Previous Section Back to Table of Contents Lords Hansard Home Page

Lord Hanningfield: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for those comments and am pleased to hear that there will be a review. I am pleased to have been supported by so many noble Lords on all sides of the House.

My noble friend Lady Gardner mentioned bus passes. Although the noble Lord said that quite a lot of funding was available, it is not sufficient. In my own county of Essex, for example, free bus passes are available only in a district. They would not be available if someone wanted to go from Harlow to Chelmsford. The county council will increase the funding to make certain that free bus passes are available to the whole of the county. I know that that example is nothing to do with the amendment, but it shows how local authorities have to find money all the time to support people in this way.

I am sorry to use my own county of Essex again, but, given the problems of this year's budget, all our money will go on road improvement and maintenance and there will be very little available for road safety. As I have mentioned in the House before—to some amusement—the main cause of death on the roads in Essex is people over 50 going back to riding motorcycles. The council is putting on road safety courses to help retrain people over 50, who are suddenly able to afford a Harley-Davidson, so that they do not kill themselves on the road. Money should be diverted towards that sort of measure.

Although the noble Lord said, quite rightly, that the cameras are not there to raise revenue, they do. That is why the amendment proposes that that considerable amount of revenue should be put into road safety measures, such as retraining and helping people. My own authority would be only too pleased to organise many more road safety training programmes if it had more money to do it. If this money were to go back to local authorities, those funds would be available. I was very disappointed by what the Minister said and I wish to test the opinion the House.

3.20 pm

On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 1) shall be agreed to?

Their Lordships divided: Contents, 166; Not-Contents, 125

Division No. 1


Ackner, L.
Addington, L.
Allenby of Megiddo, V.
Alton of Liverpool, L.
Ampthill, L.
Anelay of St Johns, B.
Attlee, E.
Avebury, L.
Bagri, L.
Beaumont of Whitley, L.
Berkeley, L.
Biffen, L.
Bowness, L.
Bradshaw, L.
Bridgeman, V.
Bridges, L.
Brittan of Spennithorne, L.
Brooke of Sutton Mandeville, L.
Brookeborough, V.
Byford, B.
Carnegy of Lour, B.
Chan, L.
Chorley, L.
Cobbold, L.
Colwyn, L.
Cope of Berkeley, L. [Teller]
Craig of Radley, L.
Crathorne, L.
Crickhowell, L.
Darcy de Knayth, B.
De Mauley, L.
Dean of Harptree, L.
Dearing, L.
Denham, L.
D'Souza, B.
Dundee, E.
Dykes, L.
Eccles, V.
Elles, B.
Elliott of Morpeth, L.
Elton, L.
Erroll, E.
Ezra, L.
Fearn, L.
Flather, B.
Fookes, B.
Garden, L.
Gardner of Parkes, B.
Glenarthur, L.
Glentoran, L.
Goodlad, L.
Greaves, L.
Hamilton of Epsom, L.
Hanham, B.
Hannay of Chiswick, L.
Hanningfield, L.
Hayhoe, L.
Henley, L.
Higgins, L.
Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, L.
Hooper, B.
Howard of Rising, L.
Howe of Aberavon, L.
Howell of Guildford, L.
Hurd of Westwell, L.
Jellicoe, E.
Jenkin of Roding, L.
Jones of Cheltenham, L.
Jopling, L.
Kimball, L.
King of Bridgwater, L.
Kingsland, L.
Knight of Collingtree, B.
Lane of Horsell, L.
Lawson of Blaby, L.
Lester of Herne Hill, L.
Lindsay, E.
Livsey of Talgarth, L.
Luke, L.
Lyell, L.
Lyell of Markyate, L.
McColl of Dulwich, L.
MacGregor of Pulham Market, L.
McNally, L.
Maddock, B.
Mar and Kellie, E.
Marlesford, L.
Masham of Ilton, B.
Mawhinney, L.
Methuen, L.
Miller of Chilthorne Domer, B.
Miller of Hendon, B.
Molyneaux of Killead, L.
Montagu of Beaulieu, L.
Montrose, D.
Morris of Bolton, B.
Mowbray and Stourton, L.
Murphy, B.
Naseby, L.
Neuberger, B.
Newby, L.
Northesk, E.
Northover, B.
Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay, L.
O'Cathain, B.
Palmer, L.
Park of Monmouth, B.
Pearson of Rannoch, L.
Peel, E.
Perry of Southwark, B.
Peyton of Yeovil, L.
Phillips of Sudbury, L.
Pilkington of Oxenford, L.
Platt of Writtle, B.
Plumb, L.
Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.
Powell of Bayswater, L.
Quinton, L.
Ramsbotham, L.
Reay, L.
Renton, L.
Renton of Mount Harry, L.
Roberts of Conwy, L.
Roberts of Llandudno, L.
Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.
Russell-Johnston, L.
Sanderson of Bowden, L.
Scott of Needham Market, B. [Teller]
Seccombe, B.
Selborne, E.
Selsdon, L.
Sharp of Guildford, B.
Sharples, B.
Shaw of Northstead, L.
Shephard of Northwold, B.
Shrewsbury, E.
Shutt of Greetland, L.
Smith of Clifton, L.
Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L.
Steel of Aikwood, L.
Steinberg, L.
Stoddart of Swindon, L.
Swinfen, L.
Tanlaw, L.
Taverne, L.
Tenby, V.
Thomas of Gresford, L.
Thomas of Walliswood, B.
Tonge, B.
Tordoff, L.
Trumpington, B.
Tyler, L.
Ullswater, V.
Valentine, B.
Vallance of Tummel, L.
Vinson, L.
Waddington, L.
Wakeham, L.
Wallace of Saltaire, L.
Walpole, L.
Warnock, B.
Wilcox, B.
Williams of Crosby, B.
Williamson of Horton, L.
Windlesham, L.
Wright of Richmond, L.


Adonis, L.
Anderson of Swansea, L.
Andrews, B.
Archer of Sandwell, L.
Ashley of Stoke, L.
Barnett, L.
Bassam of Brighton, L.
Bhattacharyya, L.
Billingham, B.
Blackstone, B.
Boothroyd, B.
Borrie, L.
Boston of Faversham, L.
Bramall, L.
Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.
Brookman, L.
Burlison, L.
Campbell-Savours, L.
Carter, L.
Christopher, L.
Clark of Calton, B.
Clark of Windermere, L.
Clarke of Hampstead, L.
Clinton-Davis, L.
Corbett of Castle Vale, L.
Davies of Coity, L.
Davies of Oldham, L. [Teller]
Desai, L.
Dixon, L.
Dubs, L.
Elder, L.
Evans of Parkside, L.
Evans of Temple Guiting, L.
Falconer of Thoroton, L. [Lord Chancellor.]
Farrington of Ribbleton, B.
Faulkner of Worcester, L.
Filkin, L.
Foster of Bishop Auckland, L.
Foulkes of Cumnock, L.
Fyfe of Fairfield, L.
Gale, B.
Gavron, L.
Gibson of Market Rasen, B.
Golding, B.
Gordon of Strathblane, L.
Goudie, B.
Gould of Brookwood, L.
Gregson, L.
Grocott, L. [Teller]
Harris of Haringey, L.
Harrison, L.
Hart of Chilton, L.
Haskins, L.
Haworth, L.
Hayman, B.
Henig, B.
Hilton of Eggardon, B.
Hogg of Cumbernauld, L.
Hollis of Heigham, B.
Howarth of Newport, L.
Howells of St. Davids, B.
Howie of Troon, L.
Hoyle, L.
Hughes of Woodside, L.
Hunt of Kings Heath, L.
Irvine of Lairg, L.
Jay of Paddington, B.
Jones, L.
Kilclooney, L.
King of West Bromwich, L.
Kinnock, L.
Kirkhill, L.
Layard, L.
Lea of Crondall, L.
Lipsey, L.
Lockwood, B.
McDonagh, B.
Macdonald of Tradeston, L.
McIntosh of Hudnall, B.
MacKenzie of Culkein, L.
Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L.
McKenzie of Luton, L.
Marsh, L.
Mason of Barnsley, L.
Merlyn-Rees, L.
Mitchell, L.
Moonie, L.
Morgan of Drefelin, B.
Morgan of Huyton, B.
Morris of Aberavon, L.
Morris of Manchester, L.
Morris of Yardley, B.
Nicol, B.
Patel of Blackburn, L.
Paul, L.
Pendry, L.
Pitkeathley, B.
Ramsay of Cartvale, B.
Randall of St. Budeaux, L.
Rendell of Babergh, B.
Richard, L.
Rosser, L.
Royall of Blaisdon, B.
Sainsbury of Turville, L.
Scotland of Asthal, B.
Sewel, L.
Sheldon, L.
Simon, V.
Smith of Leigh, L.
Stevens of Kirkwhelpington, L.
Strabolgi, L.
Taylor of Blackburn, L.
Taylor of Bolton, B.
Temple-Morris, L.
Thornton, B.
Tomlinson, L.
Truscott, L.
Tunnicliffe, L.
Turner of Camden, B.
Warner, L.
Whitaker, B.
Whitty, L.
Wilkins, B.
Williams of Elvel, L.
Woolmer of Leeds, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.

22 Nov 2005 : Column 1509

Clause 7 [Driving record]:

Lord Hanningfield moved Amendment No. 2:

The noble Lord said: My Lords, we debated at length in Committee the implications of subsection (2)(e) and the unease surrounding a provision that
22 Nov 2005 : Column 1510
gives the Secretary of State the power to make arrangements for other persons to have access to the electronic driving record. I am pleased to say that this concern was allayed by a government amendment to subsection (4). However, a number of important concerns remain with a project of this significance.

First, is the substitution of the counterpart with an electronic driving record a truly practical measure? In Committee, the Minister was probed on the type of persons or organisations that would be granted access to this new driving record. A number of different suggestions were made regarding the type of employer that might require such information.

To my knowledge, a vast number of employers, large and small, currently require prospective employees to hold a clean driving licence. This can be easily ascertained by the presentation of a person's driving licence for inspection, since the counterpart is a legal document.

What will happen under the driving record system? Many businesses and organisations will still require employees to provide that they have a clean driving licence. In the light of the amendment recently moved by the Government, does the Minister propose that on each occasion the Secretary of State should place a draft instrument containing the name of such a business—say, for example, a small courier firm—before Parliament, to be approved for access to the driving record computer systems?

That may seem like an absurd and ridiculous possibility, but the reality is that a large number of businesses require such information, and, since individuals will no longer be in possession of the legal documentation necessary to demonstrate themselves, these businesses will need access to the electronic driving record. A natural consequence will be a huge number of persons and organisations requiring access to the electronic driving record system, and this will present a number of serious logistical and security problems. Will the DVLA be responsible for the verification of the driving licences for employer inquiries, or will employers be granted access to the database? I am curious to know how the Government intend to address this system and eventuality.

Secondly, can we trust the integrity of the driving record? Without a paper copy to prove that we do not have any driving endorsements, how can we dispute information contained electronically? In Committee, the Minister stated that the DVLA would write to an individual every time that person's driving record was amended, thereby allowing that person the opportunity to challenge the endorsement.

Yet how would a person be able to do so in practice? At present, I imagine that it is decidedly unlikely that such a mistake could be made, because the licence available obviously has the endorsement on it. It can be presented to authorities, as we all know, if you have a conviction on a driving offence. Therefore, under the present system, it seems unlikely that a person will allow their licence to be endorsed without guilt of any offence.
22 Nov 2005 : Column 1511

As I understand from the Minister's explanation in Committee, under the proposed electronic driving records system, a person may request a paper copy of his or her driving record. However, unlike the counterpart, that will not be considered a legal document and will, as a result, not constitute adequate proof. The seriousness of that possibility is amplified by the growing trend in electronic identity theft. Once we remove privately held legal documentation and choose to concentrate valuable personal information in a single electronic system with no tangible mechanism for verification, how can we but increase people's vulnerability to fraud, as there are mistakes and computer errors?

Furthermore, judging by the Government's record on information technology—we all know how difficult some such systems are—is it wise to transfer all this important information on to such a system? The Government's latest foray into the world of budget information technology systems—the NHS project Connecting for Health—is not faring too well, running over-budget and over-time. Remember, this is a project that follows in the less-than-successful path of similarly expensive and ambitious IT projects created for the Passport Agency, air traffic control and the CSA. Will the Minister assure the House that the driving records project will not face a similar fate? I beg to move.

Next Section Back to Table of Contents Lords Hansard Home Page