Brind
29-07-2003, 01:22 AM
Ministers are considering adding a £35 "victims' surcharge" to fixed penalty fines for such low-level offences as parking, speeding and drunken or yobbish behaviour.
A leaked letter from the home secretary, David Blunkett, to his cabinet colleagues says he is also proposing a £3 levy on every home insurance policy as part of a package to boost the state compensation fund for victims of crime.
The proposals are designed to secure the funding of the criminal injuries compensation scheme, which pays £160m to the victims of violent crime.
It is thought that Mr Blunkett has been canvassing the support of colleagues to include the scheme in the victims and witness bill, which will be introduced in the autumn. The bill includes proposals for the first victims' ombudsman.
The Home Office reacted angrily to the leak yesterday.
"We have absolutely nothing to say about a document not yet approved that has been leaked to the Sunday Times with the objective of preventing radical ideas from being properly discussed across government," a spokesman said.
It did, however, confirm that the future of the criminal injuries compensation fund was under review.
The £35 victims' surcharge could dramatically transform its finances. The latest figures show that the police issued about 3m fixed-penalty notices for motoring offences in 2001 and the surcharge could raise more than £100m a year.
The £3 levy on every home insurance policy could potentially raise an extra £54m for the fund.
Mr Blunkett's leaked letter to John Prescott, chairman of the cabinet's domestic affairs committee, says that similar schemes operate in the US, Sweden and Belgium.
"The proposals set out here would send out a clear message of placing the victim at the heart of the criminal justice system," he wrote.
It is thought that his cabinet colleagues have backed the idea, although Paul Boateng, the Treasury chief secretary, has voiced concern about the impact of the £3 levy.
He is reported to have replied: "I am not convinced of the case for such a fee, not least because it would add to rising premiums and, especially if levied on household insurance, would risk further social exclusion from the insurance market.
"I would find it hard to justify such a levy given that insurance companies have no liability for the criminal actions of others and there is no direct link between many of the policies they sell and the outcomes to be compensated for."
--------------------------------
When they say 'victims' don't they mean the people in the 'right' the 'criminals' ? :rolleyes:
Lets screw the motorists again, they won't mind.
A leaked letter from the home secretary, David Blunkett, to his cabinet colleagues says he is also proposing a £3 levy on every home insurance policy as part of a package to boost the state compensation fund for victims of crime.
The proposals are designed to secure the funding of the criminal injuries compensation scheme, which pays £160m to the victims of violent crime.
It is thought that Mr Blunkett has been canvassing the support of colleagues to include the scheme in the victims and witness bill, which will be introduced in the autumn. The bill includes proposals for the first victims' ombudsman.
The Home Office reacted angrily to the leak yesterday.
"We have absolutely nothing to say about a document not yet approved that has been leaked to the Sunday Times with the objective of preventing radical ideas from being properly discussed across government," a spokesman said.
It did, however, confirm that the future of the criminal injuries compensation fund was under review.
The £35 victims' surcharge could dramatically transform its finances. The latest figures show that the police issued about 3m fixed-penalty notices for motoring offences in 2001 and the surcharge could raise more than £100m a year.
The £3 levy on every home insurance policy could potentially raise an extra £54m for the fund.
Mr Blunkett's leaked letter to John Prescott, chairman of the cabinet's domestic affairs committee, says that similar schemes operate in the US, Sweden and Belgium.
"The proposals set out here would send out a clear message of placing the victim at the heart of the criminal justice system," he wrote.
It is thought that his cabinet colleagues have backed the idea, although Paul Boateng, the Treasury chief secretary, has voiced concern about the impact of the £3 levy.
He is reported to have replied: "I am not convinced of the case for such a fee, not least because it would add to rising premiums and, especially if levied on household insurance, would risk further social exclusion from the insurance market.
"I would find it hard to justify such a levy given that insurance companies have no liability for the criminal actions of others and there is no direct link between many of the policies they sell and the outcomes to be compensated for."
--------------------------------
When they say 'victims' don't they mean the people in the 'right' the 'criminals' ? :rolleyes:
Lets screw the motorists again, they won't mind.