Local Transport Bill [HL]

moved Amendment No. 119E: 119E: Clause 111, page 84, line 44, leave out from ““(2)”” to end of line 6 on page 85 and insert ““may not be disclosed by the person to whom it is disclosed under subsection (2) otherwise than for or in connection with the scheme”” The noble Lord said: My Lords, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 119F and 119G. They refer to a different subject about which we have concerns, and that is the extent to which the Bill presently facilitates the sharing of personal data with inadequate protection of that information. The clause is quite cumbersome to read as it rolls through onto page 85. Clause 111 is basically intended to facilitate data sharing. Clearly, if the scheme is to operate well, it will be necessary for the DVLA to provide data on the registered keeper of a vehicle or vehicles. But the clause goes further by allowing local authorities and statutory bodies to provide information on drivers to Welsh Ministers. Perhaps the Minister could indicate what sort of information the Government have in mind. The clause provides for Ministers to charge the Welsh Assembly a fee for supplying data, but does not provide the same for local authorities or statutory bodies in order to cover their costs. Can the noble Baroness explain why the Government are giving themselves the power to recoup their costs, but not local authorities. This scheme should not become a burden on local authorities, and our amendment seeks to ensure that local authorities which provide information are able to charge a fee for doing so. Amendment No. 119E would replace the current wording of Clause 111(3) by deleting paragraphs (a) and (b) and replacing them with, "““may not be disclosed by the person to whom it is disclosed under subsection (2) otherwise than for or in connection with the scheme””." This would ensure that data transferred to Welsh Ministers in relation to the scheme could not be transferred other than to those with whom the Ministers had entered into arrangements. In our view, the provisions to share information go too far. The legislation envisages that the Assembly might employ a contractor to run a road pricing scheme. We would certainly endorse that, and it is therefore necessary that the Assembly should be able to make data it receives available to its contractors. However, Clause 111 would allow these contractors to pass the data on to yet others. Recent events have shown the importance of retaining control over personal data. Our amendment would limit the transfer of data to those who had contracted directly with the Assembly. I suggest that without this containment when dealing with contractors and so on, the Assembly or those in charge might find themselves in quite a mess. Amendment No. 119G adds a new subsection to the clause: "““(7) Nothing in this section shall permit any disclosure of information that would, but for this section, contravene the Data Protection Act 1988””." This ensures that the Bill does not allow transfers of data in contravention of the data protection principles. One would hope that the Assembly would insist on high standards of protection for personal data disclosed under this scheme. However, it is important that this Bill does not allow for greater transfer than is strictly necessary or which risks wrongful disclosure. It should not be possible for the Bill to be the statutory authority for any wrongful transfer, loss or disclosure of data. The amendment would ensure that any data transfers would be subject to the protection of the 1988 Act. These amendments would improve the measures to introduce road pricing, but ultimately this is poorly thought-out legislation. I beg to move.