Robert Gill's analysis of government policy following the London bombing is somewhat flawed (see [2005] Gazette, 15 September, 1).

The UK has one of the most generous criminal compensation schemes in the world and the victims of the London bombings will rightly benefit from substantial public funding. It is surely not the task of the government to be seen to double-compensate in such circumstances as Mr Gill suggests. If one, for example, is self-employed and is no longer able to work, the compensation is intended to make good that loss. If one is already in receipt of benefits then the loss does not arise. I appreciate the point about the possibility of capital payments affecting basic eligibility for benefits, but that has always been the case so nothing is different.


Most especially it is a nonsense to talk in terms of the government 'profiting'. The government hands out compensation through the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority, a profit would only arise when the savings in benefits exceeded that figure. That, of course, can never happen.


I fear that Mr Gill's critique is perhaps based on a wider political assessment, particularly when he suggests that the London bombings are as a result of Britain's role in Iraq. The truth is they may or may not be. Al-Qaeda this week suggested that 'the UK's support for Israel' was also a cause. I did not vote for our involvement in Iraq, but terrorists attacks preceded the Iraq conflict and it is mere speculation to claim as a fact a direct link, as does Mr Gill.


Michael Foster MP, House of Commons, London