| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Hogg: Will my hon. Friend also make the point that the Minister should only listen to relevant Members of the House? She will observe that this clause applies to England and Wales only. Would it not be inappropriate to listen to Members who represent Scottish constituencies?
Mrs. Gillan: My right hon. and learned Friend is tempting me down the road, and I will follow him down it.
Mr. Stephen Pound (Ealing, North) (Lab): Not at speed, I hope.
Mrs. Gillan: I will take it at my own steady pace, thank you very much, and I will not take it at speed, but I agree entirely with my right hon. and learned Friend. The Minister should only be consulting England and Wales Members, as they represent the people to whom the legislation will apply.
I return to the AA Motoring Trust. It wrote to the consultation co-ordinator of the performance and delivery unit at the Home Office—if that is not a contradiction in terms—to say:
"However, there is one area which we would strongly oppose—the proposal to impose a £5 surcharge on the fixed penalty system for motoring offences. The AA Trust considers the proposal to impose this surcharge to be ill conceived and bordering on the inept."
"ill conceived and bordering on the inept"
the Minister would not understand. I think that the AA Motoring Trust, although I admit that it may be seen to have a vested interest, has made a very strong point.
Let us consider other consultees who do not necessarily have a vested interest. The Association of British Insurers wrote:
"ABI does not support the use of a surcharge.
Funding for improved support for victims of crime should be provided by the perpetrators of those crimes. More stringent and efficient collection of fines already imposed by the criminal justice system, along with the money collected from orders under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, could raise significant funding for improved victim support and compensation, without the need to impose a surcharge.
Motorists already contribute to victims of crime by way of the Motor Insurers' Bureau (MIB). The MIB was set up by insurers in 1946 to compensate the victims of uninsured and 'hit and run' motorists. The increased policy costs to cover the provision of compensation to victims of uninsured drivers is estimated to be up to an additional £30 on each policy. Adding a surcharge to fines for offences such as speeding would be a further burden on those motorists who meet their statutory insurance obligations, representing a double charge".
Perhaps the Minister will say to me that the Association of British Insurers has a vested interest, but let us look at what the Devon and Cornwall police said to the Minister.
"A surcharge on FPNs—
"for excess speed offences will only serve to cause even greater alienation of the motoring public from the police. The present system under netting off has created unexpected levels of media interest and huge volumes of correspondence from the public."
So the Devon and Cornwall police are not exactly keen on the proposal of the Minister and the Home Secretary.
Another police force, the Greater Manchester police, also came up with some valid points. It said to the Minister:
"The idea of using fixed penalty tickets to raise funds is severely flawed, especially where the use of the Road Traffic Act, GATSO and other camera detection methods are used".
4 pm
"At the moment only 60 per cent. of the tickets issued by these means are paid. The 40 per cent. of the tickets that are not paid, and the moneys that are not recovered from those tickets, are from vehicles that are not registered to anyone, stolen cars, cars on false number plates, cars that are used by the criminal element in society.
The 60 per cent. that are paid are therefore paid by the more responsible and 'law-abiding' persons in society. This means therefore that the offenders in society will not be contributing to the fund, but it is another form of taxation on the motorist".
I remind you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that those are the comments of the Greater Manchester police. It continued:
"The popularity of these 'Speed Cameras and GATSO cameras' is low, and they are already seen as a money spinner for central government. To impose an extra £5 penalty to fund victims would not be a popular move. What happens to the funds that are raised from these cameras at present, and why cannot a proportion of the existing fine be diverted to the Victim Fund? This would provide funds without further alienating the motorist".
I could not have put it better myself. I hope that the Minister will answer Greater Manchester police and explain why a proportion of the existing fine cannot be diverted, if that is the way that he wants to go. As the Greater Manchester police says, it is mostly the law-abiding public and responsible members of society who will face that charge.
Mr. Llwyd: I agree with what the hon. Lady says. There is a strange kind of logic about penalising a repeat offender the second time for the same offence, and in this instance, an unthinking logic, if I may put it that way. The person who is convicted twice has six points, three times, nine points, and so on. Therefore, such a person will be under pressure, and should realise that they are getting nearer disqualification each time. I speak as one who has a point-laden licence, I confess, so I speak from some experience. Therefore, the extra £5 is not needed—it is, as Arthur Daley would say, a nice little earner and nothing else.
Mrs. Gillan:
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I agree entirely that there is a strange kind of logic to the proposal, and I commiserate with him.
27 Oct 2004 : Column 1499
There are two other responses to the consultation that the House should hear about and that the Minister should address. The first of those is from the Police Federation, which started off quite generously, as I think that the Minister will agree:
"We wholeheartedly endorse the proposals to add a surcharge on those who have been convicted of criminal offences or those who receive a penalty notice, fine or imprisonment for disorder".
"We cannot however support in any way surcharges on fixed penalty notices for Road Traffic Offences. We are aware of the research into other similar schemes in other countries across the world, and the apparent success of those schemes in raising revenue for victim assistance. However, we are firmly of the opinion that surcharges on fixed penalties for traffic offences would cause an unwelcome backlash from the general public that would considerably damage the relationship between the police service and the communities they serve".
There we have it. That is the Police Federation speaking on behalf of all the police throughout this country. It thinks that the Government's proposals to surcharge the motorist will damage the relationship between the police and the public. The Minister ought to take that seriously.
The last response to the consultation that I want to read out is from the Magistrates Association, which represents the people who sit on the bench, who are at the sharp end and who must deal with these offenders. It said:
"A surcharge on fixed penalty notices for motoring offences would be seen by many motorists as a further hidden tax on motorists and added to the argument on the use of more speed cameras as tax collection. This would draw the courts into the argument with the real potential of a loss of credibility and liable to the charge of courts being used as tax collectors. This should be avoided".
Any reasonable person can see from all those submissions to the consultation that we should drop this part of the Bill. Therefore, I hope to be allowed to press amendment No. 11 to the vote at the appropriate time.
I turn to another aspect of the proposal, because I did not receive a satisfactory answer in Committee. I may be doing the Minister a disservice, but I have not come across the letter that fully explains to me how he will deal with the issue. I refer to the possibility that people being surcharged can exchange their fine and surcharge for work. I will not delay the House by hunting for the appropriate passage in the Committee proceedings, but he said that he was not sure how the proposals would work but that it would be possible to exchange the fine and the surcharge for work. It will be interesting to find out exactly what he has done in the meantime to clarify those proposals.
I also hope that the Minister will clarify the financial side to the operation. The figures that we were working on at Second Reading and in Committee were those for 2002, which seemed to be the latest date for which he had the information. He told us that 1.7 million fixed penalty notices were issued, but then said that the estimated administrative cost of collecting this stealth tax would be approximately £1.6 million. For every £5 that is surcharged, approximately £1 will go in administration costs. Only £4 will ever go into a victims fund.
We are seeing £1 disappear in bureaucracy but that is coupled with the fact that the collection of fines is now running at anything between 50 and 75 per cent.
27 Oct 2004 : Column 1500
I acknowledge that there has been an improvement recently, but let us not get carried away. It could be a temporary blip; one swallow does not make a summer. As the figure was running at 50 per cent. before the drive to improve the collection rate of fines, we could, on the figure of 1.7 million, expect to obtain £8.5 million. If a quarter of those fines and surcharges are lost in non-payment and if we add in the administrative costs, £3.8 million will disappear straight away. That is not very good value for money, is it? I do not think it is good value for money, because if the Minister was expecting £8.5 million for the victims fund, he will find that he gets nowhere there that. However, he will create and build up an enormous bureaucracy and the enormous resentment and problems that were evidenced in those very honest submissions to the consultation.
The bottom line is that the criminals will be laughing all the way to the bank. Once again, they will get away without paying for their crimes but the inadvertent, middle-class motorist whom the hon. and learned Member for Redcar (Vera Baird) mentioned in Committee and who is a responsible member of society will end up bearing the cost. For all those reasons, I seriously ask the Minister to think again and remove this unpopular, unnecessary and costly attack on the motorist from the Bill.
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |