I give notice of my intention to oppose Clause 29 standing part of the Bill. It would, in short, introduce a renewal fee for driving licences after a period of 10 years and a fee for changes to name and address that are, at present, free. I remain to be convinced that this is nothing more than another stealth tax. We will oppose these measures at every opportunity during the passage of the Bill. It seems implausible that, 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 requirements of the European Union, perhaps, or the Government.
It is wrong in principle that someone who has a licence, and has looked 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 When the provider decides it is out of date, it is replaced. Replacement of a licence because a driver is at fault is a completely different matter.
Why is there suddenly a desire to make us renew our driving licences every 10 years? What is the rationale apart from, as I said, introducing another tax? Why should people be charged for moving home, getting married or even for becoming a Peer? When we change our address, we now have to pay no money when we inform the DVLA. Surely people would be less likely to inform the authorities of such changes in personal details if it attracts a fee? This, in turn, would have serious implications for the police and other authorities that depend upon an up-to-date vehicle register for many of their inquiries.
The concept that has been followed in the past is that all government revenue goes into the Consolidated Fund, and all expenses come out of it. In such circumstances, if one considers the Consolidated Fund payments that drivers make through road and fuel tax, one can 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 in the past. That is why we cannot agree to this clause. I beg to move.
Road Safety Bill [HL]
Proceeding contribution from
Lord Hanningfield
(Conservative)
in the House of Lords on Wednesday, 26 October 2005.
It occurred during Committee of the Whole House (HL)
and
Debate on bills on Road Safety Bill [HL].
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
674 c1170-1 
Session
2005-06
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
Subjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2024-04-21 23:39:20 +0100
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_270380
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_270380
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_270380