---

Mr. David Heath (Somerton and Frome) (LD): As has been pointed out already, this is not the time to discuss the detail of the Government's proposals. However, as the Minister knows, we have broadly welcomed not only the initial idea, but the modification that the Home Secretary announced in his statement on Second Reading, when he indicated that he would seek payments from the mugger, rather than from the motorist. That is an important point, but there are still an awful lot of unanswered questions. Until we see the detail of the Government's proposals, it is difficult to give a reasoned view of their likely effectiveness. We certainly do not intend to divide the House on the ways and means resolution, but our difficulty is simply that it will allow sums to be recovered from criminals and taken into the maw of the Treasury, but victims will not get a better deal from the criminal compensation arrangements.

Mr. Dominic Grieve (Beaconsfield) (Con): Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the suggestion was that the money would be recovered from the specific offenders who had committed offences against individuals? In fact, we are talking about the recovery of sums from offenders as a class generally.

Mr. Heath: That is precisely what the Government intend. The proposal is effectively a tax on fines, or a tax on criminals, although I am not sure whether one would argue that it is particularly progressive or regressive. The Government intend to tax criminals to provide money, one hopes, for a worthwhile objective, but the important difficulty is that we also hear that the criminal compensation fund is capped—the funds available to the victim will not increase. I am not clear how victims will be any better off.

Is this simply not another way to raise revenue—albeit from a source that is likely to find favour with the great mass of the population, because making criminals pay for their crimes sounds good—without doing anything to help the victims? That is what we wish to test in Committee and during the Bill's later stages. I will expect the Minister to tell us that, although the moneys recovered will go into the Consolidated Fund, an additional sum will be immediately taken out and made available for victims' compensation, so that victims, not the Treasury, will be better off as a result of the proposals.

This is a very crude form of restorative justice. I strongly commend such justice, as does the Liberal Democrat party. I believe that huge advances can be
 
23 Jun 2004 : Column 1349
 
achieved in making criminals come face to face with their victims and provide some recompense for the mischief that they have committed. That must be the right way forward, but it sounds very much as though no explicit connection will be made. Criminals will simply be charged an additional sum, which they will consider to be part of their fines or part of the cost of imprisonment, and the money will go to the Treasury: the individual victims of those criminals will not receive a penny piece more as a result. If so, the scheme will fail our test of effectiveness. I hope that it will not fail.

I hope that the Minister can reassure us that a direct connection between cause and effect will be explicit throughout the proposals, but we cannot be convinced of that until we see the detail. I do not intend to oppose the ways and means resolution, but I look forward to a great deal more information on the workings of the scheme becoming available as we make progress with the Bill.

12.58 pm

Paul Goggins: With the leave of the House, I wish to respond briefly to the points made. I am tempted to go slightly wider than the motion, but I entirely endorse the spirit of the initial comments made by the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan). An analysis of the costs and benefits in relation to domestic violence and other issues associated with the victims of crime shows that we can gain much from the added protection that the Bill will provide. I very much welcome her remarks in that regard. She is right to say that the overall cost of the Bill is estimated at a little more than £40 million, but we are not discussing that funding today. We are discussing something very narrow indeed.

I can confirm to the hon. Lady and the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) that a regulatory impact assessment of this specific measure and the Government's response to the consultation will be available very shortly. Again, I trust that I shall not try the hon. Lady's patience too much if I say that that will happen in the next couple of days.

Mrs. Gillan: The Minister is trying my patience a little, so I shall take one of my gloves off and ask him to guarantee that we will have it before the House rises tomorrow.

Paul Goggins: If the hon. Lady is asking about the Government's response to the consultation, I confirm that it will be available before the end of business tomorrow. I cannot say when the regulatory impact assessment in relation to this specific measure will be laid, but it will be as soon as possible. As for the further amendments, I repeat what I said earlier and yesterday: they will be tabled as soon as possible. Yesterday I promised that that would happen in the next day or two, which leaves little time, but that promise will be fulfilled. If nothing else, this debate has caused me to make a clear
 
23 Jun 2004 : Column 1350
 
commitment in that respect. We shall, I hope, be able to discuss the further amendments in Committee in the consensual manner that we have shown thus far. I welcome the hon. Lady's comments on the press statement made to coincide with Second reading.

The power is a narrow one to allow the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority to reclaim from offenders that which has been paid out as compensation to victims. The money paid out by the CICA is paid from the Consolidated Fund; the measure simply puts money into the Consolidated Fund. Neither the Chancellor nor anyone else is being given an opportunity to make off with the cash and use it for other purposes. Money paid out to victims is merely being recovered from offenders. If the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome wants to call that a tax on offenders, he may do so.

Mr. Grieve: It is important for the record that we understand what is involved. We are talking not about the CICA paying £6,000 to the victim of a violent assault, then reclaiming £6,000 from the perpetrator of the assault, but about the CICA, having paid out £6,000 to a victim, looking to the levy and surcharge that will be applied to offenders under the Government's proposal to create a fund from which such compensation can be paid. As the Minister is aware, until the Government backed down on the suggestion that speeding motorists be liable for the levy, that was a fairly contentious issue.

Paul Goggins: The debate is becoming slightly confused. The measure that we are discussing now does not relate to the victims fund; it deals with where the money that has been recovered from offenders goes when compensation has been paid out to a victim. All the measure does is allow money to be paid into the Consolidated Fund—the same fund that makes payments to victims. The victims fund is separate and will be discussed separately in Committee—a debate to which I look forward, as does the hon. Gentleman, I am sure.

Mr. Grieve: The Minister has clarified the matter in a slightly unexpected fashion. At present, perpetrators of offences can be ordered to pay compensation to their victims, so why is the ways and means resolution needed—unless the system is being substantially altered by means of the Bill?

Paul Goggins: It is being substantially altered in one respect: the CICA will now be able, through the courts, to recover money from offenders. That is the new power that we seek, and the ways and means resolution is needed if the Committee is to be able to consider the relevant amendment. Whether one calls the measure a tax on offenders or not, it is wholly right and I invite the House to support the motion.

Question put and agreed to.
 
23 Jun 2004 : Column 1349
 

 
23 Jun 2004 : Column 1351
 

Parliamentary Contributory Pension Fund

1.4 pm

The Deputy Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Phil Woolas): I beg to move,

That Mr Barry Gardiner be discharged as a Managing Trustee of the Parliamentary Contributory Pension Fund and Mr Tony Colman be appointed as a Managing Trustee in pursuance of section 1 of the Parliamentary and other Pensions Act 1987.

Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to consider the following motion:

That Mr Barry Gardiner be discharged as a Managing Trustee of the House of Commons Members' Fund and Mr Tony Colman be appointed as a Managing Trustee in pursuance of section 2 of the House of Commons Members' Fund Act 1939.

Mr. Woolas: The motions are tightly drawn and neither is a Government motion. Although I do not wish to detain the House, let me briefly set out some of the background to the trustees and the funds.

The parliamentary contributory pension fund is managed by a board of nine trustees—eight serving Members of Parliament and one pensioner trustee, currently the right hon. Lord Stewartby—all of whom are volunteers. By convention, the chairman is an Opposition Member, and I am delighted to see that the hon. Member for Bournemouth, West (Sir John Butterfill) is present. I put on the record the House's thanks to him and his colleagues for their work, to which they bring considerable expertise.

I hope that the House will join me in thanking my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, North (Mr. Gardiner) for his service on the board of managing trustees, and my hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Mr. Colman) for kindly agreeing to serve. Like his predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for Putney brings direct professional experience to the board of trustees, and I am sure that it will prove invaluable. He is a successful private sector business man turned local authority leader turned Member of Parliament. His biography lists his other achievements to date, including his membership of the Treasury Committee. In addition, he is a former member of the Price Commission and, until May 1998, he was chair of the UK steering committee on local government superannuation and the local authorities mutual investment trust.

Let me take this opportunity to congratulate some of the trustees on recent examination successes. I am delighted to report to the House that the chairman of the trustees of the fund, in addition to being a qualified chartered surveyor and property expert, has recently gained the Pensions Management Institute's certificate of essential trustee knowledge, as have his fellow trustees my hon. Friends the Members for Brent, North and for Dartford (Dr. Stoate) and the right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley). Congratulations and thanks are due.

Routine administration of the fund falls to its secretary, the director of operations of the Department of Finance and Administration, Mr. Archie Cameron,
 
23 Jun 2004 : Column 1352
 
CBE. Mr. Cameron, who has also recently gained the PMI certificate, is to retire from the service of the House at the end of September, after 16 years' service. He will be much missed.

Let me now explain the background to the second motion. The Members' fund is managed by a board of six trustees, all of whom are serving Members. Some, but not all, are also trustees of the parliamentary contributory pension fund. Again, by convention the chairman is an Opposition Member, in this case the right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden. The fund's trustees are, of course, accountable to the House. We are grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, North for his service on the fund and to my hon. Friend the Member for Putney for agreeing to serve. Again, administration is carried out by Mr. Cameron and his colleagues. I put on the record the thanks of the House to the right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden and his colleagues as managing trustees of the fund. The fund is inspected by the internal review service of the House and by the National Audit Office, both of which scrutinise the accounts and the general running of the fund. The Government Actuary's Department provides relevant professional assistance. In conclusion, the House of Commons Members' fund provides a valuable service and is well managed by the managing trustees. I believe that my hon. Friend the Member for Putney will bring useful experience to the board, so I commend the motions to the House.

1.10 pm

---