New
Clause
5Compulsory
surrender of old-form
licences ‘(1) In the Road
Traffic Act 1988 (c.52), after section 98
insert— “98A
Compulsory surrender of old-form
licences (1) The Secretary of
State may by order require the holders of licences of a specified
description, or any specified description of the holders of such
licences, to surrender the licences and their counterparts to the
Secretary of State. (2) An
order under this section may specify as the description of licences to
be surrendered— (a)
licences which are not in the form of a photocard,
or (b) licences in the form of
a photocard of a description no longer specified by the Secretary of
State as a form in which licences are
granted. (3) An order under
this section must specify the date by which the licences to which it
relates (and their counterparts) are to be surrendered; and may specify
different dates in relation to different descriptions of licence
holders.
(4) An order under this section must include
provision for the grant of a new licence to every holder of a licence
surrendered (with its counterpart) in pursuance of the order
who— (a) pays such fee
(if any) as is specified by the order,
and (b) provides the Secretary
of State with such evidence or further evidence as the Secretary of
State may require (which may include a photograph which is a current
likeness of him). (5) A
replacement licence granted pursuant to provision made by virtue of
subsection (4) above expires on the date on which the surrendered
licence would have expired had it not been surrendered (but subject to
subsection (6) below). (6)
Where the period for which the surrendered licence was granted was
based on an error with respect to the licence holder's date of birth
such that (if the error had not been made) that licence would have been
expressed to expire on a different date, the replacement licence
expires on that different
date. (7) A person who, without
reasonable excuse, fails to comply with any requirement to surrender a
licence and its counterpart imposed by an order under this section is
guilty of an offence. (8) An
order under this section
may— (a) make different
provision for different cases,
and (b) contain such incidental
and supplementary provisions as the Secretary of State considers
appropriate. (9) The power to
make an order under this section is exercisable by statutory
instrument. (10) Before making
an order under this section the Secretary of State must consult with
such representative organisations as he thinks
fit. (11) A statutory
instrument containing an order under this section is subject to
annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of
Parliament.” (2) In
Schedule 1 to the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 (c.53) (offences to
which certain sections apply), after the entry relating to section 94A
of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (c.52)
insert— “RTA
section
98A(7) | Driving
licence holder failing to surrender licence and
counterpart. | Section
6 of this Act.” |
(3) In Part 1 of Schedule 2 to that
Act (prosecution and punishment of offences: offences under the Traffic
Acts), after the entry relating to section 96 of the Road Traffic Act
1988 (c.52)
insert— “RTA
section
98A(7). | Driving
licence holder failing to surrender licence and
counterpart. | Summarily. | Level
3 on the standard
scale. | | | ”.'. |
—[Dr.
Ladyman.] Brought
up, and read the First
time.
Dr.
Ladyman: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second
time.
The
Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss
Government new clause 6— Fee for renewal of photocard licence
and issue of certain alternative
licences.
Dr.
Ladyman: We are making good progress, and I hope that we
can continue to do so.
Government new clauses 5 and 6
return to the Bill two clauses that were removed in the Lords. I like
to think that that was because the Lords were mistaken in
their intent, and that had they heard my arguments, they would not have
done so. I hope that the Committee will agree to put them back
in. The fact is that
there are in circulation not just photocard licences—licences
with drivers’ pictures on them, each accompanied by a piece of
paper establishing the driver’s details and any endorsements
that he carries—but licences held by people who have never
received a photocard. They have only paper licences and, therefore,
have no photographic identification to establish that they may drive
particular vehicles, which can present the police with considerable
problems. When they stop somebody and are presented with a perfectly
valid driving licence in the form of a piece of paper, they have no way
of determining whether the person handing them that piece of paper is
the person who is entitled to that driving
licence. It was our
intention that the Bill would enable us to require, at various points
in the future, the return of those paper driving licences, and the
issuing in their place of photo ID card-type licences. Their lordships,
mistakenly, I can assure the Committee and them if they are listening,
thought that that might be a cunning plot to introduce the ID card by
the back door, so they removed these clauses from the Bill. I assure
the Committee that it was not an attempt to do any such thing. The
driving licence is not designated as a document that one cannot receive
without having first applied for an ID card. This is a sensible measure
to improve law enforcement and to ensure that somebody who presents a
driving licence is the holder of that licence.
As well as allowing the
Government to charge for the process of changing licences at various
times in the future, the clause will give the Government the power, if
the licence changes again, to require people once again to submit their
old licences in exchange for new-format ones. If, for instance, we
decide in future to add a further security device to the driving
licence, to make it even more secure and to try to improve the
integrity of the database, as the hon. Member for North Shropshire
requested, we will be able to do that under these new powers. In
addition, the Committee agreed earlier that the paper part of the
driving licence—the so-called counterpart—is no longer
the legal document. In fact, the database of the DVLA will be the legal
document for enforcement purposes in future.
One of the things that we will
be able to do will be to require people to return their old paper
licences, and to receive photo ID card-type licences. We will also be
able to require people to return their existing photo ID card-type
licences and to receive in return licences that include information
about endorsements and so on—if that is what we wish to
do—and to get rid of the counterpart. These are sensible
measures. They will improve road safety and the enforcement of driving
licences, and will help the police immeasurably. They will also help to
improve the integrity of the DVLA database and they are in no way a
Trojan horse that will allow ID cards to be introduced without the
approval of Parliament.
Mr.
Paterson: The new clause was given a thorough airing in
another place, where there were real fears that it was a Trojan horse
for identity cards. My main concern is that this will be a huge task.
We have already discussed the burden that the DVLA has because of the
way that it is constituted, and we established that it is not 100 per
cent. accurate. We also established the difficulty in other countries
of getting an accurate
database. I am not
sure what the gain will be, although it is clear that the establishment
of a valid, water-tight database is important. My worry is that we will
go to huge efforts regurgitating data from that vast majority of
law-abiding people whose records are not out of order. There will be a
titanic administrative task, but in the meantime my party’s
fears about what we call the hard core—that small group of
people who have come up again and again in our debates, who are outside
the law, who drive uninsured and without MOTs or licences—will
not be addressed. Those are the people whom we should be
after. My worry about
the proposal is that it will involve an enormous administrative effort
by the DVLA to change everyone’s paper licence when well over 98
or 99 per cent. of people are thoroughly law abiding. Their records are
in order and they will not cause a problem. I wonder how many staff
will be involved in the exercise. Will the DVLA engage a whole new
section? Will it have a new budget? How long will the process
take? We detect the
hidden hand of the European Union, which has taken competence in this
area. It proposes that licences should be renewed every 10 years for
drivers up to the age of 65 of mopeds, motor cycles, cars and light
vans, and every five years for drivers of medium and large goods
vehicles, mini-buses, buses and coaches. It has been said that the
proposed new measure will have the potential for administrative and
customer service advantages, and that it would facilitate greater
accuracy of the record and of the data on the licence. That may be
right, once the DVLA gets to dry land, but it will be an enormous
exercise getting
there. I would like
the Minister to comment, first, on the mechanics—how this will
be done, how many people will be involved, how long it will
take—and, secondly, on the Commission’s proposal that
licences should be changed every 10 years for those up to 65. In fact,
the recommendation is that they should be changed every five years for
drivers over 65 of mopeds, motorcycles, cars and light vans, and every
year for drivers over 65 of medium and large goods vehicles,
mini-buses, buses and coaches. That will lead to an enormous churning
of data about people who act within the law. They are not the bad lads
whom we should be trying to catch. I would be grateful if the Minister
would comment on that before we pass judgment on the new
clause.
Dr.
Ladyman: The proposal certainly will involve a huge
task—there is no question about that. The intention is that the
DVLA will deal with it as a one-off exercise over two years. We
estimate that in 2008 there will be some 13 million paper licences
still in circulation that will have to be changed over the two-year
period.
The new licences will not be
free. A small charge will have to be made for them, and that is covered
in the new clauses. We estimate that it will be about £5 to
£10.
Mr.
Paterson: A stealth
tax.
Dr.
Ladyman: It is not a huge amount of money, but the
benefits to society will be considerable. As I explained earlier, it is
a common offence to present a paper licence to a policeman if one does
not hold a licence oneself. Providing a paper licence and not giving
the policeman an opportunity to check any identification is a good way
of getting around law enforcement, and the police are clear that they
want photographic ID.
The hon. Gentleman will also be
well aware that the driving licence is seen by many people as the first
step on the ladder to creating a false identity. There are people who,
for nefarious purposes, want to build an artificial identity for
themselves—some because they should not be in the country and
others because they want to avoid their obligations or avoid law
enforcement. The driving licence is a first step; once a person gets
any sort of driving licence it is easy to deal with several
organisations and obtain further items of correspondence addressed to
them, creating the aura of identity that can be used to fool law
enforcement. 6.45
pm It is very
important—I think all members of the Committee would agree that
it is essential—that we can rely on driving licences and that
the police can check that a person is a genuine holder of such a
licence. One of the best ways to achieve that is to make it possible to
check the holder’s face against the photocard. It will be
possible, under the relevant powers, at some point in the future, to
require people to return the card for updating—perhaps every 10
years. I suspect that not many people would be able to identify me had
they seen a photograph of me 10 years ago. We all change in our visual
appearance. It is therefore important that we should have the power to
update the licence. The measure is a sensible one. I hope that the hon.
Gentleman will accept that it is in no way related to the issue of ID
cards and that he will support the new
clauses.
Paul
Rowen: I do not know whether I should declare an interest
as the holder of one of the old-style paper records. Initially, when I
heard the Minister speak I wondered what all the concern was about.
However, having listened to his answers to the points made by the hon.
Member for North Shropshire, I became concerned. We are told that the
measure is to help the Government. Then we are told, “Oh, there
is to be a small charge.” We are then told that licences will
have to be renewed every five or 10 years depending on the
holder’s age. It does not take much in the way of deduction to
see that, although the charge may be reasonable now, future Ministers
may increasingly use it as a cash cow for the
Department.
Dr.
Ladyman: The issue that the hon. Member for North
Shropshire raised about renewal every five or 10 years relates to an EU
directive which is under
discussion. The hon. Member for Rochdale must accept that the European
Union has a view on the robustness of licences and the need to ensure
that they are enforceable throughout the European Union. The mere fact
that something is being discussed does not mean that it will
immediately be
implemented.
| 
