Vehicles (Crime) Bill

Public Bill Committee, 16 January 2001.

Standing Committee A

Clause 1 - Requirement of registration formotor salvage operators

Bob Russell (Liberal Democrat, Colchester)

I beg to move amendment No. 33, in page 1, line 22, at end insert—

`(2A) For the purposes of this Part a person carries on business as a car park operator if he carries on a business which consists of—

(a) wholly or partly in the provision of parking spaces for motor vehicles in areas and premises reserved for that purpose and for which he makes a charge.'.

Bill O'Brien (Labour, Normanton)

With this it will be convenient to take the following amendments: No. 41, in clause 11, page 7, line 9, after `vehicle', insert

`or part of a motor vehicle'.

No. 42, in clause 11, page 7, line 10, leave out from `operator' to `gives' in line 11.

No. 44, in clause 15, page 7, line 41, after `vehicles', insert

`or parts of motor vehicles'.

No. 45, in clause 15, page 8, line 1, leave out from `operator' to end of line 3, and insert

`within the meaning of section 1(2)'.

Bob Russell (Liberal Democrat, Colchester)

I apologise on behalf of my hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh (Mr. Chidgey) for his absence. There was strong competition to secure places on the Committee to discuss such flagship legislation but, unfortunately, my hon. Friend is on a trip with the Foreign Affairs Committee.

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

A trip?

Bob Russell (Liberal Democrat, Colchester)

A fact-finding visit! My hon. Friend will be returning to the Committee as soon as those endeavours are completed. It is a great joy to have the opportunity to speak to the amendments.

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

I note what the hon. Gentleman said, somewhat elliptically, about the hon. Member for Eastleigh, but before he develops his arguments in support of the important amendments, will he welcome warmly to the bosom of the Committee its previously lamented member, my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant), who has recovered from being ferociously attacked by a spider?

Bob Russell (Liberal Democrat, Colchester)

I do indeed welcome the hon. Member for Lichfield to our deliberations. [Interruption.]

Michael Fabricant (Conservative, Lichfield)

I heard a member of the Committee ask from a sedentary position where I was bitten. It was in a sensitive part—in Kimberley.

Bill O'Brien (Labour, Normanton)

I hope that the Committee will not involve itself in any more dialogue about the hon. Gentleman's bite. God help the spider.

Bob Russell (Liberal Democrat, Colchester)

At the Committee's first sitting, the hon. Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh) referred to the omission from the Bill of motor cycles. As a lifelong wordsmith, I hope that we shall receive a ruling on whether ``motor cycle'' is one word, two words or hyphenated.

The amendments are designed to assist the thrust of the clause, which deals with the sale of stolen vehicles. There is more to such matters than just the sale of a complete vehicle because, on many occasions, it can be broken up and the parts then sold. I accept that the Committee wants sensible contributions to the debate which are to the point; it can be sure that mine will be short. The amendments deal with parts of motor vehicles rather than complete vehicles. They apply particularly to motor cycles because they are smaller and therefore easier to break up. We must bear in mind illegitimate trading and the opportunities for thieves to break up cars or motor cycles and take the parts to their local scrap dealers to be disposed of. I hope that the Minister will take the amendments in the spirit in which it was intended.

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

It is a pleasure to welcome you again to the Chair, Mr. O'Brien. In the spirit of the opening remarks of the hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Russell), I too will be brief.

The hon. Gentleman made the central point on behalf of the British Motorcyclists Federation, which, I believe, has attended closely to the Bill and supports the measure in general, but has concerns about errors or weaknesses of omission. For that reason, my hon. Friends and I support the amendment—and jousted in competition with the Liberal Democrats to be first to do so.

As we see it—and as, I think, the Liberal Democrats and certainly the British Motorcyclists Federation see it—the problem is that part I is incomplete. As far as we can tell, it does not contemplate the breaker whose legitimate business is a cover for the purchase of stolen parts from thieves who have broken a motor cycle or cycles. The object of our attention is the dealer who buys stolen motor cycles alongside legitimate second-hand motor cycles in order to strip parts off them to ring or repair other motor cycles. As far as we and the Liberal Democrats are concerned, the solution is to agree our amendments in order to include those who deal in parts of vehicles.

There is no reason why crime should not be as easy to commit when dealing in parts of vehicles as when dealing with the entirety. The purpose of the amendments is not to detract from but to add greater force and credibility to the Bill. On that basis, and—if I say so myself—with remarkably brief introductory remarks, I commend the amendments to the Committee.

Michael Fabricant (Conservative, Lichfield)

It is a pleasure to join the Committee, albeit belatedly. I rise in support of the amendment, in a sort of Lib-Lab-Con alliance—something which I would not normally wish to support but because I am a member of the all-party motorcycling group. In the past, I have ridden across Europe on a Yamaha FJ1200, but early in 1993, as our majority was slim and getting increasingly smaller, the Whips suggested that I should adopt four-wheeled transport instead.

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

I am much enlightened by what my hon. Friend said about his predilection for riding motor cycles. It is a commonplace and a truism that he is a rarity on the Opposition Benches—indeed, on any Benches. If it is of any comfort or succour to him, he is not entirely unique amongst Conservative Members in that predilection, because he is joined in his youthful enthusiasm by my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis).

Michael Fabricant (Conservative, Lichfield)

I think that he has a pedal cycle, or ``push bike'', as they call it in the United States, rather than a motor cycle. My hon. Friend will know that Michael Jopling, a former Chief Whip and colleague of ours in the House, was and still is a keen motor cyclist—but if I pursue that avenue, I may be ruled out of order.

I do not think that people generally understand that motor cycles are not cheap. Riding a motor cycle is not cheaper than driving a four-wheel vehicle—a Yamaha motorbike costs approximately £15,000 to £20,000, and one can buy a car for a lot less than that. I commend the hon. Member for Colchester for moving the amendment, because it recognises not only an omission but that a motor cycle is of considerable value both in its entirety and as spare parts.

My Yamaha FJ1200 once slipped from between my legs as I was driving along the port of Piraeus, and fell over. Some Greek port workers helped us pull it up, as motorbikes can be heavy when loaded with panniers, tents and so forth. Considerable damage was done. A mere fall incurred a cost of about £5,000 in spare parts. I can therefore well understand that a black market in spare parts may exist. I need not remind the Committee that spare parts that have been damaged can endanger the rider. Spare parts that are available on the black market and not properly tested should be illegal. The adoption of the proposed provision would deal with that omission.

Bob Russell (Liberal Democrat, Colchester)

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the phrase that he uses is no longer acceptable? He should have referred to a ``grey economy''.

Michael Fabricant (Conservative, Lichfield)

There is a difference between a grey economy and a black economy. Grey products on the grey market are out of date and are not supported by the manufacturer who originally produced them. Although the products involved were originally produced by a manufacturer, they could have been broken up inexpertly and might have been damaged. That is not a grey market. In the broad spectrum of safety, security and great danger, and of that which is legal and illegal, that is not grey. In those spectrums, it is black. Before the hon. Gentleman intervenes on me again to say that there are but seven colours in the spectrum and that none of them are black—

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

Is.

Michael Fabricant (Conservative, Lichfield)

None of them are black. At least I have not split an infinitive—which I often do in speech, although not in writing—because I know that my hon. Friend would correct me for doing so. Spare parts for motor cycles are expensive, so a market for them exists, and it is right and proper for the provision to be included in the Bill.

I should like to ask the Minister whether the term ``motor vehicle'' includes motor cycles of the two-wheeled variety—or, indeed, the three-wheeled variety; we have not even discussed Reliant Robins, which are made in my constituency. They used to be made in Tamworth, but they are now made in Burntwood—I suppose that I should buy one and drive it to and from the House from and to my constituency.

The hon. Member for Colchester asked whether ``motor cycle'' is one word or two. I rather think that it is one word, because when I typed ``motorcycle'' in Microsoft Word, the spell check did not pick it up. That is according to Microsoft, if not Dr. Johnson, who wrote the first dictionary—and who was, of course, born in my constituency. Although I think that ``motor cycle'' is one word, I wonder whether ``motor vehicle'', which is plainly two words, encompasses motor cycles as well as three-wheeled vehicles. Perhaps that is why the term was not included in the Bill. If the Minister cannot say assuredly that that is so, it is vital for the safety of motor cyclists that the provision be included in the Bill.

Keith Hill (Labour, Streatham)

I join my colleagues in welcoming you to our proceedings, Mr. O'Brien. I know that you presided over the first sitting, which, unfortunately, I was unable to attend. I am delighted to serve under your excellent chairmanship.

I add to those of my colleagues my word of welcome to the hon. Member for Lichfield, too. Much concern has been expressed about the reasons for his absence, so we are delighted to have his reassurance about the precise location of the famous bite, and to see him in excellent fettle.

The amendments, to which the hon. Member for Colchester spoke so succinctly, would significantly widen the scope of the Bill. They would include businesses not involved in the dismantling of vehicles which buy, use or sell on used vehicle parts, and those which buy vehicles and use or sell the parts while keeping the shell of the vehicle rather than selling or scrapping it.

Let me take a step back and remind the Committee that the purpose of this part of the Bill is to tackle the criminal element that takes advantage of the salvage industry to ring cars—in other words, to disguise the identity of stolen cars with that of written-off vehicles or to break up stolen cars for their parts. That is why we are targeting those who receive whole vehicles to sell on or dismantle.

Bob Russell (Liberal Democrat, Colchester)

At what point does a whole car become an incomplete car? Is it the removal of a windscreen, or is it more than that?

Keith Hill (Labour, Streatham)

That is a perfectly reasonable question, which I hope to answer in the course of my response.

If we accepted the amendments, we would bring within the scope of the Bill most garages in the country, retail shops and vintage car clubs, which often circulate used specialist parts for repair purposes. That would unnecessarily burden those businesses, which have not been consulted about that matter, and we have not received any representations that such amendments should be made. The amendments are inappropriate; we have not been advised of a significant crime problem within the industry that uses or sells on second-hand parts.

I am aware that the British Motorcyclists Federation is concerned that those who break up parts of bikes and pass them on are not caught by the Bill. However, salvage operators will have to record the parts received, so those who break up the bike for parts are covered by the legislation.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

Will the Under-Secretary give way?

Keith Hill (Labour, Streatham)

Motor cycles are covered by the definition of vehicles in clause 15(1), on line 4 of page 8. It might be more appropriate for us to debate motor cycle theft when we reach that part of the Bill. The amendments have been drafted in such a way as to have a wider effect, which would be unhelpful.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Keith Hill (Labour, Streatham)

Of course I will give way. The hon. Lady should be firmer in her interventions. If she whispers, it is not clear at which point the intervention is being made.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

I am most grateful to the Under-Secretary for allowing me to make these points. To put the record straight, I am not normally a shy and retiring person.

Have the Under-Secretary and his Department had a chance to consider how they will deal with the counterfeiting of parts? Is it appropriate to consider that matter in the context of the Bill?

Keith Hill (Labour, Streatham)

I believe that it is appropriate, and shall explain why that is the case.

The Bill will tackle the problems of stolen parts at their source. The police will have the necessary powers to drive the criminal element out of the motor salvage industry.

I have explained why we think it inappropriate to target businesses that are simply involved in the purchase, use or resale of parts, as suggested in paragraph (e) of amendment No. 33. Paragraph (f) would include those businesses that buy cars and then use or sell the parts. Most such businesses are covered by clause 1(1) (a). Those businesses that are not covered keep the remains of a car rather than selling or scrapping it. There cannot be many businesses that buy cars, recover parts and then do not sell or scrap the remains, so that part of the amendment is unnecessary.

Bob Russell (Liberal Democrat, Colchester)

The Minister again refers to motor cars. Opposition Members are concentrating on motor cycles, as it is easier for those who steal motor cycles to break them into parts and introduce them to the second-hand chain than to do so in relation to cars. If I may return to my previous point, when does a car cease to be whole?

Keith Hill (Labour, Streatham)

I suppose that it is when that car is broken up. I hope that I have reassured the hon. Gentleman that the Bill includes motor cycles. Vehicles are cars and motor bikes, and all my references to cars include motor bikes. I hope that that will be sufficient reassurance. Clearly, however, I must deal with the amendments as they appear on the amendment paper.

Amendment No. 42 would omit some of the words in clause 11. It is essential that those words are retained. Some businesses might be both a normal garage and a motor salvage operator. We want to catch only people who give false details to the motor salvage part of the business. If the proposed words were omitted from the Bill, a person who gives false details on selling a second-hand car or vehicle to a garage for resale would, when that business is mixed, also commit a criminal offence. Although we would not encourage anyone to give false details when selling a second-hand car, we do not wish to create new criminal offences if there is not a significant problem and without having consulted on the matter.

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

If the amendment were accepted, approximately how many companies would be excluded from the purview of the Bill? Can the hon. Gentleman offer details on which companies they might be?

Keith Hill (Labour, Streatham)

I think that I have indicated that, if the amendments were accepted, they would extend the Bill's coverage to a range of businesses. Those businesses would include garages, some of which engage in some of the activities concerned, retail shops and vintage car specialists. The Bill would therefore reach further into the car trade and the sale and resale of vehicles and parts of vehicles, even though we are not aware of significant criminal activity in those parts of the industry. We therefore have no desire for those parts to be caught by the provisions of the Bill. It would be ludicrous if the Bill were redrafted so that every garage in the country were caught. I hope that I have responded to the broad thrust of the hon. Gentleman's question, although I am not able to provide specific numbers. If he wants to press that point, I dare say that I could respond in writing in due course.

We do not intend to apply the effects of the registration scheme—for example, record-keeping requirements and powers of entry and inspection—to the parts of mixed businesses that are not concerned with motor salvage, as a significant criminal element does not operate in that part of the industry. To apply a criminal offence to a part of a business that will not otherwise be covered by the Bill would simply not make sense.

I now turn to amendment No. 45. Clause 15 defines a motor salvage yard. At the top of page 8, we included the words

so far as the business consists of any of the activities mentioned in section 1(2)

to allow for businesses that operate as part motor salvage dealer and part other business.

Their inclusion becomes important when read with clause 15(5), the result being that where there is a mixed business falling within two local authority areas, the operator need register with both local authorities only if the motor salvage part of his business is carried on in both areas. If, alternatively, he carries on his non-motor salvage business only in local authority area A and his motor salvage business in local business area B, he needs to register only with local authority B. That is because we are targeting the motor salvage industry, where we believe that a significant criminal element is operating, and we want to keep the burden on other non-salvage parts of a business down to a minimum. We do not have evidence to suggest that criminals are making the same use of other parts of the business.

Bob Russell (Liberal Democrat, Colchester)

Is the Minister stating that the illegitimate motor trade that the amendment would cover can be dealt with by other provisions in the Bill and by existing legislation?

Keith Hill (Labour, Streatham)

The answer to that, succinctly and in the hon. Gentleman's spirit of brevity, is yes.

The Government are committed to tackling the criminal element within the motor salvage industry. That criminal element is significant within the ringing or breaking up of stolen cars for their parts. Part I of the Bill introduces regulation. The Government are in favour of better regulation, but do not wish to impose unnecessary regulation. Regulation of outlets which buy and use or sell used vehicle parts is unnecessary: it would bring a large number of additional businesses within the scope of the Bill and create an unnecessary burden on them. For all those reasons, I resist the amendment, and in the light of my arguments, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will seek to withdraw it.

Bob Russell (Liberal Democrat, Colchester)

In view of the assurances that have been given and in the hope that the Minister and his team will consider the spirit of the amendments—and perhaps revisit them—I beg to ask to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2 - Registers of motor salvage operators

Bob Russell (Liberal Democrat, Colchester)

I beg to move amendment No. 34, in page 2, line 37, at end add—

`(12) The local authority shall waive fees under subsection (9) and (10) for the police.'.

Bob Russell (Liberal Democrat, Colchester)

Again, in the spirit of unity and a common-sense approach to the Bill, I cannot believe that the Government intend to add to bureaucracy by requiring local authorities to charge the police and vice versa. The public good requires there to be a nil charge in any direction where the Bill is designed to deal with that problem. The amendment is simple and short and goes straight to the point: there should be no fee.

Michael Fabricant (Conservative, Lichfield)

I, too, would be unhappy if a charge were made on the police. We know that the police are in crisis. The Police Federation has written a detailed report in The House Magazine, and I had the privilege to raise the matter on Second Reading.

There are a number of salvage yards in my constituency; there are also only two or three police officers in the whole of Lichfield to provide safety for people on a Friday or Saturday night. Since the last general election, we have lost 250 police officers from the Staffordshire police force; only 90 will be replaced through the recent panic initiatives introduced by the Government after the fall in police numbers. [Laughter.] The Minister who laughs is the one who pressured the chief constable in my area not to supply me with information to that effect, which is a scandal.

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

Does my hon. Friend accept from me, on the strength of a cursory consideration of the relevant subsections of clause 2, that although the police may require protection from the imposition of fees under subsection (10), they may not require the same protection under subsection (9), which specifically refers to ``members of the public'', among whom police officers may not be numbered?

Michael Fabricant (Conservative, Lichfield)

That is a helpful intervention. I hope that the Minister will provide an answer, after he stops laughing at the appalling state of police numbers in Staffordshire.

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

First, Mr. O'Brien, I must apologise for being late for the Committee. I had to attend the debate on rural policing in Westminster Hall.

The hon. Member for Lichfield made an assertion that was entirely untrue. He suggested that I put pressure on the chief constable in his area not to give him information. That is utterly untrue, and I ask him to withdraw it immediately.

Michael Fabricant (Conservative, Lichfield)

I can only go by the information that I received, and I like to be truthful in the Committee, so I will not withdraw my remarks.

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

On a point of order, Mr. O'Brien, may I have some clarification? The suggestion that a Minister of the Crown has instructed or required a chief constable, who is operationally independent, not to give information to a Member of Parliament, is outrageous, damaging and utterly untrue. Is it a matter that I should raise through the Speaker, on the Floor of the House? How should I deal with the matter?

Bill O'Brien (Labour, Normanton)

I would suggest that, as the allegation is a serious one, the Minister should consult the Speaker and the Clerk of the House.

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

I accept your guidance, Mr. O'Brien.

Michael Fabricant (Conservative, Lichfield)

I am grateful for your ruling, Mr. O'Brien. You will know that I would not state anything in Committee unless I had clear knowledge that it was correct.

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

I do not want to intrude into the detail of the matter, and I respect the Minister's concern. I listened to what my hon. Friend said very carefully; does he accept that a substantial difference exists between an instruction or requirement and an exhortation?

Bill O'Brien (Labour, Normanton)

Before the hon. Member for Lichfield responds, I would like us to dispense with this business. It would be in everyone's interest for him to withdraw the remark and consider it further, because it can be raised in some other forum. I want to clear the matter up, and I appeal to him to withdraw the remark.

Michael Fabricant (Conservative, Lichfield)

I will withdraw my remark out of respect for your request, Mr. O'Brien. However, I am aware of what the chief constable said to me—I leave the matter at that point.

I reassert the point that I made on Second Reading that the article by Fred Broughton entitled ``Policing in Crisis'' is certainly relevant to the situation in Staffordshire. There are fewer police officers than there were three years ago; in Lichfield there are only three police officers, supported by a small band of unpaid special constables, on a Friday or Saturday night. As the chief constable wrote to me, that decision was not made lightly by Staffordshire police, but was forced on them by the funding available—or, rather, unavailable—from central Government. I support the point made by the hon. Member for Colchester, who said that he, too, would be concerned if yet another financial burden were placed on the police. I hope that the Minister can reassure me that no charges will be made to the police. Such charges could result in further losses in police numbers not only in Staffordshire but in other parts of the United Kingdom to which the Bill applies.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

The explanatory notes tell us that enforcement of the Bill—especially part I— would be the sole responsibility of the police and would cost about £110,000 per annum. It would therefore appear inappropriate, pursuant to clause 2(9) and (10), to place an additional charge on the police for a copy of the register. It also begs the question whether a separate allocation has been made to the police, both for the overall enforcement of part I and specifically in respect of any fee proposed under those subsections.

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

I am grateful to the hon. Member for Colchester for moving the amendment. As he said, its purpose is explicitly to prevent local authorities from charging a fee to the police for copies of records held on the motor salvage register. The Government accept the principle of what he and other hon. Members have said, but there is no evidence that local authorities would try to obstruct the police by charging fees.

The hon. Member for Buckingham raised issues covered by clause 2(9) and (10), which would allow a local authority to waive any fee. To clarify one point, the Government accept that the term ``members of the public'' in clause 2(9) does not include the police.

I also want to make it clear that we firmly believe that no fee would be charged in the event of local authorities dealing with the police. Fees are, however, an important issue when establishing a code of conduct and guidance for the charging regime in general, which we have also discussed in other contexts and wish to discuss in detail with the Association of Chief Police Officers and the Local Government Association. We want to handle the matter by general guidance rather than specific legislation.

Bob Russell (Liberal Democrat, Colchester)

I am grateful to the Minister for that reassuring observation. The whole purpose of the amendment is the avoidance of doubt. As one who comes from a local government background, I can assure the Minister that confusion sometimes reigns between a county and a borough council, let alone between a local authority and the police, who are a further arm's length away. For the avoidance of doubt, the charging regime should be clearly stated in the Bill. If the Minister can assure us that the matter will be reconsidered during further consultation, that would be welcome.

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

I can give that assurance. First, the charging regime is a matter for discussion with the police and the Local Government Association. Secondly, it is the Government's policy that there should be no charge, for reasons that have been put forward in the Committee. Thirdly, we are trying all the time to develop effective partnership between the police and local government on a range of issues. Many interchange relationships develop and it is more effective to deal with them through guidance than by primary legislation; that is why we resist amendment No. 34. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will seek to withdraw the amendment.

Bob Russell (Liberal Democrat, Colchester)

I am more than happy to withdraw the amendment, because the Minister has given us an assurance—beyond what I was hoping for today—that what I am seeking will be taken on board in the detailed workings of the legislation and the guidance that follows. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

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

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

The choice of amendments for debate is a matter for you, Mr. O'Brien. It is a weighty responsibility, but one that you discharge stoically—perhaps even with relish. I am mildly disappointed, although I make no complaint about it, that the cherished Opposition amendment No. 64 to clause 2 was not chosen for debate. I respect that, of course, but the amendment was of such significance to the overall content and ramifications of the clause that, without it, we are uneasy. I want to flag up my concern.

We are anxious that a proper registration procedure should be in place, which, as far as possible, should be a guarantee and protection against fraud. It should be effective but minimally burdensome as far as legitimate businesses are concerned. My hon. Friends and I wanted to try to tie down, as far as possible, the registration process in clause 2. Subsection (2) states:

The register shall, subject to any requirements that may be prescribed, be in such form as the local authority consider appropriate.

That causes us concern. The Bill allows local authorities to make provisions in relation to the form of application. However, as hon. Members will have noticed through their close perusal of the text, at no stage does the Bill state that the information requested from each business should be the same, or that there should be a standard application procedure. In theory, at least, it is therefore feasible for one local authority employee to request a different set of details than another. I feel sure that the Minister is attending closely to the argument.

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

I am.

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

I am grateful to the Minister for his confirmation that he is listening intently to what I have to say.

We want a standardised process to be enforced. Our ambition is limited in that regard. We are not arguing for a uniform procedure for the whole country—we could argue the toss on another occasion, but I shall not dilate now, Mr. O'Brien, as you would not allow me to do so. Equally, we are not saying that the registration procedure and documentation in support thereof must be the same in every local authority area. However, the procedure adopted by a local authority, in accordance with the discretion conferred by the clause, should be uniform in its application to everyone within that area. The scope for a differential impact of the regulations based on the whims, caprices or judgments of different local authority officials should therefore not be a problem; it should not be allowed to happen.

There should be a standardised process, which is fair to all businesses in a local authority area applying for registration. We would leave the discretion with the local authority, but, in referring to ``a standard form'', we would specify that each business in a local authority area should be subject to the same process of application. That, in a nutshell, is our argument. The wording of the clause is vaguer than that, and allows for greater discretion and variability of practice within one local authority area. That seems problematic.

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

I understand the hon. Gentleman's point, which is perfectly reasonable. It is part of the general debate that always takes place about the role of a local authority versus the role of a national, centralising Government. Unlike some or our predecessors in office, we always try to elevate the role of the local authority in deciding such matters. We considered the option of establishing a central agency, but decided that the operation was so enormous that the responsibilities should be given to local government. That is why we are requiring every local authority to set up and keep a register. Authorities can decide in what form that register will be kept, although some general requirements and details will be prescribed by order. That will allow the opportunity for further consultation with local authorities. We will produce joint guidance with the Local Government Association when the Bill is enacted.

The precise requirements to be specified by order will be the subject of discussion with the Local Government Association before the order is made and considered by Parliament. I can give the hon. Member for Buckingham the assurance that he seeks; we will aim to ensure as much consistency as possible between the approaches of different authorities. Amendment No. 64, which was tabled but not called, would have inserted the phrase

a standard form as defined by the local authority.

We do not need to go so far as to set a standard form for every authority, but I accept the hon. Gentleman's argument that basic requirements should be centrally established so that data can be exchanged electronically between authorities. We will ensure that the guidance that we create together with the Local Government Association will do that.

I hope that the hon. Member for Buckingham accepts that our proposals will have a similar effect to his, without using his draconian big stick to remove local authority independence in key areas. I hope, too, that he agrees that the clause should stand part of the Bill.

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

I take the gravest exception to the suggestion that I am wielding or wish to wield a big stick. I simply suggested that the scope for whim and dangerous discretion, which might have an adverse impact on individual businesses, should be removed or circumscribed. However, I listened closely to the Minister's words and tone and, on the strength of his remarks, I am happy to allow the clause to stand part of the Bill unopposed.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 3 - Applications for Registration andRenewal of Registration

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

I beg to move amendment No. 66, in page 2, line 40, leave out from `concerned' to end of line 41 and insert

`on a standard form; and'.

Bill O'Brien (Labour, Normanton)

With this we may discuss amendment No. 67, in page 2, line 43, at end insert—

`(c) shall be supported by relevant documentary evidence'.

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

The Minister will understand that several of the previous arguments recur on these amendments, so I will not labour the point. Amendment No. 66 relates to the issue of whether a standard form is provided and required to be completed. My hon. Friends and I are a little unhappy about the reference to

such requirements as may be prescribed.

We maintain that that presents an opportunity for officials within the same department of a local authority to interpret the requirement differently, and for businesses to have different experiences, depending on the official with whom they happen to deal. I do not in any sense seek to impugn the integrity or motives of local authority officials, who do their duty as they think fit; I merely acknowledge and express concern that, unless clear procedures are set out, it is as sure as night follows day that some variability will creep into the process. After all, the local authority officials to whom I refer are not automatons—they are human beings.

Michael Fabricant (Conservative, Lichfield)

Is my hon. Friend concerned primarily with the possibility of different forms within one authority or different forms in different authorities? If the latter were the case, a salvage operator with plants in different authorities would not be able to work with a standard form. I believe that that is more of a worry.

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

My hon. Friend makes a compelling point. As he will have heard me explain a few moments ago, I have set a modest ambition for the Opposition. It may be that he is, in his characteristically courteous and understated fashion, chiding me on my modesty and suggesting that I should be more concerned with pressing Ministers to establish a uniform form for all local authorities. He is right that a trader established in several local authorities could face a panoply of different forms of greater or lesser complexity and robustness, as a result of which a problem could arise. However, at this stage all I am arguing for is that within one local authority area a standard procedure should be applied to each applicant.

Michael Fabricant (Conservative, Lichfield)

Does my hon. Friend agree that, while we and, I am sure, the Government want to limit legislation as much as possible, when a Bill covers England and Wales, it would make sense to have one standard form? It is not just an issue of robustness and complexity, but the order of questions. For example, although the salvage operator may operate in different districts, there may be only one person who fills in such forms for the entire organisation. That person's job will be much more difficult if he has to deal with a series of forms with questions set out in different orders and drafted in different levels of complexity.

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

My hon. Friend powerfully underlines the argument. As an experienced member of Standing Committees, he will remember that unless we press an issue to a Division, nothing prevents us from raising it at a later stage in our deliberations. I am gaining the impression that he might be encouraging my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of York and I to do just that and perhaps to draft a further amendment. However, given the slightly—I shall not describe it as ``tricky''— unenthusiastic response from the Minister to the fairly modest amendment that I proposed to the previous clause, it does not seem likely that he will enthusiastically receive the broader amendment that my hon. Friend is commending, but that is no reason why we should not try to persuade him to accept it.

Burdens are not a matter of theory or of the abstract. We are talking not about wallowing in the realms of metaphysical abstraction, as Burke would have put it, but about the concrete, the specific, the everyday and the unavoidable. My hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield, who is a champion of businesses in general and of small businesses in particular, will be aware from his close knowledge of such matters that the proportion of small businesses in the motor salvage sector is strikingly large. We must be aware of that, given that we are talking about small companies that will for the first time be confronted with a regulatory regime for which there is a justification and which could prove effective in reducing vehicle crime. But we do not want to over-egg the pudding.

I wish gently and good-naturedly to pick the Minister up on his partisan observation when he referred to the great debate between centralised government and local authority discretion. He referred—somewhat piously, I thought—to the record of previous Governments and suggested that it was that of a centralising Administration, whereas he and his hon. Friends were committed to the cause of decentralisation. I have two points to make. First, I do not think that that is supported by the record, although we will not debate that at any length, because to do so would not commend itself to you, Mr. O'Brien. Secondly, I appeal to the Minister not to cloak a regulatory burden for business in the language of freedom and autonomy for local councils. It is no great freedom or worthwhile autonomy for different local authorities to be able to use different standard forms. They would have to be a bunch of pretty sad anoraks if they derived any pleasure from the capacity to apply different procedures throughout the country. They would have to be even sadder anoraks, which I am sure that they are not, to derive any pleasure from applying different requirements or differently composed forms to different businesses in the same area. That has nothing to do with local authority discretion. That is over-zealous, thoroughly burdensome and deeply unjustified regulation of businesses. What is more, as I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield will agree, even in local authority terms, that is rank inefficiency, and there is no reason why we should have to put up with it.

Bob Russell (Liberal Democrat, Colchester)

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the simple, common-sense way forward is a uniform form throughout the country? The best way to develop that is for the Government to hold discussions with the Local Government Association.

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

I am grateful for that intervention. There is much in what the hon. Gentleman says. The only additional point that I make in response is that that discussion should not be confined to the Government and local government associations; it might usefully involve those parties whom it will affect. The thrust of what he says is entirely sensible, and I endorse it.

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

Will it assist the hon. Member for Buckingham if I say that there is real merit in his argument? I am prepared to look at the matter again in the light of his comments and those of the hon. Member for Colchester. We will not support the amendments, and I will ask him to withdraw them. However, although it is difficult to specify the exact form in the regulations because we want flexibility, some of the principles that he has put forward about uniformity are strong and worth while, and we are prepared to look at the matter again at a later stage in the progress of the Bill.

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

I am delighted by the Minister's comments. That is just the sort of reasonable and open-minded approach that we on the Opposition Benches seek, but do not frequently encounter. It is not entirely unexpected and it is in keeping with what I would like to be able to expect from a future leader of the Labour party. I am grateful to the Minister, and on the strength of that and in the spirit in which he made his remarks, I will not dilate further—unless provoked—on that particular amendment. I have proposed it in relation to two clauses, and the argument is clear. I appreciate what the Minister had to say.

Amendment No. 67, which is grouped with amendment No. 66, requires that an application for registration

shall be supported by relevant documentary evidence.

Once more, the argument does not need to be made at length, because the Committee has been previously favoured with it in relation to a different part of the Bill. It seems to my hon. Friends and me that, as the requirement properly applies to the procedure in relation to applications for registration plate suppliers, it could usefully apply to motor salvage operators. As we see it, the problem is simply stated. Copies of the register shall be provided as evidence of the information contained in it. However, if copies are to be provided as evidence, where does the accountability lie if the information provided is incorrect? I am happy to stand corrected if I am mistaken, but at present it seems that no one is responsible in the legal sense—the only sense that matters to us as legislators—for the accuracy of the information. So—I feel sure, Mr. O'Brien, that you are following intently the logic of the argument as, in my plodding fashion, I develop it—if someone uses the information for any purpose, he cannot seek redress if it is proved incorrect.

What is the solution? My hon. Friends and I are arguing for the registration process to be tightened. Without placing extra burdens on business—I emphasise that point with all the force that I can muster—we suggest that applications should be supported by evidence to prove its veracity. False applications would be punishable by a new offence.

Such provision would ensure that inaccurate information was clearly traceable, either back to the business that provided it or to the application procedure that produced the error. In the latter case, a clear line of redress could be followed by an aggrieved party. As the Bill stands, the Secretary of State would—theoretically—be responsible for any inaccurate information held on the register, although it would be unlikely in practice that he would accept personal responsibility if matters went wrong.

I hope that the argument is clear. If memory of earlier parts of our proceedings serves me correctly, the case was given a fair hearing and an encouraging signal was given by the Under-Secretary. I look forward to the Minister's response.

Michael Fabricant (Conservative, Lichfield)

I, too, was delighted with the Minister's intervention on my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham to the effect that he would consider the standardisation of forms. You will recall, Mr. O'Brien, that I suggested to my hon. Friend that amendment No. 66 could go further, to achieve standardisation not only in a district but throughout England and Wales. I know that the Minister is taking that on board. Perhaps he can obtain the following information before he replies. Having argued strongly with my hon. Friend for standardisation, because an operator may find it difficult to deal with different forms if he has several plants in different parts of England and Wales, I wondered about the estimated percentage of salvage operators who have plants in more than one district. Perhaps the Minister can provide that information.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

The Minister said that he was minded to consider a standard form. I heard a Government Member on the Front Bench say from a sedentary position said that the form should be harmonised throughout the European Union. I took that in the light-hearted manner in which it was raised in this our first sitting of the second week after the recess. Are the Government also minded to introduce a standard fee, or are they cognisant of the difficulties that that might cause for people living in less well-off areas such as the north of England?

Michael Fabricant (Conservative, Lichfield)

My hon. Friend mentioned the less wealthy north of England. May I remind her that there are more Porsches and Rolls-Royces per head of population in the north-east than in the south-east?

Bob Russell (Liberal Democrat, Colchester)

They are all motor salvage operators.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

I could not possibly comment. That is a matter for the hon. Member for Colchester.

To make a comparison, there are two villages by the name of Hewby. One is in the Vale of York constituency and the other in Leeds, North-West. The village in the latter has more millionaires per head of population than the quaint village of Huby, which is at the centre of Vale of York.

The comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield underline the point. I might not be as wary as many of the salvage operators to which the hon. Member for Colchester referred in a sedentary intervention, but parts of the north-east would find it difficult to meet the fee, bearing in mind the likely costs detailed in the explanatory notes. I should like to probe the Minister to ascertain whether the Government have thought ahead and considered a standard fee or whether they will make arrangements for different parts of the country.

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

I begin my response by drawing the attention of members of the Committee to clause 3(1)(a), which states that the registration

shall be made to the local authority concerned in accordance with such requirements as may be prescribed.

As you will recall, Mr. O'Brien, ``prescribed'' is defined in clause 15(1) as meaning

prescribed by regulations made by the Secretary of State.

The Secretary of State may introduce regulations to deal with the matter, and it was in consciousness of that that I responded as I did to the points made by the hon. Member for Buckingham. We shall consider the matter more closely with a view to achieving the uniformity and standard approach for which he argued strongly, and we shall respond in due course.

The same applies to amendment No. 67, which deals with relevant documentary evidence. That matter can be dealt with by regulations in the established way, as we intended. However, as the hon. Member for Buckingham will recall, having discussed the matter last week with my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary, we believe that in considering documentary evidence it is important to take account of the fact that we are trying to move towards electronic systems of delivery of such services. There is therefore a real burden in some aspects of the documentary requirement. That may conflict with the electronic delivery of Government services, which the Government are keen to promote and which is, I believe, supported by hon. Members from all parties. The matter can be considered as part of clause 3(1)(a), and we shall consider it in that context.

On the point made by the hon. Member for Lichfield, I am advised that industry sources, on which we have based much of our evidence, suggest that fewer than 100 of 3,000 salvage businesses have outlets in more than one area. That does not weaken the force of his point, but it is not a major problem. Nevertheless, even for those 100, it is desirable to have a standard form that they can understand. That is why I responded positively to his point.

As we have detailed in clause 3(1)(b), we believe that the fee should be determined by the local authority, for two reasons—to take account of the local circumstances that the hon. Member for Vale of York describes and the different levels of efficiency of different authorities. We believe that local authorities should resolve that matter directly.

Mr. Bob Russell rose—

Mr. Bercow rose—

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

I shall give way in a moment.

As we do throughout government, we shall provide guidance on the standard principles to be applied and possibly on a proposed limit, but that will depend on the number of operators in each area, and we believe that the matter should be for the local authority to resolve.

Bob Russell (Liberal Democrat, Colchester)

The Minister has dealt with the point that I was about to make—that parameters must be provided or the inefficient will start milking the system.

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

I agree, which is why we shall provide guidance. The hon. Member for Buckingham suggests that he, too, is happy with that.

The hon. Member for Vale of York mentioned Europe. My hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller) suggested that the document might be published in 12 European Union languages, which we may specify—

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

Nine.

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

Twelve, because my hon. Friend is positive about such matters in trying to widen their application.

I assure the Committee that the more romantic pro-Europeanism of my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston, although I agree with him politically, is not a route that we intend to go down. I know that he will be disappointed. With that, I hope that the hon. Member for Buckingham will consider withdrawing the amendment in light of my comments about the arguments that he advanced.

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

I am happy with what the Minister has said, which has been, to a considerable degree, reassuring. I therefore beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

I beg to move amendment No. 65, in page 2, line 42, leave out from `as' to end of line 43 and insert

`are necessary to recoup the costs of processing the application only'.

Bill O'Brien (Labour, Normanton)

With this it will be convenient to consider amendment No. 68, in page 2, line 46, leave out `the reasonable' and insert `only the'.

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

I have a sense that I am travelling down memory lane, accompanied, I hope, by my hon. Friends. My h Fs will recall that the broad issues were discussed in relation to another part of the Bill last week. My hon. Friends the Members for the Vale of York and for Mid-Norfolk (Mr. Simpson)—

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

The unbitten ones.

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

Indeed. My bitten hon. Friend—he was bitten in the far east, and further and better particulars are still not fully available—[Interruption.] He is now saying that he was bitten in Australia. I did not know that. Originally, we received other information on the matter. Nevertheless, my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield was indisposed and not available to attend the debate or hear the arguments, and nor did he enjoy the Minister's response.

We are anxious that fees charged in relation to the registration procedure should be only such as would be necessary to ensure that costs are recouped. For that reason, amendment No. 65 would insert the words

necessary to recoup the costs of processing the application only.

The problem is that the Bill allows the local authority to set the fee that it wishes to charge for processing the application. As with the processing of registration plate applications, that means that local authorities are free to set any charge imaginable.

Opposition Members are committed to reducing the burden on businesses as far as possible. It is therefore necessary to tighten up the provision and prevent local authorities using such businesses as milch cows to allow them to spend money on their other pet projects. Some hon. Members may look askance at that suggestion, but they should not. There is a history of it happening in local authorities—I am sorry to have to introduce a partisan note, but, ordinarily, it has occurred in Labour local authorities when they have struggled to find the resources to finance their pet projects and pursue their beloved politically correct fetishes. They have recognised that, as far as the domestic ratepayer, community charge payer or—to update the point—council tax payer is concerned, there is limited scope to charge without incurring enormous political unpopularity and the risk of removal from office. Therefore, an alternative avenue has traditionally been available to them.

Bob Russell (Liberal Democrat, Colchester)

Is the hon. Gentleman advocating a different form of local government taxation?

Bill O'Brien (Labour, Normanton)

I hope not.

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

I was not advocating a different form of local government taxation.

Bill O'Brien (Labour, Normanton)

At this point.

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

As you helpfully point out, Mr. O'Brien, the objection is not, on the strength of a detailed study of local government finance, to any alternative arrangement but to the constitutional impropriety of dilating on such a point in this Committee. I immediately follow your exhortation. I shall not recommend any change in local government finance. I want the hon. Member for Colchester to understand that I am not making a value judgment on the local government finance system. My concern is that, within any local authority, irrespective of the finance system that applies, a council has the opportunity to supplement the income that it raises from the domestic council tax payer with funds that it can raise from businesses.

It is common ground between the hon. Member for Colchester—the sole but powerful Liberal Democrat in Committee—and my hon. Friends that, to give effect to the Bill, such fees might need occasionally to be charged. I hope that he agrees that it is important that those charges should be such as are necessary to recoup—only to recoup—the costs of the process to the local authority. Of course, it is right that the local authority should not be out of pocket for giving effect to procedures that will benefit commercial operators. Equally, however, there is no reason why a commercial operator should effectively be held to ransom by a local authority, which is vexatiously and in a draconian fashion charging fees that help to finance its other expenditure programmes, when those fees are grossly disproportionate either to the cost that the local authority incurs or, indeed, to the capacity of the business—many such businesses being small—to pay that fee.

Michael Fabricant (Conservative, Lichfield)

Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government may be sympathetic to his powerful argument? They have been considering the introduction of toll charges on roads and motorways, but justifying that by saying that such charges—I oppose them as an additional tax—would be ring-fenced for the improvement of roads? Is he not arguing in favour of ring-fencing any charges for such provisions so that they are used only to fund the provisions and not other pet plans of local authorities?

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

My hon. Friend is correct. He is intellectually elastic. Perhaps I should describe him as dextrous.

Keith Simpson (Conservative, Mid Norfolk)

Our flexible friend.

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

He is, indeed. My hon. Friend is the political and legislative equivalent of the Access card.

I am not sure that it is right to use the term ``ring-fenced'' in the context outlined by my h F, however, nor am I sure that the principle of hypothecation, as such, applies. The point that I am anxious to develop and to which I seek the Minister's assent is that the charge should be a reflection of the burden on the local authority. It should not be a stealth tax. I shall not develop arguments about such tax, Mr. O'Brien, because you are patient, good-natured, accommodating, helpful and kind towards new Members of Parliament and I do not want to try your patience. The charges should not be overly burdensome. I emphasise that we seek to specify that the costs should be only those

necessary to recoup the costs of processing the application.

That would mean that an authority that levies an excessive cost could be held accountable or made to justify the cost that it sets. It would be obliged to show that the charge that it had levied was the financial or manpower cost that it had incurred.

Michael Fabricant (Conservative, Lichfield)

Does my hon. Friend realise that if amendment No. 68 were agreed to, it would give considerable power to the auditor, who would be able to ensure that its provisions were met? If the word ``reasonable'' were retained, no powers would be given to the external auditor to the town, city or district council.

Mr. Bercow: My hon. Friend is usually correct in his interventions, and I am pleased to say that that interjection was no exception. What he said was right, and I vouchsafe to my hon. Friend and to the Committee that I am slightly worried that Ministers seem set—I hope that they will prove me wrong—to resist the amdts. I have the distinct impression that they want to do so. The amendments are so transparently reasonable that only an extraordinarily unreasonable person would object to them.

My hon. Friend rightly referred to the potential involvement—especially if our amendments are accepted—of the auditor. I would welcome that involvement on the basis that a local authority that has behaved properly and levied a charge that reflected the cost that it had incurred would have nothing to fear from the auditor. On the other hand, a local authority that had imposed a burdensome charge that reflected not its actual costs but its desire to obtain revenue to expend on multifarious purposes, would indeed have something to fear from the auditor, and rightly so. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston is getting restive.

Andrew Miller (Labour, Ellesmere Port and Neston)

I am not getting restive. The hon. Gentleman's concerns are absorbed within the Bill, as were those that he expressed in our discussion of ``reasonable'' earlier. What does he mean by ``processing'' in amendment No. 65? Processing is an administrative operation, yet local authorities—especially rural ones—will incur costs in investigating the suitability of some operators that would be excluded if amendment No. 65 were accepted.

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

I am sorry to say that the hon. Gentleman is wrong. With the best will in the world, I cannot convert his error into something that is correct. I want to let the hon. Gentleman down as gently as I can, without an undue bump. The reason why he is wrong is that to any reasonable person the processing procedure embraces both the technical fact of processing—such as photocopying or passing documents through a machine—and the investigations that might be required to satisfy the local authority of the veracity of the information with which it has been furnished.

Andrew Miller (Labour, Ellesmere Port and Neston)

It does not say that.

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

The hon. Gentleman chunters from a sedentary position, rather like someone on a bus whom Englishmen affect to ignore, ``It doesn't say so. It doesn't say so.'' I want to let the hon. Gentleman down gently. He thinks that he has a good point, but in fact he has a bad one. When it suits him, he is happy enthusiastically to support the unamended clauses of the Bill by saying to Conservative Members, ``Ah, but so-and-so is implicit; the amendment is redundant'', and he is warmly applauded by his hon. Friends on the Government Front Bench when he does so. On the occasions when the hon. Gentleman has made that case, he has been mistaken. It is interesting to observe what might be described as the changed position or tergiversation that the hon. Gentleman undertakes in relation to Conservative amendments. The different types of processing that I have described are covered and implied by the wording of our amendment. The hon. Gentleman is, all of a sudden, for no good reason and without explanation, cavilling at my proposition.

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

My hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston was right in what he said. To clarify the matter for the Committee, will the hon. Gentleman say whether the wording includes the functions of setting up the register, maintaining the register and considering cancellations to the register? If it does include them, what is the reason for his wording? If it does not, why does he wish to exclude them?

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

I will happily deal with the point, but I can see that my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield is anxious to intervene.

Michael Fabricant (Conservative, Lichfield)

Although I do not wish to prolong the ``turgidisation'' on which my hon. Friend remarked earlier—it is a splendid word to be included, and I shall now feel free to split my infinitives ad nauseam—it might be helpful to point out to my hon. Friend and the Minister that, just as ``reasonability'' has a meaning in law, ``process'' also has a meaning in law. Process—including due process—means the process from beginning to end. The answer to the Minister's intervention is therefore yes. The meaning of the word ``process'' is the whole process from beginning to end, and not merely the mechanical process of dealing with a form per se.

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

My hon. Friend is entirely correct, and I rest my case. In passing, I should put it on record, which will be a challenge for those who keep and update the Official Report, that the word that I used was tergiversation, not turgidisation. The dictionary definition of the word is something along the lines of changed principles or conflicting statements. That was the charge that I was levelling against the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston, which will resonate with the constituents whom he seeks to impress.

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

I fear that the hon. Gentleman, in his great rush of kind words for you, Mr. O'Brien—with which I associate myself completely—may have forgotten, or perhaps he never learned, that you are one of a small group of local government finance experts in this House, and that you understand the subject better than many people, including, I dare say, the hon. Gentleman, knowledgeable as he is.

We have had most of the debate on the amendment. The amendment is too narrow, and would mean that the fees that local authorities received from people who applied could cover the cost of processing applications only—the word ``applications'' was left out of the remarks made by the hon. Member for Lichfield. There would therefore be a shortfall in relation to the costs that they would undoubtedly incur in relation to setting up and maintaining the register and considering cancellations. I make no criticism of the hon. Gentleman in relation to that point about wording, because I know that he was not taking aim at it with a precise legal arrow. Everyone would agree, however, that the fees that local authorities are entitled to charge should cover all their costs in maintaining the register in the proper way. We have discussed the matter with the industry, and have agreed that fees will be limited to administration costs. We shall consult further on how local authorities should calculate the level of fees before issuing joint guidance with the Local Government Association to ensure full transparency.

It is not the case, as the hon. Gentleman claimed, that a local authority will be able to levy whatever charge it wants, so amendment No. 68 is not necessary. Clause 3(2) provides that the fee cannot be more than the reasonable costs incurred from administration. As the hon. Member for Lichfield rightly says, the district auditor will consider that issue in his annual review. He or she will make a judgment and report, in accordance with statute, on his or her findings about any charges that are more or less than they should be. Local government is prevented from raising more than costs through fees. The current drafting therefore provides greater flexibility.

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

Is subsection (2)(b) indicative of the Government's wish for a sliding scale?

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

No, it is not specifically, but rather it responds to the points made by the hon. Member for Vale of York—it acknowledges that different fees can be payable in different circumstances.

Following the earlier debate about different scales of operation, the hon. Gentleman is right to say that one could imagine a different charging regime. The issue is not as acute for the salvage industry as it is for number plate suppliers. The hon. Gentleman will recall that there are approximately 27,000 number plate suppliers covering a much wider range of type of enterprise, if I can put it like that. Although there is a range in relation to the 3,000 salvage operators, it is not as great, so the issues are not quite as sharp.

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

As far as possible, I am anxious to tie the Minister down on the meaning and practical significance of the phrase ``different circumstances'' in subsection (2)(b). If he is hinting that different circumstances will, on the whole, not mean different circumstances in terms of the size of business, and, therefore, of ability to pay, will he offer us some indication of what this set of ``different circumstances'' might typically be?

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

The phrase ``different circumstances'' is deliberately widely drawn to allow the situation to be properly addressed within, as the hon. Member for Colchester said, the general framework established by guidance agreed between the Government and the LGA. It is up to local authorities to decide how to do that. The different circumstances that we had in mind are the physical location of the local authority; the scale of the salvage business, since one local authority might have a large range of salvage businesses; the administrative simplicity of the local authority's exercises; and the charging of smaller fees for smaller businesses on a sliding scale. The latter is one issue that has arisen, and I am not trying to exclude it. I am simply suggesting that it is not such a major point in the salvage industry as it is in the number plates industry, with which my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary dealt in the debate on the matter last week. With that, I hope that the hon. Member for Buckingham will withdraw his amendment.

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

I have listened to the Minister. I will reflect on his comments, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Bill O'Brien (Labour, Normanton)

I have a small announcement to make. As the Committee will be adjourning one hour early on Thursday, I suggest that the Programming Sub-Committee meet immediately after this sitting and that we extend tonight's business for an hour to compensate for the time that we will lose.

Bob Russell (Liberal Democrat, Colchester)

I beg to move amendment No. 35, in page 3, line 3, after `area', insert—

`(a) notify the police and receive any representations that they may have occasion to make; and

(b)'.

Bill O'Brien (Labour, Normanton)

With this it will be convenient to take amendment No. 39, in page 3, line 23, after `satisfied', insert

`on the representations of the police to them or otherwise'.

Bob Russell (Liberal Democrat, Colchester)

One success that the Government can legitimately claim— although I do not recall seeing it on any pledge card—is the bringing together in communities of the police, local authorities and other agencies to provide a better, more comprehensive service for those communities. I welcome that, and suggest that the amendments follow the spirit of the Minister's comments about effective partnerships between the police and local authorities.

As I understand it, the Bill neither requires local authorities to make inquiries into an applicant's fitness nor supplies them with funds to do so. Equally, there is no statutory reason why prevention of motor vehicle theft should rank high in local authorities' priorities. Clearly, that would be of interest to the partnerships to which I referred. It does not matter to communities whether the police or local authorities deal with the question. If we are to have effective partnerships, the police and local authorities should be linked formally, so that the police can make certain that the applicant is a fit and proper person.

Together, the amendments would provide the police with a useful channel, as of right, to the local authority, so that they can express any concerns about the conduct of a registered motor salvage operator in that local authority's area. They are commonsense amendments that would improve the Bill for the benefit of the communities where police and local authorities are, rightly, encouraged to work together increasingly.

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

I rise to support amendments Nos. 35 and 39. The hon. Member for Colchester will have received representations from appropriate quarters, as have members of the official Opposition. We have reached the same conclusion; there is good sense in the amendments.

I am delighted that, for the second time, the hon. Gentleman has invoked the mantra ``common sense''; he is on something of a roll in that respect. However, he should be careful because he has a vexed history. As the late Mr. Churchill would have said, he has ``ratted'' from Labour to the Liberal Democrats—and as Churchill famously said, one can rat but one cannot ``re-rat''. That did not stop Churchill from doing so when the mood took him, of course. I do not suggest that the hon. Gentleman will re-rat in his former direction, but he may rat in our direction, which is a striking thought.

In general terms, I would welcome him doing that, but not in Colchester. We are well served by the excellent Conservative parliamentary candidate for the Colchester constituency, Mr. Kevin Bentley, who will, after the general election, replace the hon. Gentleman as Member of Parliament. That aside, I will briefly lay out my support for the amendments.

The Bill does not provide for the police to be involved in the application process. As the police are the public face of the law, it is an unusual and, thus far, inexplicable omission. The amendments would involve the police in the process and oblige local authorities to take on board their views. The key words are to be found in paragraph (a) of amendment No. 35, through which the authorities would be obliged not only to notify but to receive representations from the police. The Government have an exacting target of a 30 per cent. cut in crime, and a pressing timetable of five years in which to fulfil it. If they are serious about cutting vehicle crime, they must agree that a system that excludes the views of the police is worthless. Arguably, it is worse than useless; it could prove to be counter-productive.

The amendments make good sense to us. The Minister will have been advised by clever people working behind the scenes, who seek no public recognition of their intellectual rigour and prowess—the fruits of which will now be made known to us.

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

I understand the sentiments behind the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Colchester, and I commend them. I agree that the spirit of partnership to which he referred should be at the core of the matter. However, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will reconsider the amendments, because I do not believe that it is necessary to set out in statute all the forms of relationships.

For example, we are publishing today toolkits on vehicle crime. [Laughter.] That may sound trivial, but the purpose of such action is to put information in one place on the web for everyone who is interested in fighting vehicle crime—whether the police, those in local authorities or whoever. The toolkits will contain, first, the guidance that is set out for departments on such matters, secondly, what resources can be devoted if necessary, and, thirdly, examples of best practice—there are some good partnerships in the area—in relation to secured car parks, and so on, to encourage people to build on them.

We are publishing such toolkits on all areas of crime precisely to encourage and build partnerships between different agencies. That will be more effective than large chunks of paper flying about the country between different departments. We at the Home Office and those in the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, such as my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary, push out various types of guidance, and we believe that it is better to do so jointly, if possible.

Michael Fabricant (Conservative, Lichfield)

I welcome the Minister's announcement. It makes practical and good common sense. It means that I can rush back to my computer at 1 o'clock after the sitting ends and look at that website. Those reading the Hansard of our debate can do likewise. What is the website's URL—address?

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

The information is on the Home Office website and can be accessed through the crime page of the UK on-line Government portal, which is yet another major departure in British e-government that we introduced after succeeding the Government whom he supported.

Michael Fabricant (Conservative, Lichfield)

I am still not clear about the website address—www., then what?

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

ukonline. When the hon. Gentleman accesses it, he will see a crime-life episode in which he will find the pages that I have described.

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

I hope that it is not the medium or long-term intention of Ministers to register such information only on a website. I am sure that the Minister

was drinking his Ovaltine or doing his Red Boxes last night and will not have heard the debate in the Chamber, but I have to protect those of my hon. Friends who are either not familiar with, uninterested in or turned off by a website. Is he aware that a distinguished and fairly long-serving Member of the House, my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), admitted last night that he would not recognise a website if it jumped out of his breakfast cereal?

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

The right hon. Gentleman has many virtues, at least in the eyes of the hon. Member for Buckingham, if not the rest of us. The idea that he is 25 years off the pace does not surprise me. I pay credit to Conservative Members. When we discussed in our previous Session the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Bill and others, many hon. Members, including the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean), who is one of the right. hon. Gentleman's allies in general destructive activities towards parliamentary democracy, were revealed as serious e-mailers and well informed people. The right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst is a long way away from modern reality.

The purpose of the measure to which the hon. Member for Colchester has tabled amendments is to enable flexible updating and development of partnerships. The laying down of statute at each juncture can inhibit people working together. I acknowledge that we expect local authorities to consult the police as a matter of routine when considering applications. In fact, the police are probably one of the main sources of information to local government. As I have said in previous sittings, we intend to discuss matters with the LGA, including the jointly agreed guidance on implementation. We do not believe that it is necessary to specify the requirement in statute. That also applies to amendment No. 39.

The hon. Member for Colchester may disagree, and might want to press the amendment to a Division. I appreciate the spirit of his earlier remarks, but in building genuine, flexible partnerships, it is best to be as flexible as possible, to allow the relationships between the various bodies to work by mutual agreement under guidance, rather than sticking to a form of words that have had their moment in history. I hope that, on the basis of those assurances, he will consider withdrawing the amendments.

Bob Russell (Liberal Democrat, Colchester)

The debate is on the record, so the spirit of the amendment and the Minister's response will be there to be referred to should there be any breakdown in relationships between a local authority and the police, which we hope does not happen.

I wonder whether it has yet dawned on the hon. Member for Buckingham that in less than two hours this morning I have achieved more constructive rephrasing and remodelling of the Bill than he has in three days. There may be a message in my approach as opposed to his.

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Bob Russell (Liberal Democrat, Colchester)

No. I am also grateful to him for referring to a certain gentleman in Colchester, whose name is not well known in my constituency, because that will be the only time that his name will appear in Hansard. With that, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Bob Russell (Liberal Democrat, Colchester)

I beg to move amendment No. 36, in page 3, line 9, after `applicant', insert

`or any person employed by him in the business, or associated with him in the conduct of the business,'.

Bill O'Brien (Labour, Normanton)

With this it will be convenient to take the following amendments: No. 37, in page 3, line 11, after `applicant', insert

`or any person employed by him in the business, or associated with him in the conduct of the business,'.

No. 38, in page 3, line 12, at end insert—

`(c) whether the applicant, or any person employed by him in the business, or associated with him in the conduct of the business, has been convicted of theft or handling of motor vehicles; and

(d) whether stolen vehicles or parts have been recovered from any premises occupied by the applicant, or any person employed by him in the business, or associated with him in the conduct of the business.'.

Bob Russell (Liberal Democrat, Colchester)

These are very important amendments; indeed, any amendment tabled by the Liberal Democrat Benches is important as opposed to frivolous.

A loophole in the law on off-licence premise sales was found: a servant of the employer was not embraced by legislation on selling alcohol to under-age drinkers. It was necessary for the loophole to be closed by a private Member's Bill, which I think I am right in saying is now on the statute book. Similarly, the amendments would ensure that no applicant could find a loophole in the legislation when one of his or her employees—servants, or whatever legal phrase—is blamed for anything that goes wrong. It is important that the whole undertaking is watertight, so that no applicant can distance himself or herself from something that has gone wrong. I dare not use the term ``common sense'' again, suffice it to say that the rational, sensible and logical proposal is to agree the amendments.

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

I am pleased to follow the hon. Gentleman. I am sorry that he is starting to spoil the record. He has done so unfortunately in two respects. First, he was obviously ill at ease with the material that he has just presented. I presume that he saw it only at short notice once he realised that his hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh would not be present and that he would have to move the amendment instead. Secondly, it is a shame that the hon. Member for Colchester, who has been trying hard in Committee—and I have been grateful for his efforts—should claim a credit that is not his due.

I have a high regard for the hon. Member for Colchester—he works hard—but I hope that he will not take it amiss when I say that, on the whole, I prefer my approach and do not want to subordinate it to or exchange it for his. If he wants, in his prosaic fashion, to pursue his own course, he may carry on doing so. Although I am grateful for his offer of wisdom—and I note his suggestion of superiority—it was not entirely persuasive.

The hon. Member for Colchester was probably told by the hon. Member for Eastleigh when he had to hand the business on to him today that the provenance of the amendments was not the imaginative mind of the hon. Member for Eastleigh. I emphasise that he has an imaginative mind, but, for the elucidation of the hon. Member for Colchester, who seems blissfully unaware of the fact, I inform the Committee that the provenance of the amendments is an outside organisation, which had good ideas and commended those ideas to the hon. Member for Eastleigh and to my hon. Friends and me. Therefore, all that nonsense about good Liberal Democrat ideas achieving great success, about wisdom and about how thoroughly laudable they all are is just the sort of stuff and nonsense that we habitually encounter in Liberal Democrat ``Focus'' leaflets, which literally litter most communities throughout the country. Under the Trade Descriptions Act 1968 the hon. Gentleman's argument would get absolutely nowhere.

I put that on the record because I am an accommodating fellow, and in the Committee I have tried to be as inclusive as possible.

Bob Russell (Liberal Democrat, Colchester)

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

In a moment.

I have practised the politics of the big tent. I have sought consensus and have been accommodating to the hon. Member for Warrington, North (Helen Jones), a very intelligent member of the Committee. However, if the hon. Gentleman wants to pick an argument with the official Opposition, we shall join that argument, and, in the politest possible sense—that is, in a parliamentary, not a physical, sense—he will be well and truly roughed up.

Bob Russell (Liberal Democrat, Colchester)

The hon. Gentleman is clearly riled. Is he saying that it is wrong for Members of Parliament, from whichever party, to ask for outside briefings and guidance? Is he saying that all the amendments that he has tabled and that have been dismissed are his own work, and that it is only with the outside assistance that those—

Bill O'Brien (Labour, Normanton)

Order. We are moving away from the Bill. Hon. Members should return to the amendments.

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

It was probably an act of kindness on your part, Mr. O'Brien, to rescue the hon. Gentleman from the mess into which he was falling. He will improve in future, and I hope that that will be a helpful lesson for him.

Of course we take note of arguments advanced by outside organisations. I shall not dilate on the point, as you have exhorted us not to do so, Mr. O'Brien. It is spectacularly stupid to suggest that we should not take representations from, and to an extent be guided by, what outside organisations say. For hon. Members, and especially the hon. Member for Colchester, to stumble over such a poor point was unfortunate.

Let us see whether we can raise our game, Mr. O'Brien, as you effectively invited us to do. I do not believe that there is much prospect of the hon. Member for Colchester doing that, but my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield and I will endeavour to take matters forward beneficially for the Committee and the sector, which is what matters.

The problem is, as the hon. Member for Colchester rightly emphasised, that the Bill allows scope for people to evade the new law by employing people who are unsuitable even though they themselves may be judged suitable for registration by the authorities.

Michael Fabricant (Conservative, Lichfield)

Does my hon. Friend agree that the law might be circumvented in an alternative way—by someone who is not suitable employing someone who is suitable, who can then make the application on that person's behalf?

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

That is a classic example of the ingenious lateral thinking for which my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield is renowned. He is absolutely right. We should be prepared to consider the argument both ways. My hon. Friend's comments in no way detract from the amendments originally proposed by the hon. Member for Colchester; rather, it serves to reinforce them. A business may have several constituent parts, including an owner, a director and an employee or several employees. Each part of the business should be judged suitable for registration before the local authority grants the business a licence.

To that end, we propose that people employed in the business and people associated with the business, such as directors, should be suitable. The provision that relates to stolen parts would enforce the fact that the business must be fully legitimate before it is registered with the local authority. The amendments seem to make good sense, and I would be genuinely interested both in what other hon. Members have to say—several have not yet made their maidens—and, above all, in the Minister's response.

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

I was slightly bemused by that phrase for a second.

Andrew Miller (Labour, Ellesmere Port and Neston)

Don't tempt him.

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

No, I shall let it stand.

Under the amendments, local authorities would have to have regard not only to whether directors of companies or members of limited liability partnerships were fit and proper to operate in the motor salvage industry but to whether all of their employees and business associates were, too. We rejected that for the salvage industry, as we have done with regard to number plates, because it would be administratively impossible. It would create a huge burden on local authorities and businesses if a fit and proper person test had to be carried out on all employees and associates. What would happen when employees leave a company and new people start? Would local authorities continually have to update their information, which would be a substantial process?

It is necessary for directors of motor salvage companies and members of motor salvage limited liability partnerships to be subject to a fit and proper person test. Evidence exists of criminal activity within the industry, which is why local authorities with local knowledge will set standards for the industry by operating a test. It is right that directors, but not their employees and associates, should be responsible for the companies within their industry. The same applies for members of limited liability partnerships. That is the basic reason why we shall resist the amendment.

Michael Fabricant (Conservative, Lichfield)

The Minister said in a helpful answer during an earlier debate that local authorities would liase with the police on the matter. The police might say to a local authority, ``Okay, the directors are fine, but that is how the company is structured. The employees are crooked, and the firm is going to operate in an unlawful manner. We advise you not to register the firm.'' If the amendments are not added to the Bill, will not the authority be powerless in those circumstances? It will be forced to put the company on the register because the applicant, himself or herself, does not contravene the Bill?

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

The hon. Gentleman referred to the structure of the company. The directors of the company are responsible for the structure of the company. The hon. Gentleman grimaces, but I do not mean that nastily. Directors are responsible for the companies of which they are directors, and partners responsible for the partnerships that they run. Were the police to tell directors of a company that they had structured their company in such a way that there was an element of criminality in a part of it, or that certain individuals were working in a particular way, and the directors took no action in the light of that, one would have to ask whether such people were fit and proper. To try to evade the responsibility of directors for their company—I am not suggesting that that is the intention of the hon. Member for Lichfield—is a mistake. The structure of the corporate framework in this country rightly makes directors key in terms of responsibility for companies. That is why the Bill focuses on the role and responsibility of directors in such circumstances.

I acknowledge that the circumstances to which the hon. Member for Lichfield refers may arise. The police may draw attention to an individual, a way of operating or a partnership that is dodgy in some respect. If directors were not to take account of what they were advised by the police in those circumstances, the local authority would have the right and the duty to consider whether the directors were behaving in a fit and proper manner. We shall see how that evolves in law, but that is why we are focusing on those who have responsibility for the company. I understand the spirit in which the hon. Member for Colchester raised the issue, but extending the test to every employee and business associate of the 3,000 companies involved would be excessive.

Amendment No. 38 specifies what the local authority would have to take into account before registering a motor salvage operator. We want to avoid that. It is important that local authorities are able to take into account relevant convictions when considering the fit and proper test, and the offences mentioned in the amendment would come under that heading. However, there is no reason to specify in law at this stage. If, however, in the light of experience, we find that local authorities are not taking into account offences that we consider relevant, we will have the power, under subsection (4)(b), to specify those offences by regulation. If we were to discover offences that were serious and were not taken into account, we could regulate that under the powers of the Bill. We will discuss with the Local Government Association the criteria that it might use when making a decision, and will publish joint guidance before introducing the regulations.

I hope that I have clarified why we would ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the amendment. We understand the points that he has made, but we do not think that it would be effective in reaching the end that we share.

Bob Russell (Liberal Democrat, Colchester)

The Committee has been told that the point raised in amendment No. 38 can be covered when the Bill is enacted, in the light of experience, and I am content with that. However, I urge the Minister to give serious thought to amendments Nos. 36 and 37. The numbers involved are not significant when compared with the numbers that were brought into off-licence legislation when a loophole needed to be closed. This Bill has a built-in loophole, as the debate on the amendment has illustrated. The hon. Member for Lichfield referred to another aspect of the loophole. The matter should be considered—although not today.

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

Before the hon. Gentleman concludes, I give him the commitment that we will consider carefully the loophole that he mentions in relation to similar case of off-licence legislation.

Bob Russell (Liberal Democrat, Colchester)

I am most grateful for that further reassurance. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

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

Bill O'Brien (Labour, Normanton)

With this it is convenient to take new clause 8—False application—

`( ) Any person who knowingly makes a false application under section 1 shall be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale.'.

Mr. Bercow rose—

Bill O'Brien (Labour, Normanton)

Mr. Bercow, you must rise more quickly.

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

I am sorry, Mr. O'Brien. I thought that you would invite the Minister to speak. I apologise for being slow to get to my feet.

I would like to focus my remarks, briefly, less on the issue of whether the clause should stand part than on new clause 8. Members of the Committee will recall that, in relation to the provisions for registration of registration plate suppliers, I argued that there should be an offence, punishable by a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale, of making a false application to register. I received an encouraging response at the time from the Under-Secretary. Without wishing to compromise private exchanges, I must say that I have been given reasonable grounds for optimism in relation to the purpose and broad content of the new clause to which I am speaking.

The same principle applies as before: the line of redress for the provision of inaccurate information must be clear. The seriousness that the Committee attaches to the registration process and the importance of its fairness and accuracy would be underlined if we made it an offence for anyone knowingly to make

a false application under section 3.

That person

should be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale.

I do not think that I need to support my point at greater length, although other hon. Members may wish to contribute. I am especially interested in the Minister's response.

Michael Fabricant (Conservative, Lichfield)

I rise to speak briefly in support of the new clause. It seems an extraordinary omission that an application can be made by someone who will not be prosecuted and fined if they deliberately provide false information. I may not have read the Bill thoroughly enough; there may be provisions elsewhere, under which that person can be fined. After all, the Bill, which has the support of Members on both sides, has been introduced because of the continual treatment by salvage operators that is contrary to the law. Those unlawful operators are the ones that we want to control.

I raised earlier the spectre of people putting in place applicants who may be lawful but act on behalf of those who are unlawful. Those people may well put in an application that is knowingly false. I do not know whether level 5 provides the appropriate fine—I look forward to the Minister's remarks on the matter—but it is extraordinary that there is no provision to punish someone for putting in a false application.

The point legislation is to control the sector of the industry that operates unlawfully, because those who operate unlawfully are crooks. Are they not the very people who might put in a false application to confuse local authorities, which may put them on the register when, clearly, they should not be included? My hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham clearly agrees with me.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

I join my hon. Friends the Members for Buckingham and for Lichfield in supporting the amendment.

Perhaps the Minister could put my mind at rest. I am a non-practising Scottish advocate—it is several years since I practised—so I have some knowledge of these matters. Is the Minister saying that the matter is dealt with somewhere else in common law? Should there not be a statutory responsibility under the Bill? Does he not agree with my hon. Friends and me that only by adopting new clause 8 and creating this offence will the Government make a success of the Bill? It would make a mockery of the Bill if registered owners of the company or those employed by such people made false applications. Is there a common law duty elsewhere to that effect?

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

The amendment has a real point and substance. It would make it an offence punishable by a fine of up to £5,000 knowingly to make a false application for entry into the register of motor salvage dealers. The Bill requires a motor salvage dealer to make an application for registration; it does not, however, address the possibility of someone making a false declaration as part of that application. To answer the point made by the hon. Member for Vale of York, that situation is not addressed elsewhere.

We accept that if a person whose registration had been cancelled subsequently reapplied under a false identity, there would be no sanction against him under the Bill. Of course, we hope that an application containing false information would be detected, which would give grounds for rejecting the applications in its own terms. We will consult the industry and local authorities about the form in which applications should be made; there is power to prescribe that in regulations. The application process should be as resistant as possible to falsification.

I am prepared, however, to consider further the possibility of creating an additional criminal offence. I agree to do so and to bring the matter back before Third Reading, in response to the points set out in the new clause. However, I cannot accept the new clause as drafted, as what constitutes making ``a false application'' is far from absolutely clear, and I want to look at that very carefully to ensure that we draft the legislation in the right way. With that assurance, I hope that the Opposition will not press the new clause, and that the clause can stand part of the Bill.

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

On the basis of that assurance, and in recognition that the new clause is by no means perfect and could be improved, I am happy not to press the new clause. I await further and better particulars from the Minister before Third Reading.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 4 - Cancellation of registration

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

I beg to move amendment No. 69, in clause 4, page 3, line 31, leave out `28' and insert `60'.

Bill O'Brien (Labour, Normanton)

With this it will be convenient to take the following amendments: No. 70, in page 3, line 31, at end insert

`without good cause or reason'.

No. 74, in clause 10, page 6, line 41, leave out `28' and insert `14'.

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

Clause 4 relates to cancellation of registration and, some points made about other parts of the Bill will tend to assert themselves. Principles that relate to the procedure for the registration of registration plates suppliers, similarly relate to the motor salvage sector. I would like briefly to take the Committee through the three amendments.

On Second Reading, I expressed concern about the existing provision in relation to the salvage industry and registration plate suppliers. I was intrigued as to why a 28-day period was chosen by Ministers. I understood that it was a brainwave of those who advise them, though it appeared to me to have been plucked arbitrarily from the air and that there was no specific reason for specifying 28 days. I recall that that was also the view taken by the House of Commons Library.

Michael Fabricant (Conservative, Lichfield)

Has it occurred to my hon. Friend , that if a similar Bill existed regarding the activities of Members of Parliament, we would all be struckoff after the summer recess?

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

That is a very helpful observation and, despite some sedentary chuntering from the hon. Gentleman the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston, it must be said that even disregarding the summer recess or other interruptions to the parliamentary timetable, de-registration could well apply to an alarmingly large proportion of Government Back Benchers, at any time during the year. Many Government Back Benchers cease to trade for periods considerably in excess of 28 days.

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

Is the hon. Gentleman confirming that on his side, Members tend to conduct themselves as businesses for trading purposes, while my side is simply interested in representing its constituents?

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

On the contrary, it was a figure of speech, and I felt sure that a man of the intellectual training and worldly wisdom of the Minister of State, Home Office—a future leader of the Labour party—would readily have taken the point. I regard this as my trade. I do not, and I hope the Minister does not, regard ``trade'' as a pejorative term. New Labour displays a certain snobbish distain for the idea of trade. I regard it as my professional obligation, or alternatively my trade, to represent my constituents without fear or favour and on an absolutely equal basis. I simply make the point that there are more than several members who cease to fulfil that responsibility for periods far in excess of 28 days. It would be alarming if they were automatically de-registered.

I did say on Second Reading that it was entirely possible that someone would cease to trade for such a period because they had gone abroad for personal or family reasons and he or she should not be automatically de-registered just because the business had not been operational for that period. The Under-Secretary said that

only a genuine cessation of trade will result in de-registration. The operator will not be removed from the register without notice; he will be notified prior to any de-registration and will thus have the opportunity to make representations if he has not ceased trading.—[Official Report, 18 December 2000; Vol. 9, c. 114.]

I think that that was an infelicitous use of words by the Minister, because in fact, the individual concerned would probably not be seeking to prove that he had not ceased trading. He would be readily acknowledging that he had ceased trading for that 28-day period, but would provide justification of that cessation of trade, and he would point to the fact that it was necessarily only a temporary cessation.

The core point is that it would be perfectly reasonable for a legitimate business person to be unable to trade, or appeal against de-registration in such a period. We propose, as we proposed elsewhere, to lengthen the initial period from 28 to 60 days. That would preclude many legitimate businesses from facing the threat, and the commercial damage thereby entailed, of deregistration. We wish to include the caveat of ``without good cause or reason'' to catch all those who may find themselves in the circumstances covered by the clause.

Granting the Secretary of State the power to extend the appeal period once more ensures that legitimate businesses are given the greatest opportunity to go about their trade lawfully. The Government should recognise that the Bill is about tackling crime, not attacking or burdening legitimate businesses. Those arguments clearly apply to amendments Nos. 69 and 70.

The problem with amendment No. 74 is that clause 1 states that operating as a motor salvage operator without being registered should be an offence punishable by a fine of £5,000. In that case, it seems to my hon. Friends and myself, strange—not to say inexplicable—to make it easy to avoid registering properly. Clause 10, of course, to the detail and full extent of which we will later turn, deals with changes to the details on the register. Presently, any change must be notified within 28 days, but there is no legitimate reason why alterations could not be notified in 14 days. The Committee will have observed that the Conservative Opposition are applying a common-sense and balanced approach; we are tough and tender, to coin a phrase that may or may not commend itself to the hon. Member for Colchester.

In some circumstances, there is an argument for a more tolerant approach that meets the needs of businesses, to which the Government do not yet seem very sympathetic. In other respects, the Bill is rather lax. It seems to Conservative Members that it is reasonable to demand the provision of information by businesses more speedily than the Government presently intend. I cannot see why changes to details on the register cannot be notified in 14 days; a period of 28 days eventually leaves the system open to abuse.

It is also wrong that any failure to keep details up to date should be punishable by anything less than a £5,000 fine. Having inaccurate details on the register is the equivalent, as I observed in earlier exchanges on registration plate suppliers, of not being registered at all, and should be dealt with as such. My hon. Friends and I propose punishment of a maximum fine, and it would be open to the Courts to impose a lesser penalty if they so wished. At present, the offence of not changing inaccurate information is not treated comparably to failure to inform the authorities that one is no longer practising. That is wrong. A failure to change the information is on a par with not registering at all.

I am in favour of symmetry and consistency of treatment. In order to impose a level 5 fine, it is necessary to delete ``level 1'' from line 4 on page 7, and to insert a new provision instead. My hon. Friends and I propose a notification period of 14 days to tighten up the regulations, whilst also raising the fine for failing to change information from £1,000 maximum to a £5,000 maximum. I hope that the Minister will accept our good intentions in this regard, and our conviction, which has not been disproved or overturned, that the sense of the clause and the overall theme of the Bill would be much more coherent with our amendments than without them.

Michael Fabricant (Conservative, Lichfield)

My hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham has so eloquently, cogently and powerfully presented his case, that I hardly wonder why I rise, but if he has provided the cake, I am merely here to offer the icing. My hon. Friend has pointed out previously that salvage operators tend to be small companies. That was reinforced by the Minister's helpful answer when he said that the vast majority of salvage operators have only one site operating within one business. That, too, would imply that they are small companies. While I think it unlikely that any business can be so luxuriant in its wealth that it would take holidays for four weeks or more, I can see circumstances in which a small business might not trade for a period of longer than 28 days. A director or partner in that business might, for example, leave the area temporarily to seek other sites in which to expand the business. Perhaps he is travelling around the country or indeed abroad, even to other countries within the European Union, to which we have alluded earlier today, to see whether he can make arrangements with other salvage operators to consolidate his trade. Whatever speculative example we might give for why or where a business might close, I can well imagine that it might not trade for a consecutive period of longer than 28 days.

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

I think that I made a mistake a moment ago, which I am keen to correct. At present the effects of not changing the information is treated in the same manner as failing to inform the authority that a business is no longer operating. Our point is that that is wrong, because failure to change information is, or should be, on a par with not registering at all. I am sorry to interrupt the flow and intellectual force of my hon. Friend's argument, but I feel sure that both flow and force will speedily be resumed.

Michael Fabricant (Conservative, Lichfield)

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention and putting the matter straight. That helpful intervention from my hon. Friend makes our argument even more powerful for including these amendments in the Bill. I believe that 28 days is an inadequate period for a small company.

I spoke earlier about a company that might employ an accountant or company secretary to fill in forms, and I argued how important it was that forms should be consistent throughout the United Kingdom. Now I am arguing on behalf of perhaps the sole trader, who might not trade during a 28-day period. I can well imagine, perhaps in August, the business might close down. We all know that in France businesses, indeed the whole country, closes down throughout August. That certainly is longer than 28 days—it is 31 days. To me, 28 days seems inadequate and unfair for a small business, particularly if the amendment No. 70 provision on good cause or reason is not included.

The whole purpose of the Bill is to control the activities of the criminal few. It is not the purpose of the Bill to put an unnecessary burden on businesses that operate lawfully. I am not even sure what the Government's motive is in saying that the business should be struck off the register after 28 days. It is not illegal not to operate or trade for 28 days. Perhaps the Minister would like to address that point in his response, but before that, I should like to hear more of the more intellectual approach taken by my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham.

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

My hon. Friend sadly missed last week's proceedings and I think it would be optimistic and unreasonable to expect that he will yet have read the verbatim account. Perhaps he will take it from me that although I listened intently, interestedly and respectfully to the Minister responding on what might be called the 28-day point, it did not bring about understanding, and still less did it result in our support. What was said merely induced a certain fuzziness in the mind because no compelling argument appeared to be provided.

Michael Fabricant (Conservative, Lichfield)

The Minister has already attempted to give me the URL of his website, although I am not sure if he was wholly successful in that. Remaining in a technological vein, I appreciate now that a new area of scientific endeavour is in fuzzy logic and perhaps that is what the Minister was presenting last week to my hon. Friend. Perhaps he can provide greater clarity this time; it is certainly needed for my benefit. I did not mean to be rude to the Minister when I made that earlier remark about the intellectual approach. I was merely trying to compliment my hon. Friend, although I may have inadvertently been rude to the Minister. I was rude enough to him earlier, and am determined to be nice from now on.

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

We should not, of course, communicate by code and I apologise for my ignorance, but I think my hon. Friend referred to URL. Would he enlighten me on that?

Michael Fabricant (Conservative, Lichfield)

As much as I would like to, I have to confess that while URL is the address line that one types to get to a website, such as , I do not know what it stands for. I wish that Ministers would also on occasion stand up and simply say, ``I don't know the answer but I will find out later and report it to the Committee or the House''. If you, Mr O'Brien, will allow me, I will inform the Committee this afternoon of exactly what URL stands for—but it is, in effect, the address line.

My point is that we have already established that many of these firms are small businesses. I can easily envisage situations in which a business may not trade for a consecutive period of 28 days. That is perfectly lawful—indeed, it is quite lawful for a business not to trade for 60 days. It is unreasonable if the Bill is going to penalise lawfully operating businesses by striking them off the register, simply because they are not present for 28 days. Without the exception provided for in amendment No. 70, the Government cannot even give a good cause or reason for that, which would seem draconian.

I also support amendment No. 74, for the very reason that my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham has already pointed out. We have argued successfully, and the Minister has accepted the point, that there needs to be a penalty. If the application details that will appear on the register are made incorrectly, it surely stands to reason that any changes to the details on the register must be reported quickly. Any change to the register will arise from a change in the business. It stands to reason, therefore, that the business is trading and that the people are not away. There is, then, no conflict with the arguments that I have already given for extending the period from 28 to 60 days. The business is trading, and there are people present to make information known to the district. I believe that 14 days—two weeks—

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

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

Standing Committee A

Vehicles (Crime) Bill

Clause 4 - Cancellation of registration

Bill O'Brien (Labour, Normanton)

I remind the Committee that with this we are discussing the following amendments: No. 70, in page 3, line 31, at end insert

`without good cause or reason'.

No. 74, in clause 10, page 6, line 41, leave out `28' and insert `14'.

Michael Fabricant (Conservative, Lichfield)

The Committee will be relieved to know that I was beginning to conclude my comments. I support the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow), which were powerful, logical and symmetrical.

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

On a point of order, Mr. O'Brien. I note that the hon. Member for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant) has not taken the opportunity, as I hoped he would, to withdraw the comments that he made this morning about me, the chief constable of Staffordshire and himself? I want to put that on the record.

Bill O'Brien (Labour, Normanton)

I was under the impression that the hon. Gentleman withdrew his comments, at my request.

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

Further to that point of order, I am grateful for your clarification, Mr. O'Brien, and I apologise if I misunderstood. I understood that the hon. Member for Lichfield agreed with your request not to proceed with a discussion on these matters. May I clarify with you, Mr. O'Brien, that the hon. Gentleman has withdrawn his comment suggesting that I instructed or exhorted the chief constable of Staffordshire not to provide him with information that the hon. Gentleman is entitled to have as a Member of Parliament?

Bill O'Brien (Labour, Normanton)

I was given to understand that, following my appeal to the hon. Member for Lichfield, he withdrew his comment, encouraged by his hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham. Hansard will show that the matter was put to rest. I suggested that that would be best, and the hon. Gentleman accepted that.

Michael Fabricant (Conservative, Lichfield)

I was asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham what URL stands for. It is the address of a website and I promised to let the Committee know. I have made exhaustive inquiries with the Library and it stands for uniform resource locator.

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

On the point of order, I accept that the hon. Member for Lichfield formally withdrew his allegations about me in the Committee in response to your request, Mr. O'Brien. I am grateful to you for requesting that and I am pleased that it is on the record that he withdrew it. He made an outrageous and inappropriate slur.

The hon. Member for Lichfield asked whether a Minister ever gives the answer, ``I do not know.'' My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary made it clear in his speech during our proceedings last week that he was not omniscient. I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman, busy as he was, was unable to hear that. When I ask myself why the hon. Member for Lichfield behaves as he does, I reply, ``I don't know.'' When I ask myself, ``What is he for?'', I reply, ``I don't know.''

The hon. Member for Lichfield asked what is the motive for the clause. Its motive is simple and clear—to have an up-to-date register that can assist with enforcement of the law. Perhaps we did not set that out clearly enough, so I am grateful to him for getting me to set it out more clearly. The motive is clear. It is to establish a means by which the register can be steadily, coherently, consistently and fairly updated so that it can be properly used to enforce the law.

What is the reason for the 28-day figure in the clause? I acknowledge, in response to the arguments that have been put, that there is an arbitrary nature to any number of days that is chosen, whether it is 28, 35, 42 or 21. However, the reason was adduced when we debated number plates, and was simple and clear. The Scrap Metal Dealers Act 1964—I anticipate the knowledge of the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) on this matter—set out the period of 28 days and we felt, when we were drafting the Bill, that consistency was a virtue. We have heard of no problems arising as a result of the period of 28 days being specified in that Act.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

Will the register and the amendments to it be posted on the net?

Michael Fabricant (Conservative, Lichfield)

What is the URL?

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

It is not the job of a Minister, certainly not myself, to answer every question. Samuel Johnson might have had more to offer. Nor can I help the hon. Gentleman on the URL.

As we said when discussing the register in relation to number plate supplies, we envisage that the register will be available publicly on the net, but we intend to consult on precisely what information will be available and how it operates once the Bill has been considered by both Houses.

Andrew Miller (Labour, Ellesmere Port and Neston)

I find myself in slight danger of agreeing with the hon. Member for Buckingham and I should be grateful if my hon. Friend the Minister would help me out. In the clause to which reference has been made, the Act is clear, but I have not picked up in this clause how there is protection, for example, for the one-man operator who is in hospital with a heart attack. The clause is permissive—``A local authority may''—but a supercilious official could go over the top. Is there any protection in the Act for such a person?

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

There are protections, which I shall come to in a second. I should emphasise—I did not do so in opening—that I regard the probing nature of the debate as entirely reasonable. It is a perfectly fair issue. The appropriate period of time is a balance of judgment. We picked 28 days to achieve consistency with the Scrap Metal Dealers Act 1964, of which we have heard no criticism; certainly not from Government Members. We have not heard that the 28-day period has given rise to problems caused by holiday, illness or whatever one could imagine. It might have done so but, so far as we are aware, it has not done so in relation to the Act.

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

I take note of what the Minister says about the scrap metal sector. Could he advise me about the average size of scrap metal dealers—I do not mean their physical size, but the size of their businesses—compared with motor salvage operators, because that might be relevant? Further to the point raised by the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller), does he accept that if, in the scrap metal sector, there are very few micro-businesses and fewer still businesses run by a single person, the problem that I originally identified and to which the hon. Gentleman has just referred will not arise? That might explain why there has been no protest.

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

The short answer to that is ``I don't know''; nor do I think that I can give guidance on this matter now. The hon. Member for Buckingham is right, but it does not follow that because one industry sector industry works with a certain time scale, another should necessarily do the same. We felt it necessary to discuss the 28-day period, but it is better to stay at 28 days throughout. I acknowledge that there is an arbitrary aspect to that. However, it would not be sensible to include periods of 14 days and 60 days as well.

Michael Fabricant (Conservative, Lichfield)

Another potential difference between the regimes for the scrap metal and salvage industries is the ease with which people may get back on to the register. If someone were to be struck off the register because, for whatever reason, they had not been trading for 28 days—we have heard examples of how that might arise—how easy would it be for them to get back on to it? What will be the attitude of the organisations that enforce the Bill—I am not sure whether the police or the district councils will prosecute—to people who recommence trading before they are able to get back on to the register?

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

Again, that is a fair point. A four-stage process is involved. First, the local authority must be satisfied that the business has not been carried on for at least 28 days. Being on holiday for the relevant period does not necessarily count as not carrying on a business, because a business can exist even if it is not actually trading at a particular point for a particular reason. Secondly, in accordance with clause 5(2), the authority has to notify the company of its proposed action and provide a further 14 days for representations to be made. I accept that problems may arise if notices are piling up in a dead-letter box. However, most businesses, even one-person businesses, have a mail-handling system that can deal with that.

Thirdly, the company can appeal—on the grounds of a heart attack, a holiday or whatever—against the local authority's decision to suspend it. Fourthly—I come to the point that was made by the hon. Member for Lichfield—if the company is rejected, it can apply straight away for readmission to the register with immediate effect. I hope that I have reassured my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston about the four-stage process.

Andrew Miller (Labour, Ellesmere Port and Neston)

I missed the word ``proposing'' in clause 5(2), so my hon. Friend's clarification is extremely helpful. There has to be a warning shot across the bows, followed by a legitimate response from the business or—as in the case that I mentioned—the spouse of the person in hospital.

I should say to my hon. Friend the Member for Hyndburn (Mr. Pope) that my attraction towards the view expressed by the hon. Member for Buckingham has substantially diminished.

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that comment. My hon. Friend the Member for Hyndburn is liberal in his approach to such matters. His whole demeanour and style is intended to encourage open debate and the fair exchange of ideas, in the best traditions of this Government. That is an effective way of proceeding.

We chose the period of 28 days to ensure that the entire process was kept up to date. The 28-day period came from previous legislation and we did not believe that there was sufficient reason to create a different time scale. In a belt-and-braces sense, the four-stage process will ensure that the provision is properly carried through. Although I accept the legitimacy of the points made by the hon. Member for Buckingham, I hope that he will agree that the Bill is reasonably drafted and that he will therefore withdraw his amendments.

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

I have listened carefully to the Minister. I would not go so far as to say that I entirely accept his reasoning or the Bill's present drafting, but it is incumbent on us to reflect carefully on the points that he has made, and that we will do. We may or may not return to these issues, but for now I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 4 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 5 - Right to make representations

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

I beg to move amendment No. 72, in page 4, line 9, leave out `and'.

Bill O'Brien (Labour, Normanton)

With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 71, in page 4, line 15, at end insert

`and; (d) the procedure for re-registration'.

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

Clause 5 relates to the right to make representations and follows logically from clause 4, which provides for the cancellation of registration. I shall not use a French expression, Mr. O'Brien; were I to do so, you would chide me. However, we have been down this track before in relation to another part of the Bill. It was a matter of some concern to my hon. Friends and me that the clauses appeared to provide no specific procedure for re-registration. That led us to fear that the Government might be thinking that once someone had been de-registered, the opportunity for him or her to re-register would not arise.

I was assuaged at the time by the Minister who replied, but given the other provisions in the Bill, I am still uncomfortable with the idea that it is sensible not to provide for the option and possibility of re-registration. The problem can be simply stated. The Secretary of State should not be able to assume that a de-registered person will never be allowed or inclined to reapply for the register. The circumstances in which someone might be so inclined are readily imaginable.

Even if our amendments were accepted, the de-registration process would still make it possible for legitimate companies to be removed from the register. There is no question of preventing a person from being de-registered where and when appropriate, but the Bill should provide the opportunity for that person to be re-registered when circumstances change. We want to alter the de-registration process to allow genuine businesses to reapply when circumstances have changed in such a way that they wish to reapply.

The de-registration process should also include sufficient information on being added to the register once more. After all, the register is an enabling rather than disabling device. Access to it should be made as easy as possible for legitimate businesses. At present, that does not seem to be the case. I am still not entirely clear why that is so, and I confess to being—if it is not an incorrect, inappropriate or trite term to use in this week of the parliamentary calendar—somewhat foxed as to why the Government are resisting what seems a fairly reasonable proposal.

I hope that the Ministers and the Whip have come to realise that, consistently throughout our deliberations, my hon. Friends and I have tried to make our points in a reasonable way, and not at inordinate length. I have advanced the basic argument before, so I see no reason to reinvent the wheel. The point is made and I am genuinely interested to hear comments from other members of the Committee, but I am particularly interested in the authoritative view of the Government.

Michael Fabricant (Conservative, Lichfield)

I agree with my hon. Friend that this clause follows logically from clause 4. Similarly, the points that I wish to make follow logically from my question to the Minister about the possibility of a person's removal from the register when there is no criminal reason to do so. However, it was reassuring and useful to hear that simply not trading for 28 days will not necessarily mean that one is deemed not to be in business for that time.

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

Far be it from me to deflect my hon. Friend from pursuing his argument, but although he has made a good point about the distinction between ceasing to trade and ceasing to be in business, it has unfortunately eluded me thus far. I should therefore be grateful for his clarification.

Michael Fabricant (Conservative, Lichfield)

In that direction I look to the Minister, who said—I hope that he will intervene if I misrepresent him—that where someone is away on business or on holiday and no transactions take place, the business will not necessarily be deemed to have ceased trading per se. Therefore, the authority would not necessarily issue a notice to say that the company has ceased trading for 28 days and will be taken off the register. Given that the Government have decided that this 28-day rule will still stand, I can understand the concern of people in the salvage industry that they might, inadvertently, be taken off the register. For that reason, the amendments—which would add the words ``the procedure for re-registration'' as information that would be provided to the person being taken off the register—are important.

The Minister, for all sorts of different reasons, may say that he is not prepared to accept the amendments. He gave an undertaking to the Committee this morning that, after consultation with local authorities and the salvage industry, there would be a plan to introduce a standardised form throughout England and Wales. In addition to the standardised form and its questions, there should be either a booklet or notes attached to the form, including information about how those who are de-registered can re-register.

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

Does my hon. Friend agree that it would be useful, in that context, if any advisory material from the central authority made it clear whether a person seeking to re-register would be obliged to state the fact of his or her former de-registration and the circumstances and reasons for it?

Michael Fabricant (Conservative, Lichfield)

I did not quite follow what my hon. Friend was asking. Was he saying that the person applying for registration should make that statement or that the authority managing the register should make that information known to the applicant?

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

It is rare indeed for my hon. Friend and I to misunderstand each other in any way, but it appears that there is some uncertainty on this occasion. I am describing a situation in which somebody who has, at some stage, been de-registered seeks to re-register. Given that the personnel of the authority will change and that there may be a limited period in which records are kept, does my hon. Friend think that any guidance should be provided on the re-registration process to indicate that the individual seeking to re-register should have to declare the fact the he or she was once de-registered and the reason for it?

Michael Fabricant (Conservative, Lichfield)

I assume that records would be kept by the authority concerned, even though the numbers of personnel in the authority might change. My hon. Friend has made an interesting point on which I dare say the Minister will comment. It may be more useful if it were obligatory for it to be made clear why the person was taken off the register in the first place, although I believe that there is provision for that in clause 5. I shall go further, Mr. O'Brien; I am going to get off the shelf—or fence—and disagree with my hon. Friend. It is not necessary for the applicant to have to remind the authority—which took him off in the first place—that he was taken off.

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

I am a little concerned. My hon. Friend's self-effacing quality is universally understood and revered in the House, but I hope that he will not over-egg the pudding. Although it was probably an infelicitous use of terminology, there is no question of my hon. Friend being on the shelf. He is dynamic, exuberant, one of the great men of the present and one of the leading lights, I feel sure, of the future.

Michael Fabricant (Conservative, Lichfield)

My hon. Friend is an expert on the matter, as he could be a future Prime Minister—

Bill O'Brien (Labour, Normanton)

Order. The accolades are good, but the amendments are narrow. Hon. Members should stick to them.

Michael Fabricant (Conservative, Lichfield)

The Minister may want to intervene; if so, I give way.

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

We would certainly celebrate in the event that the hon. Gentlemen and his hon. Friend were to be leading lights in their party. We would feel that that was a positive step. Given the major split and disagreement that has emerged, will he clarify which is the common-sense solution? Is it his solution or that of the hon. Member for Buckingham?

The rest of the debate is in Hansard.