|Previous Section||Back to Table of Contents||Lords Hansard Home Page|
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport wrote to the Football Supporters' Association and National Federation of Football Supporters' Clubs last year asking them to draw the IFC chairman post to the attention of those they thought would be good candidates for the post. The Government have made clear that the process of appointing the chairman is to be conducted in an open and transparent manner according to the standards that would apply to a public appointment. Therefore the consideration of applications once received, following open advertisement, is a matter for the Independent Public Appointments Advisory Panel.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Bassam of Brighton): It is my understanding of the matter that the authorities in Jersey have not yet frozen funds related to the Abacha affair, but that the financial institutions there are aware of the sanctions--on the fronts of constructive trusteeship, regulatory law and criminal law--which attach to any transfer of funds which transpire to have been the proceeds of crime, and may therefore have taken precautionary steps for their own protection.
In respect of the request to freeze funds in the United Kingdom, the position remains that we await further information from the Nigerian authorities before we can take the action sought. We are actively pursuing the solicitors acting for the Nigerian Government to secure the information needed, and repeat our willingness to assist the Nigerian authorities whenever it is possible to do so, according to United Kingdom law. It is my understanding that the Jersey authorities are in the same position.
|NASS Policy Bulletins||Subject|
|Policy Bulletin 1||Supercal|
|Policy Bulletin 2||Sharing|
|Policy Bulletin 3||Supercal|
|Policy Bulletin 4||Threshold Table|
|Policy Bulletin 5||Backdating Vouchers|
|Policy Bulletin 6||Asylum Process Overview|
|Policy Bulletin 7||Failure to travel [Superseded--Deleted]|
|Policy Bulletin 8||Initial Consideration in Allocation|
|Policy Bulletin 9||Asylum Support Adjudications|
|Policy Bulletin 10||Social Security Benefits, Homelessness assistance and Local Authority Support|
|Policy Bulletin 11||Mixed Households|
|Policy Bulletin 12||Refusals|
|Policy Bulletin 13||Judicial Review [Superseded Deleted]|
|Policy Bulletin 14||Failure to travel [Superseded--Deleted]|
|Policy Bulletin 15||NASS Roll-out|
|Policy Bulletin 16||Kent Disbenefited Cases|
|Policy Bulletin 17||Failure to Travel|
|Policy Bulletin 18||Racial Harassment|
|Policy Bulletin 19||Medical Foundation|
|Policy Bulletin 20||Voucher breakdown|
|Policy Bulletin 21||Medical Foundation (Emergency Accommodation)|
|Policy Bulletin 22||Discontinuation|
|Policy Bulletin 23||Appeals Process|
|Policy Bulletin 24||Subs only|
|Policy Bulletin 25||Failure to travel (addendum)|
|Policy Bulletin 26||Oakington|
|Policy Bulletin 27||Disbenefited cases|
|Policy Bulletin 28||Travel|
|Policy Bulletin 29||Transition at Age 18 (Amended 9/2/01)|
|Policy Bulletin 30||Human Rights 1998|
|Policy Bulletin 31||Dispersal Guidelines (Amended 9/2/01)|
|Policy Bulletin 32||Cancelling Accommodation|
|Policy Bulletin 33||Age Disputes|
|Policy Bulletin 34||Additional Single Payments|
|Policy Bulletin 35||Acid record not found|
|Policy Bulletin 36||Emergency Accommodation Monitoring|
|Policy Bulletin 37||Maternity Payment|
|Policy Bulletin 38||Grace Periods|
|Policy Bulletin 39||Support rate change|
|Policy Bulletin 40||Supercal updated|
|Policy Bulletin 41||Dealing with representations in respect of an asylum claim|
|Policy Bulletin 42||Initial Accommodation [Withdrawn]|
|Policy Bulletin 43||HC2 Certificates|
|Policy Bulletin 44||Referring Files to other Sections|
|Policy Bulletin 45||Initial Accommodation|
|Policy Bulletin 46||Northern Ireland|
|Policy Bulletin 47||Judicial Review|
Lord Bassam of Brighton: As of 2 February, 3,583 principal asylum seekers have been referred to Oakington Reception Centre in Cambridgeshire since its opening on 20 March 2000. Applicants are detained at Oakington if it appears to the immigration officer that their application is capable of being dealt with quickly and there are no other factors which make the application unsuitable for consideration at Oakington.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: The Government will shortly be inviting Parliament to approve a wide-ranging package of improvements to the Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme. The scheme provides payment to those who have been the victim of a crime of violence or who have been injured in trying to apprehend criminals or prevent crime in England, Wales and Scotland.
The introduction of the statutory scheme in 1996 broke the link with the common law damages basis of assessing compensation used under the earlier, non-statutory scheme. Compensation is now determined on the basis of a tariff (scale) of awards for injuries of comparable severity. Additional compensation for loss of earnings or earning capacity and the costs of care are payable to victims more seriously affected by their injuries.
In 1999 the Government published a consultation paper Compensating Victims of Violent Crime: Possible Changes to the Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme. The paper sought views on how the scheme might be improved in the interests of victims of violent crime. It was sent to individuals and organisations with a particular interest in the scheme, to the media, and to members of the public on request. Those responding included victims' organisations, academics, trades unions, the legal profession, police, charities and individual victims.
The Government made it clear in the consultation paper that any changes to the scheme would have to be made within the existing legislative framework. In the light of the responses to the consultation paper, and of the outcome of the Spending Review 2000, the Government have carried out a thorough review of the scheme and have drawn up a wide-ranging package of improvements.
The Great Britain Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme is already one of the most generous and comprehensive in the world. The improvements that the Government are now proposing will mean that many victims of violent crime, especially those more seriously injured, will receive even more compensation for their injuries, and that all victims will find the scheme clearer and easier to use.
Some respondents to the consultation exercise argued that the value of the tariff awards had been eroded since the tariff scheme's inception in 1996. However, an across the board reflation of all tariff
The view was widespread amongst respondents to the consultation exercise that compensation for rape and child abuse was too low. The Government have looked carefully at this very complex area, and are proposing that there should be a significant increase in awards for rape and sexual assault and for serious sexual and/or physical abuse of children. For example, the minimum award for rape would be increased by almost 50 per cent (from £7,000 to £11,000), and the maximum payable for serious physical child abuse would more than double. All the injury descriptions relating to physical and sexual abuse have been carefully reviewed and the relevant sections of the tariff re-ordered for greater clarity. The Government also propose additional payments of compensation for victims infected with HIV/Aids. Increasing awards for serious multiple injuries:
Compensation for victims who suffer serious multiple injuries is calculated by formula. Under the present scheme, victims receive 100 per cent of the tariff award for the most serious (highest value) injury, 10 per cent of the award for the second, and 5 per cent for the third. Many respondents to the consultation exercise thought this formula left more seriously injured victims under-compensated, despite the formula being developed on the basis of practice in the civil courts. The Government share that concern, and propose to increase the formula to 100 per cent, 30 per cent, 15 per cent. Extending eligibility for fatal awards to partners of the same sex:
Under the current arrangements, only parents, children, spouses or long-term heterosexual partners of homicide victims can qualify for a fatal award under the tariff. The Government believe that there are no grounds for continuing to exclude long-term homosexual or lesbian partners from this aspect of the scheme, an issue that was highlighted following the bombing of the Admiral Duncan pub in Soho in 1999. The Government will be recommending that Parliament makes the appropriate change to the scheme. Other detailed changes:
The proposed changes to the scheme would cost some £20 million in a full year. The Government believe that the proposed package of changes will greatly improve the scheme for the benefit of victims of violent crime, and that the wide-ranging changes proposed would make the most effective use of the resources available.
The Government will shortly be laying a draft of the scheme incorporating the proposed changes before Parliament, and inviting approval by the affirmative resolution procedure. If such approval is forthcoming in time, it is proposed that the changes would come into force on 1 April 2001, and apply to all applications lodged on or after that date.
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page