HL Deb 14 November 2003 vol 654 cc1729-36

Lord Davies of Oldham rose to move, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 15th October be approved [28th Report from the Joint Committee].

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move the Road Vehicles (Registration and Licensing) (Amendment) (No 3) Regulations 2003. They form part of a wider reform of vehicle registration and licensing aimed at improving the accuracy of the DVLA vehicle record making it easier to trace vehicles involved in crime and to trace the keepers of abandoned vehicles, and to help to attack the problem of evasion of vehicle excise duty.

The draft regulations allow the DVLA to take action on evasion direct from the vehicle record and provide for the penalty or supplement that can be levied when a person fails to tax their vehicle on time. Why are they needed? It is estimated that at any particular moment one can trace accurately about 92 per cent of keepers of vehicles through the DVLA vehicle register. That is very important to the police, who depend on the DVLA record for investigating vehicle related crime. Some of the inaccuracy is down to keepers in the process of rectifying change. However, it is the rump of vehicles outside the system that we are targeting through a package of reforms for delivery over the coming months. VED evasion is running at a little over 4.5 per cent by value, which amounts to about £193 million per year. Although long-term evaders are the main problem as regards crime and vehicle abandonment, unless firm action is taken early on against short-term evaders, they will join the long-term problem vehicles that fall out of the system and cannot be linked to a responsible keeper. The Government are taking the matter seriously. Currently around 820,000 offenders are brought to book each year. The Government are also promoting joint working with police and local authorities, through Operation Cubit and are devolving DVLA powers to deal with unlicensed vehicles to local authorities.

However, to tackle VED evasion and vehicle record inaccuracy we need a step change in enforcement legislation. So "continuous registration", of which these draft regulations are the final piece in the jigsaw, is important. It obliges the registered keeper of a vehicle to take responsibility for taxing it continuously, until they have properly notified DVLA that the vehicle has been sold or taken off the road.

In May this year, a number of changes were announced as part of the continuous registration package including, apart from continuous registration itself, the reissue of all vehicle registration documents from mid-2004 onwards; the routine issue of acknowledgement letters to all those who notify the DVLA of a statutory off-road notification or a change of keeper; and enhanced checking of the identities of new keepers in cases of non-standard registration applications.

The new penalty effected by these draft regulations will apply to those served with notices following failure to license their vehicles on time, or to make a statutory off-road notification—SORN—when it is intended to take a vehicle off the road. It is set at £80, or £40 if paid within 28 days of the notice to be paid by the keeper if he or she fails to license a vehicle or declare SORN within a month of the expiry of the previous licence or SORN declaration. The new penalties will be recovered as a civil debt, payable in addition to the requirement to relicense the vehicle. Evaders who simply pay the civil penalty and do not relicense will fall foul of a new criminal offence set out in Section 31A of the Vehicle Excise and Registration Act 1994—that of being the registered keeper of an unlicensed vehicle. The minimum fine in this case is £1,000 for those who persistently fail to license their vehicle.

The draft regulations will have no effect on law-abiding citizens who license their vehicles on time and are also not intended to catch those who may, through oversight or difficulty, buy their tax discs a day or two late. Only those whose vehicles are unlicensed for at least a month will face paying the supplement. The DVLA's records suggest that some 60 per cent of those evading VED have been unlicensed for four months or less. However, any unlicensed vehicle caught being used or kept on a public road without a valid licence remains, as now, subject to traditional enforcement action under Section 29 of the Vehicle Excise and Registration Act, even within that one-month period.

While essential to reducing short-term evasion, the regulations will impact less on those vehicles that have fallen out of the registration system. To tackle these vehicles, roadside enforcement—especially wheel-clamping and removal—will be enhanced and the DVLA has been set a target of reducing those vehicles outside the registration system by 50 per cent by 2007. However, by giving keepers a greater incentive to notify DVLA when they dispose of their vehicle, these measures will help to stop the flow of vehicles out of the registration system. In conclusion, the draft regulations before us today are central to the wider package of measures to reform vehicle licensing and registration. They mean we can better deal with people who fail to tax their vehicles on time, without imposing any new burden on the law-abiding majority. The measures are essential to ensuring that we have a vehicle registration system that can deal more effectively with crime, anti-social behaviour and abandoned cars. I commend the order to the House.

Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 15th October be approved [28th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Davies of Oldham. )

Lord Luke

My Lords, we support the reasons behind the regulations. I have a couple of, I hope, easily answered questions.

The Minister said that the aim was not to impinge on the law-abiding citizen. There are law-abiding citizens who inadvertently forget that they should have licensed their vehicle. People may be away on holiday for a long time—over a month, perhaps—and there is always the possibility that people will become ill and will not be able to do the right thing. Would such people be able to appeal?

My second question is why the figure should be £80 particularly. Why should it not be £100 or £60?

11.15 a.m.

Lord Bradshaw

My Lords, we also welcome the orders. There is an increasing number of unlicensed cars on the road. They constitute a great danger and nuisance. Many cars are abandoned, and we certainly want to tighten the net.

Will the Minister say whether anything is being done to make it easier to contact the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency at Swansea? Are moves in hand to make access to that organisation better? It is not always as good as it should be.

Is the Minister satisfied that the penalties are sufficient? Often, the person drawing up the penalties— not just these, but others—is well behind the times. For example, the typical fine in a magistrates' court for driving a vehicle without a valid certificate of insurance is £200. Young people cannot get even third party insurance for that kind of money, and, therefore, it is cheaper for them to evade insurance than to buy a valid certificate. We must ensure that, as the price of car insurance goes up, the penalty for evading it at least matches the crime.

Viscount Simon

My Lords, although I concur fully with the sentiments behind the regulations, I think, with a heavy heart, that there will be some—many, in fact—who see the raising of revenue as the underlying theme, not the creation of a robust record system that precludes the illegal use of a vehicle on the road. After all, as the AA Motoring Trust has said, the revenue raised from the sale of registration marks has netted almost £0.75 billion, yet it is understood that none of that revenue has directly benefited the DVLA or motorists, other than meeting the costs of running the scheme. I wonder why. What will the difference be in this instance?

The regulations will impact only on Mr and Mrs Middle England, who see their vehicle excise duty in the same way as they see other central taxation or revenue raising. Those who are determined to evade detection for various clandestine activities will be unaffected but will continue to cause alarm and distress for others. The innocent motorist must not and cannot be the scapegoat for the law breaker. For far too long, many people have found it easy to avoid paying VED and have neither insurance nor MoT. That cannot continue.

The most efficient deterrent to the illegal use of a vehicle is detection. It must be followed by a draconian financial penalty—not £80 or £100—a conviction recorded on the driving licence and forfeiture of the vehicle. I believe that one constabulary already seizes vehicles used without correct documentation and, if documentation is not forthcoming, destroys the vehicles. It is a pity that that method is not used more widely: it tends to concentrate the mind and has proven to be effective.

I am pleased that my noble friend referred to the obligations under the Vehicle Excise and Registration Act 1994. Some people still think that they have 14 days' grace after the VED has expired and continue to use their vehicles. The DVLA must ensure that there is no confusion about the new system. A fact sheet might help to answer questions such as the following: "I am going away for six weeks, during which time my car tax runs out. What should I do?"; "My son has left his car on my driveway while he takes a year out. What should I do?"; "I cannot get to the post office until three days after my current tax expires. What should I do?"; and "I have just purchased a used car. How can I be sure that I am not liable for a late tax penalty?".

Although the offences relating to continuous registration are not entirely civil matters, there is a case for some form of independent arbitration similar to that which is now in place for other decriminalised traffic and parking enforcement. Noble Lords will be aware of my close involvement with traffic police and enforcement, and I am delighted that there are more mobile and static automatic number plate readers, which contribute to greater enforcement.

Your Lordships will not, I suspect, be surprised at my final suggestion. Any penalty for a fraudulent statement in connection with the issue of a registration document or a vehicle excise licence must, on indictment, include a maximum term of imprisonment for five years. Following conviction, the offender should have his DNA and fingerprints recorded. Such measures would emphasise this and other regulations. I support the regulation.

The Earl of Erroll

My Lords, I believe that the police have experimented with cameras linked to automatic number identification systems to detect cars that are being driven with number plates that are not registered or are fictitious. Although I am not against that, I wonder what happens to the data. In view of our questions and discussions yesterday, are such data stored and kept? Some of the data will be personal information as to who was where and when. It is a point we should consider in the future.

Lord Colwyn

My Lords, perhaps I, too, may add to the Minister's burden with one further simple question. When the DVLA writes to licence holders informing them that their licences are due for renewal, is there a system to register that they have renewed? Assuming that there is, is there also a system to register that they have not renewed? If that information is registered, is there a follow-up system? If the DVLA knows that a licence has not been renewed, does it get in touch with the driver to follow up?

Lord Davies of Oldham

My Lords, I am grateful for the support from all sides of the House for this order. Perhaps I may address the last point first, which is very much fresher in my mind. A communication is sent to the person concerned. We are seeking to improve communication through the use of modern technology. Very soon, when registration is effected— for example, in post offices—that information will be automatically transferred to the computer at the DVLA, where it will be recognised and registered. There have been difficulties in the past with regard to transition that we want to avoid.

Communication with the people concerned reflects the more general point raised by my noble friend Lord Simon. We plan a major publicity drive and campaign in the new year, before the new requirements come into force, so that people will be well aware of their obligations. In that campaign we will be able to identify a wide range of issues.

I am very grateful to my noble friend for indicating some of the questions that might be appropriately answered in the leaflets and the campaign. I hope that in the department we can say that we have put our best minds to work and have thought about some of these issues. I have no doubt that my noble friend has added to the sum of general knowledge of what people will need to know.

Of course, he is right. A failure to register a vehicle because a person is out of the country at the time when the licence falls due is not a new problem. Everyone knows that they have to register their vehicles. As my noble friend rightly said, people have the expectation that they will not be pursued too aggressively in the first 14 days of failure to obtain the new tax disc, but they are liable in that period.

Of course, under the new arrangements, we will make clear exactly what the liability is. After all, this drive is to protect the interests of the law-abiding majority in the country who pay their vehicle taxes properly. I am sure that the whole House recognises that it is high time that we drove down the numbers of those who deliberately evade vehicle excise duty. That is the main thrust of today's regulations.

I can reassure the House that the new obligations will be given full publicity. It is not in our interests for people to fall foul of the law when they have no intention to do so. However, it is very much in the country's interests that those who deliberately set out to evade payment are pursued rigorously There will be no formal system of appeal. But it is a civil offence and, therefore, the department will have to produce a civil case when pursuing someone for failure in this respect. The citizen, in response, will have time in which to organise their defence.

As regards whether the penalty figure is light, it will be recognised that that must be a matter of some experience and some element of best guess of what is appropriate. The penalty for this offence can reduce to £40 if the penalty is paid within 28 days. We are giving an incentive for people who have failed to obtain a tax disc to comply, and comply promptly. The penalty for a breach of the congestion charge is £80. The fee for declamping an unlicensed vehicle is £80. The penalty for the continuous registration offence is £80. Therefore, our penalty charge is within the range.

I hear what the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, said. We must be careful that penalties are not set so low that there is an economic incentive or a financial gain from evading the law. I recognise his point about insurance, although that is a rather separate matter. He will appreciate that prolonged wholesale evasion of vehicle excise duty will prompt a fine of £1,000. That should be a sufficient deterrent.

The noble Earl, Lord Erroll, made the point that we now have systems for more effective scrutiny of vehicles on the road. Part of the publicity campaign will be to emphasise that vehicle numbers can be taken at regular points around the country, as noble Lords are well aware. If the number of a vehicle that is not licensed comes up on police cameras and so forth, inevitably the driver will be vulnerable to challenge.

Lord Lucas

My Lords, if a car is not licensed, how does one know where it is? How does one get hold of the person who was supposed to have been driving it on the day? If there is no record, he cannot be found.

Lord Davies of Oldham

My Lords, that is true. That is why, through these measures, we are seeking to reduce the number of unlicensed cars. As the noble Lord will concede, they are driven by the hard core of drivers who are exceedingly difficult to pursue.

Lord Swinfen

My Lords, if the DVLA is contacted by a police force or by the congestion authorities in London, and a vehicle is found not to be licensed, does the DVLA follow up the last known owner or keeper of the vehicle?

Lord Davies of Oldham

My Lords, that is exactly the intention. But it is only one component of the package of measures that we have announced relating to the issue of tightening up vehicle registration. Of course, it is now much more possible, within the framework of new technology, to address that issue and the DVLA will be better equipped to pursue unlicensed vehicles.

As the noble Lord indicated, that is possible where the vehicle has been licensed in the past because there has been an owner to check on. In future, it will be incumbent upon such an owner to inform the DVLA that they have disposed of the vehicle—for example, through sale or rendering it unfit for further use. So we have tightened up that position considerably.

I turn to the more general question: is the technology of any use when the vehicle has never been licensed? As I have indicated, we are hoping to reduce the number of vehicles that fall into that category, but it would be nave in the extreme not to recognise that there are substantial numbers of vehicles in that position. All I can say is that, whenever tax discs are not displayed, we shall be taking more intensive measures to bring the owners of those vehicles to book. For example, the police will have the right to clamp unlicensed vehicles and to take action against their owners. Unless owners are prepared to see their vehicles disappear entirely through the police clamping system, they will be called on to take responsibility for keeping their vehicles on the road. While that measure does not relate directly to this order, it forms part of the package of measures that we are developing to tackle the whole question of licence evasion.

I turn to the more general point made by the noble Earl, Lord Erroll. The police keep numerous databases on vehicles which, when not in use, are retained securely and within the realms of our data protection legislation. I seek to give him the assurance that that data are related solely to the question of whether the DVLA should be expected to act on them or perhaps to bring forward a prosecution. However, such data are kept within the framework of data protection measures in order to ensure that they are not used more generally in a way that would cause anxiety to the noble Earl and to all those who participated in the extensive debates held yesterday on these issues.

11.30 a.m.

The Earl of Erroll

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for allowing me to intervene with one question. The data that worry me are not those which are used to prosecute the owner of an untaxed vehicle, but those of a vehicle that is in a perfectly legal state on the road. If there is no problem with a vehicle, I wonder whether such traffic data—it might well be called that, although the traffic data we dealt with yesterday in regard to communications providers and regulation of investigations legislation are different kinds of data— that is, the personal data about people who have not committed any offence, should probably not be retained on a database. If the data are kept, they should be retained under a tight regime and we should consider them in the same light as the subjects we considered yesterday.

Lord Davies of Oldham

My Lords, my colleagues will have heard the point made by the noble Earl and I shall ensure that my noble friends who are more directly responsible for this area are made aware of his views. I had thought that yesterday's extensive debates had covered almost every angle, but that was not so. I shall make sure that our exchange is conveyed to the Ministers concerned with these issues.

Lord Skelmersdale

My Lords, before the noble Lord finally moves the Motion on the regulations, I observe that he defended the figure of £80 as the maximum penalty in this area by comparing it with the charge made for declamping and the surcharge made on the congestion charge. That rather surprised me. Surely the congestion charge is in the province of the Mayor of London. Does this indicate yet more love-ins in the Labour Party?

Lord Davies of Oldham

My Lords, now and again all kinds of bodies carry out actions of which the Government express some degree of approval. When it comes to setting an appropriate fine for the infringement of a traffic law, on the whole we trust the Mayor of London to get that kind of thing right. I commend the regulations to the House.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Back to