A PLAN to add a £5 surcharge to speeding fines to finance support schemes for victims of crime was denounced last night as an unfair and illogical tax.

The surcharge would also be imposed for other fixed-penalty offences, such as drunkenness, throwing fireworks or making hoax 999 calls. More serious offences would attract a higher levy — from £10 for failing to give police a driver’s details to £30 for someone sentenced to jail or community service.

Pubs and bars would also have to contribute to victims’ schemes to emphasise the links between alcohol and antisocial behaviour, while employers, rather than the taxpayer, would have to compensate workers criminally injured while on duty.

The surcharges and savings in the Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme are expected to raise up to £25 million, which would be used to set up a new victims’ fund. The cash would be given to local support groups and be used to finance helplines and other schemes, but would not go directly to individuals.

The levies are proposed in a consultation paper, Compensation and Support for Victims of Crime, which says: “We believe that making a small payment towards victims could form an important part of the reparation of an offender.”

But motoring groups, penal reformers, opposition MPs and even victim support organisations said that the charges would engender public anger — especially when there is already widespread concern about the growing number of speed cameras.

The charges, which follow hard on the heels of £80 instant fines for people who fail to renew their car tax on time and £60-a-day penalties for filing late tax returns, come at a time when Gordon Brown is struggling to deal with mounting stresses on the public finances.

The Chancellor is pressing ahead with his ambitious public services spending drive even though tax revenues are falling far short of Treasury hopes. To avoid big tax rises before the election, Mr Brown has had to borrow more and many departments are expected to feel the pinch in a tough Comprehensive Spending Review this summer.

David Blunkett, the Home Secretary, has already fought losing battles with the Treasury for more funds and many will see the surcharges as a means of raising some of the money he wants.

Introducing the consultation paper yesterday, he said: “We want compensation to victims to be targeted in the right way, and to come from the most appropriate sources. With these proposals we want to look at the perpetrators as well as the State.”

Critics, however, said that it was unfair to expect people guilty of victimless offences, such as having a defective headlight, to contribute towards compensation for victims of burglaries. There were also concerns that generally law-abiding people would end up paying while serious offenders escaped having to make financial reparation.

At the moment only 7 per cent of people sentenced in the Crown Court and 14 per cent sentenced by magistrates are ordered to pay compensation and only just over half of all financial penalties imposed by the courts are actually paid.

David Davis, the Shadow Home Secretary, said: “This counter-productive scheme will penalise minor traffic offenders who have nothing to do with bringing misery to the victims of serious crimes and will let off those who have caused pain and suffering. The real criminals will be laughing all the way to the bank.”

Kevin Delaney, of the RAC Foundation, said: “Imposing these levies will not be seen by motorists as logical or just. The Government is likely to alienate the people whose support it mosts needs — the normally law-abiding majority.”

Harry Fletcher, deputy general secretary of the National Association of Probation Officers, said: “The notion of creating a fund is welcome. The idea of offenders making a contribution where there are victims has some merit, but I think it is highly controversial where there are victimless crimes. It is illogical.”

A spokesman for Victim Support said that the commitment to helping victims was welcome but there was “unease with putting a tax on offenders to pay for victims”.

Andrew Howard, a policy adviser to the AA, said: “Millions of people are being caught by speed cameras and now they want to put a surcharge on to raise revenue. We are told cameras are not there to raise money and this will raise cash.”

Explore UK News

• Crime News

• Education News

• Health News

• Science News

• Scotland News

Times Recommends

• Tree stump 'shows image of Virgin Mary'
• BBC drops Strictly judge for younger model
• Trafalgar Square 'reduced to a spectacle'