Road Safety Bill

Public Bill Committee, 1 February 2005.

Standing Committee A

Road Safety Bill

David Jamieson (Labour, Plymouth, Devonport)

On a point of order, Mr. Hughes. During one of our fascinating debates last week, I offered on Tuesday, in response to a request from the right hon. Member for East Yorkshire (Mr. Knight), to provide copies of the police national drink drive proforma, the MGDD forms. For his information, that is the manual of guidance drink driving—it seems so obvious one when knows—as published on the Home Office website. I am pleased to tell the Committee that copies are now on the Table and have also been placed in the Libraries.

The MGDD forms have been produced jointly by the Crown Prosecution Service and the Association of Chief Police Officers for England and Wales and represent one of the many sections of the manual of guidance prepared for use by prosecution teams to promote best possible practice and to minimise or eliminate the risk of non-compliance with the law. They are working documents that are constantly evolving and being updated in the light of case law. Because they represent best practice, adherence to them is not essential for compliance with legislation, a flexibility that prosecution services must preserve.

Finally, as I said in the debate, if roadside evidential testing becomes law, a fresh process will be needed, drawing, where appropriate, on experience of station hospital procedure. I am grateful to you, Mr. Hughes, for allowing me to raise the matter.

Kevin Hughes (Labour, Doncaster North)

I am sure that the Committee is grateful for that information.

Greg Knight (Conservative, East Yorkshire)

Further to that point of order, Mr. Hughes.

Kevin Hughes (Labour, Doncaster North)

It was not merely a point of order, so I do not think that I can take anything further to it.

Greg Knight (Conservative, East Yorkshire)

I just wanted to say that I am obliged to the Minister for that information.

Kevin Hughes (Labour, Doncaster North)

The hon. Gentleman has said it now.

David Wilshire (Conservative, Spelthorne)

On a point of order, Mr. Hughes. I am not following up on that point of order, but can you confirm that if we cannot discuss the matter as a point of order, there will be an opportunity to discuss it in the debate?

Kevin Hughes (Labour, Doncaster North)

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman has been here long enough to be able to find an ingenious way of doing that.

Clause 22 - Breach of requirements as to control of vehicle, mobile telephones etc.

Charlotte Atkins (Labour, Staffordshire Moorlands)

On Thursday, my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher) remarked on an interesting point relating to whether a driver is in control of a vehicle at traffic lights. It is important to retain flexibility when we interpret what is meant by ''driving''. The Department believes that it would be wrong to encourage people to think that they can use a mobile phone just because they have switched off their engine, perhaps at traffic lights. Clearly drivers must be alert to their surroundings whenever they are in control of the vehicle. We consider that the offence should apply at times when a driver has stopped but the vehicle can be expected to move off after a short while, as at traffic lights.

Some hon. Members suggested that a driver who is stationary for, say, 15 minutes should be allowed to use a mobile phone. That judgment is best left to the police and the courts. We cannot legislate for every eventuality, and an inflexible approach is likely to create more problems than it solves.

I also mentioned electric vehicles, which could give rise to the problem of whether an engine is off or on at traffic lights. I understand that hybrid vehicles, which combine an internal combustion engine and an electric motor, have the technology to switch off the engine to conserve power when travelling at very slow speeds or when stationary at junctions or traffic lights. It would certainly be inappropriate for somebody to circumvent the offence of using a mobile phone merely by claiming that their engine was switched off. I hope that in light of those comments the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) will withdraw his amendment.

Christopher Chope (Conservative, Christchurch)

I am more determined than ever to press the matter. What is the mischief that we are trying to address? It is people using a mobile phone when control of their vehicle is hampered because they are distracted. The Minister said that it is desirable to have a massive discretion as to whether, first, to prosecute and, then, to convict, and that that is best left to the police and the courts. Unfortunately, this offence will be the subject of fixed penalties, and we heard earlier that the only discretion in relation to fixed penalties was whether there should be disqualification. There is no discretion as to whether full penalty points should be imposed or, once the fixed penalty notice has been served, as to whether to proceed with a prosecution.

What the Minister said is slightly disingenuous in regard to the actual law. Last Thursday—this is the advantage of having the Official Report before us— she said:

''The term 'driving', to which the hon. Member referred, is used in much road traffic legislation without further definition.''

She went on:

''It is not necessary and any sensible person would recognise that if the car is stationary and the engine is turned off, no offence will be committed.''

The Minister has gone back slightly from that position. Again, last Thursday she said:

''if someone is stuck in a five-mile tailback because of an accident on the motorway and all the vehicles around them are stationary with their engines turned off, clearly it is fine to use a mobile phone, because the motorist is not about to drive off.''—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 27 January 2005; c.188-9.]

The Minister said that a person who had been stationary for about 15 minutes would not automatically be not guilty of an offence. That would be subject to the decision of the police and the courts. I suspect that the reason why she has slightly modified what she said is that her advisers have been telling her what the law established by different court decisions is.

I want to refer briefly to the words of Lord Reid, one of the most senior Law Lords in the country's top judicial forum, in the case of Pinner v. Everett, reported in the House of Lords in 1969, as they are still highly relevant to this issue. He said:

''I must therefore consider in what circumstances a person can, by the ordinary usage of the English language, properly be said to be driving a car.''

He went on:

''Clearly the term cannot be limited to periods during which the car is in motion. Suppose the car is held up in a traffic jam and is stationary for five or ten minutes. No one would say that the driver is not driving the car during that period. He may have switched off the engine and be reading a book or a map; or he may have got out to clean his windscreen; and I do not think that it would make any difference if he got out to buy a paper from a newsvendor on the pavement.''

In all those circumstances the driver would still be driving. Under the Bill he would still be guilty of an offence that carried a mandatory three penalty points on his licence.

Lord Reid went on:

''But, on the other hand, suppose the driver pulls up at the kerb and leaves his car to go shopping. I do not think that it could be said that he is driving the car while he is buying groceries.''

That is one extreme. If a driver uses a mobile phone while buying groceries, having parked the car in a car park, he will clearly not be guilty of an offence, but if he leaves the car to speak to a newsvendor when he is stuck in a long traffic jam, he will still be guilty of an offence if, while purchasing that paper, he uses a mobile phone.

Another noble Lord in that same case, Lord Upjohn, said:

''A person in the driving seat preparing to drive by switching on is, in my view, driving. It is not necessary that the vehicle should be in motion. A person is obviously driving although he may be in an almost interminable traffic block or waiting at a level crossing or at traffic lights or if he merely fills up with petrol; nor can it make any difference if in a traffic block he switches the engine off to prevent it overheating or to save petrol. But if the driver leaves his driver's seat it is more difficult. If the driver leaves his seat, removes the ignition key and locks up the car for the night, he is quite clearly . . . no longer driving''.

The reference to the learned words of noble former Law Lords has caused some wry amusement among members of the Committee, but we have the opportunity today to say, as legislators, that we do not believe a mandatory endorsement and penalty should follow if someone uses a mobile phone in a traffic jam when they have switched off the engine. We must legislate clearly. The decided case law that currently applies means that someone facing such charges would have to be advised by their solicitor, or their Member of Parliament, that they had no defence against the charges that have been brought, and would have to plead guilty and pay the fixed penalty. That is not what we intend. We should make it clear that an offence involving ''driving'' when the car is stationary with its engine switched off will not carry a mandatory endorsement.

Charlotte Atkins (Labour, Staffordshire Moorlands)

A driver does not have to accept a fixed penalty notice because he can elect to go to court to fight the case. The hon. Gentleman's remarks on the 1969 case demonstrate that there are so many various cases that it is important to leave these matters to the discretion of the police.

Christopher Chope (Conservative, Christchurch)

I take completely the opposite view. If someone chose not to accept the fixed penalty and went to court, there would, in the light of the decided cases, be no defence at all. The magistrates would have to find them guilty on the facts. To suggest that some sort of discretion might apply is to mislead the public. The Government are seeking to change the law so that an endorsement and a fine are mandatory in the circumstances we have described. That is manifestly absurd.

If we do not make it clear that that is not our intention, we will be deemed to be accepting that the same rules apply to the use of a mobile phone while driving, as in the case set out in 1969. That may seem a long time ago, but it is still the leading case regarding the definition of ''driving''. What the Minister said in our previous sitting, and some of what she said today, could mislead motorists into thinking that they will not be committing an offence if they use their mobile phone in a long traffic jam with the engine switched off and they have left the car. If we do not accept the amendment, however, they will be committing an offence.

Unless the Government are prepared to come forward with another amendment to cover exactly that situation, members of the Committee should use some people power and common sense and support the amendment.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 4, Noes 10.

Christopher Chope (Conservative, Christchurch)

In the light of the Government's refusal to accept the amendment, it would be unconscionable for us to put on to the statute book a requirement that there should be mandatory endorsement for a driver using a mobile phone when stationary, with the engine switched off, on the motorway for a quarter of an hour or half an hour. That is mad and it will bring the law into disrepute. We are faced with no option but to oppose the clause in toto.

Charlotte Atkins (Labour, Staffordshire Moorlands)

We have had a good discussion. There is clearly a difference of opinion, but I urge Committee members to accept the clause. It relates to the proper control of a vehicle, whether that is a matter of using a mobile phone or dealing with other distractions.

John Thurso (Liberal Democrat, Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross)

As I said in the previous sitting, I have great sympathy with the amendment and I just voted for it. However, the clause is important, and I shall vote for it in the hope that a similar amendment will be discussed, and perhaps accepted, in another place.

David Wilshire (Conservative, Spelthorne)

The only reassurance I have heard from the Government was offered in the last sitting, when the Minister said:

''Clearly, in such circumstances no police officer would prosecute a motorist simply because there was a long wait.''—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, Thursday 27 January; c. 189.]

Now we are told that it is reasonable to leave such matters to the police. I do not find that reassuring at all. If the police need to take action against a motorist, and that is the only way available for them to do so, the chances are that they will do it. We think that it is unreasonable to do certain things. The message I have got from the Government is that they acknowledge that we have a point, but that common sense can be applied by the police. If they accept the point in principle but will not make any concession, we have no alternative but to vote against the clause.

Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 11, Noes 3.

Clause 23 - Breach of duty to give information as to identity of driver etc.

Greg Knight (Conservative, East Yorkshire)

I beg to move amendment No. 48, in clause 23, page 26, line 31, leave out '6' and insert '3 to 6.'.

I have long been an advocate of pre-legislative scrutiny because when Ministers publish a Bill and it is examined by the House in Committee, there is a danger that they tend to defend it as drafted and to regard any amendment as a personal attack. I hope that Ministers in this Committee will not take that attitude because we are trying to make improvements.

I think that I understand the weakness in the law that the Minister wants to address. He can intervene if I am wrong. The problem is when someone who would receive more than three points on his licence for driving a motor vehicle at quite a high speed decides deliberately to tell the authorities when he receives a notice through the post a few days later that he has no recollection of the incident and no idea who was driving his vehicle. That is an attempt to prevent the courts from imposing a fairly harsh punishment for a serious case of speeding. For the offence of not supplying the name of the driver, he receives just three points.

However, just moving from three to six points and giving the courts no discretion and no ability to consider the circumstances of the case means that injustices could occur. I will give the Minister an example from my personal knowledge. During the recent European elections, a team of Euro-candidates were offered two vehicles by a supporter of my party to use during the election campaign. They accepted the use of those vehicles and they were delivered to one of the candidates, who notionally had responsibility for them both, although obviously he could not drive both of them at once. Over two weeks, the vehicles were driven by the candidates and their supporters. As might be expected during an election campaign, no one kept a log of who was driving at any one particular time. It was not a business. The insurance was for any driver. Anyone who was on the team had the opportunity to drive one or both of the vehicles.

The candidate may have a valid defence in that he should not reasonably be expected to know who was driving the vehicles at every moment, but if he does not and he is found guilty, it seems to me—the vehicle was only just over the speed limit so it was not one of the more serious cases that I mentioned—that the courts would be justified in giving him three points. They would not be justified in giving him six points, but that is the effect that the clause would have. It is intended to mandate the courts, in every case, to impose six points, even for the most minor transgression of speeding.

The amendment does not seek to require an ultra-lenient option, but merely to give the courts the discretion to decide, in the circumstances of the case, whether they should give three or six points. For example, a business man with nine points on his licence who drives at an excessive speed and gives no explanation of why he does not know who was driving his vehicle would justifiably be awarded six points.

Let us consider a case in which someone loans his vehicle in the circumstances I described, not necessarily during an election, but where voluntary work was being carried out and half a dozen people who were properly insured had the use of the vehicle, but the owner did not keep a log. If the courts feel that his error in not keeping a log of who was driving was a genuine mistake—that he did not understand the requirements of the law or of the predicament that he might get into—it is reasonable that they should say that the offence itself is fairly minor. In those circumstances, the courts should award only three points.

I can see why the Minister wants to amend the law, but the courts ought to have discretion, so that where genuine mitigating circumstances exist, they can take those into account.

Kevin Hughes (Labour, Doncaster North)

May I explain that if hon. Members want to speak, it might help if they made that clear?

David Jamieson (Labour, Plymouth, Devonport)

I take it that it will always be expected that I will want to speak at the end of a particular debate.

Kevin Hughes (Labour, Doncaster North)

One never knows.

David Jamieson (Labour, Plymouth, Devonport)

The right hon. Member for East Yorkshire's amendment relates to a clause that is, I believe, affectionately known as the Hamilton clause. It refers to an instance in which somebody goes through a speed camera and then has a remarkable act of amnesia when they receive a penalty notice some time afterwards and cannot remember who was behind the wheel.

I take the point about pre-legislative scrutiny. The measures were published six or seven months ago. The Select Committee on Transport had an opportunity to pick over some of the points and I do not take it as a personal attack if an amendment is tabled. In fact, the right hon. Gentleman will recall that we accepted Opposition amendments to the Railway and Transport Safety Bill. Not many, I admit, but we felt that the Opposition had come up with a good idea in some cases.

I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman has chosen this amendment as one that he thinks is good and ought to be accepted. In the circumstances to which it relates, a road traffic offence is detected but the actual offender cannot be identified without the co-operation of another person—typically, but not necessarily, the vehicle keeper. The most common occurrence of this is in association with speeding offences remotely detected by safety cameras. If the offender was driving greatly in excess of the speed limit he would, if caught and prosecuted, be liable to an endorsement of up to six points or even disqualification in court. However, if in his capacity of vehicle keeper he claimed that he had suddenly been struck by amnesia and did not know who was driving the car at the time, he would then be liable to only three penalty points. So there is an incentive not to admit to a speeding offence. In existing law, if someone is way over the limit, there is a strong incentive to pretend not to know who was behind the wheel.

Amendment No. 48 suggests that the court might consider giving fewer than six points in some cases. I understand the concern. In certain circumstances, people may genuinely not find it possible to be sure of the driver's identity. However, even in the case that the right hon. Gentleman mentioned of a car or vehicle being used in an election, it is reasonable to expect the person who has taken responsibility for the vehicle to keep a log of who drives it because they need to know that the person driving it has the proper licence. We would not freely allow people to jump in and out of the driving seat. It would not be unreasonable to check the drivers to ensure that they are eligible to drive the vehicle.

However, the law comes to the rescue of such a person in exceptional circumstances. Section 172(4) of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 provides a defence whereby the person

''did not know and could not with reasonable diligence have ascertained who the driver of the vehicle was''.

That will not allow members of the right hon. Gentleman's party to drive faster than the speed limit with impunity at the next election—although they will need to accelerate if they are going to improve in the polls—but it does provide a defence. The main point is that the amendment allows a person who has gone way over the speed limit to get three points rather than six or a disqualification. I am a little surprised that the right hon. Gentleman is on the side of such a person.

David Wilshire (Conservative, Spelthorne)

I listened carefully to the Minister and did not intend to intervene but for his point that it would be reasonable to check drivers' licences. In my experience, that simply is not done. Let us consider an election campaign. On 5 May, we will get rid of this Government. A vehicle will be provided for me during the campaign and it will be driven by various people. I do not think it unreasonable if somebody I have known for 20 years turns up in a car, parks it outside my campaign headquarters and gets into the vehicle and drives it. It would be a waste of time, and offensive, to say, ''Can I check that you're entitled to drive that vehicle?'' given that the person turned up in one and that I know for a fact he has been driving for 20 years. So the argument that one should make certain of what is going on is nonsense.

I can, however, confirm that common sense is applied. I know that because, for reasons with which I shall not bore the Committee, I have had the same number plate on my car for a long time. I changed my car for a virtually identical one—from a photograph, one would not have known that it was not the same car—and the new car was to be delivered with the number plate of my previous car. It looked like my car and had my number plate, so when it dutifully triggered a speed camera, I got the notice. On the basis that it was being delivered to me by somebody—I did not have a clue who that was—I was able to say, first, that it was not my car and, secondly, that I had not a clue who was driving it. It was a difficult issue because the number plate caused chaos. I am pleased to say that the Hampshire constabulary backed off, so discretion is used. The constabulary attempted to track down the person delivering the vehicle, but I am not sure how that went.

We should not suggest that all people in those categories have amnesia and are trying to wriggle out of getting points on their licence. I regularly share the driving on long journeys. If I did the same journey on a regular basis, I would not have a clue at which time of night I was driving and where I was even a few weeks previously. To suggest that somebody is trying to wriggle out of something when they genuinely do not know who was driving a vehicle is not helpful. I have every sympathy with what my right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire said.

Greg Knight (Conservative, East Yorkshire)

I am grateful to the Minister for what he said about the possibility of a defence and I accept that. However, much else of what he said addressed an amendment that I have not moved. If my amendment said, ''delete 6 and insert 3'', or ''delete 6 and insert 2'', his arguments would have considerable merit. However, my amendment would give the courts the discretion to impose between three and six points, so in the case to which the Minister refers, where the motorist grossly exceeds the speed limit and seeks to avoid getting six points or perhaps a ban by claiming that he does not know who was driving his vehicle, the courts would still be able to do what the Minister wants the clause to do; impose six points.

Where the courts feel that the person should have made more of an inquiry at the time or kept a log, but the offence is a minor transgression and there are mitigating circumstances, my amendment says that they should have the option of awarding fewer points than six. That is not unreasonable, and it does not side with the motorist who blatantly ignores the speed limit; it just gives the courts the power to be fair. Surely, that is what we ought to do.

Some two or three years ago, I came across a case of three acquaintances of mine who used to share transport to work. Work for them was not at a fixed place, and they travelled to different sites each month. They always used one particular vehicle, but they shared the driving. Some two weeks after finishing a job at one particular site, a ticket came through to the registered keeper of the vehicle, and he genuinely did not know whether he or one of his two friends had been driving. Rather than cause a row between three friends, and although he had a clean licence, he accepted that he was the driver, even though he was not certain. I fear that if the clause remains as it is, it could lead to the opposite situation, with innocent non-drivers admitting that they were driving even when they think that they were not in order to get three points, because they know that if they say that they did not know who was driving, they will be hammered with six. Surely the Minister does not want that, and I hope that between now and Report he will reflect on my amendment. It is fair, reasonable and seeks only to give the courts the power to do what is right in the circumstances.

John Thurso (Liberal Democrat, Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross)

If a vehicle is registered to a company as opposed to an individual, and therefore the company is the registered keeper, the company, as it does not possess a licence in that circumstance, can say that it genuinely does not know who the driver is and there will be a financial penalty but no penalty on the licence. Is it not the case therefore that more people are likely to register vehicles to companies and that there will be a divergence, with those who offend as corporate users having a different penalty from ordinary individual car owners?

Greg Knight (Conservative, East Yorkshire)

That is an interesting point. Such registration would be a ruse available only to the wealthy, as they would be more likely to have associations with limited companies. That situation could occur if the clause stands part without amendment, which is why I must insist on my amendment.

David Jamieson (Labour, Plymouth, Devonport)

The hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (John Thurso) makes a good point, but the court would want to see that a record had been kept by the company about who was driving on a particular day. The company can face a considerable penalty, although obviously without penalty points on the licence.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 5, Noes 11.

Christopher Chope (Conservative, Christchurch)

Again, it is a pity that the Government have not shown enough flexibility to accept my right hon. Friend's amendment. In making his argument, the Minister referred rather disparagingly to the ''remarkable act of amnesia'' in the Hamilton defence. It is important that we should not by implication make defamatory remarks against people, irrespective of whether they were formerly Members of this House.

It was accepted by the court that the circumstances of that case involved two people who frequently drove long distances and shared the driving. Neither of them could remember who was driving at the particular time. For the Minister to suggest that that was a remarkable act of amnesia is to belittle what happened, to try to second-guess the court and to smear a former distinguished parliamentary colleague. His comments were totally unwarranted.

Can the Minister confirm that nothing in the clause will affect whether the Hamilton defence will still be available to people if they cannot ascertain with reasonable diligence which person was driving? Will he take the opportunity of this short stand part debate to comment on the amount of anecdotal evidence of points trading, not just between husband and wife but between partners and other close companions? Someone who has a large number of points on their licence will get their companion to say that they were driving the car at the material time and that person then carries the points on their licence, thereby undermining the whole of our road safety law. What is to be done about that?

If the Government continue their inane war against motorists, more and more people will surely try to avoid the consequences of a law that they feel is unfair and oppressive. We know that quite a lot of people are playing a game whereby whoever has the fewest points on their licence takes the rap for a penalty offence, irrespective of whether they were driving. That point was made by my right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire in moving his amendment.

I hope that the Minister will be able to explain in this short stand part debate the Government's policy in respect of the increasing amount of anecdotal evidence about points swapping and also that he will confirm that the Hamilton defence, which he described disparagingly but others would consider a factual defence, is still available.

John Thurso (Liberal Democrat, Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross)

I supported the amendment because I believe that it is important to allow a certain degree of flexibility. Having flexibility in primary legislation means that amendments can be made, and points can be handed out according to the circumstances of a particular case.

In the intervention I made on the right hon. Member for East Yorkshire, I drew attention to the fact that a substantial number of motorists in this country are supplied with company cars. In one notable case a few years ago, the car habitually driven by a well-known football manager was caught in a speed trap, and the football club chose not to state who was driving the car. As the Minister said, a substantial fine was paid—it was several thousand pounds—but the club deemed that that was acceptable rather than allowing whoever might have been driving to receive points on their licence.

Such cases mean that we begin to arrive at a justice system that has, to a certain degree, one law for the rich and another law for those who are not well-off. In my constituency, the vast bulk of motorists are people who are on sometimes, but not often, on reasonable wages, and they need their cars. I am concerned that they will feel the effect of punishment considerably more than a wealthy person who has the protection of a company.

I shall support the clause because the basic underlying thrust of the Government's direction is right, and it is correct that we point out to people that attempting to get round the proper penalties for speeding is wholly unacceptable. The Government should look again at the matter and consider whether there might be a case for flexibility at a later stage in the legislation.

David Jamieson (Labour, Plymouth, Devonport)

I said that this was affectionately known as the Hamilton clause, but I did not say it was correctly known as such because in that case the court accepted the evidence given, which shows that the system works and that that defence is available.

Greg Knight (Conservative, East Yorkshire)

I rise to help the Minister. Would it help if he referred to it as the Sir Gerald Nabarro clause? There was a dispute as to whether Sir Gerald was driving or his secretary; his secretary was Mrs. Hamilton.

David Jamieson (Labour, Plymouth, Devonport)

Alas, I am old enough to remember that case. I do not want to besmirch someone who is long since dead, but I believe that he was out on important parliamentary business with his secretary and the occasion was so exciting that he could not remember who was in the driving seat at the time.

Often, I see cameras flash a great distance away when other people trigger them. It is often occasion for discussion among those in the vehicle as to whether they triggered the flash, or whether it was someone else. It is unlikely that someone would genuinely trigger a camera and not realise that they were behind the wheel. However, the defence exists; it was used in that case and the court agreed to it. I do not mention that to cast a slur on the court or anyone involved in the decision, but that was what the court decided. Nevertheless, there may be other people who try to use that defence wrongly.

On the question of trading penalty points, I would not have thought that it was in the interest of someone to accept a penalty on behalf of someone else, any more than it would be for someone to admit to any other crime on someone else's behalf. That would be extremely foolish.

I am informed that a person who claims wrongly to have committed an offence to get someone else off the hook could be deemed to be perverting the course of justice. If someone got up in court and made a statement, that might be perjury. Those are serious offences, attracting far higher penalties than a small fine or a few points on a licence. The law provides a pretty strong disincentive for someone to lie to the police, or, even worse, to lie to a court of law. In those circumstances, I hope we can support the clause.

Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 12, Noes 4.

Clause 24 - Penalty points

David Kidney (Labour, Stafford)

There are no amendments to the clause, but it merits a brief debate for at least three reasons. First, the courses dealt with here could become one of the Bill's more significant boosts to road safety. Secondly, the Government ought be congratulated on introducing such a measure. Thirdly, I have some questions about how the statutory provision here relates to current practice.

Drink-driving rehabilitation courses were established by law by the last Conservative Government in 1991, piloted in 1993, and made into a national scheme by Labour in 2000. They are now nationally available and well-established, with a statutory basis, national guidelines and approved course providers. The courts use them well enough; 30,000 people passed through them in 2003. They also appear to be effective, according to research and evaluation by the Transport Research Laboratory's paper TRL613, which says it is most people who go through such courses are unlikely to drink-drive again in the future.

That is what is in place already. Clause 24 proposes to extend those courses to other road offences, most significantly careless driving and speeding. In those cases, courses are already available. However, they are not on a statutory basis, hence this provision; nor are they as well established as the drink-driving rehabilitation courses in terms of national guidance, or even their national reach. It is down to the discretion of individual police forces to offer people the chance to go on, for example, a driver improvement course, instead of accepting a conviction for careless driving. The person pays for the course and undertakes the rehabilitation and education instead. In the case of speeding, some police forces exercise their discretion and offer a place on a speed awareness course, instead of going to court and collecting the fine and the points. Again, the person pays for that course.

Mark Fisher (Labour, Stoke-on-Trent Central)

My hon. Friend refers to ''discretion''. Will he say slightly more about that? Who confers the discretion on the police forces that exercise it? What basis in law, if any, does it have at present?

David Kidney (Labour, Stafford)

I hope that the Minister can help me about the statutory basis. I am not aware that there is any beyond the fact that the police have discretion over whether to take cases to court. At present, in cases of careless driving, police forces sometimes offer the offender the opportunity—instead of going to court and facing a fine and penalty points—to pay to go on a training course and undertake rehabilitation and education at his or her expense. Driver improvement courses are subject to some kind of national guidance by police forces and there are registered driver trainers used under contract. I do not think they are available everywhere, but most places now offer them.

I want to raise the issue of how the new statutory provisions interact with the existing courses and the basis on which people will be offered courses. Driver improvement courses can be offered to anybody who is facing a careless driving offence. It might be their first offence, or their second or third. Under the clause, it is a precondition that the person must have at least seven points already on their driving licence before the court can direct that instead of a conviction, penalty points and a fine, they should undertake one of the courses. I question the logic of that. Should it not be first offenders who are offered the opportunity of rehabilitation and education and who are able to undertake courses instead of being prosecuted, rather than those who are at a stage where their licence is at risk? With seven points they would be getting close to disqualification.

For example, take a persistent speeder. To get at least seven points on their licence under the current law, they would need to have been caught speeding three times. In that case, they would have nine points on their licence. They could not get seven, because it is three points each time. So, when that person comes into court for the fourth time, they will have at least seven points on their licence. If they are convicted for a fourth time, they will get three more points. If all the offences have occurred within three years, they will be disqualified under the totting-up procedure.

The Bill offers an opportunity to avoid the penalty prescribed by law in relation to disqualification, rather than an opportunity to educate someone who has erred. I just wonder whether, as a matter of public policy, we would prefer to offer the education at the beginning, rather than giving people the chance to buy off disqualification because they are persistent offenders. That is why I ask about interaction and about why we offer the courses under those conditions rather than the conditions I mentioned.

Driver improvement courses and speed awareness courses are being offered on a discretionary and voluntary basis to first offenders at the moment. Must that stop if we pass this law, or can the courses continue to exist side by side with the law? If we say, ''No, courses will be offered only on the statutory basis in the future,'' I am concerned that we will prevent people from undergoing education and rehabilitation at the beginning, as they can at the moment in some parts of the country. I hope that the Minister can answer my questions.

I raised those issues for obvious reasons. The significance of widespread opportunities for rehabilitation and education is that they could be an extremely valuable tool in reducing future casualties on our roads, as long as we get the model right in relation both to the conditions in which the courts make directions and offer courses to offender, and to the content of the course.

In the RAC Foundation briefing to Members for Second Reading, there was a comment about the variable quality of the courses at present. In that respect, the Bill will make a big improvement. The other thing is public acceptability; whether those who are not offenders think that people are dodging the law by undertaking the courses or genuinely contributing to improving road safety, which benefits us all. That is why I raised these issues with the Minister, and I hope that he can explain and justify what is proposed.

Christopher Chope (Conservative, Christchurch)

The hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Kidney) has raised a number of issues, many of which I wanted to raise myself with the Minister. This is potentially a good and useful clause, which emphasises the importance of education and training in improving road safety. As the hon. Gentleman said, it builds on the initiative introduced by the Conservative Government in the Road Traffic Act 1991 to establish drink-drive rehabilitation courses. There are some pertinent questions about why the figure of seven to 11 points has been specified in the Bill, and I await the Minister's explanation on that and other questions that have been put to him.

One other question that I want to ask the Minister is why 12 months must elapse from the date of the order before there is a reduction in the number of penalty points. It is important that the courses are undertaken as quickly as possible, because, as soon as they are completed successfully, there is a better driver on the road than there was before. Surely the reduction in penalty points on the licence should take place as soon as the course has been completed. As I understand it, it would not take place until after a year, thereby reducing the individual's incentive to undertake the course quickly instead of waiting until the end of the one-year period, as only after a year will they see a reduction in the number of penalty points on the licence.

Mark Fisher (Labour, Stoke-on-Trent Central)

I agree with the thrust of the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford and indeed with the spirit of what the hon. Member for Christchurch said. However, before my hon. Friend the Minister replies, will he think about answers to a couple of questions?

This is a sensible clause that I hope we shall pass, and I shall certainly support it, but is it based on empirical evidence? Do the courses work? The hon. Gentleman said that they were of variable quality. Have the Government done any study of whether those undertaking them are deterred from reoffending? The idea behind them seems excellent, but there is no point in having a system of education and training if it simply defers the moment when a habitual careless driver or speeder meets his nemesis and is disqualified. Do the courses work and have the Government carried out any surveys?

David Jamieson (Labour, Plymouth, Devonport)

This has been a short but useful debate. The clause enables the courts to offer offenders convicted of certain specified offences the opportunity to undertake a retraining course, which will give them a remission of penalty points. The clause inserts into the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 new sections 30A, B, C and D, which enable the court to offer persons convicted of the offences of careless and inconsiderate driving, failing to comply with traffic signs or speeding the opportunity to pay for and undertake a retraining course in circumstances where the driver is not to be disqualified but his licence endorsed with penalty points. Those circumstances are that at least seven and no more than 11 points are to be taken into account at the time of sentence.

I accept the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford, but we must look at the worst cases first. People caught with a couple of offences are perhaps the ones we need to tackle first. If we later think that there is some merit in looking at those on the first occasion, we may do so.

The hon. Member for Christchurch asked why we set the number at 11. We did so because it is the maximum amount of points that one can get before being disqualified. That includes the points from the most recent offence. If the person has three points, they must have had at least eight points to get to 11. They cannot get a remission of their penalty points if the offence takes them over the top; to 12, 13 or 14 points.

David Kidney (Labour, Stafford)

I am interested in my hon. Friend the Minister's decision to ''take the worst first'', and give attention to them. A four-time speeder is the worst offender and rightly should be disqualified from driving to teach them a lesson, rather than being sent on a course to avoid that disqualification. That is what I think should happen to the worst.

David Jamieson (Labour, Plymouth, Devonport)

Perhaps I gave a bad example. Of course the worst get disqualified. That is absolutely correct. They cannot be given remission of their points. However, those who are moving in the wrong direction may be within redemption. That is what the clause is about; trying to redeem those who have sinned somewhat but have not proven to be serial sinners, although they may be en route to losing their licence.

On the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central, I will check what research has been done on the courses that are offered. I know from what he called empirical information, or what one might call anecdotal information, that people who have been on the courses are full of praise for them. They would not have been totally cynical, or they would not have agreed to do a course, but they may have gone into it with a bit of cynicism, but most people I have spoken to said that the course changed their attitude and was extremely valuable to them.

Mark Fisher (Labour, Stoke-on-Trent Central)

Once the clause is, as I hope, passed and becomes law, is it my hon. Friend's intention to issue national guidance so that there is uniformity among the courses and common high standards? As I understand from everything that has been said in the debate by my hon. Friends and others, the courses are being developed in a piecemeal fashion, so different courses have different standards.

David Jamieson (Labour, Plymouth, Devonport)

It is true that the courses have been developed on a piecemeal basis. I do not think that they have been any the worse for that, although some are indeed better than others. We have been finding our feet.

On page 29, clause 30C and 30D says that the national authority—the Secretary of State or the Secretary of State for Wales—will approve the courses and, in 30D, other provisions to ensure the quality of the courses are set out. As the courses roll out further and become more widely available to the courts, it is inevitable that there will be some standardisation throughout the country. The courses do not all need to be the same, but we need guidelines as to their quality. After all, although the offender will have penalty points taken off their licence, the courses will cost about £150 or £200. They are not a cheap option.

My hon. Friend the Member for Stafford asked about the police's driver improvement courses. They tend to last about a day or a day and a half, whereas we are envisaging a course that lasts 16 to 30 hours in total, on at least three separate days. That means that it will be much more intensive. It may be for offences other than speeding, perhaps something more complex, such as addressing the carelessness in someone's driving or their deficiencies.

Christopher Chope (Conservative, Christchurch)

If the courses are going to last for 16 to 30 hours and be spread over three days, surely the cost will be much greater than £150 to £200, unless the courses will be subsidised.

David Jamieson (Labour, Plymouth, Devonport)

I said that the costs are in that region at the moment. They may cost more. We must, however, ensure that we get good value for money. There is no intention to subsidise the courses. It is not the role of the taxpayer to subsidise people who break the law and then get a remission of their penalty points. It is absolutely proper that that is paid for by the offender not by the taxpayer.

The hon. Member for Christchurch mentioned that it takes ten months before the points come off the offender's licence. That is reasonable and sensible because, if a person had the points taken off their licence immediately, they might think that they could reoffend. They have to demonstrate over almost a year that they have not reoffended. If they reoffend during that period having completed their course, they may, after totting up, lose their licence. First, the person takes the course, and secondly, they receive some remission of points. The provision is a further incentive to that person, who will have almost another year in which to demonstrate that they have learned from the course. Otherwise, the points come winging their way back and could lead to a disqualification. It is right that that provision is included and the clause is valuable and useful.

David Kidney (Labour, Stafford)

I just want to check two final points with my hon. Friend the Minister. First, in answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central, will he provide an assurance that, just as the Transport Research Laboratory researched and evaluated the drink-drive rehabilitation courses, there will be similar research into and evaluation of the proposed courses? Secondly, does that scheme crowd out the existing discretionary schemes, including offers to first-time offenders? If so, will my hon. Friend the Minister look more closely at my concern that first-time offenders will lose the opportunity of education at the right time; when they first offend?

David Jamieson (Labour, Plymouth, Devonport)

I do not think that the scheme will crowd out those courses. The clause provides in specific circumstances for certain courses. My hon. Friend just reminded me of something rather important when he mentioned drink-driving, as the provision would not be appropriate for drink-drivers. They do not receive any remission of points; they face an immediate ban. The provision would be inappropriate for a person in those circumstances. My hon. Friend will see that some of the other drink-driving issues are covered in the clause that we are about to address.

Christopher Chope (Conservative, Christchurch)

On getting access to those courses, as the clause is drafted one would be able to gain access to them only through the court. If, for example, a driver has three fixed penalty speeding fines, giving him nine points, how would he get his case before a court, thereby enabling him to get on one of those courses and reduce those points? Otherwise, it is all done administratively. As I understand it, the virtue of the driver improvement and speed awareness courses that the police offer is that they are done as a trade-off at the point where the police meet the offender.

David Jamieson (Labour, Plymouth, Devonport)

If somebody already had nine points on their licence and they committed another offence that meant another three or more points on their licence, the provision would not be available to them. The provision covers what a court and not the police may impose.

Christopher Chope (Conservative, Christchurch)

So if somebody has six points on their licence and they incur another fixed penalty for speeding, they should, rather than accept the fixed penalty notice, elect to go court to access the provision. Is that what the Minister is saying; that one must go to court before one is eligible for the improvement to driving that will flow from those courses?

David Jamieson (Labour, Plymouth, Devonport)

As the clause is written, that is the case.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Clause 24 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 25 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 26 - Driving tests

Mark Fisher (Labour, Stoke-on-Trent Central)

I beg to move amendment No. 73, in clause 26, page 35, line 43, at end insert—

'(1A) In subsection (1) (tests of competence to drive), after the word ''requirement'', insert '', has received first aid training''.

(1B) After subsection (1A) insert—

''(1B) An applicant shall be considered to have received first aid training if on the date the application for the licence is made he has received the training prescribed by virtue of subsection (3) below,''.'.

Kevin Hughes (Labour, Doncaster North)

With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 74, in clause 26, page 36, line 4, at end insert

'and

(c) after paragraph (c) insert—

''(d) the nature of the first aid training for the purposes of this section and section 36 of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 and the administrative arrangements for receiving such training,''.'.

Mark Fisher (Labour, Stoke-on-Trent Central)

The amendments come rather neatly after that short debate on clause 24, where we explored how knowledge and understanding of behaviour on the road can make for a better driver. The amendments seek to add a further element to driving tests, which are the subject of clause 26. They would make knowledge and understanding of first aid a requirement for anybody applying for a driving licence. At present, there are some brief remarks about first aid in the highway code, on which every new driver is tested, but they are cursory. When I was tested—admittedly, rather a long time ago—nobody asked me about first aid. Although all new drivers must gain a working knowledge of the highway code in order to pass, I doubt whether many people are informed about first aid by driving instructors or tested on it when they take their test.

Knowledge of first aid is important. It would ensure that anyone on the road would be prepared for the consequences of an accident, which may be horrendous or, ultimately, fatal.

Greg Knight (Conservative, East Yorkshire)

I have some sympathy with the amendments, but I would not wish the whole system to become over-bureaucratic and costly. What level of first aid training does the hon. Gentleman envisage, and what cost does he think would be added to the fee that a member of the public would have to pay to take their test?

Mark Fisher (Labour, Stoke-on-Trent Central)

Those perfectly reasonable questions flush out a confession from me that the amendments are intended to probe the idea of such a requirement being added to the test. If they found sympathy with the Minister, more work would have to be done on the rigour of the test and therefore all the consequential items, such as cost. However, the Government have not accepted that we need more than what is in the code at present.

Much rests on our ability to deal with an accident. Many of us drive to our constituencies on motorways. I hope that none of us are involved in an accident or called to the scene of one. Most accidents that result in fatalities involve blocking of the air supply, which can kill within four minutes. That is well inside the time that it takes the emergency services to get to most motorway accidents.

The emergency services are wonderful. One of the busiest parts of a large motorway, the M6, goes straight past my constituency and the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford. The North Staffordshire hospital and the Stafford General hospital receive many—too many—trauma cases from the M6.

Anything that we as drivers can do to assist in such traumatic events must surely be seen as pro-social. I ask members of the Committee whether, as experienced drivers who do literally thousands of miles every year, they are absolutely confident, having read the highway code, about how to behave to minimise loss of life or traumatic stress if they were at the scene of an accident.

After more than 40 years of driving, I certainly do not feel confident; I would be nonplussed. I hope that I would behave calmly and sensibly in such a crisis, but I know that I would behave inexpertly. Tabling the amendment has made me rather ashamed of the fact that I would not be of great help to anyone involved in such accidents. I ought to be; I ought to go on a course and improve my ability. Whether I am too old a dog to learn such tricks, I do not know.

Thinking about the amendment has made me realise that I am not really up to it, and I ask Committee members whether they are confident that they would know what to do in the event of an accident. If the answer to that question is no, I hope that the Minister will consider the matter seriously. She may not accept these probing amendments, but I hope that she will return on Report with something drafted by her officials. The matter is very important, and it would be a small, helpful strengthening of the driving licence if it incorporated a more rigorous test of first aid skills.

David Wilshire (Conservative, Spelthorne)

My starting point is the same in principle. I want to agree with the hon. Gentleman because his points are absolutely right. However, I am not sure on two counts whether the amendment is the right way to deal with the matter. I speak as someone who for 11 years of my life was greatly involved in a large scout group that seriously and regularly dealt with first aid matters. That was quite a few years ago now but it is still relevant. My experience gives me insight into why I have some caution about what the hon. Gentleman says.

I am concerned that we are, rightly, identifying a general responsibility that we all have, irrespective of whether we are drivers or not. The question could be applied all over the place, and we need to be a little careful in taking something technical like a driving test and bolting some general responsibilities of society on to it. One might say that people ought to know something about first aid if they drive, but all of us, if we were given time, could come up with a list of other things that it would be sensible to bolt on as a general responsibility.

Mark Fisher (Labour, Stoke-on-Trent Central)

The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point, but would he accept that there is already a relevant paragraph in the driving licence? All the amendments would do is strengthen that and make it slightly more rigorous.

David Wilshire (Conservative, Spelthorne)

I understand that. That is why I started out wanting to support the hon. Gentleman, but I am not sure that I shall end up doing so. One of the reasons for that is that the responsibility is a general one, and I am not sure that we should specify that drivers should know about it. That rather implies that other people need not do so.

My main concern, however, comes in response to the hon. Gentleman's question of whether we would know what to do. He would see it as a justification for supporting the amendment if we did not. All those years ago I learned two things; they may not be what the hon. Gentleman would expect but I still think that they are still more important than anything else if we go down that route. What I learned is more important than the immediate response of stopping, leaping out of our cars and doing what we can to help, which is what we would instinctively all want to do.

The hon. Gentleman says that we should be more skilled at doing that, which does tend to put in people's mind that the first thing they should do is stop, get out and try to help. I am not sure that I would want to encourage that, because the first thing that was drummed into my mind was that the first thing one needs to do is to ensure there is not another accident. That sometimes means that people should not go to the aid of the person that they think needs help. If people attend to that person and allow further accidents to occur behind them, what begins as a feeling that one ought to help one person ends with six, seven or however many needing help, and a multiple pile-up on the motorway. That is a classic example of how, by attending to a person who is already injured, someone can easily take their mind off what is even more important than an accident involving one person: the possibility of a load more.

David Kidney (Labour, Stafford)

Having undertaken a little first aid training in the past, I can happily tell the hon. Gentleman that the first thing people learn is to assess the situation and to make sure the scene is safe.

David Wilshire (Conservative, Spelthorne)

I do not dispute that for one moment, but that is the first issue in explaining why I have a degree of nervousness about this amendment.

The other issue about which one has to be careful when telling people that they need to know something about first aid is the phrase, ''Do you have some sticking plasters or Savlon in the car?'' I am not advertising; it just happens to be what I tend to use. All these items come to mind as ''first aid''. One of the other things that is drummed into those of us who get involved in these sorts of situations—I gather, as the hon. Gentleman says, that the first thing one is told is to be careful—is that there is a real risk that people with a relatively minor amount of first aid knowledge that probably could be acquired under his proposal will leap out to help somebody who is seriously injured in a car crash and will make matters worse; the broken back syndrome or clearing airways, for example. In theory, they are easy, but it is possible to kill someone in the process. In this case, ensuring that there is not another accident while waiting for 10 minutes can often be more helpful.

I understand and have huge sympathy with the point; yes, all of us, whether we are drivers or not, should have a greater knowledge of what to do. However, with the amount of add-on that I would expect, we could not only make it possible for further accidents to happen, but add to the number of fatalities when we do not intend to do so. I do not mean that unkindly and I am not trying to rubbish what the hon. Gentleman says, but as I listen and think, I am not sure that this is the way to go about something that in theory we all ought to be more concerned about.

Greg Knight (Conservative, East Yorkshire)

I understand my hon. Friend's concerns about this, but I have to tell him that I am in the unenviable position of finding myself between him and the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central. I start from the premise that greater knowledge is generally a good thing. When looking at people who have control of something that weighs two tonnes and is capable of travelling at 80 mph it seems to be common sense that drivers should have some basic knowledge of first aid. One could argue that pedestrians should have the same knowledge and perhaps this is something that we should consider bringing into the school curriculum. Like the hon. Gentleman, I am not sure that this is the correct mechanism with which to bring this about.

I would be interested to hear what the Minister has to say, because the greater knowledge one has of first aid when one is in a situation where one is likely to encounter people who need treatment can only be a good thing. I wondered what our European partners are doing in this regard and whether there was any development there. I was surprised last year—[Interruption.] What did my hon. Friend say?

David Wilshire (Conservative, Spelthorne)

I was just saying to myself that I hope this is not a plea for a further Brussels directive on something.

Greg Knight (Conservative, East Yorkshire)

Far be it from me to plea for a Brussels directive, but I do think that we can learn from other nation states and should continue to do so. I was about to say, before the sotto voce mumblings reached my ear, that I was in Spain towards the end of last year. I was surprised to see that they now have a requirement that every vehicle must carry within it a yellow jacket. In the event of a breakdown, when it is necessary to get out of the car and stand on the highway, the jacket must be worn. It seemed to be a sensible idea, particularly bearing in mind the number of people who are injured or killed when their car breaks down and they find themselves having to change a wheel or whatever at the side of the road. In the last five years I have owned two vehicles—a BMW and a Vauxhall—where a first aid kit was part of the standard package of the car. I say well done BMW and Vauxhall. Perhaps all the manufacturers should provide a first aid kit with the vehicles they sell, but it is no good doing that if the driver does not know what to do with it. Therefore, as I look at the amendments, I find myself moving more towards the Stoke-on-Trent position and away from my hon. Friend's, because knowledge here could save lives. I am well aware that in some cases a little knowledge can be a bad thing, but the Government should at least do some work to see whether it should be made part of the driving test.

Christopher Chope (Conservative, Christchurch)

Will my right hon. Friend take note of the fact that drivers are not the only road users? There are also pedestrians and cyclists. As most accidents take place in built-up areas and quite often involve pedestrians and children, why should all road users not be required to have the same qualifications?

Greg Knight (Conservative, East Yorkshire)

That is a fair point. It is certainly something that the Government should look at. Best practice dictates that those on the public highway should have some knowledge of basic first aid.

It is not strictly within the ambit of the amendments, but I hope that you will allow me to mention this in passing, Mr. Hughes. I also feel that the driving test should do more to ensure that motorists have a basic knowledge of the vehicle that they are driving. I well remember three years ago noticing a car full of young girls stopped by the side of the road, with steam coming out of the bonnet. The girls were very upset and agitated because they realised that they had broken down and thought that there was a fatal problem with the car. They were near the car park of a public house where there was a tap. I stopped to make inquiries and asked them to open the bonnet, and it was simply a question of topping up the radiator. So I was able to show them where the tap was, wait until the car had cooled down and send them on their way.

There are many instances where, because of a minor fault, a car may cause an obstruction and be a potential accident risk. If the driver knew, for example, that he should check that the plug leads were all in place or how to carry out some of the basic maintenance jobs that anyone who has tinkered with a car will know about, that knowledge would be useful.

I hope that the Minister will respond positively to the points made by the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central, even if she tells the Committee that, for various reasons, she does not want to go down that route.

John Thurso (Liberal Democrat, Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross)

I have among my papers the Second Reading brief from the British Red Cross, which answers some of the questions that hon. Gentlemen have posed about what it might be considered practical to include. It says:

''The test itself would be basic and include only the essential knowledge for dealing with the most likely scenarios caused by road accidents: scene management, blocked airway, bleeding and shock.''

It goes on to say:

''Many of the skills required could be learnt in as little as two hours and the British Red Cross would work in collaboration with partner organisations to advise on how this might best be done.''

Therefore, clearly a relatively brief introduction is envisaged.

The critical point is that some 57 per cent. of fatalities after an accident take place before the emergency services arrive, and it is estimated that about 80 per cent. could be saved by the judicious intervention of first aid. That is why I believe that the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central is right to table this probing amendment and to draw the matter to the Government's attention. I hope that they will find an appropriate balance between making the Bill too burdensome and insisting that people have some knowledge of first aid.

In that regard I want to make two points. First, it was mentioned that pedestrians and cyclists should also have first aid knowledge. However, as it is usually the pedestrian, cyclist or child who has been hit by the car, it is probably more useful to give the driver first aid training.

Christopher Chope (Conservative, Christchurch)

If a pedestrian is knocked down by a car in an urban setting, perhaps on a pedestrian crossing, surely the driver will be in a state of shock. There will be other pedestrians around.

Greg Knight (Conservative, East Yorkshire)

The driver might not stop.

Christopher Chope (Conservative, Christchurch)

Indeed. It is important that everyone who uses the road has a basic knowledge of first aid.

John Thurso (Liberal Democrat, Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross)

It is important that everyone has a basic knowledge of first aid. In many organisations it is obligatory. Whether it is imposable sensibly, other than via a test for drivers, is another matter.

The second point is that, in a work situation, there is a requirement for a minimum number of trained first-aiders to a much higher standard than the basic that is being suggested in the Bill. I cannot remember the exact figure, but it is so many per 50 employees in the work force. A considerable number of road users are commercial ones; lorry drivers, bus drivers and so on. I wonder whether, as a first step, it is worth considering whether the public service vehicle and heavy goods vehicle licences might benefit from including first aid as a requirement. Perhaps they already do.

Charlotte Atkins (Labour, Staffordshire Moorlands)

We have had a useful debate. We exposed a few differences of view, not least about European directives. An EU standard is set out in the directive about the content of the test. It includes an element of first aid. We satisfy that requirement by putting a question in the theory test, as do other member states. There is no full-blown directive on the issue, but it is set out as an EU standard in the directive, so Europe has already spoken on the issue.

The amendments have a laudable aim. I am surprised that my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central, who has raised four children, is not aware of basic first aid. I would have thought that having a knowledge of first aid is a basic requirement of being a parent; not that I do, because I was never able to take my badge in first aid as a Brownie or a Guide. Those organisations do a marvellous job training youngsters in first aid.

To be of real value, first aid skills need to be held by people who are both competent and confident in the use of first aid principles and are willing to update them on a regular basis. In some circumstances, a little knowledge can be a bad thing. Many organisations run first aid courses and the amendments draw attention to the valuable role that those organisations play.

We should consider the question of commercial drivers taking first aid courses as a first step, because they can be an asset in a motorway accident. Despite the fact that we in Staffordshire have a fantastic ambulance service, my hon. Friend is right that most ambulances would not arrive in eight minutes. That can be crucial to the survival of one of the people involved in the accident.

We are concerned about imposing an additional burden on learner drivers and those seeking to upgrade their driving licences. Part of that burden would be financial. I accept the point that my hon. Friend made. Clearly he has not looked into the costs of the measure but, as with most fixed costs, the first aid training fees would impact particularly on those with low incomes. We want to avoid that. It would be extremely difficult to justify that additional cost on road safety grounds, although I accept that first aid courses would be valuable for other reasons as well.

The purpose of a driving test is, clearly, to establish a person's competence to drive. As I said, we have included questions on first aid and accident handling in the driving theory test. The Government believe that that is the most appropriate way to test candidate's knowledge of first aid. We should encourage drivers to take up first aid courses, but not as a requirement of the test. It would be grossly unfair to deny someone a driving licence when they have passed their theory and practical tests, solely because they have not received the prescribed first aid training. I recognise that it is a probing amendment, and I hope that my hon. Friend will withdraw it.

Greg Knight (Conservative, East Yorkshire)

The Minister has answered the debate well, but I have three points. First, the EU directive is a minimalist requirement, so will she assure the Committee that the Government will keep an eye out for best practice overseas? There may be some developments in other countries where, by making sure that drivers know a little bit more about first aid, lives are saved. Secondly, will she touch upon the desirability of ensuring that every driving test applicant knows the basics of car operation? With that, if they were to find themselves stranded because a minor fault has developed on their car, they would be more likely to rectify it and move on their way. I have forgotten the third point.

Charlotte Atkins (Labour, Staffordshire Moorlands)

I am grateful for those remarks. We will keep an eye out for best practice, because it is important to raise those issues.

I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central will withdraw his amendment. We want to explore the subject of the amendment, not just because it makes sense for people to know first aid as drivers, pedestrians, and cyclists in particular, as they are likely to come off their bike, but it is a skill that we need in our everyday lives. I have been in domestic situations in which I wished I had had more competence in first aid.

Mark Fisher (Labour, Stoke-on-Trent Central)

I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Minister for her reply. I must confess that I was steeling myself for her saying that the amendment was defective; I was a little taken aback for being told that I am a defective parent.

Charlotte Atkins (Labour, Staffordshire Moorlands)

I thought my hon. Friend accepted that.

Mark Fisher (Labour, Stoke-on-Trent Central)

I am very self-critical, but I will pass that comment on to my children, and see whether they agree with the Minister. She is an old and dear friend, and we have adjoining constituencies. I suspect that she did not mean it to be a cruel remark, but I will consult my children, all of whom are also probably inadequate at first aid, in spite of their having passed their driving tests many years ago.

Charlotte Atkins (Labour, Staffordshire Moorlands)

My child would agree that I am a defective parent.

Mark Fisher (Labour, Stoke-on-Trent Central)

I was slightly more disappointed by the thrust of the Minister's rejection. At times, it veered towards the point made by the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) that we should leave first aid to the experts. I would have been slightly happier had she left the door a bit more ajar, and recognised that the requirement in the driving test is pretty loose. Most of us can get on to the road and pass the technical, manual sides of the driving test without knowing much about first aid. Perhaps I misinterpreted the Minister's remarks, but I hope that she will recognise that things are not perfect at present. The amendments may not be precisely what is needed to toughen up and beef up the requirements, but I hope that she will keep an open mind on the matter.

An interesting point was made by the hon. Member for Caithness and Kinross—

John Thurso (Liberal Democrat, Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross)

Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross.

Mark Fisher (Labour, Stoke-on-Trent Central)

The name of the hon. Gentleman's constituency is a poem in itself. I should know it by now. He made a good point about commercial practice.

Charlotte Atkins (Labour, Staffordshire Moorlands)

My hon. Friend did not listen. In fact, I said that I wanted to think about his amendments, as he made a valuable suggestion. Certainly, first aid courses for commercial drivers are something to consider. I accept that the theory test could be beefed up to ensure that drivers have more basic knowledge. My point was that more of us—drivers, parents, pedestrians, cyclists—should consider taking first aid courses.

Mark Fisher (Labour, Stoke-on-Trent Central)

I am glad to have that robust reassurance, and I suspect that the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross is as well. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Christopher Chope (Conservative, Christchurch)

I have just one question for the Minister. Can she explain the circumstances in which she will use the regulation-making power being granted by clause 26?

Charlotte Atkins (Labour, Staffordshire Moorlands)

The clause will introduce more flexibility in regulation-making powers in respect of driving tests. For instance, we would try to ensure that we adopted the user-pay principle for fees. At present, some 45 per cent. of practical test appointments are for re-tests, for which there is only the standard fee. The clause would enable greater flexibility so that we could conduct business in respect of driving tests in a better way.

Another example is driving schools booking many tests. The current legislation is very much based on the old-style idea of the test applicant booking just one appointment, whereas increasingly, because of the way in which commercial drivers work and are trained, it may be sensible for a driving school to book a whole range of driving tests.

There may also be situations in which an examiner, having seen a test candidate's licence, would want to ask that it be surrendered. The clause would allow us to clamp down on driver licence and identity fraud. The new provision will enable examiners to remove suspect licences from circulation if checks reveal a problem. It provides more flexibility and is a sensible way forward. It will ensure that the people who create more costs for the Driving Standards Agency, rather than all other applicants, bear them.

Christopher Chope (Conservative, Christchurch)

I am grateful to the Minister for that explanation. Can she confirm that the powers would not be used to enable bulk buying at a discount or block booking by large driving schools, which might result in disadvantage to small, individual-person driving schools? She mentioned bulk buying and block booking, which immediately raise the spectre of discounted rates and the squeezing out of small businesses and individual operators. Can the Minister assure us that the powers being taken under the clause will not be used in a discriminatory way against small, one-man band—or one-person band—driving schools.

Charlotte Atkins (Labour, Staffordshire Moorlands)

I can certainly give the hon. Gentleman that assurance. Instead of all-or-nothing rearrangements of appointments, it will be possible for partial refunds to be made. At present it is all or nothing; a full refund or nothing. Clearly it would make sense for the Driving Standards Agency to be able to deduct an administration fee in the 45 per cent. of practical test appointments that are rearrangements, so those who insist on rebooking the appointment will pay a small fee. That is the idea, but I assure the hon. Gentleman that it will not discriminate against small driving schools.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 26 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 27 - Disqualification until test is passed

Charlotte Atkins (Labour, Staffordshire Moorlands)

I beg to move amendment No. 70, in clause 27, page 37, line 17, leave out subsection (6) and insert—

'(6) After subsection (13) insert—

''(13A) Before making an order under subsection (3) above the Secretary of State must consult with such representative organisations as he thinks fit.''.'.

This is a technical amendment that has arisen because, sadly, there has been a drafting mistake. The amendment provides for the wording in subsection (6) to be removed and replaced with a provision that requires the Secretary of State to consult such organisations as he thinks fit before making an order under section 36 of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988.

Subsection (6) of the clause amends section 88 of the Act to require that regulations under section 36 are subject to consultation with the interested parties. However, the subsection is technically wrong, because section 88 relates to regulations made under part III of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988, whereas subsection (6) falls within part II of the Act. It is merely a technical amendment, which arose out of an error, and I ask the Committee to accept it.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 27, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 28 - Granting of full licence

Greg Knight (Conservative, East Yorkshire)

I want to ask a constituency question, which I hope the Minister will answer on this clause or the next one. A constituent who is going overseas has a licence that is valid but registered to him at his old address. He has just moved house. He has asked me whether he should send his licence off now or wait until he comes back from holiday.

Can the Minister tell us, for the record, what the average turnaround time is for someone submitting a licence merely to register a change of address? In other words, how long will my constituent be without his licence if he posts it off to register the new address? Will it be a couple of weeks or longer?

Christopher Chope (Conservative, Christchurch)

Paragraph 88 of the notes on clauses says:

''The power to impose conditions on licences would be used, for example, in relation to a driver who had previously been disqualified from driving for a drink driving offence, but had agreed to a court order allowing him to participate in an alcohol ignition interlock programme (as provided for by Clause 14). The condition would require the driver to drive only in accordance with the alcohol ignition interlock programme.''

That is an example, but the clause seems to grant much wider powers. Unless I am corrected by the Minister, I believe that one of those powers would be to force learner drivers off the road if they had not passed their test by a specified time. We have introduced similar powers in relation to motor cyclists. Can she confirm that the power in the clause could be used to force a person with L-plates to take a test, for which they could have their driving licence removed if they failed?

Charlotte Atkins (Labour, Staffordshire Moorlands)

I do not believe that is the case. A learner driver who had passed their test would certainly have to apply for their full licence within a two-year period, but there is no provision or intention that we should require a learner driver to pass their test within two years. The issue is that the driver must apply for the full licence once they have passed their test.

I am informed that the turnaround time for the new licence is 10 to 15 days. I am sure that the constituent of the right hon. Member for East Yorkshire will make a decision based on his period of time away. Presumably, if he is changing address, he will not be required to pay a fee for his new licence.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 28 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 29 - Compulsory surrender of old-form licences

John Thurso (Liberal Democrat, Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross)

I beg to move amendment No. 69, in clause 29, page 38, line 21, leave out

'pays such fee (if any) as specified by the order, and (b)'.

Kevin Hughes (Labour, Doncaster North)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments:

No. 68, in clause 30, page 39, line 13, leave out subsection (1).

No. 72, in clause 30, page 39, line 24, leave out 'that Act' and insert

'the Road Traffic Act 1988'.

John Thurso (Liberal Democrat, Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross)

The three amendments, the first of which is to clause 29 and the others of which are to clause 30, essentially address the same question. Why do the Government wish to change the fee arrangement, and what is their thinking behind that? Amendment No. 69 would, in subsection (1)(4)(a) of clause 29, which introduces the ability for the Secretary of State to charge a fee, take that out and removes the words

''pays such fee (if any) as is specified by the order''.

Amendment No. 68 would remove subsection (1) of clause 30, which would have the effect of returning the legislation to its current state so that

''any licence granted under this subsection shall be granted free of charge''.

Amendment No. 70 is consequential on that, in simply rewording subsection (1).

Under the current regime, having passed our test and paid the necessary fees, we are granted a licence, which 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 was made to the system of charging. Now there is the possibility that new forms of licence may be introduced at any time in the future, and in any form. We do not know what we might be providing for; the new licence could be a card with a photograph and a chip, and, with the way ID cards are going, might contain DNA and all sorts of other jolly things.

Different Ministers and Secretaries of State could decide on a regular basis that changes should be made to the system, and on each occasion a person around my age, who had happily passed a test some years ago, paid their money and got their licence, would have a new charge imposed on them that had not existed in the past. That may or may not be right, and I want to test the Government's thinking.

During the last short debate, on which I did not intervene, because I knew I had these amendments, the Minister said that we should have the user pays—

It being twenty-five minutes past Eleven o'clock, The Chairman adjourned the Committee without the Question being put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned till this day at half-past Two o'clock. The Committee consisted of the following Members:

Standing Committee A

Clause 29 - Compulsory surrender of old-form licences

Peter Pike (Labour, Burnley)

I remind the Committee that with this we are discussing the following amendments:

No. 68, in clause 30, page 39, line 13, leave out subsection (1).

No. 72, in clause 30, page 39, line 24, leave out 'that Act' and insert

'the Road Traffic Act 1988'.

John Thurso (Liberal Democrat, Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross)

I was seeking to persuade the Committee that, in respect of fees, it would be appropriate to leave the Bill where it is. The amendments would do that by removing subsection (4)(a), the fee-paying part of the clause, and clause 30(1). I had begun to refer to the comment made by the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, the hon. Member for Staffordshire, Moorlands (Charlotte Atkins), that the Government were seeking to impose the principle of the user pays. I have no particular argument with that concept, but I ask her to expand on it.

A wide variety of options was suggested in the consultation paper published earlier this year on proposed fees. One included the possibility of very low fees or, if I remember correctly, no fees for young people acquiring a provisional licence, the idea being that they should be encouraged to do so and that a low fee would encourage them. That may or may not be the case, but the consultation subscribed not to a principle that the user pays specifically for the service that they have used, but to the principle that the generality of service users across the piece should provide revenue to cover the costs, which seems somewhat different.

For example, if a company provides a service or product for which there is a healthy market and keen competition therefore exists to keep the end-user price down, it will be under considerable pressure to be as efficient as possible in controlling the cost of providing the product or service. In this case, however, there is a monopoly. There is only one provider of the licence, and it sets the fee. Whether the fee is set in the context of the keenest possible costs and the minimum recovered or in the context of low efficiency, which may mean that it is higher than necessary, is entirely decided by the people who are in charge of controlling the costs. I would say in parenthesis that my comments are in no way intended to be disparaging of those who work in that service; I merely give a hypothetical situation. If there were laxity and the costs went up, the fees could go up. There would be no control.

The concept that has been followed in the past is that all Government revenue goes to the Consolidated Fund and all expenses come out of it. In such circumstances, if one considers the consolidated payments that drivers make, one could argue that they have already paid enough and that they are entitled to receive free of charge what they have always received free of charge.

I would be interested in hearing from the Minister what the Government's thinking is on that. At what point will they cease to charge for all the different things that come in? As I said this morning, we may be entering a situation, particularly in respect of clause 30, in which all sorts of new technologies come in quickly, as technology does, resulting in a series of new licences. Whereas with my old paper licence I could confidently expect to make it to my 70th birthday without any charge, I could now be faced with a charge every five or 10 years.

I shall listen closely to what the Minister says, and I am open to persuasion. In a previous debate, I was persuaded by her to support an amendment that I had not intended to support. I leave it entirely in her hands to give me some reassurance, and I will listen to her comments and make my judgment about what to do at the end of them.

Greg Knight (Conservative, East Yorkshire)

Subject to what the Minister has to say, I rise to support the amendment of the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (John Thurso), who represents half of Scotland. He made several excellent points. The more one reflects on this debate, the more one is forced to ask why the clause appears in the Bill. Is it in any way related to an EU directive that will require the Minister to call in our old licences and issue them in a new format? Incidentally, I was not aware that the hon. Gentleman was approaching his 70th birthday, but I am sure that we all wish him well.

The question is why individual drivers should have to pay a fee because the state now does not like the form of licence that it issued previously. In essence, that is what the clause is about. The hon. Gentleman made a very good case, and unless the Minister advances an argument that I have not thought of, I am minded to support him.

David Wilshire (Conservative, Spelthorne)

I want to confine my comments wholly to the amendment. There is a clause stand part issue that is separate from the amendment, but I shall, if I may, deal with it later.

I have had to think carefully before saying that I agree with the Liberal Democrats, as I wonder whether I really understand what they are saying and whether they will say the same thing or something entirely different tomorrow. For the moment, however, I will settle for what they have proposed. As long as it stays on the table, I support its principle for the reasons given by my right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire (Mr. Knight).

We do not choose to have a driving licence; the law requires us to have one and it determines the form. There is no choice and no discretion; we cannot go to somebody else for it and we have to have it. Thus, if somebody has said ''This is what you must have in order to drive a vehicle and you have got it'' while the person supplying it says, ''But actually we have changed our minds; you ought to have something else and you don't have any choice in the matter,'' I do not see why we should be forced to pay for the new version. In the open market, if one buys a product because one considers it a good idea, but a subsequent model becomes available and one freely decides to buy that, it is not unreasonable to pay for the replacement. On the other hand, if we do not choose to acquire a product, but the issuer says they have a better idea and will force us to have another product, without which we cannot otherwise drive our car, we should not be forced to pay for it.

We are looking at yet another stealth tax, because the Government, having decided to change their mind, can dump on the taxpayer a charge that they should bear out of general taxation, being open and honest about the matter. I therefore have no difficulty in supporting the amendment.

Christopher Chope (Conservative, Christchurch)

We are almost reaching unanimity. I support the amendment, and if the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross had not tabled it, I would have tabled a similar one.

The Government are trying to undermine a principle. Once one has obtained a licence for a fixed period, one must not only surrender it, but pay for the privilege of having a replacement supplied under a requirement from the European Union or from this Government. It is wrong in principle that someone who has a licence and looks after it perfectly well should have to pay for a replacement. That is not what happens with bank cards or any other document when the provider decides to replace it. Replacement of a licence because the driver is at fault is a completely different matter. If the clause is not amended, it will amount—the Minister is waiting for me to say this—to another stealth tax.

Charlotte Atkins (Labour, Staffordshire Moorlands)

When the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Authority was set up by the party now on the Opposition Benches, it was set up as an organisation that paid for its activities out of its own fee structure. Therefore, it is effectively self-financing. The hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross mentioned the consultation that has just finished, in which the DVLA explored a range of options, including its fee structure. It is now conducting several meetings with various stakeholders, including Age Concern, motoring organisations, classic car collector groups, local authorities and so on, to decide the best way in which to proceed with fees, and it is likely that other consultations will take place.

We must consider where the money will come from, and it could come from new licences. Some 15 million drivers have already exchanged their paper licences for photo licences and paid a fee. Others, in various ways, have changed their licences without paying a fee. We must then consider whether it is sensible to introduce a fee for exchanging the old paper licence for the new plastic one. No decision has yet been made, but as Opposition Members have pointed out, the clause gives the Secretary of State the option to make that change. If fees were not taken for the issue of licences, other charges could be introduced. For instance, an annual charge on someone keeping a vehicle could help to cross-subsidise new driving licences.

Why does the DVLA want to speed up the transition from paper licences to the new licence? It is largely an issue of security. Presently, three different types of paper licence are in circulation, all of which are valid. The security of paper licences is not as robust as that of plastic card licences. In the first place, holders of paper licences were not subject to the same identity checks as are currently standard for photocard licence holders. Paper licences were generally issued on the basis of a self-declaration from the owner, whereas photocard holders must produce documentary evidence, such as birth certificates or passports.

If the DVLA decided that it wanted to recall the three different types of paper licence, the timing would be carefully designed to coincide with the introduction of another initiative—for instance, a much more secure licence, possibly containing a chip. The obvious time to consider a full recall of the present paper licence would be when the paper counterpart is abolished, for which the Bill provides. Indeed, we might move to even smarter electronic cards, given the present technology.

Greg Knight (Conservative, East Yorkshire)

If the Minister is saying that the security checks that were in place for the older form of licences were not as rigorous, we should be given some evidence that there is a need for the change. How much abuse and fraud take place? How many cases have there been? What do the police conclude is the scale of the problem? Just to state that the security checks were not as good previously as they are now is not a basis for making this big change. I was a little alarmed at her opening remarks, in which she appeared to say, ''The consultation process is under way. We have drawn no conclusions yet, but we want the Secretary of State to have the power to make the change in case we make the decision.'' If the consultation process is genuine, should it not be allowed to run its course before a decision is made? If new legislation is then needed, the Government should seek it at that moment. They should not put it in a Bill just in case the consultation goes in a particular direction.

Peter Pike (Labour, Burnley)

Order. I think that that intervention has run a little longer than it should.

Charlotte Atkins (Labour, Staffordshire Moorlands)

This is an enabling power. I appreciate the right hon. Gentleman's concern about it, but it makes sense to include it in the Bill. Clearly, we are discussing what is partly a security measure. I am informed that there is huge abuse of paper licences, which is why the Bill says that driving examiners should be able to pull in licences if they consider them suspect.

There is evidence of abuse against the paper licence. Disqualified drivers continue to drive using other people's paper licences. As there is no photocard, it is quite easy for people to switch paper licences. As I said, applicants for paper licences did not have to identify themselves by means of any other form of secure identification such as a passport.

David Wilshire (Conservative, Spelthorne)

Again, the Minister has said that there is evidence. I do not wish to press the matter, because the information is patently not readily to hand, but may I ask her to write to the Committee, giving full details of the evidence and the number of prosecutions?

Charlotte Atkins (Labour, Staffordshire Moorlands)

I am certainly happy to do that, and I would hope to do so fairly quickly. The hon. Gentleman will appreciate, however, that the circulation of different forms of licensing means that there is likely to be an element of fraud.

Greg Knight (Conservative, East Yorkshire)

Can the Minister tell the Committee what percentage of motorists have each form of licence? Is it not the case that the new form of licence is growing because—this point relates to an intervention I made this morning—as people move house and send back their old licence, they are issued with the new type? Surely by effluxion over time, the old form of licences will be greatly reduced in any event.

Charlotte Atkins (Labour, Staffordshire Moorlands)

That is certainly the case. When someone moves house, they do not have to be charged for the issue of a new photo licence. It appears that 20 million drivers have the photocard and 18 million still have the paper form, whichever one they have. That is the balance. It will clearly take a good number of years for the paper licence to drift out of circulation. Some people will keep their paper licence in better condition than I kept mine.

Mark Fisher (Labour, Stoke-on-Trent Central)

Will my hon. Friend clarify two points? Is the information that the plastic licence holds precisely the same as is held on the paper licence? I was under the impression that the plastic licence did not include any points or penalties that had been incurred. On a related point, will the information on the new licence be part of the information on the Government's planned individual ID card?

Charlotte Atkins (Labour, Staffordshire Moorlands)

The plastic card has a paper form that goes with it. That is where the penalty points and such are recorded. We have a sample of the card here—I prepared it earlier, ''Blue Peter'' style—so I can show the Committee the photo licence and the counterpart. No offences have been recorded on this particular counterpart, and I am sure that there are none on my hon. Friend's licence either. As far as the ID card is concerned, that is clearly some time away, as he will know.

Peter Pike (Labour, Burnley)

Order. May I ask the Minister to address the Chair, because Hansard finds things difficult when she is facing the other way?

Charlotte Atkins (Labour, Staffordshire Moorlands)

I apologise. The ID card, to which my hon. Friend referred, is a separate exercise that we are clearly still consulting on. At the moment, it is not part of the DVLA plans. The licence is not currently expected to be part of the ID card system, because it is produced by the DVLA. Although I am sure that technology will be such in future that we will be able to store everything that we need on one very easy card, what is proposed is merely a process of trying to take out of circulation a lot of the paper licences, which are subject to fraud. Some 15 million people have already paid for a photo licence, and it is down to the DVLA to look at the way forward when it has consulted stakeholders.

Christopher Chope (Conservative, Christchurch)

The Minister says that the paper licences are subject to fraud. Surely the counterparts are equally subject to fraud. If not, why not?

Charlotte Atkins (Labour, Staffordshire Moorlands)

Simply because the photo licence has a photo on it. Clearly, a photograph makes it more secure. The counterpart relates merely to penalties. We are talking about driver identification, not driver misdemeanour. In future, when we get rid of the counterpart, cards are likely to include penalty points and so on. At the moment, that is dealt with in the counterpart. As the hon. Gentleman will know from reading the Bill, it is intended that the counterpart will be withdrawn. That would make the licence much more secure.

Mark Fisher (Labour, Stoke-on-Trent Central)

I do not want to labour the point, but those comments seem slightly odd. The Minister's answer was much as I imagined it would be, although I had thought that I must be wrong. She is saying that we are getting rid of the old paper licence and changing to modern plastic, but adding another layer of paper. So we are back to where we started, not with a paper licence, but with a paper element. Is it really beyond the scope of modern technology to get all that information on to the card? It seems almost like ''Alice in Wonderland''—

Peter Pike (Labour, Burnley)

Order. Before we go too fast, let us remember the point of the amendment. Have you finished making your point, Mr. Fisher?

Mark Fisher (Labour, Stoke-on-Trent Central)

I hope that the Minister has got the drift and that she will be able to respond.

Peter Pike (Labour, Burnley)

The Minister will recognise that we must keep to the amendment.

Charlotte Atkins (Labour, Staffordshire Moorlands)

That is right, Mr. Pike. I am delighted to have that guidance.

Clearly, we will want to update the cards in future. As I understand it, the photocard is issued for 10 years. It is sensible that the photograph is updated, as with a passport.

Greg Knight (Conservative, East Yorkshire)

On vetting, which the Minister has mentioned, can she tell me what vetting there will be if someone with the old licence moves house, to use the example that I gave earlier, and sends that licence to the authorities asking for their new address to be entered, but does not send any photographs? Presumably, they will get a letter back asking for photos. What vetting takes place to ensure that if there is a fraud, it is not perpetuated?

Charlotte Atkins (Labour, Staffordshire Moorlands)

The right hon. Gentleman is right. The person would get a card with a photograph. Obviously, the driver has to supply the photograph, and they also have to supply a birth certificate. As part of the process of moving from paper licences—whether because of a change of address or some other reason—to the new photocard licence, there must be supporting evidence in the form of a photograph and a birth certificate or passport.

David Wilshire (Conservative, Spelthorne)

The general point of the plastic licence and the counterpart is the very thing that I want to talk about in a stand part debate. On the cost, can the Minister confirm that what I think that I am hearing is correct? I was objecting to the principle of having my old paper licence called in and being made to pay for the new plastic one, plus the piece of paper. I now hear, however, not only that could I be made to pay for the replacement, but that in due course, when a way has been found of getting rid of the counterpart, I will be made to pay again for another Government change of mind. We might be discussing two demands for payment rather than one. In that case, my objections are multiplied by two.

Charlotte Atkins (Labour, Staffordshire Moorlands)

I was making the point that the photocard is obviously more robust in terms of fraud, but most documents with a photograph require that photograph to be updated. The hon. Gentleman may stay looking exactly the same, but most of us change over 10 years or more.

David Wilshire (Conservative, Spelthorne)

I am grateful to the Minister, but she has not answered my question. Will we have to pay twice when the paper requirement is withdrawn? I have now just heard, by way of response, that we may be made to pay three, four or five times. She has explained that we will have to pay the first time, and she has not denied that we will have to pay when the paper is withdrawn, but when more of my hair drops out and I have to provide a new photograph to show that I have changed, will the new document be provided for free or will there be another charge?

Charlotte Atkins (Labour, Staffordshire Moorlands)

After 10 years, it is likely that a new charge will be made. When the counterpart is removed, however, there will be no charge at that point.

John Thurso (Liberal Democrat, Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross)

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 (Labour, Staffordshire Moorlands)

I said earlier that there will be no charge when the counterpart goes.

John Thurso (Liberal Democrat, Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross)

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.

Sitting suspended for a Division in the House.

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.

John Thurso (Liberal Democrat, Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross)

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 (Labour, Staffordshire Moorlands)

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.

Christopher Chope (Conservative, Christchurch)

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.]

Peter Pike (Labour, Burnley)

Order. There is too much discussion in the Committee and I cannot hear what the hon. Gentleman is saying.

Christopher Chope (Conservative, Christchurch)

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.

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.

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.

David Wilshire (Conservative, Spelthorne)

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 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.

Peter Pike (Labour, Burnley)

I would indeed.

David Wilshire (Conservative, Spelthorne)

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 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.

Greg Knight (Conservative, East Yorkshire)

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.

David Wilshire (Conservative, Spelthorne)

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.

Peter Pike (Labour, Burnley)

Thank you.

Greg Knight (Conservative, East Yorkshire)

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.

Sitting suspended for a Division in the House.

On resuming—

Greg Knight (Conservative, East Yorkshire)

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 (Labour, Staffordshire Moorlands)

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 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.

Clause 31 - Driver training

Christopher Chope (Conservative, Christchurch)

The clause inserts a new power to make regulations. How will those regulations be used?

Charlotte Atkins (Labour, Staffordshire Moorlands)

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 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

Christopher Chope (Conservative, Christchurch)

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.

Greg Knight (Conservative, East Yorkshire)

I support my hon. Friend's comments. It is essential that an unnecessary bureaucracy is not created for those who undertake the tests. One complaint has been brought to my attention by a constituent who runs a haulage business. He told me that whenever a driver books in for a test, in addition to revealing the driver's details, which is understandable as the authorities need to know who they are testing, full details of the vehicle that the driver will be using for his test also have to be supplied.

My constituent finds that unnecessarily bureaucratic. Provided that the vehicle is roadworthy and of the relevant class, why do the authorities need to know the specific details of the vehicle that is to be involved in the test? That can create a problem for small businesses if the particular vehicle that they had previously nominated for the test is out on a run and is not back on time. Instead of allowing the test to go ahead with a substitute vehicle, they would have to reschedule the whole thing. That is unnecessarily bureaucratic.

John Thurso (Liberal Democrat, Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross)

I seek your guidance, Mr. Pike. I have a specific question to ask which relates to this clause, but it falls more properly into schedule 4. Would it be appropriate to ask that question of the Minister now and avoid speaking later?

Peter Pike (Labour, Burnley)

We will come to schedule 4 in a couple of minutes.

Charlotte Atkins (Labour, Staffordshire Moorlands)

The short answer is that the clause is about quality of instruction. It replaces the current one-size-fits-all scheme for car driving instructors with provisions that allow the introduction of flexible and effective standards of insurance for different types of professional instructors. The new provision will allow registration to be extended to professional instructors for any class of motor vehicle. That applies to various circumstances, such as emergency response, remedial training for drivers and HGV training.

The system has been in place for 40 years for car driving instructors. All we are doing is extending it to other classes of instructor. Given that people pay something like £1,500 for HGV training, they need to be assured that that driving instruction is competent and of a good quality. It is a lot of money to pay out and we want to ensure that there are assurances for the HGV driver applicant, just as there would be if our sons and daughters were having driving instruction from a driving instructor in a car.

I am told that the target waiting time for HGV tests is three weeks. I assume that vehicle details have to be given because we have to be sure that it is an appropriate vehicle in which to take the test. Given that the system has been in place for car driving instructors for 40 years, it makes sense for the regulation to be extended to other classes of driving instructor to ensure that quality prevails.

Christopher Chope (Conservative, Christchurch)

The Minister asserts that because we have had the system for 40 years for car drivers, we should to extend it without further argument. The counter-argument is that we have managed for 40 years without implementing the system for other categories of vehicle. Have there been any complaints? Is there any reason to suppose that the market is not operating? I would have thought that it would be difficult to establish a business as an HGV driver trainer—most of the training would be for businesses—if one was not reasonably competent at it. What case are the Government putting forward, other than their obsession with increasing regulation?

Charlotte Atkins (Labour, Staffordshire Moorlands)

We made it clear in our road safety strategy that we wanted to raise standards. The regulation is one way of doing it. We made a commitment to raising standards and raising the status and quality of professional driving instruction. The regulation is the way in which we want to do that.

Christopher Chope (Conservative, Christchurch)

We have heard much from the Minister today, but that was the weakest of her responses. Where is the justification? Where is the evidence that there is any shortage of good quality instruction? This is just another regulation that is being brought in to address some imaginary mischief. If she said that there is evidence that there are a lot of duff HGV driving instructors who are causing danger to others because of their level of incompetence, she might have a case.

Charlotte Atkins (Labour, Staffordshire Moorlands)

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Christopher Chope (Conservative, Christchurch)

The Minister obviously has some more information.

Charlotte Atkins (Labour, Staffordshire Moorlands)

It is simply that the industry itself—the road haulage industry, the bus industry, road transport organisations and certainly motorcycling interest groups—fully support the regulation. The hon. Gentleman is clearly out of step with the industry. He may well have evidence to the contrary, but we are responding to the industry by introducing the regulation. If he wants to oppose the interests of the industry, he may proceed. We are trying to ensure that we raise road safety standards. That is what the Bill is about and that is why we are introducing the regulation.

Christopher Chope (Conservative, Christchurch)

The Minister says that the industry is in favour of the regulation, but we have not seen any documentation to suggest that. She has just been given a briefing by her officials saying that it is in favour of it. Let us be clear about this: quite often providers are in favour of introducing restrictions on potential competition. My concern is that this is an activity in which an open market has effectively been operating, with all the flexibility that that entails. We need to get more HGV drivers trained. At the moment, there is no suggestion that anybody involved in the industry is not producing training to the right standard.

One of the biggest constraints that I have heard about is the constraint on the time to get a test. The Minister says that the target waiting time is three weeks. Why is it so long? Why can somebody who has gone on one of these courses not take the test the following week? Although three weeks is the target waiting time, what happens if the actual waiting time is much longer, as I understand it is in some test centres? Is the individual, who may be unemployed, expected to hang around waiting for this career move until he can get a time for his test? What happens when the tests are cancelled, as they often are, at short notice and must then be rescheduled, again introducing extra delay? Surely the problem with the heavy goods vehicle sector is that there is already too much regulation rather than too little. I am extremely suspicious of this regulation-making power and I am not encouraged in the knowledge that some of those who are already incumbents think that they will be able to use it to further their own interests in a monopoly.

Charlotte Atkins (Labour, Staffordshire Moorlands)

The fact that only about 50 per cent. pass the HGV licence indicates that there is an issue over the quality of training. We want to ensure that the man or woman who is training as an HGV driver does not waste their £1,500. If someone is unemployed and wants to make that sort of career move, they can hardly afford to let £1,500 go down the drain. Therefore, we are interested in raising the quality of training to help trainees and employers and to ensure that we protect the safety of all road users.

Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill—

The Committee divided: Ayes 10, Noes 4.

Schedule 4 - Driving instruction

John Thurso (Liberal Democrat, Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross)

I am perfectly content with what is being proposed here, but I should be grateful if the Minister answered one question and perhaps put something on the record.

As Ministers know, I had considerable correspondence from advanced driving instructors earlier this year, which I think all worked out happily. However, one thing that I learnt from that correspondence was the slight concern about what paid instruction is and, in particular, the allegation made at that time by a number of ADIs that unscrupulous people who were not registered were giving instruction to people in cars, and being paid for it. They were getting round the law by setting the transaction as the hire of the vehicle and giving the instruction for free. One or two ADIs said that that was a common way for rogue operators to get away with it. Will the Minister help me as to whether, first, that loophole exists? Are such people in contravention of the law as it stands? Secondly, if it is a loophole, is it closed by the Bill? Thirdly, if it is not being closed, will the Government consider closing it at a future date?

Charlotte Atkins (Labour, Staffordshire Moorlands)

I do not believe that that loophole exists, although I am sure that any number of unscrupulous people will try to create a loophole. As far as I am aware, the Bill does not close that loophole that does not exist.

Christopher Chope (Conservative, Christchurch)

Will the Minister explain how the process will be introduced? At the moment, driving instruction for heavy goods vehicle drivers, bus drivers and the like is unregulated. If, in the future, all the people who can carry out paid instruction have to be subject to the conditions of the schedule, how will we ensure that they have passed the necessary exams and got the qualifications required under the regulations? What is the time scale for that procedure? What is likely to be the cost of undergoing the tests that will be a precursor to obtaining registration? When will a clear regulatory impact assessment with proper costs be produced so that we can assess the implications and the extent to which the measure is an additional burden on business?

Charlotte Atkins (Labour, Staffordshire Moorlands)

I do not have the details to hand on all those questions. I am not sure whether anyone has any help on that. Clearly, it will be introduced over time. I will write to the hon. Gentleman on the issue.

Christopher Chope (Conservative, Christchurch)

I do not want to be unfair to the Minister, but she has had much more notice than we have about the contents of schedule 4. Before deciding how to vote on a schedule, it is reasonable to ask when it is proposed that it be brought in, what the implications are and so on. I do not think that any of the questions that I have put to the Minister are unreasonable and I do not think that she thinks that they are unreasonable.

It would be appropriate for the Committee to adjourn so that the Minister can get some instruction on the issue. When will we be able to have a debate, and get answers to those questions, if not during a stand part debate? The situation seems to me unsatisfactory. I hope that the Minister now has some more briefing that she will be able to use to inform her response so that we are all a bit wiser about what we are being asked to vote for.

Charlotte Atkins (Labour, Staffordshire Moorlands)

I do not have a note on the time scale. Clearly the Secretary of State will require professional instructors to undertake training, because that is completely absent from the present scheme. Training instructors will have to ensure that they maintain and update their knowledge and skills. I do not have a note on when that is likely to take place. We will ensure that we have a full note before the Committee next meets.

Greg Knight (Conservative, East Yorkshire)

With those remarks, the Minister has pretty much answered the point that I was going to raise. I was going to ask her to undertake to write to all members of the Committee before Report on that point.

Charlotte Atkins (Labour, Staffordshire Moorlands)

I should be happy to do that.

Question put, That this schedule, as amended, be the Fourth schedule to the Bill:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 10, Noes 4.

Clause 34 - Registration plates

Greg Knight (Conservative, East Yorkshire)

I beg to move amendment No. 67, in clause 34, page 40, line 38, at end add—

'(1C) Nothing contained herein or in any other statute shall prevent the manufacture, production, sale or display of any black and white registration plate or mark intended for display on a historic vehicle and which is in keeping with the style of registration plates produced when the said vehicle was manufactured.'.

This is a probing amendment, and I hope the Minister will assure the Committee that it is not necessary. Perhaps I should start by declaring an interest; not a financial interest, in the sense that I have a business involved in this area, but more a declaration of passion. I have an interest in historic vehicles, and collect classic cars. Most of them display the old-style non-reflective black-and-white number plates, in keeping with the period when the cars were first manufactured.

My concern is that the new rules in clause 34 might impinge on the current activity of manufacturing registration plates to maintain a supply of the old black-and-white plates. If I take a classic car to a show and it is hit by an incompetent who damages my number plate, I will seek to replace it with a like number plate; that is, a black-and-white one of the type in general use when the vehicle was manufactured. I do not want to be forced into having to affix to an historic vehicle a reflective number plate with a modern typeface. I hope the Minister is able to assure me that the amendment is unnecessary, and that nothing in the Bill will prevent the manufacture, production, sale or display of the old type of number plate.

David Jamieson (Labour, Plymouth, Devonport)

Having more than a passing interest in classic cars and vehicles myself, I can give some fairly robust assurance to the right hon. Member for East Yorkshire. We totally understand the desire of owners of historic vehicles to display number plates in keeping with the historic nature of the vehicle.

Under the Road Vehicles (Display of Registration Marks) Regulations 2001, vehicles constructed before 1 January 1973 are allowed to display traditional-style plates with white, silver, light grey or translucent characters on a black background. Businesses that supply such plates must register as number plate suppliers with the DVLA and keep records of sales. They must make statutory checks to establish the entitlement of the customer to buy the plates requested, the reasons for which I am sure hon. Members will understand. Owners of historic vehicles should have no difficulty obtaining the appropriate number plates, and I assure the hon. Gentleman that nothing in the Bill will prevent them from doing so in the future.

Greg Knight (Conservative, East Yorkshire)

I am grateful to the Minister for that reply, as will be the hundreds of thousands of historic vehicle owners in all parts of the country. For the first time during our proceedings—but, I hope, not for the last time—he has satisfied me. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Christopher Chope (Conservative, Christchurch)

The Road Vehicles (Display of Registration Marks) Regulations 2001, to which the Minister referred in answer to the amendment tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire, were discussed on the Floor of the House in 2001. During the course of that debate, I clearly recollect the Minister giving undertakings that amendments would be tabled to ensure that the GB symbol could be incorporated on number plates. When I last inquired about that, I was informed that it was taking a long time to draw up the necessary amending regulations, and that in the meantime I should not worry because people could put stickers over their number plate to indicate that it was a GB plate.

As the Minister knows, there is quite a lot of resentment that unless one spells it out to the contrary, the default position of most number plate suppliers is those ghastly stars. Sometimes, people do not realise that they are going to get the stars on their number plate until it is too late, but on a recent occasion when I specified to the vehicle supplier that I wanted a plate without stars and I ended up with a vehicle with stars, I am afraid that that cost the supplier some money, because he had to do it all again in accordance with the instructions I had given.

Some of us take that issue seriously, and the Minister will remember the debate, which was quite heated. The Government came under a lot of pressure to give way on that issue, and in the end they did. It is now three to four years since the debate, and the amendments that we were promised have not been brought forth. Will the Minister use the provisions of this Bill and clause 34 in particular as the means by which the amending regulations are brought forward or included in the Bill? That is another example of where the Government have failed to deliver even in accordance with their own words.

David Wilshire (Conservative, Spelthorne)

My hon. Friend has partly made one point that I wanted to raise. I hope that we do not move to a situation where we have to have a pseudo-national flag stuck on our vehicles by virtue of those silly little yellow stars. I shall not go too far down that track, other than to say that I am totally opposed to anything that purports to be to do with a united states of Europe, and I do not wish to see it forced on us in any shape or form.

New subsection (1B), which amends section 28 of the Vehicles (Crime) Act 2001, says:

''The Secretary of State may by regulation provide that the offence under subsection (1A) is not committed in circumstances prescribed by the regulations.''

Reading the explanatory notes, I am concerned that that gives the Secretary of State the right to say, ''Notwithstanding the regulations, I hereby decree that this will not be an offence.''

Another bee in my bonnet is advertising on number plates. I made it my business when I was changing cars to double check exactly what is permitted. In my view, a registration plate should have nothing on it other than the number, but I was told that there had to be a very small identification of its supplier, so that it could be checked. I also discovered that the requirement for a mark indicating who supplied it did not extend to large type underneath, saying, ''Joe Bloggs Ltd. Vauxhall dealers'', which is what tends to appear on number plates. I sincerely hope that the Minister will give us an assurance that the Secretary of of State will not succumb to the blandishments of the motor trade and allow adverts on number plates. Whenever I have changed cars, I have always said to the supplier that I would deduct £500 from the purchase price as an advertising fee if he wished to advertise his garage on my number plates. I do not understand why those people should use number plates for free advertising.

I hope that the Minister can assure us that advertising will not become an exception and that the only thing allowed on the number plate will be some very small indication of the supplier. If he went further and said that he will ban the blue flags, I would be even more grateful.

Greg Knight (Conservative, East Yorkshire)

Will the Minister confirm that nothing in this clause will be retrospective? For example, many plates on motor vehicles do not have the typeface that the Department now prefers, yet the typeface was perfectly legal at the time the plates were produced. Many plates do not state who the supplier was, and some people have preferred to have running along the bottom of the plate their own name or the make and model of their vehicle, for example. Will the Minister confirm that he is not about to start making owners affix to their vehicles new plates if they are not seeking to replace their plate but wish to continue with their existing one, which complied with the law at the time it was issued?

David Jamieson (Labour, Plymouth, Devonport)

The clause makes it an offence to supply vehicle number plates that do not comply with regulations on the typeface, dimensions, colouring and British standard. Members of the Committee will know that number plates that are not standard—that have been customised in some way—are often difficult to read. If there has been an accident, or the police want to check up on somebody, it can be difficult to identify people, particularly in the case of hit-and-run accidents, which, sadly, are all too common. It may be difficult to read some number plates in certain circumstances, so there are good reasons for the clause and the new requirements.

Christopher Chope (Conservative, Christchurch)

Does that apply to foreign vehicles? For example, if a foreign lorry with one of those very small, unreadable number plates is involved in an accident that results in a number plate being damaged, would the replacement number plate installed by a British supplier have to be of a size that conforms with the standard that we regard as essential in this country?

David Jamieson (Labour, Plymouth, Devonport)

Only if the vehicle were then being registered in this country. After 12 months, it would have to be registered in this country and, obviously, the number plate would have to comply with regulations. If the vehicle is registered in another country and is only here for short periods of time, it does not need to have a British registration mark but would have to provide one from the country of origin.

Christopher Chope (Conservative, Christchurch)

Why is it that we allow foreign vehicles to have indistinguishable number plates while we impose draconian penalties, not only on the people who are using number plates that do not comply with our own regulations but on those who supply them?

David Jamieson (Labour, Plymouth, Devonport)

I suppose that if British vehicles were driven in mainland Europe or other parts of the world, people might think that our number plates were fairly indistinguishable. I agree that ours generally look extremely clear, especially if one is British and used to them.

We are trying to achieve some commonality within the European Union, which makes sense. Common recognition of plates would be better for enforcing the law within the Union. However, at present, there is no question of the 25 countries in the Union having totally standardised plates.

Christopher Chope (Conservative, Christchurch)

I know that the Minister is very tolerant, but is he intolerant of the officials and, perhaps, his colleagues from other parts of the UK for having stalled the implementation of the changes that were promised—in good faith, I am sure—to the House of Commons in 2001? It is now 2005; when will that issue be brought to a conclusion?

David Jamieson (Labour, Plymouth, Devonport)

I am somewhat impatient, but the matter has to be resolved fully and properly. If the hon. Gentleman wants to talk in further detail about that, I shall happily do so, but I do not want to detain the Committee any longer than necessary.

The hon. Member for Spelthorne quite properly made the point that we do not want number plates to have a plethora of information on them, other than that needed to identify the vehicle and the supplier of the plate, which is not necessarily the dealer that sold the vehicle. I am anxious that we do not have a lot of clutter on plates; only information that is absolutely essential.

The right hon. Member for East Yorkshire, with all of his knowledge on such matters, may know of certain show plates, which people might want to put on their bedroom wall or wherever and are not intended for a motor vehicle. Goodness knows why people want those, but they certainly do. Those will have to be clearly marked ''not suitable to go on a vehicle'' or words to that effect, demonstrating that they are not legal plates to use on a vehicle. There is quite a market in these, and we do not want to spoil it. However, we do not want a loophole to appear so that those plates can appear on vehicles.

John Thurso (Liberal Democrat, Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross)

I wonder whether the Minister would clarify what he said about show plates. Coming from an agricultural part of the world, I notice that many tractors like to have the proper legal plates fore and aft, while often in the cab there will be a plate with the name of the farm or the driver. Are those show plates illegal, or is it legal to have them in the cab? Does the legislation affect them?

David Jamieson (Labour, Plymouth, Devonport)

I have no doubt that that should be legal. In such cases, having a proper number plate in the proper place on the vehicle is different from having something that looks a little like a number plate but clearly is not. There are certain number plates containing digits and letters that make up someone's name, for example, that could be a real number plate. If it had ''Farmer Giles's Farm'' on it, no one could mistake it for a real number plate, but there are some plates that actually look like someone's name. We want those clearly marked, so that they could not be taken from the cab and used on the vehicle. Of course, if the vehicle is used entirely off the road, there is nothing to stop someone putting those plates on it.

The right hon. Member for East Yorkshire wants to know whether the provision will be retrospective. It will not be, so people's existing plates will not be affected. It is a good and useful little clause, and I hope that the Committee will accept it.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 34 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 35 - Extension to Scotland and Northern Ireland

Christopher Chope (Conservative, Christchurch)

I am delighted that the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross, who represents a Scottish constituency—if not half of Scotland—wishes to join the debate. It is quite a significant move, in so far as we are legislating for Scotland and Northern Ireland in one clause in a substantial way without there being any Scottish Minister present to explain the implications. I would be interested to know what consultation there has been about the extension to Scotland and Northern Ireland in the way suggested in the clause.

John Thurso (Liberal Democrat, Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross)

That is a straightforward question. The proper convention would be the Sewel convention of the Scottish Parliament, where devolved legislation is being enacted at Westminster, as this would appear to be. Can the Minister confirm that there is or is likely to be a Sewel on this clause?

David Jamieson (Labour, Plymouth, Devonport)

This is quite an important little clause. At present, particularly in the north of England, it is possible to trot across the border and get oneself a number plate, without having to show one's own identification or the identification on the vehicle, which is a bit of a loophole. That is also true of Northern Ireland. It is particularly a problem in the border area, because one set of rules applies south of the border and another north of the border.

Originally it was thought that the Bill was a devolved matter. Sometimes, because of the complexities between various parts of the United Kingdom, the talents of those who draw up the laws are extended. However, we know now that it is a reserved matter for Westminster. It is simply a matter of bringing Scotland and Northern Ireland into line. It is my understanding that separate consultation exercises have been conducted in Scotland and Northern Ireland, and in both instances the proposal to extend the regulation of number plate suppliers was well received and generally well supported. Therefore, it is simply a matter of closing a loophole. I think that there was a misinterpretation in the first instance. It is important that the need to check up when one buys a number plate appertains to all parts of the United Kingdom.

John Thurso (Liberal Democrat, Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross)

I have no problem if this is a reserved matter. I did not bring my well-thumbed copy of the Scotland Act with me, so I cannot look at schedule 5 and the headings therein to check whether what the Minister has said is accurate. However, I know that there is considerable confusion on occasions between Westminster and Holyrood; Holyrood seems to think that things are devolved and Westminster seems to think that they are not. I am grateful for the Minister's assurance, but could he let me know the precise heading under which the Bill is deemed to be reserved rather than devolved. At first glance it falls into the category of justice—perhaps if I keep going for a moment, he will be inspired—which is broadly a devolved matter. It is important that, were a Sewel required, the convention is adhered to.

Greg Knight (Conservative, East Yorkshire)

Will the Minister confirm that no discussions are taking place that seek to extend the rules on number plates beyond these islands? Will he confirm, for example, that no discussions are taking place in the European Union to harmonise vehicle registration plates across the EU?

David Jamieson (Labour, Plymouth, Devonport)

I am told that no Sewel motion is required, because this is deemed, as a reserved matter, to be for Westminster. It has been agreed that it is a reserved matter. I think that there was some discussion as to whether it was or was not, but now it has been accepted on both sides of the border that it is, so it does not attract the attentions of a Sewel motion.

I have entirely forgotten what the right hon. Member for East Yorkshire said.

Greg Knight (Conservative, East Yorkshire)

My question was about Europe and the harmonisation of registration plates.

David Jamieson (Labour, Plymouth, Devonport)

There is absolutely no discussion of this matter, certainly on format and presentation. We are considering how we can recognise another country's plates, which is much more important. I am not sure that harmonisation takes us any further forward. What is important is that an automatic number plate recognition camera can pick up the various number plates from other countries in the European Union and vice versa; that other countries can pick up ours. That is far more important than harmonisation.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 35 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 36 - Particulars to be included in vehicles register

Christopher Chope (Conservative, Christchurch)

Why is this requirement being extended to keepers of vehicles rather than just applying to buyers and sellers as is currently the case? If the purpose is to ensure that when vehicles change hands there is a record of the odometer reading, what difference does it make if the vehicle is being used by a whole host of different people, but has not actually changed hands? Surely the significant time and the point at which fraud arises is when somebody sells a vehicle with a reading that is inaccurate. It would be the owner of the vehicle who sold it, and the previous owner of the vehicle who sold it before that. Why should the keeper of the vehicle be under any obligation to keep the DVLA informed of the odometer reading in the interim period?

David Jamieson (Labour, Plymouth, Devonport)

The intention is that when a vehicle changes hands from one keeper to another a record of the odometer reading—not the mileometer reading—is passed on. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that there is considerable fraud involving turning back the clocks on vehicles. That is an old practice and I am afraid that it has not been made any more difficult by the modern digital odometers. In fact, the other day I passed—I think that it was on the A40—a little sign that said that if anybody wanted their odometer attended to, they could ring that number. It seemed to me it that was just trying to attract somebody who wanted to turn the odometer back 50,000 miles and probably add a couple of thousand pounds to the value of the vehicle.

That is what the measure is intended to address. It is a good measure, and intended for the changeover point between one vehicle keeper and another. There is not necessarily any point in informing the DVLA, except when a car is going for an MOT test, at which point the reading is routinely recorded. In the case of cars that are younger than three years, people would not need to inform the DVLA, unless the car was changing ownership.

Greg Knight (Conservative, East Yorkshire)

I understand why the Minister wants to do that. Will he tell the Committee whether he anticipates the Department being proactive when this information is required to be recorded, or whether it will be reactive?

Sitting suspended for a Division in the House.

On resuming—

Greg Knight (Conservative, East Yorkshire)

Does the Minister think that the DVLA will be proactive as a matter of practice? If it receives information that a vehicle's mileage has gone down, will it take action or will it wait for a new purchaser to make a complaint?

David Jamieson (Labour, Plymouth, Devonport)

Having this information available on the record will be useful in two respects. If the DVLA spots that a vehicle's mileage has gone backwards over a period of time, it will set alarm bells ringing. It will want to check why that vehicle has gone several thousand miles or more backwards, which could occasion enforcement action.

Greg Knight (Conservative, East Yorkshire)

Does the Minister accept that there may be some cases in which a reduction in mileage is innocent? A friend of mine used to run—he may still run it—a Rover P5B 3.5 litre coupe, which was the same model of Rover car that Harold Wilson used when he was Prime Minister. The speedometer on the vehicle ceased to work. He could not buy a new one, but he managed to obtain a working replacement speedometer from a scrap yard which allowed him to continue to run the car. However, the mileage was different.

David Jamieson (Labour, Plymouth, Devonport)

In such a case, the DVLA would have to make checks with the person, who would have to present some evidence that they had done that. In any case, if someone changes the speedometer with the odometer reading, he would be advised to obtain some evidence at the time, either from the dealer or someone else, to show that he had made that change so that he had the necessary documentation.

There is an important extra check that will help the person buying the vehicle. If the car has changed hands before and the documentation has the odometer reading from the last time, the person can look at the odometer in the vehicle and, if he sees that it has gone backwards or done a low mileage that the customer suspects is not right, he will have the opportunity to back out of the deal.

The clause also gives dealers an opportunity to do checks when vehicles are brought into them. They are canny operators and are not going to buy vehicles that they think are clocked. It is not in their interests to do so because they will pay more for those vehicles. For the person buying the car, it is worth checking with a company such as HPI, Experian or Carwatch UK, who will, for a fee, check whether there is any outstanding hire purchase, whether the vehicle has been written off and so on. Such information, including the odometer reading, will be contained in a readout and is useful for someone who is investing from a few hundred to many thousands of pounds on a vehicle.

What makes me cross is that the people who lose out are the little people, which is why I want the provision. They are often the poorest people and are buying cheap cars. Often, they are youngsters buying their first car. Those people buy in good faith, either privately or from an unscrupulous dealer. They pay good money that they have saved up from their low income, only to find that someone has clocked the car and they have paid £1,000 more than it is worth. A dealer in the west country set my pulse racing. He had made millions by clocking cars and selling them for more than they were worth. Those cars were mainly at the lower end of the market and went to people on a low income. That is why the issue is so important.

There tends to be less of a problem at the quality end of the car market, as the right hon. Member for East Yorkshire knows, because the service record often contains all that information. However, at the cheap end of the market, that information is often not there. The clause offers a good bit of consumer protection and I hope that the Committee will give its full support to the clause.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 36 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 37 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 38 - Disclosure to foreign authorities of licensing and registration information

Greg Knight (Conservative, East Yorkshire)

I want assurances from the Minister that nothing in the clause will lead to the Secretary of State or any Department releasing or passing on any part of a driver's record. Does he envisage the power being used to assist a foreign Government who have no reciprocal arrangement with us? Does he imagine that the clause will be used to supply information to them as a one-way process? Will it be used only where there is an intergovernmental agreement?

David Jamieson (Labour, Plymouth, Devonport)

The clause will enable the DVLA and its counterpart in Northern Ireland, the DVLANI, to disclose information regarding driver licensing and vehicle registration to overseas counterparts. That statutory authority will enable the UK to ratify the treaty on European vehicle registration and driver licensing information systems known, as I am sure the right hon. Gentleman is aware, as EUCARIS. It was signed by the UK, Belgium, Germany, Luxembourg and the Netherlands on 29 June 2000.

The treaty is designed to facilitate the exchange of information on driver licensing and vehicle registration to reduce cross-border crime and improve road safety. Disclosure of the licensing and registration information will make it much more difficult for criminals to reregister stolen vehicles or commit other vehicle-related offences and to obtain British driving licences to which they have no entitlement. We want to ratify the measure in our law because we want the treaty to come into effect. The relationships with various countries will gradually build up and we will have more comprehensive information. I shall get hold of something intelligible on the subject of what the DVLA can disclose and pass that information on to the Committee.

As I understand it, the arrangement is bilateral and only there for those countries with which we have such agreements. The right hon. Gentleman can see the huge advantage of such an exchange throughout the European Union, because that is where most of the inter-country traffic comes from. The arrangement will have a huge benefit because it does not affect law-abiding people, only those who try to slip around the law.

Christopher Chope (Conservative, Christchurch)

Does the provision deal with protection from data being leaked by foreign organisations? As I understand it, the rationale is that, because the DVLA is registered as a data controller, it could pass such data on to foreign organisations. What protection does the British driver have against the misuse of information, in breach of the Data Protection Act 1998 in the UK, by a foreign body that has been given information by the DVLA?

The Minister listed the original signatories to the agreement. It is significant that France, Spain, Italy and Germany—the big boys in European road transport—were not included. When does he expect to enter into agreements with those countries so that we can get access to information from them about their vehicles and their drivers?

David Jamieson (Labour, Plymouth, Devonport)

Germany was one of the original signatories.

Any country with which we exchange such information must have tight systems for the release of that information. That is part of the agreement we are making within the European Union and, in a small way, it cracks down on some of the inter-border crime. The principles in the Data Protection Act will be transferred to other countries to ensure that information which we do not want released is not improperly released to third parties.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 38 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Peter Pike (Labour, Burnley)

Before I call the next amendment, I will try and focus minds on the situation. We have had several Divisions. We also lost an hour due to Divisions on the Floor of the House, so we have had some exercise. I know there is a wish to leave Thursday's two sittings for the new clauses and to complete the main part of the Bill—the clauses and schedules—today. If the Committee feels we could do that by 6 o'clock, I will not adjourn for a tea break. If the Committee is not happy with that, I will adjourn for a tea break at 5.30 pm and we will have to come back. I am trying to be helpful. Is there a feeling we can finish by 6 o'clock?

Christopher Chope (Conservative, Christchurch)

That is very helpful. Obviously, for the sake of 10 minutes or quarter of an hour, I hope we will not have to adjourn for an hour and a half, but I am conscious of the fact, as you will have seen this afternoon, that the debates on individual issues sometimes take longer because of the responses, or lack of them, that we get. There is no guarantee that we will finish by 6 o'clock, although we might if all goes well, but hopefully we will do so within a reasonable period thereafter.

Peter Pike (Labour, Burnley)

Let us see how we go. We will try and work to that. I understand exactly what the hon. Gentleman says. I have made it quite clear that if the Committee wants a tea break and a dinner break and to go on until midnight, it is fully entitled to do so, since I have no wish to curtail the debate. We will work on that basis.

Clause 39 - Disclosure of information about insurance status of vehicles

Peter Pike (Labour, Burnley)

With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendment No. 66. If there is a debate now, I will put the stand part question with the question formally on amendment No. 66 when we reach it in, I hope, not too long a time.

The rest of the debate is in Hansard.