| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Shaw: Even the furry dice?
Mr. Dismore: There were no furry dice, but the sunroof and speedy wheels had gone. The vehicle was written off by the insurers because to replace the spare parts alone would have cost £6,000.
A year or two later, the DVLA asked me the circumstances in which the vehicle had been written off because someone had bought the shell, somehow reconstructed it and applied to re-register the vehicle. When I lost it, the vehicle had an MOT certificate. That person could have reconstructed the vehicle and, for all we know, it could have been driven around in an unsafe condition. In fact, the vehicle was still structurally sound. The thieves had taken only the bits off, so I was able to reassure the DVLA, but that is the sort of problem that could be dealt with by the new clause.
Another problem that often arises in investigating road accidents is determining whether a defect on the vehicle is a latent or patent defect. Sometimes, it may be detected by an MOT inspection and sometimes not. I remember a case that I dealt with in practice where the driver's seat suddenly shifted as the driver came up to a T-junction, propelling him forward and, he said, pushing his foot firmly on to the accelerator. Needless to say, the vehicle shot across the T-junction and into the path of an oncoming vehicle. As people say in such matters, a collision ensued.
The big problem that we had in the investigation was whether the accident was a result of a defect in the vehicle, or whether the driver was making up a story. The new clause would go some way towards helping to resolve that problem.
We had grave difficulty in tracking down whether the vehicle had an MOT certificate because court proceedings at that time meant that we could not ask the other party to produce the certificate until after proceedings had commenced. Therefore, during most of the preparations for the case, we had no idea one way or the other about the vehicle's condition, other than what we could detect by inspection. We could not check whether the vehicle had an MOT certificate. The recent rules of court changes that came in a couple of weeks ago may go some way towards dealing with that problem through pre-action protocols, but it was a serious problem at the time.
One of my concerns about the new clause is that it does not necessarily deal with the position where there is a defect in a vehicle that may not require an MOT certificate. I pray in aid of that argument an accident that occurred to a councillor in my constituency only a few weeks ago. A wheel came off his brand new car--it was only a couple of weeks old--as he driving on the motorway. He had no way of knowing about the problem. Luckily, no one else was hurt, but one of the problems in those circumstances would be to determine the cause of the accident. The MOT certificate would not really help much there.
My hon. Friend the Member for North-West Norfolk (Dr. Turner) raised an important point--the extent to which the information will be made available beyond the police and the enforcing authorities and, in particular, whether it will be made available to the victim of a road accident, or that person's lawyers.
At the moment, if a road accident occurs, the normal procedure at the scene of the accident is to exchange details of insurance. As I understand it, there is no obligation in road traffic legislation to exchange MOT details as well. It may be that, through the new clause, that could become part of the standard procedure at road accidents. The new clause may help those investigating road accidents and those at the scene of the accidents--the victims--to deal with that problem.
Ms Glenda Jackson:
I appreciate the arguments that my hon. Friend advances but, under new section 46(6) of the Act, anonymised particulars and information would be sold
Mr. Dismore:
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that point.
Fees will be levied. In parenthesis, I hope that those are reasonable because the charges that are levied by the police in relation to their reports are sometimes excessive. My concern is that the Bill creates quite a bureaucratic process by which to obtain the information. How much easier it would be if the parties could simply exchange the details there and then, on the spot, at the time of an accident, as they do with insurance details.
The new clause contains the word "inquiry" as opposed to "enquiry". They have, I think, different grammatical and syntax effects. "Inquiry" effectively means inquiries
by public authorities, the police and so forth. "Enquiries" would include those made by, for example, solicitors investigating the cause of an accident, or the victim of accident who is trying to find out whether the MOT certificate had any relevance to the case.
For that reason, although I share the sentiments behind it, I cannot support the new clause as it stands, although if the word had an "e" instead of an "i" I would be much more supportive.
Dr. George Turner:
New clause 1 might be a helpful tool to allow us to explore the principle of freedom of information. I was elected on a manifesto that said that we, as a party, supported freedom of information.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter) on his Bill. I am pleased that some progress is being made in terms of the data that is collected and the use of computers to store, and to help in the analysis of, the data.
I was shocked when, as a police authority member, I found that incidents records were still being kept, in long-hand, in a book--making analysis of the incidents next to impossible. As a result of my experience of a police authority, I believe that the failure of police to adopt information technology must seriously hamper their ability not only to investigate crime, but to analyse incidents. I am absolutely certain that greater knowledge about what causes accidents will help us to reduce the problems that they cause so many people.
I was interested in the Bill also because, as someone with an information technology background, I believe that, in introducing information technology, it is a mistake merely to make minor amendments to previous practice. A common mistake when finally involving computers in our work is simply to record what we have done before. I am concerned that the Bill may have a weakness in that it does not change enough regulation sufficiently to effect current practice.
I should be grateful if the Minister would help me to understand the basis on which information will be made available, as I am not sure whether large sums will be involved in operating the provisions. If large sums will have to be paid to gain information, the Exchequer's point of view on the matter would be understandable. However, I hold the prejudice that information should be readily available to those who want to use it, and that the people best placed to judge whether they should have it are those who will take the time and make the effort to use it.
I accept that personal details--possession of which might be deemed to be an intrusion into an individual's privacy--should be protected. However, we should not extend the concept of privacy to motor vehicles.
Mr. Shaw:
I appreciate the point that my hon. Friend is making. On Second Reading, my hon. Friend the Minister for Transport in London gave as an example the fact that
Dr. Turner:
Indeed; and I shall deal with that very point after developing my argument a little.
I hold the prejudice that, unless large sums are involved, Government should adhere to the principle of freedom of information, and not censor information unless there is good cause to do so.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:
Order. The hon. Gentleman is now going rather wide of the mark, which is new clause 1. I should be grateful if he would come back to dealing with the specifics of new clause 1.
Dr. Turner:
I shall, of course, take your advice, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am essentially coming back to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore) on the difference between an "inquiry" and an "enquiry".
"(a) to such persons as the Secretary of State thinks fit, and
Therefore, as I said earlier, the new clause is not necessary. The requisite powers will be in the Bill.
(b) for such price and on such other terms, and subject to such restrictions, as he thinks fit".
"prospective purchases of second-hand vehicles might be interested to see evidence of the recorded mileage of vehicles submitted for MOT test."--[Official Report, 5 March 1999; Vol. 326, c. 1406.]
Does he think that such information would be very welcome to people wishing to buy a second-hand car?
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |