HL Deb 07 June 1990 vol 519 cc1569-74

7.5 p.m.

Report received.

Lord Ezra moved Amendment No. 1: After Clause 1, insert the following new clause: ("Tamper-proof odometers In section 41 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (regulation of construction, weight, equipment and use of vehicles), in subsection (2), after paragraph (c) there shall be inserted— (cc) tamper-proof odometers," ").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment, I should like to make it clear that it is of a probing nature and it is put forward in the light of what was said at earlier stages of the passage of the Bill. It proposes recognition in legislation of the odometer. I should remind your Lordships that "odometer" is the technical term for the instrument commonly referred to as a mileometer which provides an indication of the distance a vehicle has travelled. Although they are installed in every car and are fundamental to vehicle safety by providing one indication of the relevant interval for safety checks and servicing, there is, in fact, no legal requirement that they be so fitted. Apart from their relationship to safety and servicing, they are, of course, also widely used in determining the value of a vehicle when it is bought or sold.

Clause 2 of the Bill is concerned with the fraudulent practice of winding-back odometers to show a lower reading—a practice which is widely referred to as "clocking". The amendment therefore seeks not just to recognise the odometer per se, but more specifically the tamper-proof odometer.

At Second Reading, the noble Viscount, Lord Ullswater, referred to just such a device when he said: Surely, the permanent answer must be to make cars in such a way that it is physically much more difficult to alter the odometer reading."—[Official Report, 9/2/90; col. 1081.]

During Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Lucas called on the Government, the Department of Transport and other organisations, to enter into meaningful conversations with manufacturers to develop a system which is at least 75 per cent, or 85 per cent, foolproof and tamper-proof."—[Official Report, 8/5/90; col. 1318.]

It is also interesting to note that on 3rd May in another place Mr. Rupert Allason asked the Minister of State at the Home Office, Mr. John Patten, whether he was aware that only one model of motorcar in the United Kingdom was manufactured with a foolproof and tamper-proof odometer. The Minister replied that he was not aware of the situation, but that it was a good idea that tamper-proof odometers should be available.

This new clause, with the amendment proposed, would allow the Government to take just that lead and, following the necessary consultations, specify through regulations the mandatory minimum requirements, which would relate to odometers. The new clause would be complementary to Clause 2, which provides power for the Secretary of State to make regulations requiring the recording of information relating to vehicle mileages.

I say "complementary" because I understand that, given the present state of the art, manufacturers are some way from developing an odometer which is tamper-proof. At best, they can at present be described as tamper-resistant. That is one reason why I put this forward as a probing amendment rather than a definitive amendment.

In the light of what has been said previously during the passage of the Bill, I shall be very pleased to hear what the noble Viscount and, indeed, other noble Lords have to say on this proposition. I beg to move.

Viscount Ullswater

My Lords, I note the amendment being moved by the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, and I acknowledge that it is no doubt in response to the point I made during the Second Reading debate on the noble Lord's Bill. I suggested then that the permanent answer to the practice of car clocking was to make cars in such a way that it was physically much more difficult to alter the odomoter reading. That was the passage which the noble Lord quoted. I stand by that view, but I have to say that I do not believe that this amendment would get us any nearer to achieving that desirable goal.

The Government want to encourage the development and use of tamper-resistant odometers by car manufacturers, but I do not think that the construction and use regulations, which apply to vehicles in use, are the best way to do it. Incidentally, I take the noble Lord's point and I use the expression "tamper-resistant" deliberately, since it is doubtful whether an odometer could ever be absolutely tamper-proof, despite what was written into legislation.

The vehicle construction standards which are prescribed by law are directed primarily towards vehicle and road safety. Thus, for example, regulations require cars to have effective brakes and steering gear, proper lights, reflectors and indicators, windscreen wipers and washers, a horn to warn of the vehicle's approach, and speed indicator so that the driver can ensure that he or she is not travelling too fast. All these are safety features in one way or another. Cars are not required by law to have an odometer fitted, however, even though it is no doubt of benefit to the driver or owner to have one.

I do not want to make too much of this but there is a distinct danger that if the construction and use regulations began to be used for other purposes, that could detract from the issue of safety, which must of course remain of paramount importance as concerns road vehicles. But there is another matter which makes it even more difficult to welcome the noble Lord's amendment as an improvement of this Bill.

Although, as I have said, the construction and use regulations apply to vehicles in use, in practice they of course bite indirectly on the manufacturers and importers, since they would not be able to sell cars which it was illegal to use on the road. We could not, therefore, in the United Kingdom unilaterally require cars to be fitted with tamper-resistant odometers as it would almost certainly be challenged as a barrier to trade, in what is already a very sensitive area. We should need to get agreement within the Community, and I should not like to hold out a great deal of hope of our being able to persuade other member states to give this matter priority.

Finally, I think that I should make the point that the technology, even for tamper-resistant odometers, is probably not yet sufficiently advanced to thwart the determined crook. But advances are being made. Digital display systems are intrinsically more difficult to interfere with, and one British car manufacturer—admittedly at the top end of the market—now incorporates a secret electronic chip which keeps a separate record of the mileage travelled. I believe that I made that point at Second Reading.

The Government welcome these developments and look forward to further progress. But one cannot achieve technological advances simply by passing legislation, and for this and the other reasons I have mentioned, I am afraid that I cannot support this amendment.

7.15 p.m.

Lord Peston

My Lords, I welcome the motive behind the noble Lord's amendment. We should remind ourselves that we are discussing consumer protection. Clearly, a tamper-proof odometer would be the ultimate in consumer protection in this area.

I welcome what was said by the noble Viscount in his helpful contribution. I am glad to see that the Government are on the side of technical progress if we can only achieve it. We look forward to seeing something very close to a tamper-proof odometer. Were we to get that far, I believe that we could win within the European Community because it would be not an artificial barrier to trade such as our partners sometimes invent in order to get round the legislation but a genuine example of consumer protection for which we could argue wholeheartedly. Unhappily, we are not there yet. Therefore, in joining sympathetically with both the noble Viscount and the noble Lord, I am delighted at least that it is only a probing amendment at this time.

Lord Ezra

My Lords, I have listened carefully to the noble Viscount and the noble Lord. They both feel that, while this is a desirable route to take, at the present state of technological development it is not possible in practice to ensure that tamper-proof odometers can be installed. In the knowledge that this has the full support of the Government as a longer-term objective and that they will give encouragement to manufacturers and at the right time will be ready to take this up within the European Community, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 4 [Damaged and rebuilt vehicles etc.]:

Lord Ezra moved Amendment No. 2: Page 3, line 40 after ("surrender") insert ("by motor insurers and other persons").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, Clause 4 was inserted in Committee with the intention of enabling the Secretary of State to make regulations which would implement the recommendations of a police working party concerned with the relicensing of seriously damaged motor vehicles. The working party recommended that when a motor insurer decided to make a total loss settlement on a seriously damaged vehicle, he should obtain the registration document from the claimant and within a stipulated time limit—15 days was mentioned—surrender it to what is now known as the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency.

A further proposal was that such vehicles could not be relicensed until they had passed a rigorous examination. In order to prevent unscrupulous individuals presenting a non-damaged vehicle for examination, part of the check would need to establish that the vehicle being presented was in fact the one which had been the subject of accident, damage and subsequent repair. Clause 4 would allow the Secretary of State to bring in these provisions.

During the Committee stage, however, the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, described it as a "catch-all catch-none clause" and indicated (at col. 1322 of the Official Report of 8th May) that the responsibility lay with the insurance company which paid out on the salvage and then sought to obtain the best possible price for the vehicle. This amendment, while not altering the substance of the clause, takes note of that point and makes it quite clear that the provisions can be applied to motor insurers. I beg to move.

Lord Peston

My Lords, I well understand the noble Lord's reasons for moving the amendment. I have one concern. As I understand it the insurance industry is somewhat worried about the excess burden which this provision might place on it. It is not obvious to me that the Bill is improved by adding these words, even though the noble Lord was responding to the noble Lord, Lord Lucas. I wonder whether he consulted the insurance industry before adding these words to the Bill. I do not want my remarks to be interpreted as in any way moving back from my support for the Bill. However, it would be a pity to do anything which added undesirably to the costs of the insurance industry.

Lord Ezra

My Lords, my colleagues and I have had informal discussions with the insurance industry. It accepts the principle of what is being attempted and has done so for a long time. I must accept, however, that it would prefer this not to be done through legislation. Nonetheless I feel that, as this is such an important issue and as it has been carefully considered by the police and others, it would be desirable to bring this further definition into the wording of Clause 4.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 5 [Meaning of "offer to supply" and "supply"]:

Lord Ezra moved Amendment No. 3: Leave out Clause 5.

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a simple amendment. Clause 5 is consequential upon the original Clause 2, which gave the Secretary of State wide powers to regulate the circumstances and manner in which dealers supplied, repaired and serviced motor vehicles and trailers. With the substitution at Committee stage of the shorter Clause 2, Clause 5 is no longer necessary. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 7 [Interpretation]:

Lord Ezra moved Amendment No. 4: Page 4, leave out lines 27 and 28.

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment removes the definition of "authorised officer" from the interpretation clause of the Bill. The amendment is consequential on the substitution at Committee stage of a revised Clause 2. The original Clause 2 referred to an authorised officer. The revised clause does not, and the definition is therefore unnecessary. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.