Mr Clarke, asking motorists to pick up tab just isn't fair The truth is that at some point during their driving lives, it's almost inevitable that all motorists will transgress by, for example, being in possession of a car with a recently-expired tax disc or driving a vehicle a few miles per hour faster than the permitted maximum speed limit - 55-60 on a multi-lane motorway-type road with an absurdly low 50 sign... that sort of thing. I'd argue that the motorist who claims to be infringement-free year in, year-out simply doesn't exist - because nobody's that perfect. But does this mean that the 30-40 million drivers (nobody's certain of the precise number) in Britain will now qualify for criminal status because of their inevitable driving and parking infractions? That's a question the Justice Minister needs to ask himself. But before he does he should be aware that the Labour Party shot itself in the foot a while ago when one of its unelected spokeswomen, Baroness Scotland, outrageously and incorrectly declared on BBC's Newsnight that motorists who break even minor motoring laws are criminals. But it really is worth emphasising that despite suggestions to the contrary from Baroness Scotland, drivers responsible for minor, everyday road-related transgressions should not and do not have criminal tags around their necks. Despite this, Clarke wants us to contribute untold millions to the victims of crime pot, instead of pursuing the perpetrators of such vicious and unpleasant crimes to pay all the compensation themselves. How he can justify such an unfair, discriminatory stance against car drivers is beyond me. He's right when he says "victims should be supported and not be let down by the criminal justice system." But he's horribly wrong when he insists that the financial support they deserve should come in whole or part from the pockets of motorists. If that's justice, I'm Ian Hislop. You know, I know and Ford knows that new car prices are largely based on engine sizes. That's why a 6.3-litre Ferrari FF Coupe costs £227,000 while a 4.3-litre Ferrari California is a mere £147k. And why the flagship Ford Mondeo 2.2 is £28,000 and the entry level 1.6 version £18,000. You get the picture, I'm sure. But now Uncle Henry has thrown a spanner in the works by launching a 1.0-litre EcoBoost version of the Focus with an inexplicably high price tag of £16,245. A Focus 1.6 can be had for £13,995, so 16k-plus is madness. Drivers would be mad to pay that sort of money for this model with this comparatively tiny, cheap to build and install power unit. As Suzuki, one of Ford's rivals perfectly proves, a quality 1.0-litre car, albeit a small one such as the Alto, can cost as little as £6,666. Or to put that another way, one Focus with five doors and a single 1.0 power unit costs almost as much as three Altos with a total of 15 doors and a combined 3.0 litres of power. If this doesn't ram home the point that £16,245 is way too much for a humble Ford with a comparatively tiny engine, nothing will. Last week I reported on the antics of car insurers, brokers, agents and others in Britain who in my opinion charge private motorists and companies too much for their legally-required motor insurance certificates. It's this level of inflation-shattering overcharging and inefficiency that has forced Volkswagen UK to abandon its proposal to offer its new Up city car for £120-£130 a month with insurance included. VW will offer drivers in Germany this sort of all-inclusive three-year leasing deal for this sort of money or, more likely, even less. But over here the prices charged for cover are often prohibitively expensive. That's that why the young and young at heart have been told that the all-in Up deal proposed by ambitious VW is off. And that, if you ask me, is a real shame.