| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Amendments made: No. 26, in page 7, line 18, at end insert—
'( ) After subsection (3) of that section insert—
"(3A) In proceedings under this section both the prosecution and the defence may lead, as further evidence, any evidence that would be admissible in proceedings for an injunction under section 3."'.
No. 27, in page 7, leave out lines 31 to 33.— [Mr. Heppell.]
Clause 13
Amendments made: No. 28, in page 8, line 12, at end insert—
'( ) After subsection (3) of that section insert—
"(3A) In proceedings under this Article both the prosecution and the defence may lead, as further evidence, any evidence that would be admissible in proceedings for an injunction under Article 5."'.
No. 29, in page 8, leave out lines 25 to 27.— [Mr. Heppell.]
Clause 16
Mrs. Gillan: I beg to move amendment No. 65, in page 10, line 22, leave out clause 16.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 11, in page 10, line 29, leave out from 'driving' to end of line 31.
3.45 pm
Mrs. Gillan: On 14 June, the House gave the Bill a Second Reading. All hon. Members who were present witnessed an amazing act of magic performed by Home Secretary. He had come under much fire for his proposals to surcharge speeding motorists and was under some pressure when he rose in the Chamber. He sought to deflect anger by making specific statements in his opening speech on Second Reading, when he said:
"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
27 Oct 2004 : Column 1495
penalty notices for serious repeat offenders, as opposed to general fixed penalty notices."—[Official Report, 14 June 2004; Vol. 422, c. 540.]
That allayed the many fears of those inside and outside Parliament.
Indeed, so well did the Home Secretary camouflage his intentions and succeed in creating a smoke screen, that the trick that he performed on us led even the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) to praise him for ensuring that "muggers, not motorists" would pay for the support of victims.
Mr. Heath: I wish to confess that I made a grave error of judgment. I took the Home Secretary at his word and believed him when he said that he would deal with serious, persistent offenders, not people who go through two speed cameras at 33 mph.
Mrs. Gillan: I am afraid that we all fell for the trick. Even outside organisations genuinely believed that the Home Secretary had almost dropped his proposals to prey on the motorist.
When the measure reached Committee, however, we discovered the Government's genuine proposals and their definition of a serious and persistent offender. The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome is right: a serious and persistent offender turned out to be someone who was caught by a speed camera not once, but twice; not three or four times, but twice. Such a person constitutes a persistent and serious offender. It became obvious, despite the Under-Secretary's charm, that the attempt to impose yet another stealth tax on the motorist was alive, well and progressing. That is because the Government intend that every motorist who gets caught speeding more than once—that is, twice or more—
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab): Duh!
Mrs. Gillan: Well, I need to spell this out. Twice constitutes persistence. Every such motorist will have to pay a surcharge of £5. So a persistent and serious offender is someone who is snapped by a speed camera doing a couple of miles per hour over the speed limit twice. Well, in my book, twice does not mean persistence. We need to be very careful before we label this type of offender "serious", when the issue is put into a wider context. Driving at 100 mph in a 40 mph zone is serious, but the word should not be used to describe the driver who slips over the limit unintentionally.
Indeed, one of the problems that this issue raises was thrown up in the Home Office's own consultation, from which I would like to quote, as it is a matter of public record.
Chris Bryant: I think that the hon. Lady has just said that she wants to introduce a new test of intentionality into this issue—in other words, that she wants to test whether someone has unintentionally gone over the speed limit. How would she adjudicate such matters?
Mrs. Gillan:
That is absolutely not what I said. I have no intention of introducing a test. I am asking the Minister to wipe this proposal out of the Bill and to stop preying on the motorist. The hon. Gentleman is completely wrong in his assumption.
27 Oct 2004 : Column 1496
Let me turn to Mr. Holdsworth, who wrote to the Minister:
"My 80-year-old mother who had an excellent driving record with no convictions in over 50 years of motoring now has three points on her licence for going over the limit on a main road at 11 o'clock at night nowhere near a school by 5 mph. Does that make her a criminal who should contribute to criminal convictions? After the stress on her of dealing with this fine (for example, having her in tears for several hours) I think that it is the Government that should be paying into a victims fund to contribute to the criminal extraction of money from her."
"After voting Labour all my life . . . I'm finally going to vote Conservative next time."
Hypothetically, if that lady did that again, she would be branded a persistent and serious offender by the Government.
Mr. Douglas Hogg (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con): I concede at once that I do not have the hinterland in this matter that my hon. Friend has. Would she be good enough to say where in the Bill we can find any statement on the level of the charge? She will also be aware that it will be raised by the negative procedure, which means that the House will never actually vote on the impost to be levied.
Mrs. Gillan: My right hon. and learned Friend is absolutely right. There is some doubt as to whether the charge will be £10, as referred to by the Home Secretary on Second Reading, or £5, as referred to by the Minister in Committee. I hope that the Minister will be able to clarify this, otherwise the House will have no knowledge of this matter and no say on it at this stage, which would be very serious.
The Home Secretary has referred to a consultation being carried out by the Department for Transport later in the year. We have had to wait a long time for that consultation to emerge. In fact, it emerged on 1 September this year, when the Transport Secretary announced that he was going to consult on a fairer system of penalties for motorists caught speeding. The implication of that is that the existing system is unfair and needs to be put right.
In that consultation, there is reference to a lower penalty of two points and a £40 fine. That is not applicable if someone exceeds the 20 mph speed limit but drives at under 31 mph, but it is applicable in relation to other speed limits. For example, someone who is caught driving at 39 mph in a 30 mph zone will attract a penalty of two points and a £40 fine. Someone travelling at between 40 and 44 mph in such a zone would get three points and a £60 fine, and if they were doing 45 mph, they would get six points and £100 fine. Ironically, they would get only two points if they were travelling at 72 mph in a 60 mph zone. That has to be looked at very carefully. It is obvious from the consultation that someone who had had four points put on their licence twice, at the lower end of the limit, could attract the surcharge—the stealth tax—that the Government are intent on putting on motorists. So I hope that the Minister will tell us that he was consulted before the matter was put out for consultation, that there has been joined-up thinking between the Home Office and the Department for Transport, and that there is no intention to lower the fines on speeding offenders to hide the surcharge, in order to pretend that the Government are not being so hard on the motorist.
27 Oct 2004 : Column 1497
In Committee, we tried hard to dissuade the Minister from pursuing this measure, but absolutely to no avail. My hon. Friends and other members of the Committee deployed some very good arguments, but at the time we did not have the advantage of seeing the papers that were sent in to the Department during the consultation. I did challenge the Minister in Committee to produce the results of the consultation, and he did so. They have been extremely enlightening and I thank him for them. If he will not listen to Members of the House on this proposal, will he first listen to the AA Motoring Trust?
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |