I should like to say from the outset that we are deeply suspicious of Clauses 28 and 29. We will discuss the issue of a renewal charge for existing licences, but for now I would like to learn more about why the Government are so keen to remove these licences, what form they will take and the associated costs.
We learn from the Explanatory Notes that not only are the old-style paper licences likely to be replaced but so too are the first generation of photocards, introduced only a few years ago. Under the current regime, having passed our test and paid the necessary fees, we are granted a licence that the vast majority of us get to keep until the age of 70. A photocard has now been deemed to be a better form of licence, but no change has been made to the system of charging. Now there is a possibility that new forms of licence may be introduced some time in the future and in a new form. Can the Minister comment on the reasoning behind the move and say whether this development is European-led? Does a similar scheme operate in other EU countries?
We are particularly interested in the form that the new cards might take. The new licence could be a card with a photograph and a chip. With the way that ID cards are going, it might contain DNA. We would be fascinated to learn how the cards will interact with the proposed ID card scheme. Does the Minister envisage there being a single card containing one’s personal identification details and driving details? Exactly what information will the new licence card have on it? What is the likely timescale for the introduction of the scheme?
We are left in little doubt that each driver will be expected to pay the cost of one of the new-style licences. Why should individual drivers have to pay a fee because the state does not now like the form of licence that was issued previously? In essence, that is what the clause is about. If a member of the public has a valid permit—an old-style driving licence—and the Government, for whatever reason, want to take it away from him and issue a new one, the cost of doing so should be met out of general taxation, not by the member of the public concerned.
In getting rid of the old-style licence, the Government also want to substitute it with an interim arrangement. The clause does not make that proposal clear, other than saying that we will get a piece of plastic and a piece of paper. The Government acknowledge that that is not satisfactory and that the document will have to be substituted again, presumably at a cost to the motorist once more. Furthermore, knowing how the Government bungle any IT programme—it is almost impossible to get any IT programme to work—I imagine that it will be years before the new version is available.
I would be interested to learn from the Minister how much each of us will be expected to pay to acquire one of the new licences. Given the strength of feeling on the issue, the Government may have difficulties getting the clause through Committee, unless they can give an assurance that the cost of acquiring one of the licences will not be another tax on the over-taxed motorist.
Road Safety Bill [HL]
Proceeding contribution from
Lord Hanningfield
(Conservative)
in the House of Lords on Monday, 17 October 2005.
It occurred during Committee of the Whole House (HL)
and
Debate on bills on Road Safety Bill [HL].
About this proceeding contribution
Reference
674 c664-5 Session
2005-06Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamberSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2024-06-21 11:52:37 +0100
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_267238
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_267238
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_267238