HL Deb 02 November 2004 vol 666 cc263-76

53 After Clause 33, insert the following new clause—

"RECOVERY OF CRIMINAL INJURIES COMPENSATION FROM OFFENDERS

(1) The Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 1995 (c. 53) is amended as follows.

(2) After section 7 insert—

"7A RECOVERY OF COMPENSATION FROM OFFENDERS: GENERAL

(1) The Secretary of State may, by regulations made by statutory instrument, make provision for the recovery from an appropriate person of an amount equal to all or part of the compensation paid in respect of a criminal injury.

(2) An appropriate person is a person who has been convicted of an offence in respect of the criminal injury.

(3) The amount recoverable from a person under the regulations must be determined by reference only to the extent to which the criminal injury is directly attributable to an offence of which he has been convicted.

(4) The regulations may confer functions in respect of recovery on—

  1. (a) claims officers;
  2. (b) if a Scheme manager has been appointed, persons appointed by the Scheme manager under section 3(4)(a).

(5) The regulations may not authorise the recovery of an amount in respect of compensation from a person to the extent that the compensation has been repaid in accordance with the Scheme.

7B RECOVERY NOTICES

(1) If, under regulations made under section 7A(1), an amount has been determined as recoverable from a person, he must be given a notice (a "recovery notice") in accordance with the regulations which—

  1. (a) requires him to pay that amount, and
  2. (b) contains the information mentioned in subsection (2).

(2) The information is—

  1. (a) the reasons for the determination that an amount is recoverable from the person;
  2. (b) the basis on which the amount has been determined;
  3. (c) the way in which and the date before which the amount is required to be paid;
  4. (d) the means by which the amount may be recovered if it is not paid in accordance with the notice;
  5. (e) the grounds on which and the procedure by means of which he may seek a review if he objects to—
    1. (i) the determination that an amount is recoverable from him;
    2. (ii) the amount determined as recoverable from him.

(3) The Secretary of State may by order made by statutory instrument amend subsection (2) by—

  1. (a) adding information;
  2. (b) omitting information;
  3. (c) changing the description of information.

7C REVIEW OF RECOVERY DETERMINATIONS

(1) Regulations under section 7A(1) shall include provision for the review, in such circumstances as may be prescribed by the regulations, of—

  1. (a) a determination that an amount is recoverable from a person;
  2. (b) the amount determined as recoverable from a person.

(2) A person from whom an amount has been determined as recoverable under the regulations may seek such a review only on the grounds—

  1. (a) that he has not been convicted of an offence to which the injury is directly attributable;
  2. (b) that the compensation paid was not determined in accordance with the Scheme;
  3. (c) that the amount determined as recoverable from him was not determined in accordance with the regulations.

(3) Any such review must be conducted by a person other than the person who made the determination under review.

(4) The person conducting any such review may—

  1. (a) set aside the determination that the amount is recoverable;
  2. (b) reduce the amount determined as recoverable;
  3. (c) increase the amount determined as recoverable;
  4. (d) determine to take no action under paragraphs (a) to (c).

(5) But the person conducting any such review may increase the amount determined as recoverable if (but only if) it appears to that person that the interests of justice require the amount to be increased.

7D RECOVERY PROCEEDINGS

(1) An amount determined as recoverable from a person under regulations under section 7A(1) is recoverable from him as a debt due to the Crown if (but only if)

  1. (a) he has been given a recovery notice in accordance with the regulations which complies with the requirements of section 7B, and
  2. (b) he has failed to pay the amount in accordance with the notice.

(2) In any proceedings for the recovery of the amount from a person, it is a defence for the person to show—

  1. (a) that he has not been convicted of an offence to which the injury is directly attributable;
  2. (b) that the compensation paid was not determined in accordance with the Scheme; or
  3. (c) that the amount determined as recoverable from him was not determined in accordance with regulations under section 7A.

(3) In any such proceedings, except for the purposes of subsection (2)(b), no question may be raised or finding made as to the amount that was, or ought to have been, the subject of an award.

(4) For the purposes of section 9 of the Limitation Act 1980 (time limit for actions for sums recoverable by statute to run from date on which cause of action accrued) the cause of action to recover that amount shall be taken to have accrued—

  1. (a) on the date on which the compensation was paid: or
  2. (b) if later, on the date on which a person from whom an amount is sought to be recovered was convicted of an offence to which the injury is directly attributable.

(5) If that person is convicted of more than one such offence and the convictions are made on different dates, the reference in subsection (4)(b) to the date on which he was convicted of such an offence shall be taken to be a reference to the earlier or earliest (as the case may be) of the dates on which he was convicted of such an offence.".

(3) In section 9(7) (financial provisions: sums payable into Consolidated Fund), after "section 3(1)(c)" insert ", or by virtue of regulations made under section 7A(1),".

(4) In section 11, after subsection (8) insert—

"(8A) No regulations under section 7A(1) or order under section 7B(3) shall he made unless a draft of the regulations or order has been laid before Parliament and approved by a resolution of each House.""

Baroness Scotland of Asthal

My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 53.

The amendment adds new Clauses 7A to 7D, to the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 1995, to give the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority—the CICA—the power to recover from offenders the compensation that it has paid to their victims. This proposal is one of several set out in the consultation paper, Compensation and Support for Victims of Crime, issued on 12 January this year. The proposal received strong support, and the resulting new clause was welcomed when it was introduced in the other place.

We want to make offenders liable to reimburse the CICA for any money that it has paid out to the victim. The CICA will be able to pursue the offenders through the civil courts for that money. The clause provides an enabling power and sets out some of the parameters of the proposed arrangements, but the more detailed arrangements would be made by regulations under the Bill's enabling powers.

I am happy briefly to summarise the proposed provisions. After Section 7 of the 1995 Act there would be inserted new Clauses 7A to 7D. First, that sets out that the Secretary of State may by regulations make provision for the recovery of an amount front an offender, equal to or part of the compensation paid to a victim in respect of a criminal injury. It makes it clear that recovery will be possible only when the offender has been convicted of the relevant offence in the criminal courts. Such a conviction will establish that the offender was indeed guilty of the offence which led to the victim's injury, and this will obviate the need for CICA to establish liability in the civil courts.

The proposed arrangements will require the CICA to serve a recovery notice on the offender, setting out the amount of liability, the reasons for the determination and the basis on which it has been determined how it must be repaid and how the offender can object, if he contests either the amount recoverable or that he is not the person from whom it should be recovered. The information that must be contained in that notice is set out in the Bill and is an important safeguard to the offender. It would be the dream ticket for the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, because it answers all her questions.

If the offender objects, the arrangement provides that the CICA must formally review that objection and that the 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. After review, or if no objection is lodged and assuming no payment is made, the CICA may then initiate recovery action through the civil courts. In practice this means that it may seek to recover the money by normal debt recovery action. Such action will give the offender a further opportunity to object on the grounds set out on the face of the Bill. That is another important safeguard. Amendments Nos. 104 and 105 make a consequential change to the Long Title of the Bill to make it clear that the Bill now includes provision about the recovery, by the CICA, of compensation from offenders.

I should make it clear that these provisions do not take anything away from the rights of a victim or in any way compromise their ability to obtain appropriate redress. A victim will still have the right to sue the person who harmed them for compensation through the civil courts. 'What we want is to give the CICA a power to get back from offenders the money it has paid out in compensation to their victims, and we want it to use this power whenever there is a realistic chance of making a net recovery of public funds.

Fuller details of the procedure will be set out in regulations (for affirmative resolution). Parliament will accordingly have an opportunity to consider more of the detail when those regulations are laid before it. The compensation recovered under these arrangements will go back to the CICA so it can be used to pay compensation to other victims of violent crime. I am sure noble Lords will agree it is right that, whenever possible, offenders should be made to pay for the consequences of their crimes. I therefore commend the new clause to the House.

I turn swiftly to the amendments in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay of St Johns. The first of these amendments seeks to clarify the liability of each attacker when two or more of them are jointly responsible for causing the injury for which the victim has received compensation from the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority. The amendment aims to make it express that each attacker is liable only for the proportion of the damage (or injury) he caused.

We do not think it is necessary to make this amendment to achieve that underlying aim. While the present provision is drafted in the singular, it does not mean that the words do not embrace the plural. In fact, we envisage that there may well be cases where multiple offenders cause injury which leads to compensation under the Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme. Indeed, there could also be cases of multiple victims on any one set of facts.

We agree with the sentiment behind the amendment that the doctrine of joint and several liability would not be appropriate in this context. That would mean that where the CICA paid compensation in respect of injuries caused by multiple defendants, the CICA could demand full repayment from any one individual.

According to new Section 7A(3), the amount recoverable from a person under the regulations must be determined by reference only to the, extent to which the criminal injury is directly attributable to an offence of which he has been convicted". Therefore, it would not be appropriate to demand full repayment from one individual if the criminal injury is not directly attributable to their particular conviction.

Much will depend upon the circumstances of the case in question and the facts that are proved or accepted. If the offenders are equally culpable, the CICA will seek to recover an equal share of the compensation from each of them. If one offender seems to be more culpable than the other (or others), the CICA is likely to make a corresponding adjustment of the apportionment. Separate notices would be served on each offender.

The offenders will, of course, have the right to challenge the level of their liability on the basis that the amount was not determined in accordance with the regulations, if they request a formal review by the CICA. They will have a further right to challenge that apportionment in the civil courts when the CICA asks for the debt recovery notice to be enforced.

With such assurances, and with such safeguards already in the Bill, I hope that noble Lords will agree that the further level of refinement they have suggested is not in fact necessary.

The second amendment relates to the information which must be given to offenders in the debt recovery notice requiring them to repay the compensation that the CICA has paid to the victim they injured. New Section 7B(2) lists the information that must be provided in the debt recovery notice and new Section 7B(3) empowers the Secretary of State to change that list of information by statutory instrument, subject to negative resolution. This amendment would require the statutory instrument to be approved by affirmative resolution.

9.30 p.m.

I see no strong justification for that change. The affirmative resolution procedure is, of course, much more demanding of parliamentary time, which is all too frequently at a premium. Any changes to the list of information for a recovery notice are likely to be minor in nature, and the negative resolution procedure seems entirely adequate and appropriate for such minor changes.

The next two amendments would extend the grounds on which an alleged offender could formally request CICA to review either whether he was the right person from whom recovery should be sought, or the amount of the recovery. The new clause sets out the grounds on which such a review may be requested, restricting them to three, of which the one most relevant is that the offender was not convicted of the offence to which the injury was directly attributable. The amendments would seek to extend the grounds to include cases where, fourthly, the conviction for the relevant offence had been overturned on appeal and, fifthly, where the sentence for the relevant offence had been reduced on appeal.

We do not think either addition necessary. For any of the new provisions to bite, the offender must have been convicted of the offence to which the victim's injury is directly attributable. If the case were going to appeal, CICA would wait until the appeal had been heard before seeking to recover money from the offender. If the conviction were overturned, clearly CICA would not seek to recover any money, since it would have no powers to do so.

In the less likely event that a conviction was overturned some time after conviction and recovery of compensation, the offender would of course be entitled to his money back. That could be achieved in a number of ways, of which the most straightforward would be for CICA to make a simple payment. We do not think anything is needed in the Bill to provide for that unlikely event.

If the sentence were reduced on appeal, of course the conviction itself would still stand. Therefore, CICA would quite properly still be able to seek to recover the money that it had paid in compensation to the offender's victim. The sentence itself is not relevant in that context. The offender caused the victim's injury, and CICA will have paid out compensation to that victim—who must have been a blameless victim in order to qualify for compensation under the compensation scheme—and CICA accordingly has every right to try to recover the taxpayer's money.

The last amendment would add to the decision that a person undertaking a review of a recovery determination is empowered to take. At present, new Section 7C(4) proposed in Amendment No. 53 lists four possible decisions; namely, setting the determination aside, reducing or increasing the amount recoverable, or letting the initial recovery determination stand. The amendment would additionally empower the reviewing person to require an amount to be repaid to the offender from whom recovery had been sought.

We think that that amendment betrays a slight misunderstanding of the processes involved. At that stage, CICA will have served an initial recovery notice on the alleged offender. If the offender contests that notice, he can ask CICA to review its initial decision. At that stage, therefore, the offender will not have paid any money to CICA. If the CICA reviewer decides not to proceed with the recovery action or to reduce the amount of recovery sought, there will therefore be no question of CICA paying any money back to the offender. That being the case, the amendment seems to serve no purpose and would not be necessary.

The noble Lord, Lord Carlisle, has been particularly concerned about the issue, not least on how often the provision will be used. I make it clear that the Bill is an enabling piece of legislation, so CICA can decide whether it is appropriate to be used. Noble Lords will have seen in a number of the documents that we issued in relation to victims and witnesses that there was clearly worry about what happens if someone wins the lottery or comes into a great deal of money after moneys have been paid out.

However, a number of victims' organisations—not least SAMM, which deals with the families of murder victims and made the case powerfully clear to me at its AGM a few weeks ago—find it offensive that taxpayers have to pay money in such a way to compensate them, their members themselves being taxpayers. Then they discover that the perpetrator has set up a business, has a huge amount of money or comes into money, and there is no opportunity to get that money back through the CICA or anyone else. Of course we understand that sentiment. This amendment gives the CICA an opportunity to recover money if it deems that it is appropriate, feasible and proper. I beg to move.

Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 53.—(Baroness Scotland of Asthal.)

Baroness Anelay of St Johns rose to move, as an amendment to Commons Amendment No. 53, Amendment No. 53A:

53A Line 15, at end insert—

"( ) The amount recoverable from a person under the regulations may be determined by reference to the extent to which the offender acted jointly with another person in causing the damage and to the proportion of the damage that was caused by that offender."

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I am back into my rather boring mode of, "how does it work?". The Minister has spotted that, but I am grateful to her for giving a fuller explanation than was achieved in another place—particularly regarding her explanation of the matter of joint enterprise and the apportionment of payment by the offender. Of course it is good practice, in court proceedings where more than one person is convicted of an offence, for the court to apportion compensation according to the culpability of each of those persons. Often not every guilty person is there, so it is difficult anyway to apportion the compensation effectively. I appreciate that as near a correct result as can be achieved should be achieved through the drafting of the amendment proposed by the noble Baroness.

I was also concerned by the issue of what would happen if someone's conviction was overturned on appeal. I clearly heard the comments of the Minister that one would not need to worry about that because there would not be a recovery until later anyway—and if there was a need to recover compensation and pay it back to the offender, who is no longer an offender, one should not worry, because the CICA could do that anyway; so there would be no need to put that duty on the face of the Bill. My difficulty was that if there is no duty on the face of the Bill I was not sure how the person would have recourse against the CICA if the money was not repaid to them. But perhaps the Minister will tell me that there are procedures within the CICA to ensure that it would make such reparation.

She then might say that all of that would be tied up within the regulations anyway, and that the House would have the opportunity to deal with that—but by negative resolution. That is why I raised the issue of whether that should be made by affirmative resolution. I appreciate that the Minister has not yet had the interesting experience of being in opposition. If that ever comes her way, she will find that it is quite an interesting experience, to say the least, to arrive on a Monday morning to a pile of orders on her desk to determine whether any such negative procedure orders alarm her enough to pray against them. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, has such a prayer next Monday. That is why sometimes we on these Benches are more concerned than the Government to examine why an order should be affirmative.

As we always say, the other place does not have the same procedure as this House and is not always given the time to debate negative instruments, even if they are prayed against. I feel that the noble Baroness has gone far enough to satisfy my questions tonight. The underlying concern still remains: how much money will actually be raised by this new procedure and will it work? That answer will come when the system is in operation. For the moment I shall move the amendments and I anticipate that my noble friend Lord Carlisle of Bucklow will contribute, but I shall not press these matters. I beg to move.

Moved, as an amendment to Commons Amendment No. 53, Amendment No. 53A.—(Baroness Anelay of St Johns.)

Lord Carlisle of Bucklow

My Lords, I start by making two declarations. One is a declaration of apology that I was not present when the Minister first rose to her feet, although I think that I heard most of her speech. Either the previous amendment was dealt with very quickly or I walk very slowly, as I thought that I started walking here when the previous amendment was still being considered. Secondly, I declare an interest as the former chairman of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board, and I am delighted to see my noble friend Lord Thomas in his place. He was, of course, a member of the board and I hope that he may add to my remarks.

I am sure that the Minister and I both acknowledge, and are proud of, the fact that, of any country, ours has the original—that is, the first—and clearly the best system for compensating victims of crime in the most generous of terms. What I question about Amendment No. 53 is not the principle but what it will achieve in practice.

At present, as the Minister will know, the Criminal Injuries Compensation Appeals Panel or the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority, as it is now called, as opposed to "Board", has always had, and has, the power to pursue an offender who has been convicted by the court when that court has made a compensation order and the CICB or CICAP has made an award afterwards. Those bodies take over the compensation award made by the court if it has not been fully met and they pursue the applicant.

As I understand it, it is suggested here that that should be widened so that, provided that the offender has been convicted, in all cases the authority should be able to pursue the offender for any award of compensation that it may make to the victim, irrespective of whether or not the court has made a compensation order.

My first question is: how is the authority to know the offender's means to pay? The great advantage of a compensation order made in a court is that the offender's ability to pay is taken into account. The right to pursue the offender will apparently exist irrespective of his ability to pay and that may lead to many claims being made when they are not possibly achievable. That is my first query and worry

Secondly, what happens when the offender, having pleaded guilty, nevertheless challenges the amount of the award? Let us remember that we may be dealing with a case where a man pleads guilty to an assault in which he punched another man in the face. It is possible that the man who was punched hit the corner of a pavement and is now unfit to work for life. He is being compensated for that, although it arises from the punch in the face. What will happen when the offender says, "I pleaded guilty to assault and a compensation order was made on the basis that we had a fight and I hit him. But I had nothing to do with the injury caused to his brain, or he had some other injury beforehand, and I don't see why I should be asked to pay for the rest of it"? I am not saying that the Bill does not cover that; I am asking how it covers it. How does it cover it without the possibility of a serious danger of the medical reports provided for the board by the victim, in which he has privilege, being required to be disclosed to the defendant?

9.45 p.m.

If the offender says, "I know I hit her"—the charming Minister sitting over there—"but she had other injuries and I am not responsible for those", I am told that he will be entitled to challenge the amount of the award. Suppose he says, "I wish to see the medical reports on which the award was made to Lady Scotland". Is he entitled to see them and, if so, does that breach the privilege of her medical reports?

These worries make me believe that the new power will be used very sparingly. With the greatest respect, I suspect that to some extent that it is a degree of window dressing. I am not sure whether one will receive any more money by pursuing awards made against people whose ability to pay one does not know, who have the right to appeal to a tribunal—I am not clear how that tribunal is formulated—and who, unless they win the pools and the news hits the newspapers, have no money at all. One may be pursuing a man with no money for no particular purpose. Is it really window dressing?

I am sure that the Minister will be happy to confirm that they have cut the budget for the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority. She shakes her head—I may be wrong. I thought that they had cut the budget for the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority and I thought that perhaps this was a way of trying to recoup the money from the offender. Will it succeed? I do not know. I do not oppose it in any way in principle. I know that our views are the same as the purpose of the scheme. I just feel that this particular proposal may not have been fully thought through, even if it is rather better baked than the one on which my noble and learned friend Lord Mayhew spoke earlier.

Lord Thomas of Gresford

My Lords, I follow the noble Lord, Lord Carlisle of Bucklow, and at the same time I pay tribute to him for all the expert and hard work that he put in as chairman of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority, of which I was for some six or seven years a member, along with other noble Lords.

In law there is a saying that when one door shuts another opens. Here we seem to have a new industry in which claims officers are to be appointed. Presumably they will be legally qualified or will have some kind of training. There will also be a scheme manager. The scheme appears, on the face of it, to be that the claims manager investigates all the circumstances. He investigates what happened; he apportions blame; he determines how much compensation is recoverable, which presumably involves an investigation as to the means of the person who has to pay; and, in addition to him, there is someone who can conduct a review— a person other than the person who made the determination under review. So the files build up again. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Carlisle, will recall the way in which files can build up in matters of this kind and the whole situation becomes a bureaucratic nightmare.

What has been the situation until now? I see that the Minister is being handed the answer before I have finished speaking. The position that has pertained until now is that a court, in considering how to deal with an offender, and with knowledge of his means, will order that person to pay compensation. That compensation is taken into account by the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority. The compensation can, as the noble Lord, Lord Carlisle, pointed out, be taken over by the CICA and paid directly. That is a way in which there is recovery.

So already built into the system is a judicial determination of responsibility, a judicial determination of compensation and recovery with the CICA. Why do we need to have a new system such as this? If an offender comes into a lot of money—if he wins the pools, succeeds on the lottery or whatever—it is always open to a victim to sue him. If the offender is sued and if the victim recovers compensation or damages, those damages are taken into account as a deduction from any award the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority may make.

Therefore, there are two ways in which the offender can be made to pay; either originally when he is dealt with in the criminal court or through being sued. Either way the CICA gains. The Bill would set up a system which, as the noble Lord, Lord Carlisle, pointed out, is likely to be used very sparingly because it involves a whole new investigation of facts, apportionment of liability and apportionment of means. Of course it is window dressing.

We know that the criminal injuries compensation scheme, which at one time was based upon civil damages, was reduced to a tariff scheme under the Conservative government and reduced even further by the current Government's pegging of the amount paid out. I have looked at it. The criminal injuries compensation fund has been pegged at about £250 million for the past four or five years. There is obviously a determination to keep it at that level.

When the Government talk about victims being at the heart of their justice policy, I always take that with a pinch of salt. Even the noble Baroness, Lady Ashton, tried today to push out victims from the heart of the criminal justice system because she said that the recovery of penalties and fines was at the "heart" of the system; that is the word she used. So there is a certain amount of conflict. I do not think that the Government should be using the words "victim at the heart of the criminal justice system" until there is a resumption of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board scheme, as it once was.

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.

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 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.

10 p.m.

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 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.