|
Schedule 9
Transitional and transitory provisions
Amendments made: No. 119, in schedule 9, page 47, line 4, after 'Court', insert 'or a court-martial'.
No. 120, in schedule 9, page 47, line 7, after 'Appeal', insert—
'or the Courts-Martial Appeal Court'.
No. 121, in schedule 9, page 47, line 10, leave out paragraphs (a) and (b) and insert—
No. 122, in schedule 9, page 47, line 12, leave out '10 to 13' and insert '10A to 13, 32A'.
No. 68, in schedule 9, page 47, line 12, leave out 'and 39' and insert ', 39 and 39A'.
No. 100, in schedule 9, page 47, line 17, at end insert—
'Section (Surcharge payable on conviction) applies only in relation to offences committed on or after the commencement of that section.'.—[Paul Goggins.]
Schedule 9, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 36 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 37
Orders
Amendment made: No. 94, in clause 37, page 20, line 14, after 'section', insert
'(Surcharge payable on conviction)(5),'.—[Paul Goggins.]
Clause 37, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Column Number: 336
Clause 38
Extent
Paul Goggins: I beg to move amendment No. 81, in clause 38, page 20, line 18, at end insert—
'(1A) Section [Recovery of criminal injuries compensation from offenders] also extends to Scotland.'.
The Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Government new clause 28—Recovery of criminal injuries compensation from offenders.
Government amendments Nos. 127 and 128.
Paul Goggins: The aim of the new clause is to arm the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority with powers to recover from offenders the money that it has paid in compensation to their victims under the criminal injuries compensation scheme. The new clause would do that by inserting four new sections into the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 1995, which paved the way to the introduction in 1996 of the present, tariff-based compensation scheme.
The proposal to give the CICA a right to recover money from offenders was one of several set out in the consultation paper ''Compensation and Support for Victims of Crime'', which was issued on 12 January this year. More than 30 respondents commented on the proposal, the overwhelming majority in favour of it. In the light of that strong support, we decided to give effect to the proposal as soon as possible. We aim to make offenders liable to reimburse the CICA for any money paid out to their victims, and the CICA would be able to pursue the offenders through the civil courts for that money.
I will summarise briefly the proposed arrangements. New sections 7A to 7D would be inserted after section 7 of the 1995 Act. They set out that
''The Secretary of State may, by regulations . . . make provision for the recovery of . . . an amount''
from an offender
''equal to all or part of the compensation paid''
to a victim
''in respect of a criminal injury.''
They make it clear that recovery would be possible only when the offender had been convicted of the relevant offence in a criminal court. Such a conviction would establish that the offender was indeed guilty of the offence that led to the victim's injury, which would obviate the need for the CICA to establish guilt in the civil courts.
The proposed arrangements would require the CICA to serve a recovery notice on the offender which would set out: first, the amount of liability; secondly, the reasons for the determination and the basis on which it has been made; thirdly, how the money must be repaid; and fourthly, how the alleged offender can object, if he contests either the amount recoverable or that he is the person from whom it should be recovered.
Mr. David Heath (Somerton and Frome) (LD): Will the Minister make it clear that there is no possibility of an award of compensation to a victim being
Column Number: 337
contingent on recovery of that sum from the perpetrator?
Paul Goggins: I can give an absolute assurance. The CICA would make the payment; then, separately, it would be able to use the new powers to recover the money from the offender. However, the one would not be contingent on the other.
The information that I have just outlined would have to be contained in the notice. That is an important safeguard for an offender. If an offender objects, the arrangements provide that the CICA must formally to review that objection and that that review must be conducted by a person other than the one who took the original decision to issue a recovery notice; that is another important safeguard. If the offender's objection is unsuccessful, or if no objection is lodged, the CICA can then initiate recovery action through the civil courts. In practice, that means that it will seek to recover the money by normal debt recovery action.
Mr. Grieve: I am trying to follow the Minister's comment about people contesting whether they are the right person to pay the sum. One would have thought that, if someone has been convicted of an offence of violence against another, such a contest would be pointless. In what circumstances do the Government envisage an alleged offender contesting whether the order should be made against him?
Paul Goggins: I wish to reflect a little on the detail of that but, for example, there may be complications because somebody of the same name has been convicted in court, or two people in the same family might have the same name. That could create confusion, and in those circumstances the person who is not the person from whom compensation should be sought will be able to defend themselves.
Mr. Grieve: That is an extremely helpful answer, but I want to take this a stage further. It is my understanding that the Minister envisages that in those circumstances a review will be carried out in-house by the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority, but what if that review still gets the decision wrong? Where does the person concerned get redress under the proposed system if he believes that he is wrongly being required to pay a sum of money?
Paul Goggins: In the civil court. There is an internal arrangement and common sense may well prevail, but if there is a contest that will be resolved in the civil court. I should emphasise that the action will give the offender a further opportunity to object on the grounds set out in the Bill. That is another important safeguard.
Vera Baird: My hon. Friend's last answer has made me think about another situation. If three people are convicted of an offence, will the compensation ordered to be paid to their single victim be apportioned among them, or will each be jointly and severally liable for all of it?
Paul Goggins: Again, I wish to reflect a little on that question. However, the compensation cannot exceed the sum paid out by the criminal injuries compensation
Column Number: 338
scheme. Therefore, I assume that the full amount that has been paid out is all that can be recovered, and that that would be apportioned between the three parties. However, if my hon. and learned Friend will forgive me, I will not get into a debate now on an issue that I need to reflect on.
Mr. Heath: That raises another important issue. I do not expect the Minister to answer the question, but where there are co-defendants who are jointly responsible, will the total compensation be apportioned according to an assessment of the contribution of each of them to the injury, or will it simply be apportioned equally between those who are held jointly responsible for the crime? We are getting into complicated areas and we need clear advice about how these things will work.
Paul Goggins: I shall provide more precise advice, but the answer clearly depends on the circumstances of the case.
Amendment No. 81 is a consequential amendment to clause 38 to make it clear that new clause 28 extends to Scotland. We will need to make a slight further amendment to the new clause to reflect the fact that the Limitation Act 1980, to which clause 7D(4) of the new clause refers, does not apply in Scotland: the relevant Scottish legislation is the Prescription and Limitation (Scotland) Act 1973, and we need to add an appropriate reference to it. We will make that necessary technical adjustment on Report.
Amendment Nos. 127 and 128 make consequential changes to the long title of the Bill to make it clear that it now includes provision about the recovery by the CICA of compensation from offenders. Those provisions take nothing away from the rights of victims or compromise victims' ability to obtain appropriate redress. A victim will still have the right to sue the person who harmed them for damages through the civil courts. Our intention is to give the CICA a power to get back from offenders the money that it has paid out in compensation to their victims under the compensation scheme. The details of those procedures will be set out in regulations, and they will be updated in the light of experience. All such regulations will require the affirmative resolution.
Any compensation recovered, less the costs of recovery, will go through the Consolidated Fund and back to the CICA, which will then be able to use the money to pay compensation to other victims of violent crime. The money will not be kept in the Treasury. I am sure that the Committee would agree that it is right that, wherever possible, offenders be made to pay for the consequences of their crimes. That being the case, it must also be right for the CICA to be armed with the necessary powers to get compensation back from offenders.
The Chairman: Before I call the next speaker, I want to mention something for the Committee to be thinking about before we get to it. Very shortly we will come to a series of new clauses, which I understand the Clerk has discussed with different bodies. I propose to put new clauses 18 and 19 together and to take new clause 20 separately, because I understand that it may be opposed. Then we have to
Column Number: 339
deal with new clauses 21, 23 to 29 and 35 to 38. New clauses 43 and 44, which are a little further on, will also be taken together. If there is any problem with that suggestion, will hon. Members please let me know during the next couple of debates?
10 am
| 
