| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mrs. Cheryl Gillan (Chesham and Amersham) (Con) rose—
Mr. David Heath (Somerton and Frome) (LD) rose—
Mr. Blunkett: I am happy to take questions, but things will be clearer if I can finish my point first.
Following the consultation, we accept that it would be wrong for low-level first-time offences to be subject to a surcharge. Helpfully, the Department for Transport will shortly consult on changes in the points system for fixed penalty notices. The new system will be introduced in 2006, which is when we will consider introducing a levy of £10 on fixed penalty notices for serious repeat offenders, as opposed to general fixed penalty notices. We will link the levy to the higher number of points added to people's licences, so the system will be fair to everybody. We should bear in mind the fact that 10 people are killed on the road every day and more than 40,000 are injured every year. Driving is a perfectly reasonable activity, but vehicles can become deadly weapons in the hands of those who misuse them, taking lives and harming the well-being of others. I shall give way to the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan) now, and then to the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath).
14 Jun 2004 : Column 541
Mrs. Gillan: I apologise to the right hon. Gentleman—I was trying to wait until he got to the end of the passage. He is introducing major changes to the Bill at the eleventh hour, and that in itself is a difficult matter. As he envisages that the victims' support fund will rely on fines, can he explain to the House how that will work? I believe that in 2002–03 only 55 per cent. of fines were paid on time, and many fines were not paid at all.
Mr. Blunkett: That is correct. I am pleased that the Under-Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Mr. Leslie), has joined us. He is welcome, not least because he reminded me—I have extraordinarily good hearing on the left side—that we have now reached a figure of 75 per cent., and there is a major programme in place to enhance that still further. I welcome the substantial progress that he and his colleagues have made in this important area. We would all agree that the previous situation was unacceptable. If we are to make fines work—there are substantial recommendations from all quarters that we should—enforcement is critical. Along with the other measures that I have described, it will help us to reach a total of £25 million initially for the victims fund, which will be widely welcomed.
I promise that there will be proper time for the Standing Committee to examine the amendments. We will make sure that Opposition parties have the details to enable that to be done. Obviously, questions may be asked. We can introduce some of the measures without legislation, but it is only fair to spell out on Second Reading what we intend to do, rather than leave that to the Committee stage. In view of the interest shown these days in the Committee stage, particularly of non-controversial Bills, that would have been an abuse of Parliament. I am doing my best.
Mr. Heath : I welcome the fact that we will have good notice. The Committee stage will soon be upon us, so I hope we will have almost immediate notice of the Government's intentions.
I welcome the Home Secretary's remarks. He has listened to some of the reservations that were expressed when he first announced the proposals—that those who pay for the support of victims of muggings should be muggers, not motorists. He has listened to that and I pay tribute to him for having done so.
Mr. Blunkett: I hope that this is the beginning of an entirely new approach by the Liberal Democrats. I welcome that, having given them a good kicking—but, as the polls last Thursday suggest, not a good enough kicking—as regards their attitude to antisocial behaviour. [Interruption.] I am not afraid to mention that. As the hon. Gentleman said, we all need to listen and learn.
Let me deal with some of the consultation items that we do not intend to proceed with, so that we have everything nice and clear for the Committee stage. For example, with reference to making employers liable for compensating employees criminally injured in the course of duty, we were approached by the TUC, the CBI, the Federation of Small Businesses and many others with a request that we did not pursue that. They pointed out that good work was being undertaken to secure a better way forward.
14 Jun 2004 : Column 542
I pay tribute to both sides of industry, including the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers, for their good work in that regard. I also pay tribute to those who have been working with us to see how they can contribute to prevention in the wider sense by releasing staff to become special constables. A number of retail outlets are now doing that, working with the police on training. That can help in the workplace and in the wider community. Therefore, we have decided not to proceed with the original proposal.
As my right hon. Friend, or rather, the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe and Sale, East—I promoted him—indicated during Home Office questions, we do not intend to proceed with the withdrawal of payments for emotional damage and trauma suffered by railway staff as a result of suicides on the railways. Neither do we intend to remove from the scheme those who are accidentally injured while taking exceptional risk. We decided that we needed to discourage the current trend towards greater caution and instead reward those who are prepared to set that aside in the interests of helping others. I believe that that, too, will be welcome.
I shall move fairly quickly through the clauses because hon. Members are familiar with them and may intervene if they feel that we have erred. I shall deal first with the clauses on domestic violence, which it is sensible to take together. Clauses 1 to 4 deal with the civil law, which we discussed at considerable length throughout the consultation and which has been debated in the House of Lords. Clause 1 widens the scope for breaching non-molestation and occupation orders and makes that a criminal offence. It provides for arrest without warrant for breaches and for the new five-year sentence. The clauses covering equality of treatment between the sexes, including relationships of significant duration, have been widely welcomed and fit in with other changes to the law that we are in the process of introducing.
Clause 7 deals with domestic violence and homicide reviews, the drawing together of the agencies, and the changing systems that are necessary for prevention. Clause 8 makes common assault an arrestable offence—most people thought, wrongly, that it already was—and links with clause 1. Clause 10 provides for restraining orders.
Clause 5 contains wider measures on a matter that I mentioned earlier. It is a difficult issue that has become close to my heart as I have tried to find a way of dealing with it—namely, familial homicide in relation to what I call, following the days when I dealt with the poll tax, joint and several liability. People have been able literally to get away with murder because under existing law it is impossible to carry through action against someone who simply will not name the other person involved and claims that they did not do it. That applies not only to children, but to elderly and vulnerable adults. I do not intend to be controversial, but in due course we will have to ask the House to overturn the Lords amendment. It must not be possible for people to get away with it by having their case adjourned halfway through because it was not possible to prove at the beginning whether the charge was murder or a lesser offence. It should be possible to change the charge to allow for a conviction rather than a technical knockout by the defence. We have to determine the person's guilt, not allow them to
14 Jun 2004 : Column 543
get away with it because the charge as initially put could not be proved. We must ensure that we get that right in Committee. Our proposals have gained widespread support in the judiciary.
Andrew Selous (South-West Bedfordshire) (Con): Can the Home Secretary explain why the Bill would not cover a case involving abuse where a brother and sister live together?
Mr. Blunkett: It is very rare for me to have to say that my homework does not enable me to answer the question, but in this case I cannot. I will write to the hon. Gentleman and ensure that we get a definitive answer in Committee, because waffling would not be helpful at this stage. Of course, we are considering circumstances whereby more than person in the household commits a crime in relation to a third or subsequent person. It is in that context that I am unable to answer the question.
Mr. Dominic Grieve (Beaconsfield) (Con): I want to revert to the Home Secretary's comments on his anxieties about the Lords amendments on familial homicide. It is a difficult subject, but one of the anxieties expressed in the House of Lords was that the Government's original drafting of the measure meant shifting the burden of proof and the implied possibility of being convicted of murder on the basis of silence and that that would breach the Human Rights Act 1998. I should be grateful for the Home Secretary's comments because I thought that such an anxiety led to the amendments that were tabled in another place. Clearly, the Committee must consider the matter carefully to ascertain whether the Government's original proposals comply with the Act.
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |