Vehicles (Crime) Bill

Public Bill Committee, 9 January 2001.

Standing Committee A

Vehicles (Crime) Bill

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

I beg to move,

That—

(1) during proceedings on the Vehicles (Crime) Bill the Standing Committee do meet on Tuesdays at half-past Ten o'clock and between half-past Four o'clock and Seven o'clock and on Thursdays at five minutes to Ten o'clock and between half-past Two o'clock and Five o'clock;

(2) 10 sittings in all shall be allotted to the consideration of the Bill by the Committee;

(3) the proceedings to be taken on the sittings shall be as shown in the second column of the Table below and shall be taken in the order so shown;

(4) the proceedings which under paragraph (3) are to be taken on any sitting shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the time specified in the third column of the Table;

(5) paragraph (3) does not prevent proceedings being taken (in the order shown in the second column of the Table) on any earlier sitting than that provided for under paragraph (3) if all previous proceedings have already been concluded.

TABLE SittingProceedingsTime for conclusion of proceedings 1stClauses 16 to 30— 2ndClauses 16 to 30 (so far as not previously concluded)— 3rdClauses 16 to 30 (so far as not previously concluded)11.25 a.m. 4thClauses 31 to 335 p.m. 5thClauses 1 to 15— 6thClauses 1 to 15 (so far as not previously concluded)— 7thClauses 1 to 15 (so far as not previously concluded)11.25 a.m. 8thClauses 34 to 375 p.m. 9thClauses 38 to 42, The Schedule, Clauses 43 to 45, new Clauses and new Schedules— 10thClauses 38 to 42, The Schedule, Clauses 43 to 45, new Clauses and new Schedules (so far as not previously concluded)7 p.m.

TABLE

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

The Minister will not be surprised to know that, following the proceedings of yesterday's Programming Sub-Committee, my hon. Friends and I intend to oppose its resolution for consideration of the Bill—more details of which will follow anon. Before that happens, however, I wish to echo at this early stage in our proceedings what the Minister said by way of welcome to you, Mr. O'Brien, and to Mr. Sayeed, who will also Chair our proceedings.

Despite our disagreements yesterday afternoon, which on the whole were good natured although the Minister became tetchy towards the end, your chairmanship, Mr. O'Brien, was a model of clarity, firmness and fairness. I put on record today—because, of course, there were no minutes of yesterday's proceedings, still less a verbatim account—the appreciation that my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Norfolk and I share for your chairmanship. You have had 17 years experience in the House and, therefore, know a thing or two about sitting on Committees, chairing Committees and participating in parliamentary proceedings. As I gently reminded you yesterday—and you took no umbrage at the reminder—you have, by virtue of your 17 years' service, considerable experience of opposition, so you recognise both its frustrations and its occasional opportunities. We look forward to your chairmanship, which will be firm but fair.

In the spirit of the earlier part of yesterday's proceedings, it is a genuine pleasure to serve on a Committee with the Members whom I see behind, around and opposite me, many of whom contributed constructively and intelligently on Second Reading. Although we had our differences, several potent speeches were made, and a great deal of interest was shown in this important but not entirely uncontroversial Bill. It is good to know that the arguments will be amplified and developed further in the course of the Committee's consideration. I am especially pleased that the hon. Member for Hyndburn (Mr. Pope) is a member of the Committee, as he competes with the Minister as the most courteous and accommodating Government Member.

It is not only a pleasure but a privilege to serve opposite the hon. Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Clarke), the Minister of State. No ordinary Minister of State, he; we should be aware that we are in the presence of potential and possibly actual greatness. That is relevant as we begin our proceedings. I refer to what is probably the most recent but, I am sure, not the last commentary on the Minister in yesterday's edition of The Guardian—where else, one might inquire. He was the subject of the Monday interview, entitled Man with a Mission'', written by Mr. John Kampfner, that celebrated journalist and biographer of the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs. In the byline to the article, he says:

You've probably never heard of—

and then he names the Minister, which I will of course not do, Mr. O'Brien—

But one thing singles him out from countless innocuous Labour MPs.

Bill O'Brien (Labour, Normanton)

Order. I remind the hon. Gentleman that we are debating the motion on programming. I am aware of the newspaper report, but could he stick to the motion?

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

I respond to your guidance and exhortation immediately, Mr. O'Brien.

Miss Anne McIntosh (Vale of York) rose—

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

I will do the gentlemanly thing and give way with alacrity to my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh).

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

I invite my hon. Friend to address the programming issue. I am disappointed at having missed yesterday's discussions, which I gather were lively. I was concerned by the Minister's opening remarks today, in which he said that, in his view, the Government have allowed enough time for debate. I have come to the Committee armed with a large amount of material connected with the Bill, especially relating to the objection that vehicles such as motorcycles have not been included in its remit. Will my hon. Friend assist me on that point?

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

Not for the first time and, I am sure, not for the last, my hon. Friend anticipates me. I intended to focus precisely on that point. My observation about the Minister is germane. In my imperfect way, I was about to suggest that, precisely because he is viewed as a future leader of the Labour party and an arch-operator'' by Mr. John Kampfner, he should be aware of Opposition concerns that there will not be adequate time to debate fully, thoroughly and dedicatedly all the matters appertaining to the Bill. The concern raised by my hon. Friend—raised, in a sense, on behalf of the British Motorcyclists Federation, which is an important representative body—is a case in point.

The thrust of the resolution was that the Committee should have 23 hours' debate by 23 January, by which time the proceedings should conclude. We oppose that. It is important to emphasise that my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Norfolk and I tabled an amendment proposing a further nine hours' debate.

I thought that I was being almost wimpish and stood to be chastised by the more robust of my colleagues for proposing only an additional nine hours. However, my suggestion was that, instead of finishing at 7 o'clock on Tuesday evenings, we should conclude at 10 o'clock; that there should be an hour's break for dinner for those who feel inclined to consume supper; and that, on Thursday afternoons, instead of finishing at 5 o'clock, we should conclude at 7 o'clock, with half an hour's tea break. That seemed to be a modest proposal, given the fact—which must be emphasised, especially in the light of the absence of minutes or, more valuably, of a verbatim account of yesterday's proceedings—that the Bill has no fewer than 45 clauses, and, so far, 33 amendments to it have been tabled. I say so far'' because, as we know, those 33 amendments have been tabled only to part II, which the Government wish the Committee to consider first.

If we work on the fairly modest assumption that for the other two main parts—I know that there are four parts in all, but it might be argued that there are three main parts—there will be a similar amount of tabling, one does not have to be a distinguished mathematician such as the Minister to recognise that we will face 99 amendments and 45 clauses during the two weeks. I explained that there was therefore a potential for up to 144 debates in 23 hours, which leaves pitifully inadequate time to debate each matter. That is unsatisfactory, which is why we proposed a change. The Minister and the hon. Member for Hyndburn indicated great flexibility on the Government's part— that they would be ready to entertain the idea of longer sittings and more time for consideration of the issues. I was invited to make, and was enthusiastic about making, a specific proposal. However, that was when the Government turned nasty. They were not willing to entertain the idea at all. It was therefore a case of the smile on the face of the tiger. There was general enthusiasm for tolerance, but specific reluctance to entertain it.

A number of issues arise from yesterday, which, as this is the first occasion on which a Standing Committee is considering a Bill following a decision of the Programming Sub-Committee, are of the highest constitutional importance. The first is whether the Programming Sub-Committee, from which the draft resolution came, was a Standing Committee, a sub-set of a Standing Committee or a Select Committee. We were advised by the Chairman, on the strength of guidance from officials, that it was a Select Committee. My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Norfolk and I asked repeatedly when and by whose authority that was decided. I was told that it was thought desirable that it should meet in the form of a Select Committee, and that, as there was no witness present, it should therefore be held in private. I inquired where that was specified in the Sessional Orders, and where there is a resolution of the House to that effect. The Minister readily admitted that there was nothing in the Sessional Orders on the matter, no specific guidance and no resolution of the House.

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

I said nothing of the kind. The Chairman and the Clerk gave information to that effect. It was a matter for the Chairman and the authorities of the House rather than for the Government.

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

I am grateful to the Minister. I would certainly never accuse him of anything other than frankness and candour. However, my recollection was that he assented to the proposition that there was nothing in writing. [Interruption.] The Minister is chuntering his disapproval and disagreement, but the problem is that there is no minute of the meeting yesterday, still less a verbatim text. That precisely underlines the unsatisfactory nature of a Programming Sub-Committee meeting with no subsequent record of its deliberations. There is now scope for continuing the argument about exactly what was said.

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

My chuntering was to the effect that I assented to the ruling of the Chair. More than that, I said that the Government would vote with the Chair—as is the convention of the House—in order to carry the ruling. I was assenting not dissenting to the hon. Gentleman's remark. Earlier, I said that it was not my judgment on Sessional Orders, but that the Government should—as we did—support and share the judgments made.

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

That is correct, but it is also correct that the hon. Gentleman implied that he was relaxed about whether the meeting took place public or in private, following the model of a Select Committee without a witness. Indeed, he seemed ready to entertain the prospect of its meeting in public. I therefore, quite naturally, proposed that we meet in public, but you advised me, Mr. O'Brien that there was no scope for you to allow such a motion. It is entirely unclear to us where the absence of scope is declared in the Sessional Orders. We are in uncharted water.

I will develop the point about the character of the Sub-Committee which determines the basis on which our proceedings are conducted. My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Norfolk and I strongly believe that the model is not that of a Select Committee. Yesterday's Programming Sub-Committee contained the Minister and me. Although the Minister has many merits, I believe that the reason that he was on that Sub-Committee was nothing to do with his innate kindliness or his potential to be a Labour Prime Minister, but that he is the Minister responsible for piloting this legislation through the House. I was included not on the basis that I would wind up the Minister or pay him gratuitous compliments, but on the strength of the fact that I am the Opposition spokesman with responsibility for leading on the subject.

My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Norfolk, under whose beady eye and continuing supervision my hon. Friends and I are obliged to operate, is a fine fellow and a formidable figure in more ways than one. He was selected for the Sub-Committee not for those reasons but because he is a member of Her Majesty's Opposition Whips Office. The hon. Member for Hyndburn sits on this Committee and on the Programming Sub-Committee by virtue of his being a Government Whip.

The Sessional Order C paragraph (3)(b) states that the Sub-Committee shall consist of members of this Committee. It shall consist of but not embrace all members of this Committee, because it is only a Sub-Committee. How can a Sub-Committee of a Standing Committee suddenly become a Select Committee? That is beyond the realm of imagination. Why is it thought to be a Select Committee? Why did the Minister suggest that we would have a greater prospect of reaching agreement if members of the public were not present? The notion that the presence of members of the public or members of interest groups is either conducive to or militates against the achievement of consensus is not only wrong but constitutionally obnoxious, for it suggests the intent on the part of outside parties to influence our deliberations. That would be a serious thing for a member of the public to do, and a serious charge for a member of this Committee to level at a member of the public. I hope that the Minster will reconsider that dastardly doctrine that he advanced.

Yesterday, I suggested that we should have a record of the proceedings of the Sub-Committee, and at one point my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Norfolk and I were moved to switch on a tape recorder. The Minister was veritably incandescent. He sought a guarantee that I would not seek to inform members of the media of the contents of our discussions.

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

If the hon. Gentleman thought that I was incandescent last night, despite his flattery, he has not seen me incandescent.

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

I do not change my views lightly—I am not a chameleon representative of new Labour. I make no bones about it; I have long admired the Minister and know the scope of his talents. I am aware of the extent of his ambitions and, at least as far as the Opposition are concerned, I hope that he will be a leader. I shall not be distracted or put off my compliments to him, which are justified, just because he is nasty to me from time to time. I shall rise above the nastiness.

I wanted to tape record the proceedings, but you advised me that I could not do so, Mr. O'Brien. There is, of course, a precedent for attempting to tape record proceedings. The right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) wanted to tape record the deliberations of the Privileges Committee in the 1994-95 Session. As you will remember, Mr. O'Brien—you were a Member of the House, although I was not—eventually, the right hon. Gentleman was excluded from the Committee because he issued his own report of the deliberations.

The question that I and my hon. Friends, and, I believe, at least in part, the hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Russell), are asking is why these matters should not be debated publicly. If observers of our proceedings consider that merely an arcane question and ask why it matters, the answer is that the means by which a Bill progresses from Second Reading to the statute book, including the timetable, the order of business, the priorities of Government and Opposition in terms of the procedure to be followed and the order of consideration of the Bill, is a matter of the highest importance. No one should try to hide it from the magnifying glass of publicity.

Andrew Miller (Labour, Ellesmere Port and Neston)

I thought that we were debating a resolution of the Programming Sub-Committee, which I have read with great care. Having listened to the hon. Gentleman's semantics, I should like to ask him a question. Would anything that he proposes in the context of the timetabling motion materially alter the order of debate or provide extra time for a particular clause? Will he confirm that he made those points at yesterday's meeting?

Bill O'Brien (Labour, Normanton)

Before the hon. Member for Buckingham replies, I should like him to note that the hon. Member for Colchester, representing the Liberal Democrats, wants to speak in the debate.

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

I most certainly will, and I am grateful to you, Mr. O'Brien, for that reminder.

My response to the hon. Gentleman's question is that that is one of the problems relating to the fact that only some members of the Standing Committee—I am grateful to him for highlighting the defect—are members of the Programming Sub-Committee. Through no fault of his own, the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston was not present. He could not sit on yesterday's Committee—although as it transpired, as was evidenced by the attendance of my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) in the background of the Committee, he would have been free to attend, although he could not have spoken. However, if he had been present, he would have known that I made it absolutely clear that, as I said this morning, more time should be made available for the consideration of particular clauses and parts of the Bill.

Andrew Miller (Labour, Ellesmere Port and Neston)

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

No. I will not give way to the hon. Gentleman again. He will have to bear with that response to the question that he just posed. I proposed a further nine hours of debate because many important matters need to be considered. We have received representations from the Association of British Insurers, the Local Government Association, the British Motorcyclists Federation, and several others to boot. Those organisations suggested that the Bill contained substantial defects, and expressed reservations about its content and a desire to ensure that it was significantly amended.

I also suggested that the Minister's understanding of the Second Reading debate was wrong and that it would be better to consider the matter in the normal way—to examine clauses 1 to 15 first, and then move on to clauses 16 to 30. I did not believe that his understanding of the Second Reading debate was accurate. He will have to bear with me to find out whether I am right, but I believe that that anxiety will be reflected in the nature and number of amendments tabled on other parts of the Bill. The Minister's understanding of what constituted the most fraught and contentious part of the Bill, occasioning the largest number of amendments and the greatest scope for controversial debate, is mistaken. He made an honourable judgment, but he was not right to make it.

Yesterday, we were invited to examine the order of consideration, and we were told that alternatives could be considered, as detailed in point 6 of the brief guide issued by the Public Bill Office. That brief guide was dated 21 December, and was helpfully circulated, but only on the afternoon of the Programming Sub-Committee, by the Clerk acting on your behalf, Mr. O'Brien. What if other, Back-Bench Members who sit on the Standing Committee but are not so privileged or august as to sit on the Programming Sub-Committee had wanted to propose a different order of consideration and suggest an alternative draft resolution? They would not have had the opportunity to do so, as alternatives had to be proposed there and then, not least in light of the debate that took place on the matter that afternoon.

I am bound to say that that is a significant problem, as is the fact that the timetable for the overall consideration of the Bill is fixed by the earlier programme motion. Factually and helpfully, Mr. O'Brien, you reminded me yesterday that the end date of 23 January was set in concrete. We could argue the toss about parts of the Bill and how much time there was for consideration thereof, but we could not change the final date because the House passed the timetable motion after Second Reading.

There is no real chance to extend the number of hours available, especially in the light of the Minister's truculent attitude yesterday afternoon, even if a panoply of new clauses and amendments is subsequently tabled. We have had no suggestion of a self-denying ordinance or self-discipline on the part of Ministers. If Ministers were to say that they would absolutely undertake not to table any new clauses or amendments, the situation would be marginally less unsatisfactory, but they may issue them, and they propose to proceed in a hole-and-corner fashion in a private sitting to escape the magnifying glass or transmission belt of the mass media, on which a free and pluralistic society depends.

The timetable proposed is inadequate. The constitutional vandalism is unjust. What is demonstrated above all is that, deep down, the Government simply do not care about the traditions of the House or the entitlements of Members of Parliament. They are concerned exclusively with the operation of their business and the pursuit of their goals. They use every administrative fiat and caprice available to them to achieve their objectives. We believe that that is wrong, and we strongly object. We urge the Committee to consider instead the alternative extra nine hours that we proposed yesterday. That proposal would be right, as it would be in the interests of the consideration of the Bill and a service to those concerned about it. I will sit down, because I look forward with interest and respect to what the hon. Member for Colchester has to say.

Bob Russell (Liberal Democrat, Colchester)

I will try not to take up my entire four minutes. As my votes on the subject yesterday suggest, I believe that the time allocated is inadequate. However, I am grateful to the Minister for repeating the assurance that he gave yesterday, which was that the usual channels will consider the whole set-up. We are creating a precedent, as we are the first Committee to use the new procedure. The Government must regret the fact that, by design or default, they have created a situation in which the hon. Member for Buckingham, for two and a half hours last night and another 25 minutes today, has gone out of his way to try to prolong matters rather than to shorten them.

We will support the Bill in general terms, but with reservations. I cannot say that that is necessarily the view of the Conservative Opposition. I believe that the Minister took on board the points made last night. I can only conclude that the hon. Member for Buckingham does not have the interests of the Bill at heart. We have heard his long speeches, last night and today. If he were to bore for Britain—small bore—he would certainly win a gold.

In the Division, we will vote against the inadequate amount of time, but in debate we will make constructive arguments. If the Conservatives want to be the vehicle villains' friends, let them, but we do not.

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

I thank the hon. Member for Colchester for his brief and pithy remarks of two minutes. I know that his contribution and that of his party in support of the Bill will be constructive.

In the 30 seconds that the hon. Member for Vale of York had to speak, she made a remark that was pithy and to the point. The definition of vehicles in the Bill covers motorbikes. We have received representations by telephone from the British Motorcyclists Federation, which has been in touch with the team on the Bill. If she tables amendments that are informed by such groups, we will consider them seriously and properly. I encourage their involvement in the debate, and the way in which she made her point.

All the points made by the hon. Member for Buckingham, who spoke for 23 minutes, related to the programming process itself. They are perfectly fair points, although he perhaps made them in an overly lengthy way. The hon. Member for Mid-Norfolk might perhaps be an example to him. As I said at the meeting of the Programming Sub-Committee last night, we are discussing through the usual channels the important issues of whether the hearings should be heard in public, how the Committee is formed, and so forth. We shall pursue those discussions. They are matters for the House and for you, Mr. O'Brien, to take up, not for the Committee—

It being half an hour after the commencement of proceedings on the motion, the Chairman put the Question, pursuant to paragraph (6) of the Order of the House of 7 November 2000 relating to Programming Sub-Committees.

The Committee divided: Ayes 9, Noes 5.

Bill O'Brien (Labour, Normanton)

Before we move on, I remind the Committee that there is a financial resolution in connection with the Bill. Copies are available in the Room for hon. Members. I also remind hon. Members that adequate notice must be given of amendments. As a general rule, my co-Chairmen and I do not intend to call starred amendments. Clause 16 Requirement of Registration forRegistration Plate Suppliers

Clause 16 - Requirement of Registration forRegistration Plate Suppliers

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

The clause deals with the requirement for registration plate suppliers to register, and I shall simply describe its purpose. The clause requires anyone carrying on a business as a registration plate supplier in England and Wales to be registered by the Secretary of State for Transport—which, in practice, means by the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Authority. It is a devolved matter, and it will be for the Scottish Parliament and the Northern Ireland Assembly to pass similar legislation, if they wish.

Under the clause, suppliers will be required to operate the secure system created by the legislation if they wish to continue trading. The courts will have the power to suspend the registration of businesses that do not comply with the provisions of the Bill. It will be an offence, subject to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale, that is to say £5,000, to carry on a business as a registration plate supplier without being registered. The level of the fine reflects the seriousness that the Government attach to the offence and our determination to tackle the problem.

A register will provide the police with information on the state of any business that they wish to investigate and an audit trail for them to follow. It will also reassure others in the trade that they are dealing with a legitimate business. The Government have decided that a single centralised registration authority will provide a convenient and efficient route for inquiries. The DVLA has substantial experience in the maintenance of the driver and the vehicle registers, and it is well placed to administer a register of number plate suppliers. In addition, the creation of a single registration authority reduces the burden on business, because only one registration fee will be due from businesses with multiple outlets.

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

Will the Minister say something about whether an individual's conviction for trading without registration and the fine imposed on that person would be a material factor in preventing him or her from subsequently registering? If a conviction would not prevent registration, would it at least delay it?

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

I think that it would be a material factor. The issues involved are important, and the question of the character and nature of the business is relevant.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

It is a great honour to serve under your chairmanship, Mr. O'Brien, particularly as we are both well versed in transport matters through our honorary positions on the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs Committee. Through your capacity as a member of that Committee, you will be familiar with my modest portfolio of investments. The only one of any possible relevance to this debate is in Eurotunnel. That would be particularly relevant to the clause in terms of rogue dealing or trading in illegal supplies of registration plates. I would also like to take this opportunity to declare an interest through my membership of the RAC Foundation public policy committee. That membership, and the hospitality that I receive through it, is declared on the Register of Members' Interests.

I congratulate the Minister on his explanation of clause 16. Will he say more about the role of the registration authority? A single registration authority would be a positive step forward, but will he reassure my constituents and me that another quango is not being created? What size of authority does he envisage and what would its specific role be?

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

There are indeed cogent arguments in support of a single authority, but is my hon. Friend concerned that unless we have further and better particulars about the authority's intended operation, it might not be the model of efficiency or market testing that we ordinarily now expect of Government agencies?

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his characteristically eloquent points. He has encapsulated my concern on the matter. The Minister has been relatively silent on the role of the authority, and bearing in mind the fact that both Opposition parties have expressed their disappointment at the amount of time that we have to devote not just to the clause but to the whole Bill, I hope that his reticence will not be regarded as intended to stifle debate or restrict the available information.

It is important to remember that there is an existing trade in plates and that rogue dealers sell them on. I would like to share with the Committee the experience of my parents. They would not like me to say so, but they are now elderly. The incident that I am about to relate happened when they were both in their mid-70s. They live in an isolated position in a village in the north of England, and at the time of the events they did not have a burglar alarm on the garage that is attached to their house. One evening in October, five or six years ago, when a gale-force wind was blowing, some very skilful burglars took the window out of the garage by removing the putty. They then disarmed the car's immobiliser and alarm and opened the garage doors, which in normal circumstances would have made enough noise to wake up the neighbourhood, but which, with a gale-force wind blowing, nobody noticed. The car was then moved, by stealth, up the drive and on to a low loader, and was never seen again.

My father had a shrewd idea that the person who stole the vehicle was someone who had offered to sell him new registration plates, because it was a new vehicle and he thought that a man of his stature would like private registration plates. The rogue trader had also offered to sell him a security package for the vehicle, and my father had assumed that the purpose of the visit was to check the age of the car, which was then three months old. It was distressing to find that the car had been removed. My mother checked the garage at 7 o'clock in the morning and my father realised that the car had not been taken to be serviced, as my mother had hoped. Most distressing was the fact that the police made no attempt to search for the vehicle.

I know that if the vehicle had cost substantially more than a Peugeot 306 costs, the police would have advised installing a tracker or bugging device. I wonder whether the Government have considered whether registration plates can be used to provide an electronic mechanism for tracking cars. I imagine that, in the example that I have given, the vehicle went from the north of England to a container ship and left this country's shores the next day, or that it was broken into parts. Could not the Bill provide for bar codes or other security mechanisms on registration plates, to prevent such crimes in future?

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

Will my hon. Friend explain how that might work? I understand that such a system might act as a deterrent to the commission of offences, but it is not clear how it would prevent a crime that was about to be committed.

Bill O'Brien (Labour, Normanton)

Before the hon. Lady continues, I ask her to note that we are discussing registration. The point made by the hon. Member for Buckingham will be relevant in a later debate.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

It is specifically with reference to registration plates that I should like to pursue my hon. Friend's point. The new driving licence has a bar code at the back, which can provide electronically several details about the holder, such as medical conditions, blood group and so on. I suspect that my parents' vehicle passed through a port and was illegally exported and I want to know whether a device could be attached to a registration plate, to be picked up on entry to a port.

Steve McCabe (Labour, Birmingham, Hall Green)

I am following the hon. Lady's argument with interest and have some sympathy with it. However, I do not understand how what she is describing would help in tracing vehicles that were stolen and taken out of the country, and whose number plates were, in the process, removed and replaced with a false plate. Would not that result in tracking the original number plate to a disused warehouse, while the vehicle was in a container headed elsewhere?

Bill O'Brien (Labour, Normanton)

Order. I hope that we shall not continue to debate the question of taking cars out of the country. We are supposed to be debating the registration of those who make the plates.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

I want to make it plain to those who make the plates—I envisage Government support, because I imagine that the process would be expensive—that if it is now possible to pay a Dartford tunnel toll by means of an electronic gadget, the same mechanism can surely be attached to a registration plate, for a one-off cost at the time of manufacture.

The Bill provides an opportunity to reduce vehicle crime. All Committee members want that. The Bill creates, according to the explanatory notes,

three new offences; that of selling plates which purport to be registration plates but are not, of knowingly supplying plates to a person who is in the business of selling fake registration plates, and of knowingly supplying components or plates to an unregistered person.

I am interested in the creation of a fourth offence, or in the provision of help in policing the three offences that the Bill creates, by means of a bar code that could be electronically read, for example on entry to or exit from a port. All of us will know of people—in my case, my parents—who have had vehicles stolen in circumstances such as I have mentioned. Theft of agricultural 4x4 vehicles which are not licensed for use on roads and are used only on farms is a growth industry in the north of England.

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

Of course, the intention of clause 16 is to reduce crime, and it may or may not, through the establishment of a register overseen by an authority, be successful. Does my hon. Friend agree that we must be careful not to raise unduly expectations? The Government talk about the three offences, but there is no obvious evidence that the passage of clause 16 will assist in determining whether someone has knowingly done business with someone who is engaged in illegal activity. I said on Second Reading that the objective established by Ministers was sensible, but that it was deuced difficult to see how it could be translated into practice. It is well nigh impossible to see how that would be done by clause 16.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

That is precisely the point that I am amateurishly trying to make. We need to tighten clause 16 to such an extent that we can link the perpetrator of the illegal activity with the illegal good, which could be a stolen number plate. I am particularly concerned with what happens when the registration plate is parted from the stolen vehicle to which it belongs. An electronic bar code on that registration plate would assist the Government in making the Bill work.

Jonathan R Shaw (Labour, Chatham and Aylesford)

I am not sure whether what the hon. Lady is suggesting would work, although I have a great deal of sympathy with it. Further down the line we shall need to consider the possibility of everyone having a personal number plate, as they do in France, where documentary evidence is required of purchase of that plate. When someone has a new car he takes his plate with him. If the car belonging to the hon. Lady's parents was being shipped abroad, as she has described, the number plate would need to be checked and documentary evidence of purchase would need to be shown. That would deal with the matter, and also with the problem of abandoned cars, to which I referred on Second Reading.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for making that point, although it is slightly different from the one that I am making. I am trying to assist the Government in a positive way by pointing out that for the Bill, including clause 16, to succeed some device is necessary whereby even if the registration plate is removed from the rightful vehicle and the vehicle is removed from the rightful owner, it can be traced. At the moment forged documents would enable the vehicle to enter a port and be put into a container for shipment to who knows where, but normally a war zone, where it would be sold as a second-hand vehicle.

Paragraph 13 of the explanatory notes states:

At present there is no control over the supply of plates and suppliers are not required before supplying a set of plates to check the identity of purchasers or their entitlement to use plates containing particular registration marks.

Clause 16 as drafted would allow a stolen vehicle to be fitted with a set of rogue plates. Fitting an electronic device such as the one that I have described would clearly show that the plates were rogue plates and did not belong to that vehicle.

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

Can my hon. Friend develop further her point about the extent to which someone who is a legitimate trader can be aware of whether he or she is supplying a plate to someone engaged in criminal activity? It is not clear to me how clause 16 is conducive to the achievement of that objective.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

In that regard, my hon. Friend and I are at one. We agree that although clause 16 sets out an admirable objective, it falls short of the means of achieving it. If the Government and the Minister were minded to consider the electronic device, that would help a legitimate trader to know that he might be dealing with the wrong type of—

David Kidney (Labour, Stafford)

The hon. Lady wants there to be a provision for some kind of additional identification mark on future plates. Is that not in clause 33 as it stands? She wants the sellers of plates to check the identity of the people to whom they sell. Is that not in clause 24 already? Do not the provisions of the Bill as it stands already meet her concerns?

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for attempting to assist me, but the other clauses do not go far enough. I am trying to make this a constructive and positive contribution: I recognise the Government's objectives in clause 16, but if we could just tweak it and add a little more detail as I suggested, that would be helpful.

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, and I am aware of the good intentions, as well as the extensive knowledge, of the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Kidney) on this subject, but may I suggest to my hon. Friend that, in terms of achieving the objectives set out in clause 16, clause 24 is nothing like what it is cracked up to be by the hon. Gentleman? Is my hon. Friend aware, specifically, that clause 24 is one of those clauses that contains the scope for what amounts to legislation by regulation and it is, therefore, gloriously unspecific? It does not greatly help our proceedings this morning.

Bill O'Brien (Labour, Normanton)

Would the hon. Lady note that we are not discussing clause 24?

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

I will hold back my comments, if I may, Mr. O'Brien, until we reach clause 24, but I am in total agreement with the point that my hon. Friend made. The Government are clearly cognisant of the fact that criminals frequently use stolen vehicles to carry out criminal activities, and use false plates to avoid detection. Perhaps the Government could support some kind of barcode or electronic device that could be inserted in the make-up of the registration plate. That has been done with driving licences, so why can it not be done with registration plates? That would have the benefit of hugely constraining potential terrorists, armed robbers' use of getaway cars and burglars' use of vehicles for transporting stolen goods.

I welcome the creation of three new offences, but I wish to register my regret that clause 16 does not go far enough, and I ask the Minister to amend it.

David Chidgey (Liberal Democrat, Eastleigh)

May I say, Mr O'Brien, how delighted I am to serve under your chairmanship in this Committee? Your reputation has gone before you and it is an honour to be under your strictures. I remember your earlier remarks about sticking to the point, so I will try not to stray too far from this interesting aspect of the Bill. The most important aspect of the regulation of the registration of suppliers is that the police and the authorities need a robust and effective audit trail so that they can trace stolen goods and, eventually stolen parts of vehicles, in order to tackle professional vehicle crime.

However, even if the Bill in its entirety were wholly successful, we would still be tackling only a very small proportion of vehicle crime, which includes not only the theft of vehicles but theft from vehicles. We have a great deal to learn from the experience of other developed countries, and from the way in which they have tackled the manufacture and issue of registration plates. I am slightly concerned that it is not clear how, under the Bill—and in particular clause 16—the Government propose to establish a system as robust and auditable as those that have been shown to succeed elsewhere.

Another point that is not clear to us is whether the Government intend to standardise the manufacture of number plates in materials that are less prone to breaking at the slightest shunt. On Second Reading, I raised a query about the fact that, of the 7 million number plates issued every year, only 4 million were for new cars or trade-ins. An awful lot of number plates seem to have been replaced because they were apparently damaged in minor accidents. I hope that the Government will reflect on that when they deal with the relevant regulations and the standardisation of registration plates. The number of outlets at which number plates can be obtained is another issue that needs to be thought about, but perhaps that, too, is for a later stage in our deliberations.

A potentially serious point has come to my attention on clause 16. The Bill relates to England and Wales. Many hon. Members will know that there is a brisk trade in second-hand vehicles, particularly from Northern Ireland and Scotland. For example, it is unfortunately a common practice among coach operators to purchase second-hand vehicles from Northern Ireland and to transfer the plates to a vehicle in this country, because Northern Ireland registration practices give no clue to the age of the vehicle. Coach safety regulations have become tighter and a passenger can tell the age of an English coach and be circumspect about travelling on it. We shall have to consider similar legislation for registration plate suppliers in Scotland and Northern Ireland, not only to avoid the continuation of that practice but to encompass all the usual problems involving stolen vehicles, including terrorist activity, that we have discussed and are the major thrust of the Bill.

Subsection (2) could be improved to specify more precisely who should be registered. For example, some major manufacturers both make and sell plates but also manufacture them for small outlets or subsidiaries. Perhaps the clause should be amended to make it clear that it relates to those who partly manufacture or sell registration plates, rather than wholly doing so.

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

The hon. Gentleman is making an important point. Does he think that it would be helpful, in cases involving several subsidiaries or possibly a holding company or even a shell operation, for a named individual to be placed on the register? Alternatively, would that be problematic because of the possibility that the individual could change companies after a time? I simply want to establish how we can maximise the accuracy of the information.

David Chidgey (Liberal Democrat, Eastleigh)

That is a good point. We are discussing a difficult area, and I do not have a ready answer. There is a problem about the way in which we are trying to regulate a fairly standard commercial practice because of the criminal possibilities that arise from its abuse. We are tempted down the path of introducing regulations that would never be applied to a typical commercial enterprise. No such enterprise—a tobacconist's shop or whatever—would be subjected to the sort of regulations proposed in the Bill. At the end of the day, this is a commercial activity not much different from any other. The way the business operates aids and abets crime and makes it more difficult for the authorities and the police to establish an audit trail in the detection of crime. Our problem is introducing legislation that reduces crime, but is not a burden on legitimate, typical businesses. I have no ready response to the hon. Member for Buckingham's question as to whether there should be named individuals. I would err towards the standard commercial practice. If, in company law, a requirement exists to have named directors and so on, I would propose the same requirement for companies manufacturing registration plates.

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

I am grateful to the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mr. Chidgey), because he has sparked a further thought in my mind, on which I would welcome clarification from the Minister. I asked the hon. Gentleman—in a search after truth—whether it would be a good idea for a named individual or a company to be referred to in the registration.

David Chidgey (Liberal Democrat, Eastleigh)

In that context, the hon. Gentleman might like to reflect that the proprietors of off-licences are licensed as individuals. Perhaps that would be a way forward.

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

That is a possibility and helps me. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman.

I was speculating aloud on the possibility of requiring named individuals and had highlighted the possible objection that a named individual in the course of his or her career would move from one company to another. However, for two reasons, that would not necessarily pose a problem . The first is the analogy that the hon. Gentleman has just given to the licensed operators of off-licenses. The second—on which I will not dwell—is that there is a requirement to maintain an up-to-date register, which is placed not only on those who operate the register, but on those whose details must be contained within it, who must ensure that, where material particulars change, they inform the central licensing authority.

It may be that naming individuals in the register would be satisfactory. It would provide precision in terms of identity. It would not be dangerous because, if the individual moved from the company, it would be incumbent on his or her successor or the nearest equivalent thereto within the business to notify the authority. We will not dilate on the point that, if somebody fails to up-date information that she or he knows is legally required, that failure is itself subject to penalty. I am genuinely open minded on the issue. I am happy to accept that, in the grand scheme of things, it might not seem a major point but, if the Bill is to be effective, it could be significant. If, before we came to vote on the clause, which is by no means one of the most controversial clauses, the Minister felt able, via an intervention or some subsequent remark or by writing to the members of the Committee, but preferably here today, to elucidate the point, that would be appreciated.

There are other points. I do not intend to delay the Committee for long, as my hon. Friend the Member for the Vale of York made a number of good points and the Minister provided a clear explanation of the purpose of the clause. We were grateful to the hon. Member for Eastleigh for his remarks. However, I should be grateful for some further clarification. If there is to be a central authority, the DVLA, operating at arm's length from the Minister, but on the behalf of the Government, it would be useful to know what stage discussions with the authority have reached. Have the particulars been explored? I assume that discussions have been held, although the Bill has not yet been passed, and we have two weeks of Committee consideration to go. It would be helpful, in the name of freedom of information and in trying to ascertain the likely practicability of clause 16, to know what has been said to the DVLA and what its officials said in response. That is my first main point.

My second main point is that it is important that the legislation be proportionate. There are very few absolutes in such matters. My hon. Friends and I regard ourselves as being especially wary of, and sceptical about, burdensome and perhaps over-zealous regulation. However, Ministers often make the point—I am sure that the Minister will make it while we debate clause 16—that regulation in a civilised community is often necessary. By that, I mean that measures in terms of the conduct of business, the insurance of the rights of citizens, the provision of health and safety safeguards, and to detect, deter and prevent crime, are frequently inevitable. The argument is not about whether regulation is necessarily needed, but about whether the way in which it is applied will be effective and proportionate to the objective that we wish to be achieved.

For that purpose, it would be helpful to know rather more than we do at the moment about the level of crime committed by unregistered suppliers of registration plates, whether they are engaged in criminal activity in the vehicle sector—relatively low-level crime—or possibly in much more serious crime, by which I mean ringing, with which I am sure that the Committee is familiar. The offence of ringing is serious, and is often the cover for heinous crimes. It can be the gateway to the commission of offences such as drug trafficking and terrorism.

We know the overall position, as we had a bird's-eye view in the copious deliberations on Second Reading of the incidence of car crime, both of theft of vehicles and from vehicles. The latter is equally significant, but the Bill does not deal with it. We traded statistics about what had happened and the fact that the Government had, through their vehicle crime reduction action team, a game plan to reduce the incidence of offences by 30 per cent. over five years. All that is useful information but, in terms of the Committee's decision on whether to approve clause 16 and the establishment of the register, it would help to know the Minister's best guess of the level of crimes committed by unregistered plate suppliers or their customers. I accept that it is difficult to guess.

Can the Minister guide me? The point seems rather germane. Some members of the public, including members of my family in one of the few dull moments over Christmas, have raised the point. I do not want the Committee to think that we spent the bulk of our time over Christmas discussing registration of suppliers of registered plates.

Helen Jones (Labour, Warrington North)

Sad.

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

As the hon. Lady so rightly observes from a sedentary position, that would be a sad state of affairs. Even motor salvage operators or representatives of the British Motorcyclists Federation and the Association of British Insurers—one of whom is Penny Coombs, who wrote to me to express an interest in attending yesterday's proceedings—would not for a moment entertain themselves over Christmas in discussing such matters, despite their professional interests.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

I am very concerned, as my hon. Friend has been described in the past by a Minister as a sad person''. He does not seem to have furthered the cause of proving to the House that he is not a sad person'', but is instead the happy, bouncy person whom we know and love. Will he please convince us that that is the case?

Bill O'Brien (Labour, Normanton)

I hope that we will not go into the question of the hon. Gentleman being a happy, bouncy person.

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

We will certainly not. I want to emphasise my opinion that all members of the Committee take their responsibilities seriously. I take mine in relation to the Bill seriously. I accept that I am grossly imperfect in my deliberations, but I do my best, and I take my duties as being of the first importance, especially for the next fortnight in Committee.

I will not extend the discussion, but I make the simple point that there is an interest on the part of members of the public. Of course I did not spend my Christmas recess—for much of which I was in Thailand, and for a proportion of which I was in Israel—discussing such matters. I was enjoying films, books, swimming and small quantities of food and alcoholic beverages. However, I found that members of the family asked me what was going on, and when I explained that I would be leading on the Vehicles (Crime) Bill in Committee, they asked what it was about. I said that it was, in essence, about car crime, which we were trying to cut. They asked whether its proposals were controversial, and I told them that clause 16 proposed a central authority so that information about individuals who traded in the business was properly recorded.

The question that I was asked on that point was important. It was whether the proposal was a sledgehammer to crack a nut. I have never traded in any of the businesses, so I declare a minor non-pecuniary interest that informs my opinion on the Bill, which is that my late father was a motor car salesman who sold second-hand vehicles. He was an upright and honourable business man, but he often observed that he might have been a little more successful than he was, which was not totally unsuccessful, if he had been slightly more ruthless. He was not ruthless; he always wanted to ensure that every part of the equation had a fair deal. He was not a big profiteer, but he came across malpractice in the business.

The important question is about the extent of the malpractice. Is the fine proposed appropriate? Is it likely to be effective in reducing crime and innocuous in its impact on law-abiding people? The hon. Member for Eastleigh would agree, as I think that the Minister would, that we are concerned about cutting crime. We do not seek to smother, suffocate, or express disapproval of, motor salvage operators or registered registration plate suppliers. It would be useful for the Minister to explain something on that front.

I should like the Minister to say something more by way of an update on the regulatory impact assessment and the expected costs of this part of the Bill, especially clause 16, as I think that he will be able to do. That would be helpful. We have been given some provisional figures, but I am sure that he would accept that the subjects are often movable feasts.

David Chidgey (Liberal Democrat, Eastleigh)

With reference to the hon. Gentleman's previous remarks, he often reminds me of the adage, Start the day with a smile, and get it over with.'' That was merely an introductory comment. Clearly, W. C. Fields is not as popular as he was.

The hon. Gentleman made a point about the cost figures that we have been given. Does he agree that it seems bizarre that, in the cost analysis in the explanatory notes, a labour rate of £5 an hour has been used as the rate to calculate the costs of introducing the legislation? I remember from a debate in a previous Committee on which we both served that that is less than the hon. Gentleman pays his cleaner. I do not believe that the costs reflect the real costs of employment and therefore the costs of the industry that will follow from this part of the Bill.

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for making that point, and I fear that he is right, although I hope that he is not. I hope that the Minister will bear in mind the differential impact of the clause and other related points on small businesses as opposed to large ones. I know that those who guide him will, with their exceptional knowledge on such matters. We considered the matter in many pieces of legislation earlier in this Parliament, but that is no reason not to flag it up now.

I do not have the figure with me, but I would not be surprised if the hon. Member for Warrington, North (Helen Jones) had, as she has a virtually photographic recall of such matters at almost any time of day. However, I think that I am right to say that, so far as regulation is concerned, a certain statistic has been bandied about that is relevant to registration under clause 16. It is that, for the largest businesses, the impact of Government regulation typically accounts for about £5 per head.

David Chidgey (Liberal Democrat, Eastleigh)

Per annum.

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for helping me from a sedentary position. For the smallest businesses with between one and nine employees—they might be described as micro-businesses—the cost per person per annum was something like £288. That figure was estimated a couple of years ago. For the record—fortunately, a record is being made of today's proceedings, in contradistinction to those of yesterday—I should say that I volunteer those statistics off the top of my head. I do not have the details before me and, if I am mistaken, so be it. However, the general point stands that the regulations will inevitably be more costly for small than for large companies.

There is a related point in connection with the details of the register. The cost is much smaller for a large business and greater for a small business partly because of the requirement legally to check whether the company fulfils the requirements of the legislation. A large company that is in any doubt whether proper information is being supplied to the register and the particulars of the clause are being observed may simply consult its in-house legal department. Those departments are often composed of formidable legal brains whose services are available on tap because they are salaried employees, who can advise on whether the company complies with the requirements of the clause.

The Minister will accept that a small business with between one and 10 employees cannot ordinarily afford an in-house legal department. Instead, it will consult lawyers, which is worth while as an insurance policy against the possible great expense that it might incur at a later date if it finds that, albeit unwittingly, it is in violation of the requirements of the clause. The requirement to consult a lawyer in those circumstances is, necessarily, more expensive than it would be for a big company. Will the Minister guide us on any assessment that has been made of the differential impact of the clause on big businesses and small?

Finally, I refer to the basis of the level 5 fine. I emphasise that Ministers are right to propose a fine. I do not suggest that the proposed fine or the wording of the clause are wrong. If I were suggesting that, my hon. Friends and I would have tabled an amendment, as the Minister knows. However, I want to tease out of him the position as he sees it. He will be aware that lines 22 and 23 of the clause refer to a fine

not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale.

Presumably, we should deduce from that wording that a maximum fine has been set, but that such a fine will not necessarily be imposed. Will the Minister say what scope there will be for the charging of a lesser fine? Will the general principle informing policy in this matter be that the fine should be greater for a second or third offence? Ministers have set a taxing requirement of achieving a 30 per cent. reduction in vehicle crime over a five-year period. Do they therefore intend to send a signal at the outset that the matter is regarded as serious, so that a level 5 fine will ordinarily be imposed for a first offence?

The clause is good, its outcome may be successful, and my hon. Friends and I wish it well. We did not table an amendment because we are not certain that the clause needs amending. However, several important issues relate to it. Is the DVLA properly ready to implement it? What is the level of abuse? How much expense might reasonably be expected to be incurred? Is it intended that a strict regime, in terms of the imposition of fines, will develop from the outset, or will there be a graduated progression from a lesser fine to a heavier fine and, ultimately, to the maximum fine under the Bill? Those are some relatively prosaic and, I hope, straightforward remarks. Any response that the Minister can offer, in the spirit that has characterised the consideration of the clause so far, would, at least by me, be very much appreciated.

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

The discussion has been helpful, and has raised a wide range of points, to which I shall respond as rapidly and effectively as possible.

The hon. Member for Eastleigh raised the question of Northern Ireland and Scotland. As I said in my introductory remarks, it is a devolved matter—it is open to the Scottish Parliament and Northern Ireland Assembly to pass similar legislation if they wish. We would have a positive attitude towards their doing so, and would co-operate with them fully in establishing the administration, mechanisms and processes involved. The hon. Gentleman was right in what he said, but it is not a matter for the Westminster Parliament.

Bob Russell (Liberal Democrat, Colchester)

Have the Scottish Parliament and Northern Ireland Assembly made any approaches on such matters?

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

I cannot say authoritatively. I have not had such discussions, but the relevant officials will be aware of what is happening. I cannot give the hon. Gentleman a categorical answer now, but I shall do so when I have checked with departmental colleagues about what dialogues have taken place.

The hon. Member for Eastleigh also raised the question of the definitions of manufacture, part-manufacture, individual traders and so on. He made a good point. We intend to table minor amendments on Report to clarify in the regulations what is meant by business''. We shall give careful consideration to the wording in relation to the hon. Gentleman's point, and we shall seek to address the matter. If an individual operates in business as a sole trader—the hon. Gentleman raised the issue of named individuals on the register—the business, not the individual, has the legal status. If it carries on in business, it must register. We do not intend to require all employees to register, which would be impractical, but will simply require businesses to register whether they are sole traders or public liability companies, or whatever their legal status.

I was grateful for the contribution made by the hon. Member for Vale of York. I was glad that she declared her interest in relation to the RAC Foundation for Motoring. As the hon. Member for Buckingham said, the proposals stem from the work of the vehicle crime reduction action team, of which the foundation is an active member. I shall put on the record the comments of its traffic and road safety manager, Kevin Delaney, who welcomed the Bill. He said:

The RAC Foundation for Motoring is pleased to support those measures within the Bill intended to reduce the opportunity for car crime by regulating the activities of the motor salvage industry and the supply of number plates as well as requiring an identity check before allowing a written off vehicle to be re-registered.

Therefore, the RAC Foundation for Motoring supports the Bill, as do the other motoring organisations.

The hon. Member for Vale of York asked whether the Bill was setting up a quango, new structures and so on. The experience of her family illustrates the fact that we are dealing with organised criminals who operate across a wider range than is covered by an individual police authority or locality, whether the crime takes place in a village in the north of England or elsewhere. That is one of the reasons why we propose a national register. We decided not to set up a new organisation but to operate the register through the DVLA precisely because it is well established and that is the right way to move forward. I also want to respond to the point made by the hon. Member for Buckingham in that regard. We have had full discussions with the DVLA, which is an active participant in the vehicle crime reduction action team, and the scheme respects its perceptions. I have no doubt whatever that the DVLA will be an effective vehicle for running the national register.

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

I want to pick up on what the Minister said about the Government's proposal respecting the perceptions of the DVLA. Did the DVLA say to Ministers that the idea of such a scheme was good and that it would like to run it, or was it the other way round, in that Ministers made that suggestion to the DVLA?

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

The origin of an idea is always interesting. Liberty, as the hon. Gentleman knows, was founded by a socialist, not a conservative. One can discuss such matters at length. When I discussed it with the DVLA, it said that it was a good idea, but to be frank, I cannot recall from where the idea came. It is fair to say that there was no hesitation on the part of the DVLA, nor was it a matter of our twisting its arm. It wants to take on a greater and more active role, which is not an unfair description of the way in which we are moving. Incidentally, the Federation of Small Businesses suggested a centralised register for the reasons that I have outlined.

What the hon. Member for Vale of York said about the standardisation of number plates was extremely important and positive. I welcome what she said in every respect. We have considered other alternatives. For example, Sweden is an interesting model. It has one supplier of number plates. Given that it is a monopoly, it is easier for it to control the situation. There are 27,000 suppliers in this country. It would have been an option to nationalise the number plate supply industry, but, as we are new Labour, we stepped back from so doing and followed the regulatory route instead. That was a genuine alternative. Other countries use that method and we could have done so, too.

David Chidgey (Liberal Democrat, Eastleigh)

Will not the regulations inevitably reduce the number of outlets? The actual activity is such that it will make the irregular, infrequent supplier not bother.

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

I shall not comment on the hon. Gentleman's point, although it is perfectly reasonable. The new British standard covers the standardisation of the manufacture of plates. It will be incorporated in regulations that are currently under preparation and will take effect from September 2001.

Clause 33 specifically empowers the Secretary of State by regulation to determine and specify a series of aspects of the plates, including those measures to which the hon. Member for Vale of York referred. I predict that, although technology makes possible precisely those measures that she described, a more unified position will arise and I do not know what impact that will have on the number of suppliers. The Federation of Small Businesses supports the introduction of measures by regulations, so that we can have further discussions with businesses. We envisage that fees will be on a sliding scale, so as not to disadvantage small businesses.

In addition, we have consulted individual small businesses and consider that the administrative costs for them of complying with the regulations will not be significant. The hon. Member for Eastleigh is not right in his conclusion that the Bill will reduce the number of suppliers . Instead, we will achieve a more standardised approach for such a crime-fighting mechanism.

The hon. Member for Vale of York referred to bar coding, a matter that we take seriously. Some months ago, I chaired a seminar on the chipping of goods. We have put £4.5 million into funding research in respect of that, in relation to not only cars and motor bikes but the whole range of white goods. Technology is now massively powerful and can enable a vehicle, a refrigerator or a television to be tracked from the place of manufacture to someone's home. We are positively researching with various industries precisely the best way in which to operate it. It is a matter of reaching a standard that applies from the point of manufacture because there are different reading devices for different machines. As with other products, the problem with cars is whether one chips the car or a dozen parts of it, including the engine, number plate and so forth. We are discussing such issues with the manufacturers. The precise point that the hon. Member for Vale of York makes is well made. I believe, although I know that the hon. Lady does not accept this, that the powers in clause 33 give the Secretary of State the power to deal with the matters in a way that can take advantage of the latest technology and move it forward in an effective way.

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

The Minister is signalling the Government's intention to introduce a sliding scale for the cost of registration. It seems that the Minister is suggesting what might be described as a redistribution of costs from each according to his ability to each according to his need—a redistributive taxation. Many of us think that there is a good deal to be said for that. Ideally, the regulation itself should be as minimally burdensome as possible in terms of the requirements that it imposes, but can he confirm that he intends to impose smaller charges on smaller businesses for the provision of the same information and the fulfilment of the same requirements?

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

I can confirm that we are looking at a sliding scale. I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman is converted to socialism and redistribution as a means of operation. That is not entirely characteristic of his contributions on these matters in the past, but it is always good to get converts from whatever cause. We are picking them up from the Conservatives all the time, and it is nice to get some more.

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

I am sorry, but I am worried. It is a matter of cost, and I wish to retain what limited reputation I have among my hon. Friends in the No Turning Back group of the Conservative and Unionist party. For the record, in economic terms, I am a devotee of Hayek, Friedman and, periodically, von Mises.

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

Unfortunately, that remark confirms that the hon. Gentleman's judgment is poor. When I studied economics, Keynes was my model, and remains so—Friedman was the enemy. If the hon. Gentleman reads Lord Skidelsky's recent biography of Keynes, he will find that Keynes is coming back. By saying that, I may have lost my leadership votes, though the Committee will be glad to know that, as far as I understand, no leadership election is proposed.

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

Despite the Minister's best efforts.

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

No, contrary to my best efforts.

I support the point made by the hon. Member for Vale of York, who describes the correct approach and one that we agree with. The registration authority will establish and maintain a register and make information available to the police and others in the trade. If people do not register, that information, too, will be available.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

How will the DVLA adjust to the new role? Will there be a separate section, and how many new staff does he envisage will be required? From my recollection, the DVLA is based in a part of the country that is partly devolved. Will it have responsibility for this and other matters in respect of the whole country?

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

I cannot answer that, as I do not know the detail of the internal management of the DVLA. Unfortunately, my colleague, the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, my hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Mr. Hill), cannot be here this morning due to a family commitment. I apologise on his behalf, and I will ask him to drop the hon. Lady a line about the implications for the DVLA.

The DVLA will inform the industry as to who is registered, and it will be an offence to deal with businesses that have not registered. The effect will be that those engaged in criminal activity will have their registrations suspended.

I return to the point made by the hon. Member for Eastleigh about Northern Ireland and Scotland. My officials have had substantial and extensive discussions with officials in Northern Ireland and with the Scottish Executive—which were mentioned in an intervention by the hon. Member for Colchester. We have written to the Advocate General for Scotland setting out the discussions that are taking place. It is fair to say that he is watching progress with interest, and I hope that the points that the hon. Gentleman makes will also be heard.

I turn to the points made by the hon. Member for Buckingham. As for the size of the fine, it is a maximum; the courts will have the power of discretion and will no doubt use that discretion in the conventional way. I emphasise, as I did when I moved the clause, that a large fine is important. Not being registered should rightly be seen as a serious offence, and that is why we have set the fine at level 5.

The hon. Member for Buckingham mentioned costs. As the hon. Member for Eastleigh said, those costs are set out in the paragraphs on the financial effects of the Bill on pages 11, 12 and 13 of the explanatory notes. Paragraph 61 of the notes states:

The figures set out below depend on a range of assumptions, many of which cannot be easily quantified.

That is true of estimates of cost in any area. That is why they are never more than estimates. The estimates on number plates were made by the British Number Plate Association. Their estimates of the costs involved are cited in the memorandum, and form the basis of our calculations. As with all information of this type that comes before Committees considering legislation, we can deal only with estimates.

David Chidgey (Liberal Democrat, Eastleigh)

Will the Minister examine closely the assumptions made regarding the labour rate? It is not a wage, but a rate of £5 per hour. The overhead cost of employment is usually roughly 50 per cent., but can be more than 100 per cent., so that the actual cost of employing someone can be twice the amount that one pays him or her. If £5 per hour is the labour rate, that implies that in some cases people will be paid as little as £2.50 per hour, which is less than the minimum wage. That is why I query the figures, and I suggest that the Minister checks them and how they were arrived at.

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

I appreciate that point. We will carefully examine the figures. It would clearly be illegal and unacceptable to pay less than the minimum wage.

The hon. Member for Buckingham raised the issue of the impact of the measures on crime. He mentioned non-registered suppliers. At the moment it is perfectly legal to supply any plate to anyone who asks for it. There is no constraint on that, so all suppliers are currently non-registered in that sense. There is no distinction to be made between registered and non-registered in that area. Criminals take advantage of that and the Bill is designed to put a stop to such abuses. We do not have specific figures on how number plate suppliers contribute to ringing. However, all parties involved in the vehicle crime group, including the car suppliers, the manufacturers, the automobile associations and the police, are convinced that they do.

According to our research, the three measures in the Bill will reduce car thefts by roughly 39,000 a year. About 25 per cent.—roughly 30,000 to 40,000 a year—of unrecovered vehicles such as the car belonging to the parents of the hon. Member for Vale of York are rung, which is a substantial number.

Finally, the hon. Member for Buckingham urged everybody in the industry to go to lawyers. Lawyers tend to encourage people to go to lawyers for advice, although I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman is a lawyer.

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

I am not a lawyer, and I say that as a matter of pride.

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

That will be the only thing on which we agree in the Committee.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

For the record, I am a non-practising Scottish advocate, so rather than being rude to my profession could we please pick on accountants, estate agents or journalists.

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

I am particularly affected by lawyers. My boss is a lawyer, his boss is a lawyer and my ministerial colleagues in the Department are all lawyers. I also am proud not to be a lawyer.

Speaking seriously, I do not believe that the 27,000 businesses are going to go to their lawyers for advice and incur the legal costs involved. I would expect them to take advice from the British Number Plate Association, as many trade organisations do, without requiring expensive legal advice on these matters. The Government, the DVLA and the association will all provide good advice in a consultative way. There is no need for large numbers of businesses to seek legal advice on these matters. I hope that I have dealt with all the points.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 16 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 17 - Register of Registration Plate Suppliers

Bill O'Brien (Labour, Normanton)

With this it will be convenient to take amendment No. 18, in page 9, line 34, at end insert—

`(2A) The particulars shall be supported by relevant documentary evidence'.

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

This is the first clause that Opposition Members seek to amend; we do so on the strength of our conviction that clause 17 is ambiguous.

I emphasise at the outset that it is not certain that the clause is unsatisfactory. I tried to give an earnest of good intent when considering clause 16 by saying to the Minister that Opposition Members are here to engage with him and his hon. Friends. We do not have a hard-and-fast rule, in advance, that Ministers are wrong about every clause. Even where we seek to amend a clause, we sometimes table probing amendments. If the Minister can assure me that our amendments are unnecessary, my hon. Friends and I will be happy to withdraw them. Alternatively, if we remain uncertain, we may decide not to press them to a vote, but to raise them at a subsequent stage. It is equally conceivable that we shall feel obliged to press them.

I should like to emphasise the purport of amendments Nos. 17 and 18. Amendment No. 17 would require each entry made by a registration plate supplier to be based on a standard form which would be returned to the central authority, the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency. The Minister will be aware that clause 17(2) states:

Each person's entry in the register shall contain such particulars as may be prescribed.

It is one thing to have different charges for applications to be registered, depending on the size of a business and what reasonable people may be inclined to estimate as the capacity of a business to pay, but another to require different information from different operators, depending on their size or the assessment in advance that a member of the central authority may make. That would be potentially invidious. I hope that the Committee agrees that the information that the registration plate supplier is expected to provide to the central authority about itself is based on a standard requirement. It should be expected to say who the supplier is and from where it trades and to name the directors. It might be obliged to provide information about its turnover or its clients, subject to requirements of commercial confidentiality. I assume that it is intended that the information should be standard.

The difficulty is that that is not in the clause. It states:

Each person's entry in the register shall contain such particulars as may be prescribed.

From that, we are expected to deduce that the particulars to be prescribed will be prescribed in regulations, but I am not sure. The Minister and those who guide him will detect that my brow is furrowed on the point. There are genuine beads of sweat on it, in eager anticipation of a satisfactory and reassuring response from the Minister and those who guide him. I am uncertain whether the matter is to be subject to regulation.

The Minister will be aware—although he was spared the experience of attending Second Reading—that in that debate I flagged up, as did a number of right. and hon. Members, the fact that many clauses provide effectively for legislation via regulations. I think that I said that nine or 10 clauses—or perhaps even 17—referred to and provided for legislation via regulations. Clause 17 does not say that the particulars should be prescribed in regulations, but presumably that is what the Government intend. It would be helpful if the Minister explained the intention and, in particular, confirmed that the information expected from the would-be registered registration plate supplier would be a uniform set of particulars, as between one business and another?

Steve McCabe (Labour, Birmingham, Hall Green)

I understand the hon. Gentleman's point about the way in which the regulations may be determined. However, might not there be an argument for different ways of collection and presentation in respect of small businesses and national business organisations with regional outlets? Quite different information might be required from the two types of enterprise. The amendment might impose an undue volume of regulation and onerous obligation on small businesses.

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

The hon. Gentleman knows me well enough as a deregulator and a believer in free enterprise capitalism, as minimally fettered by the burgeoning growth of government as possible, to recognise that that would not be my intention. I readily concede, because I am a modest fellow, that it might be an inadvertent consequence of what I have proposed. The Minister knows that I am groping in an honest search for truth. A requirement for a uniform format might perhaps adversely affect small businesses, although I do not think that that would be the consequence.

I point out to the hon. Gentleman, to whom I listened with rapt attention and considerable respect on Second Reading, that our discussion is necessarily becoming—not because of what he or I have said, but because of the vagueness of the clause—somewhat opaque. We lack certainty because of the glorious lack of specificity in what the Government have presented to the Committee. I do not know, because we have not been told, the particulars in question. No doubt the Minister has a fairly good idea. The exceptionally dexterous minds of officials in the Home Office, one of the most significant Departments of State in the United Kingdom, will know what is contemplated. The trouble is that those people sometimes tend to reckon that because they know most, if not all, of what it is important to know, everyone else will be able to follow it. Unfortunately, the MENSA intellects at the Home Office are not always matched by the intellects of those subject to its ministrations. I am in the dark and would be grateful for details of the form that the particulars might take.

On the point that the hon. Member for Hall Green just made, perhaps the Minister could explain whether he agrees with the idea of uniformity of provision, even if he does not agree with the wording of the amendment. Alternatively, does he agree with the hon. Member for Hall Green that different particulars would be required from a smaller business? Would more information be needed from a larger business with subsidiaries, to identify it and be able to hold the directors to account? I accept that that is open to discussion.

Although a greater volume of information might be required from a larger business than a small business, it seems unlikely that the character of the information would be different. I doubt whether different categories would be needed on the form, but more space might be needed for a larger business. One might draw an analogy, without wanting to be too introspective or to navel-gaze, with the requirements for Members of this House to provide declarations of interests. Someone with relatively few pecuniary interests to declare can fill in the entry in the Register in much less space than someone with a large number of consultancies, directorships, shareholdings or other commercial or pecuniary interests. However, the nature of the information required from us all is the same, and the nature of the information required from large-scale registration plate suppliers would be no different, I would have thought, from that expected and required from small-scale registration plate suppliers. I should be grateful for the Minister's help on that.

I hope that the Minister understands that I have a twofold purpose on behalf of the official Opposition. The first objective is to ensure that we have helpful information that is minimally burdensome for businesses. We must comply with the requirements and the spirit of clause 16 in requiring a register without imposing over-onerous obligations on companies. My second motive is to ensure that we do not find unfairnesses developing as a result of the possibly lax wording of the clause. We do not want there to be scope for capricious behaviour by officials. Moreover, although I have the highest regard for the DVLA—and it is probably a good idea to keep it on side—in fulfilling its obligations under the clause, individual agents might even think that they ought to exercise more discretion and greater zeal than a properly worded clause 17 would require of them. That is the essence of my concern. The Minister was rather rude about some of my earlier interventions, but I hope that he will concede that, as explaining amendments is not always easy to do, I have explained mine as briefly as the number of interventions, and my need to develop the case, have permitted.

Amendment No. 18 is to be taken together with amendment No. 17. It proposes that in clause 17 between subsections (2) and (3), a paragraph be inserted to specify that the particulars shall be supported by relevant documentary evidence. In other words, material should be required, certificates should need to be provided, and so on, so that we are dependent not entirely on word of mouth but on bona fides.

Obviously, the Minister will accept that the purpose of the amendment is fair and sensible. Clearly, we cannot accept that because people say, We are good boys and good girls; we behave ourselves; we should be registered plate suppliers, because we are the goodies in the business, as opposed to the baddies,'' that information should be simply taken as read. One requires some confirmatory evidence. Otherwise one would be providing a green light for the commission of offences by those who would hoodwink the DVLA into believing that they are honest operators, when they are not. If illegitimate or criminally engaged would-be registered plate suppliers are engaged in serious criminal activity—a number of them are, which is one justification for the introduction of the Bill—they will not regard it as remotely troubling to their consciences to provide factually incorrect, or even downright dishonest, information when seeking to register with the authority. In other words, we cannot take people at face value; we have to ensure that the wording of the clause is what I might describe as maximally exacting.

I emphasise what seems to be the problem. The Bill is vague in many aspects, despite its good intentions, and this seems to be one of them. Clause 17 requires that

The Secretary of State shall establish and maintain a register

of licence plate suppliers. The details kept on the register may be disclosed to other individuals and organisations on request. If that information is to be supplied on request—the gist of the clause and the subsequent clauses seems to suggest that it will ordinarily, as a matter of course, be provided—it is essential that what is provided to outside organisations is correct. If it is not, both the DVLA and other interested parties who seek to establish what the information is, will be provided with incorrect or even downright dishonest information. It is therefore not only for the DVLA that accurate information is necessary, although that is the prime requirement, but for other interested parties, too.

Subsection (5) states that certified copies of the register may be given out and will be

evidence of the matters mentioned in it.

The amendments are designed to ensure the security of the operation. If copies are to be provided as evidence, where will accountability lie if the information is incorrect? Will blame be attached entirely to the person who filled in the form, or will an element of blame be attached to the DVLA itself? Does the DVLA have a responsibility to check through a third party or the police whether the information that it has been given is likely to be correct? Or is it simply expected that the DVLA will take as accurate a form signed by a would-be registered plate supplier? Is the simple fact of the form's having been submitted and signed sufficient to oblige the DVLA to register the would-be plate supplier? I am not saying that it would be wrong for that to be the extent of the obligation, but people who are engaged in criminal activity will not for a moment hesitate, amid all the other, rather more serious offences that they are committing or propose to commit, to mislead and hoodwink the DVLA and other interested parties about their identities.

We need to know the extent of the security of the operation, rather than simply its purpose. As far as we can tell, at present no one seems to be responsible exclusively or comprehensively for the accuracy of the information. Therefore, if someone uses it for any purpose, it is not clear whether that person may seek redress if the information is proved to be incorrect. Will people who are incorrectly informed, whether by a bogus or dishonest would-be registered plate supplier or the DVLA, have redress? Someone might request the information for a commercial purpose, and might incur expense as a result of being wrongly informed. In such circumstances, who will carry the can? Will it be only the person who volunteered the incorrect information? Will it be the DVLA? Will it be a combination of the two? Will someone who has been incorrectly informed have redress, and if so, what form will it take? The Minister will accept that the clause as drafted does not guide us.

Perhaps the Minister, who is a formidable fellow with a most dextrous mind, can guide us. Perhaps he will tell us, The hon. Member for Buckingham has got it wrong. He should realise that I and my distinguished officials have thought all this through, because we are usually several steps ahead, and we can reassure him that he can go to bed tonight with his cup of Horlicks, unperturbed by the thought that clause 17 is deficient or inadequate.''

We argue not that there should not be a registration process, for which we recognise that a good case can be made, but that the process should be tightened up so that it is maximally effective. We suggest that, without placing any extra burdens on business, applications should be accepted through a standardised process and supported by evidence to prove their veracity. False applications will, as we know, be punishable through a new offence.

To return to the question of total responsibility, will all responsibility be placed on the person providing the information, or will some responsibility be placed on the DVLA? What is the scope for redress for innocent, misled individuals or companies? Including such provisions in the Bill would ensure that any inaccurate information is clearly traceable either to the business that provided it, or to the application procedure, in which case a clear line of redress can be followed.

Under the Bill as drafted, the Secretary of State would theoretically be responsible for any inaccurate information held on the register, although it is unlikely that he would accept responsibility if things were to go wrong. I can well understand that the Minister, although constitutionally responsible, would be peculiarly reluctant to accept responsibility for what might be described as an operational error. I say that in no disobliging sense to this Minister, who is a formidable man, has made great progress in a short time and is expected to make a great deal more progress. He may feel that his upward progression should not be halted, still less reversed, because of an operational error for which constitutionally he will be responsible but for which in practice it would be wholly unreasonable to expect him to prevent.

There are good public policy and business reasons for ensuring that the clause is tight and effective. However, I appeal to the lurking and so far unseen but, I suspect, real and legitimate self-interest of the Minister. We do not know how long he will remain the Minister of State, but his fingerprints are on the clause as the Minister responsible for its progress, and his advocacy and support will be open to subsequent inspection. I am a kindly and generous fellow and would not like to think that the Minister might subsequently be stopped in his promotional tracks because someone says, The clause was not properly amended and insufficiently robust and, frankly, that is the Minister's fault.'' I am sure that none of us would want that.

With those few remarks in support of the amendment, I rest our case. I look forward to hearing what other hon. Members say on the matter and, especially, to the cogent response of the person who might be described as my ministerial friend—the rising star.

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

The hon. Gentleman asked me to judge the skill with which he made his arguments, so I will give him marks out of 10—as I may do for every speech made during our proceedings. I give him nine out of 10 for being to the point; unfortunately, I can give him only one out of 10 for brevity. However, as we go on, we may be able to push that number up. I am sure that all members of the Committee will be keen to have an improvement in that respect.

Andrew Miller (Labour, Ellesmere Port and Neston)

We should have cards.

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

I would not go as far as my hon. Friend suggests. However, as the hon. Member for Buckingham has invited it, I will respond in that tone.

Amendment No. 17 would impose a requirement on the registration authority to produce a standard form on which applicants would enter registration details. That is the way in which a Government Department would operate in any case. Subsection (2), to which the amendment refers, states:

Each person's entry in the register shall contain such particulars as may be prescribed.

Clause 30, line 17, states that

prescribed'' means prescribed by regulations made by the Secretary of State.

Regulations will be drafted to establish and to set out the position clearly. That is what the Bill states.

We believe that it is necessary to have a standard form, but I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Hall Green that that standard form and those regulations must be considered. We will fully consult the industry, to reflect the trading patterns of different enterprises. The central information that we will seek from all organisations will be broadly similar, but we need to recognise, in the precise form in which we operate, that we are dealing with different types of institutions.

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

I do not want to say this too early in the proceedings, but, frankly, my cup runneth over. I think that I have got the nearest that I am likely to get to an acknowledgement of the central validity of our concern. The Minister is keeping his options open, and he is right to do so, but will he confirm that we have a reasonable point? I am not simply bothered about having the approval of the Minister, rising star though he is—and it is not that I have a tender conscience or am terribly sensitive. However, I would like to have it on record that we are being legitimate and constructive in pursuing this point. Will the Minister return to it on Report in the form either of an amendment or of further and better particulars about the extent of the consultation?

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

I am prepared to concede on amendment No. 17 that the information that the hon. Gentleman seeks—that the register should be based on the return of a standard form—is correct. However, the amendment is unnecessary for that purpose because it is already included within the process. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that it is right that there should be a standard or uniform approach across the industry, although I also agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Hall Green that it may vary according to the structure about which we are talking.

Amendment No. 18 is more substantial. It would make it mandatory to require documentary evidence to accompany applications for registration. It does not specify what that documentary evidence should be, or give the power to prescribe what the evidence should be by regulation. We are concerned by what would be meant and implied by the amendment. For example, what is acceptable documentary evidence of a business address is a non-trivial point, which is addressed by Departments right across the range. Does the amendment require a proprietor to submit his birth certificate through the post as proof of identity? Those are difficult questions and we believe that this would be burdensome for businesses. The hon. Member for Buckingham makes it clear that he does not want that to happen.

Linda Gilroy (Labour/Co-operative, Plymouth, Sutton)

What scope does my hon. Friend see for the electronic handling of this process? What he is saying is relevant to that.

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

My hon. Friend is right. I was about to address that point. The requirement to submit documentary evidence would complicate the development of a system of application in electronic form, which the Government are trying to introduce through their e-government programme in their dealings with individuals, institutions and organisations. It is much easier to transmit such basic data electronically than to send documents. We resist amendment No. 18 because we believe that it would be too burdensome on businesses and would not allow us the flexibility to update the way in which the Government approach such matters, for precisely the reason that my hon. Friend gave.

On the final point made by the hon. Member for Buckingham about accountability, the current intention is simply to accept the information provided by the organisations concerned. We are placing a legal obligation on all those who trade in number plates to give that information. Nobody can evade a legal obligation: it will be the law of the land. However, we believe that we should work on the assumption that people are providing that information with bona fides unless proved otherwise. We do not believe that we should establish a rigorous regime for checking each of those 27,000 suppliers, other than what emerges in the normal course of events through the activities of the police, trading standards and others who will make their observations. We are not in favour of establishing a separate weapon of government to address each of those 27,000 suppliers. The accountability for what is published will be with the DVLA, but, in turn, it will be for the individual organisation to supply the information required by law, in the system which is prescribed.

On that basis, I hope that the hon. Member for Buckingham will be prepared to withdraw the amendment. I have tried to answer him as fully as possible.

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

I thank the Minister. The tone and content of his remarks were constructive and, to a degree, reassuring. We shall need to learn more about exactly what the Government intend on the provision of information. I hope that the Minister does not cavil at my making that point. He himself says that discussions are taking place and further consultations will take place. Simultaneously, he accepted the thrust of the Opposition's point about the requirement for the information to be uniform between large and small businesses and nodded in the direction of his hon. Friend the Member for Hall Green, who had in fact suggested the opposite.

I am not suggesting that the Minister was facing both ways. The thrust of what he was saying was pretty well in accord with the Opposition's view, that the character of the information provided, if not its quantity, should be uniform between large and small companies. To some degree, I believe that he was accepting that his hon. Friend the Member for Hall Green had a valid point in extreme circumstances. He probably did not want to upset his hon. Friend, who is a rather vigorous supporter of his. However, we do need to know more: exactly what information is required; how many categories will be on the form; how much scope there will be for additional information to be provided, outwith the form or on additional pages; and so on. These are very detailed particulars, Mr. O'Brien, but in Committee it is incumbent on legislators to give due weight to the outcome of their good intentions.

As for the plate suppliers and other agencies, it is the modalities of the Bill with which they will be concerned in practice. They have not been privileged to witness the Minister speaking today or listened to other contributions. They have also not taken account of the proposed amendments. They know only that in the end there will be a format. Constituents of mine writing from Buckingham will not say to me that in the first sitting of the Standing Committee at column 34, for the sake of argument, The Minister said,'' or alternatively, You, Mr. Bercow, as my Member of Parliament, said.'' What they will know is that, if they wish to be in the business of registration plates supply, these are the rules that they will have to follow. So they will say subsequently, Ah, the form is too long,'' The form is too short,'' The questions on the form are insufficiently clear,'' or, As somebody who is not legally trained, I did not know that the meaning of that part of the form was as follows. I did not know that x, y or z information was what the legislation intended me to provide.''

I am sure that the Minister, who has been a Member of Parliament for longer than I have, will know that we often encounter that. I beg his pardon; he has not been a Member of Parliament for longer than I have. We came in together in 1997. He will know that in many areas of public policy our constituents have genuine concerns about filling in forms, with good reason. We are happy to require them to do so, with the best of intentions, but they are often anxious about the burden imposed. Just because someone is potentially a good business person, it does not mean that that individual is dexterous in filling in forms. We do need to be clear about what is required.

I think that I received some indication from the Minister about the level of responsibility. In essence, he seemed to suggest that the main responsibility for the veracity of the information provided lay with the person providing it. That is entirely reasonable. However, there was a sort of overarching constitutional responsibility for the DVLA to do its best to abide by its explicit duty of care. That is reasonably helpful, but the Minister will know that, in relation to other parts of the Bill not dissimilar to this in character, the Opposition have concerns. In particular, we are concerned that the seriousness of a false application should be properly reflected in the Bill. I will not animadvert further to that; if I were to do so, Mr. O'Brien, I might incur your displeasure as it relates to subsequent clauses. I would not want to do that because you have been an exceptionally tolerant, good-natured and, if I may say so, to date kindly Chairman of our—

Andrew Miller (Labour, Ellesmere Port and Neston)

Always.

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

To date, I said. The hon. Gentleman observes from a sedentary position, Always.'' Far be it from me to suggest that the order of the brown nose'' should be presented to the hon. Gentleman, but I fear that he is veering in that direction. I am grateful to the Minister—[Interruption.] No, I am genuinely grateful to the Minister for what he said.

I do not intend to the press the amendments at this stage. I said at the start—unlike some people, I do not change my mind between the start of a speech and the end of it—that we were not certain that the Bill needed to be amended. I am still not sure that this clause does not need to be amended, but, equally, I am not certain that it does. As I am a warm-hearted and generous fellow, I am prepared to give the Minister the benefit of the doubt. Let us see how the debate progresses.

I am glad to put it on record that, if there are further discussions, and consultation with business, I and my hon. Friends the Members for Vale of York, Mid-Norfolk and for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant—

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

Who has not turned up.

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

We would appreciate it if the Minister would advise us in detail—where possible, in writing—of the progress that is made, even while the Committee is sitting.

The Minister courteously referred to the absence of the Under-Secretary, his hon. Friend the Member for Streatham, who is attending a private family funeral, as the hon. Gentleman kindly told me on the telephone yesterday. I commiserated with him, and we look forward to his presence at subsequent sittings. I have just referred to my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield, who is assiduous in attending the Chamber and in the performance of his duties in the Committee. I am sure that the Minister did not intend to be flippant, but when I mentioned my hon. Friend, he said, from a sedentary position, Who has not turned up.'' I should explain that there is a good reason why my hon. Friend is not here, although he intends—and hopes—to attend subsequent sittings. He has suffered a considerable misfortune during the Christmas recess, and it is not a light or trifling matter.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

A severe misfortune would appear to have befallen my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield, which my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham may want to disclose.

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

I do. Unfortunately, while in the far east, my hon. Friend was bitten. I feel sure that it was not a lethal bite—and I hope that it was not serious—but it prevents him from attending the proceedings today. I am a great friend of his and I was genuinely saddened to be told that he would not be here. I believe that I speak for all members of the Committee in commiserating with him; as they can see, I am crying about it.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

While my hon. Friend composes himself, that is the second misfortune that has befallen our hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield. He also had the misfortune of having part of his house severely damaged in a recent fire.

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

I was not aware of that. The situation seems to have become progressively serious, and I am sorry. To have one's property invaded is a serious matter. Part of the purpose of the Bill is to prevent people's property not only from being invaded but from being stolen. It is alarming that my hon. Friend suffered damage to his property, but the fact—[Interruption.] This is a serious matter; ill health and injury are serious matters. The fact that my hon. Friend was bitten in the far east is of considerable concern. I hope that the bite was not severe; I do not know the details. I genuinely regard my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield as one of the most industrious, committed and conscientious Members of the House of Commons and of this Committee. We are sorry that he is not here. [Interruption.]

It is no good the hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford inquiring from a sedentary position about the exact nature of the bite or where it was inflicted; I am not in a position to advise him. Suffice it to say that my hon. Friend is an outstanding Member of the House of Commons and a superb member of the Committee. We greatly regret his absence and eagerly look forward to his presence.

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

David Chidgey (Liberal Democrat, Eastleigh)

On a point of order, Mr. O'Brien. Having risen, I realise that I cannot feel my feet. If I could see the thermometer on the wall from this distance, I suspect that we should be in breach of the Factories Act 1971 and the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act 1974. May I suggest that, when we meet later, when it will be colder, something should be done about the heating or the Room?

Bill O'Brien (Labour, Normanton)

Can a note be taken of that? Otherwise other members of the Committee will be absent from the proceedings.

David Chidgey (Liberal Democrat, Eastleigh)

I beg to move amendment No. 4, in page 9, line 35, leave out

`and such fee (if any) as may be prescribed,'.

Bill O'Brien (Labour, Normanton)

With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 5, in page 9, line 40, leave out

`and such fee (if any) as may be prescribed,'.

David Chidgey (Liberal Democrat, Eastleigh)

Thank you, Mr. O'Brien, for your speedy attention to my good health. I would not want to be frostbitten.

The amendments, in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester, draw attention to the singular lack of detail about how much the fee would be and to whom it would be payable. I am reluctant that the Bill should include such wording. It would be an open cheque book, allowing the establishment to charge the taxpayer for services provided by the state—allowing Departments to charge whatever they saw fit.

The aim of the legislation is clearly to reduce vehicle crime, but I believe that the Bill should also help members of the public to take action to reduce crime. In essence, we should encourage people to seek out information on registration plates so that they can assure themselves that plates are not illegal or stolen, not borrowed or changed. Charging an unspecified fee for gaining information about number plate suppliers will put the public off taking such action.

Andrew Miller (Labour, Ellesmere Port and Neston)

Initially, I thought that the hon. Gentleman was on to a good point. However, I came to the conclusion that he was wrong, because I presume that the Government will do as they have done in many other areas and put the register on the internet. It would then be available throughout the country, with no inconvenience and at no cost. My public library can access the internet freely, and more people now have access to the internet at home. If I am right, the hon. Gentleman ought to concede the argument for a fee being charged for hard copy, which would presumably be needed for record purposes by businesses rather than by private individuals.

David Chidgey (Liberal Democrat, Eastleigh)

The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point. Ready access to that information on the internet would be welcomed. It would obviously assist the many members of the public who have access to the internet, whose numbers grow daily. I concur with the hon. Gentleman's view. However, he suggests that only businesses would require hard copies of that information. I am not sure that he is correct—perhaps the Minister will enlighten us. Proving that one's car is properly registered is a complex business; if one is buying a second-hand car—it depends on the circumstances of the sale—one may need to make sure that one has the proper registration records. That would apply not only to businesses but to individuals. I seek clarification of that.

I have already said we do not know what the fee will be. I place on record that it should be no greater than the cost of producing the information, and that it should not be left in the hands of the establishment. Some monitoring and checking of the cost is essential. Although it would be easy for the DVLA or anyone else to decide that it could be done for a particular sum of money, that is hardly efficient or cost effective. Some control is needed.

Most important, however, is that the Bill does not make clear who would have to pay the fee. I have already said that I envisage worries being expressed by members of the public, but will the police in the exercise of their duties and responsibilities to reduce vehicle crime under the Bill be charged for access to the register?

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, apart from the fact that charging the police or other public agencies for access to the information would be burdensome, it would be absurd? It would mean that one part of an agency of the state was charging another part of the state—and that would be transparently ridiculous.

David Chidgey (Liberal Democrat, Eastleigh)

That is precisely the point.

Steve McCabe (Labour, Birmingham, Hall Green)

Has the hon. Member for Buckingham never heard of the internal market? [Interruption.]

David Chidgey (Liberal Democrat, Eastleigh)

I have just heard the hon. Member for Buckingham say from a sedentary position, New Labour, new internal market.'' He pointed out the ridiculousness of internal charging between Departments. I am worried that such action may also be masking the actual cost of the regulations, a point that may have come to mind if the hon. Gentleman had thought a little longer about the matter. The explanatory notes give information about costs, but those costs will clearly be offset by the money that is collected by charging a fee for such a process—a matter that is lost in the overall analysis.

The purpose of my amendments is to probe the Minister on certain issues. First, does he agree that we do not want to discourage the public from taking proper, sensible and mature action to help in the process of reducing vehicle crime by charging them unnecessary and exorbitant fees that are uncontrolled, unlimited and unaudited? Secondly and most importantly, will the hon. Gentleman confirm that it is not expected that the police will be charged in the pursuance of their duties to reduce vehicle crime under the Bill? Will he also confirm that the clause may well have been instigated by the DVLA because clearly it would want to make the register self-supporting? I can understand that. It would be the wish of any department if it were able to do so. However, I am reluctant to allow such measures to go forward in a way that is unfettered, uncontrolled and basically unfair.

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

The hon. Gentleman's amendments specify the deletion of the words

and such fee (if any) as may be prescribed.

I understand the thrust of his argument. It is an important point. Is it at least conceivable that he might favour a no-fee situation?

David Chidgey (Liberal Democrat, Eastleigh)

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman because that is certainly one of the options that I regard as a method of encouraging the public to be a part of the crime prevention exercise. I do not have to hand the statistics to tell me how much the public involvement would be effective in achieving that ambition, but I hope that the Departments concerned would have taken it into account and that one of the options that they would consider, when dealing with the public, is the benefits of no fee being charged at all. I should be happy to hear the Minister's response to the amendments.

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

In the light of the time available, I shall be brief. There are two points to bear in mind: process and substance. For process, we use the word prescribed'' and, as was said earlier, clause 30, line 17 suggests that we prescribe by regulation, so that any fee could be charged and set up by regulation and that the whole process would be subject to parliamentary discussion.

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

Will the Minister give way on that point?

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

No, I am conscious of the time.

It is our intention to consult widely with the industry about the matter before reaching a final decision. We do not want to remove the flexibility of being able to charge a fee because, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller) said, it is likely that the details that we publish on the internet will be freely available more generally. Two questions arise from that: will we publish on the internet all the information that is in the register or only some of the information? We want to establish that with the industry. In the event that inquiries were made for information that was not on the internet, it would be reasonable to consider making a charge in those circumstances.

Secondly, as my hon. Friend said, if people were seeking more information or detail about the administrative costs that were involved beyond what was on the internet, we should like to consider the possibility of charging a fee in such circumstances. We do not intend to charge the police a fee, but I hope that a fee would be charged to the person who requests the information, as set out in the Bill. I hope that I have clarified matters.

It being One o'clock, THE CHAIRMAN adjourned the Committee without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned till this day at half-past Four o'clock.

Standing Committee A

Clause 17 - Register of registration plate suppliers

Jonathan Sayeed (Conservative, Mid Bedfordshire)

I remind the Committee that with this we are taking amendment No. 5, in page 9, line 40, leave out

`and such fee (if any) as may be prescribed,'.

David Chidgey (Liberal Democrat, Eastleigh)

Good afternoon, Mr. Sayeed, I welcome you to the Committee as Chairman. I am sure that we will enjoy your chairmanship in the coming days.

We have had a full, interesting and helpful debate, so I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

I associate myself with the remarks of the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mr. Chidgey) in welcoming you to the Chair, Mr. Sayeed. We had a good sitting this morning, and we are delighted that you are here.

We have discussed much of the substance of the clause. It makes it mandatory for the Secretary of State—which in practice means the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency—to establish and maintain a register of registration plate suppliers. The clause allows for regulations to be made to set out the details to be held on the register. Those details could include the addresses of all premises from which registration plates are supplied. The Secretary of State is obliged to disclose information from the register to anyone who requests it, and may set a fee for such requests—we have clarified that it is only a ``may'' and not a ``must''—and the process must be established by regulation to be debated in the House. We have also stated that we expect large parts of the register to be available on the web, and therefore to be available free of charge to any citizen.

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

I also welcome you warmly to the chairmanship of the Committee, Mr. Sayeed.

The Minister rightly observed that, ordinarily, information would be provided on request, but in the light of subsection (6), will he advise us as to the circumstances in which it would be thought appropriate to withhold information from individuals? In other words, what would be the nature of the persons who would not be entitled to receive it? In paragraph (b), what might be the nature of the information that a person otherwise entitled to receive information would not be entitled to receive?

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

I shall address that shortly when I come to the end of my remarks. The hon. Gentleman is quite right to raise that issue. We discussed those points when dealing with the amendments.

It is important to ensure that any business connected with number plate supply can determine whether a supplier is registered, as it will be an offence to trade with an unregistered supplier. A certified copy of the register, or an extract from it, will be conclusive evidence of a supplier's authenticity, and information may be disclosed to the police either in bulk or case by case. Access to the information will provide an audit trail, and will enable the police to trace and investigate suppliers that are believed to have supplied false plates.

I shall now deal with the intervention of the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow). We addressed the issue of the description of information that might not be supplied under subsection (6)(b) when debating the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Eastleigh and the intervention made by my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller). We intend, when drafting the regulations, to discuss carefully with the industry whether everything in the register should be disclosed to everybody, or whether there are particular categories of information that it might not be appropriate to disclose. I emphasise the word ``might''. Such categories might include personal addresses or telephone numbers rather than addresses of businesses. There are many examples of such categories, but we have not come to a firm view, so we are including the provision that the Secretary of State may, after consultation with the industry, specify information that is not to be made public. Should the Secretary of State do so, it will be set out in regulation for the House to consider in whatever way it thinks appropriate.

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

Will the Minister give way?

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

I will in a second.

On the descriptions of persons who are not entitled to be supplied with information under subsection (3), it is at the forefront of our minds that all such issues are associated with organised crime, and that supply of information might not be appropriate in that context. Again, we intend to consult on that. We shall also widely consult the industry and organisations represented in the vehicle crime reduction action team, such as insurers, the car industry and the police, on categories in subsections (6)(a) and (b) before laying regulations for debate by the House.

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

The Minister might have given me a clue to the solution in his reference to debate. A moment ago, he referred to the details of the regulations to be considered by the House in such terms or by such means as it thinks fit. He went on to use the word ``debate''. The detail must require some reflection—it would have been provided by now if it did not—so will he confirm that there will be an opportunity for the House properly to debate the matters under the affirmative procedure, and that they will not simply be nodded through on the negative procedure, which admits of no debate?

Will the Minister also confirm, in the name of good regulation, that there will be a minimum consultation period of three months on the intended regulations, and a suitable period, possibly a similar one of three months, of notice of the requirement to implement those regulations?

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

I reject the proposition that we have not provided the detail. That is factually incorrect.

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

I am not complaining about that.

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

I accept that; I withdraw my objection. We have gone about matters perfectly appropriately by setting out the legislation and procedure and then consulting in a reasonable way.

On every Bill with which I have dealt, there has been an entertaining set of exchanges about negative and affirmative procedure.

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

I always raise it.

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

That reduces some of the weight that his raising it on this occasion might otherwise have had. Frankly, the various regulations in the Bill have been intended for negative rather than affirmative procedure as a result of comparison with some of the issues that the House needs to consider. I dealt in the last Session with the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Bill and the Terrorism Bill. The scale of the issues around the regulations is less significant and serious than some of those considered under affirmative procedure.

It is conventional for Oppositions of all parties to say that they want affirmative resolutions on everything, and conventional for Governments of all parties—including the Government whom the hon. Member for Buckingham supported, although not as a Member, before 1997—to go for negative procedure at all times. As a Government, we have been open on agreeing affirmative procedure on aspects of the Bills that I have dealt with for the Home Office. The question is one of a balance of judgment. In this case, the balance that we have struck is that negative procedures are right. I know that the hon. Gentleman will disagree with that—as he says, he disagrees every time the issue comes along, as he is entitled to do—but that is our approach.

I do not have details of the consultation periods, but the three-month period that the hon. Gentleman describes is reasonable, and we can talk about it. I will write to him further on the subject, if I may.

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

I am reassured by the Minister. Several amendments were tabled to the clause. I made it clear when tabling them that I was not certain that the clause needed to be amended, but my hon. Friends and I wanted to test the water with some suggestions. In that context, I was relatively reassured by a good deal of what the Minister said, so I do not choose to press the amendments to a vote. It is not my intention to dissent from the proposition that the clause stand part of the Bill.

David Chidgey (Liberal Democrat, Eastleigh)

I shall add briefly to the comments made by the hon. Member for Buckingham.

I have been gratified by the Minister's openness in dealing with our amendments. We may not be entirely satisfied with the responses, but I appreciate his earnestness.

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

I am in a position to say to the hon. Gentleman, following the earlier exchange, that the Cabinet Office guidance is that three months is the normal consultation period. We shall ensure that there is at least a three-month period, which will meet the hon. Gentleman's concerns.

David Chidgey (Liberal Democrat, Eastleigh)

I am grateful for the Minister's intervention to clarify that point. On that note, I confirm that we do not wish to stand in the way of the progress of the clause.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 17 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 18 - Applications for registration.

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

I beg to move amendment No. 19, in page 10, line 18, leave out `may be set with a view to recovering'

and insert

`shall be set only in order to recover'.

The purport of the amendment will be readily evident to you, Mr. Sayeed, the Minister and other members of the Committee. Before I develop my argument, I want to say what a pleasure it is to welcome to the Committee the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, the hon. Member for Streatham (Mr. Hill), who is one of the more august Members of Parliament, and certainly one of the more enthusiastic debaters on the Floor of the House, and, invariably, in Committee. I am conscious that he had a sad reason for his absence this morning, for which we have respect and sympathy. I was especially grateful to him for his courtesy in telephoning to notify me yesterday. I said then that I looked forward to jousting with him in Committee, and I meant it. It is a pleasure to see him here this afternoon.

The thrust and kernel of our anxiety about the clause and amendment relate to the scope for over-burdensome charges. I imagine that all Labour Members on the Committee are spending each and every sitting doing nothing other than studying intently the Bill's proceedings. It should not be suggested that any hon. Member is indulging in other activity—reading letters, books or anything of that sort—because that would be out of order and not acceptable to you, Mr. Sayeed, and we must be wary of your strictures. Hon. Members will therefore be aware that subsection (2) states:

The level of fees so prescribed may be set with a view to recovering the reasonable costs incurred by the Secretary of State in connection with the administration of this Part.

That leads immediately to two thoughts. First, there is the old objection and query in relation to the term ``reasonable''. What is reasonable? One person's reasonable conduct is another person's utterly unreasonable conduct. We know, because we are always peppered with that point—which I say while looking askance at my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh), who is a member of the profession—by lawyers. They are wont to patronise us—although I am sure that my hon. Friend would not do so—by saying, in a slightly imperious, and, occasionally, even sanctimonious tone, ``The term `reasonable' is well understood in the legal profession. The hon. Gentleman really ought to understand that this is known in law. There is potential for it to be justiciable. It can be adjudicated in a court, everybody understands what we are talking about, and therefore nobody would exceed what is reasonable.'' Of course, that does not remove the potential for disagreement about what constitutes reasonable conduct.

However, to illustrate precisely how reasonable my hon. Friends and I are being, which will not come as a surprise to you, Mr. Sayeed, but might cause eyebrows to be raised on the Government Benches, I say at the outset—as will be clear from the wording of the amendment—that cavilling at the use of the term ``reasonable'' is not our principal purpose in tabling it. We could argue the toss about what constituted reasonable conduct, and I would be interested to hear thoughts from Ministers about what they have in mind.

Those listening to our proceedings now who were not listening this morning would not have heard a nugget from the Minister, which they should therefore veritably treasure. If they had heard the Minister saying this morning that the Government were already thinking in terms of a sliding scale of charges, depending on whether the business was large or small, it is not unreasonable to consider that, when pontificating about the merits of such a scale, he may have given some thought to the various elements on it. It almost beggars belief that a keen, intelligent, forward-thinking and, indeed, mightily ambitious Minister like the hon. Gentleman would fail to have given any thought—

Keith Simpson (Conservative, Mid Norfolk)

Which Minister?

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

I was referring to the hon. Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Clarke), although it would have been reasonable of me to have been referring to the hon. Member for Streatham (Mr. Hill). However, the latter was not referred to in The Guardian yesterday as a future leader of the Labour party. The hon. Member for Norwich, South has been, and that could be the cause of internal tension or friction. I hope that it is not. [Interruption.] The Ministers shaking hands is not very reassuring. I recall the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and his immediate predecessor not merely shaking hands in public, but kissing each other. However, that did not mean that they were not knifing each other mightily in the back behind the scenes. The fact that we have witnessed a public shaking of hands in front of your august chairmanship, Mr. Sayeed, is not revealing or inconclusive.

Surely the Minister of State would have given some thought to such charges. If we are to be sure that the proposed fee levels will be reasonable, it is not unreasonable to ask him to insert in the Bill the catch-all safeguard constituted by the word ``only''. That might be the only point in this afternoon's consideration of the amendment. We want the clause to state:

The level of fees shall be set only in order to recover the reasonable costs incurred by the Secretary of State in connection with the administration of this Part.

There is good reason to be concerned about such a point and to flag up the desirability, if not the necessity, of that all-encompassing protection that our amendment would confer. I say that, not least because I hope that I shall be in order in so doing, but because I have previously flagged up such worries about levies, charges and fees in Standing Committees, and on the Floor of the House in a ten-minute Bill on taxation and the right to know on 6 June last year, when I referred to the phenomenon of stealth taxes. In short, too much tax is taken from too many people who are told too little about it. That is a burgeoning phenomenon under this Administration.

I shall not burden the Committee with details because you, Mr. Sayeed, would not approve if I were to dilate on the subject, but we know that the typical family is paying an extra £670 a year in taxation under this Government. The Chancellor of the Exchequer refuses to publish the figures that show the impact of direct and indirect taxes on the typical family and on households in other income deciles. We know that he was rightly excoriated in paragraphs 90 and 35 of the Treasury Committee report of April 2000 for his refusal to provide such information to the House on which proper judgments could be made about the fee-raising, charge-levying and tax-hiking policies of this Administration.

The problem that led us to table such an early amendment is that the Bill provides many opportunities—I put it no more strongly than that—for the Government to raise additional funds for the Treasury. That is only one of many areas in which we are dependent on and subject to the tender mercies of new Labour's aspirant Prime Minister, if I may so describe the Minister of State. I may be embarrassing him today by praising him repeatedly, but he deserves that accolade. He has done a lot of good work. He is a talented, highly important, extremely influential, greatly respected man, who has many commitments and a full diary. It is right that I should highlight his significance. He would not want to court extensive and growing unpopularity, either in Norwich, South—even if he feels that he is secure there, although we certainly would not accept that he is—or in the country at large. He has a wider initiative, which might be described as the Clarke game plan, and it would be unfortunate if anything got in the way of it.

The Minister has considerable political antennae, so he would not want deliberately to impose charges that would upset large numbers of small businesses. Most businesses in the sector are small, and some are micro businesses. However, although he is a powerful, assiduous and ambitious Minister, he is only a Home Office Minister. I say that in no discourteous or pejorative sense—but he is not a Treasury Minister.

Our concern is that, if there is a provision for charges to be levied, fees to be imposed and stealth taxes to be raised, and the Government get into a difficult situation, the Minister will as likely as not—in fact, it is as sure as the passage of the seasons—be approached by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He would not be approached by a mere junior Treasury Minister; only the most senior Minister could approach him. The Chancellor will say, ``'Ere, you remember clause 18 of that Vehicles (Crime) Bill? You did manage to hold the line and keep clause 18 as it stood, didn't you? I hope that you did not allow those beastly Conservatives, the hon. Members for Buckingham, for Mid-Norfolk (Mr. Simpson) and for Vale of York to insist on the insertion of the amendment `shall be set only in order to recover'.''

The Minister may be able to say, ``No, Chancellor, I withstood the tide and held back the flood. I fobbed them off and told them that I fully intended to be reasonable. But of course that was a couple of years ago and the situation is different now—some people will have forgotten.'' Fortunately, however, not everyone will have forgotten, and verbatim accounts of the proceedings will be available, as they are not for yesterday afternoon's defective proceedings of the Programming Sub-Committee. I want the Minister to put on record an absolute commitment, as reflected in a willingness to accept our amendment, that the fees will be set only so as to recover reasonable costs.

On Second Reading, we expressed our desire that the Bill should tackle crime effectively but not be over-burdensome to businesses. I said on that occasion:

There are real grievances about the Bill.

If memory serves me correctly, I said that in response to an uncharacteristically rude and abrupt sedentary intervention from the Under-Secretary. The Home Secretary's attention was momentarily distracted—he was engaged in a conversation—and I exhorted him to listen to the point that I was making. The Under-Secretary yelled out, in a most undignified manner, ``Why should he listen?'' I do not have the text of the debate in front of me, but if the Under-Secretary checks, he will find that that is correct. I replied that the Home Secretary should listen because

There are real grievances about the Bill. There are anxieties about cost. There are concerns about over-regulation. There is a desire that it should achieve the purpose that has been established for it.—[Official Report, 18 December 2000; Vol. 360, c. 50.]

Keith Hill (Labour, Streatham)

Rather good.

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

The Under-Secretary chunters ``rather good''. I can only assume that he is not making a self-reference, for no man should be judging his own cause, but generously and gratuitously volunteering praise for my instinctive response on that occasion. The Government's record is not good. Under Labour, the average family is paying out about £670 a year more in tax, as I said. Much of that rise comes in the form of stealth taxes. That is important. They are not taxes publicly stated, levied and defended by Ministers in the honourable traditions of this House. That is a source of anxiety.

The Confederation of British Industry, which Ministers are happy to pray in aid periodically when it suits them, has stated that businesses are paying an extra £5 billion a year in taxation under Labour. I am sorry to repeat the point, but I must refer to it again in the context of the amendments. We are concerned particularly about small businesses. I do not want to give the impression for a moment that I am insouciant about the costs and burdens imposed on larger companies—a good many of which, though by no means all, are represented by the CBI. I am not in any way relaxed about the burdens that they face. They are substantial engines of growth, productivity, export performance, wealth generation, and improvement of individual living standards. Nevertheless, it is fair to say that the very big companies can often take care of themselves. If I may say so, Mr. Sayeed, this is not an occasion for you to declare any interest but you have considerable experience of large-scale business activity. Costs can be passed on and to some degree absorbed. We on the Opposition Benches are worried about the position of small companies.

The hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston, who is furiously scrutinising a document of uncertain provenance on the Bench in front of him, is wont from time to time in debate to claim that he is an authentic representative of the interests of small businesses, though on what authority he feels able to declare that I do not know. Perhaps he believes that they are represented in substantial numbers or impressive form in the Ellesmere Port and Neston division; I do not know. What I do know—and this is very significant—is that 99.6 per cent. of British businesses employ fewer than 100 people, that they account for approximately 57 per cent. of the private sector work force and that they generate about two fifths of national output. The interests and concerns of that sector of British commerce, therefore, are of the highest importance.

Moreover, small businesses are disproportionately represented. The Minister of State is not only a distinguished, ambitious and rising Minister but an extremely upmarket mathematician—with whom I could not possibly hope to compete—and he will tell me if I am wrong. I believe that small businesses are disproportionately represented in the would-be registration plate supplier sector and, for that matter, in the motor salvage operator sector. A large proportion of such companies are relatively small businesses. Some are already parts of trade associations and a great many are not. Many of them have in common the fact that they are rather small companies, so we are concerned about their interests.

The Bill and the clause should be dedicated to the overarching and honourable goal of tackling crime. The Government cannot be trusted with the clause as it stands—unless we receive an explicit reassurance from the Minister. We require clarification, reassurance, an undertaking that is not just an early promise but an unshakable commitment.

I make the distinction because we in opposition know the difference between an early promise or pledge and an unshakable commitment. An early pledge is one made early, which will therefore soon be forgotten and may be readily ditched. An unshakable commitment, even in the parlance of new Labour, constitutes a commitment from which one cannot escape. We are seeking to ensure that the costs—[Interruption.] There is chuntering from the hon. Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Mr. McCabe). If he would like to intervene, I am ready to give way to him. Does he wish to contribute? He does not. He is holding forth but only in private. We look forward to his contribution later.

We seek to ensure that the costs will be used only to cover the necessary administration expenses of the scheme. ``Reasonable costs'' is suitably vague: it requires to be explained and tightened. I hope that the Minister will oblige us in that regard. Above all, I emphasise that what matters is reassuring not Opposition Members but the sector. I hope that the Minister will bear in mind the overriding goal to cut crime, deter the criminal, help to apprehend those who commit offences and cover the reasonable costs that are incurred in establishing the scheme. Will he please be sure to avoid errors of omission or commission, the effect of which would be to damage legitimate operators, undermine an important sector and threaten to reduce employment in it?

These are sensible proposals. The Minister suggested earlier that one of our proposals might have the unintended—but undesirable—consequence of increasing the burden on business. I cavilled at that, and still do. I hope that the Minister will accept that the desire for specificity and the charge to be limited to that necessary to recover, but not exceed, costs is the clearest indication that the Conservative party is the friend of business.

The concern about the effect of the costs on small businesses, which we debated in an earlier sitting, is raised again by the wording in the Bill that allows those costs to be set at the whim of the Government or their advisers at a later date. I am sure that the Minister who is currently responsible for the Bill has no intention of placing a burden on business, but who is to say that a future Government, of whatever complexion, might take the opportunity to make the costs unreasonable? That may seem pedantic, but in many parts of the United Kingdom small communities rely on a local, small garage for all their services, one of which is replacement number plates. Those garages may be sole traders, scratching a living, as most small businesses have to these days. The point is relevant and important. I should not wish to see such a service become extinct in small communities because the costs of registration made it uneconomic for small enterprises to continue providing it.

I have sympathy with the amendment. The only saving grace that I can find in the terms in which the Bill is drafted is that it may be in the Government's mind that the charge envisaged for the service should be less than the cost. I will allow the Minister to respond to the proposed amendment, but first I give way to the hon. Member for Buckingham.

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

A good nature and a charitable instinct are worth while in our deliberations, especially as we have two weeks of them ahead. I am happy to concede that there is a plentiful supply of both qualities in the hon. Gentleman, but I urge him not to overegg the pudding. On almost any reading, I suspect that it is a triumph of optimism over reality to suppose that the Government could have it in mind to raise in fees less than the reasonable costs. Clause 18 does not state that it will meet the reasonable costs, but that

The level of fees so prescribed may be set with a view to recovering the reasonable costs,

which, in the language of new Labour seems to amount to much the same thing.

David Chidgey (Liberal Democrat, Eastleigh)

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his kind remarks and his accuracy in defending the wording of the Bill. However, I wanted to make the point that the looseness and opaqueness of the wording is such that that is the impression that the Government could, perhaps unwittingly, be giving us in allowing this wording to become part of the legislation. I am happy to conclude now and await responses from the Minister and other members.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

It is a great pleasure to serve under your Chairmanship, Mr. Sayeed, and welcome you to this Committee. I am also delighted to see here the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions. May I express my personal condolences for the reason why he was prevented from being here this morning and offer him my deepest sympathy.

I declared an interest this morning, Mr. Sayeed. I am a member of the RAC Foundation public policy committee, which brings certain benefits. You will be apprised of the fact that I am a non-practising Scottish advocate from references that my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham made to lawyers, which I hope have brought his discreditable remarks about my profession to an end. Avid readers of The House Magazine will also know that I am the offspring of a Scottish-Danish alliance and so I rise to my feet in this Room in some trepidation, realising that the painting alludes to Alfred inciting the Saxons to prevent the landing of the Danes.

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

Does my hon. Friend accept that, without in any sense casting aspersions that would be disrespectful to admirable Scots, the Danish part of the equation, especially in the light of the recent referendum, is especially commendable?

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

I thank my hon. Friend. Obviously, stubbornness and patience are perhaps two of the best-known qualities of the Danish character. I rest my case there.

May I draw the Minister's attention, and ask him to direct his well-known assiduous qualities, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham referred, to clause 18 and our amendment No. 19. Speaking as a motorist, I am concerned that clause 18 could be perceived as taxation by stealth were the Minister minded not to support our amendment. Our wording is preferable to the Government's original wording for the simple reason that it sets out that the charges and costs incurred

shall be set only in order to recover

the actual costs raised. The costs are not insubstantial. We are told, most helpfully, on page 13 of the explanatory notes that the first year's cost alone of registration, record systems and administration will amount to almost £6 million. We are told that thereafter the continuing and recurrent annual cost will be almost another £1.5 million for record systems and almost another £2 million for administration costs, leading to an overall total of annual recurrent costs of more than £3 million. That is not an insubstantial cost.

We are told that these costs will be distributed. The Minister referred earlier to some 27,000 businesses and a registration fee of £50. The average cost for business is deemed to be a set-up cost of £219 and an annual ongoing cost to each business of £121. I just wonder whether the purpose of the Government proposals is to close down some of these 27,000 businesses by stealth.

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

Is my hon. Friend aware that as subsection (2) of the clause stands, it threatens to breach the commitment made by the Chancellor in April 1997 when he said in the foreword to Labour's business manifesto:

We will not impose burdensome regulations on business, because we understand that successful businesses must keep costs down.

Is my hon. Friend aware that, as it stands, it also violates the commitment made on 25 November 1998 by the then Secretary of State for Trade and Industry who, speaking in the House, said:

we have no intention of introducing any legislation that presents a burden on business and reduces the competitiveness of British firms.—[Official Report, 25 November 1998; Vol. 321, c. 214.]

Is not that game, set and match?

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

I am most grateful to my hon. Friend, especially for drawing attention to the Chancellor's remarks. I cannot fault the Chancellor's education, as he and I both had the good fortune to go to the University of Edinburgh. He was the first-ever student rector to be elected; he was already a budding politician at that time. He would be fearful of the compliments paid to the Minister by my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham. Why would the Chancellor say, on the record, that the present Government—possibly soon to be the past Government—are committed to keeping costs down when what is proposed will be an additional cost? I should be most grateful if the Minister would put my mind at rest and say that he has decided against a national monopoly. This morning, he referred to the Swedish position and, wearing another hat as a new member of the European Scrutiny Committee, I hope—

Steve McCabe (Labour, Birmingham, Hall Green)

I appreciate the hon. Lady's genuine concern about costs. Does she accept that an effect of the proposed registration is that it will separate legal from illegal businesses? Legal businesses will benefit as a direct result of taking illegal competitors out of the market. Does she further accept, bearing in mind her comments about her parents' car, that the predicted saving of £112 million per annum in vehicle value as a result of these measures must also be borne in mind when considering any question of cost?

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

The hon. Gentleman's second point pre-empts what I intend to say in a moment.

On his first point, we do not want too make this too much of a Scottish monopoly—

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

Oh, go on!

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

Perhaps we do.

I hope that the Government's ambition in this respect is realised; it would be regrettable if the illegal businesses were the only ones that could afford the start-up costs and the high recurrent annual running costs, meaning that the legal businesses could not compete.

We hope to make a one-day visit to Stockholm and I shall take that opportunity to be briefed on how the national monopoly works there.

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

Hear, hear.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

I put it on record that the Minister applauded that initiative, which is most welcome. If I had a vote, I would increase his leadership potential.

The initial set-up costs of registering number plate suppliers have not been quantified, but they are not expected to be substantial. The explanatory notes state that insurance companies would benefit from a reduction in vehicle crime, a point to which the hon. Member for Hall Green alluded. The Government may be privy to information that we are not aware of, but what conclusive evidence is there that the insurance industry will pass the savings on to the businesses that will incur registration costs? I shall certainly refer to that matter in subsequent clauses. There is alarm in the motor industry about the matter, especially in the RAC; when the Government consider hypothecation in clause 37, insurance savings—the Government envisage that fewer vehicles will be stolen as a result of the measure—or income received through speed cameras should be passed on to defray the costs of registration. Otherwise, like many Opposition Members, I fear that there will be an increase by stealth in the cost of motoring. I cannot believe that that is what the Government envisage. I hope that the Minister will accept that our wording is much more precise and would tighten the Bill.

Mr. Hill rose—

Jonathan Sayeed (Conservative, Mid Bedfordshire)

Order. Before I call the Under-Secretary, I remind hon. Members that during this sitting we must cover clauses 16 to 30, and at this rate, we shall not do so.

Greg Pope (Labour, Hyndburn)

On a point of order, Mr. Sayeed. We must conclude our consideration of clauses 16 to 30 by 11.25 am on Thursday.

Jonathan Sayeed (Conservative, Mid Bedfordshire)

I beg the Committee's pardon, but the point remains that at this rate of progress we shall not be able to have a full debate on all the clauses.

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

On a point of order, Mr. Sayeed. I should like to establish the basis for the decision that we must reach clause 30 by the conclusion of the third sitting. As the matter was debated at considerable length yesterday, and as I read the draft resolution, I am of course aware of the end date of 23 January and that we have been allotted only 23 hours' debate for consideration of all 45 clauses and any number of amendments submitted thereto. However, I was not aware that it was obligatory for us to conclude our consideration of clause 30 by the end of the third sitting.

Jonathan Sayeed (Conservative, Mid Bedfordshire)

It was a resolution of the Programming Sub-Committee that consideration of clauses 16 to 30 should be completed between the second and third sittings. If insufficient time remains for debate at the end of the third sitting, the Questions will still be put, but no debate will have ensued.

Keith Hill (Labour, Streatham)

I am grateful for your elucidation, Mr. Sayeed, of that point. I take on board your rejoinders to proceed with all brevity, which is exactly what I intend to do. First, however, I associate myself with the general rejoicing at your presence in the Committee. I am delighted to be serving under your impartial, even-handed and enlightened chairmanship, which I hope will give me a fair wind for the rest of the Committee.

I should also like to express my unqualified gratitude to the hon. Members for Buckingham and for Vale of York for their warm welcome to me to the Committee and for their kind expressions of sympathy. When the hon. Member for Buckingham began his speech, and said that he looked forward to our future jousting, I responded with some zeal, which rather dissipated more than half an hour later, when he chose to sit down. I rather resented his suggestion that I had not appeared in The Guardian. As a former resident of my constituency, he will be keenly aware of the Streatham, Clapham and Dulwich Guardian. I am rarely absent from the pages of that august and excellent journal, which is so avidly read by my constituents.

Keith Simpson (Conservative, Mid Norfolk)

They read the situations vacant column.

Keith Hill (Labour, Streatham)

In response to the sedentary intervention of the hon. Member for Mid-Norfolk, there are no vacancies in Streatham.

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

Notwithstanding some rather pernicious and unfounded rumours to the contrary, will the Under-Secretary take it from me that the fact that I ceased to live in Streatham—not in anticipation of the Vehicles (Crime) Bill—in November 1993 was unrelated to the fact that 19 months previously he had been elected the constituency's representative?

Keith Hill (Labour, Streatham)

I am most grateful for that reassurance. It was for me an unqualified pleasure to be able to represent the hon. Gentleman in Parliament. However, although it may sound a little churlish, I cannot say that it was an unqualified pleasure for me to be represented by the hon. Gentleman on Lambeth council.

The hon. Member for Buckingham asked for an insight into the Government's thinking about the level of fees. With your indulgence, Mr. Sayeed, I shall engage in a mini tour d'horizon on the matter. Although no detailed calculations have yet been made on the level of fees, it is not anticipated that the administrative costs will be onerous. A register with about 25,000 entries would be far simpler for the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency to administer than the vehicle register, which is its major responsibility and which has about 28 million entries.

The costs of registration may differ according to the size of the business. For example, a national chain store with multiple retail outlets will have a larger and more complex entry on the register than a small business operating from a single outlet. The registration fee may be varied, therefore, to reflect that: in practice the fee would be lower for small businesses. I will revert to that point in due course.

May I also scotch the canard which I hoped that we had managed to scotch in the Second Reading debate. I emphasise for the benefit of the hon. Member for Buckingham that this is not a tax; it is a fee to meet the reasonable costs of administration. There will be no surplus from the fee. In addition, it is a charge to business. Business has been consulted, and will be consulted further, about the level of fees.

I see that the hon. Member for Buckingham is eager to intervene, but let me turn briefly to the point made by the hon. Member for Eastleigh. The setting of the fees will not be, as he suggested, at the whim of Government because it is a matter of consultation. It has been, and will continue to be a matter of consultation. I understand his concern about small businesses. He talked about garages in rural areas operating at the margin. I hope to be able to reassure him yet further about the level of fees in relation to businesses of that description.

Does the hon. Member for Buckingham wish to intervene? I want to deal with other points raised in the debate.

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

In that case, I ought to come in now, if the Minister will forgive me. He has just said—I think that the verbatim report will confirm what I say—that there will be no surplus from the fee. The hon. Gentleman is intellectually formidable, so I am sure that he can anticipate what I am about to say. If that is so, and the intention is only to recover the administrative costs, why are the Government not prepared to insert that catch-all, all-encompassing, protective, what might be described as a legislative condom—the word ``only''. [Laughter.]

Keith Hill (Labour, Streatham)

I certainly will not rise to that, but I am coming precisely to that point. The hon. Member for the beautiful Vale of York made two points.

Keith Simpson (Conservative, Mid Norfolk)

The beautiful Member for the Vale of York.

Keith Hill (Labour, Streatham)

Well, there you go. She talked about the economic impact assessment. I reiterate that the registration fee is a one-off. The other costs to which she alluded relate to the cost to businesses of the keeping of records and checks prior to a sale. I emphasise that those costs were discussed with and provided by business as part of the consultation process in preparation for the Bill and that the businesses consulted supported the provisions of the Bill. So we feel reasonably confident, about the likely costs of the measure.

The hon. Lady also raised the issue of insurance companies. It is perfectly true that there is no guarantee that they will pass on savings accrued as a result of a reduction in vehicle crime. However, as she and I both know, and as the Committee knows, it is a very competitive industry which needs to keep charges to a minimum. We hope that those costs will not be passed on, but we are certainly not in a position—I am sure that the Opposition will agree—to legislate on such a matter.

I turn to the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Buckingham. I shall resist it because it would not have the effect that the hon. Gentleman intends, which is to reduce the burden on businesses, especially small businesses. The effect of the amendment would be that the fee had to meet the administrative costs incurred—in other words, the fee could not be less than that. The clause provides that the fee cannot be more than the ``reasonable costs incurred'' in administration, but it could be less. I hope that that reassures the hon. Member for Eastleigh, even if it is a source of consternation to the hon. Member for Buckingham.

David Chidgey (Liberal Democrat, Eastleigh)

I agree with the Under-Secretary on both points, but in passing he raised an issue that I raised earlier. Although, with the best intent, the charges may be no more than the administration costs of the scheme, I have yet to see anything in the Bill that would control, monitor or audit those costs. Departments are not particularly adept at keeping costs down. Perhaps I have missed the point, but I would like to be reassured that the costs of the registration scheme on which the fees are to be based will be monitored to ensure that they are not excessive and are no higher than one would expect in normal commercial practice.

Keith Hill (Labour, Streatham)

I understand the hon. Gentleman's concern about the monitoring of departmental costs at every level of the public sector—and, for that matter, in the private sector. He knows that it is not normal practice to include such a provision in legislation. He knows also that innumerable agencies are in the business of bearing down on costs in the public sector, not least the National Audit Office. It is the Government's absolute commitment to ensure that the work of Government Departments, whose accounts are published annually, is carried out with the highest level of economy. I am sure that we shall continue to bear down strongly on that.

I might add that, in general, the fee will be set by regulation. I come back to the point that, because the level will be enshrined in regulation, it will not be possible for a Government Department to change it on a whim. I hope that the hon. Member for Eastleigh has been reassured by the general thrust of my observations.

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

I remain convinced, even if, at least within the triumvirate, I am in a minority of one—it is the result of a typical majority alliance between Liberal and Labour Members—that my textual exegesis is correct and that of the Minister and the hon. Member for Eastleigh is not. The only scope for ambiguity—and therefore the only glimmer of hope that the cost might be lower than the cost incurred by the authority—is the rather ambiguous phrase ``with a view''. Inserting the word ``only'' is undoubtedly a protective mechanism; the inclusion of ``with a view'' seems suitably vague, particularly in the absence of the protection of the word ``only''.

Keith Hill (Labour, Streatham)

We may have to disagree on this point, but it seems pretty obvious that the Bill allows for the possibility of the fee being less than the administrative cost. The amendment would certainly not permit a lower fee level in certain circumstances.

The present draft provides greater flexibility than that proposed in the amendment. In the light of the evidence of the Government's open-mindedness and flexibility, I hope that the hon. Member for Buckingham will judge it right to withdraw his amendment.

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

I was happy to make the argument, and I remain unconvinced despite the soothing bromides of the Under-Secretary. One could argue the toss about the wording. I am not a lawyer—something that I say as a matter of pride—so I do not claim that the wording of the amendment is perfect. I think that I heard the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston chunter from a sedentary position something about our amendment being less desirable than the original wording of the clause due to the deletion of ``may'', which implies ``perhaps'', and the insertion, among other words, of ``shall''. That is to say that there is a prescriptive rather than permissive character to our amendment, and that the permissive rather than prescriptive character of the clause might admit a lower fee to be charged than that required to cover costs.

Even if that were true—a generous concession that I am disinclined to make—we would have to be guided to some degree by past practice and available evidence. One does not need to look into the crystal ball so far as this Government are concerned when one can, perhaps at leisure, read the book.

Andrew Miller (Labour, Ellesmere Port and Neston)

I do not want the hon. Gentleman to look into the crystal ball—I want him to read the words of the clause. It uses the words ``prescribed'', as in clause 30, ``may be set''—not ``shall be set''—and ``reasonable costs''. Although he is not a lawyer, as I am, he will understand that ``reasonable'' means reasonable in the circumstances. The clause standing part of the Bill would be much better in terms of the burden on business than his suggestion.

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

The hon. Gentleman is bidding strenuously for recognition from his colleagues for his good efforts, but he is stretching a point.

Andrew Miller (Labour, Ellesmere Port and Neston)

I am right.

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

No. The hon. Gentleman is wrong. He is an assiduous contributor to our proceedings and in the House, so I am sorry to say that he is usually wrong. Given the law of averages, he is occasionally right. He sometimes stumbles on the truth by accident rather than design, but this is not such an occasion. He is wrong, as our amendment specifies that the charge

shall be set only in order to recover.

It would not permit anything beyond the recovery, and it specifies that recovery be involved. That is not what is said by the clause.

I am bound to say to the hon. Gentleman and the Under-Secretary that no amount of pedantry on their part will suffice to make their case, when the case that they seek to make, or at least assiduously to propagate without any fixed commitments, is in contravention of their Government's record over the past three and a half years. Unexpected charges have been consistently levied, hidden taxes have been imposed and burdens have been increased in defiance and violation of earlier undertakings to the contrary.

It would be a reassurance if the Under-Secretary were to say, categorically and in terms, that on no account would the unamended clause be used to cover a larger sum than that required to meet the cost. It is unsatisfactory for him to dance on the head of a pin in a rather undignified and unpersuasive fashion, simply saying that his clause would permit, in certain circumstances gloriously undefined, a lower charge than that required to meet the cost, without any serious indication that that is what the Government intend to do. It is especially unsatisfactory in the light of the fact that he is not even prepared—let us be clear about the scale of the disingenuousness—to make a pledge that there will not be a larger sum raised than that necessary to meet costs.

Not only is the Under-Secretary not prepared, if I may indelicately observe, to put his money where his mouth is by saying in what specific circumstances the charge would be lower than that necessary to meet costs—which would be an earnest of his good intention—but he is not even prepared to pledge that the sum raised will never exceed the sum required to meet the costs. I remind the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston that the amendment absolutely commits the legislation on that point. It makes it clear that no more money could be raised than that which is necessary to meet costs. The Government are not prepared to make that commitment.

Keith Hill (Labour, Streatham)

Let me make one last effort to offer all necessary reassurances on the matter. Let me remind the hon. Gentleman that the power to raise fees must be granted by Parliament and therefore it is not possible, as he seems to be suggesting, to infer a greater power. The power to exceed the sum required to meet costs is not there. That is the ultra vires rule, which means that legally we cannot raise more than costs through fees. That is a general legal rule, and I hope that that will sufficiently reassure the hon. Gentleman.

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

I am not easily reassured, and I am not remotely persuaded by what the hon. Gentleman has said. Let me be clear. I regard the Under-Secretary as a decent cove. He is a perfectly respectable representative of new Labour and I accept that he does not have it in mind to impose a larger burden. Nor do I think that the Minister of State intends to impose a larger burden. However, with respect to the hon. Gentlemen, they are not judges in their own cause. [Interruption.]

The Minister of State is chuntering, from a sedentary position, that I did not listen to what the Under-Secretary said. I listened to it and fully understood it. I happen to dissent from his view that it would be ultra vires to charge more than the sum necessary to meet costs, for the simple reason of the absence of ``only'' from the wording of the clause. It is the continuing and remorseless resistance by the hon. Gentleman to the inclusion of a protective wording that worries me. I am not convinced. There is no guarantee, on the basis on which the clause will proceed, that substantial unnecessary costs will not be incurred through the inefficiency of the operations of the central authority, resulting in a desire on the part of Ministers to impose an increased charge. That increased charge might not be necessary, desirable or defensible.

The simple fact is that we do not know what the future holds. It may be, in the end, that the charges are not extortionate or, so far as businesses are concerned, unbearable. However, it is eminently sensible for members of the Committee to flag up the concern and to propose to do something about it. With the greatest respect to the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston, let me say that it is his habitual refrain that the Government are right, that the clause should stand unamended, that nothing needs to be done, that everything is hunky-dory and that anybody who takes a different view is mad, bad or dangerous to know. I am bound to say that such epithets would more reasonably be applied, on most occasions, to the hon. Gentleman, than to me or any of my hon. Friends. I repeat that I think that the Under-Secretary is a good chap and that the Minister of State is, if anything, a better chap. We know, of course, that he is the expected future leader of the Labour party, and I do not want to be discourteous to him.

The fact is that I am not reassured. I do not intend to put the matter to a vote, but my hon. Friends and I might well wish to return to it at a later date. Let it be clear that, if Labour Members think that we are relenting or that there will not be further discussion on these points, I am bound to warn them that they are lulling themselves into a false sense of security, because we intend to expatiate on them as forcefully and as often as necessary to fulfil the customary and proud role of the Conservative Opposition, which is to champion the interests of legitimate businesses, small and large, with a particular concern that the interests of small business should not be damaged by the vexatious, burdensome and capricious policies of the Labour party, new and old.

In the meantime, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill

Jonathan Sayeed (Conservative, Mid Bedfordshire)

With this it will be convenient to take new clause 1—False applications—

'. Any person who knowingly makes a false application under section 18 shall be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale.'.

Steve McCabe (Labour, Birmingham, Hall Green)

I want to concentrate on clause 18 rather than the new clause. For the record, I want to declare a non-pecuniary interest. I am the vice-chairman of the European Secure Vehicle Alliance, which is an all-party and multi-agency group set up with the express purpose of combating vehicle crime.

I ask my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary to look again at clause 18(4). What consideration will be given to an application by the Secretary of State or individuals acting on behalf of the Secretary of State? I considered tabling an amendment on the matter, but it seemed to me that it might be dealt with more readily if I raised it on clause stand part.

Clause 12, which deals with the salvage industry, includes a fit and proper person test. However, there does not appear to be a similar test for clause 18. I am especially concerned about someone who might register, breach the regulations and therefore be de-registered, but who may seek to register again through a wife's name or someone else's name. I seek an assurance that, to make clause 18 meaningful and exclude people who have a vested interest in breaching the law and furthering the potential for vehicle crime, applications for registration will be subject to a fit and proper person test. I am not terribly worried about whether a Government amendment is introduced or the Minister simply assures the Committee that such a provision will be made. What I am concerned about is that the Bill achieves its purpose and that those who apply to register are subject to a proper test.

Keith Hill (Labour, Streatham)

I take seriously the remarks made by my hon. Friend the Member for Hall Green, given his distinguished role in the European Secure Vehicle Alliance. I remember his speech on Second Reading, in which he brought to bear all of the knowledge that is appropriate to his involvement in that movement.

The Government feel that the fit and proper person test is a matter of proportionality. The difference between number plate suppliers and the salvage industry—which, as my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hall Green said, is dealt with in clause 12—is that a significant criminal element is believed to work within the salvage industry. The salvage regulation scheme is designed specifically to deal with such matters, which is why local authorities with local knowledge will set standards for the industry by operating a fit and proper person test. By contrast, the regulation of registration plate supplies is concerned mainly with preventing criminals from taking advantage of an unregulated system of supply. The Government have concluded that the issue is not criminality within the number plate supply industry but abuse by outside parties of the industry, and that is why we have chosen not to proceed with a fit and proper person test.

Steve McCabe (Labour, Birmingham, Hall Green)

I accept my hon. Friend's point, but does he not accept that any attempt to constrain the supply of number plates will mean that the criminal element will look for another way in which to make a gain? In those circumstances, the criminal element—only a small proportion of the 27,000 suppliers, I accept—may be tempted to look for people who are willing to provide illegal number plates. It is important therefore that we make sure that those who are registered to provide number plates are of the right character. Otherwise, we shall close one area of the criminal market, but leave an opening for a new area to develop.

Keith Hill (Labour, Streatham)

I take my hon. Friend's observations tremendously seriously. As for his worries about registration, we shall have the opportunity to examine the procedures on registration and, indeed, re-registration as we examine the Bill. I know that he is worried specifically about counterfeit plates and at a later stage in our deliberations we shall have the opportunity to discuss precautionary measures in that regard.

I revert to my observation about proportionality. Registration by DVLA will reduce the burden on businesses and provide the police with a single point of contact. As my hon. Friend knows, there are 27,000 registration plate suppliers compared with 3,700 salvage dealers. A fit and proper person scheme would create a large burden on the industry as well as on the DVLA and, given that our perception is that the criminality lies not with suppliers but with those who abuse suppliers, it would be inappropriate to introduce a fit and proper person test, even though we shall be introducing precautionary measures to test the authenticity of applicants in other parts of the Bill.

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

I wish to speak to new clause 1. As members of the Committee will be aware, the Bill provides for three new offences. We can see the logic of what the Government have in mind. They wish to create offences of selling false registration plates, knowingly supplying registration plates to those sell fake plates and supplying plates or their components to unregistered persons. There is a lacuna in the Bill, however, which is the absence of a provision along the lines of new clause 1. It would specify that

Any person who knowingly makes a false application under section 18 shall be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale.

To put it simply, it is obviously wrong for a person to seek to register when he has no justification for so doing, or to submit false particulars on the standard form, the merits of which I was commending to the Committee earlier, or on some other form.

Misleading the central authority and thereby becoming an established and registered supplier cannot be justified. However, the Bill does not appear to contain an offence of knowingly making a false application.

In other respects, the Government have taken a robust line on the need for substantial fines. The Minister said, in an earlier reference to the courts, that there would be the normal discretion as regards fines, and that he wanted to give a signal that the Government regarded the matter seriously. I believe that I interpreted him correctly as saying that he expected the maximum fine to be imposed in many cases. After all, the Government have an ambitious target, courtesy of the vehicle crime reduction action team, of a 30 per cent. cut in vehicle crime by 2004. They have made relatively modest—one might almost say snail's pace—progress towards that target in the past year or so. Therefore, it would make sense to create an offence in the Bill that would send a clear signal that it is unacceptable to submit a false application. Such an offence, and the potential imposition of a level 5 fine on the standard scale, would be consistent with the seriousness of purpose that the Government have rightly attached to the Bill.

I said earlier that we were anxious to ensure the security and robustness of the new regulation. The Minister said that ultimate responsibility for the provision of false information would lie with the person who knowingly provided that information. However, he said that a residual responsibility would be conferred on the DVLA to use its best endeavours to hold, and provide to other interested parties on request, the correct information. Nevertheless, the Minister and I agreed—and I think that other members of the Committee will conclude—that the responsibility for false information should mainly lie with the person who provided it. The DVLA will do its best, but it cannot be expected to get it right in every particular. Therefore, someone who makes a false application should surely be considered guilty of an offence and liable to conviction and subject to a fine. It does not seem unreasonable to propose that that fine should not exceed level 5 on the standard scale.

I hope that the Minister is comfortable with that idea. I am not sure why such a provision is not in the Bill, and I do not intend to pursue the point any further, but we must be consistent about the Bill's purpose and intended effect. Some hon. Members who support the Bill have occasionally criticised the Opposition for not being as committed to its objective as they are. I utterly reject that, because there is an essential concurrence between us about its purpose—there is merely some disagreement or uncertainty about its effect. As the Opposition, we are entitled to propose ways in which the Bill might be made more effective and its deficiencies or lacunae filled. That is what the new clause would do.

Keith Hill (Labour, Streatham)

Although I shall resist the new clause, I shall resist it in an extremely qualified fashion. I appreciate the way in which the hon. Member for Buckingham moved the new clause.

The Bill requires a registration plate supplier to apply for registration. The hon. Gentleman is right in saying that that does not deal with the possibility that someone might make a false declaration as part of that application. We accept that if a person were suspended from the register and then attempted to register while suspended under a false identity, there would be no sanction against him under the present draft. Naturally, we would hope that any false information on an application would be noticed and would be grounds for not accepting the registration. Let me say clearly that we need to look further at this matter. I agree to look at it before Third Reading. I hope that with that nod and a wink, the hon. Gentleman will not press the new clause.

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

I am very much encouraged by what the Minister has said. The Official Report tells us what words were uttered, but not how they were spoken. I see grounds for optimism in both the content and tone of what he said. The Minister at his best is an immensely reasonable fellow. This afternoon, on this point at least, he has been at his best. I hope that he is not seeking to hoodwink me or the Committee. He knows that I will belabour him for ever and a day if I feel that I have been subject to an actual or a perceived cop. That will not be acceptable. I intend to be in this House for a considerable time and I will berate him on a regular basis. But I do not think that that is the case.

If I interpret the Minister correctly, he is saying that the Government are not sure at this stage that they need to accept the terms that I am proposing. It might not be the most effective way of tackling the problem, but they can see that it is an element that could perhaps usefully, in whole or in part, in one form or another, be included in the Bill at a later stage. Ministers are right to talk to their advisers—those experts whom we see unfailingly before us—and to representatives of the industry to come to a judgment about what would be practicable and effective. We are not interested in gestures. We have often criticised the Government on this. Sometimes they have criticised us for proposing particular policies with an eye to publicity or the appearance of robustness rather than effectiveness. Of course there should be time for reflection and consideration.

I am grateful to the Minister. He has given an explicit and unbreakable undertaking that we will hear further on this point before Third Reading. I hope that it is not beyond the bounds of possibility that we will hear further on Report. I presume that when we come to Report, if there is to be movement on this we will hear about it. I will not press the Minister on that. I accept that he has not made an explicit commitment. He has said that we will hear further before Third Reading. I greatly appreciate that and I will not press my new clause.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 18 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 19 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 20 - Cancellation of registration by the Secretary of State

Jonathan Sayeed (Conservative, Mid Bedfordshire)

With this it will be convenient to take amendment No. 21, in page 10, line 41, at end insert

`without good cause or reason'.

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

There are a number of other amendments to this clause and I hope that it is in order for me to speak to some of them. Our concern here is that the clause allows the Secretary of State to remove people from the register where he judges that they have ceased to operate as registration plate suppliers. On Second Reading, I expressed some concern about the clause. On the basis of some preliminary work in the undergrowth, I said:

I am intrigued . . . as to why 28 days was chosen. I . . . understand that the figure was a brainwave of those in his Department who advise him—

I refer rather regularly to that benighted group of individuals, who will doubtless be duly embarrassed by now—

though it was plucked arbitrarily from the air and there is no particular reason for specifying 28 days.—[Official Report, 18 December 2000; Vol. 360, c. 47.]

That appears accurate, as there is no good reason why 28 days is the best period. In preparing for Second Reading and talking to a number of people, I simply could not work out why that time period was chosen. Obviously it is roughly equivalent to a month and it is four weeks; those two things are not quite the same but are not very different. However, I could not see any good reason for choosing 28 days, and the Government did not provide an explanation on Second Reading.

I think that I am right in saying—I do not have the Minister's words in front of me, but I feel sure that he will have—that the Minister conceded that the figure of 28 days had not been set in concrete and that there was no absolute justification for it. I think that I am also right in saying that there is no particular precedent for the choice of 28 days.

A number of my right hon. and hon. Friends and I are concerned that a registration plate supplier could cease to practise his trade or profession for a period because of entirely legitimate reasons. That should not result in his or her de-registration. For example, someone might go away for a period of weeks on family, business or other duties that required his or her temporary absence from the United Kingdom, possibly at short notice and without the opportunity to notify the DVLA of the intended absence. The individual might go away for a period of days and close the business for that period, without knowing exactly how long he or she would be absent. In those circumstances, potentially to be subject to what might be described as commercial defenestration seems a punitive consequence. A number of my colleagues and I are unhappy about that.

I was looking to Ministers to say why they chose what they chose and whether they would consider choosing something else instead. I have suggested the figure of 60 days simply because, if there were uncertainty about someone's motivation for being absent and doubt about why he or she was not practising, a two-month period would allow at least the potential for inquiries to be made. It would allow the individual who has entirely innocently ceased to trade, for urgent reasons that perhaps cannot be reported or explained to the authorities in 28 days, the scope to make those reasons apparent.

I got the impression from Ministers that their minds were not entirely closed on the subject. I said that someone might cease to trade because of personal circumstances or family considerations. I was worried because the Minister stated on Second Reading with, I think, uncharacteristic hubris—which I hope that he will be inclined to revisit—that

only a genuine cessation of trade will result in de-registration. The operator will not be removed from the register without notice; he will be notified prior to any de-registration and will thus have the opportunity to make representations if he has not ceased trading.—[Official Report, 18 December 2000; Vol. 360, c. 114.]

If I am permitted to say so—I intend to do so unless I am subject to your strictures, Mr. Sayeed—that does not answer the core point. It would be perfectly reasonable for a legitimate business man to be unable to trade or even to appeal—I emphasise this important point—against de-registration in 28 days.

In those circumstances, it is surely right that there is some protection, which is why we propose lengthening the initial period from 28 to 60 days. That would, I hope, preclude many legitimate businesses from facing the de-registration process in the first place. We also want to include the caveat of

without good cause or reason.

That is to say, people should not be de-registered simply for failing to trade for 28 days, without good cause or reason. That protective device would catch people in circumstances such as I described—urgent family or personal business that necessitates the sudden closure of the business for an uncertain duration.

An analogy might be more meaningful. We must always be conscious of the fact that we are proposing, albeit perhaps justifiably, a rather specific and almost exceptional system for this type of business relative to others. I believe that the hon. Member for Eastleigh touched on that point earlier. He said that the vast majority of businesses, although they must comply with health and safety legislation and all other aspects of the law, are not subject to a specific registration procedure.

For example, no registration procedure applies to fruiterers, although they are important business people. There may be a good reason for that. Most fruiterers are not a vehicle—if that is not an unfortunate and unintended pun—for the commission of criminal offences. That is why they are treated rather differently and why a registration procedure, or a Fruiterers (Crime Reduction) Bill, is unnecessary, whereas a good case can be made for this Bill. Nevertheless, the example is analogous in a sense, and I hope that it will commend itself to those members of the Committee who regularly walk the high street or attend their village stores.

Fruiteries, grocery stores or corner shops—micro-businesses, with which, Mr. Sayeed, you will be familiar from your own Mid-Bedfordshire constituency, many of whose villages, I imagine, contain exemplary cases of such stores—might from time to time stop trading. They are family businesses, and circumstances may arise that cause those who run them to down tools and accept a loss of business because they must go away. That could happen to a registered plate supplier, and it is surely right that we should build in maximum protection for those who stop trading with good cause or reason that might take the authorities some time to establish.

We also propose to alter the de-registration process. The Secretary of State should not be allowed to assume that the business would never again be included on the register. The de-registration process should also include sufficient information about being added to the register once more. The register should be an enabling rather than a disabling device, and we should take great care not to de-register people in a short time without giving them an adequate opportunity to show why de-registration is not justified.

I hope that I have, in accordance with the Minister's earlier strictures, explained in fairly short order the main purport of the amendments. We want to protect legitimate businesses and give them an opportunity to explain that their temporary cessation of trade is for entirely lawful, and possibly even noble, reasons, so that they are not penalised. I hope that, in rightly trying to ensure that the Bill is tough on crime and tough on the likely commissioners of crime, Ministers will ensure that the Bill is not also tough on those who have not a criminal bone in their bodies. I look forward to the Under-Secretary's response and to hon. Members' comments.

David Chidgey (Liberal Democrat, Eastleigh)

Members of the Committee may have noticed that I tabled amendments that were not selected, calling for the clause and the following relevant clauses to be deleted. I did so because I felt that we needed an explanation of why it should be necessary for a company trading in the supply of plates to be deregistered if it ceases to trade. I am at a loss to understand how this exercise is different from any other commercial enterprise, as we have discussed at some length. The question of the length of time after which it is deemed that a company or organisation has ceased trading is one that has also exercised me. I agree with the hon. Member for Buckingham when he asks on what basis we decide on 28 days: that it is just plucked out of the air and all the problems arise from the shortness of that period.

I have received advice from the European branch of the International Association of Auto Theft Investigators, which has looked at this issue in some detail and has advised the Government and Committees on how this legislation should proceed. One of its members has suggested, for example, that a period of six months would be more appropriate for determining whether a supplier has ceased to trade.

The key issue is that there must be innumerable small companies that trade sporadically in the supply of registration plates. We have already discussed the characteristics of rural communities and small garages. It is quite likely that, in many cases, the plates are supplied at irregular intervals. It does not seem reasonable to me that if a garage happens not to sell a plate for 28 days it should be deregistered. That does not seem to be in the spirit of what we are trying to achieve. I would suggest to the Minister, therefore, that due consideration be given to the characteristics of the trade when trying to determine the period after which a trader is deemed to have ceased to trade and his registration should be cancelled.

Perhaps the most important point is to determine what are we trying to achieve by this registration and deregistration process. Surely the key issue is the audit trail by which the authorities can check that the registration plates are being legally supplied and that they are not being used to allow stolen vehicles to go back into the motor fleet. In that case, surely the most important thing is not to specify a short period after which someone is deemed to have ceased trading but to require that the records be made available to the DVLA after trading has ceased. The police and other authorities would then continue to have access to records of transactions and could determine whether illegal and criminal activities had taken place.

I may have missed it in the Bill, but I do not see anything there to tell me that that audit trail linking registration plates to vehicle transactions is there, is robust and is effective. It is vital to have a robust audit trail to reduce vehicle crime.

Keith Hill (Labour, Streatham)

The clause provides that the Secretary of State may cancel a registration if he is satisfied that the business has ceased trading as a registration plates supplier for at least 28 days, and the amendment would extend the period to 60 days—eight weeks and four days. The Government consider 28 days to be sufficient. It ought also to be borne in mind that this is not a punitive measure but only a means of ensuring that the register is kept up to date. I refer to the remarks made by the hon. Member for Eastleigh and reiterate that unless the register is kept up to date, it will not be possible to supply the police, members of the trade and the public with the necessary information. It is vital, if the audit trail is to be sustained, to ensure that the register is intact and up to date.

David Chidgey (Liberal Democrat, Eastleigh)

What process is envisaged by which, when a company ceases trading, the police and authorities will be informed and enabled to check? I am concerned about the bureaucratic nightmare that could arise concerning how we are to know that traders—especially fly-by-night traders—have ceased trading and how we are to trace their records.

Keith Hill (Labour, Streatham)

The hon. Gentleman asks a very good question. Let me be entirely candid: I am not sure that I can give a very good answer. It appears that an assessment may be made by a variety of means of whether an institution is trading.

The issue is not the conveying of the information to relevant bodies once the supplier has ceased trading. That can be done simply through the provisions of the Bill, by using the internet and tracing the application to the DVLA, which is the registration authority.

The hon. Gentleman asked an interesting question about how it will be known that the supplier has ceased trading. I am delighted to say that inspiration has winged its way to me. It will be an offence to fail to notify the registration authority that a supplier has ceased to trade, which in itself will be a major incentive to supply that information.

David Chidgey (Liberal Democrat, Eastleigh)

I am grateful that the Under-Secretary recognises my genuine and serious concern, which is not at all flippant. We are dealing with a minority of people in the business who are in the criminal fraternity. The issue is about taking those people out of the business spectrum so that their crimes in vehicle theft are illuminated. It may be an offence not to tell the state that one is no longer trading, but the people involved are not the sort of people to be concerned about that. The nature of their business is to try to be as far underground and out of sight as possible. That is why I am concerned that there is no automatic mechanism to tell the authorities that an organisation has ceased trading.

I return to my fundamental point. There seems to be nothing in the Bill to tell us how the records of every supplier that ceases to trade will be required by law to be passed on to the authorities—perhaps a local authority or the police authority—so that its audit trail remains intact. I remind the Committee that insurance companies often do not recognise stolen cars as having been stolen for three months or longer in due process. There is a serious concern that unless we get the legislation absolutely right, it will be totally ineffective.

Keith Hill (Labour, Streatham)

The hon. Gentleman is on to a very good point. I am taking some time to consider it. As one ponders on his observations, it emerges that there will be various sources for the information about cessation of trading, as there will be various agencies at the local level. One thinks, for example, of trading standards officers, and the police also have a clear stake in the matter. They will be sources of information to the registration authority.

Clarity of identification and maintaining a reasonably clean and up-to-date register, which is the object of the exercise, are precisely the reasons for the decent audit trail to which the hon. Gentleman alluded. It will be a legal requirement on the supplier to notify the registration authority of the decision not to trade. That will be a powerful source of information for maintaining a proper register.

Mr. Bercow rose—

Mr. Chidgey rose—

Keith Hill (Labour, Streatham)

If the hon. Member for Buckingham will forgive me, I think that I at least owe it to the hon. Member for Eastleigh to give way to him again, during which time I may be able to peruse the further pieces of information that have reached me.

David Chidgey (Liberal Democrat, Eastleigh)

I will try my best to speak clearly and slowly, giving the Under-Secretary the opportunity to brief himself using the poorly handwritten note that I can see. In his previous reply, he made it clear that he believed that we could rely on local trading standards officers and the police to undertake the extra and onerous duties of checking the whole range of traders in registration plates to ensure that they are still trading. Surely he accepts that local authorities and the police are already overburdened with work and that it would be completely unrealistic for the Bill to place even more burdens on them, particularly when it claims that no extra work will be required of them to enforce its provisions. We need measures that will make such provisions self-enforcing, and those I have yet to see.

Keith Hill (Labour, Streatham)

Let me add to the list of agencies that will be scrutinising the activities of number plate suppliers. As well as the police and the trading standards officers who will have a stake in the matter, VAT authorities will have an interest in who is or who is not trading. They will also require evidence of continuity or cessation of trade. I am conscious that the hon. Member for Buckingham wants to join the fray, but I want to revert to the fundamental assumption underlying the Bill, which is that number plate suppliers are not criminals. No inference is made that the problem of criminality lies with those 27,000 suppliers. We are concerned about the exploitation by criminal means of their legitimate activities, and that is what we want to bear down on. We are reasonably confident that the sorts of criminal elements that the hon. Member for Eastleigh is primarily concerned with are those who will not register in the first place.

The purpose of Standing Committees is to prise out problems in legislation. I remind the hon. Gentleman that we are talking not about the principle of who registers or who does not register but about when it should be deemed that a cessation of trading has occurred. I reassure him that we take seriously the broad arguments that he has outlined and that we shall reflect on them as the Bill is debated.

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

The Under-Secretary was gracious enough to refer to the lifeline that he was thrown, to which I had also intended to refer. It was interesting to see him consulting it and I hope that he found it useful. He was right to say that the hon. Member for Eastleigh was on to a good point. I do not want to labour matters that we have already debated and that the Minister has given us an assurance that he will reconsider, but will he at least accept that, on the surface, there is a certain incongruity about there being an offence of failing to notify the authority of a cession of trading and the absence thus far in the Bill of an offence of making a false application for registration?

Keith Hill (Labour, Streatham)

The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point, and I have given him pretty powerful reassurances about it. The appropriate time before a supplier should be deemed to have ceased trading is a matter of judgment. I have said that notification that trading has ceased would be expected from the business under clause 26. The period for providing notification under that clause is also 28 days, and I must point out that no controversial amendments have been tabled to increase that period to 60 days, although one has been tabled to increase it to 42 days. However, that was tabled by the Liberal Democrats, not the official Opposition, who apparently thought it unnecessary in that case. That shows an inconsistency in their argument. Safeguards in the Bill prevent the Secretary of State from cancelling a registration when trading has not ceased. The business must be notified and, as set out in later parts of the Bill, it has the opportunity to make representations.

Amendment No. 21 concerns good cause for ceasing to trade. The response may seem somewhat of a pettifogging drafting point, but the drafting is unacceptable. It is unnecessarily restrictive and contrary to the shared purposes of the Government and the Opposition. The amendment would restrict the ability to cancel registrations when a person ceases to trade

without good cause or reason.

Someone who had ceased trading as a registration plate supplier but had ``good cause or reason'' for doing so would remain on the register. That would defeat the object of having a register of number plate suppliers. The register would have to include people who were not carrying on a business as registration plate suppliers. I rest my case.

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

I see the force of some of what the Minister said, and I am happy to reflect on it. In tabling amendments, there is always the danger of the unintended consequence. I am happy to concede that the amendments could have unintended consequences. I shall not labour the point, and I shall not press the amendment to the vote. In return, however, in the relatively cordial atmosphere now enveloping the Committee, I suggest that the Minister should take into account the thinking behind our amendment and the important comments adumbrated by the hon. Member for Eastleigh.

On the Minister's own admission, there is a certain arbitrariness in the provision. One has to choose a time scale, and judgment and fair play should permeate the process. I suspect that the Minister would admit that in different circumstances, at a different time, with a different Minister and different very bright officials offering advice, a different time scale could—and in other countries probably would—be chosen. It would be wrong to let the issue die in the ditch. I hope that the Minister, consistent with his approach on the offence of seeking falsely to register, will adopt a similarly broad-minded stance. He may be unwilling to produce alternatives before Third Reading, but I hope that he will attend to the debate on Third Reading and on Report and be prepared to consider the arguments on an on-going basis.

On the strength of that observation, and the important points adduced by the hon. Member for Eastleigh, I, too, am happy to rest my case. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 20 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 21 - Right to make representations: Part II

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman would prefer Ministers to speak advised or not advised.

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

I very much prefer Ministers to speak advised. I thought that I might regret saying that, and that the Minister was about to deflate me somewhat by saying that what was written on the paper was nothing to do with my observations but was simply an updated commentary on the cricket score or something similar. I am reassured to know that those who are paid to advise Ministers do not engage in such frivolities.

The rest of the debate is in Hansard.