| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
(a) the payment out of money provided by Parliament of--
(i) any expenditure incurred by the Secretary of State in consequence of the provisions of the Act, and
(ii) any increase attributable to the Act in the sums which by virtue of any other Act are payable out of money so provided;
(b) the payment into the Consolidated Fund of--
(i) any sums received by the Secretary of State by virtue of the provisions of the Act, and
(ii) any increase attributable to the Act in the sums payable into that Fund under the Road Traffic Act 1988.--[Mr. Hill.]
10.35 pm
Mr. Eric Forth (Bromley and Chislehurst): This is an interesting measure, which received a brief consideration at Second Reading. The brevity was such that the House did not have time to assess adequately the implications of the measure's financial aspects. My hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter), the Bill's promoter, hinted that it had some not insignificant implications that we should explore briefly in the context of this money resolution.
One might have expected a Ways and Means resolution. Will the Minister explain to the House why there is no such resolution, but a two-part provision under the terms of the money resolution? I shall explore that matter in a moment. Are any significant initial set-up costs anticipated as a consequence of the considerable measures in the Bill? My hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke said--albeit briefly in reply to a question on Second Reading--that he expected some increase in the charge made for MOT testing of vehicles. He said that he thought that the increase would be about £1 per test and that that would go some way towards--or would completely cover--the additional cost of the measures in the Bill.
That may or may not be so. First, I seek the Minister's assurance as to whether she believes the additional revenues raised will cover the total costs. Secondly, does she have anything to say about an undertaking regarding limits on the increase in the charge for MOT testing as a consequence of the Bill's provisions? That information would be useful. I want to know what initial set-up costs will be involved. Will they be covered entirely by the Treasury under this money resolution or will there be an attempt to recover those moneys on behalf of the taxpayer through additional charges for MOT testing? That would involve not just the equipment required, but staff training and perhaps even the recruitment of additional staff. I seek the Minister's assurances.
My main question is what will be the relationship between A and B: the payment out of money provided by Parliament for any expenditure incurred, and the payment into the Consolidated Fund of any sums received by the Secretary of State by virtue of provisions of the legislation. In other words, would moneys coming in be expected fully to cover the costs or would there be a limitation on the charges and the incoming moneys?
I can put that another way. Let us suppose that both the initial set-up costs and the running costs associated with the Bill's provisions were much greater than those envisaged initially. Would the Minister expect the additional charge for MOT tests to go up and up limitlessly in order to cover the costs, no matter what they were? Will the hapless motorist, who is obliged to submit his vehicle for an MOT test every year, be expected to pay any additional costs arising from the requirements of the Bill?
That is a very important question because it goes to the heart of the matter. Will the measure be a burden on the motorist for virtually no return, or do the Government expect to pay for it so long as the initial costs remain as they estimated?
Mr. Andrew Lansley (South Cambridgeshire):
Has my right hon. Friend noticed, as I have, that the explanatory notes accompanying the Bill use the word "corresponding" to describe the relationship between the increased expenditure and the charges that are levied for the MOT fee? The Government's view seems to be that there is a direct, "corresponding" relationship between Government expenditure and charges.
Mr. Forth:
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that point. That worries me. We want to hear from the Minister, as do tens of millions of motorists, whether all the costs--initial and running--of the measure will be passed on to the motorist by additional charges for MOT testing or whether she will give protection to motorists by saying that the Government will absorb some of the costs.
That point is particularly apposite now, given the difficulties in which the Government find themselves on additional costs for motorists and users of commercial vehicles. The Government are already embroiled in that argument, and there was a demonstration today by road hauliers. Hidden within this money resolution is the potential for yet further increases in charges on the motorist for compulsory annual MOT testing. We seek reassurance on that.
Mr. Andrew Lansley (South Cambridgeshire):
I shall follow the remarks of my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) with one or two specific points because I agree with his general proposition about the money resolution.
First, the legislation is designed not to achieve the computerisation of the MOT vehicle testing system, but to allow the Secretary of State to use the material generated through that system to a greater extent. The money resolution and the explanatory notes that accompany the Bill make it clear that £22 million will be transferred into the MOT test certificate charges annually. That is where
the figure of an extra £1 per test comes from, because there are about 22 million tests a year. That expenditure is, of course, directly consequent not on the Bill, but on the computerisation project. Yet the Bill and its money resolution are designed to give the Government a licence to increase the expenditure on the computerisation project and, as a consequence, obtain a "corresponding"--I use that word because it is used in the explanatory notes--increase in the fee that is charged to motorists.
Mr. Forth:
My hon. Friend has, typically, closely studied the Bill and its provisions. Is he satisfied that the figures mentioned are a limit on the likely expenditure and would, therefore, give a guarantee to motorists, or does he suspect that they are merely indicative and, if the costs were significantly higher, they would be passed on to the motorist?
Mr. Lansley:
The latter rendition is more accurate, and the figures in the explanatory notes are indicative. It would be interesting if the Minister were to say that she is sure that the expenditure on the computerisation project will not exceed £22 million, and motorists might find that reassuring.
I fear, however, that the measure effectively gives the Government carte blanche to spend money and recover it through the fees. Of course, if Ministers wanted to do so, they would have to introduce amending regulations to raise the limit of £30.87 on the cost of an MOT certificate. They might well do so by statutory instrument at a later stage. They would have relied on the fact that the measure had been passed earlier without the proper scrutiny of the House, which clearly would have happened in the absence of this debate.
My second point is that the £22 million that motorists will have to pay is not the sum total. Although it does not constitute public expenditure, the Bill makes it pretty clear that a cost will be imposed on the estimated 19,000 garages that will have to undertake training activity. That will amount to another £5 million in start-up costs.
These matters are set in an unfortunate context, to which my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst referred. I shall not elaborate on it because that would be outside the strict confines of the debate. However, the total level of taxes on motorists is an estimated £33,000 million. As the House will know, only a small proportion of that sum is spent directly on roads and the maintenance and administration of the road traffic system.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord):
Order. Having just said that he would not stray beyond the bounds of the debate, the hon. Gentleman is starting to do so. I ask him to come within the bounds of the debate.
Mr. Lansley:
Yes, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
I ask whether it is beyond the bounds of the Government to accept that the cost of the computerisation project of £22 million, or whatever it turns out to be, could not be accommodated within the enormous sums that are already raised from the motorist by one route or another.
It is clear that one of the purposes of the proposed legislation is to allow the Secretary of State to provide the data generated for such persons as he sees fit. It is--
[Interruption.] The Government Whip, who is normally silent on these matters, seems to understand what I am saying. He will know that clause 2(6) makes the necessary provision. Presumably he will be able to enlighten the House on the terms on which the Secretary of State is proposing to make the data available. We know that he will be selling the information. However, it appears from the explanatory notes that the Government do not foresee a reduction in the cost to motorists of the MOT test certificate, although the Secretary of State will be able to generate income through the selling of data that are generated through the MOT testing system.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |