|
Mr. Knight: I support my hon. Friend's comments. If a member of the public has a valid permit—an old-type driving licence—and the Government, for whatever reason, want to take it from him to issue a new one, the cost of doing so should be paid out of general taxation, not by the member of the public concerned. I take his point that it would be much easier to understand if the little card had ''Driving Licence part 1'' printed on it and the counterpart document was called ''Driving Licence part 2'', because then people would realise straight away that those two elements constituted the full licence and that they should keep both parts together.
It is also clear from what the Minister said earlier that the Government are not going to replace like with like. If a member of the public with an old-type licence that has 12 years to run sends it in, he will be issued with a new-type licence for 10 years. The licence will last for a shorter term. Why is that the case when the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, the Member for Plymouth, Devonport told us in a previous sitting that he was resisting attempts in Europe to reduce the term of issue of driving licences? The new form of licences run for less time than the old paper types. Why can replacement licences not be issued for the same length of time as the old form of licence?
I want to raise another point concerning what the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, the Member for Staffordshire, Moorlands, said about the amendments on cross-subsidy. I hope that the Government will think carefully before imposing a cross-subsidy that brings about an annual cost to those whose vehicles are not on the road. There is genuine anger in the classic car movement about the likelihood that the Government will move towards a possession tax.
The concern of those who fill in their statutory off-road certificate, which is currently free, to inform the Government that their cars are off the road and not being used is that the DVLA may introduce a fee for doing so. ''Possession tax'' describes the process very well, because people will have pay the state a sum for confirming that they have a vehicle that they are not using which is registered in their name. That is unique to the British world of motoring. There has never before been a situation in which one has to pay anything to the state for owning a car without using it. There is a far stronger case for saying that those who change address and have to notify the authorities should pay rather than subsidise that process by requiring classic car owners to pay an annual fee.
Column Number: 239
Mr. Wilshire: On a point of order, Mr. Pike. When I first came to the House, I was told never to believe what Whips said. I was given a message saying that there would be two votes. I have now received another message saying that they might not come together, so I withdraw my first bit of unhelpful advice.
The Chairman: Thank you.
Mr. Knight: We are all grateful to my hon. Friend. Now none of us knows what on earth is going on on the Floor of the House.
The Government would have less of problem with motorists, and I would view the provisions as less objectionable, if they introduced a proper fee structure for the reissuing of licences without trying to do that for free. There should be no cross-subsidy from the owners of vehicles that are not on the road. I hope that the Minister will reflect carefully on that. A few weeks ago I, together with the hon. Members for Hornchurch (John Cryer) and for Luton, North (Mr. Hopkins), presented a petition to Downing street.
3.41 pm
Sitting suspended for a Division in the House.
3.56 pm
On resuming—
Mr. Knight: A few months ago I, together with two Labour Members, presented a petition to Downing street, objecting to the cross-subsidy idea of a possession tax on motor vehicles. That petition was signed by 50,000 members of the public and by hon. Members of all parties. I do not want this to be a party political issue, but I hope that Ministers, on reflection, will decide against making the owners of vehicles pay an annual possession levy. It is not something that a future Conservative Government would introduce, and I shall be happy to announce on 6 May that it is not part of the new Government's proposals.
I hope that the Minister will think again and look at ways of charging for issuing licences in circumstances in which that is currently free, such as when a person moves house. I would welcome that if it meant shelving the possession tax idea.
Charlotte Atkins: No decisions have been made about the way in which the DVLA will recoup its expenses. One idea is that people should pay for extended licences. Another is the cross-subsidy, including a possible annual possession fee. There is a cost to keeping the statutory off-road notification, and the cost mentioned was relatively modest—something like £4 or £4.50. However, that is only one suggestion. The DVLA was set up as a self-financing organisation.
Various hon. Members said that it is crazy for the Government to introduce an interim arrangement. We are not doing so. There is no suggestion that those who give up a paper licence would do so for a plastic licence card and counterpart. That is not our proposal. The proposal is that those who give up their paper licence would move to the new plastic licence without a
Column Number: 240
counterpart. The Bill gets rid of the counterpart, so it is not an interim arrangement, and it would not be sensible to have one.
No decision has been made about whether a charge would be made for replacing a paper licence. Driver licensing must be paid for by fees to the DVLA. The DVLA is engaging with a range of organisations to identify a series of funding options for driving licences and vehicle registration transactions. As it can pool its fees, the DVLA can decide whether they are to be paid for by licences or possession charges, but it is continuing to consult on a range of issues. In the meantime, this is an enabling clause to allow a fee to be charged.
Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 11, Noes 5.
[Division No. 11]
AYES
Atkins, Charlotte
Byrne, Mr. Liam
David, Mr. Wayne
Ellman, Mrs. Louise
Fisher, Mr. Mark
Heyes, Mr. David
Jamieson, Mr. David
Kidney, Mr. David
Mahmood, Mr. Khalid
Merron, Gillian
Stinchcombe, Mr. Paul
NOES
Chope, Mr. Christopher
Flook, Mr. Adrian
Knight, Mr. Greg
Thurso, John
Wilshire, Mr. David
Question accordingly agreed to.
Clause 29 ordered to stand part of the Bill
Clause 30 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 31
Driver training
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Mr. Chope: The clause inserts a new power to make regulations. How will those regulations be used?
Charlotte Atkins: The clause amends section 99ZC of the Road Traffic Act 1988 to extend the regulation-making powers to include the provision of information about compulsory driver training courses. It also amends section 173 of the 1988 Act which deals with the offence of forgery of certificates relating to the completion of courses, by replacing references to section 97(3A) and the words
''training course for motor cyclists'',
with references to section 99ZC(1)(e) and ''driver training course''.
The clause corrects an oversight when sections 99ZA to 99ZC were introduced by the Transport Act 2000. Basically, it allows the Secretary of State to introduce compulsory driver training courses and authorises him to make available information about persons providing such courses, thus delivering on the
Column Number: 241
commitment set out in the road safety strategy to ensure that members of the public are better informed about the people who provide training.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 31 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 32
Driving instruction
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Mr. Chope: The explanatory notes on clause 32, which gives rise to schedule 4, state:
''driving instructors have to be registered if they give paid instruction of any prescribed description. This enables the existing provision regarding paid driving instruction in the driving of motor cars to be extended, by regulation, to other motor vehicle types in addition to motor cars, for example, driving instruction in respect of lorries, buses and motorcycles.''
What is the justification for that extension in regulation?
People who run courses for those who wish to get a heavy goods vehicle licence and bus companies that want to train drivers are concerned that their regime would be much better if it were applied to driving instructors—in other words, if driving instructors were deregulated in the same way that their sector is relatively deregulated. However, the Government seem to be going in the opposite direction. They are introducing more controls and are doing so without any justification.
One of the biggest concerns is the need for people to get quick access to training. If people want to engage in a career change and to train to use a heavy goods vehicle, they want to get that instruction straight away, get their qualification and go on the road. At the moment, as I understand it, there are substantial delays in getting a test for a heavy goods vehicle or a bus. As a result, the potential drivers of those vehicles do not own them themselves and have to hire them from the people who are training them, which creates additional delay and expense. Indeed, there have been cases in which, for no apparent reason, the arranged times for such tests have suddenly been cancelled on the basis that conditions might be slippery. As a consequence, the total cost falls on the individual who is trying to improve his finances by becoming an HGV driver. Hon. Members will be aware of the overall shortage of HGV drivers. With the new drivers hours regulations, there is an even greater need for well qualified HGV drivers.
Surely we should be deregulating and encouraging more people to go into the business of training lorry drivers. We should also be thinking about deregulating the whole system of lorry driving testing so that it can be carried out close to the time when someone is ready for the test, rather than delaying it for weeks or months, at the behest of the monopoly provider of such services, which is, inevitably, what the agency is. The clause raises some important issues and I would be grateful if the Minister could justify the increased regulation.
Column Number: 242
| 
