|
Mr. Knight: If the Minister is saying that the security checks that were in place for the older form of licences were not as rigorous, we should be given some evidence that there is a need for the change. How much abuse and fraud take place? How many cases have there been? What do the police conclude is the scale of the problem? Just to state that the security checks were not as good previously as they are now is not a basis for making this big change. I was a little alarmed at her opening remarks, in which she appeared to say, ''The consultation process is under way. We have drawn no conclusions yet, but we want the Secretary of State to have the power to make the change in case we make the decision.'' If the consultation process is genuine, should it not be allowed to run its course before a decision is made? If new legislation is then needed, the Government should seek it at that moment. They should not put it in a Bill just in case the consultation goes in a particular direction.
The Chairman: Order. I think that that intervention has run a little longer than it should.
Column Number: 231
Charlotte Atkins: This is an enabling power. I appreciate the right hon. Gentleman's concern about it, but it makes sense to include it in the Bill. Clearly, we are discussing what is partly a security measure. I am informed that there is huge abuse of paper licences, which is why the Bill says that driving examiners should be able to pull in licences if they consider them suspect.
There is evidence of abuse against the paper licence. Disqualified drivers continue to drive using other people's paper licences. As there is no photocard, it is quite easy for people to switch paper licences. As I said, applicants for paper licences did not have to identify themselves by means of any other form of secure identification such as a passport.
Mr. Wilshire: Again, the Minister has said that there is evidence. I do not wish to press the matter, because the information is patently not readily to hand, but may I ask her to write to the Committee, giving full details of the evidence and the number of prosecutions?
Charlotte Atkins: I am certainly happy to do that, and I would hope to do so fairly quickly. The hon. Gentleman will appreciate, however, that the circulation of different forms of licensing means that there is likely to be an element of fraud.
Mr. Knight: Can the Minister tell the Committee what percentage of motorists have each form of licence? Is it not the case that the new form of licence is growing because—this point relates to an intervention I made this morning—as people move house and send back their old licence, they are issued with the new type? Surely by effluxion over time, the old form of licences will be greatly reduced in any event.
Charlotte Atkins: That is certainly the case. When someone moves house, they do not have to be charged for the issue of a new photo licence. It appears that 20 million drivers have the photocard and 18 million still have the paper form, whichever one they have. That is the balance. It will clearly take a good number of years for the paper licence to drift out of circulation. Some people will keep their paper licence in better condition than I kept mine.
Mr. Mark Fisher (Stoke-on-Trent, Central) (Lab): Will my hon. Friend clarify two points? Is the information that the plastic licence holds precisely the same as is held on the paper licence? I was under the impression that the plastic licence did not include any points or penalties that had been incurred. On a related point, will the information on the new licence be part of the information on the Government's planned individual ID card?
Charlotte Atkins: The plastic card has a paper form that goes with it. That is where the penalty points and such are recorded. We have a sample of the card here—I prepared it earlier, ''Blue Peter'' style—so I can show the Committee the photo licence and the counterpart. No offences have been recorded on this particular counterpart, and I am sure that there are none on my
Column Number: 232
hon. Friend's licence either. As far as the ID card is concerned, that is clearly some time away, as he will know.
The Chairman: Order. May I ask the Minister to address the Chair, because Hansard finds things difficult when she is facing the other way?
Charlotte Atkins: I apologise. The ID card, to which my hon. Friend referred, is a separate exercise that we are clearly still consulting on. At the moment, it is not part of the DVLA plans. The licence is not currently expected to be part of the ID card system, because it is produced by the DVLA. Although I am sure that technology will be such in future that we will be able to store everything that we need on one very easy card, what is proposed is merely a process of trying to take out of circulation a lot of the paper licences, which are subject to fraud. Some 15 million people have already paid for a photo licence, and it is down to the DVLA to look at the way forward when it has consulted stakeholders.
Mr. Chope: The Minister says that the paper licences are subject to fraud. Surely the counterparts are equally subject to fraud. If not, why not?
3 pm
Charlotte Atkins: Simply because the photo licence has a photo on it. Clearly, a photograph makes it more secure. The counterpart relates merely to penalties. We are talking about driver identification, not driver misdemeanour. In future, when we get rid of the counterpart, cards are likely to include penalty points and so on. At the moment, that is dealt with in the counterpart. As the hon. Gentleman will know from reading the Bill, it is intended that the counterpart will be withdrawn. That would make the licence much more secure.
Mr. Fisher: I do not want to labour the point, but those comments seem slightly odd. The Minister's answer was much as I imagined it would be, although I had thought that I must be wrong. She is saying that we are getting rid of the old paper licence and changing to modern plastic, but adding another layer of paper. So we are back to where we started, not with a paper licence, but with a paper element. Is it really beyond the scope of modern technology to get all that information on to the card? It seems almost like ''Alice in Wonderland''—
The Chairman: Order. Before we go too fast, let us remember the point of the amendment. Have you finished making your point, Mr. Fisher?
Mr. Fisher: I hope that the Minister has got the drift and that she will be able to respond.
The Chairman: The Minister will recognise that we must keep to the amendment.
Charlotte Atkins: That is right, Mr. Pike. I am delighted to have that guidance.
Column Number: 233
In fact, my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher) is correct. The plastic card is clever enough to have all the details on it. That is why we are getting rid of the paper addition. The Bill makes that clear. We do not need the counterpart. We have it at present, but in future, we will just have the plastic licence and not the counterpart. Yes, the card is clever, and we want to move away from paper and to have only the plastic card.
Clearly, we will want to update the cards in future. As I understand it, the photocard is issued for 10 years. It is sensible that the photograph is updated, as with a passport.
Mr. Knight: On vetting, which the Minister has mentioned, can she tell me what vetting there will be if someone with the old licence moves house, to use the example that I gave earlier, and sends that licence to the authorities asking for their new address to be entered, but does not send any photographs? Presumably, they will get a letter back asking for photos. What vetting takes place to ensure that if there is a fraud, it is not perpetuated?
Charlotte Atkins: The right hon. Gentleman is right. The person would get a card with a photograph. Obviously, the driver has to supply the photograph, and they also have to supply a birth certificate. As part of the process of moving from paper licences—whether because of a change of address or some other reason—to the new photocard licence, there must be supporting evidence in the form of a photograph and a birth certificate or passport.
Mr. Wilshire: The general point of the plastic licence and the counterpart is the very thing that I want to talk about in a stand part debate. On the cost, can the Minister confirm that what I think that I am hearing is correct? I was objecting to the principle of having my old paper licence called in and being made to pay for the new plastic one, plus the piece of paper. I now hear, however, not only that could I be made to pay for the replacement, but that in due course, when a way has been found of getting rid of the counterpart, I will be made to pay again for another Government change of mind. We might be discussing two demands for payment rather than one. In that case, my objections are multiplied by two.
Charlotte Atkins: I was making the point that the photocard is obviously more robust in terms of fraud, but most documents with a photograph require that photograph to be updated. The hon. Gentleman may stay looking exactly the same, but most of us change over 10 years or more.
Mr. Wilshire: I am grateful to the Minister, but she has not answered my question. Will we have to pay twice when the paper requirement is withdrawn? I have now just heard, by way of response, that we may be made to pay three, four or five times. She has explained that we will have to pay the first time, and she has not denied that we will have to pay when the paper is withdrawn, but when more of my hair drops out and I
Column Number: 234
have to provide a new photograph to show that I have changed, will the new document be provided for free or will there be another charge?
Charlotte Atkins: After 10 years, it is likely that a new charge will be made. When the counterpart is removed, however, there will be no charge at that point.
| 
