Clause 8 - Driving record
Road Safety Bill [Lords]
9:00 am
Stephen Hammond (Shadow Minister, Transport; Wimbledon, Conservative)
On behalf of my colleagues, I wish to say how much we look forward to serving under your chairmanship, Mrs. Anderson. Clause 8 removes the necessity for the police to inspect the driving licence counterpart or for that counterpart to be presented before, among other things, the issuance of a fixed penalty notice. We have no problem with the intent of the clause, and neither do we think it anything other than reasonable that the police, court officials and the fixed penalty clerks should be able to access an individual’s driving record and the information held on that record. However, I look forward to hearing the Minister’s explanation of the exact difference between the driving record in relation to a person as maintained by the Secretary of State, and the driving licence.
Our worries about the clause are twofold, and amendment No. 32 seeks to address the problem. We accept the necessity for fixed penalty clerks, constables and courts to access the records, but I seek reassurance from the Minister on several matters. Why must
“other persons prescribed in regulations made by the Secretary of State”
have access? Exactly whom do the Government have in mind to be that class of person? When will the Secretary of State make the regulations? Perhaps we can be given examples of the circumstances in which they will be made.
I want to clarify exactly the real issue of the misuse of official information. If the amendment were not accepted or we did not receive from the Minister the reassurance that we want, a huge number of people could easily gain access to driving records and use that information for profit. Let us suppose that the Minister prescribed that access be granted for individuals to run a Government road safety campaign on speeding. If one of those individuals were rather less than scrupulous, he could sell the information to a company that makes speed detection devices or harass people—even members of this Committee—who have several points on their licence.
I have a vision of a multitude of prescribed people trawling through records, mischievously attempting to find information of commercial worth that they could supply either to corporate companies or indeed to the fourth estate for profit. We want reassurance from the Minister about why subsection (2)(e) is needed. Whom is his Department likely to prescribe and what steps does he intend to put in place to ensure that such sensitive information is not misused? I am also slightly intrigued about why the Government wish to take the powers solely for the driver. I await the Minister’s answer. Are the powers that pertain to the vehicle already satisfactory and extensive enough? If they are not, we will happily help him frame a suitable clause if he wishes us to do so.
Amendments Nos. 33 and 34 deal with our worry about the increasing size of secondary legislation, and to some extent are consequential on the acceptance of amendment No. 32. We want to see as much as possible dealt with by the Bill, instead of by statutory instrument.