cost have, over the years, resulted in a series of increases in the minimum level of award - now £1000 - so that many victims are excluded.As a permanent and substantial programme of public expenditure it ought, as a matter of parliamentary propriety, to have statutory authority.

There was frequent criticism of this point by the Royal Commission on Civil Liability a nd Compensation for Personal Injury and the public accounts committee among others, until statutory provision was made in the Criminal Justice Act 1988.Even then, the government found that the practical and financial difficulties inherent in the scheme were such that the relevant sections of the Act could not be brought into effect.Concerns of a different kind have increasingly been expressed by victims and organisations which speak for them.

As well as the perceived unfairness of the £1000 minimum, many applicants were excluded on grounds such as failure to co-operate with the police, previous criminal convictions, or unlawful conduct.

Others found that they lost social security benefits, or had benefits deducted from the award.No compensation was available for loss or damage to property, however serious the consequences, or for psychological distress if it was not associated with a physical injury.Awards which distinguished between different victims on the basis of age, gender or personal circumstances, although strongly defended by the government, seemed discriminatory and unfair.

There appeared to be no clear purpose which compensation was intended to serve, and no generally accepted principles on which it should be paid.These concerns led to two parallel reviews - one by the government, which resulted in the white paper 'Compensating victims of violent crime: changes to the criminal injuries compensation scheme', and one by an independent working group set up by the charity Victim Support.Both recommended a change from a scheme based on individual assessment and common law damages to one based on a 'tariff' - fixed levels of award for different types of injury according to a published scale.Both recommended that the separate element for loss of earnings should be taken out of the compensation scheme as such, but the working group recommended a separate benefit for loss of earnings or bereavement which would be paid not as a lump sum, but weekly or monthly by the Department of Social Security.The working group also recommended the abolition of many of the exclusions from the existing scheme - which the new scheme would retain - and a radical reappraisal of the relationship between compensation and social security, and of the position regarding private insurance and the responsibilities of employers.

An important section deals with the administration of the scheme and with the principles of openness, access and accountability.The government intends to bring its new scheme into effect on 1 April.

Its intention to do so has been vehemently criticised, notably in the House of Lords on 2 March.The main arguments were with the government's neglect of loss of earnings, for which it may contravene the European convention; its failure to consult; and, above all, its contempt of Parliament by seeking to introduce a new administrative scheme while legislation for the existing scheme remains on the statute book.The government seems determined to proceed with its plans to introduce the new scheme on 1 April, but it may be challenged by way of judicial review in the domestic courts (see [1993] Gazette, 16 March, 9) and by amendments to the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill during its passage through the House of Lords.

Further challenges may follow if necessary in the European Court of Human Rights.The immediate objective of these challenges is to prevent or reverse the introduction of the government's new scheme, especially as it applies to loss of earnings.The outcome should not, however, be a simple return t o the existing scheme.

The task should be a more fundamental and open review of the scheme, including the wider criticisms which the working group identified, and of the recognition and support which should be given to victims of crime.