Vehicles (Crime) Bill

Public Bill Committee, 11 January 2001.

Standing Committee A

Vehicles (Crime) Bill

Bowen Wells (Conservative, Hertford and Stortford)

I must explain to the Committee why it is faced with yet a third Chairman for its third sitting. Mr. O'Brien and Mr. Sayeed have other matters to attend to outside the House today, so I shall be in the Chair today. I have read the report of the previous two sittings and I am conscious of the limited time in which to consider the Bill—some Opposition Members believe that it is too little time. I shall therefore be strict and keep members of the Committee in order at all times, so that valuable time is not wasted. Clause 24 Provision of information on sale of registration plates

Clause 24 - Provision of information on sale of registration plates

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

Before we come to a judgment about the validity of the clause, I should be most grateful to the Minister if he will elaborate on the phrase

information of a prescribed description

in line 3.

David Chidgey (Liberal Democrat, Eastleigh)

What information will be required from a prospective purchaser? Each year, about 10 million vehicle registrations are processed by the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency and, at any one time, many thousands of vehicle registration documents could be en route to and from the agency, or being processed by it. In such a situation, how will the registered keeper of a vehicle obtain a new plate? Will documents other than the vehicle registration document be accepted? If so, what measures will be taken to ensure that the purchaser has a bona fide right to the plate?

On a lighter note, do the Government intend to review the Road Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations 1986 so that number plates can be positioned where they are less likely to be damaged? Plates seem to be particularly vulnerable at the front of vehicles. The hon. Gentleman will know from earlier debates that about 3 million plates have to be replaced each year because of damage. Does he have any proposals to strengthen number plates, so they are much less likely to be damaged? I look forward to his reply.

Keith Hill (Labour, Streatham)

Your unexpected appearance as Chairman of the Committee, Mr. Wells, is none the less greeted with great delight. [Hon. Members: ``Hear, hear.''] We look forward to your rigorous chairmanship of our proceedings.

With the exception of the question about the construction and use regulations, the hon. Members for Eastleigh (Mr. Chidgey)—I hope that I have pronounced his constituency correctly—and for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) have asked the same question. I hope that they will accept that I cannot deal with that immediately. I will attempt, in due course, to return to that matter at a more comprehensive length, but I should point out at this stage that material used for the manufacture of number plates is set by the British Standards Institution. However, I will return to the hon. Gentleman's question at greater length.

On the question raised by the hon. Member for Buckingham, the information referred to in the clause is information that provides proof that the prospective purchaser is entitled to receive plates bearing the registration mark requested. That could be done by asking for proof of identity such as a driving licence, or a passport and proof of entitlement to the registration marks such as the registration document. In other words, it will be open to identify more extensive evidence of identity than those strictly relating to the purchase and keepership of the vehicle.

David Chidgey (Liberal Democrat, Eastleigh)

My point is simple. I am concerned about the delay in the process while documents are in the post to and from the DVLA. Will that problem be resolved?

Keith Hill (Labour, Streatham)

I find myself regularly answering questions about the amount of time that the DVLA takes to deal with transactions and on the whole it is a relatively brief period in any circumstances—although some people might challenge that. I hope that the hon. Gentleman took my point that the Government will consider setting out in regulations the possibility of a greater range of evidence of identity than those that simply relate to the vehicle itself.

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

I take this opportunity to welcome you warmly, Mr. Wells, to the chairmanship of our proceedings.

The Under-Secretary observed that on Second Reading, I required little provocation to leap to my feet and I feel tempted to do so on this occasion. He implied that he would not be able to give details now of the information of the prescribed description referred to in line 3 of clause 24. Is it the Government's intention to issue draft regulations before, or to coincide with, the Report stage of the Bill? Or will he by some other means and at what time give us some idea of the information of prescribed description?

Keith Hill (Labour, Streatham)

The hon. Gentleman raises a perfectly reasonable and proper point. It is certainly our intention to consult fully on the proposed regulations, and I look forward to his representations on those in due course. As he will be aware from our exchanges on Second Reading and the observations that have been made in the course of our proceedings so far, there have already been extensive consultations on the measures contained in the Bill. There has also been a high level of unanimity about the measure among the key players, including the official Opposition, who, very reasonably, chose not to divide the House on the substantive measure.

I notice that the hon. Gentleman and I both seemed to have pored intensively over the proceedings on Second Reading. He is absolutely right—I did say that he had a tendency to leap to his feet with relatively little provocation, but it is important in our proceedings that all ministerial utterances should be challenged in detail. I can reassure him that there will be comprehensive consultation on those matters before the regulations are proposed to the House.

In conclusion, the clause is one of the key provisions in this part of the Bill. It requires anyone conducting business as a registration plate supplier to ensure that plates are sold only to people who have a genuine reason for purchasing them.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 24 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 25 - Rights to enter and inspect premises

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

I beg to move amendment No. 26, in page 13,

leave out lines 14 to 47 and insert—

`(1) A justice of the peace may issue a warrant authorising a constable or (as the case may be) an authorised person to enter and inspect premises, provided that admission to the premises is reasonably required to secure compliance with the provisions of this Part, or to ascertain whether these provisions are being complied with.

(2) A constable or an authorised person may, if necessary, use reasonable force in the exercise of his powers under a warrant issued under subsection (1).

(3) A constable or an authorised person may at any reasonable time—

(a) require production of, and inspect, any registration plates kept at the premises; and

(b) require production of, inspect and take copies of or extracts from any records which the person carrying on business as a registration plate supplier is required to keep at such premises by virtue of this Part.

(4) A constable or an authorised person in seeking to enter any premises in the exercise of his powers under a warrant issued under subsection (1) shall, if required by or on behalf of the owner or occupier or person in charge of the premises, produce evidence of his identity, and of his authority for entering before doing so.

(5) Any person who obstructs an authorised person in the exercise of his duties under a warrant issued under subsection (1) shall be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 2 on the standard scale.'.

Bowen Wells (Conservative, Hertford and Stortford)

With this it will be convenient to take the following: amendment No. 27, in page 13, leave out lines 14 to 47 and insert—

`(1) A constable or (as the case may be) an authorised person may at any reasonable time enter and inspect premises, provided that admission to the premises is reasonably required to ascertain whether the provisions of this Part are being complied with and, if necessary, to secure compliance with the provisions of this Part.

(2) A constable or an authorised person may, if necessary, use reasonable force in the exercise of his powers under subsection (1).

(3) A constable or an authorised person may at any reasonable time—

(a) require production of, and inspect, any registration plates kept at the premises; and

(b) require production of, inspect and take copies of or extracts from any records which the person carrying on business as a registration plate supplier is required to keep at such premises by virtue of this Part.

(4) A constable or an authorised person in seeking to enter any premises in the exercise of his powers under subsection (1) shall, if required by or on behalf of the owner or occupier or person in charge of the premises, produce evidence of his identity, and of his authority for entering before doing so.

(5) Any person who obstructs an authorised person in the exercise of his duties under a warrant issued under subsection (1) shall be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 2 on the standard scale.'.

Amendment No. 9, in page 13, leave out lines 14 to 47 and insert—`at any reasonable time,' and insert

`during normal hours of business'.

Clause stand part.

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

I think that the Committee will readily understand the purpose of the amendments. I reiterate at the outset what should be apparent to everyone who reads the Bill. Clause 25 relates to the right of a constable or authorised person to enter and inspect premises. That does not seem an unreasonable power, and precedents for it exist in a great many measures. It is essential that the intention of the Bill can be made effective in practice, and if a police constable or other authorised person has reason to believe, and, presumably, good grounds to suspect, that illegal activity might be taking place, it is essential that he should be empowered to inspect and investigate. About that there is no disagreement.

As the Under-Secretary, and, I am sure, you, too, Mr. Wells, will be aware from the substance of the Second Reading debate, members of the official Opposition expressed anxiety—I cannot remember whether that anxiety extended to Liberal Democrats—about the apparent inconsistency of treatment in the clause of registered registration plate suppliers and of those who are not registered. To avoid doubt and being contradicted by the Minister, I say at the outset that I am fully aware that under the Bill all registration plate suppliers will be obliged to be registered, and that those who are not registered violate and contravene the Bill. Nevertheless, the central point—suspicion of wrongdoing—is the same in both cases, and my hon. Friends and I found that inconsistency of treatment curious. Specifically, we thought it peculiar that, for the investigation of someone who was registered as a registration plate supplier, it would be in order for a constable or other authorised person to enter and inspect premises at a reasonable time without a warrant. However, if the constable or other authorised person proposed to enter and inspect the premises of someone who was not registered as a registered plate supplier, that constable or other authorised person would require a warrant.

My point, which was supported by my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant)—who is still, I regret to say, suffering from the effects of the aforementioned bite—was that that seemed unfairly to discriminate against someone who was properly and lawfully registered, and effectively to favour, or at least to be a little soft on, someone who was not registered. That seemed curious.

For that reason—I am doing my best to explain a simple point as succinctly as possible—it seemed worth while to table amendments to tease out the Government's thinking. I say without embarrassment or apology that my hon. Friends and I tabled two amendments that contradict each other. That was quite deliberate. In the name of consistency and mutuality of treatment, we suggest that either both registered and unregistered registration plate suppliers should be capable of inspection at any reasonable time by a constable or authorised person only possessing a warrant or they should both be open to inspection by a constable or other authorised person who does not possess a warrant. That would at least ensure equal treatment. Rightly, the principle of non-discrimination informs much legislation and the general attitude of political parties towards the conduct of human affairs.

I thought it courteous to write to the Minister in advance for the elucidation and edification of those who did not attend our proceedings on Tuesday. I emphasise that I am not referring to any ordinary Minister of State. It is important to put it on record again that he was referred to in The Guardian on Monday as ``the man with a mission'', described by John Kampfner as ``an arch-operator'' who might be the next leader of the Labour party.

I endeavour to be a courteous fellow in all circumstances and I thought it particularly appropriate to mind my p's and q's in that context. So I wrote to the Minister on 5 January. I apologised to him for not signing the letter myself. I was in Israel at the time, so it was signed on my behalf. I said:

I am writing ahead of the first committee stages of the Vehicles (Crime) Bill.

I emphasised in my letter that on Second Reading I had stated my concern about Clause 25 and said:

I believe this places a greater burden on legitimate businesses who comply with the law, rather than on those plate suppliers who operate whilst unregistered.

To resolve this conflict I have tabled two amendments to encourage discussion about the issue. The first amendment requires the authorities to hold a warrant before entering either registered or unregistered premises, while the second allows them access without notice—

or warrant—

to either establishment.

My purpose in tabling these two probing amendments was to find a satisfactory solution to what I see as a problem in the clause as it stands. I thought that the Minister should be aware of that before the debate.

We have proposed a solution. Amendment No. 26 requires that the authorities should have a warrant before they enter registered or unregistered businesses. Amendment No. 27 states that they may enter either business ``at any reasonable time''. Of course that means that they may do so without a warrant.

Some people might think that it would be sensible, in order to maximise the efficacy of the Bill, to allow entry for inspection at any time and without a warrant, that that would be proper and that we should agree to it. Others will say, ``No. It should be necessary, to safeguard the rights of the individual, to secure a warrant in advance.'' As it is not a deeply partisan matter, I am happy to vouchsafe to the Committee that, in general terms, I am of a libertarian bent. So the Minister will not be surprised to know that, as I am rather suspicious of the use of overweening authority by agents of the state, I believe that in these circumstances constables should require warrants. I jealously—and perhaps zealously—guard the privacy of the individual and the right of freeborn Englishmen, Welshmen, Scotsmen and Northern Irishmen in the United Kingdom to go about their lawful business unmolested by the avaricious appetite of state officials. Others, who are less concerned about that, think that constables should be able to go about their business at any time and that a warrant should not be necessary. I prefer the requirement and use of a warrant in both cases, although it may well be that hon. Members on both sides of the Committee hold a miscellany of views on the subject.

David Kidney (Labour, Stafford)

Is the hon. Gentleman assuming that, in all circumstances, the inspections are to discover whether the registered person is doing something illegal? I ask that because for many years I knew the police officer whose job it was under the scrap metal merchants' registered scheme—

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

1964?

David Kidney (Labour, Stafford)

Indeed, 1964. His job was to inspect the records, not to see whether an operator was behaving criminally, but to find out whether the records of transactions raised suspicions in the police mind that other people were operating illegally. So it was of assistance to the police when carrying out their general duties, and scrap metal merchants were willing to assist them.

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

I am grateful to the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Kidney), who makes a fair point. It might well be that a constable, or other authorised person, would wish to enter and inspect for that purpose. I am certainly prepared to accept that the focus of suspicion would not be necessarily and invariably on the registered—or unregistered—plate supplier. Nevertheless, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept from me that in the United Kingdom there is a natural respect for—and occasionally even fear of—authority. That is part of the law-abiding, perhaps even God-fearing, instinct of large numbers of people in our country. Unless an individual had advance notice of not only the intended visit but the rationale behind it, he could well be worried. Of course, he would then be relieved when the police constable or other authorised person told him that the purpose of the inquiry related to possible illegal or criminal activity by others, not by himself. However, he would experience some anxiety in the run-up to the visit.

I do not think that the constable or other authorised person will be required to give notice of the intended visit, although I would like the Minister to clarify that, and I hope that such notice is, in fact, required. I am pretty sure, however—here I stick my neck out—that even if the constable or other authorised person is expected or required to give notice of the intended visit, he is not required or expected to explain its purpose. I would not want legitimate business people to worry about the reason for such a visit; there should be a requirement in the clause for a constable or other authorised person to obtain a warrant, and it would be a matter of good order to give some idea of the visit's purpose, too.

I anticipate that the Minister will say that what I suggest is a bad idea because giving someone who is engaged in improper or criminal activity advance notice of the entry and inspection might give him time to conceal evidence. That is an arguable point, but there is something to be said for at least providing advance notice. We will not dilate upon the matter at this point, Mr. Wells, because that would incur your disfavour, but there is something to be said, too, for the argument made by the hon. Member for Eastleigh in amendment No. 9.

I welcome some clarification from the Minister, hoping that he will recognise from the way in which I developed the argument that it is a matter of legitimate concern. My hon. Friends and I would be greatly obliged if he could assuage my concern and prove that my libertarian instincts should not be in any way offended by the clause as it stands.

David Chidgey (Liberal Democrat, Eastleigh)

The final comments made by the hon. Member for Buckingham come close to the heart of the matter. I have discussed the issue with members of the police force who have dealt with the criminal activity in this part of the motor trade for many years. They told me that too often, when trying to inspect records or premises, they have been told, ``We are closed for the weekend—can you come back on Monday?'' Of course, over the weekend, all the suspect records mysteriously disappear.

We have something of a dichotomy here. The clause states that a police officer ``may at any reasonable time'' request permission to see records. By using that phrasing, the Minister may presume that a police officer can, within that time frame, expect access and entry to the premises. That should remove the opportunity for the villain—after all, we are dealing with villains here—to remove or doctor the records. However, the clause limits the time frame for the police officer by specifying ``any reasonable time''. I do not know whether the Minister can follow my argument. In giving the police more freedom, we have limited the time in which they can exercise it. That may not work well in practice.

To return to the salient point—the aim of the Bill is to enable police officers to establish an audit trail of registration plates and to follow, as part of a criminal inquiry, what happens to a vehicle and its registration plates. We must try to find a way of overcoming the blocks, deviations and hurdles that villains put in the way of police officers trying to exercise their duties. My amendment is intended to tease that out, as I am not sure that the way in which the clause is phrased will achieve that aim. The clause gives police officers powers to demand the right of access, but it stipulates that they can do so only at a reasonable time. As we have debated previously, reasonable means ``reasonable under the circumstances'', which could lead to yet another debate.

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

As I said, I see much merit in the hon. Gentleman's amendment. I was wrong to suggest that I could not dilate on it at this point, as it is grouped with amendments Nos. 26 and 27. I was, uncharacteristically, applying a self-denying ordinance that I did not need to apply. I suggest that the feature of the clause that allows the use of reasonable force becomes especially important in the event that entry is secured outside normal working hours, as it is reasonable to suppose that no one from the company would be present. Therefore, door-forcing, for example, might be necessary.

David Chidgey (Liberal Democrat, Eastleigh)

That is a good point. I say that without hesitation as the hon. Gentleman brings me on to my final point, for which I thank him.

It is likely that criminal activities on the premises would take place outside of normal business hours. That is another Catch-22 situation. I am far from sure that the clause enables police officers to establish an audit trail in relation to what is happening, and therefore to discover whether criminal activities are taking place.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

I am grateful for this opportunity to make a couple of general points. I preface my remarks by saying how delighted I am, Mr. Wells, to serve under your unexpected but most welcome chairmanship.

The Liberal Democrat and Conservative Front-Benchers have spoken eloquently to the three amendments. I want to make one or two general points relating to clause 25, and the thrust of the Government's thinking on the matter. If the Government are determined to make the Bill succeed, they will have to allocate more constables to the duties contained in it. That is the source of my grave concern. I represent a rural area, and I am unable to say at this moment whether faulty registration and rogue registration are currently a problem there. However, following my meeting with the chief constable tomorrow, I expect to be much better briefed on the matter for the Committee's sittings next week.

North Yorkshire has the highest incidence of road traffic accidents in the country. It is a source of alarm to my constituents in the Vale of York and residents elsewhere in North Yorkshire that newspaper reports have suggested that the number of traffic police will be reduced in view of the current shortfall in police officers. At the end of last year, we were short of 43 constables. That figure is rising, which was confirmed, I believe, in Prime Minister's questions yesterday.

We are already facing a crisis in policing in rural areas such as North Yorkshire. Will the Minister take this opportunity to confirm or deny those newspaper reports? Will he assure the Committee that road traffic police officers will not be taken away from their important duties, and that they will not be given new duties under the Bill?

Jonathan R Shaw (Labour, Chatham and Aylesford)

Does the hon. Lady agree that that is a matter for chief constables? It is an operational matter, and not one for my hon. Friend the Minister or the Home Secretary.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

The hon. Gentleman is wilfully missing the thrust of my remarks and misinterpreting them. My point is that chief constables are given a precept each year and in North Yorkshire we are woefully short of our quota.

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

The observation made by the hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Mr. Shaw) was unworthy of a man of his calibre.

One might clarify the issue by using the analogy of a professional cake provider who knows that a certain number of slices of cake will be divided between a set number of people. If he subsequently discovers that there will be many more consumers or eaters than expected, is it not absurd to describe the situation as unchanged and to say, ``Oh, well. That is the cake and they will just have to argue about how to divvy it up''? If a new category of offences is to be created, with a new requirement for the police to investigate them, it is absurd to argue that the number of police available to do the work is immaterial. That argument is so preposterous that it should not be advanced even by a Back-Bench Labour Member.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

I am most grateful to my hon. Friend, whose remarks show that one cannot have one's cake and eat it.

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

I should make a couple of important points. My hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford was entirely and importantly constitutionally correct in his remarks, and I am grateful to him for making the point. He benefits from the fact that the chief constable of Kent, who is one of the most outstanding in the country, has paid great attention to vehicle crime. My hon. Friend is very aware of and familiar with the issues, which we have discussed outside the Committee.

A critical point is that whatever happens, the operational responsibility of chief constables is paramount. Politicians, police authorities and local councils cannot and should not challenge that operational autonomy in the allocation of resources. However, I assure the hon. Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh) that there is no guidance from Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary, the Home Office, the Association of Chief Police Officers or other organisations to suggest that resources should be shifted from road traffic policing to other policing responsibilities. There is no such guidance or doctrine.

Government initiatives, in particular on speeding, with pilot schemes for speed cameras, have achieved significant results. Some staffing pressures have been relieved in the seven or eight authorities where the pilot schemes are taking place, and the approach will be spread across the country. However, that is not a matter of general guidance. It is, of course, open to the hon. Lady to make general points about police numbers and resources, but her point about the shift of resources from road traffic policing to other policing is a matter for the chief constable of her county. No doubt she will talk to him about it tomorrow.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

I am most grateful to the Minister of State for that helpful suggestion. I do not question the integrity or calibre of the chief constable of North Yorkshire, who is second to none. He has turned round the morale and standing of the North Yorkshire police. When I was elected, before his appointment, many ordinary officers in North Yorkshire were taking retirement, and there was a higher incidence of illness than in many other police forces in the country. That was a matter of concern and the transformation in the North Yorkshire force's morale and achievements is a credit to the chief constable's hard work.

The intervention of the Minister of State helpfully leads me on to my next remarks. Incidentally, I want to mention my interest, which is declared in the register, as a member of the public policy committee of the RAC Foundation. That brings certain benefits that are greatly appreciated. The Minister of State said earlier this week that the foundation's comments were generally in support of the Bill. I have received a briefing, from it, which states:

We believe that the Bill, which relates to vehicle crime, would have done much better to concentrate on the need for more traffic police officers to reinforce the additional powers given in the legislation.

In connection with speed cameras, to which the Minister referred, it states:

The hypothecation of speed camera penalties seems to have little to do with the reduction of vehicle crime in the long run.

The whole thrust of the Bill—especially clause 25—begs the question why the Government have chosen to introduce a Bill on vehicle crime at this stage of the Parliament. Although I do not serve on the shadow Home Office team, my understanding is that, while it is still unacceptably high, the incidence of vehicle crime is decreasing. It is particularly high in North Yorkshire, where 4x4 vehicles used by farmers to reach inaccessible parts of their land are often targeted. That is a source of concern, but it would be interesting if the Minister could tell us why the Government are addressing the issue at this stage of the Parliament.

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

I would like to clarify that point. The Government's three crime priorities are vehicle crime, burglary and violent crime. The legislation focuses on vehicle crime. It follows on from the work of the vehicle crime reduction action team and flows naturally from it. The VCRAT proposed certain legislation that would help us to reach our targets for vehicle crime reduction. As the hon. Lady generously acknowledges, we are already doing well in reducing vehicle crime, but the Bill is designed to reduce it further.

Other legislation before the House deals with burglary, including the Private Security Industry Bill, which is currently being considered in the other place. On violent crime, we are considering the introduction—in this Session—of legislation to deal with street crime and disorder. We have different legal measures to attain different policy goals. This Bill is before the House at this stage of the Parliament because we are trying to attack crime on all fronts. It also flows naturally from the work of the vehicle crime reduction action team, in which the RAC Foundation participates.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

I give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham.

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. She is right to underline the fact that there has been a cut in vehicle crime. She will know, because she was present at the Second Reading debate, that we have parleyed with the Government about the extent or significance of the cut that so far has been achieved. I hope that my hon. Friend will not be in any way be diverted from her very sound basic point, which is that, in light of the creation of new offences, it is inevitable that there will be an increased incidence of crime, at least in relation to clause 25. Does she agree that it is essential that we take proper account of the burden that we are, perhaps correctly, creating by virtue of the clause on the smaller number of officers?

Bowen Wells (Conservative, Hertford and Stortford)

Order. I am being very generous in permitting what is becoming a Second Reading debate. However, I must ask the hon. Member for Vale of York to deal with the clause now, having made her clear and proper point about the police. We must return to the matter in hand, which is clause 26.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

Do you mean clause 25, Mr. Wells?

Bowen Wells (Conservative, Hertford and Stortford)

I am sorry. I meant amendment No. 26.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

I do not wish to go on too much. I am grateful for your generosity, Mr. Wells. I have pursued the point vigorously and I am grateful for the Minister's intervention and for the support that I have received from my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham.

The hon. Member for Eastleigh has tabled amendment No. 9. The original text of the clause states that the constable or officer would be allowed to visit at any reasonable time, and I am minded to support that for the simple reason that it gives the police the opportunity to visit the premises of a potentially rogue business to seize possibly incriminating documents out of business hours. The amendment is unnecessarily restrictive. If the police are to gain the powers to carry out this duty, they should not be diverted from other duties.

David Chidgey (Liberal Democrat, Eastleigh)

The hon. Lady mentioned my amendment. May I reassure her that it was designed as a probing amendment to facilitate debate on the pros and cons, not a substantive amendment?

Mr. Bercow rose—

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

I give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow).

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way, and I welcome the observation made by the hon. Member for Eastleigh. Does my hon. Friend agree that if we take the tough approach and allow constables or other authorised persons to inspect premises outside of normal business hours, the question of the application of reasonable force becomes compelling? In such circumstances, what does my hon. Friend believe would constitute ``reasonable force''? If severe damage were caused to the property of registered or unregistered plate suppliers in the process, would the Government expect compensation to be provided?

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

That raises an important point, with which I have considerably sympathy. I accept that the hon. Member for Eastleigh tabled a probing amendment. I continue in the same spirit and offer the Government the opportunity to respond to my probing remarks. I repeat my earlier question: do the Government intend to allow officers to visit premises at any reasonable time? If officers proposed to enter premises outside office hours, would it be done in conjunction with the owners or occupiers of those premises? Could officers use reasonable force to enter?

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

I do not want to labour the point, but it is important. Let us envisage a scenario whereby late at night a constable uses reasonable force and causes considerable noise or commotion at premises located near to residential property. Should we not take proper account of such a scenario?

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

My hon. Friend may not like my reply, but forceful powers rest with the Commission of the European Union to enter premises and seize documents in competition cases. Are the Government aware of those parallels, and do they envisage the use of reasonable force in the circumstances described by my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham? Elderly or other vulnerable people living in a nearby residential area could be alarmed.

Jonathan R Shaw (Labour, Chatham and Aylesford)

Once again, I find myself coming to the defence of operational autonomy. Surely the reasonableness of entering a property would depend on the nature of the inquiry. It might be reasonable for notice to be given in connection with routine visits, but giving no notice whatever would be entirely reasonable for covert operations in which serious crime is suspected.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

These probing amendments give the Government the opportunity to outline how they envisage the clause being implemented operationally. Many questions are unanswered. This is the only opportunity that we have to look at the issues.

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

I am worried about what might be called the insouciant attitude of Government Back Benchers to the application of force and the exercise of police power. The point made by the hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford is not entirely unreasonable. I hope that he, and more particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of York, accept that the issue of compensation that I have highlighted, in regard to significant damage to property, is of the first importance given that the police constable involved does not have perfect information at the time of the use of that force. He may suspect criminality, but his suspicion may prove unfounded. If significant damage is caused, are individuals not entitled to expect compensation, and should that not be clearly understood?

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

Perhaps I am too na—ve and trusting, but having grown up in a country that is not a police state, I have sufficient confidence in the police.

Steve McCabe (Labour, Birmingham, Hall Green)

I am listening with interest to the points made by the hon. Lady and the hon. Member for Buckingham. We are getting a new version of softly, softly policing. When the hon. Lady put her name to amendment No. 27, what did she have in mind by ``reasonable''? It would surely help us if we knew that.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

I will refresh the memory of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Mr. McCabe) by telling him that I practised law for a short time at the Scottish Bar. It was against that background that I seized the opportunity to offer two alternative drafts to the clause. I did so not in a desire to be provocative but to give, in the same vein as the hon. Member for Eastleigh, the Government the opportunity to consider the matter in a constructive but constrained and focused way. In particular, subsection (2) provides that a constable or an authorised person may, if necessary, use reasonable force in the exercise of his powers under subsection (1). I am minded to press that with the Government.

Steve McCabe (Labour, Birmingham, Hall Green)

The point that I am trying to put to the hon. Lady is that, while I accept that she is keen to tease out what would constitute reasonable force in those circumstances, she must know what she thought was ``reasonable'' when she put her name to the amendment that uses exactly that word. It would help our proceedings if she told us what she regards as reasonable.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

The courts have over the years interpreted the concept of reasonable force as force that would be regarded as reasonable by a reasonable man or a reasonable woman. In my view, it would be reasonable—particularly in regard to my hon. Friend's point about compensation—to enter a premises only if the weight of evidence were such that there was more than a strong suspicion that there was relevant material inside. Some potential criminals are—

Jonathan R Shaw (Labour, Chatham and Aylesford)

Not reasonable.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

Precisely. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for assisting me. Officers must seize opportunities that present themselves, but I shall not labour that point. I had moved on to amendment No. 9, but was drawn back to amendments Nos. 26 and 27 almost against my will.

I accept that amendment No. 9 is, as the hon. Member for Eastleigh said, a probing amendment. It provides the Government with the opportunity to explain why we should agree to replace at any reasonable time with

during normal hours of business.

Keith Hill (Labour, Streatham)

We have benefited from a wide-ranging contribution from the hon. Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh). She confided in me yesterday that she had a terrific anti-Labour story for this morning.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

This is not it.

Keith Hill (Labour, Streatham)

Oh, the hon. Lady has an even better anti-Labour story. That is impressive, because this is not a very good anti-Labour story. She will recollect that my hon. Friend the Minister of State wrote to her and all hon. Members last week explaining clearly that the number of police officers in north Yorkshire is increasing. Indeed, the number has increased by 10 since the beginning of September 2000 and continues to increase—[Laughter.] Collapse of stout party!

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

The Under-Secretary is digging a big hole for himself. The number of police officers has fallen by 53 from last year and has probably fallen by even more if compared with the figure for 1 May 1997. The Minister is on record as saying that the number in north Yorkshire is rising, but I believe that the number of police officers who were serving on 1 May 1997 will not be restored by 1 May 2001.

Keith Hill (Labour, Streatham)

It remains beyond peradventure that in September last year there were 1,283 police officers in north Yorkshire and there are now 1,293. The number of police officers in north Yorkshire is increasing.

The hon. Lady is probably right about road traffic accidents, because the number is high, but she will be aware that, in the local transport settlement announced by the Government in December 2000, north Yorkshire benefited from a colossal increase in investment in local transport of 176 per cent. That will make an immeasurable contribution to the improvement of road safety in north Yorkshire. The hon. Lady's comments in the Yorkshire Post about the Government's generosity were churlish and I now offer her the opportunity to withdraw her words.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

I fear that I have touched a raw nerve in the Under-Secretary, and I am delighted to have done so.

I want to put it on the record that it is not the residents in north Yorkshire who cause the problem, but transit traffic. My point is that the Government have still not given a commitment to provide sufficient finance when they proceed with their detrunking programme in 2003—

Bowen Wells (Conservative, Hertford and Stortford)

Order. I have been more than generous in allowing the debate to extend to police resources, but we must now return to clause 25 and make proper use of our time.

Keith Hill (Labour, Streatham)

I regret that you are preventing me from pursuing the hon. Lady's point , Mr. Wells. Suffice it to say that the Bill will contribute significantly to a reduction in vehicle crime, which will free up police resources.

Mrs. Linda Gilroy (Plymouth, Sutton) rose—

Mr. Bob Russell (Colchester) rose—

Mr. Hill: I give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Mrs. Gilroy).

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

I hope that you will allow me to pursue the point, Mr. Wells. As I understand it, this debate was initiated in the context of the pressure on police. Will my hon. Friend confirm that this far-sighted Bill is about helping areas such as Plymouth? Although vehicle crime has dropped by 50 per cent. in my constituency, efforts to bear down further on the problem are proving particularly challenging. In fact, vehicle theft is creeping up slightly. From the point of view of the chief superintendent of police in Plymouth—and doubtless the partnerships—the Bill's provisions will greatly assist in maintaining the momentum against vehicle crime. I assure the Committee that the provisions will ultimately result in less pressure on the police and will save police time.

Keith Hill (Labour, Streatham)

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her intervention. I remember well her saying on Second Reading that an impressive degree of community partnership with the police has driven down crime levels in Plymouth, and I commend the Plymouth experience to the Committee. She is right to say that the Bill will drive down vehicle crime levels and free up police resources for other purposes. However, in the light of your various observations, Mr. Wells, we should not dwell on the issue of police resources at this point, and I shall return to the substance of the debate. Before doing so, I should point out that the hon. Member for Colchester is right to say that levels of vehicle villainy, as he described it, in Essex are higher than in many other parts of the country. His very presence in this Committee shows his desire to seek a solution to the problem. [Interruption.]

Bowen Wells (Conservative, Hertford and Stortford)

Order. We cannot allow various sedentary interruptions and discussions for the simple reason that it prevents me from following the arguments.

Keith Hill (Labour, Streatham)

I thank the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) for his courtesy in sending his extremely helpful letter of 5 January to my hon. Friend the Minister. It points out that the amendments, as the hon. Gentleman has said, are essentially probing amendments, so I do not propose to make heavy weather of their contradictory nature.

The hon. Gentleman mentioned his preference for the use of warrants in both cases, but in fact he has given us a choice: a warrant in all cases, or none at all. However, the Bill offers a middle—perhaps even a third—way. A warrant on registered and non-registered premises is unnecessary, and I should like to explain the Government's thinking in that regard. It is right that registered businesses be open to inspection by the enforcement authorities to ensure compliance with the requirements of the Bill. It should be borne in mind that some premises will be shops, accessible to the general public, that openly sell number plates. It is therefore illogical to argue that police officers cannot access such places.

Trading as a registration plate supplier and the consequent requirement to register bring with them the expectation that police officers have the right to ensure that legal requirements are being complied with. It would certainly be unacceptable to grant the police powers to enter any business premises without a warrant. I shall talk about that issue a little later. By registering, the supplier signs up to an inspection regime. It goes without saying that an honest supplier has nothing to fear from such a regime. An unregistered supplier is not part of the regime, and therefore needs to be given the same protection as businesses in general. On those grounds, we feel strongly that it would be unreasonable for the police to enter merely on suspicion. That is why the Bill stipulates the requirement for a warrant.

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

I understand the point that the Under-Secretary is making, but I genuinely and honourably disagree with it. He used the term ``not part of the regime'' to describe an unregistered registration plate supplier. That may be so, but will he confirm that such an individual is not excused from the requirements of the law simply because he is not part of the regime?

Keith Hill (Labour, Streatham)

I think that I understand the hon. Gentleman's point. It is precisely because such a person is not excused from the requirements of the law that, where there is reasonable suspicion, the police will intervene on the premises. In those circumstances, the person is justified in expecting that a warrant be served. He is not excused from the application of the law, but merits the protection of common law in such matters.

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

I suggest to the Under-Secretary that the opposite should be the case. Even if there is unlawful activity on the premises, the registered plate supplier is within the law in practising his business because he has complied with the requirement to register, whereas the unregistered practising supplier is known by the constable or other person about to inspect the premises at least to be in breach of the law in one respect: operating without having registered. Why he should have the extra protection of the constable requiring a warrant, which is not imposed in respect of a registered registration plate supplier, has still not been explained to my satisfaction.

Keith Hill (Labour, Streatham)

I regret that. It will be evident to members of the Committee that I am no lawyer, and there is a limit to how far I can allow myself to be dragged into such legal detail.

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

Help is on its way.

Keith Hill (Labour, Streatham)

I am in no need of help. The hon. Gentleman is wrong to say that the unregistered supplier is known to be breaking the law. He is suspected of breaking the law. That is the point of the searches that will be carried out on the premises of unregistered suppliers, who are hardly likely to be vaunting their illegal activities. In suspicious circumstances, it is entirely reasonable that the police should be required to take out a warrant.

David Chidgey (Liberal Democrat, Eastleigh)

I should like to correct the Under-Secretary on a small point. He got himself into a bit of knot by saying first that someone is suspected of acting illegally and then that they are acting illegally. They should be assumed allegedly to be acting illegally until such time as the court decides.

Keith Hill (Labour, Streatham)

I must state for the record the phrase ``allegedly illegally''.

The power to enter and inspect registered premises without a warrant is precedented in the famous Scrap Metal Dealers Act 1964, which gives that power to local authority officers as well as to constables.

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

A seminal Act.

Keith Hill (Labour, Streatham)

It is a very important Act, which also reflects the principle that a warrant is required as a safeguard to liberty in the case of unregistered premises that may prove to be not for trade but of a private nature.

Inspections on registered premises will not be primarily to unearth criminal activity on the part of the supplier, but to find information to assist with investigations. Inspections of unregistered suppliers will seek to discover whether they were supplying plates illegally—or allegedly illegally. Constables will not have to give notice, because that would be a burden on the police. Furthermore, if the police are trying to unearth criminal activity, a requirement to give notice would hinder their inquiries. They will visit at reasonable times, and if a business has up-to-date records, as it should, it will be easy to hand them over to a constable.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

I drew a parallel with the authority of the European Union Commissioners to allow premises to be entered without permission. However, that power is always subject to prior notice. Will the Under-Secretary put hon. Members' minds at rest by explaining why the Government do not intend to give prior notice—even if it is short notice? Would it not be better to co-operate with those who are suspected of perpetrating the crime, rather than going in on spec?

Keith Hill (Labour, Streatham)

It seems entirely reasonable that no notice should be required for registered suppliers. As I have said already, they have signed up, as it were, to such inspections. However, I am confounded by the idea of giving notice to those who are suspected of carrying out illegal activities. That would surely offer them the opportunity to disguise their activities. If the hon. Lady wants to come back on that point, she is at liberty to do so. Returning to the issue of reasonable time, one would expect a supplier to be available during business hours. We do not want constables to wake law-abiding people at midnight to ask to see their records.

We had a series of exchanges about reasonable force. We expect that the police will enter outside reasonable hours only if a business has refused to give records to a constable or is unregistered. In those cases, the police must obtain a warrant and may use reasonable force. The hon. Member for Vale of York explained, in an especially cogent section of her speech, that the definition of reasonable force is found in common law: if a matter is brought before a court, it decides whether the force used was reasonable in the circumstances. It goes without saying that statute cannot easily specify reasonable force in all cases. There will, of course, be a power to use reasonable force, but only where there is a warrant; it will be impossible to use reasonable force without a warrant.

Let me deal with the right to enter without a warrant premises that are not registered as number plate suppliers. We take the view that to give that power to constables would be heavy-handed. A general search of premises to uncover evidence of involvement in the supply of number plates should be undertaken only with the authority of a justice of the peace.

The hon. Member for Eastleigh tabled amendment No. 9, which is intended to ensure that inspections of premises can take place only during normal business hours. The amendment is defective because it does not specify that the business hours are those of the business in question. However, the proposed change is unnecessary because a reasonable time would be when the premises were open.

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

I entirely understand the Minister's thinking. He will know that I am not altogether satisfied with the amendment, but specifically on the over-arching issue of the differential treatment I beg to differ with him. Some of his points about reasonable force, which in any case are not subject to an amendment from the official Opposition, were more compelling. However, I have listened to the debate and my hon. Friends and I do not wish to press our amendment to the vote, although we may wish to return to these matters at a later stage. On the strength of those brief remarks, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 25 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 26 - Notification requirements: Part II

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

I beg to move amendment No. 28, in page 14, line 8, leave out `28' and insert `14'.

Bowen Wells (Conservative, Hertford and Stortford)

With this it will be convenient to take the following amendments: No. 10, in page 14, line 10, leave out `subsection (3)'.

No. 12, in page 14, line 11, leave out `28 days', and insert `42 days'.

No. 29, in page 14, line 11, leave out `28' and insert `14'.

No. 11, in page 14, line 15, leave out `, (2) or (3)' and insert `or (2)'.

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

As the Committee will be aware and you will certainly have fully digested, Mr. Wells, clause 26 deals with the notification requirements of those who seek registration as registration plate suppliers. There seems to be some inconsistency in the clause. The Bill contains a requirement to register—that is, after all, the principle of the Bill—and a specific offence of trading as a registration plate supplier without being registered. The perpetrator of that offence is liable to a fine of up to £5,000. The central principle of our amendments is that, if we are to reflect the importance of registration and to penalise non-compliance, it is curious to treat lightly the provision of inadequate or out-of-date information. The unamended clause is in danger of doing that.

The clause deals specifically with changes to the details in the register. At present, any change must be notified within 28 days. I invite the Committee to consider whether that is right. Is it a proper time scale? Do Ministers concede that, as in other parts of the Bill where time periods are specified, there is necessarily an element of arbitrariness involved? I say that in no uncritical vein. We have to choose what seems to be a reasonable time, but there is nothing absolute or sacrosanct about one period rather than another.

My concern and that of my hon. Friends is that the Bill should be effective in achieving its purpose. I hope that we have provided sufficient evidence of our bona fides for the Minister to accept that my motives in this matter are good, as are those of my hon. Friends. I am concerned that the provision as it stands is too lax.

I see no good reason why a registered business that is obviously aware of its legal obligations cannot notify the central authority of relevant changes within 14 days. A period of 28 days seems to leave the system open to abuse. If the requirement were 14 rather than 28 days, the provision could be properly and reasonably applied. There may be extenuating or mitigating circumstances which prevent the provision of the amended information within that time scale. The principle of reasonableness is contained elsewhere in the Bill and Ministers regularly assert it when they are in any way criticised. If we are to be strong-minded about the provision that businesses should be required to notify the authority of any changes, we should ensure that there is a reasonable, but not excessive, period of time within which those changes should be notified.

If it is proper to apply a severe penalty for people who do not register—we suggest that the penalty should be up to £5,000—why should failure to notify the authority of changes to the information required on the register be subject to a lesser penalty? It is surely wrong that failure to keep the details up to date should be punishable by anything less than a maximum fine of £5,000. Having inaccurate details on the register is the equivalent of not being registered at all and should be dealt with as such.

This information is of significance not only to two parties. As several hon. Members have pointed out, it is of significance not only to the plate supplier providing the information and the central authority that processes and retains it, but to third parties who seek the information and who, as I understand it, would ordinarily be entitled to receive it. Unless they are in a category of persons who are not eligible to receive it, they will get the information.

It would be damaging for third parties to receive inaccurate and misleading information that caused them to make commercial errors and perhaps to incur financial loss. In those circumstances, the merit of the individual's being registered is not at all clear. People might almost be better off not knowing that the individual is registered than finding that material facts relating to the registration are incorrect. So, equivalence of treatment is the principle that should inform us and it is certainly the principle that lies behind the amendments. If it is right to make registration compulsory, and failure to register punishable, it is surely right to require people to register accurately and make failure to do that equally punishable. The punishment that my hon. Friends and I propose of a fine of up to £5,000 is precisely that. It is a maximum fine and, as the Minister explained in a different context earlier, it would be open to the courts to impose a lesser penalty if they wished.

Finally, I emphasise that it is odd that selling or supplying plates for illegal use is a lesser offence than failure to register as a business. It is the process of supplying plates that facilitates crime so, if anything, it should be treated more seriously than merely failing to register. We have proposed a notification period of 14 days to tighten up the regulations, while also raising the level of the fine from a maximum of £1,000 to a maximum of £5,000. That seems to me to be a reasonable proposition. I hope that the Minister will see some merit in it. I would be genuinely interested to hear other Committee members' comments and, above all, fascinated to learn the response of the Minister on the Treasury Bench.

Mr. Chidgey rose—

Bowen Wells (Conservative, Hertford and Stortford)

Order. I draw the Committee's attention to the fact that we are not discussing amendments Nos. 30 and 31 with this group.

David Chidgey (Liberal Democrat, Eastleigh)

On a point of order, Mr. Wells. Are amendments Nos. 10, 12 and 11, which you mentioned when we began debating clause 26, subject for debate at this point?

Bowen Wells (Conservative, Hertford and Stortford)

That is correct. In addition to amendment No. 28, we are debating amendments Nos. 10, 12, 29 and 11, but not amendments Nos. 30 and 31, which deal with fines.

David Chidgey (Liberal Democrat, Eastleigh)

I am most grateful for that information. I shall detain the Committee only briefly on several points relating to the amendments in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester. In the main, we debated the issues raised by the amendments at a previous stage in our proceedings, and I do not intend to revisit those debates.

Subsection (3) requires a registered person who is not carrying on business to give notice of that fact to the Secretary of State. We must revisit the issue of what a person who ceases to trade is required to do with his or her records. We are talking about an onerous fine. In fact, the hon. Member for Buckingham would like a much larger penalty for failure to comply. As yet, we have no guidance on a company or registered person who ceases to carry on business passing on his or her records for proper scrutiny at a later stage when the police may want to make inquiries.

Keith Hill (Labour, Streatham)

It is pretty obvious that there is disagreement between Opposition parties on the matter. The official Opposition suggest that the period should be reduced to 14 days, whereas the Liberal Democrats suggest an increase to 42 days. Surely that shows the reasonableness of the Government's position: 28 days is an extremely reasonable compromise.

Amendment No. 12 would introduce a period of 42 days—

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

Will the Minister give way?

Keith Hill (Labour, Streatham)

Let me first set the scene.

Amendment No. 12 would introduce a period of 42 days for notification of changes or that a business has ceased trading as a registration plate supplier. The Government contend that a period of 28 days is adequate for that purpose.

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

There are two simple points. First, if the Minister were familiar with and a student of—[Interruption.] I sincerely hope that the Minister is listening to my intervention, because it is deeply germane. If he were familiar with and a student of the works of Karl Popper or even, alternatively, the works of the distinguished logical positivist, Professor A. J. Ayer, he would know that he is guilty of bogus logic. It is absurd for the Minister to say that, because two alternative positions are suggested by other people, his position, which he lobs into the equation as a third, equidistant between the other two, is a reasonable compromise.

Secondly, does he not accept that it is a trifle cheeky, not to say disingenuous, for him to claim that his position is a compromise between the other two suggestions, when the proposal was inserted into the Bill before he knew which amendments would be tabled by the hon. Member for Eastleigh and by me? His claim of reasonableness and compromise is utterly bogus, and I know that he will now have the good grace to withdraw it.

Mr. Hill rose—

David Chidgey (Liberal Democrat, Eastleigh)

Surely the Minister understands that the amendments have been tabled to give him the opportunity to explain to the Committee why the Government have chosen their figure and not simply plucked it out of the air, as seemed to be the case from previous debates. It is extremely disingenuous and, if I may say, a little impolite to assume that the Committee is doing other than trying to help the Government.

Keith Hill (Labour, Streatham)

Good heavens! I seem to have stirred up a hornets' nest. I am grateful for the hon. Member for Buckingham's demonstration of positive logic. The Government anticipated the extreme positions that would be adopted by the opposition parties: the Official Opposition's right-wing libertarianism and the Liberal Democrats' usual attempts to outflank on the left. Our position is not an ex post facto compromise, but one well thought out in advance of the debate.

Amendment No. 11 is consequential on amendment No. 10, which would remove the offence of failure to notify cessation of business as a registration plate supplier. As the hon. Member for Eastleigh said, in his usual reasonable fashion, we have already had that debate. However, he again raised the matter of records. In our earlier exchanges, I said that one proposal was for the retention of records for two years. However, that raises the interesting question how and where the records would be retained, which I hope to be able to answer in due course. I assure the hon. Gentleman that we will return to the issue at a later stage.

Amendment No. 28 would reduce the period for notifying alterations to the register from 28 days to 14, and amendment No. 29 would reduce the period for notifying cessation of business as a registration plate supplier from 28 days to 14. Both amendments would create difficulties, especially for larger businesses that must keep track of a greater number of retail outlets. There is no need to create such a difficulty; the clause affords a reasonable period that strikes a balance between the need to keep the register up to date and the need to reduce the burden on business. Large businesses must gather information from many outlets, which takes time; 28 days is a reasonable period, and consistently used in the Bill. It would be wrong to introduce different time scales for interlinked circumstances.

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

I am not entirely persuaded by the hon. Gentleman's argument, but we have had a good canter round the course. As a caveat, I say that we may wish to return to the matter later. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

I beg to move amendment No. 30, in page 14, line 16, leave out `3' and insert `5'.

Bowen Wells (Conservative, Hertford and Stortford)

With this we may take amendment No. 31, in clause 27, page 14, line 34, leave out `4' and insert `5'.

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

I cheekily dilated these points earlier and such was your tolerance, Mr. Wells, that you did not bring me to book for doing so. We had not quite reached amendments Nos. 30 and 31, but I inserted them into the thrust of my remarks on the time scale within which notifications to the register should be made of the cessation of business. Having indicated the seriousness with which my hon. Friends and I take these matters and the need for sufficient penalties, there is no reason to comment further. There is a case for tougher penalties and I rest that case.

Keith Hill (Labour, Streatham)

A fine at level 3 on the standard scale is £1,000. A fine at level 5 of £5,000 is too draconian for failing to notify changes. We are seeking the notification of details which might comprise only a small part of the information on the register. That is certainly not as serious as operating as an unregistered supplier. We therefore believe that the proposed scale is appropriate for such failures. It is also consistent with the vehicle and driver records proposal.

Amendment No. 31—

It being twenty-five minutes past Eleven o'clock, The Chairman put the Questions necessary under the terms of the programme resolution to complete the business.

Amendment negatived.

Clauses 26 to 30 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

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

Standing Committee A

Clause 31 - Provision of documents etc. on vehicle licence applications

Keith Hill (Labour, Streatham)

It may be of benefit to the Committee if I said a few words about the clause and, in so doing, provided a general overview of the important purposes of part III.

The principal effect of the clause is to enable the Secretary of State to require applicants for a vehicle licence to furnish particulars or other evidence in support of their application. In practice, that means that in future an applicant will have to produce a vehicle excise licence renewal notice in support of his application. That will be the best proof of ownership. Alternatively, he will have to produce the registration document for the vehicle in question, which, in a sense, is the best proof that the vehicle is not ringed. There are two related reasons for so doing: first, to make it harder for criminals to legitimise a stolen vehicle by obtaining a new vehicle excise licence for it. At present, it is all too easy for them to do that, because there is no requirement for applicants to demonstrate any link with the vehicle for which they are seeking a licence.

The other main reason is to help to enforce the requirement for vehicle identity checks, for which provision is made under clause 32. It is our intention that, initially at least, the check should be carried out by the vehicle inspectorate. Vehicle identity checks will work only if there is an incentive to submit vehicles for inspection. That incentive will arise as, in future, criminals will not be able to obtain a vehicle licence to legitimise a stolen vehicle unless they obtain a replacement registration document for it. In turn, they will not be able to obtain a replacement registration document unless they submit the vehicle for a vehicle identity check.

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

Will it be necessary for MOT certificates also to be provided?

Keith Hill (Labour, Streatham)

That is the normal practice and it will continue to be a requirement of proof of identity.

The provisions of clause 31 make several other minor and consequential changes to the present method of vehicle licensing and registration. They will expand the scope of what applicants for vehicle licences may be required by the Secretary of State to furnish in support of their licence application. They are related to the objective of enabling the Secretary of State to require applicants to produce specific documentation as well as declarations and particulars, which is all that the law provides for at present.

Subsection 1(b) refers to ``other evidence'' as well as to documentary evidence. That is necessary to avoid limiting greatly the type of information that might be submitted in support of a licence application. For example, the Secretary of State might be prepared to accept an authenticated bill of sale in support of an application rather than a registration document. The additional words leave scope for flexibility.

How burdensome will such new requirements be for the motorist? We recognise that they will impose on them a small additional burden, in that they will have to produce appropriate documentation when they make an application for a vehicle licence. At present, motorists can still license their vehicle even if they do not have the vehicle excise licence renewal notice with them—indeed, they can do so without any documentation linking them directly with the vehicle. Obviously, that is not ideal for helping to prevent vehicle crime.

The small proposed change should not overly inconvenience motorists. After all, they already have to remember to take other things with them when re-licensing their vehicle: the fee, insurance certificate and, as the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) reminded us, an MOT certificate if the vehicle is three or more years old. The inconvenience of having to take one more important document is negligible when set against the benefits that the change will bring.

At this stage, I anticipate a question that is bound to spring to the minds of such an alert and inquisitive Committee. It concerns the possibility of a paperless licensing system. We plan to make possible the paperless licensing of vehicles in the not too distant future. A system by which vehicles could be licensed over the telephone or through the internet would suit many people as an alternative to queueing in a post office. When that system becomes a reality, and documentation and other evidence will be available electronically through various databases, the provisions of the clause will still be applicable.

Can I tempt the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mr. Chidgey) to speak? He is beginning to look more than usually inquisitive and alert.

David Chidgey (Liberal Democrat, Eastleigh)

I am sorry to disappoint the Under-Secretary; I am trying to record every one of his remarks so that I can respond fully.

Keith Hill (Labour, Streatham)

I must accustom myself to his normally inquisitive and alert posture.

I anticipate a further issue that may be on hon. Members' minds. How can we ensure that motorists pass on registration documents when they sell a vehicle? We are aware of that problem, and it is surprising that it does not occur more often. We plan to make it an offence not to pass on registration documents at the point of sale. That and other planned changes under existing legislative and administrative provisions will help us to increase the importance that people attach to having correct vehicle documentation.

Jonathan R Shaw (Labour, Chatham and Aylesford)

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for providing that information, because it links with the issue of abandoned vehicles, which I raised on Second Reading. Local authorities in my area tell me that about 80 per cent. of the owners of abandoned vehicles have not passed on documents to the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency. Will the Department make available good public information to ensure that people do so? Secondly, will tough fines be imposed on those who do not fill in the forms, to ensure that they are detectable?

Keith Hill (Labour, Streatham)

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his proposals. If he will forgive me, I will not allow myself to be sucked too far down the path of abandoned vehicles, which is a subject of universal passion—as, indeed, it is for me. In my constituency, it is a major problem, and I know the figures for Kent. However, I reassure him that an enormous amount of work is going into tackling that pernicious problem. We will introduce a fine and ensure proper publicity. Normal communications between the DVLA and vehicle keepers will allow us to promote those new requirements at an early stage.

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

The creation of an offence of failing to pass on a registration document is unobjectionable and may be sensible. However, can the Under-Secretary give the Committee any idea of the frequency with which, in practice, such a failure has been a problem when a purchase has taken place? How often have difficulties been caused by the lack of such a certificate on the part of a new owner?

Keith Hill (Labour, Streatham)

The hon. Gentleman's intervention raises an important point about the justification for a significant new offence. I cannot immediately answer his question, but I will write to him with full details.

Mr. Bercow indicated assent.

Keith Hill (Labour, Streatham)

I gather from his nodding that that course of action is acceptable to him.

David Chidgey (Liberal Democrat, Eastleigh)

Although I would certainly endorse the introduction of an offence for not passing on registration documents, the Under-Secretary will be aware that, in the context that we are considering, which includes salvage operations and car breaking, vehicles frequently pass through several traders' hands before reaching their destination and being disposed of by sale to the public.

I foresee a problem. It is all very well to introduce an offence of not passing on details of change of ownership to the DVLA. However, if vehicles are to change hands five or six times in the trade before reaching a customer, will not such an offence be irrelevant? The notifications will not happen in the time scale available. Is not there a need, as part of the audit trail to prevent crime, for a further means of dealing with registration of ownership and checks on ownership and possession, instead of total reliance on an offence of not passing on details to the DVLA?

Keith Hill (Labour, Streatham)

I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's point about transactions in the salvage industry. The Bill contains measures to regulate the salvage industry. For a proper and legitimate business, careful administration of the records associated with vehicles should be the norm—perhaps even more so than for the individual keeper of a vehicle. To that extent the provision should not present the salvage industry with any great challenge.

David Chidgey (Liberal Democrat, Eastleigh)

The Under-Secretary is developing a theme that I hoped to pursue later, but perhaps it is appropriate to discuss it now. I am concerned that as part of establishing an audit trail the authorities and the police should readily be able to establish the provenance of a vehicle. Relying entirely on the V5 and the DVLA is burdensome to the police because of the time scales involved. I should like the regulations to include a requirement for salvage operators, in particular, to maintain a register of possession of vehicles, to be completed at the time of taking possession. Such a register would facilitate checks by police officers who could visit to find out what the dealer had in his yard.

The relationship between the police and the majority of dealers, who are upright operators, will clearly be such that the police could even telephone to ask, ``Have you had this vehicle in this week?'' That would obviously be a more effective way in which to establish stolen vehicles' whereabouts than having to rely on the DVLA system.

Keith Hill (Labour, Streatham)

The hon. Gentleman has taken the opportunity to make a good and useful point, as usual, at the appropriate point in our consideration of the provision. It might be useful to have that on the record, from his point of view. I dare say that in due course we shall be considering his proposition, and that the Liberal Democrat spokesman on the Committee will be receiving the Government's considered views on the matter.

In the meantime, on the offence of not passing on the appropriate documentation, we have also said that, with respect to licensing, other documentation, namely bills of sale, could be considered. That might more precisely answer the hon. Gentleman's concerns. In addition, trade sellers might be subject to special arrangements.As for any new requirement for car dealers to keep records, of course most such dealers almost certainly do so already, as the hon. Gentleman said. However, we shall certainly consider his suggestion.

I conclude what I hope has been a helpful mini tour d'horizon by saying that we believe that the measures will help to increase the importance that people attach to having the correct vehicle documentation and, in turn, help us all in the fight against car crime. With those few explanatory remarks, I beg to move that the clause stand part.

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

We do not dissent.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 31 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 32 - Issue of new registration documents: vehicle identity checks etc.

David Chidgey (Liberal Democrat, Eastleigh)

I beg to move amendment No. 13, in page 16, line 28, after `identity', insert `and safety'.

Bowen Wells (Conservative, Hertford and Stortford)

With this it will be convenient the following amendments: No. 14, in page 16, line 33, at end insert

`or that the vehicle is roadworthy'.

No. 15, in page 16, line 40, at end insert

`and that they are roadworthy'.

No. 16, in page 16, line 45, at end insert

`and that they are roadworthy'.

I call Mr. Bercow. I am sorry; I mean to call Mr. Chidgey.

David Chidgey (Liberal Democrat, Eastleigh)

It is not often that I am mistaken for the hon. Member for Buckingham. I shall savour the experience throughout the long hours of the Committee's sittings. If nothing else keeps me awake, that prospect surely will.

Although the amendments are probing ones, they deal with a genuine worry. Several organisations, not least the AA, have expressed concern about the safety and roadworthiness of vehicles that go through the trade after having been badly damaged or written off—vehicles that go in on one side of the railway arch a wreck and come out the other side a shiny motor car. What one sees of the polished exterior tells very little, if anything, about the safety, roadworthiness and mechanical integrity of the vehicle that one is about to purchase.

A good argument can be made for the introduction of a roadworthiness or safety check on vehicles. In the amendments, we suggest that such a check should become part of the vehicle identification check. I appreciate that that would add another perhaps onerous dimension to the work of the vehicle inspectorate, which is one of the reasons why the amendments are merely probing. However, if we are serious about road safety, it would be wrong for the Bill and the subsequent regulations to ignore the problem, which is directly connected with the second-hand car trade and the repair and rebuilding of vehicles that have been written off and then re-registered.

I suggest that the documentation to be provided under the Bill to confirm a vehicle's identity—the vehicle identity check, or VIC—could make clear also that it does not guarantee that the vehicle is roadworthy. When the Minister starts work on the regulations that deal with the issuing of certificates, it should not be difficult to include a statement to that effect. It will remain the purchaser's obligation to be sure that the vehicle is safe and roadworthy.

I have explained the main construct of the amendments. However, I should like to touch upon a further aspect of the clause—which is meant to deal with the many vehicles written off by insurance companies as being uneconomic to repair, despite the fact that, eventually, many of them are repaired and put back on sale.

The clause is about dealing correctly with the issuance of new registration documents and vehicle identity checks. That is straightforward. However, I draw to the Under-Secretary's attention the fact that probably one third of motor cars on the road are insured not comprehensively, but on a third-party basis. The insurance companies are not interested in those cases. As there is no claim against the insurance companies for repair of those vehicles, they never calculate whether it is economical to repair them. Those vehicles can easily slip through the net, as they are insurance write-offs yet also repaired.

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

On a point of order, Mr. Wells. I apologise profusely for interrupting the hon. Gentleman, to whose flow I was attentively listening. If I am at fault, I shall immediately apologise, but it seems that there is an error in the amendment. Line 28 of page 16 does not contain the word ``identity'', so I am not sure that the proposed insertion of ``and safety'' after it is in an any way meaningful. I am not quibbling; I want to see where the insertion proposed by the hon. Gentleman would be, as it would aid my understanding.

Bowen Wells (Conservative, Hertford and Stortford)

Line 28 contains the title of the proposed new section, which is ``Vehicle identity checks''. Therefore, the hon. Member for Eastleigh is in order.

David Chidgey (Liberal Democrat, Eastleigh)

Thank you, Mr. Wells. I was about to draw to the attention of the hon. Member for Buckingham the marginal notes of the Bill, to which the amendment referred. I do not want in any way to marginalise his thoughts, but that is where he will find the relevant word.

I shall complete my remarks in the spirit in which we have debated the amendments. Will the Under-Secretary tackle the concerns felt in the industry about vehicles insured on a third-party basis, which therefore do not come into the category of insurance write-offs and so will not be registered, slipping through the net of the requirements that we are trying to establish in the Bill? I would be grateful for the continuance of the debate and for his comments.

Keith Hill (Labour, Streatham)

Let me deal immediately with the last issue raised by the hon. Member for Eastleigh, which was about third-party insurance. One third of all cars are subject to third-party insurance, but comprehensively insured cars are not likely to be subject to ringing crime, a fact that relates to our intentions behind the measure. That is because they are of low value, and so of no interest to thieves for that purpose.

David Chidgey (Liberal Democrat, Eastleigh)

High-value cars are usually those subject to ringing, but we are also talking about the breaking of cars and selling on of spares from stolen vehicles. Will the Under-Secretary consider that aspect?

Keith Hill (Labour, Streatham)

I will certainly consider that aspect, although I think that my general proposition—that the sorts of vehicles likely to be subject to ringing activity—means that it would be unlikely that parts of an old Ford Escort, for example, would be broken up and used for a ringed, brand-new Porsche. However, I shall consider the hon. Gentleman's suggestions. As I said, the whole point of Committees such as this one is that we should consider all the points that are made.

I revert now to the main burden of the hon. Gentleman's speech—the amendments. They are intended to extend the scope of vehicle identity checks to include a check on vehicle roadworthiness. I will deal first with the general issues raised, and then respond to some of the hon. Gentleman's specific points. The intention of the amendments is wholly commendable in principle. They are clearly designed to enhance road safety by requiring checks on the condition of the vehicle before it is returned to the road after repair. We understand their perfectly proper purpose, although there is an issue of scope with a Bill that is specifically concerned with vehicle crime.

David Chidgey (Liberal Democrat, Eastleigh)

I rather expected that that would be part of the Under-Secretary's response. I draw his attention to the fact that the Bill, which is concerned with vehicle crime, also contains a clause providing for funding for increased numbers of speed cameras. That leads me to believe that the scope of the Bill is flexible.

Keith Hill (Labour, Streatham)

The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point, which is why I said that I did not intend to dwell on the issue of scope. However, extending the scope of the check would be expensive. An appropriate safety examination would cost roughly 10 times as much as the simple identity examination that we propose—roughly £200, as opposed to £25. I was interested in the way in which the hon. Gentleman put his case, because he suggested that his proposal involved no more than a statement that the vehicle was roadworthy. That raises serious issues related to the level of evidence. We could provide for a test that would stand up to serious scrutiny and possible judicial action only by explicitly inscribing the requirement for such a test in the Bill.

David Chidgey (Liberal Democrat, Eastleigh)

The Under-Secretary may have misheard my opening remarks. Selling a bodged-up, repaired car is not an illegal act, so the concern comes within the Bill. I said that I recognised the difficulties of issuing a roadworthiness certificate with the VIC, and asked if it could not be made clear in the paperwork accompanying that certificate that it was not a certificate of roadworthiness, and that it was up to the purchasers to reassure themselves that the vehicle was roadworthy. That was the essence of my point.

Keith Hill (Labour, Streatham)

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that further explanation. We will make it clear in VIC documentation that VIC does not cover roadworthiness. Applicants will be given an advisory sheet warning of that. In addition, we will be taking steps to encourage the drawing of the purchaser's attention to the issue of proper guarantees of roadworthiness. I hope to carry the hon. Gentleman with me on that.

The hon. Gentleman made a good point about roadworthiness and seat belts. Seat belts relate to speeding, which is a vehicle crime.

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

My question is very simple, and I hope not offensive. Does the Under-Secretary have a personal interest to declare?

Keith Hill (Labour, Streatham)

Yes. I declare a personal interest—my total impartiality on this subject. It is well known to the Committee that I am neither a car driver nor a car owner. Therefore, I look at these matters with an entirely objective eye and, I can see the eminent virtue of the Government's recommendations.

The extra cost to which I referred would clearly jeopardise substantially the marginal profits made by repairers of damaged vehicles, and would also tend to put lower cost of repaired second-hand cars out of the reach of some members of the community, which is undesirable for those who wish to drive a car.

The question is whether such a measure is needed, bearing in mind that our principal objective is to tackle car crime. Before the Bill was drafted, we thought long and hard about that question, and we consulted a large number of interested parties. The overall conclusion was that it would not be justified to include a safety examination in the identity check. There were several reasons for that, the most important being that there is no evidence to show that repaired vehicles represent a threat to road safety. On that basis, we concluded that it would be unnecessarily burdensome to extend the scope of the clause in that way.

We will make it clear to applicants that the vehicle identity check covers only what it says, and we will be recommending that they have the vehicle independently inspected by expert advisers if there is any doubt as to its condition. I have attempted to deal with some of the points made by the hon. Member for Eastleigh. He may have more and I am here to listen, to learn and to respond.

David Chidgey (Liberal Democrat, Eastleigh)

The Under-Secretary has, in his usual generous way, tried to take us within his inner thoughts, which is always a remarkable experience. I am delighted to hear that he is dispassionate about these matters, not being a car owner, although his remarks regarding speeding and seat belts were a little tenuous, and I wonder whether he was merely trying to tell us to belt up. In general, his remarks were helpful and because clarification of the information that will be given alongside the VICs was what I was seeking, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

I beg to move amendment No. 54, in page 17, line 1, leave out `may' and insert `shall'.

The amendment is what might be called a minnow—because it suggests the deletion of one word and the insertion of another—but I was fearful that if the amendment were left out, it would seem unkind to the proposed substitution. The amendment suggests that we delete ``may'' and substitute ``shall''. That does not require much explanation as far as our thinking is concerned, but I will try, briefly, to encapsulate it.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

It is important to appreciate the legal significance over and above the difference in the general language uses of ``shall'' and ``may''.

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

I am much obliged to my hon. Friend for that remark, which serves further to underline what might be described as the educational disparity between us. I have only an honours degree from the University of Essex, although I think that it is a respectable one.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

First class.

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

From a sedentary position, my hon. Friend generously volunteers a remark about the class of the degree that I struggled to acquire, and I am grateful to her for that. Being fair, that does not compare to her own educational record, which includes a qualification as an advocate, who practised briefly at the Scottish Bar. She has the advantage over me in that regard, and notwithstanding the fact that I am not a lawyer—I always make that point as a matter of pride—I respect my hon. Friend's background, experience and education. She is of course right about the legal significance of the words ``shall'' and ``may'' and the difference between them. The point about the regulations is that it would seem that, for them to be effective in all cases, their application in a particular set of circumstances should be assumed to happen, and if it is to be assumed to happen, it must be required to happen. Therefore, in a sense the issue is whether the regulations should be permissive or prescriptive.

I may be wrong; I am conscious that we humble members of the Committee are trying to come to terms with the issues involved, and we are of course aware that Ministers are advised by some pretty highbrow characters. Some intellectual eggheads are working feverishly behind the scenes the better to equip Ministers for the Bill. They may all be sitting there, thinking, ``Oh no, this isn't necessary. He's got it wrong. We know exactly what we mean, and it's absolutely hunky dory.'' If that is so, and the Minister can persuade me this afternoon that that is so, so be it.

As the Minister is aware, subsection (2) refers to regulations relating to the power to

refuse to issue a new registration document in respect of a registered vehicle if he—

``he'' being the Secretary of State—

is not satisfied that the vehicle for which the document is being sought is the registered vehicle.

It goes on to explain—the kernel of my argument—

Such regulations may, in particular, provide for—

as I said, I am slightly worried about the word ``may''—

the examination (whether by the Secretary of State or by persons authorised by him) of all vehicles for which new registration documents are being sought, or such vehicles of a particular description, for the purpose of ascertaining whether they are the registered vehicles concerned.

Proposed new paragraph (b) refers to

the provision of other evidence.

In cases in which the Secretary of State or those appointed by him are not

satisfied that the vehicle for which the document is being sought is the registered vehicle

they must follow a particular course of action. Rightly, proposed new subsection (3) refers in detail to the sort of information and examination that would be necessary, including:

notification of examinations...the issue of duplicates...the correction of errors...the payment of fees...the making of appeals...the carrying out of examinations...the authorisation of examiners...the manner in which, conditions under which and apparatus with which examinations are carried out by authorised examiners

and so on. As your beady eye will readily have spotted, Mr. Wells, reference is also made to the charges to be paid. Surely all that is to be taken as read? That is what is to happen in circumstances in which the Secretary of State is not satisfied.

For that reason, I do not understand why the clause states:

Regulations made by virtue of subsection (2) may, in particular, provide for—

and then lists what the regulations may provide for. The clause relates only to such circumstances. Surely in such circumstances the regulations ``shall'' in particular provide for those matters?

It might be possible to make a speech of one hour's duration on that point, although it would be entirely futile to do so, just as no doubt the Under-Secretary could make a highly entertaining one-hour speech on the merits of climbing a spiral staircase and then descending it. However, I intend to develop the arguments as I and my hon. Friends have done hitherto—constructively.

Miss McIntosh rose—

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

The point is pretty clear, and subject to the intervention of my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of York and my response to it, I am minded pretty soon to rest my case. However, before I do so, because I await eagerly the hovering presence of my hon. Friend, I shall give way to her.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

I am most grateful to my hon. Friend. I hope that he will not be too modest about his formidable talents: one hour seems a short time to make a speech on the matter. Would he not pray in aid one of the reasons for drafting the amendment, which is that it removes an element of doubt that was raised in representations made to us in relation to the party that is subject to such charges?

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I have been consistent in flagging up a concern and awaiting a response. I am not going to die in a ditch on the matter—to the considerable disappointment of several Labour Members, I have no plans to die at all.

Keith Hill (Labour, Streatham)

There is no such desire.

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

I am grateful for that.

My hon. Friend the Member for Vale of York is, of course, right—we are making our points briefly, which is why the Committee is making good progress. I feel sure that I would be severely chastised for the brevity of our proceedings if we were graced with the presence of my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), but we are not. So I need not unduly trouble myself with that thought. The question is ``shall'' versus ``may''. My hon. Friend the Member for Vale of York and I, and our absent hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Norfolk (Mr. Simpson) and my bitten hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant), are on the side of ``shall''. Let the Under-Secretary accept ``shall'' or deploy all his intellectual rigour and personal eloquence in support of ``may''.

Keith Hill (Labour, Streatham)

I very much appreciate the spirit in which the hon. Member for Buckingham moved the amendment and, especially, his brevity in doing so. I hope to respond in a similarly brief vein, but I will give as full an answer as is appropriate in the circumstances, which is what he seeks. We fully understand the good intentions behind the amendment, but I want to argue in the politest way possible that the amendment is impractical and unnecessary. I think that he will find my explanation for that extremely interesting and, possibly, encouraging.

In a nutshell, the reason why the amendment is unnecessary is that some of the provisions in the clause will be implemented immediately, subject to appropriate consultation, on which I offer the hon. Gentleman guarantees. Other provisions however, cannot be implemented immediately, which is why we think that the amendment is impractical.

Why do we think that not all the provisions will be required immediately? For example, the Secretary of State will not need to make regulations about the authorisation of examiners—as provided for under proposed new section 22A(3)(h)—until or unless he decided that private sector examiners should undertake vehicle identity checks. As has been made clear elsewhere, however, all such checks are initially to be carried out exclusively by the Vehicle Inspectorate, which is an agency of the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions. Equally, there will be no need to make regulations under proposed new section 22A(3)(g), (i) or (j), until or unless private sector examiners are authorised to undertake vehicle identity checks.

I am aware that the issue of private sector examiners has not so far been adumbrated in this Committee. However, let me make a small observation on the matter, to which consideration was given in the consultation processes that led to the Bill. Most people who have an interest in the Bill—vehicle insurers, salvage dealers and so on—have already made it clear that they would not necessarily be comfortable with private sector examiners carrying out such checks. They have indicated that they would consider the scheme more secure if it were implemented only by the Secretary of State or, to be precise, the vehicle inspectorate. However, we want to keep an open mind for the future. It is a new scheme and we want to keep fairly tight control of it until we are sure about how it is working and what problems, if any, arise. Eventually, it might be worthwhile exploring the options for checks to be carried out by private sector examiners and the current drafting of the provisions allows us to retain that option. I rather think that the hon. Member for Buckingham might find that an interesting insight into the intentions behind the Bill, and a matter of some encouragement.

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

What the hon. Gentleman has told the Committee is helpful and definitely influences my thinking. However, it also provokes another thought which is that, on the face of it, it seems slightly curious that for the time being the Government intend that the inspectorate alone should conduct checks and that, therefore, until any change in the arrangement is made, there will effectively be a monopoly. Will the Under-Secretary confirm that, subject to any policy change whereby others would be invited to tender, there has been no market test or tender?

Keith Hill (Labour, Streatham)

There certainly has been no market test or tender, but for all the reasons that I gave, which were based on the soundings that we took in preparation for this Bill, we consider this to be the appropriate step. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman has total confidence in the integrity and propriety of the vehicle inspectorate which, as he well knows, is an agency of Government established by the previous Administration. That is why it is impractical to move to the immediate implementation of these measures.

The amendment is unnecessary because the Secretary of State will exercise his discretion to ensure that appropriate regulations are made at the appropriate time. Part of the reason why we have not yet carried out a market test is that we feel that it would not be possible to charge less than the vehicle inspectorate's £20 to £25. Of course, the inspectorate makes no profit. Having drawn that to the hon. Gentleman's attention, I ask him to withdraw his amendment.

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

On the strength of what the Under-Secretary has said, I am happy to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 32 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 33 - Imposition of requirements concerning registration plates

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

I beg to move amendment No. 55, in page 18, leave out lines 22 and 23 and insert

`relating to their size, shape and material of manufacture only.'

Bowen Wells (Conservative, Hertford and Stortford)

With this we may take amendment No. 56, in clause 33, page 18, line 26, leave out from `marks' to end of line 27 and insert `as may be necessary to link the registration plate to the vehicle for which it is intended'. New clause 5 -Provisions relating to regional symbols - (27A)(1) The Secretary of State shall prescribe no specifications that require a registration plate to contain or display any flag or symbol of the European Union. (2) Notwithstanding subsection (1), the Secretary of State shall by regulations provide for any registration plate to contain or display a flag specified by the owner of the relevant vehicle.''.'. Mr. Bercow: You correctly indicated to the Committee, Mr. Wells, the content and, by implication, the purpose of the amendments. I shall deal with amendment No. 56 first and then move, in chronological sequence, to my other points.

My concern is about the relevance of clause 33 to section 27 of the Vehicle Excise and Registration Act 1994. I focus on what I think that I would describe as the offending words ``or otherwise''. I have a preference—it might seem fastidious, or even pedantic—for specificity in legislation rather than for generality. I am against the high-falutin' declaration or the inclusion of vague wording that potentially admits of a number of interpretations, to which those invited to give their support might not subscribe if they knew what those interpretations would subsequently be. I do not know what ``or otherwise'' means. The point was raised on Second Reading, and the Minister may recall that I spoke on the subject in exchanges with other hon. Members, including my hon. Friends the Members for Reigate (Mr. Blunt) and for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant)—I was going to call him the bitten Member, but my hon. Friend did not suffer that misfortune until later.

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

Unbitten.

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

As the Minister correctly observes, he was then the unbitten Member for Lichfield.

My hon. Friend and I referred to this part of the Bill on Second Reading. The Minister gave what might be described as a buoyant and spirited response to the debate, and he commented on many of the points raised by Opposition Members, but the ``or otherwise'' point was not at the forefront of his mind. I do not attack the Minister for that; he was more concerned with broad principles and the general thrust of the Bill. However, he could not resist becoming entangled in a discussion of registration marks and the potential for the display of a European flag on the registration plate, a matter that excited the attention of several right hon. and hon. Members.

The Minister did not say anything about ``or otherwise'' on Second Reading, and I would like to know exactly what that phrase means. In the absence of any justification for those words, my hon. Friends and I propose their removal. We believe that the clause would be perfectly cogent and tight—it would certainly be tighter—if it referred instead to the power in regulations to prescribe specifications that relate to only to the size, shape and material of manufacture.

I turn to amendment No. 56. We believe that it is entirely legitimate that the regulations should give the Secretary of State power to ensure the proper identification of a vehicle. Insofar as those regulations specify steps to achieve it, they are acceptable, but it should not be necessary to go beyond that. In a sense, the amendment would limit—fetter might be a more evaluative term—the Secretary of State's discretion when drawing up the regulations. To a degree, the amendment may circumscribe the Secretary of State, but I hope that the Under-Secretary, who from time to time accuses us of imposing a straitjacket and pleads for discretion, will accept the important principle that with power comes responsibility. My argument is that the Government must justify the powers that they want to arrogate to the Secretary of State if regulations are to be brought forward. That will be especially true—I know that the subject is a regular hobby horse of mine—if the regulations are to subject to negative rather than affirmative procedure. If so, there will not be an opportunity for the House to debate them, so it is vital that we have an idea of what Ministers have in mind now.

Under my eminently reasonable proposal, the Bill would state that the power of the Secretary of State should

provide for registration plates to contain or display such information other than registration marks...as may be necessary to link the registration plate to the vehicle for which it is intended.

I would have thought that that would be enough. The clause refers to

special registration marks as may be specified or described in the regulations.

I am bound to say that that is mighty vague. I do not know exactly what Ministers have in mind. I sincerely hope that they will not propose the creation of different categories of vehicle-driving citizen.

The Under-Secretary claims to be impartial—partial only in the sense that he is partial to the reduction of vehicle crime. I do not in any way want to impugn his integrity or talents, but I am not sure that that is fair. After all, he has owned up to something important this afternoon, which is the fact that he has one thing in common with the previous Member for Putney, Mr. David Mellor. I would not have thought that it was a source of pride for him to have anything in common with Mr. David Mellor, but the Under-Secretary has vouchsafed to the Committee that he does, as he does not possess or drive a car. He is in uncomfortable company in making that admission.

So long as the Under-Secretary does not have a car—for which there may be good reason, as I think that there is in the case of Mr. Mellor—he will not be affected by the regulations because he simply tromps around, if I may use that indelicate term, in a ministerial car driven by A. N. Other. The registration, upkeep, taxation, goodly appearance and effective function of that car are not matters for the Under-Secretary; he is a very important man, and he has others to look after such matters for him. If he eventually ceases to hold ministerial office—which I obviously hope very much will happen sooner rather than later, not because I bear him any ill will, but because I want a Conservative Government—he will revert to his normal practice on his parliamentary business as well as his private business by tromping around—

Keith Hill (Labour, Streatham)

On the 159.

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

By means of the 159, as the Under-Secretary correctly points out, which will of course go from the Millbank area to Streatham. I regularly travelled that route in days of yore. He is not affected. The

special registration marks as may be specified or described in the regulations

do not trouble him at all. There is an hauteur on his part towards the matters, a lofty imperiousness, if that is not an unfair description. He will think that millions of drivers will be affected and that those who advise him, who are brainy and know all the facts, tell him that is necessary to have reference to

special registration marks as may be specified or described in the regulations,

so on that basis he can reject my amendment. That is not good enough for me. I want to know exactly what is wrong with the amendment, which is specific and tightly drawn.

Alternatively, I want to know whether nothing is wrong with the amendment. This is the first time that I have had the pleasure of leading for the massed ranks of the official Opposition on a Committee considering a Bill. I hope that it is not the last.

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

The hon. Member for Vale of York has left because she does not agree with the hon. Gentleman.

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

There is a good reason for her absence, which I think that I should point out, because there is a matter of manners involved.

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

Was she bitten?

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

No, she was not bitten.

Gareth Thomas (Labour, Harrow West)

How do you know?

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

Well, I can only say that I have not bitten her. Her husband might have something to say about the matter if I had.

Bowen Wells (Conservative, Hertford and Stortford)

Order. One of the problems with Committees concerns their going out of order through remarks from sedentary positions. It is my experience that Committees quickly get out of order if we permit it. I request the Committee to show restraint, although such contributions add to the enjoyment of the afternoon.

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

I am grateful to you, Mr. Wells. I was tempted down a dangerous path by the hon. Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Thomas). He has, I dare say, a good deal to commend him, although I cannot readily think what it is. However, he should behave himself. I do not think that such sedentary interventions will be likely from the next Member of Parliament for Harrow, West, Mr. Danny Finkelstein.

Bowen Wells (Conservative, Hertford and Stortford)

Order. Again I must bring the attention of the hon. Gentleman to the fact that remarks that are very wide of the subject under discussion are certainly out of order.

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

I apologise unreservedly to you, Mr. Wells. I shall speedily return to order and follow your instructions.

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

The point that I was attempting to make from a sedentary position, which initiated the exchange, was that, on Tuesday, the hon. Member for Vale of York specifically opposed the aims of the amendment, in that she argued for bar codes to be put on number plates to deal with vehicle crime. The amendment would remove from the Secretary of State the power to do that. I wanted to draw the hon. Gentleman's attention, when he alluded to the massed ranks behind him, to the possibility that the hon. Lady had left because she could not support the amendment.

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

The Minister's suggestion is certainly ingenious, but has the demerit of being wrong. My hon. Friend the Member for Vale of York is sadly no longer with us, and will not be for the remainder of the afternoon, because she has hoofed off to her constituency to fulfil an engagement. I am pining for her return, but she has been given clearance to leave. I should also point out, Mr. Wells, that my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Norfolk, the opposite number, as the Opposition Whip on this Committee, of the hon. Member for Hyndburn (Mr. Pope), has gone to his constituency for a Thursday evening commitment. So we have two absent Members in constituencies and another who has been bitten.

The point that I was making before I allowed myself to be diverted was that this is the first time I have led for the Opposition on a Bill Committee. I have, however, served as a Back-Bencher on Bill Committees, during the passage of the National Minimum Wage Act 1998, the Competition Act 1998 and the Employment Relations Act 1999. We were led with great distinction on those measures by my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood). On those occasions I do not recall—I think that what I am saying is germane, Mr. Wells—that the Government accepted any of our amendments, despite the wisdom of many of them and the sheer brilliance with which they were argued.

Ministers have adopted a reasonable tone in response to our amendments. Of course it will have been observed on Tuesday that the Under-Secretary, by a sort of nod and wink, gave me to understand that he thought that there was much sense in what we suggested and that, although he did not propose to accept our amendment there and then, he would revisit the issue before Third Reading. I did not think it wise to press him further. I have thus had a semi-success, but so far none of our amendments has been accepted.

I am not a sensitive flower. I do not take such things personally. However, if on this occasion the Under-Secretary would say, ``The hon. Gentleman is right; the proposed rather tighter wording would be sensible and we shall either agree to it now or propose something similar,'' I should be delighted. My cup would run over. However, it would probably be unwise for my continuing health for me to hold my breath.

Proposed new section (27A)(1), which new clause 5 would insert into the Vehicle Excise and Registration Act 1994, states, in relation to regional symbols:

The Secretary of State shall prescribe no specifications that require a registration plate to contain or display any flag or symbol of the European Union.

It goes on to state:

Notwithstanding subsection (1), the Secretary of State shall by regulations provide for any registration plate to contain or display a flag specified by the owner of the relevant vehicle.

What is the problem here? Clause 33 would allow the Secretary of State to prescribe the information to be carried on number plates. That leaves the Bill wide open to a number of interpretations.

One does not need to look into a crystal ball, one can look in the record. On Second Reading, it was established that the clause was subject to a number of interpretations. What might be called the attention of an anorak was devoted to it during the debate, as many hon. Members commented on what it might or might not facilitate or require—to such a degree that Madam Deputy Speaker called a number of hon. Members to order and said that we were in danger of getting into a Committee rather than a Second Reading debate.

Conservative Members were provoked by some Labour Back Benchers, who may not have been speaking for the Government and may just have been expressing their own rather extreme and unsatisfactory views. That is one of the reasons why I proposed the amendment, to tie the Government down on the matter. If I remember rightly, the hon. Member for Preston (Mr. Hendrick) intervened and spoke of the desirability of number plates carrying a European flag, given that we were operating within a single market. Those remarks were deeply uncongenial to my hon. Friends and to me.

We know that just as there are a number of European federasts—usually in the closet—on the Government Front Benches, there are a number of European federasts on the Government Back Benches. However, we are anxious to ensure that there should be absolutely no requirement whatsoever, under the terms of the clause, to contain or display the flag of the European Union. Moreover, and this is the essence of the point, we would like a situation in which individual vehicle owners could contain or display such flags as they specified.

On Second Reading, I challenged the Home Secretary, and received an unsatisfactory response. We have not said much about the Home Secretary so far, and we probably should not do so, Mr. Wells, for fear of falling foul of your exhortations. However, he moved the Second Reading of the Bill, and was a frequent contributor of interventions throughout the afternoon and evening. I was worried, because he did not seem to be quite as aware as I thought that he might or should be of the discretion that the Bill might give him. I say that he was not as aware as he might be because the Home Secretary is an extremely experienced and well-informed Minister. I do not know of any Cabinet member who more closely attends to the debate on a Bill than he. He makes a genuine effort to respond to hon. Members' points. I remember inquiring about the scope for display, not of a European flag, but of a Union flag—something that I might well be tempted to do myself, and something that might appeal to my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth).

Steve McCabe (Labour, Birmingham, Hall Green)

Would the hon. Gentleman also be happy if his new clause permitted people to have the National Front flag on their vehicles, if that was their choice?

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

That is a serious challenge, and I shall treat it as such. I think that the answer would probably be yes, although I say that reluctantly. However, that would depend on whether the display of the symbol rendered the person who displayed it in contravention of another piece of legislation. The reference may seem too broad, but it relates to the question of whether the facility exists to display a flag of one's choice.

Bowen Wells (Conservative, Hertford and Stortford)

Order. Although it is in order to discuss the question of symbols of all kinds on the registration plate, it is not in order to discuss specific symbols, as we are beginning to do. As the Committee will appreciate, if we did that, we would end up discussing every possible symbol, which would clearly be out of order.

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

I am sorry about that, because I have endless energy for the discussion of symbols and other matters. I fear that it is your knowledge of that fact, Mr. Wells, that inclines you to draw a line under the matter. Otherwise, you may think, you will not be able to hold back the tide. The flood would be irresistible, the hoarding masses would advance, the consequences would be unpredictable, the pain appalling, the delay interminable and life in this Committee might never be the same again. I can understand that you might not be happy with that idea.

The hon. Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Mr. McCabe) raises a serious point, however. I would certainly not want the display of any symbol to undermine good community relations. Nothing displayed should be conducive to bad race relations, widespread public disharmony or, worse still, the incitement of racial hatred. Therefore, exactly what form that symbol took would determine whether it was acceptable. I do not want to make that point at all, Mr. Wells—

Bowen Wells (Conservative, Hertford and Stortford)

Order. The point that I was trying to make to the Committee was that exactly the kind of arguments now being adduced by the hon. Gentleman are entirely out of order in a debate on the amendment.

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

I am grateful for your guidance, Mr. Wells, as it helps me and clarifies matters. I will not dilate because you have told me in the politest possible terms—such as we expect from you—that I must not do so.

On the occasion to which I referred, the Home Secretary said that he had no briefing, which, in a sense, brought the matter to a halt, and surprised me, as he has incredibly dexterous officials advising him. He could not say whether, under the terms of the Bill, it would be possible to display a Union flag. I simply suggested that, if the Bill required amendment to facilitate that option—I am now getting to the kernel of the argument, Mr. Wells, as I am speaking of my amendment—it might be amended in Committee. We can debate the matter here, have an argument and rejoice in discussing the issue.

You will be aware, Mr. Wells, as you are a well travelled individual, not least by virtue of your service on the International Development Committee, that many cars already carry the European symbol. I am not arguing whether they should or should not, or whether the law allows them to do so, because it manifestly does. Moreover, none of my hon. Friends is arguing for a moment that there is anything offensive about it. However, people should not be obliged to display a flag or symbol that they find personally objectionable.

I do not expect you, Mr. Wells, to indulge me on this point for any length of time, but there should be a respect for principle in these matters. I said that I regarded driving a vehicle as a matter of convenience—a means by which to get from A to B. Unlike many men, I do not regard myself as a good driver, although I hope that I am a safe one. Driving is merely an unavoidable evil in the conduct of my parliamentary life, and I avoid using the car as much as possible. However, the obligation to display a European Union flag on my car would stop me from using a car for the remainder of my parliamentary service and require me to travel by other means to my constituency. I am simply not prepared to display that symbol.

I am advised by the House of Commons Library that, although the display of the European symbol on a number plate is being permitted, it is illegal. Indeed, the Library has advised my hon. Friends and me that

New regulations allowing the use of the Euro sign are unlikely to come in until March 2001.

Therefore, those new regulations will be introduced some weeks after the conclusion of our proceedings.

My hon. Friends and I have not received specific information about those proposed regulations, but I am sure that the Under-Secretary has. I do not doubt that they exist in draft form, and I confidently anticipate that he can recollect them verbatim. It would help the Committee and clear up any confusion if he could do so from memory.

Until the new regulations come into force, existing rules apply, which allow the size of the numbers on a registration plate to be larger than they will be under the proposed new rules. Cars with new plates are on the road but, theoretically at least, they are illegal, and anyone using them could be stopped by the police. The position will not be resolved until either a court case takes place or the new regulations are introduced. Will the Under-Secretary confirm whether those new regulations will be introduced in March, or whether a delay is expected?

Our amendment would effect two things. First, it would forbid the Home Secretary to pass regulations that require—as opposed to entitle—a driver of a car to carry a European symbol on its plate. Secondly, it would give the vehicle owner a choice in what is included on the plate. That is consistent with the position taken by the Conservative opposition, which is to champion the cause of choice and diversity always, everywhere and with enthusiasm, when it is compatible with the rule of law. That is a principle that Conservative Members regularly celebrate.

People should be able to choose to have their national flag on the plate, be it Welsh, Scottish, Northern Irish or English, depending on their personal preference. I am in favour of what might be called a free market in these matters. I favour a ``do as you like'' approach, in so far as no one else's rights are infringed and no threat is posed to the law or public order.

I commend the amendments to the Committee—especially the new clause—strongly and with passion. I await with enthusiasm and a little trepidation the ministerial response, before which, to judge from his movements, we shall hear from the hon. Member for Eastleigh.

David Chidgey (Liberal Democrat, Eastleigh)

I thank the hon. Member for Buckingham for his kind introduction.

I turn my attention, first, to new clause 5. It raises an issue that came to light on Second Reading, when the Government justified the introduction of the European symbol on number plates on the basis of identification of vehicles. That is a sound principle, with which I would not argue, as that is what a registration plate is intended for. However, I suspected that down the line was coming a European Union directive to insist that plates on cars registered in the European Union should carry the European symbol.

The matter introduces a paradox. If one is saying that the introduction of a symbol on a registration plate is a means of improving the identification of vehicles, to which we all subscribe, a requirement to display a national symbol on a number plate must also aid and improve identification. Never mind the philosophical argument about the pros and cons of displaying a European symbol on one's car; that is not the issue. The issue is whether doing so improves identification of the vehicle on the roads of Europe. If so, I return to the point that it cannot be objectionable, and it should not be prescribed that a requirement to display a national symbol would not improve that process.

I agree that we should not dilate on all sorts of symbols. The issue is the purpose and function of the registration plate, and how we might improve recognition and identification of vehicles throughout the European Union. I should therefore like to hear from the Minister whether he is trying to demur from admitting that the directive emanating from Brussels, to which we have signed up without thinking, is unnecessary. Perhaps surprisingly, as a Liberal Democrat, I accept that such things happen, and I fulminate against them, although often the disadvantages are outweighed by the benefits. On this issue, however, one cannot have it both ways. Either one thinks that having a symbol on a number plate improves identification and therefore one should specify that a national symbol helps that process or one should not legislate for a symbol at all.

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

Does the hon. Gentleman not think that it is possible, as I fear it is—I do not want to put thoughts in hon. Members' heads, but I expect that they are there anyway—that one argument that might be used in support of a requirement to display the European Union flag would be that, if one were driving in another EU country, it would be the clearly identifiable symbol? The national flag, on the other hand, would be one with which police officers in other European countries would be woefully unfamiliar. Is it not a danger that the EU flag would be introduced and justified on the basis that it would be the one symbol that everybody recognised? Of course that would be disingenuous, dishonest and part of the ratchet of integration, but that is a strategy with which we are very familiar.

David Chidgey (Liberal Democrat, Eastleigh)

Whatever one's familiarity with such issues, I have not had the privilege of seeing the draft regulations, so I cannot comment on the purpose of their introduction. However, I would not have thought that it was beyond the wit of police officers throughout the EU to know the difference between the national symbols of EU countries. Indeed, some countries in the EU already have their national symbol on their standard registration plates. It is therefore not a new idea; there is nothing strange about it.

What I want to probe is why the Government, on Second Reading, used the argument that the requirement was to enable European vehicles to be better identified in the EU. I found that argument unsound, or at least only a half an argument, for rejecting the introduction of any other national symbol. However, I accept that we should not allow the registration plates of vehicles to become cluttered with information other than what is necessary to assist their identification. That is absolutely clear. The real issue is whether a symbol of the European Union, or that of a nation state of the EU, aids the identification of the vehicle.

Amendment No. 55 would delete the term

whether relating to their size, shape, material of manufacture or otherwise.

I listened with interest to the hon. Member for Buckingham when he expressed his concern about the word ``otherwise''. His point was genuine and I very much hope that the Minister can give some examples of what ``otherwise'' could mean. I am sure that he will be constructive and enlighten us about the various ideas that he and his brilliant team of officials have come up with of how they can improve the registration plate by prescribing specifications using the word ``otherwise''.

Keith Hill (Labour, Streatham)

Let me turn first to amendments Nos. 55 and 56, to which the hon. Member for Buckingham spoke. Amendment No. 55 would limit the ability to prescribe specifications for registration plates to size, shape and material of manufacture. It is an unnecessary amendment as it would render the legislation less flexible. It would restrict the intended purpose of the clause in that it would not allow for the prescribing of microchips or bar codes, which come under the term ``otherwise'' to be included in registration plates.

The hon. Member for Vale of York has already publicly called for bar codes. Chips and bar codes could include details such as engine numbers, vehicle identification numbers and references to the manufacturers of the plates—all factors that are designed to link the number plate to the vehicle and to improve the audit trail in respect of the number plates. I am sure that, on the whole, the hon. Member for Buckingham would not want to exclude from the Bill such proper provisions.

Amendment No. 56 gives the impression that it is intended to limit the power of the Secretary of State, but the end result might not be different from the clause. It would limit the information that could be included on the number plates, along with the registration mark, to one type only: information linking the registration plate to the vehicle for which it is intended. Given that that is mainly the purpose of the clause, there cannot be much difference between the official Opposition and the Government on such a matter.

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

Will the Under-Secretary allow me to intervene?

Keith Hill (Labour, Streatham)

Let me develop my argument. The amendment would stop the inclusion of information that is intended to make the plate more secure, such as a manufacturer's serial number, which would make the plate more difficult to copy. I doubt that the hon. Gentleman would want that to happen, which is why I want him to withdraw the amendment.

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

In so far as the Under-Secretary wants the flexibility to allow greater security, he is right. If my amendment is less effective than his unamended clause in the achievement of that end, I am happy to accept the merit of his argument. However, if in other respects my amendment has mainly the same meaning as the unamended clause, it is a pity that that is not immediately obvious. May not that be because my provision is slightly better worded than that in the Bill?

Keith Hill (Labour, Streatham)

For all the reasons that I have given, I do not believe that the hon. Gentleman's amendment is better worded than the clause. We are about to come to the piece de resistance of our proceedings. Given the deep anxieties that lie behind amendments Nos. 55 and 56 and which are more explicit in new clause 5, I hope to offer him powerful reassurances. There is and will be no obligation to display a flag or symbol that some people may find distasteful. I should sit down now, because what I have said so far meets all the anxieties expressed by the hon. Gentleman. However, Opposition Members have raised other issues, and I hope to assist them.

The purpose of new clause 5 seems to be to prevent the Secretary of State from prescribing that regulation plates should contain the Euro symbol but to allow for people to opt to display a symbol of their choice. At least we understand where we are going with the new clause. It is possible, but rather difficult, to believe it in someone as perspicacious and intelligent as the hon. Member for Buckingham, that people may misunderstand the current use of the European Union symbol. I remind the Committee that under the Vienna and Geneva conventions on circulating vehicles, an international symbol is required under international law. That symbol shows letters in black for each nation on a white oval background, which include the GB, F, E, D, IRL symbols with which we are all so familiar.

Council regulation 2411/98 on distinguishing signs provides that member states must recognise the EU symbol instead of the international one where a member state's domestic legislation requires that vehicles registered in its territory should display plates showing an EU symbol in the left side of the registration plate. The purpose of that regulation is to stop the UK disallowing vehicles from a country that requires such a symbol from circulating in the UK. I emphasise with all the might, force and persuasiveness that I can muster that it does not require the UK to adopt the symbol.

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

I am grateful to the Under-Secretary for his clarification of that point. Will be confirm that the Council regulation, the number of which he rattled off with palpable relish, is already in force; or is it yet to come into force? That is my first inquiry, but I may have others.

Keith Hill (Labour, Streatham)

One might almost admire the hon. Gentleman's remoteness from the practices of the European Union, but /98 implies that it came into force in 1998—[Laughter.]

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

I do not think that the Under-Secretary is right. Labour Members are indulging in a good deal of tittering, but the Under-Secretary would do well to attend to what I have to say. He is right that I do not take a close and continuing interest in all the drivel that comes out of the Europe Union, but I believe that /98 indicates the date upon which the regulation was passed rather than the date upon which it takes effect. I should be grateful for confirmation of that important distinction.

Keith Hill (Labour, Streatham)

The hon. Gentleman is right; it is the date of implementation. I fully admit that I erred; I was rather carried away by my teasing of the hon. Gentleman. As far as I am aware, the regulation is in force; if I hear to the contrary during the remaining moments, I shall certainly inform the Committee.

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

Before the Under-Secretary goes any further—I am excited that we are making progress—will he confirm that, so far as he is aware, the European Commission does not intend to require the display of the European Union flag? Secondly, will he confirm that, if such a proposal was made, the Government would argue against it in the Council of Ministers, and if necessary vote against it?

Keith Hill (Labour, Streatham)

I have no knowledge of any intention on the part of the European Union to make further regulations that would make an EU symbol obligatory on number plates. However, I cannot issue the assurance that he seeks regarding the actions of a future Government. It is never appropriate for any Government or any Minister to make binding commitments for a future Government. If I may say so, that is precisely what we see in his party's policy on the single European currency.

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

I do not accept that. We could have a fascinating debate about the single European currency, but I doubt that it would be in order. The Under-Secretary's position on this matter is now really progressing to farce, and I am disappointed in him that he should be so disingenuous. Does he accept that I am not suggesting that he should seek to fetter or trammel the sovereignty of a future Government, and I confirm to him that a Conservative Government would have no intention whatever of accepting such a proposal. Will he just confirm that this Government, of which he is a distinguished and rising member—[Interruption.] When the Under-Secretary has concluded his sedentary exchange with the Whip—will he confirm that this Government will resist and vote against any such proposal?

Keith Hill (Labour, Streatham)

I am afraid that I am not in a position to do that. It is not my practice to answer hypothetical questions. If the hon. Gentleman thought about this seriously, he would realise that somebody in my position, as a mere Under-Secretary of State, is not in a position to make commitments on behalf of the Government. Nor can the hon. Gentleman, from his modest standing in the parliamentary constellation, make commitments on behalf of his party. Can the hon. Gentleman really guarantee that a Conservative party led by the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) would not be willing to sign up to a commitment regarding the display of the EU symbol?

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

I am happy to respond to that point and, although I cannot make a commitment on behalf of a Conservative party by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe, and it is not entirely unconceivable that he might go along with such a proposal, I can, I think, make a fairly confident commitment on behalf of the party led by my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague), that we will not make such a proposal. I was asking the Under-Secretary to make a commitment on behalf of this Government led by this Prime Minister. [Interruption.] Before the Minister of State continues to chunter from a sedentary position, I hope that he will bear with me because he may hear something of interest to him. Will the hon. Gentleman take it from me, as an earnest of my sincerity and strength of feeling, that in the inconceivable eventuality that a Conservative Government led by my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks were to make such a proposal or fail to vote against such a proposal, they would immediately have to dispense with my services as a Member of the Conservative Front-Bench team?

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

Tory Front-Bench Member resigns.

Bowen Wells (Conservative, Hertford and Stortford)

Order. I hope, for the benefit of the efficient dispatch of this Committee's business, that we will not follow the line that has been suggested to the Minister, and that we will not speculate on the leadership and/or intentions of the Opposition or any member of them or of the Government on this issue.

Keith Hill (Labour, Streatham)

You are very cruel, Mr. Wells. At least let me offer the reassurance to the hon. Member for Buckingham that the Government have no plans to require people to display a EU symbol. Even if they did, they would not consider such a symbol to be part of the registration mark of the vehicle. We do not consider it desirable to clutter the registration plate with symbols and we consider that it is undesirable to allow the vehicle keeper to do so. In other words, the Government are unenthusiastic about the appearance of extraneous marks on the number plate that might serve to detract from the security of the vehicle.

Although the new clause seeks to prevent the Secretary of State from requiring the display of the EU symbol, which I repeat that he has no intention of doing, it allows the keeper to choose to display a symbol. Proposed new subsection (27A)(2) would give the owner of a vehicle the right to include any flag of his or her choice on the registration plate. It is not even specified that this must be a national flag. My hon. Friend the Member for Hall Green asked how the hon. Member for Buckingham would feel about National Front-style designs—presumably he meant SS-style flashes—on a number plate. I wonder how I would feel about a swastika on a number plate.

Bowen Wells (Conservative, Hertford and Stortford)

Order. I have already ruled out of order references to other symbols of the kind that the Minister suggests.

Bob Russell (Liberal Democrat, Colchester)

The red flag.

Keith Hill (Labour, Streatham)

I note what the hon. comrade for Colchester says.

It may be feared that clause 35 introduces a power to prescribe EU marks as special registration marks, but such a symbol is not likely to be one that links the plate to the vehicle or secures the identity of the plate.

New regulations made under the Vehicle Excise and Registration Act 1994 will be introduced from 1 September, not March, and will provide for the optional use of the GB national identifier and the Euro symbol. The GB sign is the international distinguishing sign contained within road traffic conventions. As the use of the Euro symbol will be optional, there is no need to specify that the Secretary of State must not require its use, as the new clause would do.

The Government do not wish to encourage the customisation of number plates. It is important that standards are set to ensure that registration marks can be easily read by roadside cameras and witnesses. Allowing motorists the choice of any flag would give scope for a potentially bewildering array of symbols that would sow confusion and would not necessarily identify the country of origin. For all those reasons, and given all the reassurances that I have provided, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will rest content, and not press the new clause.

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

For much of his speech, the Under-Secretary seemed firmly opposed to any obligation with respect to the display of the European flag. I was encouraged by that, because he spoke forcefully. However, I sometimes wonder whether his natural tendency to express himself with vigour might lead him to use greater vigour than subsequent changes in Government policy would render desirable. I fear that occasionally he may give hostages to fortune. Perhaps in anticipation of that possibility, he at one point retreated into a style of which Sir Humphrey would fully approve. He spoke of the Government's having no plans to impose an obligation to display a European Union flag. I was mightily worried then, in the light of several other occasions when the Government have stated that they have no plans to take certain action. I shall not dilate on the point, Mr. Wells, because you would not permit it, but to provide context to my point, I shall mention that they had no plans to raise taxes, after which there were massive tax increases.

Bowen Wells (Conservative, Hertford and Stortford)

Yes, that is all out of order.

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

As you say, that is out of order, so I shall not pursue it. Of course, the Government had no plans to introduce higher education tuition fees, then revoked their commitment. So I was worried by the Under-Secretary's statement.

Everyone listening to the Committee's proceedings will have noticed how the Under-Secretary danced around the question whether always to oppose any European recommendation or proposed directive on the same point. He danced around it by saying that he could not make a commitment. The Under-Secretary is genuinely self-effacing, but he over-egged the pudding. Even though he sits on the Committee on behalf of his Department, and as the agent of the Secretary of State, he sought to persuade us that he was merely a junior, a humble cog in the wheel, a bit-part player in the grand, national drama that is the Vehicles (Crime) Bill and the Standing Committee consideration thereof. The argument that was spun was, ``I am just here to deal with the matters at a lowly level. It is not for me to question, but to deliver. I cannot make policy.'' I was worried about that.

I would much appreciate it if the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions were to write to me in person to confirm that, as far as he is concerned, the Government will not accede to any request that an obligation be imposed upon people.

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary has made the position clear.

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

He made it clear that he thought that the presence of extraneous symbols was unnecessary. He used the term ``clutter up''. He did not want the registration plate to be cluttered up with all sorts of symbols. He did not think that that was a good idea, but he also said, ``I cannot make policy on these matters. This is not a matter for me. I'm just a junior Minister, and I can't bind my successors''. He could at least say to me, ``Well, I'll ask my boss to confirm that the Government have no intention of agreeing to anything of this sort, and would strongly oppose it''.

I am beseeching the Under-Secretary. I am waiting to see whether there is some signal of intent, but all I get is a cursed look.

Mr. Hill rose—

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

Ah, the Under-Secretary has been provoked.

Keith Hill (Labour, Streatham)

No, I have not been provoked. I am rising to the aid of the hon. Gentleman; I could simply remain seated in silence, which would leave him in an uncomfortable position.

The words that I have used have been considered. They have been fairly unqualified in their expression and purpose. If the hon. Gentleman reads the Hansard record, he will be reassured about the Government's intentions. If there is a problem beyond that, there will be ample opportunities in the course of our consideration of the Bill, both in the Committee and elsewhere, for him to revert to this issue—which I rather suspect that he will.

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

The Under-Secretary is wise to suspect that I will. It is unlikely that my hon. Friends and I will have nothing further to say on the subject. We believe that we are on to something here. We are suspicious, not so much of the Under-Secretary's intentions but of those of the European Union. I wonder whether we are, by virtue of this permissive provision, being softened up for the introduction in the short, medium or long term of something more prescriptive and exacting. That would be unsatisfactory. Apart from anything else, that would force me to honour my commitment to travel to and from the Buckingham constituency by another method, which would not be a pleasant state of affairs for me.

Jonathan R Shaw (Labour, Chatham and Aylesford)

On the Eurostar.

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

I sincerely hope that it will not be necessary to travel by the Eurostar. I am bound to say to the hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Mr. Shaw) that such an arrangement would not only be inconvenient to me, but would be unsatisfactory for the constituents of Buckingham . They are passionate believers in the self-government of the United Kingdom, the right to hire and fire our rulers and the freedom to chart our own course as an independent nation, unmolested by the deprivations of a collectivist European government.

It is in that condition that we wish to continue. For the time being, I will rest content with the reassurances that the Under-Secretary has offered. I may want to return to the matter at a later date, but on the strength of what the Under-Secretary has said, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 33 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Further consideration adjourned.—[Mr. Pope.]

Adjourned accordingly at nineteen minutes past Four o'clock till Tuesday 16 January at half-past Ten o'clock.