| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I say immediately to the noble Lord, Lord Carlisle, that this is not window dressing. It is a response to a very serious concern that has been raised over a significant period. It was raised initially when we had the consultation in relation to victims about what we should do to respond to situations where it became clear that large sums of money may have become available.
I want to re-emphasise a point that I hope I made in opening; namely, that this is an enabling piece of legislation. It does not oblige the CICA to make claims. Indeed, it is right that the CICA will have to look at the commercial realities of seeking to recover costs in relation to small claims or payments that have been made.
2 Nov 2004 : Column 274
The first decision will be on how much payment should properly be made to a victim. The second decision will come subsequent to that payment and is about whether it is right and proper to seek to recover all or any of that payment from the person who has been rightly convicted of committing that offence.
It is very hard to predict at this stage how often and how frequently the provision will be used, but from talking to victims, a number of victims' groups and a victims' panel, it is clear that many of them believe that there are circumstances they would like to bring to the authority's attention as to changes in the fortunes of defendants which are not currently being taken advantage of. So this is a very clear indication of the Government listening to what victims have said and seeking to act in support of what is a genuine and proper desire on their part.
The noble Lord also mentioned the budget. I can affirm that the budget has certainly not been cut. In 2003-04, the budget for compensation was £160 million, although that was overspent by £10 million. We have allocated an extra £3 million to the compensation budget. So the budget is £163 million and we are taking steps to manage within that budget for this year.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, does the noble Baroness accept that the figure of £200 million to £250 million was what used to be paid under the scheme and that therefore, if it is £160 million now, there has clearly been a cut?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, we do not accept that there has been a cut. Several issues have been brought into this. We help and assist victims not just through the CICA but, as noble Lords will know, from many other sources. That money has been increased, as far as I am aware, almost year on year. I am certainly happy to write to noble Lords more fully about that position, bearing in mind that it is now about five minutes to 10 o'clock.
Lord Carlisle of Bucklow: My Lords, does the Minister accept that, as I understand it, the delay in dealing with cases is getting longer than it was because of not having enough money to pay out for those cases?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I am unable to accept that. Noble Lords will know that earlier this year—and, I think, last year—additional resources were introduced to try to enhance the time taken to make it faster. Of course, there are issues about whether the appointment of temporary workers to speed things up can continually be paid for, but I am not aware that that has meant that things have become significantly slower.
Again, in order not to be inaccurate in any way, I am quite happy to write to noble Lords because the noble Lord may be right that, in recent months, it has become slower, but I am not aware that it has significantly changed. However, I am happy to write to
2 Nov 2004 : Column 275
both the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, and the noble Lord, Lord Carlisle of Bucklow, and to put my letter in the Library in the usual way.
On medical records, issues of disclosure and the need to respect the rights of both victims and offenders are of course extremely important. There will be safeguards in the regulations to protect those rights. Both Houses will have a chance to consider those issues in greater detail when the regulations are debated. Those regulations will be debated under the affirmative resolution procedure, which will give us an opportunity to examine them in greater detail.
We think that this is a very positive step, giving the CICA an opportunity. In the right and appropriate case, I know that it will avail itself of it but, if I may speak entirely personally, it is not something that I anticipate will be used on a daily basis. It will be used, I imagine, for the larger cases and where there is evidence to indicate that the defendant is someone who now has the means to pay in whole or in part the compensation that has been expended on behalf of the taxpayer through the CICA to victims.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down, can she tell us who makes the determination? Is it a member of CICA or is it to be a member of the claims people referred to in the amendment? What is the mechanism for determining how much will be paid?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, the CICA will make the determination of the award to the victim. It will make the determination.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, I appreciate that the CICA makes the award, but who makes the recovery order?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, it will be for the CICA to determine whether it wishes to make a claim for recovery. It will take the necessary steps to bring that about. That is what we propose through this amendment. The mechanism that it adopts is an issue that we can look at. It will be the decision made by the CICA acting by itself, through its servants, agents or otherwise in the normal way. Can I name the person who will do it? No. Will they be under the CICA? Yes.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, I must first withdraw my amendment before the noble Baroness can get her provisions on to the statute book. It is appropriate that at this stage I should be brief. I wish to recognise the experience of the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, and my noble friend Lord Carlisle of Bucklow in working on the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board (CICB), which my noble friend chaired. Their experience shows that there is reason to doubt whether the new system will work effectively. A new bureaucracy is being put into place, as the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, said. There is concern that the net value of what may be
2 Nov 2004 : Column 276
recovered will be relatively low if one must pay for the work done by the claims manager and all the other paraphernalia, when a recovery system already exists in the CICA.
I must end on the tantalising prospect of seeing the Government explain how the disappearance of up to £100 million worth of funds from the CICA awards can be considered not to be a cut. The response seemed to be, "Well, we will spend it elsewhere". Tell that to the people who would otherwise expect to receive very timely awards from the CICA, directly to them rather than it being spent on other services. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 53B to 53E, as amendments to Commons Amendment No. 53, not moved.]
On Question, Motion agreed to.
54 Clause 37, page 20, line 14, after "section" insert "(Surcharge payable on conviction)(5),"
55 Clause 38, page 20, line 28, at end insert—
"section (Procedure for determining fitness to be tried: Northern Ireland)."
56 page 20, line 28, at the end insert—
"section (Victims of mentally disordered persons: Northern Ireland)."
57 page 20, line 32, after "Schedule" insert "(Unfitness to stand trial and insanity: courts-martial etc),"
58 page 20, leave out lines 34 and 35.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 54 to 58, to which I have spoken with Amendments Nos. 8, 12 and 14.
Moved, that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 54 to 58.—(Baroness Scotland of Asthal.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
59 Clause 39, page 20, line 38, leave out subsection (2).
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 59. This is a technical amendment to remove the House of Lords privilege amendment to Clause 39, inserted when the Bill moved from the House of Lords to the other place. As this House cannot consider matters of money and charges on the public funds, this amendment was inserted. Following Second Reading in another place, a money resolution was passed and, due to amendments agreed during Committee stage, a ways and means resolution.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 59.—(Baroness Scotland of Asthal.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
2 Nov 2004 : Column 277
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |