|
John Thurso: We have had a fascinating debate; indeed, it has been slightly more so than I anticipated when I tabled the amendment. I am grateful for the support of the right hon. Member for East Yorkshire and the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope), as well as for that of the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire), whose support I take in the spirit in which I am sure he intended it. His support for me gives me exactly the same concerns and worries as it gives him.
I will not go through all the points that can be made about the amendments. We have had a good debate and there are important points to come. I am concerned, however, by the principle. More and more in modern life, we are being asked to pay for things that we previously did not have to pay for. In the not-too-distant future, people on low incomes will be paying for their ID cards, and if they happen to be from the far north of Scotland or the islands, they will have to travel to Glasgow to get a card, at considerable cost. Now there will be a charge when the paper licence goes and when the counterpart goes, and there will probably be a charge every 10 years afterwards.
Charlotte Atkins: I said earlier that there will be no charge when the counterpart goes.
John Thurso: I am grateful to the Minister for that assurance. I am sure that her generosity to the people of Great Britain is hugely appreciated. As clause 30 sets out, however, there will be a charge every time the system or photograph is changed.
The Minister said that there was no immediate requirement for this measure. I noted her words when she said that the change would be carefully timed, possibly to coincide with the introduction of new technology or chips.
3.08 pm
Sitting suspended for a Division in the House.
3.23 pm
On resuming—
The Chairman: Order. There will be another Division at 3.41 pm. In case anyone feels that I am trying to curtail the debate, I should explain that I want progress to be made, because the Chair has responsibility for the whole of the selection list. The final two sittings of the Committee are both time-limited. Today, we can adjourn for tea at 5.30 pm or for dinner at 7 pm, if you so wish, and you have all the time you want to debate the issues. I am in no way trying to curtail the time available, but I should like to know at some stage what you are going to do.
Column Number: 235
John Thurso: Having listened to that stricture, I say only that, if the measure is not needed now, why put it in the Bill? I listened carefully to the Minister's valiant efforts to defend the position, but I am not persuaded. Therefore, I want to test the opinion of the Committee.
Charlotte Atkins: I clarify that, without a power to charge a fee, licences issued to replace recalled licences would be issued free of charge. The costs would have to be recouped elsewhere. That might mean increasing the cost of, for example, the first provisional licence. Our fear is that a charge might lead to more people driving without a licence. We will certainly try to discourage that.
Question put, That the amendment be made:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 5, Noes 11.
[Division No. 10]
AYES
Chope, Mr. Christopher
Flook, Mr. Adrian
Knight, Mr. Greg
Thurso, John
Wilshire, Mr. David
NOES
Atkins, Charlotte
Byrne, Mr. Liam
Ellman, Mrs. Louise
Fisher, Mr. Mark
Heyes, Mr. David
Jamieson, Mr. David
Kidney, Mr. David
Mahmood, Mr. Khalid
Merron, Gillian
Reed, Mr. Andy
Stinchcombe, Mr. Paul
Question accordingly negatived.
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Mr. Chope: Earlier, the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, the hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Mr. Jamieson), said that old-form licences would not have to be returned compulsorily until the pure new photocard licences were in force and that there would be no interim requirement for the surrender of old-form licences prior to the introduction of the full photocard without a counterpart. That is what I understood him to be saying and I hope that he or the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, the hon. Member for Staffordshire, Moorlands, will restate that proposition in the context of the clause.
In responding to the amendment earlier, the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, the hon. Member for Staffordshire, Moorlands, said that, because the DVLA is self-financing, the burden of the changes must be borne by someone else. [Interruption.]
The Chairman: Order. There is too much discussion in the Committee and I cannot hear what the hon. Gentleman is saying.
Mr. Chope: The Minister said that because the DVLA is self-financing a cost would have to be passed to other licence holders if it was not borne by the people who were being required to surrender their old-form licences.
Column Number: 236
I do not see the issue as the application of a self-financing principle. It is the application of the principles of a policy change. If the Government wish to change policy then, all other things being equal, they should reimburse the agency or Department for the administrative costs of that policy change. That is a perfectly reasonable proposition. The idea that old-form licences should have to be compulsorily surrendered when, for all intents and purposes, they are perfectly valid until the holder of the licence reaches the age of 70 is a policy change by the Government. They said that they have not yet brought that policy change into effect. If they decide to bring in such a policy change then, in my submission, the way to finance that change is out of general taxation with a regulatory impact assessment and so on.
When I was the Minister responsible for balancing the books of the DVLA, we considered how to ensure that licences for new drivers were not too expensive. At that stage, someone who reached the age of 70 could renew their licence without paying any fee. As the Minister will know, there is a long lead-in period before such changes can be introduced, so we consulted.
3.30 pm
We decided that it would be reasonable to introduce a modest fee for a 70-year-old seeking renewal of a licence, because otherwise the costs for the first-time licence holder would have been too great. At that stage, a leading article in The Sunday Telegraph said that the provision was a new tax on pensioners. I had to respond by pointing out that pensioners who had cars and were able to drive were in a financially stronger position than people who were just joining the labour market and getting their first licence. That argument was then carried through in the No. 10 policy unit, or whatever its equivalent was at that stage.
This Government are saying that the old-form licences should be called in and that people should have to pay for the costs of obtaining a replacement. That cuts across the principle that we applied in government, which is contained in existing provisions in the Road Traffic Act 1988 about the fee for renewal of a photocard licence.
The Government are being unreasonable. If they wish to make a policy change of withdrawing the old-form licences, and I am far from being persuaded that it is necessary, the costs should be borne by the Government rather than a particular sector of the community.
Mr. Wilshire: On a point of order, Mr. Pike. It may be helpful to note that I recently received a message stating that there are likely to be two votes at 3.41 pm rather than one.
I want to raise a general issue, which is why I confined my comments on the amendment strictly to the question of payment. The more I listen to the debate, the more I am concerned about the withdrawal or phasing out of the old-form licence. There is an argument in favour of it, and I suppose that over the course of time, withdrawal will take place. If the
Column Number: 237
Government of the day want to do that, I do not necessarily object in principle. What we are not being told in this clause, but gathering from the previous and current debate, is that the Government, in getting rid of the old-form licence, want to substitute it for an interim arrangement. The clause does not make that clear, other than to say that we will get a piece of plastic and a piece of paper, which the Government acknowledge is not satisfactory and will have to be substituted again.
Rather than take powers for an interim change, it would be far more sensible either to make arrangements now, so that the recall takes place when the final version—a single piece of plastic—is available, or just leave the whole thing well alone. Knowing how the Government bungle any IT programme they get their hands on, I imagine it will be years before the next version is available, by which time there will have been plenty of other opportunities to legislate, rather than waste time with this clause. I do not see any need for it, and I invite my colleagues, if our spokesman is so minded, to vote against stand part.
There is another reason why the clause is dangerous. We are spreading the notion that that piece of plastic is, as the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central read out from it, a ''Driving Licence''. I would contend that it is not. I know that if I were to ramble on about that stupid bit of blue with yellow stars on it, you would rule me out of order, Mr. Pike, because we would be wandering off the point.
The Chairman: I would indeed.
Mr. Wilshire: So I shall resist the temptation to say how much I object to having those stupid symbols rather than the union flag on my driving licence.
I have tried to use the card as a driving licence. I was told when I was hiring a vehicle recently that I had to bring my driving licence. As the card says ''Driving Licence'', I took the Government at their word and took it along. I dutifully signed the forms and the vehicle hire company said, ''No, that isn't the driving licence; it's only part of it. We want the piece of paper.'' I said, ''I don't have the piece of paper. I was told that this is the great, wonderful thing that I have to produce.'' ''Oh no,'' they said, ''We now have to ring the DVLA to talk about you. You have to answer the phone, tell them that you are who you say you are and answer a few magic questions. Then they will talk to us. We need either to have sight of that piece of paper, or we have to talk to Swansea. While we're telling you this, you do realise that if we make this call to Swansea we are charged £4.''
I had discovered another stealth tax. That was £4 more for the Government's coffers which they got because I believed them when they told me that that was my driving licence, which it patently is not. It is only half a driving licence. If that is what will be handed out when the old ones are called in, it is a load of nonsense.
I am told by those who know about this—I am pleased to say that I have to take the word of others because I have not been asked to produce my licence
Column Number: 238
at a police station—that if one goes along and produces the licence as requested, the police say, ''No. That is not enough. That is only half a driving licence.'' The Government are suggesting that in place of the old form of licence, which is only one thing to carry, or lose, and one usually knows where it is, we now have to remember where two things are. That is a crazy arrangement. When the Government get their act together and produce something that is a one-off, there may be an argument for calling in the other ones and replacing them, but at the moment they have not made their case.
| 
