---

Mr. Heath: This Government have a peculiar and almost unique genius for taking a good idea and making a complete pig's ear of it, and this is another instance of exactly that. When the proposal for a victims support fund was announced, the general view in the House and among the public was that it was a sensible idea to make the criminal pay something back to the victim of crime. I certainly welcomed it, as did members of other parties.

Most of us saw the measure as—I think I used this term in Committee—a crude form of restorative justice. It provided a degree of proper recompense. A person who had been properly convicted would pay the surcharge, and life would be made a little more bearable for victims of crime. So far so good; then the Home Secretary took it into his head to include in the category of criminals those convicted of motoring offences.

Some who are convicted of motoring offences are indeed criminals; they have committed a serious crime through the reckless or heedless operation of a motor vehicle. They are a menace to society and should be dealt with accordingly. But we all know, because we live in the real world, that many people do not fall into that category but find themselves in receipt of fixed-penalty tickets.

I confess, as I confessed earlier in an intervention on the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan), that I was enormously relieved when I heard the Home Secretary say in terms on Second Reading that he had listened to representations by my party and others, and that a victims fund, properly constituted, would be paid for by the mugger and not the motorist. I believed him when he told us that he had taken the message on board, and would amend his proposals accordingly.

I was frankly astonished when, at a late stage in Committee, we were faced with a huge panoply of amendments, including the Government's proposal to define a serious and persistent offender as someone who at some stage has been caught twice by a speed camera.
 
27 Oct 2004 : Column 1501
 
If we continue to see such inflation of terms, we shall have to rewrite the entire language of jurisprudence. It is a nonsense, and the Minister knows it.

I am not one who takes lightly the problem of dangerous or speeding motorists. I always try hard to obey speed controls, and—unlike the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd), it appears— I have a clean licence at the moment, touch wood; I am very happy about that. I entirely understand the position of the hon. Members for Chesham and Amersham and for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve), but whatever their own views, I do not side with some of their colleagues who appear to think that every speed camera represents an imposition on civil liberties and an affront to the freedoms of the motorist. That is simply not the case.

Mrs. Gillan: I would never want to give the impression that there is not a perfectly proper role for speed cameras. Indeed, I have requested them on certain roads in my constituency. I abhor people who break the speed limit, and would not want to diminish the offence.

Mr. Heath: We are at one on that. I am merely saying that some members of the hon. Lady's party have given the impression that they are leading some sort of crusade against speed cameras. That is unfortunate and regrettable, and against the interests of road safety.

There is, however, a big difference between recognising the requirements of road safety and believing that it is fair to impose this measure on top of what is already a stringent penalty; it has still to be reviewed, we understand from the Department for Transport. At present the motorist incurs both a fine and an endorsement, which is often the greatest deterrent in terms of future misdemeanours because of the totting-up process that leads to the loss of a licence. However, if we want a way to define a serious and persistent offender in motoring terms, we have one; the points process and disqualification. I would have no difficulty with those who were disqualified or convicted of a serious driving offence—using the term "serious" in its proper sense—being brought into that definition. If they have committed the same offence several times, clearly they are persistent offenders.

4.15 pm

Chris Bryant: The hon. Gentleman seems to be allowing himself a little wriggle room. What counts as "persistent"? Two, three or several offences? At what point does he set the limit?

Mr. Heath: There is no wriggle room at all. I have made it perfectly clear that disqualification is the definition.

Chris Bryant: So three counts as persistent?

Mr. Heath: Well, there is a different points tariff, as the hon. Gentleman may understand, for certain motoring offences, so three would not necessarily be the figure. Disqualification suggests that the person in question is a serious or persistent offender in road traffic
 
27 Oct 2004 : Column 1502
 
law terms, so we have a definition. So where is the problem? Why does the definition have to be set at the level of the second offence? The answer, the Minister hopes, is that enormous revenue will result. The hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham has already pointed out some of the difficulties attached even to that proposition, but that is undoubtedly the motivating force.

The Minister wants a victims support fund sufficient to make a real difference, and the best way to do that is to tax the motorist to provide it. He told us in Committee that, in 2002, 1,505,504 endorsable speeding offences were committed, so we are dealing with a significant part of the population. They are being treated as though they were criminals who should contribute to a fund for the victims of crime. That is wrong in principle, and I am particularly aggrieved by what I think was a blatant deceit—if that is a parliamentary term—on the Home Secretary's part.

Chris Bryant: It does not sound very parliamentary.

Mr. Heath: If it is not parliamentary, I of course withdraw—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman should withdraw the rather direct accusation that he made. If he wishes to suggest that there was a discrepancy, it should be done in another way.

Mr. Heath: Absolutely, Mr. Deputy Speaker; immediately before you stood up, I did indicate that I should be very happy to withdraw that remark. But I must say that the Home Secretary is clearly not a man from whom I should like to buy a used car. I am very concerned; on comparing carefully the impression that he gave to the House and the reality of what is proposed in the Bill, I find very little correlation between the two.

I hope that the House will look very carefully at my amendment No. 11, and I am grateful to the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham and her colleagues for putting their names to it. They have said that they would prefer to divide on it and so would I; not because it is my amendment, but simply because it deals with the specific issue of the second offence, rather than the generality of traffic offences. If we do not take a stand on this, the result will be not only an injustice to very many motorists, but—more importantly, from my point of view—the undoing of all the good work that the Government have done in recent months in arguing for the useful function performed by speed cameras, traffic restrictions and traffic-calming measures. Their provision will cement in the public mind the view that all that is simply a front for what is a revenue-raising measure.

The point that the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham made in quoting Devon and Cornwall police will be echoed by police forces throughout the country. They have a difficult enough job as it is enforcing traffic law without it being made more difficult by the Minister's applying an arbitrary surcharge on their endeavours. That is wrong, and I hope that this House will reject it. If not, I hope that the other House will.

Mr. Hogg: I want to support the arguments that were advanced very clearly by my hon. Friend the Member
 
27 Oct 2004 : Column 1503
 
for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan) and, indeed, by the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath). In doing so, I want to make three points. First, as regards the principle, I find it difficult to justify the proposition that a victims fund should be funded in part by people whose criminal culpability is at the very low end of the spectrum. It seems to me that if we were to fund a victims fund by raising money from criminals, there should be some relationship between the quality of the criminal act relied upon and the nature of the injury suffered by the victim. With speeding offences that do not result in personal injury, there is no such relationship of any kind. Drivers who are disqualified under the totting-up procedure may not themselves be guilty of criminal offences of any high degree of gravity. I find it very difficult to justify in principle why individuals whose criminal culpability is, or may be, at a very low level should be required to contribute to the victims fund in the way that we are debating now. It is an objection on principle.

My hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham made some points about repeated offences and other matters with which I entirely agree. I associate myself with what she said, but my fundamental objection is on principle; there is no relationship between the quality of the offence and the injury in respect of which the fund is intended to address.

---