Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
The Finance Bill and the Budget will tax businesses more and make Scottish businesses, especially the small ones, less competitive. The conclusion of all the measures on personal taxation will make the poorest
and most vulnerable worse off. For those two reasons, if for no others, we will oppose the Bills Third Reading tonight.
Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time:
Bill read the Third time, and passed.
Queens Recommendation having been signified
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Dr. Stephen Ladyman): I beg to move,
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Off-Road Vehicles (Registration) Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of
(1) any expenses of the Secretary of State in consequence of the Act, and
(2) any increase attributable to the Act in the sums payable under any other Act out of money so provided.
I do so because it was the will of the House, expressed on Second Reading, that the Off-Road Vehicles (Registration) Bill should be discussed in Committee. The Bill, introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Blackley (Graham Stringer), will have expenditure implications for the public purse. Therefore, approval for a money resolution is needed before the Committee can engage in those discussions.
In giving the Bill a Second Reading the House chose to ignore my serious reservations and advice. Let me make it clear that the Government opposed the Bill on Second Reading, and we oppose it now. We lag behind no one in our determination to tackle antisocial behaviour and the nuisance caused by some mini-moto riders, but this Bill is not the way to do it. It is potentially expensive, and would impact more on legitimate users of off-road bikes than it would on those who are causing a nuisance.
Mr. Greg Knight (East Yorkshire) (Con): Will the Minister give way?
The Bill is seriously defective in so many ways that the amendments that might deliver a workable set of powers would, in my view, be outside its scope.
Dr. Ladyman: I shall give way only once or twice, because of the late hour.
Bill Wiggin (Leominster) (Con): The Minister says that the Bill would be expensive. Exactly how expensive?
Dr. Ladyman: I shall come to that, but in round terms I suspect that it would cost about £80 million.
Stephen Pound (Ealing, North) (Lab): Will the Minister give way?
Dr. Ladyman: I shall, but for the last time.
Stephen Pound: I shall try not to trespass on my hon. Friends patience and generosity. I thoroughly concur with his analysis of this unnecessary Bill. Does he agree that there are between 13 and 18 existing laws on the statute book which can address the problem perfectly adequately?
Dr. Ladyman: My hon. Friend is right. Were the money resolution to be passed and were the Bill to reach the statute book, it would take police resources away from enforcing those laws in order to enforce the law in this Bill.
Mr. Greg Knight: Will the Minister give way?
Dr. Ladyman: No, I will not give way further.
Agreeing to the money resolution will mean that the potential consequences of passing the Bill are fully considered in Committee. It is on that basis only that I put the resolution to the House.
The Bill would require the Secretary of State to register all eligible vehicles with the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency. It would also require suppliers of vehicles to register them on behalf of the keepers. It would make it an offence not to register an eligible vehicle, and it would provide the police with the power to seize any such unregistered vehicles. Clearly all those measures have cost implications, although they will depend on a number of factors relating to the mechanisms that would be put in place to facilitate the registration process. To administer the scheme set out in the Bill as it stands could cost £30 million over three years. The cost to the police of enforcing the scheme is estimated at £50 million over the first two years after they begin enforcement depending on how much effort they put into that enforcement, the volume of vehicles involved and the range of machines deemed to be within the Bills scope.
Mr. Philip Dunne (Ludlow) (Con): Will the Minister give way?
Dr. Ladyman: No, I shall not give way again.
We can, however, be certain of two things: first, that the total cost of implementing and enforcing the Bill will be substantial; and, secondly, that the police could achieve similar benefits using the existing law at far lower costa fact that several forces around the country have already demonstrated.
The problems associated with mini-motos are often serious, and the Government share the desire of my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Blackley to tackle them. We have already done a great deal and I have even promised a further review of existing legislation to see whether we can do more, but I simply do not believe that the Bill is the way forward. However, if discussing it in Committee will help us to establish its failings and identify more practical actions that meet hon. Members genuine concerns, then so be it. On that basis and on no other, I commend the resolution to the House.
Mr. Owen Paterson (North Shropshire) (Con): This is a gloriously perverse debate because the Minister is speaking vehemently and passionately against his own motion, and he is right to do so. On Second Reading, I outlined 12 areas of existing legislation which enterprising police forces in places such as Coventry, Kent and Northumberland are putting to good effect to solve the problem of mini-motos. We acknowledge that there is a problem in certain areas.
Dr. Ladyman: The hon. Gentleman did indeed point out all the defects in the Bill, and then he went and voted for it on Second Reading along with the shadow Chancellor. Perhaps he could apologise for that mistake.
Mr. Paterson: We agreed that the Bill was not acceptable in the form that it took and said that we would not support it. However, we also said that it could be dramatically improved in Committee. Little did we think that with a Second Reading on 2 March
Madam Deputy Speaker (Sylvia Heal): Order. I must remind hon. Members that we are debating not the Bill, but the money resolution. The scope for debate is very limited.
Mr. Paterson: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. My next words were to be the money resolution. It is amazing how long the Minister has managed to stall this since 2 March and we should congratulate him on that.
Here we are, with the money resolution before us and astonishingly significant levels of public expenditure being implied. The Minister, in a written answer last week, gave his estimate of the cost as £80 million, with 230 additional staff at the Department for Transport, and that is without including advertising or additional equipment. The Bill would bring into the registration scheme 3 million additional vehicles and 500,000 new vehicles per annum. That is hugely disproportionate to the problem that we are addressing, when we already have 12 existing pieces of legislation.
The measures would be a colossal burden on a Government agency that is struggling. Last year, 2,193,000 owners failed to pay vehicle excise duty. That raised the revenue forgone from £129 million the year before to £217 million. We know that 1 million speeding fines were not paid last year, because the owners could not be traced. Pertinent to this Bill is the fact that the number of unlicensed motorcycles leapt 152 per cent., from 275,000 to 694,000. As the money resolution would also authorise the payment of
any increase attributable to the Act in the sums payable under any other Act,
there are clear and major implications for expenditure above the £80 million that the Minister has already mentioned.
In a written answer last week, the Minister told my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous) that 2.5 per cent. of the vehicles on the DVLA database cannot be traced. Out of 33 million vehicles, that is 825,000. We have a major problem with uninsured vehiclesthere are 1.1 million on our roads. In another written answer last week, the Minister said that no formal assessment has yet been made of the impact of delayed and postponed programmes in the agencies within his remit, but he did say that the Bill would be likely to have an adverse impact on other DVLA IT programmes and hence on the quality of service to the public. Alarmingly, he said that it is likely that one of the projects that would be rescheduled would be the delivery of continuous insurance enforcement. The cost today of enforcement for uninsured drivers is £30 per legitimate policy, so the Bill would entail a huge new hidden cost under paragraph (2) of the money resolution.
Next Section | Index | Home Page |