Schedule 7 - Minor and consequential amendments
Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Bill [Lords]
3:30 pm
Mr Paul Goggins (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Home Office; Wythenshawe and Sale East, Labour)
That is correct. If he has no points on his licence he will not be surcharged, and if he has points on his licence he will be.
Our aim is to make offenders pay a small sum to a fund for the victims of crime. The fund will provide practical and emotional support to a range of victims. There is no provision for the establishment of the victims fund because we can do that without primary legislation by agreeing with the Treasury that a certain portion of the Consolidated Fund will be ring-fenced. A recent precedent for that is the recovered assets fund, into which were paid the proceeds of crime recovered through confiscation orders.
To assist the Committee, I will go through the proposed arrangements in some detail. I will speak first about the surcharge and criminal convictions. New section 161A of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 would impose a duty on the court to order payment of
the surcharge with a criminal conviction except when the court makes an absolute discharge or mental health disposal. However, a compensation order would take priority over the surcharge, and if the court considers that the offender should pay compensation and has insufficient means to pay the surcharge as well, it must reduce the surcharge accordingly—if necessary, to nil. The Secretary of State would have power to prescribe further exceptions. If the experience of operating the surcharge shows that certain categories of defendants are being unfairly penalised by it, we envisage using that power.
New section 161B deals with the amount of the surcharge, which it states will be specified by order of the Secretary of State. That will enable higher surcharges to be ordered for more serious offences. However, the intention is that the surcharge should be a relatively small amount: on our current figures, up to £30, so as to maximise payment by the vast majority of offenders to a wide range of victims.
Subsection (3) of new clause 35 would have the effect of ensuring that the surcharge will be treated as a fine for the purposes of collection and enforcement. Under subsection (4), the new provisions in the Courts Act 2003 on the collection and enforcement of fines would apply. Subsection (5) provides that the Secretary of State may amend the way in which the relevant provisions of that Act apply to the surcharge: the measures are being piloted and the evaluation of the pilots may necessitate changes. Section 97 of the 2003 Act provides a power to amend the provisions in light of the pilots, but that would not extend to the surcharge, which will not be part of the pilot. The order-making power simply makes sure that we can ensure that the Courts Act provisions in their final form apply properly to the surcharge. It would be subject to the affirmative procedure by virtue of amendment No. 94. Amendments Nos. 95 to 101 are consequential to new clause 35.
We also aim to add a small sum—£5 is proposed—to penalty notices for disorder. That would enable those who perpetrate such offences and wreak such havoc in our neighbourhoods to give something back to victims. The victims fund will support victims of antisocial behaviour and disorder. That can be done principally through secondary legislation. Section 3 of the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001 allows the Secretary of State to increase the amount of penalty payable under a penalty notice for disorder and to amend the prescribed form for a penalty notice. Our intention is to use that existing power to increase the penalty payable and to include on the penalty notice a statement that part of the penalty will go into the victims fund. We can then make administrative arrangements for the amount representing the surcharge to go into the fund.
However, new clause 36 amends section 3 of the 2001 Act to increase the maximum penalty that may be prescribed; currently, it is one quarter of the maximum fine payable. The amendment will ensure that the amount of the penalty representing the surcharge is taken into account by providing that the maximum is one quarter of the maximum fine plus one half of the
surcharge payable. I stress that our proposals in the consultation paper would not require an increase in penalties for disorderly behaviour to the extent that the additional headroom would be needed. The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that the surcharge is taken into account in fixing the maximum penalty payable.
On higher fixed penalties for road traffic offences, again the aim is to add a small sum if a person has seriously and/or persistently committed endorsable offences punishable by fixed penalty notices. We have listened to the consultation responses and believe that that is the right way forward. The victims fund will provide support to the many victims of road traffic accidents. In exactly the same way as for penalty notices for disorder, most of that can be done by using the existing power to increase the amount of a penalty in section 53 of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 and by making administrative arrangements for the amount representing the surcharge to go into the victims fund. Section 88 of that Act requires us to consult representative organisations before making any secondary legislation.
New clause 37 broadens the section 53 power to enable the surcharge to be added only for persistent offenders—those who already have points on their licence or have been disqualified from driving in the last three years. Without the provision we would not be able to differentiate persistent offenders and other offenders.