Road Safety Bill [Lords] |
|
Dr. Ladyman: I shall deal first with the replacement document. The hon. Gentleman is right: if the Bill is passed, the counterpart will have no legal standing. In theory, therefore, when the DVLA sends an individual a driving licence, it could send simply the piece of plastic in an envelope, with nothing else in it. Clearly it would not be good business practice to send a piece of plastic with no explanation of what it was or how it was to be used. We would need to send people a holder for it, it needs to be held in the envelope and it needs some explanatory material. That explanatory material will have no legal standing. However, we will ensure that, in essence, it is the same information as that currently carried on the counterpart, so the individual will know what categories of vehicle they are entitled to drive, when they reach the age when the licence must be renewed and what endorsements are on the licence. The endorsements will not be marked on the piece of plastic: they will be held on a computer somewhere else. Therefore, when the police want to check the endorsements, they will have to use the piece of plastic
Stephen Hammond: I think I understood the Minister correctly. We were talking about the piece of plastic that we will all have. Is it now the Government’s intention that it will be necessary for someone to have it with them when driving? Dr. Ladyman: No more than it is currently the practice that we require people to have their driving licence with them when driving. Some people do and some do not. The police will be able to require people to present it to them at some point in the future. However, my personal view is that people would be best advised to keep it with them when driving, because as they will not have to have the counterpart with it, it will be a much more convenient document. It will help to facilitate the police’s work should they ever need to see it. It will also mean that the police do not think that someone is the sort of person who might not have a fixed address. They might be inclined to want a deposit from someone or to immobilise their car if for some reason they suspected that that person was not all that they said they were. It would be helpful for people to have the card with them, but we will not make that compulsory, and have no intention to do so, any more than it is currently compulsory to carry one’s driving licence. Mr. Knight: Will the driver have the right, under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 or any other Act, to look at his record? He might take the view that the explanatory piece of paper, which has no legal standing, might not be compatible with his record. He might want to verify that the DVLA is keeping an accurate record of what points are recorded against him. Will it be possible for a motorist to request to see the original record held on him? Dr. Ladyman: I might be about to get myself into trouble, because I am unsure whether I have announced this publicly and told Parliament about it in the proper way. The Department for Transport and the DVLA are keen for there to be electronic access to all records. The right hon. Gentleman will doubtless have renewed his car tax many times—11 times, I think, in his particular case. I hope that some of the vehicles he has to renew the tax on in the future will benefit from the Budget. I suspect most of them will not, but never mind. He can now renew his car tax online for vehicles that are less than three years old. I realise that many of his vehicles are heritage vehicles and therefore he will not be able to do that until they have a valid MOT. By the end of this financial year—this month—every MOT centre will be computerised and the MOTs will also be online. Soon, everyone will be able to renew their car tax online without ever going to a post office or touching a piece of paper. Column Number: 109 We intend that people should also be able to amend and deal with their driving records in exactly the same way. I have asked questions of my officials about security arrangements. I need to convince myself that only the individual who holds the driving licence will be able to get electronic access to their driving record. Once I am convinced about that, that is what we intend to do. Everyone will be able to see their driving record and their endorsements online, just as they can see their vehicle details online. I hope that answers the right hon. Gentleman’s question. Let us move on to VOSA. Before I address the points made by the hon. Member for Wimbledon, may I say something to the right hon. Member for East Yorkshire? On Tuesday, I think he used the expression “swinish followers”. It was entirely jocular and we all took it as good natured. However, there was a spokesman from VOSA in the gallery listening to his comments. The organisation is entirely professional and would not take umbrage to that comment in any way, shape or form. However, if I were him, I would make sure that all my 15 vehicles were thoroughly roadworthy 10.15 amMr. Knight: I was not seeking to be gratuitously offensive. A person might be an ace vehicle examiner who knows the construction and use regulations backwards, but he may be swinishly ignorant of the rules of evidence. He may not have the expertise of a police officer when dealing with a member of the public. I hope that I never have first-hand experience of knowing whether that is true. Dr. Ladyman: I am sure that most members of the Committee understood what the right hon. Gentleman was getting at. If examiners are now checking the roads of East Yorkshire for heritage Bentleys more assiduously than previously, I am sure that it has nothing to do with his comments. I say to the right hon. Gentleman and to the hon. Member for Wimbledon that such people are trained in the rules of evidence. They have to collect the evidence and use the same procedures to take something through the legal system—to issue fixed penalties or go through the court—as the police. I have no reason to believe that their training is any one wit less than that given to a police officer. They are excellent vehicle examiners and excellently trained in the procedures necessary to gather evidence and issue penalty notices. They use high-visibility Ford Galaxy vans with automatic number plate reading equipment, light-bars and variable messaging facilities to carry out mobile stopping exercises. They are uniformed, police trained and accredited. Frankly, I do not know what more I can do to give hon. Members the reassurance that they seek, other than to say that I am personally absolutely satisfied that there is no question but that they have received the appropriate training needed to do the job thoroughly and professionally, and with every bit the same level of accuracy as the police. Column Number: 110 Stephen Hammond: I thank the Minister for his comments. We shall give the matter further thought. As we said on Tuesday, we may wish to re-examine it on Report. Question put and agreed to. Clause 10 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Schedule 3 agreed to. Clause 11 Financial penalty deposits Stephen Hammond: I beg to move amendment No. 49, in clause 11, page 9, line 26, at end insert—
The Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 50, in clause 11, page 9, line 33, leave out subsection (4). No. 51, in clause 11, page 10, line 7, leave out from ‘in’ to ‘and’ and insert
No. 52, in clause 11, page 10, line 11, leave out
and insert
Stephen Hammond: We are fully with the Government on the clause. It is right and goes to the heart of the current problem that my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Norfolk described, when occasionally serial offenders or offenders who are stopped in the United Kingdom are either issued with fixed penalty notices or fines and do not pay them, or indeed are from overseas and do not pay them. The amendments would first place criteria under proposed section 90A(2) to the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 that examiners must have reason to believe are true. That would give them more latitude than the Government have done. The provision is aimed not only at those from overseas who do not wish to comply with our laws, but at the group to which my hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire (Mr. Paterson) referred in his remarks on clause 1—individuals who seek continually to flout the motoring laws of our country, causing much danger to other people on the roads. There is a small group of persistent and continual offenders. We want to help the Government and to make sure that the Bill attacks those people. Proposed paragraph (c) to section 90A(2) to the 1988 Act states:
That would cover not only foreign vehicles that may be flouting the law, but the huge number of people, representing up to 5 per cent. of the vehicles on our roads, who drive cars without a licence. It should be
The amendment would move much of what is in proposed subsection (4) into our new subsection (2)(d) to cover not only overseas offenders, but UK citizens who have been persistently problematic, as they are either not resident at the address they have given or not there when the police call. It would give the police far greater power to attack that group of consistent and persistent offenders. I hope that the Government recognise the intention of the amendment: to give the police greater powers to impose fixed penalty notices on such offenders. Mr. Bellingham: My hon. Friend is explaining the amendments extremely well. One of the challenges is that many such foreign drivers live in houses of multiple occupation or hostels. As my right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire pointed out, they sometimes live in caravans. They can be here for a very short period and they will be on the move the whole time. It is difficult to pin them down, which is why it is so important to toughen the clause up. Stephen Hammond: I am grateful to my hon. Friend; that is exactly the purpose of the amendment. Amendment No. 50 is merely consequential on amendment No. 49, so I shall turn to our other amendments. We could have a long discussion about the payment of the appropriate amount to the Secretary of State, and the words Column Number: 112
As I said, we see no reason why some detail on that could not be put into the Bill. The offence is serious, and the Government ought to have the opportunity to take a proper deposit that would cover a number of circumstances. A maximum of £2,500 would do that. We could clarify the means through which the Government took the money. They could take cash—cash is what it is, unless it is counterfeit; we shall assume that it would not be. They could take bank-backed funds, making it perfectly possible for a visitor from overseas to present a traveller’s cheque or show a bank-accredited deposit note. Equally, it would be possible to use a debit or credit card, which will be relatively instantaneous; the Government could be sure of getting the funds. They could also receive a cleared UK cheque. The Secretary of State would wish to take the payment of the appropriate amount by those methods, so we see no reason why the Minister should be uncertain about whether they should be in the Bill. I look forward to hearing from him about the other methods through which he would wish the deposit to be taken, and to his argument—or not—on why we should leave the maximum, which we suggest should be £2,500, to be decided by secondary legislation. It being twenty-five minutes past Ten o’clock, The Chairman adjourned the Committee without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order. Adjourned till this day at One o’clock. |
| |
| ©Parliamentary copyright 2006 | Prepared 24 March 2006 |