|
Mr. Chope: The Minister seems to be setting up a bureaucratic system that will be replaced by a super-efficient, computerised system. At present, if one shows a police officer or a local court a counterpart or old-fashioned licence, it is apparent from it what the status of the person's driving record is. Clause 8 establishes a system for dealing with those who do not have counterpart licences. As I understand the notes, the only reason for introducing the clause is a bizarre decision by the European Commission in 2000. Paragraph 32 of the notes says that we are
''obliged . . . to make this change following a complaint . . . by a Dutch licence holder who was resident in the UK but did not possess a counterpart to her Community licence. Having committed a driving offence, she was obliged to be prosecuted in court, which led to her receiving a fine higher than the fixed penalty would have been and the imposition of court costs. She argued that the fixed penalty system was discriminatory against European Community licence holders in general. The Commission upheld the complaint and the Government undertook to make the necessary legislative changes to put an end to the discrimination.''
It seems inherent in that paragraph that the Government undertook to do that in 2000. It is now 2005. The Government seem, by their reaction, to have demonstrated that they do not consider it a top priority.
Will the Minister admit that the provision is being introduced to address that problem and that it will create more bureaucracy rather than less? If, as he said, it is to have effect from 2007, seven years after the European Commission ruling, and to be replaced by a new system in 2010, is it worth the candle? I should be grateful for the Minister's comments on whether the provision is a cover for the fact that we are being forced
Column Number: 91
to change our law but are reluctant to do it, and the Minister is trying to justify that change for other reasons.
Mr. Jamieson: I can bring some comfort to the hon. Gentleman. No new bureaucracy is being created. The record already exists with the DVLA, but we needed to enshrine it in law so that the counterpart is no longer needed. I have one here for the Committee's perusal. The provision was partly triggered by the case of the Dutch licence holder who took the issue to the European Court, but the new system covers not just that lady and anybody else from another European country who may not have a counterpart, but others such as those who have no driving record—in other words, no licence. The case may have been a stimulus, but it has helped us to take action and remove some of the bureaucracy. In years to come the police will not need the counterpart, which is bureaucratic and cumbersome, to check a person's driving record at the side of the road or in relation to any penalty that has been imposed.
Mr. Chope: Is it not the case that if those of us with old-fashioned driving licences, like me, change our licence, we are given a counterpart, which in itself will be made redundant? Why can people with old-fashioned licences not keep them until 2009 or 2010, when the counterpart will be phased out? Why replace our licence with a counterpart that is about to become redundant?
10 am
Mr. Jamieson: People have to change their licence if they change address and the address on the licence is no longer accurate. One of the reasons why I have the nice sparkling new licence and the counterpart is because I changed address and very properly informed the DVLA of that. Eventually, some of the bureaucracy will be phased out, but we had to enshrine in law the driving record that can be accessed. It is currently on the computer system, but needs to be placed in law as accessible by the enforcing agencies. That is what the provisions are about. Eventually, there will be a phasing out, but that will be in some years to come. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that in the meantime he will be able to keep that nice old green licence for a few more years.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 8 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 2 agreed to.
Clause 9
All drivers
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Column Number: 92
Mr. Knight: The Minister referred to the phasing out of licences. As the clause refers to all drivers, I just want to ask him a question about licences. There is a move in the European Union to restrict all driving licences to a term of five years and to require the renewal of eye tests and health checks. That runs contrary to the system that we have in force, whereby most drivers have a licence issued until they reach retirement age. Will he place on record—I hope that he will—his objection to the moves emanating from Europe and will he confirm that the British Government are not about to sign up to the Euro-idea of very short-term licences?
Mr. Jamieson: The clause gives effect to schedule 3, which we will come to in a moment. The clause and the schedule introduce a new system of endorsement for all drivers, which will be commenced at a later date than clauses 7 and 8 and schedule 2. When issuing a fixed penalty, enforcers will be able to check a driver's endorsement history by accessing the driving record and not by having to check the counterpart to the driving licence, as the law currently requires. As a result, the counterpart will no longer have any statutory function. Consequently, much of schedule 3 is concerned with the removal of all references to the counterpart from legislation.
As the right hon. Gentleman knows, the current licence in this country—and in many other European countries—gives a person who has passed their test a long period in which they do not have to be subjected to a further test or any sort of medical tests. We ask for self-certification from the older age group for eyesight and other medical conditions. Anybody who develops a serious medical condition has an obligation to inform the appropriate agency. Sometimes medical checks are undertaken, but that does not affect the majority of drivers.
There has been a discussion on this issue in Europe and one of the proposals was to have the driving licence renewed at more frequent intervals; five and 10 years were suggested. I can tell the right hon. Gentleman that we have resisted that most strongly. We have done so because we know that the people who are at the greatest risk of having a collision are those who have just passed their driving test and are in the first one or two years of driving. Younger—or at least newer—drivers who have collisions tend to be in those early days. The longer people have been driving, the fewer collisions they have. They become more experienced.
Some other issues have been raised with us. For example, we test cars after three years, or every year, but often, because of their servicing history, they do not need testing. In this country, few collisions happen because the vehicle is in poor condition. In fact, 95 per cent. of collisions occur because of driver error or deficiency, not the state of the road or of the vehicle. Some people argue that we should test the driver more often, rather than testing the car. We are not persuaded about more regular testing for drivers—certainly not on a five-year spectrum—because experience shows that the more experience a driver has, the fewer collisions he or she has.
Column Number: 93
Mr. Chope: I am grateful to the Minister for what he just said, but does he not accept that the greatest cause of accidents are those who do not have driving licences? Far too many people drive without a licence. Recently, a case was reported in the press of a girl aged 12 who, on Christmas day, was able to drive from Swindon through the Wiltshire countryside without attracting the attention of any police officer—probably because there were none around—before eventually being caught outside Reading. Obviously, that girl was an absolute menace on the roads and did not have a driving licence.
Given all the available new technology, why is it not possible to have a driving licence that would operate as an ignition lock, so that it would not be possible to start a car without having the driving licence of the driver? Those of us who have Sky television need a Sky viewing card to watch it. Later in the Bill, we will talk about alco-locks. Why is it not possible to have an ignition system for cars that is triggered by someone with a valid driving licence and which could not be triggered by someone who did not have a driving licence? Perhaps the Minister does not have an answer at the moment, but, to demonstrate that we are a constructive Opposition who are always trying to think of new ideas in line with developing technology, I thought that I would throw that into the debate as part of my challenge to the Minister.
Obviously, recently qualified drivers have a worse driving record than more experienced drivers such as the Minister and myself, but the biggest menace are those who do not have driving licences; those who have never bothered to pass a test or are driving while disqualified or under age. I do not know whether the Minister wants to respond to what, if I may so myself, is an imaginative solution. I am sure that, even if the Minister does not respond, someone from a European agency or the like will consider the debate and say, ''That's the answer. We must have a centralised system throughout Europe.'' I think I have said enough.
Mr. Knight: I hope that my hon. Friend will forgive me for saying that he has a fertile imagination. I do not want the Committee to think that his suggestion is agreed and approved Conservative policy. Someone with three endorsements for speeding who put their licence in the ignition would find, under my hon. Friend's suggestion, that the V8 engine would run on four cylinders only to slow the driver down. As the owner of more than one vehicle, his was not a suggestion that I would welcome. If I were moving my vehicles around the yard, I would have to stop one vehicle to take out the driving licence to start the other. So, while I do not want to dissuade the Minister from considering the suggestion, I hope that he does not feel that it is approved party policy.
Almost as an aside, the Minister made an interesting point that I thoroughly agreed with on the subject of MOTs. The matter is outwith the clause, but if he is considering introducing an MOT that runs for two years, he would get support on this side of the House. It seems to me that, in many cases, the MOT is a mechanism for making garages more money. In 12
Column Number: 94
months of use, a vehicle does not in my view deteriorate to the extent that it necessarily needs testing.
|
