Paul
Rowen: I accept the Minister’s point, but I am
sometimes sceptical enough about the EU to believe that we should not
necessarily always implement everything that Brussels bureaucrats want
to impose. Cost is an
issue, and so is the fact that the cost can be increased over time.
Another thing that causes me concern is the provision to increase the
amount of information stored on the card. We have had the debate on ID
cards. It will not be that difficult, when the measure is enacted, for
all sorts of information to be stored on a microchip on the card.
Either people have one ID card or they do not; we should not then go
about increasing the amount of information about citizens that is
stored on other bits of paper. I have my old licence and can provide
many other pieces of information to demonstrate who I am. I can be
required by a policeman to go to the police station to provide that
information. I cannot see why that is not
sufficient.
Dr.
Ladyman: If the hon. Gentleman feels that way about ID
cards he should have voted with the Government when he had the
opportunity. That was the point that we made. However, he did not, and
the simple fact of the matter is that the driving licence, as I, the
Home Secretary and the Secretary of State for Transport have said, will
not be part of the ID card system. However, if the hon. Gentleman
cannot understand the need for the new clause, I would ask him to
imagine that he was a policeman. If somebody handed a policeman a paper
licence, what right would that policeman have to require that
individual to go to a police station to show the licence that he had
just shown? That person’s paper licence might be a forgery or
might not belong to them, and that would be the only opportunity that
the policeman had to catch that person. If the hon. Gentleman thinks
about the example that he gave, he will understand why he should vote
for the Government’s new clauses.
Paul
Rowen: I understand the Minister’s point, but I do
not agree with him. There are safeguards. I return to the point made by
the hon. Member for North Shropshire that the vast majority of people
are honest and law abiding. We are talking, however, about a vast
bureaucratic exercise—the Minister admitted that it will involve
13 million licences—the benefit of which might apply only in a
tiny fraction of cases. The public will, however, be required to pay
for it. We have to ask whether the benefits will outweigh the costs,
but I do not agree with the Minister on
that.
Mr.
Paterson: Like the hon. Member for Rochdale, I am rather
moved the other way by the Minister’s words. We have not got to
the bottom of the issue of cost, but the exercise is going to be very
expensive. Instead, the DVLA could be spending funds on tightening up
on the hard core, as we suggested.
The other point that we have not
mentioned is that the vast majority of people with paper licences will
be in the older section of the population—in which I include
myself—and will be more likely to be of a law-abiding tendency,
as the hon. Member for Rochdale said. We go on about this, but we want
to concentrate on the hard core, who tend to be younger and who will
already have been issued with new photo licences.
The Minister did not touch on
proposed new section 98A(2)(b), which relates to
“licences in the form of a
photocard of a description no longer
specified”, but he did say
that some existing photo licences will be recalled. The whole exercise
sounds as if it will be even more complicated. It is a bit glib to say
that the DVLA will carry out a special concentrated blitz and that
everything will take two years. Surely that will cause a massive
disruption to the DVLA, and I am not convinced that it is worth the
candle. I entirely
sympathise with the Minister’s aim. It would be easier for
policemen to check motorists if they all had photo identity cards, but
the provisions will catch the older section of the population, who will
almost certainly have other forms of identity on them, such as credit
cards, so their signatures can be checked. This will be an enormously
expensive, complex exercise, with little gain. It seems to be driven by
the European Union directive, under which our licences will apparently
be changed every 10 years.
The Minister laughed when I
blurted out the words “stealth tax”, but there is no
doubt that this is another tax on hard-working, law-abiding citizens. I
really am not convinced that the Minister has made his
case.
Dr.
Ladyman: Briefly, it certainly would be a stealth tax if
we did not charge people for it, because the cost would then fall on
those in the rest of society, who would have to pay higher taxes. If
people want to drive, they need to cover the cost of their driving, and
a small charge of the order of £5 to £10 for the renewal
is entirely reasonable. We have just launched a thorough consultation
about the charges the DVLA imposes for renewing licences and for other
services that it provides. That consultation has gone through two
phases to identify the most appropriate structure for future
charging. However, the
simple fact of the matter is that someone who has only a paper licence
can drive while disqualified, and the policeman will not know that they
are doing so, because they will hand over a piece of paper that looks
like a driving licence. People have also used paper driving licences to
steal hire cars. They have handed paper licences over to hire car
companies, only for it to turn out that they are not the individual
concerned. People can also use paper licences to get on the ladder
towards creating false identities and being engaged in many types of
fraudulent activity. The people who will benefit from new clause 5 are
the 13 million honest motorists who currently have paper licences and
who in future will be part of the robust licence system, because they
will no longer be cheated by the very few people who currently use
paper licences to cheat the system.
I strongly advise Opposition
Members to think carefully before voting against a measure that is of
obvious benefit to the vast majority of people, who are honest. It is a
measure that the police clearly want and that all other law enforcement
agencies and advisers suggest is necessary. I can understand why the
Liberal Democrats would vote against the new clause, because they do
not vote for anything on law enforcement. People can do what they like
in Liberal Democrat world these days, but I thought that the hon.
Member for North Shropshire, on the Conservative Front Bench, would at
the very least stand up for an easyand practical, although
admittedly large-scale, improvement in the way in which we enforce law
and order in this
country.
Mr.
Paterson: If photocards are the answer to all the
problems, why must certain existing photocards be withdrawn? We have
not got into
that.
Dr.
Ladyman: I shall write to the hon. Gentleman about what
withdrawal there is of existing photocards. I am not aware of any
withdrawal, unless there are doubts about people’s identity.
Following inspiration from above, I can say that there are no plans to
recall the existing photocard licences, so I do not know where he got
his information
from.
Mr.
Paterson: I got it from proposed new section 98A(2)(b),
which refers to “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”. I am only
reading the Minister’s own new
clause.
Dr.
Ladyman: I am sorry; I did not understand the hon.
Gentleman’s question. I thought that I had explained that
provision. We are taking the power now, because at various times in
future it will be necessary to issue new types of photocard licence.
For example, we may wish to put a chip on a photocard licence to
prevent it from being copied. Such technology might emerge in future
and provide a better way to identify the licence holder. We want to
ensure that when we need to change the photocard licence, we have the
power to do so. However, as the hon. Gentleman suggested, we will not
do so willy-nilly, because there are 34 million vehicles out there and
God knows how many people have a driving licence—probably about
40 million. Changing everyone’s driving licence would be a big
exercise, but we need, and future Governments will need, the
opportunity to do that when it becomes necessary. That is the only
reason why the new clause has been drafted in this
way.
Mr.
Paterson: May I return to the question of the length of
time? I understand now what the Minister is talking about as regards
the withdrawal of existing photocards, but the Commission document that
I have seen indicates that, up to the age of 65, people will have their
licences changed every 10 years and those over that age will have their
licences changed every five years. This is a whole new way of carrying
out the exercise. It may be worth while, but it seems to be an enormous
churning exercise and I should like the
Minister to explain how the DVLA will cope with it. He says that it will
have a blitz and that we are talking about a figure of two years for
existing paper licences, but we then appear to go into a permanent
state of revolution whereby every year we renew large numbers of
licences. I am with the Minister on any measure that will bear down on
the hard core, but I am worried that this will be an enormously
expensive administrative exercise, churning existing information on
large numbers of law-abiding
citizens.
Dr.
Ladyman: Rather than detain the Committee any longer, it
is probably best if I write to the hon. Gentleman and the Committee
about the mechanics with which we plan to phase in the exchange of
licences and the consultation on changes that will be needed.
The hon. Gentleman is gradually
coming to realise the merit of the Government’s case. My final
point to him is that the hard core whom he is so anxious to get at will
immediately be exposed by the measure. They are the ones who will be
unable to get a photocard licence and will have to rely on a paper
licence until the very last moment. Once a paper licence is no longer
legally useful as a driving licence, they are the ones whom the police
will instantly be able to recognise when they stop them out on the
roads. I hope that he will now support the new clause.
Question put and agreed
to. Clause read
a Second time, and added to the Bill.
New Clause
6Fee
for renewal of photocard licence and issue of certain alternative
licences ‘(1) In section 99
of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (c.52) (duration of
licence)— (a) in
subsection (7) (grant of new licence free of charge on surrender of
photocard licence after ten years, in cases of error and on change of
name or address), omit “and any licence granted under this
subsection shall be granted free of charge”,
and (b) After that subsection
insert— “(7ZA)
The Secretary of State is not required by subsection (7) above to grant
a new licence on the surrender of a licence and its counterpart by a
person in pursuance of subsection (2A) above unless the person has paid
the fee (if any) which is prescribed; but any other licence under that
subsection is to be granted free of
charge.” (2) In section
117A(2)(c) and (3) of that Act (disqualification etc. of holders of
Community licences: issue of alternative licences), for “, free
of charge,” substitute “, on payment of such fee (if any)
as may be prescribed,”.'. —[Dr.
Ladyman.] Brought
up, read the First and Second time, and added to the
Bill.
New Clause
30Safety
arrangements at level crossings
‘(1) Section 1 of the Level Crossings Act
1983 (c.16) (safety arrangements at level crossings) is amended as
follows.
(2) For paragraph (a) of subsection (2)
substitute— “(a)
may require the operator of the crossing or the local traffic authority
(or both) to provide at or near the crossing any protective equipment
specified in the order and to maintain and operate that equipment in
accordance with the
order;”. (3) In
paragraph (b) of that subsection, after “impose” insert
“on the
operator”. (4) In
subsection (3)(b), omit “barriers or
other”. (5) In
subsection (5)(b), for “include requirements as to”
substitute “impose requirements as to
protective”. (6) For
subsection (6)
substitute— “(6)
The Secretary of State may make an order under this section in respect
of a level crossing on being requested to do so by the operator of the
crossing or without a request by the
operator. (6ZA) The Secretary
of State may not make an order without a request by the operator
unless— (a) he has
consulted the Office of Rail Regulation and the local traffic authority
about the order he proposes to make;
and (b) having done so, he has
sent to the operator, the Office of Rail Regulation and the local
traffic authority a copy of a draft of the order he proposes to make
and a notice specifying the period (not being less than two months)
within which they may make representations to him in respect of his
proposal to make the
order.” (7) For
subsection (8)
substitute— “(8)
Before making a request the
operator— (a) must
consult the Office of Rail Regulation and the local traffic authority
about the draft order he intends to submit to the Secretary of State;
and (b) having done so, must
give written notice to the Office of Rail Regulation and the local
traffic authority of his intention to make a
request. (8A) A notice given
under subsection
(8)— (a) must be
accompanied by a copy of the draft order which the operator intends to
submit to the Secretary of State;
and (b) must specify the period
(not being less than two months) within which the Office of Rail
Regulation and the local traffic authority may make representations to
the Secretary of State in respect of the
request.” (8) In
subsection (9), for “(6) or (8)” substitute “(6ZA)
or (8A)”. (9) In
subsection (11)— (a)
omit the definition of “local
authority”, (b) before
the definition of “operator”
insert— ““local
traffic authority”, in relation to a crossing, means the
authority which for the purposes of the Road Traffic Regulation Act
1984 is the local traffic authority for the road crossed by the railway
at the crossing;”,
and (c) in the definition of
“protective equipment”, after “includes”
insert “barriers,”.' —[Dr.
Ladyman.] Brought
up, read the First and Second time, and added to the
Bill. Further
consideration adjourned.—[Mr.
Roy.] Adjourned
accordingly at two minutes past Seven o’clock till Thursday 20
April at Nine
o’clock.
| 
