---

Road Safety Bill [HL]

My Lords, I certainly apologise for the fact that the noble Lord did not receive the letter that was directed to him. I hope that I can make good that deficiency in this contribution. The issue of stolen vehicles is a significant problem, not just in Europe but worldwide. We have problems with stolen Japanese vehicles, as does Australia. We all know that there is a fairly flourishing illegal trade in the marketing of stolen vehicles. If a householder has lost a rather valuable car and they ask what chance they have of getting it back, the police officer is likely to make the depressing statement, ““If it is this side of the English Channel I would be somewhat surprised—and if it is ever recovered, it might be a good deal further away than that””. It is a problem, and I think noble Lords will recognise this issue. The EUCARIS concept is only one strand in our general strategy to try and tackle the issue of vehicle crime. The problem with the amendment is that it would restrict the information to those countries that have ratified EUCARIS, of which there are not very many. It is not Europe-wide; not even all the European states have signed up to it. It costs £35,000 a year to join, but for some countries that may be a sum of money that they could spend more easily elsewhere, because they have very few inquiries about the issue and it is of limited concern. Not everyone in the smaller states is seized of the necessity for action in this area. Some countries have such small volumes of inquiries that they wonder what all the fuss is about, whereas, as we know, it can be a significant problem for other countries. I want to put a more positive gloss on the rather dismal report I am giving at this stage, however. Other countries can join EUCARIS that are not part of the European community. It is possible for them to join if they so wish. We are certainly in favour of encouraging that, but we do not want a restriction on our ability to provide information to other countries outside the framework, which the amendment would require. As I have indicated, this is a worldwide problem. To restrict the exchange of information to those countries that ratify the EUCARIS treaty would undermine the effectiveness of the system by restricting the number of participants—and that number is not large enough at present—and would require an amendment to legislation each time the DVLA, or the authority in Northern Ireland, needed to disclose information to any other country. I hope noble Lords will recognise that, given the safeguards we have with regard to the transfer of information under the Data Protection Act, this information would be used purely in relation to stolen vehicles. I hope that the noble Lord will accept my assurances on that front. We see no reason why we should be restrictive about this when our problem at the present time is that there are not enough participant countries within the framework to enable us to deal effectively with this form of criminality.