| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Dr. Palmer: I am grateful for hon. Members' comments. With regard to the Minister's remarks, I clarify that the suggestion of cutting corners did not come from me. I expressed confidence that the existing arrangements would avoid that.
The feeling of the House on the point is clear. Rather than pressing it to a vote, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Dr. Palmer:
I beg to move amendment No. 2, in page 4, line 14, leave out subsection (6).
This is a probing amendment, the aim of which is to explore the extent to which the Government should become involved in the commercial use of MOT data. It may well be that, to defray the costs of the computerised system--which has the benefits to which other hon. Members have very rightly referred--such involvement would make sense. Nevertheless, it is appropriate that the House should have a quick look at the issue, to decide whether we wish to move down that path.
Subsection (6), which the amendment would delete, would allow the sale of information, for any price,
The only restriction proposed in the subsection is that information on
I wonder whether the subsection will provide sufficient protection. It is not instantly clear to me whether information about persons involved in the ownership, or driving, of a vehicle will also be protected--as that information is held in separate DVLA records, and I am not sure of the extent to which those records are open to
the general public. If they are open, cross-searches and cross-retrievals would make it possible to undertake a quite massive direct mailing operation, writing to those who have taken an MOT test, drawing on their experience to date and attempting to influence their future buying patterns.
If information on individual car owners is not available, the issue will be substantially de-fanged. However, I still wonder about the extent to which the Government should market their knowledge of individuals' transactions with the Government. If we accept the principle of the provision without amendment, there are a great many other spheres--tax records, for example--in which we might feel able to market government knowledge. One current and controversial example is the marketing of information from the electoral register.
I invite the Minister and the hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter) to give the House their views on whether subsection (6) will offer sufficient protection against misuse of data.
Mr. Hunter:
I wonder whether the hon. Member for Broxtowe (Dr. Palmer) is aware of the Transport Act 1982--which has not been enforced, but is a paving Act for privatisation of the Vehicle Inspectorate. The previous Government passed it, but never implemented it. Nevertheless, it remains on the statute book. If the current Government, or a future one, wished to enable it, privatisation of the inspectorate would happen, and the core of the hon. Gentleman's arguments would, I suspect, cease to apply. He is concerned about the Government, rather than a private industry, becoming involved in commercialism.
I think that, in one respect, I may be able completely to reassure the hon. Gentleman. Personally, I do not know about the accessibility of the DVLA database--but I do know that the Bill will not remotely affect it. The Bill is concerned only with establishing the MOT centralised computer database.
The hon. Gentleman also asked about anonymity, and whether vehicle owners' identity would be contained. The answer lies in clause 1(6B). The only information that would be made available under that provision is that pertaining to vehicles and
We could spend a long time discussing the principle of how much the Government should be involved in commercial activities. I am not sure that it is right to question that in the absolute and general; we should concentrate on the detail. If the Secretary of State were able to become involved in commercial activities and "sell" information, consumer organisations might wish to use that information to advise consumers about the reliability or otherwise of specific motor cars; manufacturers might use it to rectify defects in their models; prospective purchasers would find it valuable, not least in respect of the mileage of second-hand cars; and vehicle insurers might wish to know whether the vehicles of the drivers whom they insured had valid tests. I look at the issue pragmatically: the database contains information
which many individuals and organisations would find useful, so it should be made available on a commercial basis.
Finally, the commercial element would go some way to offset the cost of computerisation and would therefore benefit the motorist.
Mr. McNulty:
The final point made by the hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter) is extremely important. People should not run away with the notion that we are commercialising and selling the MOT database simply to defray the entire cost of its computerisation. As he suggested, it will go some way towards it, but will not cover it completely. Rather than being in any way sinister or suddenly opening up some huge new opportunity for the ghastly men and women from direct marketing organisations, because of the qualifying statement at the end of clause 2(6)(b), it is of no value to direct marketing, blind-selling organisations.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Dr. Palmer) said, the only caveat on the sale, or passing on, of information from the database is if those particulars do not identify the premises at which any examination is carried out or any person concerned with carrying out that examination. When that important caveat is included in the equation, it is not some liberalisation-mad free-market measure that will mean that, having got an MOT, one will receive a barrel-load of unsolicited rubbish because the nasty old Government have sold the information. If that is not the case, what is the main motive for selling on, or making accessible, certain elements of the database? I would suggest that, rather than defraying the cost of computerisation, there are fundamental consumer protection reasons. Again, I would depart from what my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Norfolk (Dr. Turner), who is not in his place, said. He seemed to suggest that Governments were good at modernising and computerising various activities that had been done on paper, without producing benefits. The Bill takes us into areas of consumer protection that we would not begin to entertain under the certificate-based system, and that is much to its credit. Those elements will be lost if we accept the amendment, which is why I strongly argue against it.
The proposal that anybody--that is legitimate organisations and individuals rather than the "inquiry versus enquiry" argument from dodgy solicitors or anyone else--who can show reasonable cause should be able obtain the MOT history of a particular vehicle must make more sense to a potential purchaser. They would not be allowed to do that if we accepted the amendment.
Anonymous, vehicle-specific information such as recorded mileage will be of use to the purchaser of a second-hand car. Another useful and exciting element of the new database is that commercial organisations will be able to purchase anonymous aggregate data on the MOT performance of particular brands of cars from particular years. Better information on trends in the performance of particular makes and models in MOTs must feed into overall protection for the consumer.
The existing MOT pricing regime will continue. The elements of consumer protection from the previous testing regime are vital. In relative terms at least, the MOT testing process has been a success. Without discarding the successful elements, we are adding new, interesting and exciting areas of consumer protection afforded by the
development of a computerised base. Lord knows, second-hand car salesmen, like solicitors, are not, in some regards at least, one might suggest, necessarily by nature the friends of consumers and always interested in their protection.
12.30 pm
"on such terms, and subject to such restrictions"
as the Secretary of State thought fit, to any persons whom the Secretary of State thought fit.
"the premises at which any examination was carried out or any person concerned with the carrying out of the examination"
should be protected.
"the carrying out of and the results of the examinations",
not the names of the registered keepers. I understand that the names of registered keepers are not available from the MOT database.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |