| Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Bill [Lords]
|
|
Mr. Grieve: Proposed new section 7D(2)(b) refers to the defence
That raises the possibility of saying that there has been a poor or wrongful determination of the amount. How far that extends is difficult to tell. Vera Baird: The hon. Gentleman is echoing my wish that it should be made completely clear that once somebody has got their award it will not be changed by the intervention of the perpetrator, when what is intended is only to recover the award that has been made from him. Paul Goggins: There have been a number of interesting questions. I compliment the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) on looking remarkably fresh after a 5.15 am start from Edinburgh. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Beaconsfield for making it plain from the outset that he had no quibble with the principle of the proposal but wanted to raise some issues of detail. That is what Committee is supposed to do. He mentioned again that the proposals were brought forward at a late stage. We have rehearsed the reasons for that on a number of occasions, but it is worth repeating that that was because there was a consultation that began in January and concluded only earlier this summer. We were able to respond to that on Second Reading, and I am pleased that we can use the Bill as an opportunity to advance this set of proposals. The hon. Gentleman asked about the financial benefit that might accrue from the measure. I assure him that cases will only be pursued where the value of what is recovered exceeds the cost of recovering it—in other words, where there is a net gain from the process. Decisions will sometimes reflect the ability of the individual to pay, and at other times the amount of money that we are seeking to recover. However, nothing is recovered at present; as soon as we implement these procedures, more money will be raised and more money will be made available to the CICA. I also assure the hon. Gentleman that the Treasury will keep neither the money nor the interest Column Number: 343 that will be added to the money that is paid into the Consolidated Fund.The hon. Gentleman and others raised a number of questions about the civil courts. An offender will be able to raise the defences set out in proposed new section 7D in enforcement proceedings in the county court or the sheriff court. He can contest on the grounds that he has not been convicted of the offence,
(c) that the amount determined as recoverable from him was not determined in accordance with regulations under section 7A.''
I say to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Redcar that there could be a challenge to the amount that has been determined on the grounds of apportionment, as in the example that she gave, or the argument could simply be that the figures are wrong. However, I give her an absolute assurance that that could not lead to a reopening of the question of quantum—in other words, to a reopening of the case. That cannot happen. All we are talking about is the CICA being able to recover money after it has paid out a sum as an award. It will be possible for the offender to challenge things through the civil courts in the way that we are setting out, but it will not be possible for the original case to be reopened. Mr. Grieve: I have another question for the Minister. The answer must be obvious, but it is not made obvious in the provisions. What will happen where someone is convicted of an offence, several tens of thousands of pounds in compensation is paid to the victim, the sum is recovered from the convicted person, and three years later the Court of Appeal overturns his conviction? I assume that at that point he will get his money back, but the clause does not make provision for that. Although that might not happen very often, we can say with certainty that it will happen at some point. Paul Goggins: The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point that I shall have to think about further. It appears to be logical that where someone's conviction is overturned the amount that has been recovered should be paid back, but I shall check that and write to the hon. Gentleman. If he has put his finger on a difficult issue, he will see on Report that we have taken account of his point. Just to finish my remarks on the civil courts, an offender will be able to challenge the CICA's assessment before a tribunal with full jurisdiction, as is required by article 6 of the European convention on human rights. On the apportionment question, I emphasise again that that will depend on the specific case being dealt with. However, I repeat that the amount claimed back cannot exceed the amount that has been paid out as an award. For example, where £1,000 compensation has been to the victim, and the award is of £2,000, the CICA will claim the difference between the two: £1,000. It will not be possible to exceed the full amount. I am happy to write to hon. Members in a little more detail about apportionment if that would be helpful. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Column Number: 344 Redcar is clearly concerned that the victim could lose out because of the additional step in the process, but I emphasise that it is a further step beyond the existing system. These proposals will not in any way delay the process by which the victim is paid out an award. That will not change as a result of these measures, all of which will come in after the process as it stands at the moment.The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome mentioned corporate responsibility. As an example, if a care home is responsible for an injury through lack of care, the CICA could effect recovery from that care home. Corporate accountability is built in to the measures. The hon. Members for Somerton and Frome and for Beaconsfield mentioned the criminal injuries compensation scheme. I emphasise that nothing in today's proposals has a bearing on the scheme as a whole. They are entirely additional. Of course, the Government keep the scheme under review, and if there were at any stage proposals to change it, the House would be notified in the normal way and we would have the normal debates, because change in regulation would be required. That can be done only in the House. Mr. Grieve: At one point I was distracted from the Minister's remarks, so I may have missed what he said, but I asked for clarification of the relationship between the compensation scheme and civil proceedings. How will that work in respect of double recovery from a defendant of money through the scheme and money through civil proceedings? Did he answer my question on that? If he did so, I missed it and I apologise. Paul Goggins: I may not have dealt with the point in sufficient detail. I shall write to the hon. Gentleman about that issue, but for the purposes of this debate, I emphasise that there cannot be double payment or counting. There can be only the one figure, and I emphasise very strongly that it cannot be paid twice. That is very important. I repeat that if any changes were made or proposed to the scheme, they would be brought forward in the normal way. We are certainly not introducing anything to change the scheme this morning. It is worth bearing in mind that in the current year, the CICA will have about £163 million at its disposal to pay out in awards. That figure will be added to by the measures that we are proposing. Amendment agreed to. Amendments made: No. 83, in clause 38, page 20, line 28, at end insert—
No. 58, in clause 38, page 20, line 28, at end insert—
No. 105, in clause 38, page 20, line 32, after 'Schedule', insert
No. 59, in clause 38, page 20, leave out lines 34 and 35.—[Paul Goggins.] Column Number: 345 Clause 38, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
|
| |
| ©Parliamentary copyright 2004 | Prepared 6 July 2004 |
