 House of Commons |
Session 2005 - 06 Publications on the internet Standing Committee Debates Road Safety Bill [Lords] |
Road Safety Bill [Lords] |
The Committee consisted of the following Members:John Benger, Committee
Clerk † attended the
Committee Standing Committee ATuesday 18 April 2006[Sir Nicholas Winterton in the Chair]Road Safety Bill [Lords]4.30
pm
The
Chairman: May I express the hope that every member of
Standing Committee A had an enjoyable Easter recess; that it was
restful; and that you have come back to this hothouse of debate duly
recharged and ready for the fray for the next five weeks before we
break again for the Whitsun spring bank holiday recess. We had made
relatively good progress by the last
sitting.
Clause 39Driver
training Stephen
Hammond (Wimbledon) (Con): I beg to move amendment No. 97,
in page 46, line 39, leave out subsection
(3).
No. 99, in schedule 5, page 99,
leave out lines 33 to
35. No. 100, in
schedule 5, page 102, leave out lines 17 to
19. No. 101, in
schedule 5, page 106, leave out lines 30 and
31. No. 102, in
schedule 5, page 108, leave out lines 34 to
36. No. 98, in clause
41, page 48, line 2, leave out from ‘assistants' to end of line
4.
Stephen
Hammond: I welcome you back to the Chair, Sir Nicholas,
and I trust that I can say on behalf of the Committee that I hope that
you had a good and restful recess as
well. Our next subject
is a series of clauses on driving instructors and driver training.
Amendment No. 97, which I and my hon. Friend the Member for North
Shropshire (Mr. Paterson) tabled, deals with the power to make
available information on people who provide courses and give
instruction. The amendments selected with it, to schedule 5 and clause
41, are all to the same effect, which is to prevent the Secretary of
State or the Minister taking powers to disclose the personal details of
those persons who are
registered. I guess
that the Minister will say that the powers are necessary for
transparency and so on. However, many members of the Committee will
have been briefed by the Driving Instructors Association, which
represents more than 13,000 driving instructors and is consulted
regularly by the Department for Transport, the Driving Standards
Agency, the Driver Vehicle Testing Agency, the Driver and Vehicle
Licensing Agency and the
Vehicle and Operator Services Agency. It is a member also of the
Department for Transport’s advisory group on testing and
training. Therefore, it is interesting to hear what the DIA has to
say. The DIA is quite
concerned that unless the amendments are accepted we will single out
driving instructors and deprive them of some of the normal rights to
privacy that are afforded to other citizens under the Data Protection
Act 1998. It claims—and based on our research, we would
agree—that it can find no parallel in statute to the draconian
use of such mandatory disclosure of personal information. I wonder
whether, when the Minister responds, he will be able to satisfy us that
he has used such disclosure
elsewhere. It is a
concern that a huge amount of information would be requested. For
instance, the DIA believes—again, it is a concern that I
share—that there would be some clear human rights implications,
and certainly under article 8 of the European convention on the right
to respect for private and family life. If the amendments are not
accepted, much of that privacy will be affected. Therefore, the
Secretary of State’s statement that the Bill is compatible with
the convention on human rights must be
challenged. The
Government set out in their road safety strategy,
“Tomorrow’s Roads—Safer for Everyone” the
objective of ensuring that performance and other information was made
available to the public to “empower customers” and
to “encourage
intelligent use of driving
instruction”. The
message, therefore, is that that could have been more easily achieved
by aiming for voluntary consent rather than including in the Bill the
need to disclose such personal information. The information
commissioner has said that it would have been possible to look for a
voluntary disclosure of the information on certificates rather than
statutory
disclosure. Our
amendment would give back some protection to the driving instructors. I
know that a number of them are concerned that the enforced publication
of their home addresses may result in a substantial invasion of their
privacy. As many as 98 of the UK driving school businesses are sole
traders or franchises. In both cases they are either based at their
home address or their home address will be published under the Bill.
Therefore, they might be worried about being contacted by people
wishing to get information out of them unreasonably by extortion or to
steal their vehicles, which is a ready concern. Publishing such
information is unnecessary. The fact that someone has attained the
necessary qualifications is all that needs to be published on a
certificate; there is no need for the extra
disclosure.
The
Minister of State, Department for Transport (Dr. Stephen
Ladyman): Like the rest of the Committee, I hope that you
had a good Easter, Sir Nicholas. You will not be surprised to learn
that I shall advise the Committee to resist the amendments. There are
legitimate concerns that driving instructors might have about the
release of information about them. Obviously, I understand that they
would be concerned if personal information were released. That clearly
is not our intention. I can also see that they might have
legitimate concerns if we published raw data about their performance
that was out of context and did not enable consumers to make sensible
choices. That is clearly not our intention. We want to be able to
provide objective information to individuals who wish to purchase
training so that they can ensure that they do so from an appropriate
person. I readily
accept that the approved driving instructors and some of the people who
represent them have not felt that the Driving Standards Agency has
properly engaged with them on some issues in the past. I have spoken to
the new chief executive about that and she and I are determined to put
that right and to have a much better relationship with those
organisations and with approved driving instructors in the future. We
want to take them with us and to ensure that they understand why we are
attempting to drive the sector forward and how we intend to do
it. We intend that
any information we publish should be thoroughly discussed with all
sides of the industry, including the organisations mentioned by the
hon. Member for Wimbledon (Stephen Hammond). We want to construct a way
of publishing that data that takes account of people’s very real
concerns. As far as personal information is concerned, those
individuals already enjoy the protection of the Data Protection Act.
Nothing in the Bill will take that right from them.
The amendments would
make the whole clause redundant. Its purpose is to give us an enabling
power so that, when we and the industry devise the best way of
producing statistics on performance, people can make good judgments
about who is good and who is bad, who is effective and who is
ineffective, and who is providing the best training service. We want to
make that information publicly available so that people can make those
choices. If the amendments were accepted, we would not be able to
provide that information. We would not even be able to provide
information about the availability of trainer assistants who are there
to help people who are deaf or have other special needs and require the
services of an assistant when they are training to drive. It seems
entirely reasonable that we put that information in the public domain.
The Driving Standards Agency is collecting it anyway, and it is
appropriate that we make it available to the public, but in a form that
the public can understand and that does not treat unfairly a driving
instructor who concentrates on more difficult cases. The information
will need to be published in context.
I give the hon. Gentleman an
absolute assurance that we will consult thoroughly on what the
information will consist of, how it will be published and in what
context. In order to utilise the power we will, at some point, have to
come back to the House for its approval of the necessary regulations. I
hope that, with that promise and assurance, the hon. Gentleman will
withdraw the amendment and the Committee will allow clause 39 to stand
part of the
Bill.
Stephen
Hammond: I am grateful to the Minister. We got a number of
important assurances from him, including that while he is Minister this
Act will not be used to deny the right of driving instructors to enjoy
the protection of personal data provisions. I am still concerned that
if my amendments are not accepted it will be possible for driving
instructors’ personal details
to be published. I will need to look further at the matter and take
further advice. I am
grateful to the Minister for his assurance that there will be further
consultation. As he is well aware, it has been a long-running concern
of the DIA that it is not suitably consulted by the DSA. The concern
was initially that raw data on driving examinations would be passed on.
Indeed, a series of inquiries has shown, in data for individual driving
instructors, that some of the fault markings in tests have not been as
accurate as one would have hoped. I reserve the right to return to the
matter on Report if I am not satisfied by legal advice on the
disclosure of personal information, but I beg to ask leave to withdraw
the
amendment. Amendment,
by leave,
withdrawn. Clause
39 ordered to stand part of the
Bill. Clause 40
ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Schedule 5Driving
instruction Amendments
made: No. 8, in page 106, line 27, after ‘conducted'
insert ‘, conditions which must be
satisfied during the currency of an appointment, the charging of
reasonable fees in respect of applications for appointment or
appointments or in connection with any examination or assessment which
may be required before appointment or during the currency of any
appointment'. No.
9, in page 113, line 8, after ‘evidencing'
insert ‘the passing of an
examination (or part of an examination) required by regulations under
section 132 of this Act
or'. No.
10, in page 113, line 15, after ‘evidencing'
insert ‘the passing of an
examination (or part of an examination) required by regulations under
section 132 of this Act or'.— [Dr.
Ladyman.] Schedule
5, as amended, agreed
to.
The
Chairman: I have already put the question. If the hon.
Gentleman wanted to speak to schedule 5, he should have stood up a
little
faster.
Clause 41Tests:
approved assistants 4.45
pm
|
| |
| ©Parliamentary copyright 2006 | Prepared 19 April 2006 |