Vehicles (Crime) Bill

Public Bill Committee, 18 January 2001.

Standing Committee A

Clause 15 - Interpretation of part I

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

I welcome you back to the Chair, Mr. Sayeed. This has been a roller-coaster Committee, and it is absolutely delightful that you are presiding over our proceedings. I shall try to respond positively and constructively to helpful suggestions, and to consider the amendments that have been tabled. However, I am not willing to give time to insignificant and insubstantial interventions, so I appreciate the way in which you and Mr. O'Brien conduct our proceedings.

The word ``substantial'' is important, as it defines the scope of the Bill. If we defined a written-off vehicle as one which is in need of only repair, not substantial repair, we would bring within Bill a new category of vehicle—one which may have only superficial or minor damage, such as the bumps and scrapes that can occur in regular life, but which an owner considers is not worth repairing. For example, if a car fails its MOT, its owner may decide not to carry out the necessary repairs, but to sell it to a garage for an arbitrary sum or to part-exchange it for a newer car. I am sure that the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow), with his family experience, can talk eloquently about that—but hopefully not at length. The garage would repair the car and sell it on.

By not using the word ``substantial'', we might catch many garages that occasionally buy cars that their owners write off ,or receive them in part-exchange for newer cars. We do not believe that such action has an air of criminality about it, and the amendment would add a burden to the business, about which we have not consulted. The purpose of the Bill is to bite specifically on motor salvage operators. A significant criminal element is taking advantage of the industry, but I emphasise that we have no evidence that the same can be said about garages that buy or receive in part-exchange cars that the owners do not believe are worth repairing. That is why the word ``substantial'' is important.

Bob Russell (Liberal Democrat, Colchester)

The Minister has set out a reasoned case for the word ``substantial''. Does he agree, however, that it is open to various interpretations and therefore could be challenged?

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

As the hon. Member for Buckingham has said, we are lawmakers, trying to find the right words to express the law. However, the hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Russell) is right. Challenges can be made, and courts will have to make a judgment based ultimately on the intention of the law. To remove the word ``substantial'' would make the situation more open. For example, a second-hand dealer who took a slightly damaged car, repaired it and sold it on may consider that he might be covered by the Bill and want to receive legal advice. That would be a significant burden, so we consider that the word ``substantial'' should be in the Bill. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw the amendment.

Andrew Miller (Labour, Ellesmere Port and Neston)

The phrase ``written-off'' needs clarification. Clearly, my hon. Friend the Minister is right to say that people write off cars in different circumstances, and that removing the word ``substantial'' would create a risk. Does he intend the phrase to apply in all circumstances?

There are three potential definitions. First, the vehicle may be written off by the owner because he cannot afford to keep it on the road. The vehicle may not be unroadworthy; it may simply need a new engine. He cannot afford to replace it, so he sells the vehicle to a scrap dealer. Secondly, the vehicle may be written off by the insurance company because the cost of the body repair is greater than the value of the vehicle. In those circumstances, it would be totally inappropriate to delete the word ``substantial'', because one could have an expensive vehicle for which the parts are, as is frequently the case, hard to find. The owner cannot replace them so, although the damage to the vehicle may be minor, he decides to scrap it. Some other person with access to those parts may choose to put the vehicle back on the road, however; the clause as drafted, including the word ``substantial'', would allow that person to do that. Thirdly, a vehicle may be written off by an insurance company after a professional judgment has been made that, irrespective of the vehicle's value, it could not safely be repaired to meet safety standards. That is the circumstance that causes a great deal of concern among road safety organisations. We must ensure that the Bill is totally clear about that definition.

Some things may change with time. For example, Howard Basford, a successful company in my constituency, does fantastically difficult repair jobs on cars on behalf of insurance companies, with professional jigs and tools that meet the manufacturer's original specifications.

Some of the other definitions may need to be altered over the course of time. I do not want to be pedantic, because one pedant on the Committee is enough, but the phrase ``mechanically propelled vehicle'' in line 5 is clearly intended to refer to the power units of the vehicle. There will be circumstances in the not too distant future when the power unit will not be of a mechanical nature. Are the Government satisfied with the definitions as they stand? Do they accept that some of them may have to be changed to meet circumstances, as technology evolves?

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

I fundamentally agree with my hon. Friend, who has set out the situation clearly. The first of the three categories to which he referred—a vehicle that has been written off by the owner—is dealt with by what I said earlier. It is clear that those circumstances are covered by the definition. The second category—a vehicle written off by the insurance company because of the assessment of costs—is explicitly included within the definition. The third category—a vehicle written off by an insurance company that has come to the judgment that the vehicle cannot safely be repaired—is, again, specifically included within the definition. I am happy to confirm that my hon. Friend's understanding of the matter is correct

The issues that my hon. Friend reasonably and rightly raises concern road safety, but the Bill is not principally about that, although I think and I hope that there will be a knock-on effect, for the sake of the safety considerations that he has mentioned. The Bill is principally about who conducts the repairs in the circumstances that he mentioned; it is about the salvage companies. They are what we are trying to target. I hope that in the light of that, the hon. Member for Colchester will withdraw his amendment.

Bob Russell (Liberal Democrat, Colchester)

I still feel that ``substantial'' is a word that could be open to challenge and misinterpretation, but in view of the Minister's assurances, which will be on the record, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 15 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 34 - Notification by scrap metal dealers of destruction of motor vehicles

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

I beg to move amendment No. 80, in page 19, line 8, leave out `may' and insert `shall'.

I welcome you to the Chair, Mr. Sayeed, and we look forward to good constructive progress in the course of today's proceedings. Clause 34 concerns information requirements. Specifically, it requires notification by scrap metal dealers of the destruction of motor vehicles. My hon. Friends and I believe that the clause is inadequately drafted because it is permissive rather than prescriptive, and it seems to us that it should be prescriptive.

We are concerned about the extent of regulation, and the burgeoning phenomenon of delegated legislation across a wide field of public policy. We object to the fact that frequently, such regulations are not debated in the House. They can subsequently have an effect that was not anticipated, and would not have received the approval of hon. Members. That process should be arrested, and reversed wherever possible.

The proposal is curious in that it seems to contain hesitancy and uncertainty. It is not clear to us why the clause cannot be more robustly worded to give a clear indication of Government intent. As in so many other features of the Bill—[Interruption.]—despite the sedentary chuntering of he who should be silent, the hon. Member for Hyndburn (Mr. Pope), the clause leaves open the possibility that the Secretary of State might do something, but equally admits of the possibility that he, or as the case may be, she, might not do something. There seems little point in having legislation—and, specifically, the clause—if it is not to be prescriptive.

After all, this is not a question of looking into the crystal ball; we can read the book. We know that there are to be notification requirements. We can readily anticipate the sorts of requirements that will need to be imposed, so it is not clear to me why the word should be ``may'' rather than ``shall''. The provision is in that sense similar to clause 8, on motor salvage operators. The owner must ensure that the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency is notified of the destruction of motor vehicles so that they may not be re-registered. Thus, in a sense, the measure is supposed to reduce crime.

I have read and re-read the clause several times, but it is not clear to me why it specifies that the Secretary of State ``may'' make regulations. Either the Government are committed to the reduction of vehicle crime or they are not. The Government say that they are. They have a ``challenging'' target. Challenging is a word in popular parlance, as you will have discovered, Mr. Sayeed—we have even found Labour Back Benchers using it themselves in debates.

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

The hon. Gentleman concedes that we have set a challenging target, but does he concede that we are achieving it?

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

That was a particularly unfortunate intervention, because the answer is no. The Minister would not want me to revisit the portion of my Second Reading speech that dealt with the attack on car crime, for it was a substantial portion, but I made it clear that the Government were a very long way from achieving their target. There was a reduction in vehicle crime of 0.5 per cent. last year, but the Minister is proud of his record as a distinguished mathematician, and he will be aware that even considering the figures on a compound basis, as we would be obliged to do, a 0.5 per cent. cut a year over five years does not a 30 per cent. reduction make, even by the standards of, and allowing for the flexibility deployed by, new Labour.

I am sorry that the Minister made that intervention, and I believe that on reflection he will realise that it was not his finest hour. He can afford a few such slips, but not too many, as he aspires to be, and is likely to become, the leader of the Labour party, and we expect better from him. He is chewing on his spectacles; does he wish to intervene?

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

I confess that I do not have the figures in front of me, and did not when I made the intervention. I did not intend to pursue a Second Reading point. The hon. Gentleman's figures are not correct, and the record is substantially better than he suggests. I shall return to the figures later, in, perhaps, a more entertaining exchange.

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

I relish the possibility—indeed, the certain prospect, according to the Minister—of a joust about the figures. He will be advised by his army of bluestockings and other highbrows, and I shall depend for my intelligence on the figures that I used in the Second Reading debate. We shall see who emerges the stronger in consequence.

Our amendment would oblige the Secretary of State to make such regulations, thereby ensuring that the DVLA was notified when vehicles were no longer in use. We believe that that would be effective in tackling crime, compared with the non-specific provision that the Government want to introduce, which will, more likely than not, prove relatively ineffective. I believe that the case has been made, and I would welcome other contributions. As I always say on such occasions, I look forward to the Minister's response with eager anticipation, bated breath and beads of sweat on my brow.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

I am delighted to see you back in the Chair, Mr. Sayeed. I should like to make a substantial but swift point about the amendment, to which I am delighted to have lent my support. To what extent does clause 34, as currently drafted or as amended by the proposed amendment, relate to motor cycles? A recurrent theme throughout the Bill is that motor bikes should be treated like any other vehicle, and the matter is a source of great anxiety to myself and my hon. Friends.

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

In making that important point, my hon. Friend will want to be aware that the Minister has displayed a whit of frailty. We do not hold that against him, as he is a human being, but it is clear, following her question, that he does not know the answer. He is browsing through the Bill—and now he is feverishly studying a useful piece of white paper that has wafted its way down to him. To the Minister's credit, even though he has great ambitions and a full diary, and we expect great things of him, he does not know everything and is willing to take advice. That is welcome.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

Frailty is, of course, a redeeming feature, and shows that the Minister, like the rest of us, is human.

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

Steady on.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

The fact that the Minister does not know the answer reinforces my point. I promoted the cause of motor bikes and the motor bike industry in my previous life as a Member of the European Parliament who took a great interest in transport matters. It worries me that the Government are trying to meet the anxieties of individuals who may unwittingly buy a ``rung'' car, if that is the correct term—but only a car. If the Bill is to succeed as we wish, it must encompass the entire industry. I would therefore wish it to include motor bikes and spare parts for motor bikes.

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

I can give the hon. Lady that assurance. Motor cycles are fully covered by the Bill, and the definition of motor vehicles throughout the Bill includes motor bikes. I was checking that—I thought that we had debated it previously—because, as always, as my advisers are of such high quality and so excellent, I prefer to give the Committee advised advice, rather than unadvised advice.

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

What is unadvised advice?

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

Unadvised advice is when I, as a Minister, advise the Committee, but have not been advised by my officials on the matter. Advised advice is when I advise the Committee having been advised by my officials. I prefer to give my advice advised rather than unadvised; all Ministers should prefer to do so.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

When we discussed the matter previously, did the Minister give us advised advice or unadvised advice?

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

It was advised advice. As it was advised advice, when I advised the advisers to the hon. Lady—

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

The Minister was well advised.

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

I certainly felt well advised in what I was doing. That is why I was slightly uncertain, as I thought that we had discussed the matter previously, and I wanted to double check. I am glad to reassure the Committee on the matter.

The amendment would make the requirements in relation to scrap metal dealers inconsistent with those for salvage dealers. If the hon. Member for Buckingham looks at clause 8(1), he will see that the same terminology is used to maintain flexibility. His argument, which he is perfectly entitled to advance, is about whether that is right. Throughout the Bill, we have sought consistency in the approach to making regulations on such matters.

A more substantial reason is that we may not need such regulations. We need flexibility so that we can be sure that regulations made under the enacted Bill will dovetail—I hesitate to say this to the hon. Member for Buckingham, as it will set his hackles rising, although I know that his hon. Friend the Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh) will agree with us on the matter—with the requirements of the European Union directive on end-of-life vehicles, when it is implemented in 2002. The detail of the directive and how it is to be transposed into UK law has not yet been finalised, so we do not know for certain whether we will need a power to regulate in a different manner, or whether the directive will be sufficient. It is necessary to have the power—which is the reason for the word ``may''—although, depending on the final text of the EU directive, we will not necessarily use it.

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

That is alarming. We are being held in suspended animation because of a purported directive from the European Union, the final details of which, and the obligations flowing from which, are as yet unknown to the Minister. On the basis of what I can only describe as cluttering around the room in the dark with all the lights off, not knowing where the switch is, we are expected to tailor our legislation to what might be prescribed, in due course, by people whom we do not elect and cannot remove. Will the Minister confirm that?

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

I cannot confirm that, because I do not know the details of the theology of the hon. Gentleman's approach to the European Union. The fact is that we joined the European Union—the referendum in 1975 confirmed that. I do not know where the hon. Gentleman stands on membership of European Union. Does he think that we should withdraw from the EU? If not, we, as a member state, are bound, in many aspects of our law, by EU treaties. Will the hon. Gentleman make it clear whether he is explicitly in favour of this country withdrawing from the EU?

Jonathan Sayeed (Conservative, Mid Bedfordshire)

Order. I ask the hon. Member for Buckingham not to do that.

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

The single market legislation of the early 1980s, which was passed by the Government of Baroness Thatcher, includes obligations to European institutions arising from decisions taken by the British Parliament. The directive that we are discussing is no different from any of the other directives on such matters, and for good reason, as consistency across the European Union on such issues is desirable.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

I find myself in the extraordinary position of speaking to assist the Minister. In a previous life, I practised European law in Brussels. A substantial amount of time has passed since I ceased to practise, and the article numbers of several treaties have been changed. Article 169 of the treaty states that under a directive, as opposed to a regulation, people involved in the national Administration—in this case, at the Department of Trade and Industry or the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions—are responsible for drafting the provisions. Those are the same people who are giving the Minister the excellent advice that he is able to pass on to the Committee.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham said about the end-of-life directive—[Laughter.] The end-of-life vehicle directive, I mean. Now that we know more or less what the end game will be in respect of that directive, officials in the Minister's Department—or, more appropriately, the DETR or the DTI—should be able to advise the Minister of the exact contents of the provisions. Unfortunately, we did not have a stand part debate on clause 15—or, if we did, it was so short that I missed it—

Jonathan Sayeed (Conservative, Mid Bedfordshire)

This is a rather long intervention.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

We are already allowing for prescribed regulations to be made by the Secretary of State. I find that extremely worrying.

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

The hon. Lady is experienced in matters of European law. I was not aware of her law practice but, as a former Member of the European Parliament, she understands the procedures exceptionally well—probably better than any other member of the Committee. The processes by which directives are transposed into and implemented in UK law are continually negotiated and debated. That is why we require the power to be able to make regulations as necessary, dependent on how the processes evolve. That is also why we do not want to insert the word ``shall'', as the amendment would require. Ultimately, it may not be necessary to make regulations.

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

I do not accept that for a moment. The Minister conceded, as a result of the challenge by my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of York, that the distinction between a directive and a regulation is that there is scope for flexibility in terms of transposition into UK law. He is now saying that because the Government have not yet got round to deciding exactly what the terms of that transposition should be, he wishes to confer upon himself and his colleagues maximum flexibility under the Bill.

It is not satisfactory that because the Government have not made up their mind about the details of the directive—of which they have long been aware—they require the Committee to pass a vague, unspecific clause of uncertain effect. The Minister and his colleagues must get their skates on and decide on the terms of the transposition of the directive to allow the clause greater specificity.

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

This is becoming somewhat repetitive. I can help the hon. Gentleman by writing to him and to other members of the Committee with the final text of the directive. However, I cannot write to him with the detailed arrangements for the transposition of the directive—which leave some discretion to member states—because they are still under discussion. He is entitled to say that that should not be so—that the matter should not be considered by the industry concerned—but it is right to discuss the process by which the directive is transposed into UK law to ensure that it is done correctly. It is also right that we should allow ourselves the ability to make regulations under the Bill as required.

Three possible positions can be taken: first, to deny the Government the right to lay regulations before the House at all, which would necessitate deleting the relevant subsection; secondly, to require the Government to lay regulations, which is the aim of the amendment; or, thirdly, to provide sufficient flexibility to consider the situation as it develops. As is usually the case, the provision of flexibility is the right way to proceed.

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

I would find the Minister's argument less constitutionally grating and offensive if, when the final form of the intended regulations were devised, the House were to be given the opportunity to debate them. The fact that the Government prefer the negative procedure to the affirmative procedure and that the House will be denied the opportunity to scrutinise the regulations causes me to be critical and quizzical. It is important to explain why I am unhappy, although I realise that the Minister disagrees with me and thinks that I have no good cause to be.

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

It is not that I think the hon. Gentleman does not have good cause, because there is always substance in arguments about how laws are made and the relationship between the European Union and here. His point is not trivial, silly, insignificant or insubstantial. However, we may have to agree to disagree—or to disagree to disagree. The DTI has 18 months from last October in which to transpose the directive, which is a routine period. The reason, which I expect him to support, is that when implementing EU directives, different national Governments take account of the situation in their own countries and consult with their industries. That takes time and directives cannot be implemented instantaneously.

The hon. Gentleman made the familiar argument that Oppositions always make for the affirmative procedure instead of the negative procedure. We have already debated that and I shall not repeat what I have said previously. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will consider withdrawing his amendment in the light of the clarification, if not assurance, that I have given.

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

Yes, I shall be happy to withdraw my amendment. The arguments have been rehearsed and I understand the Minister's position. I am not persuaded by his argument and I regret the degree of fealty towards the European Union that his position represents. The truth is that this morning he will not persuade me and I will not persuade him; he thinks that I am wrong and I know that he is wrong.I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

On a point of order, Mr. Sayeed. I notified you that I wanted to raise a point of order about our proceedings on Tuesday, for which we have now received Hansard. At column 146, the hon. Member for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant) said:

The Minister who laughs—

laughing is not such a crime in politics—

is the one who pressured the chief constable in my area not to supply me with information to that effect, which is a scandal—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 16 January 2001; c. 146.]

That is a strong assertion and it is constitutionally improper to assert that the Minister with responsibility for the police could or would pressurise a chief constable to do anything, especially to refuse information to an elected Member of Parliament. It is totally untrue in every respect. Not only is it untrue that I pressured the chief constable, it is untrue that I had any communication or conversation with him at any time. The matter has not arisen between us and would not have done. The hon. Gentleman should withdraw his assertion.

There was then an exchange, which concluded with Mr. O'Brien telling the hon. Gentleman:

It would be in everyone's interest for him to withdraw the remark and consider it further

I emphasise those last words—

because it can be raised in some other forum.

The hon. Gentleman replied:

I will withdraw my remark out of respect for your request, Mr. O'Brien. —[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 16 January 2001; c. 147.]

That was out of respect for the office of the Chair, which you now occupy, Mr. Sayeed, not because his assertions were wrong, slanderous and libellous to me in my constitutional position. I now ask you formally, Mr. Sayeed, to request the hon. Member for Lichfield, who has had the opportunity to consider the situation further as Mr. O'Brien invited him to do, formally to withdraw his assertion that I put pressure on the chief constable of Staffordshire not to supply information to the hon. Member for Lichfield. That is what any hon. Member should do and I hope that the hon. Gentleman now does so.

Michael Fabricant (Conservative, Lichfield)

First, I draw the Committee's attention to our previous sitting when the Minister said:

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.—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 16 January 2001; c. 180.]

I am not sure whether I can withdraw what I said twice, Mr. Sayeed.

Greg Pope (Labour, Hyndburn)

Withdraw properly, and apologise.

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

I made that comment in that way because the hon. Gentleman withdrew his allegations specifically out of respect for Mr. O'Brien's request. That is not satisfactory, because the withdrawal was made formally in response to the Chair. The hon. Gentleman should make an actual withdrawal of his comments about me and my conduct, and he should, in honour, place that on the record.

Michael Fabricant (Conservative, Lichfield)

Would it be in order, Mr. Sayeed, to ask the Minister a specific question before I take the matter further?

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

I have no objection, Mr. Sayeed.

Jonathan Sayeed (Conservative, Mid Bedfordshire)

On this occasion, I shall permit it.

Michael Fabricant (Conservative, Lichfield)

I am grateful to you, Mr. Sayeed, because it may be helpful to the Committee and enable us to move on.

The Minister will recall that, in a question to the Prime Minister some time ago, I quoted the final paragraph of a letter written to me by John Giffard, chief constable of Staffordshire. Did the Minister at any time, in a telephone conversation or in formal conversation with the chief constable, discover the content of that letter and that specific paragraph?

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

I am glad to say that I did not. I do not recall the exchange that the hon. Gentleman is describing, but I recall that he raised the matter at Prime Minister's questions. I have never discussed with the chief constable the detail of any letter between him and Members of Parliament in Staffordshire; nor have I sought to bring pressure to bear on any words or in any other direction. The hon. Gentleman knows that I have regular meetings with Staffordshire Members of Parliament and the chief constable, which the hon. Gentleman sometimes attends. We discuss openly the resource and other issues facing the force and what is happening in crime in the area. I welcome those discussions. However, I have never had discussions outside the context of those meetings on such issues and, specifically, I have never discussed the content of letters that the chief constable might have written to Members of Parliament in his area.

Michael Fabricant (Conservative, Lichfield)

MayI ask one final question, because our discussion is helpful and we are reaching a conclusion—[Interruption.] I am discussing the matter because the Minister raised it. If we can clarify it, it will be for the benefit of the Committee, as well as the Minister and me, who generally get on well.

Further to my intial question, did the Minister discuss the letter in general, either with the chief constable or any of his staff?

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

No, again, I did not. That is not how I operate.

I see that the hon. Gentleman is accepting what I have said, and I hope that he will respond to that in a moment. My relationship as a Minister with chief constables—and that of my predecessors of all parties in this office—has been to respect their independence. I encourage them to talk routinely to Members of Parliament in their police authority areas and to make that dialogue as constructive as possible. I encourage dialogue because it is good for Parliament and for the police, but I never have and never would suggest what form that dialogue should take or what information should or should not be given, because that would be improper. That is why I took such offence at the hon. Gentleman's assertion at column 146.

Michael Fabricant (Conservative, Lichfield)

Then it is clear that the information given to me was incorrect. I believe that the Minister is an honourable man and I do not believe that he would lie to the Committee or the House. On that basis, I withdraw my remarks.

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

I unequivocally accept that. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for taking that approach, which has set the matter to rest as far as I am concerned. I do not want the issue standing on the record, and I am grateful for the way in which he has dealt with the matter.

Jonathan Sayeed (Conservative, Mid Bedfordshire)

I thank the Minister.

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

I beg to move amendment No. 81, in page 19, leave out lines 26 to 28.

In keeping with the point that I made in relation to the previous amendment, lines 26 to 28 are permissive rather than prescriptive. However, by definition they permit future prescription, and because I am unclear about the merits of potential prescription, I have tabled what is, in a sense, a probing amendment. I want to tease from the Government the reason why they believe those lines to be indispensable to the efficacy of the clause.

I am not entirely sure, however, that the Minister will advise me on the purport, significance or justification of those lines. In fact, I am not entirely sure that I know what they mean. Will they enable the statutory instrument to give greater power to the Secretary of State so that he can make different provisions for different areas? How much power does the Secretary of State in fact want? In what way might differing circumstances and differences between operators require a variation in application of the information requirements for which the clause provides? The meaning of this provision is simply not clear, and for that reason we have tried to clarify the Government's intentions by tabling this probing amendment.

If the provision on notification is to apply, it should surely apply equally to all businesses in all areas. It is important for the clause to have a degree of predictability, symmetry and uniformity. Given that the DVLA is a national body, it ought to be able to rely on a standard service from scrap metal dealers. To that extent and for that reason, the Bill should be as prescriptive as possible. We need to know what the Home Secretary intends by this measure. I cannot believe that those lines were included lightly or without thought, but I am unsure what the thinking is. As far as we can see, there is no reason to retain this element of the clause, so we therefore propose that it be deleted. We are happy that the Secretary of State should have that power, and at this stage we are content that it should be exercised by statutory instrument. However, if it is to exist it should be exercised fully, and I am unclear how—or even whether—that will be achieved.

With regard to the question of indispensability, it is not clear that lines 26 to 28 are in fact indispensable, but if the Minister is to contend otherwise, so be it. I shall be all ears—an appropriate term in this context, given that the Minister has a fine pair himself. No doubt he will explain cogently the justification for potential differences in treatment and application.

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

The position is much the same as that relating to amendment No. 80. We want the flexibility to allow the Secretary of State, through regulations, to take account of different cases or areas, so that regulations made under this legislation will dovetail with the EU end-of-life vehicles directive on its implementation in 2002.

As I have said, because the way in which this directive will be transposed into UK law has yet to be finalised in detail, we do not know for certain that the power will be needed, but it is sensible to have it in reserve.

I realise that the amendment was a probing amendment, but I hope that the hon. Gentleman will now withdraw it.

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

I will withdraw the amendment, although I am still not entirely content. What bothers me about much of the legislation that we debate, especially enabling clauses in Bills, is that we receive so little specific information or reassurance by example.

In effect, the Minister is saying, ``We have to allow ourselves maximum flexibility by entertaining many different scenarios—that is reasonable and sensible, because we do not want to tie ourselves down.'' I would be more comfortable if he were able and willing to say, ``We need this provision because there could be a difference between business X and business Y in terms of size, location or something else.'' He has not been specific about differential application, and that lack of specificity makes me unhappy. The Minister is quivering with a purpose, and we wait to hear what it is.

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

I always act with a purpose, but it is not always shared by Opposition Members. If it would help the hon. Gentleman, when I send copies of the European directive, I will include in the letter any further clarifications that I can give about the kinds of circumstances that might be discovered.

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

The Minister's words cause a warm glow. I am encouraged, and without further ado I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

I beg to move amendment No. 82, in page 19, line 33, leave out subsection (6).

This is a procedural amendment. As the Minister knows, perhaps to his cost, we have already sought to ensure that any orders or regulations under the Bill may be made only after a draft has been laid before the House—they would be subject to the affirmative resolution and would have to be approved by Parliament.

I want those who attend to our proceedings to understand the significance of that point. If Parliament is to carry people with it and enjoy greater respect than it has been given in recent years, it is important that people should understand its functions and procedures. They should not wrongly think that this is merely an ``anorakish'' point, or a matter of pomp and circumstance, because it has a significant practical effect. We are talking about the difference between a procedure that allows parliamentary scrutiny and one that does not.

Even if regulations are subject to the affirmative procedure, that does not necessarily allow great scrutiny or extensive debate. More often than not, it means that at a relatively late hour the House of Commons has an hour and a half to scrutinise and approve—or withhold approval from—a statutory instrument. Nevertheless, it is an important safety valve in terms of the operation of Parliament and of satisfying the principle that the Executive should be accountable to the legislature.

Subsection (6) of proposed new section 4A of the Scrap Metal Dealers Act 1964 assumes that the order will be made by negative resolution and will therefore apply unless it is annulled by the House. Conservative Members disagree with that, and I have taken this opportunity to reassert and expand upon our belief that orders and regulations should be laid before and debated by the House. The amendment would remove the presumption that orders will be introduced automatically without the approval of the House of Commons or the other place.

In this context, I must refer to a point that the Minister made at an earlier stage of our proceedings. When I argued that the House should debate such matters, he did not agree, and, in fairness, he explained why. He said, ``Oppositions always argue for these matters to be debated, but we must have a proportionate approach. In practice, we cannot debate all the regulations that the Government wish to commend to the House. If we did, we would never do anything else. On minor, uncontentious matters, it is more sensible to nod them through so that they can be speedily implemented, in the interests of the sector.'' I accept his argument, but I hope that he will accept that the requirement to debate many regulations imposes a discipline on the Government to ensure that those regulations are as watertight, effective and error-free as possible.

There is a balance to be struck, but if we were to pursue what I would describe as executive man's argument, there would be a reductio ad absurdum. No regulations would be debated by Parliament. That might satisfy Ministers' advisors, and perhaps it would satisfy Ministers who, having spent their careers on the Front Bench, are not attentive or sympathetic towards the rights of the House of Commons.

Greg Pope (Labour, Hyndburn)

What?

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

The hon. Gentleman cavils from a sedentary position, but it was not a party political point. The Minister need not quibble and can rest content, because it was not a personal attack.

Mr. Charles Clarke rose—

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

I shall give way in a moment.

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

Why not now?

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

No—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Hyndburn is getting frightfully excited. Why is he in such a frisky mood this morning? There is no justification for it, because I am developing a reasonable point. If he waits, he will hear me go on to say that this phenomenon happened under the previous Government as well, although it has got worse under this Government.

It is tempting for Ministers to ram through regulations without debate, which means that they are strewn with errors that damage legitimate business. Those problems can be anticipated and prevented if Parliament has the opportunity to say, ``Wait. Look at line 12. What does this mean? Could it have an undesirable, unintended consequence?'' If the Minister denies that principle, it is unclear why he believes in parliamentary debate. I assume that he does believe in parliamentary debate, so I hope he will accept that it is more likely that regulations will be effective and contain fewer errors if we have had an opportunity to examine the details. I hope that he will respond sympathetically and constructively to that point.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

I enthusiastically endorse and support the amendment. Following the Minister's earlier remarks, and the implementation of the directive on end-of-life vehicles, there is a disturbing trend in the volume of statutory instruments associated with the Bill. If it were subsection (6) of proposed new section 4A of the Scrap Metal Dealers Act 1964 only, one might be minded to allow it to proceed. However, elsewhere in the Bill we have regulations prescribed by the Secretary of State that will be introduced some considerable time after the Committee has finished its consideration.

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

It occurs to me now that there is a practical and worthwhile illustration of the argument, which I neglected to offer to the Committee.

Does my hon. Friend agree that one reason why prior scrutiny by the House is important is that we have evidence from the 71 pages of A4 appertaining to the working time directive, and the 112 pages of A4 appertaining to the National Minimum Wage Act 1998, of the damage that can flow from poorly drafted and inappropriate regulations—a point which Ministers, by their subsequent amendment of those regulations, have obviously accepted. Does my hon. Friend agree that if, when the right hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson) was Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, the regulations on the working time direction and the National Minimum Wage Bill had been properly scrutinised by the House instead of being laid before it the day before the summer recess, without debate, the problem that confronted the right hon. Member for Tyneside, North (Mr. Byers) when he became Secretary of State for Trade and Industry would not have confronted him.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

My hon. Friend the Member for Colchester has such detailed knowledge of other regulations that I can only agree with him.

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

Buckingham.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

I apologise—but the hon. Member for Colchester is not paying attention anyway.

Bob Russell (Liberal Democrat, Colchester)

Yes, I am. I am listening.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

I apologise again. [Interruption.]

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

I am glad that my hon. Friend is here. We are all glad that she is here.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

What my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham just said strengthens my point. Discussions in the Committee have already been curtailed by a stringent timetable, to which we humble Back Benchers were not privy, and so could not contribute, which is disappointing. It was something that the previous Administration, particularly my right hon. Friend the Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine), tried to stamp on. Clearly officials so enjoy what they are doing that they will not miss an opportunity to stretch the provisions of a Bill such as this through a statutory instrument. I am sure that the Minister will agree that it is right and proper and appropriate that members of the Committee should have time, certainly before Third Reading, to consider in detail the relevant statutory instruments and other regulations, so that we can ensure that they are in keeping with what has been agreed in the short debate that we have been allowed.

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

First I shall make a technical point, which I do not emphasise. The resolution does not establish an affirmative resolution procedure; it simply deletes the negative. Therefore, it does not fulfil the purpose that the hon. Member for Buckingham intended. I do not say that in a critical spirit; it is important to debate the issue anyway.

I sought to intervene because I do not believe that the hon. Gentleman's general statement is right. I did not take his comments as personal or party political criticism: he was making a general point about the way in which Governments operate. There is no general rule, but all Governments try to ensure that Parliament is fully engaged in their deliberations. I also accept that for Parliament to debate regulations is a good way to improve the quality of legislation. That is why almost every piece of legislation that I have had anything to do with has been changed and modified through the process of parliamentary debate, because in that way legislation is improved. We can all think of pieces of legislation that would have benefited from that approach. I shall not embarrass the hon. Gentleman by citing a number that were passed under the Government of which he was a supporter. I am not making a party political point. It is generally true that it is right to debate these matters.

However, there is an important argument on the other side. If we are to develop a legislative structure in this country that can genuinely change with the change in society—we are living in a more rapidly changing time than ever before, economically, socially, politically and so on—secondary legislation is a good way to do that, and is not something that should be avoided at all costs at all times. Things change and move forward, and Governments should change and move forward. One of the problems that Governments have is being seen to be out of touch with movements taking place generally. One can always argue whether the procedure should be affirmative or negative at any given juncture, but I believe that secondary legislation is an intelligent way to proceed. In other Bills for which I have had responsibility, secondary legislation has often provided the basis for proper dialogue and discussion with all those interested and concerned before we move. I am not defensive on this subject—and I shall give way to the hon. Member for Buckingham before asking him to seek leave to withdraw his amendment.

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

I have tried to be as fair-minded as possible. My view is that there were far too many regulations under the previous Government. My hon. Friend the Member for Vale of York fairly draws attention to the efforts, herculean or otherwise, of my right hon. Friend the Member for Henley to tackle the problem. He did, belatedly, attempt to tackle it, but I have always thought that his achievement in that regard was exiguous. The present Government have made the position far worse.

My position on this matter has been consistent all along. Before the Minister rushes to go on about my support for the previous Government—

Jonathan Sayeed (Conservative, Mid Bedfordshire)

Brief interventions, please.

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

—of course in general terms I supported them, but I have strong reservations about their performance in this regard, which I have expressed before and will doubtless express again.

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

I know that you too, Mr. Sayeed, had specific reservations about many of the policies of the right hon. Member for Henley when he was Deputy Prime Minister.

I urge the hon. Gentleman to seek leave to withdraw the amendment, first because it is defective, and secondly, because it is wrong.

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

I am prepared to concede that the amendment may be technically defective, although the argument in support of it is not, but I am not prepared to concede that it is wrong. It is certainly not wrong to make the attempt, and we have not had a remotely adequate, or even respectable, explanation from the Minister as to why the matters concerned should not be properly debated.

I made the point, and it was right to do so, that some of the regulations are extensive. With the best will in the world, Sir Humphrey, and the products of Sir Humphrey, always want to make regulation as detailed, as all-encompassing, and, I sometimes fear, as burdensome as possible. That is the nature of the beast.

It is a well established fact—God knows how many times I have heard the point made—that there is a fundamental difference between our attitude in this country to regulation— especially to the incorporation of European directives and regulations—and that of our continental friends and partners. Their approach is to sign up to high-falutin declarations, apparently without the slightest intention of conforming to them. Our approach is always to sign up to, or even to instigate, regulation, and then, as a matter of pride, to apply it as zealously as possible. The trouble with that is that, although it may satisfy those who are busily drawing up the regulations and consuming vast forests of trees in the process, it does considerable damage to those affected by it. The Minister has not been able to gainsay the argument about the extensive, burdensome and flawed regulations made under the working time directive and the National Minimum Wage Act.

The simple fact of the matter is that those regulations constituted 71 pages of A4 in the case of the working time directive and, in the case of the Act, 112 pages of A4. They were shot through with holes. They were, to use the Minister's term, thoroughly defective and wrong. They were beginning to have damaging consequences, particularly for small businesses, which are directly affected by the Bill. Precisely because the Department of Trade and Industry made such a pig's ear of the process, at the start of 1999 the new Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, the right hon. Member for Tyneside, North, had to revisit all those regulations and make them less burdensome.

The fact is that the right hon. Member for Hartlepool had made a complete mess of the matter. Either he was not aware that he had done so or he knew that he was storing up trouble, and that was why he chose to place the regulations before the House for the negative procedure just before the summer recess in July 1998. He presumably expected to be trotting on elsewhere before long. In fact he was trotting on somewhere else before long: he was trotting out of the Government. In view of the mess that he made of those regulations, there was every good reason why he should.

However, this is not an abstract speculation or a bald theory; we have concrete evidence that regulations have been flawed in the past. It is not impossible that they will continue to be flawed, but they are less likely to be if we can scrutinise them properly in advance. The Minister merely gives us the ritual line that one invariably encounters from Ministers in these circumstances—that we have to preserve flexibility, the provision is sensible, and there is nothing to worry about. He then advises that the amendment be withdrawn.

I will withdraw the amendment, for the simple reason that we have tabled other amendments, which we want to debate. However, I am not persuaded by what the Minister says, and he should at least be aware that there are two different and legitimate points of view on the subject. As I am keen to debate those other amendments, within the truncated timetable for consideration that we have been obliged to accept, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 34 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 35 - Access to certain motor insurance information

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

I beg to move amendment No. 83, in page 20, line 6, leave out

`such information of a particular description'

and insert `specific aspects contained therein'.

Jonathan Sayeed (Conservative, Mid Bedfordshire)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 84, in page 20, line 8, after `the', insert `specific'.

No. 85, in page 20, line 10, after first `the', insert `specific'.

No. 86, in page 20, line 11, after `disclosed', insert `to interested parties'.

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

The clause empowers the Secretary of State, although it does not require him, to issue regulations that provide the relevant information required to be

kept by regulations made by virtue of section 160(2)(b) of the Road Traffic Act 1988 to be made available to the Police Information Technology Organisation for use by constables.

My hon. Friends and I are not altogether happy with the wording of the clause. Specifically, we are uncomfortable with the wording of subsection (2)(a), where reference is made to

such information of a particular description.

That is gloriously vague—that is Sir Humphrey incarnate.

Bob Russell (Liberal Democrat, Colchester)

What?

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

Incarnate was the word that I deployed. One can imagine the official dreaming up something so gloriously vague. No one has any idea what

such information of a particular description

actually is. It beggars belief that it cannot be specified now. Why can draft regulations not be laid in front of the Committee to render the debate meaningful, given that some members of the Committee actually want to engage in debate?

The hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mr. Chidgey) has engaged vigorously in debate, but has trotted off elsewhere for extracurricular activities. The hon. Member for Colchester has contributed intelligently to debates, as have my hon. Friends the Members for Lichfield and for Vale of York. Periodic contributions have been made by the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller); I would not say that they were especially profound, but they have taken place from time to time, and we are grateful to hon. Gentleman for giving us the product of his lucubrations.

Several members of the Committee have simply not contributed at all, however. For example, we have not had a maiden contribution from the hon. Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Thomas), or from one of the brightest bulbs of the new Labour intake, the hon. Member for Warrington, North (Helen Jones). Unfortunately, the hon. Lady is not even here; goodness knows what she is up to. I take seriously my responsibilities to this Committee. I suspect that, whatever the hon. Lady is doing, she is not reflecting on subsection 2(a) of clause 35—but she should be, as should the hon. Member for Harrow, West. He has big problems, as he is about to be comprehensively thrashed by my good friend Mr. Daniel Finkelstein, the prospective Conservative parliamentary candidate for Harrow, West. As the hon. Gentleman has a majority of only 1,240, he will be bundled out of the House, so he probably wants to savour his remaining moments. One way in which he could do that—and earn his spurs—would be to debate the merits, or otherwise, of our proposed amendment.

The clause deals with a provision to allow police access to a driving licence database so as to deter people from driving without a licence. That is an important matter, but serious issues of data protection are involved. There could be problems with human rights legislation, too. The clause is vague. The Minister's mantra is ``flexibility, flexibility, flexibility''. I prefer ``specificity'' and if Ministers introduce Bills, they should have decided what their proposals connote in practical terms. If the Minister wants to argue the cause of flexibility and has given some thought to the detail of the proposals—even if he has not reached a conclusion—he should be willing to issue draft regulations with the caveat, or health warning, that they are draft and open to discussion.

What is bizarre about the process—I have thought this ever since I was elected to the House nearly four years ago—is that we are often invited to debate and approve a shell. It is almost as though we are blindfolded. We are told about the general principles of a Bill, but we are not given the details. We are simply invited to accept from the Minister that because the intentions are good, so will the content be, and asked to rest assured on that basis. However, I am one of those awkward, cussed individuals—a frightful nuisance you might say, Mr. Sayeed, except that you are too polite to do so—who believes in debating matters in some detail.

Sometimes, Labour Back Benchers give the impression and even state that they do not want to take more time to debate matters, but believe that everything should be nodded through. That is not what Parliament is about. My anxiety is that I do not know what the ``information of a particular description'' is. The Minister ought to know that, and if he does, he should be happy to disclose to us what he has in mind. If he does not know, he jolly well ought to, because he is a Minister. Furthermore, he ought to know the details, particularly because he is a rising Minister, a busy Minister, an ambitious Minister and a Minister who is thought to be on the rise. A Minister in that position should protect his own back and be able to tell the Committee exactly what the Government have in mind.

It would helpful if the Minister who has the power to order the disclosure could tell us what would be disclosed. Later amendments refer to that same principle so I shall not adumbrate the arguments further. We are contending that the specific information may be disclosed, meaning that the disclosure of information must be open, transparent and revealing. It should be possible to know in advance precisely which details are to be disclosed to constables. If the affected parties do not know that, it would seem on the face of it that their rights under the Human Rights Act 1998 could be infringed.

Under our new procedures, Ministers are obliged to offer a declaration of compatibility in relation to all Bills. I am aware that the Government are convinced that this Bill is compatible with their obligations under the Human Rights Act. However, the hon. Gentleman will know that that is standard practice and that it accompanies all Bills. Obviously, Ministers are persuaded that their legislation does not conflict with our obligations, but they tend not to explain what the issues relating to human rights law might be or say why they are convinced that the contents of the Bill do not conflict with the requirements of the Act. It would be helpful if the Minister accepted that data protection was involved and that rights of individual citizens were at stake. I hope that he can explain why he is convinced that there is no threat to those rights. I make the point in my characteristically modest and understated fashion that I am not certain that the rights are contradicted, but I am concerned about the matter.

Andrew Miller (Labour, Ellesmere Port and Neston)

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

I will give way. Who could resist the offer of an intelligent intervention from the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston?

Andrew Miller (Labour, Ellesmere Port and Neston)

Which principle of the Data Protection Act 1998 does the hon. Gentleman believe may be at risk?

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

The principle at stake concerns people about whom information is kept on a register. They should be aware not only that information is kept about them, but of what that information is. My concern is that as the clause stands, people cannot rest secure on that point, which is precisely why I am arguing for the amendment. I emphasise that it is a probing amendment, as many of our amendments have been, and I look forward to the Minister's response.

Michael Fabricant (Conservative, Lichfield)

My hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham has already presented a powerful argument explaining why he is concerned with the broad content of clause 35. Clause 35 is 18 lines long, but is summarised well in the explanatory notes in only two lines:

Clause 35 enables the police to have bulk access to an insurance industry database which will help them to detect people driving without insurance.

The whole Committee will welcome that. However, I believe that the clause is dangerous as it stands, for all the reasons pointed out by my hon. Friend. Earlier, he said that we often debated shell clauses or Bills—in which positions are made in outline and are subsequently enforced in detail through secondary legislation. I would rather use the phrase ``a blank cheque''. I feel that legislators are increasingly being asked to write a blank cheque for the Government to fill in at a later date. That is a dangerous practice that should be curtailed.

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

Does my hon. Friend agree that, even if it is right for constables to be given access to information, before we give our assent to the clause, the Minister should tell us to whom those constables should be allowed to disclose the information that they have obtained? That is a basic matter of the satisfaction of inquiry and of the principle that human rights have not been offended.

Michael Fabricant (Conservative, Lichfield)

My hon. Friend is right. It is not only a question of human rights. It also impacts on data protection, as my hon. Friend has already outlined. I wonder whether a high-tech solution is being suggested to a simple problem. In France and other countries where a similar problem exists and the police quite correctly wish to know whether a driver is insured, a system has operated successfully whereby a disc similar to a United Kingdom licence disc is displayed in the window, which shows whether that vehicle is insured. There is an argument against that—that the car, not the driver, is insured—yet the system seems to work adequately in other European countries. I am conscious that the present Government are of a particularly federal hue within the European Union, so I am surprised that they choose not to adopt that more simple solution to what is not a particularly complex question. My fear is the same as that of my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham. [Interruption.]

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

As my hon. Friend observes, which is why he was bursting into a peal of laughter, my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of York and I were engaged in what might be described as an under-the-table consultation. My hon. Friend has an extraordinary approach to consultation; I was sitting on my chair and she burrowed along the Bench and spoke to me from beneath me.

Michael Fabricant (Conservative, Lichfield)

I am grateful to hear that, as my hon. Friends seemed to be grovelling together on the floor rather than under the table. I assumed that it was an example of the camaraderie that occurs between people of the same party who are working together to improve a Bill. I am delighted to hear that it was a consultation, which, I am sure, was directly related to the Bill, and possibly to this very clause.

The insertion of the words ``specific aspects contained therein'' protect the individual, who may fear that too much information will be given to police officers. Although we all support the work of police officers, and constables in particular, the fear of big brother is growing. We have already passed 1984 and are now in Stanley Kubrick's or Arthur C. Clarke's 2001. The power of computers makes possible a huge intrusion into the privacy of individuals. This straightforward amendment would make the clause more specific about the sort of information that may be made available.

What consideration did the Home Office and the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions give to a more simple way of solving the problem of determining whether a car is insured? Was the European model investigated? Did they consider the introduction of a simple insurance disc, which could be placed in the car window alongside the tax disc? The tax disc system is a long-standing one. If that possibility was considered and rejected, why was it rejected?

Does the Minister not believe that the broad scope of the clause presents a danger to the personal liberties of drivers? We must not forget that drivers feel victimised, not only because of the high cost of fuel, which may rise sharply in the next few weeks as a result of the recent OPEC decision, but because of congestion charging, motorway tolls and so on.

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

As the hon. Gentleman has raised the matter, I ask him to take this opportunity to urge his friends in the oil cartels to put petrol prices down at the stations; it is they who are raising the prices.

Jonathan Sayeed (Conservative, Mid Bedfordshire)

Order. I would like the hon. Gentleman not to answer that and to confine his remarks to the amendments in question.

Michael Fabricant (Conservative, Lichfield)

On a point of order, Mr. Sayeed. I have no friends at all in any oil cartel—indeed, if such a cartel existed, it would be illegal, so I wonder whether I should raise a point of order about that. However, that might not be in order.

Car drivers and motor bike riders feel themselves to be victimised by this Government. The broad scope of the clause will do nothing to mitigate their fears.

Debate adjourned.—[Mr. Pope.]

Adjourned accordingly at nineteen minutes past Eleven o'clock till this day at half-past Two o'clock.

Standing Committee A

Vehicles (Crime) Bill

Jonathan Sayeed (Conservative, Mid Bedfordshire)

I remind hon. Members that with this we are considering the following amendments: No. 84, in page 20, line 8, after `the', insert `specific'.

No. 85, in page 20, line 10, after first `the', insert `specific'.

No. 86, in page 20, line 11, after `disclosed', insert `to interested parties'.

Andrew Miller (Labour, Ellesmere Port and Neston)

I want to respond to the observations made by the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow). First, in my 50-odd years of life—

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

On a point of order, Mr. Sayeed. Several members of the public are waiting to get into the Committee Room, but the door is locked.

Jonathan Sayeed (Conservative, Mid Bedfordshire)

That is a genuine point of order.

Andrew Miller (Labour, Ellesmere Port and Neston)

Rare as it is, a genuine point order. I have been insulted by experts during my life, so the trivial observations of the hon. Member for Buckingham while trying to be rude—

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

I was not trying to be rude; I was being rude.

Andrew Miller (Labour, Ellesmere Port and Neston)

That just proves my point that there is no civility on the Opposition Benches.

If the hon. Member for Buckingham had read the data protection legislation, he would understand that his amendments are pointless. Any data holder who is required to make data available to a third party under a statute, or who chooses to make it available to a third party, is required to advise the data subjects of that fact when the data is collected. Therefore, the amendments, in so far as they affect data protection legislation, would be irrelevant to the Bill.

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

The answer is simple. The clause lacks specificity, of which the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller) is patently unaware, or, even, woefully ignorant. Were he aware of the deficiency of the clause, he would not object to the propriety or wisdom of tabling the amendment. He took two or three minutes to make a bad point, to which I have tried to respond. Perhaps the Committee can now proceed to a more constructive consideration.

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

I am tempted to comment on the length of time taken by some Committee members to make exceptionally bad points, especially on Tuesday. However, it would not be appropriate to descend to the gutter in such a way.

I want to make a couple of preliminary points. First, a remark—I do not think that it was meant offensively—was uttered, although I may be mistaken, by the hon. Member for Buckingham. That comment was that the Secretary of State's issuing of a certificate, in accordance with the Human Rights Act 1998, was a relatively formal, simple or straightforward process. In fact, it is a serious document, on which the Secretary of State receives substantial and considered legal advice, which he considers carefully before deciding whether it is appropriate to put his certificate on a Bill. It is not a trivial matter; I would be surprised if, during the next 10 years, the House did not consider Bills for which such a certificate had not been signed. It has not arisen so far, but it is a considered and important matter.

Secondly, I want to make two points in relation to the debate about regulations, although I do not want to return to it in great detail. I have occasionally felt while watching Government in action that there is some substance in the suggestion that, sometimes, draft regulations could be made available earlier for the Committee's consideration, and I have always tried to ensure that that happens. However, there are also circumstances—this is one such circumstance, as I shall point out—in which it is not possible to make draft regulations available because one foresees events in the future that will create a different set of circumstances for the draft regulations.

My final preliminary point is that data protection is a serious matter. My hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston, in his usual cogent and considered way, described correctly the way in which data protection and data sharing is dealt with.

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

The point is the specificity of the clause.

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

No, he put the point correctly. However—this is an important issue—how data is shared across Government and between Government and the private sector using an insurance database is difficult and complex. As the Committee is aware, the performance and innovation unit and the Cabinet Office, under the ministerial sponsorship of my noble Friend Lord Falconer, are working so that we can come to a series of conclusions about how to deal with such matters.

With your permission, Mr. Sayeed, I should like to raise some points on clause 35. Important matters have been raised and I should like to place on record what the clause seeks to achieve. It enables the police to have bulk access to a motor insurance industry database, which will improve their ability to identify—and take appropriate action against—people who drive without insurance.

I was grateful for the support of the hon. Member for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant). Driving without insurance is a big problem that needs to be tackled more effectively. In 1998, there were 254,951 convictions for driving while uninsured—a substantial number. The Association of British Insurers estimates that at least 1 million people drive while uninsured—about 5 per cent. of drivers. Driving while uninsured is a crime in itself, but may be associated with vehicle theft and other forms of criminal activity.

Michael Fabricant (Conservative, Lichfield)

While we have this moment of agreement between us—and I trust that it will be more than a moment—does the Minister agree that driving while uninsured is also a crime against the victims of road accidents, who are often unable to get full compensation?

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

That is precisely correct. It often causes tragedy and hurt to victims. That is one reason why we give high priority to attacking that part of the problem. The Motor Insurers Bureau meets the cost of accidents suffered by victims of uninsured drivers; clearly, that does not deal with the trauma of which the hon. Gentleman spoke. In the year 2000, the levy on insurance companies towards that end was expected to be about £215 million. In addition, the costs borne by insurance companies directly were thought to be at least as much again. Both sums are passed on to policyholders in the form of higher premiums, ranging on average from £15 to £20 per policyholder. That is substantial.

Giving the police bulk access to the motor insurance database will enable them to identify uninsured vehicles more easily and check the insurance status of the drivers. When records show that they have insurance, motorists will be spared the inconvenience of having to produce the necessary documentation at a police station. The police need bulk access to the database because the information is expected to be available to them at the roadside from July 2001, but access will be limited to individual inquiries. Bulk access will enable the police proactively to identify uninsured vehicles and drivers. That is why the proposal has the full support of the Association of Chief Police Officers, the Association of British Insurers, the AA, the RAC Foundation and the Motorists Forum. It is widely supported by the industry and by motorists' organisations, for the reasons that I have set out.

It is intended that the police will have bulk access after January 2003—I hesitate to provoke the hon. Member for Buckingham yet again—when the fourth European Union motor insurance directive is implemented. The insurance database will contain a complete record of all insured vehicles and drivers. The database will hold all the information found on the insurance certificate, together with the address of the policyholder and information about additional drivers.

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

I will just complete my presentation and then give way. The database will be matched against the DVLA vehicles register held on the police national computer to produce a subset of data that will consist of a list of registered, but uninsured, vehicles and can be used in conjunction with automatic number plate recognition systems. The technology is developing—it was first used to deal with terrorists potentially threatening buildings in the City of London—to detect uninsured vehicles and drivers.

Mr. Bercow: Has the final form of the European directive to which the Minister referred been determined in respect of its transposition into United Kingdom law? If so, can he tell the Committee the extent of the consultation and say whether the principal features of that process were published?

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

I cannot answer that question off the top of my head. I should have prepared myself for that question, in the knowledge that anything with the initials EU would send the hon. Gentleman into a minor frenzy. I apologise for not doing so. However, as I am writing to members of the Committee about the directive that we discussed this morning, I shall enclose with it a copy of the directive under discussion now and set out the consultation process.

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

I appreciate the good-natured reply of the hon. Gentleman, but he was anxious this morning to have some matters on the record and other matters removed from it. I therefore take the opportunity to confirm what any observer would detect, which is that I am not in a frenzy—minor or otherwise—about the matter. The directive might have merits; I was simply anxious to know the final form of the consultation. I am a model of passivity.

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

I shall certainly give the hon. Gentleman the information he seeks. Behind his placid exterior, it sometimes difficult to detect what degree of frenzy is taking place.

Specific mention was made of the compatibility of the provision with the European convention on human rights and the Human Rights Act 1998. It is compatible and the Home Secretary made a statement to that effect under section 19(1)(a) of the Act. I reinforce what I said earlier; there is a considered statement and it is not something that comes automatically. While the provision authorises the disclosure of personal data such that article 8 is engaged, article 8(2) of the European convention on human rights permits interferences with the right to privacy when, as here, it is necessary in a democratic society for the prevention of crime or the protection of the rights or freedoms of others; that is the essential issue at stake.

The provision is a proportionate measure to achieve the crime prevention objective. Information that is subject to the provision is targeted as that which is necessary for the prevention and detection of uninsured driving. There are additional safeguards, in that subsections 2(b) and (c) further provide for regulations that can limit the purposes for which the police may be given access to the information and the onward disclosure of that information. The measure helps to tackle uninsured driving by giving motor insurance information to the police; such information is relevant to help the police to enforce that law.

Similarly, the provision complies with the Data Protection Act 1988, a matter raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston. While the Human Rights Act 1998 requires disclosures of data to comply with the data protection principles, exemptions from any of those principles that would otherwise prevent disclosure are permitted by virtue of section 35(1) where, as here, there is a legal obligation to make the disclosure.

I apologise for taking up the time of the Committee, but I wanted to set out the background to the provision before referring to the amendment.

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

The Minister is making a better job of accurately explaining the provision than the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston who made a ham-fisted attempt at doing so. Nevertheless, I am not absolutely clear about the matter and I should be grateful to receive clarification. [Interruption.] The sedentary chunterings of the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston do not assist the considerations of the Committee at all, unlike those of the Minister. Will the Minister establish the circumstances in which disclosure would not take place?

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

I cannot foresee any circumstances in which disclosure would not take place, if required. Obviously, the measure is concerned with crime prevention and circumstances will have to be taken into account. However, I shall take advice on the matter before responding in detail to the hon. Gentleman's question.

The hon. Member for Lichfield gave examples from other countries of the disc and asked to what extent that had been considered in the process. The ABI confirm that insurance is this country is attached to the driver, whereas on mainland Europe it is often attached to the vehicle, which is a significant distinction. An insurance windscreen sticker system is viable in continental Europe because cars can be driven on the owner's insurance policy with the owner's agreement. However, because the risks being accepted by the insurance company are greater, the ABI considers that that leads to higher motor insurance premiums than would otherwise be the case.

In deciding how best to make insurance information more readily available to the police, the motor insurance industry considered advocating a windscreen sticker system along the lines that the hon. Member for Lichfield suggests, but it did not believe that that was viable or would be as effective as a computerised database. Police bulk access to a computerised database of insurance information will enable the police to be proactive in identifying uninsured vehicles and drivers, including making use of technology in a way that would not be possible if they were restricted to making visual inspections of windscreens.

I am aware that that touches on the point made by the hon. Member for Lichfield about whether the process is quicker than it might otherwise be, which has some substance.

Michael Fabricant (Conservative, Lichfield)

I am totally satisfied with the Minister's response to my question, but I should like to ask him a separate question about the bulk database. To what extent is he comfortable with the idea that smaller vehicle insurance companies may not be as quick to put data from their databases on to the bulk database as some of the others? As a consequence, police officers may assume innocent drivers to be breaking the law if the bulk database gives a nil response, suggesting that a driver is not insured, when he or she is.

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

I understand that the motor insurance database is tightly organised by the ABI, which brings the entire insurance industry together, and that the regulatory system would not permit the problem that the hon. Gentleman describes. I shall check, and I will tell him if that response is not accurate.

Michael Fabricant (Conservative, Lichfield)

Does that mean that all vehicle insurers are members of that association?

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

That is my understanding, but I am answering off the cuff. I shall write to the hon. Gentleman if I have misunderstood in any important respect. Certainly the overwhelming majority are—and I believe that they all are. I shall double check and let him know.

The amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Buckingham and his hon. Friends are designed to provide a more specific definition of the information required. The wording

such information of a particular description

in subsection (2)(a), which the hon. Member for Buckingham asked about, is designed to enable the Secretary of State to limit the obligation to disclose information to PITO to a subset of the relevant information required to be held under section 160(2)(b) of the Road Traffic Act 1988. It should not be necessary for all information on the insurance database to be given to the police, only the part of that information that is involved, which will enable the police to fight crime more effectively.

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

I do not want to labour the point, but specificity is exactly what is required in this case. I hope that, even if the Minister believes that our amendment is redundant or undesirable, he would agree that it would help him to explain the merits of the unamended clause if he could elucidate his case with an example. Will he give us an example of the sort of circumstance that he has in mind, in which our requirement would be too all-embracing and his wording would more appropriately define the particulars required in such a case?

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

I had intended to be helpful at the end of my explanation, but I shall say now what I intended to say then. The hon. Gentleman refers to the need to be more specific about the information to be disclosed in regulations. We have set out the parameters of that information under the definition of ``relevant information'', which is in the Bill and available for the Committee to scrutinise, and the regulations may specify only that information or a subset of it, not any additional information. The concession that I intended to make, and the assurance that I intended to give, is that the hon. Gentleman made some good points, and I am prepared to consider the definition before Report, to establish whether I could provide further clarification, and to think about whether further amendments might be tabled on Report relating to more specific information, as he suggests. He reasonably put the point that clarity is required about the total range of data on the database, compared to the subset that we would seek. I will consider that matter carefully and come back to it on Report.

I say too, ``as advised'', as we like to say in this Committee, that the police are as concerned as anyone else that the database be complete, accurate and up to date. The fourth European Union motor insurance directive—[Interruption.] Is the hon. Member for Buckingham going into a frenzy? The directive will require all insurers to notify details to the MID. If necessary, after consultation, arrangements can be made to omit details when a policy has expired only a short time before—a month or so before, for example. I want to be helpful and take the debate further, because I understand the seriousness with which the hon. Gentleman makes his point.

Michael Fabricant (Conservative, Lichfield)

The Minister mentioned the European Union again. One advantage of European Union membership, I suppose, might be cross-border co-operation. Is there a plan—and does it fall under the ambit of the Bill—to include information on the bulk database about the many drivers who come here from member states and drive vehicles insured by European Union but not British insurance companies? To put it another way, is some form of co-operation planned to ensure internetworking between similar databases in Europe, so that if someone arrested for an offence in the United Kingdom was driving a Dutch vehicle, a British police officer could discover whether that vehicle was insured?

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

The co-operation to which the hon. Gentleman refers is being developed but is not there yet. That is the short answer. He is right to make the point, as cars are sometimes transported in and out of the country with different plates. [Interruption.] I think that the hon. Member for Buckingham really has gone into a frenzy now, perhaps because he sees that my officials are getting worried about what I am saying.

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

``Frenzy'' seems to be the Minister's word of the week—perhaps he has recently discovered it. I am not in a frenzy; I was mildly amused—I apologise for my visible amusement—because the Minister was having some difficulty with his trousers.

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

As we were saying before our proceedings began, fashion is not one of my fortes, and neither is geography. I was having trouble with my belly button, rather than my trousers.

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

We love the Minister none the less. I have not scrutinised it, and have no desire to do so, but there appears to be nothing wrong with his belly button.

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

Yes, indeed—and I am not hiding an insect in it either.

Jonathan Sayeed (Conservative, Mid Bedfordshire)

Let us return to the Bill.

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

The hon. Member for Lichfield is correct in thinking that we are developing the co-operation that he mentioned. The European Union motor insurance directive to which I referred will put in place a legal framework within which it can be achieved. That is one of the many examples of the benefits to this country of European Union membership, which would be jeopardised if the hon. Member for Buckingham were to have his way.

I need to clarify my answer to the question about whether all insurance companies are members of the database; I was almost right, but not exactly right. All insurance companies are obliged to keep information pursuant to the Road Traffic Act 1988. The clause would oblige such persons to disclose information to the police, so any insurance company not linked to the database must still comply with the clause. The police will have complete information that reflects the data available from all insurance companies.

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

I have written to the Minister on this subject, and I would be grateful if he could clarify for me in writing the position of those who self-insure. Some concerns have been expressed as to whether and how that will fall within the ambit of the Bill.

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

I will clarify the matter for my hon. Friend in writing.

Michael Fabricant (Conservative, Lichfield)

Will the Minister clarify the answer he gave to my earlier question? He said that every insurance company was obliged to keep its own record and that those records must be available to the police.

Does he mean the bulk database? If a driver were insured with a smaller insurance company that kept its own database, the police proactive interrogation of the bulk database would still come up negative. That would require the insurance company to give the police information some days later, perhaps of a written rather than an electronic nature, putting the driver to some inconvenience. Does the Minister understand the difference between the two possibilities?

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

I understand the hon. Gentleman's point. However, I can best answer it by reading out the wording of the clause:

The Secretary of State may by regulations provide for relevant information which is required to be kept by regulations made by virtue of section 160(2)(b) of the Road Traffic Act 1988—

that is the Act that requires the information to be kept—

to be made available to the Police Information Technology Organisation for use by constables.

The Bill goes on to state that regulations may

require all such information or such information of a particular description to be made available to the Organisation.

Michael Fabricant (Conservative, Lichfield)

For the sake of clarity, will the Minister explain whether the Police Information Technology Organisation, rather than any third party, will maintain the bulk database? It may just be my ignorance, but people reading Hansard may ask the same question.

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

The bulk database is maintained by the insurance industry itself. PITO, which is controlled by police forces in conjunction with the Home Office, and whose governing board is made up of nominees from the Association of Chief Police Officers, the Association of Police Authorities and various other bodies, will get the information from the insurance database. From there, it can be made available to individual police forces.

Michael Fabricant (Conservative, Lichfield)

I am grateful to the Minister for persevering, but I am still unclear as to why subsection (1) provides the answer to my initial question. If PITO does not operate the bulk database, how do we know that the information maintained by the insurance companies in one big database contains all the information to be found on the smaller databases of all the individual companies?

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

The information kept by the insurance companies is the information that they are required to keep by the Road Traffic Act 1988, so we know exactly what information every company keeps. The motor insurance industry database collects all that information together from all insurance companies in the way specified by law. The clause states that PITO can get access to that information. I am sorry if I am being unclear; if it would help the hon. Gentleman, I will pursue the matter in correspondence.

My hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Mrs. Gilroy) asked about self-insurance. The current definition of ``relevant information'' in subsection (3) does not properly cover the point that she raises, which she has also raised in correspondence. That is partly why I was ready earlier to state that we were willing to consider the process again before Report, to get our definitions exactly right. That applies to the points raised by the hon. Member for Lichfield, too. There are points of substance on which we need to check that our wording is correct, which is why we are ready to introduce amendments on Report.

I hope that after those assurances, the hon. Gentleman will consider withdrawing the amendment.

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

Yes, I am happy to do so, as I was pleased by the Minister's response, and, especially, by his commitment to come back to us on the question of specificity before Report. I assume that that means that some correspondence will take place between us—or at least that there will be a letter from him on the subject, which I can copy for my hon. Friends. On the strength of what he said, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 35 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 36 - Taking a conveyance without authority:extension of prosecution time-limits

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

I beg to move amendment No. 87, in page 20, line 34, leave out `any' and insert `the'.

The clause relates to the taking of a conveyance without authority and the extension of time limits for prosecution. The argument for our amendment can be extremely crisply made. Prosecutions can be initiated by only one person. The Bill states that the extended time period under clause 36 begins from

the day on which sufficient

knowledge ``to justify the proceedings'' is obtained by ``any person responsible''. This is a genuine drafting point—whether it is minor is a matter for debate—but it seems more sensible to us that the clause should read, ``the person responsible'', rather than ``any person responsible''. Surely an individual should make the decision.

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

The answer to the hon. Gentleman's point was an illumination to me when I studied it. The phrase ``any person'' is used to ensure that Crown Prosecution Service prosecutors are unable to get round the six-month time limit by passing the file to another prosecutor. A CPS prosecutor who had sat on the file for six months could pass the file to another prosecutor and another six months could commence. The reference to ``any'' rather than ``the'' person responsible for deciding whether to commence prosecutions will prevent that from happening. The six months will start as soon as a prosecutor capable of taking the decision to prosecute has the evidence in his possession. If he fails to do so, no subsequent prosecution can be commenced. That legalistic response illuminated me, and that is the reason for using ``any'' rather than ``the''.

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

Although what the Minister said sounds eminently sensible, and I might well choose to withdraw the amendment, it is very unfortunate if that sort of excuse has been used at any stage. It would be quite improper for a public official to do so, as it would not be in the spirit of the legislation under which a matter was being considered.

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

I cannot give chapter and verse, but I, too, was surprised to discover that information. Obviously, making such an excuse would be bad practice, and as we are making the law it is important not to allow bad practice to be used to evade the law.

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

As I think that the Minister will accept, the purpose of our drafting amendment was to tighten the law and discover the reason for the Minister's preferred wording. The last thing that any of us wants inadvertently to do, is to weaken the provision by providing a get-out clause. I am not certain that my proposed wording would do that, but the Minister is. He is confident that his wording would not allow for such a get-out, and on the basis of his good intentions and the advice that he has taken, I am happy to accept his word on this occasion and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

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

Michael Fabricant (Conservative, Lichfield)

I was wondering about the purpose of clause 36. I believe that the prosecution has a general time limit of three years from the date of an offence taking place. Why, in the clause, has that been limited to six months? Was the aim to speed up the process and stop a queueing system within the prosecuting authority or the police, or was it meant to provide some form of protection to someone who had committed an offence? Why has the general principle of a three-year gap been breached by a change, in this instance, to six months?

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

As the hon. Gentleman said, the clause extends the time for bringing prosecutions for unauthorised vehicle-taking—joy-riding—by amending the Theft Act 1968. It thereby extends the limit from six months after the offence to a maximum of three years, subject to the requirement that the prosecution be brought within six months of sufficient information coming to the attention of ``the'' or ``any'' any prosecutor. So-called joy-riders cause deep distress to their victims. They may be involved in accidents, and their offences are sometimes—some would say often—the gateway to more serious crime.

At present, some people escape justice because, as the law stands, no charges may be brought more than six months after the offence was committed. We want to make prosecution possible, signalling that the offence is not to be taken lightly. The extended time limit also allows us to take account of technological advances, particularly DNA and fingerprinting. Such developments may allow evidence to come to light later than six months after the offence.

Those are the principal reasons why we wish to make the change. The Crown Prosecution Service requested the limit of three years, and there are precedents, such as section 146A of the Customs and Excise Management Act 1979. That is why, with an offence for which it is not always easy to identify the offender, there should be more time to use the benefit of technological changes to help us to do so.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 36 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 37 - Funding of certain magistrates' courts' costsrelating to vehicle crime

Andrew Miller (Labour, Ellesmere Port and Neston)

I beg to move, amendment No. 51, in page 21, line 11, leave out `may' and insert `shall'.

Jonathan Sayeed (Conservative, Mid Bedfordshire)

With this it will be convenient to take amendment No. 52, in page 21, line 23, leave out `may' and insert `shall'.

Andrew Miller (Labour, Ellesmere Port and Neston)

The purpose of the amendments, small though they are, is to ensure that money is recycled from the Lord Chancellor to the relevant authorities. Lines 12, 13 and 25 contain the phrase,

whole or any part of the relevant expenditure.

There will be legitimate circumstances in which, however the process is operated, 100 per cent. of the ``claimed money'' would not be refunded, but legitimate and significant expenditures may be met by relevant authorities and my amendments are intended to preclude a payment of nil.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

For a number of reasons, I wish to say a few words in stringent opposition to the amendment. For the record, my constituency—indeed, the whole of North Yorkshire—has no pilot scheme. I make a plea to the Minister to consider amending the original formula. I will not advertise where it is, but one village has speed cameras at its entry and exit, but no film in them. Under the present formula, nowhere in North Yorkshire would qualify for film in the speed cameras. I heard that, on great authority—in fact, I shudder to say that I heard it from the chief constable of North Yorkshire—

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

I want to place on record my admiration for the chief constable of North Yorkshire, with whom I know that the hon. Lady has a good relationship. I have discussed these matters with him on occasion, and I respect his judgment. We listen to the Association of Chief Police Officers when developing such proposals.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

I join the Minister in admiration of the chief constable of North Yorkshire.

Michael Fabricant (Conservative, Lichfield)

I wonder whether the Minister will take the opportunity to say how much he respects the judgment, at all times, of the chief constable of Staffordshire.

Jonathan Sayeed (Conservative, Mid Bedfordshire)

Order. I remind the hon. Gentleman that we are listening to a speech by Miss McIntosh, not the Minister.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

I do not wish to be drawn into provocation. I would merely like to respond warmly to the Minister's remarks. I value the contact that hon. Members are making—in my case, with the current chief constable and his predecessor. That contact helps me to understand why the Bill, and especially the amendment under discussion, fails to achieve what it intends. I hope that the Minister will take the opportunity to extend the pilot scheme or amend the formula, so that all eligible villages in North Yorkshire have not just a speed camera but one with a film.

I remind the Committee of my interest in the RAC Foundation for Motoring, and the benefits, which I have registered, of my membership of its public policy committee. Among motorists and motor cyclists, two powerful arguments are made against the amendment and the clause. The clause would extend an experiment, which is currently taking place in only 10 areas, allowing the police to hypothecate revenues from speed cameras. I am sure that the RAC would not object to my putting it on record that that sends out the wrong message to motorists and motor cyclists. Speed cameras were introduced to reinforce road safety, not to be a revenue-raising device. I want to lend my support to that point, which was made by the RAC. Motor cyclists would want to make the point that the Bill should be seen as a separate issue to what the clause and amendment are intended to achieve. Given the role of speed cameras in road safety, the intention behind the amendment and the clause is inappropriate.

Bob Russell (Liberal Democrat, Colchester)

Is the object of the clause road safety or revenue-raising? If it is road safety, I support it and the amendments tabled to it.

Jonathan Sayeed (Conservative, Mid Bedfordshire)

Order. The hon. Gentleman will find that that is the subject of the next group of amendments, not this group.

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

First, I want to place on the record, for the avoidance of doubt, my respect and admiration for the chief constable of Staffordshire and for his judgment on many matters, some of which I shall not share with the Committee.

I hesitate to go beyond your ruling, Mr. Sayeed, about the subject of the debate. However, the purpose of speed limit and red light enforcement is to reduce death and injury on the roads. It is part of a road safety strategy. It may interest the Committee to know that it is too early to make a full assessment on the basis of the pilot areas—Strathclyde, Essex, Nottinghamshire, Northamptonshire, Lincolnshire, South Wales, Cleveland and Thames Valley—but results already show significant advances. In terms of the reduction in personal injury accidents, Strathclyde is 22 per cent. down, Essex is 1 per cent. down, Nottingham is 6 per cent. down, Northamptonshire is 6 per cent. down, Lincolnshire is 12 per cent. down and Cleveland is 15 per cent down. Incidents in which people are killed or severely injured are 42 per cent. down in Strathclyde—an enormous reduction—4 per cent. down in Essex, 34 per cent. down in Nottingham, 15 per cent. down in Northamptonshire, 26 per cent. down in Lincolnshire, 5 per cent. down in Cleveland and 20 per cent. down in Thames Valley. Such reductions are significant. They are not conclusive because we have not yet concluded the pilot period, but they show a move in the right direction.

Bob Russell (Liberal Democrat, Colchester)

Will the Minister comment on a letter by the Association of British Drivers, which stated:

Unfortunately, the Speed Kills dogma...has the exact opposite effect.

What are his views on that statement?

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

First, I do not understand that statement and, secondly, if I did understand it, I would disagree with it.

I believe profoundly that speed kills. The most dramatic illustration of that is a fact: if a child is hit at 20 mph, the child has a 19 in 20 chance of survival. If a child is hit at 40 mph, the child has a one in 20 chance of survival. Such dramatic differences are unanswerable.

The amendment deals with the funding approach. The legal basis for the current pilots is the annual Appropriation Acts, which allow short-term spending on certain pilot schemes. To find a vehicle for funding such schemes was an achievement of my colleagues in the Department for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, the Lord Chancellor's Department and the Treasury. Although it is a short-term approach, we were pleased about it because the schemes are important. The precise purpose of the clause is to remove the reliance on those Appropriation Acts and to establish a clear statutory basis for enabling not only the pilot areas to which I have referred but every force area in the country, including north Yorkshire, to operate such schemes if, after proper assessment of the pilot scheme, we decide that the initial results are beneficial. However, we cannot operate the pilot schemes, which are essentially short- term in character, on the basis of the Appropriation Acts. We are looking for a legal change whereby such schemes can be run on a long-term basis nationally in the event that the pilot schemes are judged to have succeeded.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

Am I misunderstanding the argument? Would a national formula need to be amended to permit the speed cameras to carry films in North Yorkshire?

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

The position at the moment is that the way in which the Exchequer works—a way that was inherited from the evil Conservatives—means that money raised by such matters is sucked straight back into the Exchequer and cannot be recycled. My right hon. Friends the Chief Secretary to the Treasury and the Chancellor agreed with the proposition made by the Home Office, the Department for the Environment, Transport and the Regions and the Lord Chancellor's Department that it would be far better for road safety reasons if the money were not simply sucked back into the Exchequer but reinvested in road safety measures such as more cameras, putting film in cameras, and so on. Their generous agreement to do that was predicated on the proposition that we should run pilots in a limited number of forces to see whether benefits would be accrued from such an approach. That was a major step forward.

The pilot, which the Association of Chief Police Officers was keen to agree to—I include in my praise of chief constables, Ken Williams the chief constable of the Norfolk constabulary, who chairs the ACPO committee on the matter—was predicated on our need to change the law to create a proper legal basis for such a provision. The clause is meeting what the hon. Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh) wants. It will establish a legal base for the system that will operate in North Yorkshire and elsewhere, provided that it is judged that the pilot succeeded in its road safety ambitions.

David Kidney (Labour, Stafford)

I would like to clarify the formula. Is the hon. Lady talking about the usual way in which the Government distribute money to police authorities throughout the country according to a national formula, after which time chief constables and the authorities then decide on their priorities? Perhaps the priorities in North Yorkshire do not extend to putting films in speed cameras.

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

My hon. Friend is right. As always in such matters, we are trying to make money work to benefit the community as a whole. That is what is involved here. By raising a revenue chain from income that goes back into improved road safety arrangements—such as camera systems—we hope to establish a virtuous circle of continual improvement of enforcement of the legislation, based on the proposition that speed kills, and should be inhibited.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

I do not wish to labour the point, but it is appropriate to record that we do not have enough police officers in North Yorkshire. A better allocation of resources would have allowed us to put in more police officers and enable them to undertake traffic responsibilities in counties such as North Yorkshire, to carry out the additional responsibilities that they are given in the Bill.

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

I disagree quite profoundly. I understand the pleading for more police officers; it comes from every part of the country, for reasons that I appreciate. In the next hour or so, there will be a debate in the Chamber on those issues, and we all know the allegations that are made. On this subject, however, it is incontrovertible that the effective speed camera operation that we seek to encourage is a more effective way to enforce the law—and to reduce some burdens on the police—than to say that in every village in North Yorkshire, and everywhere else, there should be a police officer with a speed gun.

David Kidney (Labour, Stafford)

Surely it is a better use of resources to have a camera there 24 hours a day than to pay for three police officers to stand in the same spot checking speeds for 24 hours a day.

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

That is an incisive and correct observation. What we are doing will improve the enforcement of the laws of the land, to the benefit of society as a whole.

On the specific point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston, the amendments would compel the Lord Chancellor to make payments to responsible authorities. As drafted, the subsections introduce a power for the Lord Chancellor to make payments to responsible authorities. That new power fills the gap in the financial arrangements that I have described between the appropriation orders that are used now and the new arrangements in the Bill.

At present, the Lord Chancellor has the power to pay up to 80 per cent. of the expenditure of responsible authorities in relation to magistrates courts. The balance is met by the responsible local authorities, with the aid of grant provided by the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions. The new power would enable the Lord Chancellor to make payments to meet the full amount of the costs of the courts in dealing with offences recorded by speed or traffic cameras.

I acknowledge that my hon. Friend's purpose is to preclude a payment of nil—to use his words—and I should place on the record that we do not intend that there should be a payment of nil. It would not be appropriate, however, to require the Lord Chancellor to make payments. The existing funding arrangements for magistrates courts generally do not compel the Lord Chancellor to make payments, but empower him to do so; that is the spirit of the Bill. The relevant reference is section 57 of the Justices of the peace Act 1997; the new provisions have been drafted along similar lines.

I encourage my hon. Friend, now that he has heard the debate, to withdraw his amendment; the point that he makes, however, is well taken.

Michael Fabricant (Conservative, Lichfield)

Perhaps it will help his hon. Friend to withdraw his amendment if the Minister will tell us what undertakings he has received from the Lord Chancellor's Department, in relation to clause 37, that payments will be made? Clearly, the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston is worried in case no payments are made. At present, there is a degree of trust on the Minister's part that payments will be made. What undertakings has he received?

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

As the Committee knows, the Home Office, the Lord Chancellor's Department and the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions are like the holy trinity, indivisible in all respects, and have no firm public commitments on such matters, but my noble, right hon. and hon. Friends in the Lord Chancellor's Department are committed to the project and to making the payments that I have described. There is a joint approach between the Lord Chancellor's Department, the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions and the Home Office, which is supported by the Treasury. The concerns of my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston about one of the elements wanting to withdraw from the arrangements—and, in his phrase, bringing payment of nil—are not valid. All parts of the Government have agreed to work towards that end.

Bob Russell (Liberal Democrat, Colchester)

If the cameras are successful, everybody obeys the law and, therefore, no fines are generated, will the shortfall be made up? If so, by whom—[Interruption.]

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

I must make one small technical point before I respond to that. The hon. Member for Lichfield, from a sedentary position, used the word ``film''. In fact, digital cameras are being used more and more, and some of the issues about film are not as clear as they were. To reassure the hon. Member for Vale of York, none of her constituents in North Yorkshire should rely on there being no film in the cameras when deciding at what speed they drive through the villages in her constituency.

Were we to reach a universal position of absolute happiness, in which there was no speeding of any kind at any time, some administrative arrangements would be necessary. However, the savings to the state—in the national health service and in every other way—would be so enormous that, to use a phrase that resonates through our history, that would be a price worth paying.

To conclude on a minor point, it is possible that we should allow the DETR to pay money to crime reduction partnerships as opposed to specific agencies. We are considering whether it might be necessary to table an amendment later to address that. On that note, I hope that my hon. Friend will consider withdrawing the amendment.

Andrew Miller (Labour, Ellesmere Port and Neston)

The whole House would love to face the quandary posed by the hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Russell), which would be a wonderful step forward in reducing the 3,000 unnecessary deaths that occur on our roads each year. However, in the spirit of the response of my hon. Friend the Minister, I trust the matter to the current Lord Chancellor, who has been demonstrably co-operative throughout the pilot process. In the long term, there might be a Lord Chancellor in whom I did not have so much confidence, although I suspect that I may have retired by then. I therefore beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Andrew Miller (Labour, Ellesmere Port and Neston)

I beg to move amendment No. 77, in page 21, line 22,

after `applies', insert `;

or is expenditure incurred by a responsible authority in the provision of speed cameras in locations where there is a significant likelihood of the presence of road users (including pedestrians) who would be at risk from a vehicle driven at excess speed.'.

Jonathan Sayeed (Conservative, Mid Bedfordshire)

With this it will be convenient to take the following amendments: No. 78, in page 22, line 4, at end insert—

`( ) Responsible authorities shall utilize payments made under this clause to install and improve mobile and fixed safety cameras to record and detect excess speed; and to place such devices in locations identified as being places where all road users including pedestrians are most at risk from excess speed.'.

No. 79, in page 22, line 4, at end insert—

`( ) ''Relevant expenditure'' shall be used to ensure, so far as is practicable, that those offences referred to in subsection (5) are reduced and, in doing so, the responsible Authority shall take into account any information that they have identifying areas where those offences are more likely to be committed.'.

No. 53, in page 22, line 6, at end insert—

`( ) The Lord Chancellor in consultation with the Secretary of State shall produce in 2003, and thereafter at such intervals as he shall think fit, a report outlining the extent of the provision of safety cameras, their financial implications and their impact upon casualty reduction; and such a report shall be laid before Parliament.'.

Andrew Miller (Labour, Ellesmere Port and Neston)

Reference was made at length, on Second Reading on 18 December, at columns 31 to 33, to the official Opposition's suspicion that the Government's proposal constituted a stealth tax. The hon. Member for Buckingham stated:

We are also concerned to avoid yet another stealth tax from the Government.—[Official Report, 18 December 2000; Vol. 360, c. 33.]

In response to the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Thomas), he continued:

One can only assume that Ministers are anxious to extract rich pickings from unsuspecting motorists in the form of heavy fines. In so far as that policy is by way of being a stealth tax, it does not commend itself to Her Majesty's official Opposition.—[Official Report, 18 December 2000; Vol. 360, c. 35.]

The hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald), in his response to the debate, took a considerably softer line, with which I have some sympathy. He dealt with how the money was precisely to be used, and, at column 112, on 18 December, set out his points of concern. He went on to say:

However, concerns have been expressed that such measures could introduce something of a stealth tax.—[Official Report, 18 December 2000; Vol. 360, c. 112.]

He was not saying that he believed it, but was reflecting the fact that the hon. Member for Buckingham seemed to believe it.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that motorists rightly perceive those proposals—call them a stealth tax or not—as a revenue-raising device?

Andrew Miller (Labour, Ellesmere Port and Neston)

The hon. Lady will hear me develop my argument on this important clause. I do not think that the measure is a revenue-raising device in the context of the taxation of the nation in its entirety. Taxation goes into one pot and is redistributed through various complex mechanisms that my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Kidney) understands far better than I. We can show motorists that the measure is sensible; in the long run, it will benefit them not simply as motorists but as citizens of the nation as a whole.

Each death on the road has been estimated as costing the nation approximately £1 million. I am going to mention Europe again, which might cause problems. The European Federation of Road Traffic Victims has produced significant research that showed that the cost to nations across Europe was approximately £40 billion a year, which represents an extraordinary waste for the taxpayer. However, we should think, of the pain and suffering caused by the incidents that Members hear about in their constituencies—pain and suffering that is multiplied across Europe.

We are dealing with the biggest unmentioned issue of public health in this country. If we get the road safety strategy right, we can reduce that pain and suffering. As the chairman of the all-party group that supports the charity RoadPeace, I would welcome to our meetings hon. Members who have not yet faced a family who have been bereaved, or had a serious injury in their own families as the result of a road crash. The pain and suffering goes on for many years—it is not a flash in the pan that goes away tomorrow.

Through RoadPeace, we are dealing with the counselling of victims' families after crashes that occurred as long as 10 or 12 years ago. Yesterday, I had a lengthy meeting with colleagues in the Department of Health. We are considering the huge cost of supporting families in terms of the direct impact of the crash on individual members of the family, and the subsequent trauma suffered by other parts of the family. Those costs are enormous, and every small step that the nation, in co-operation with motoring organisations, takes to reduce them is important.

I agree with the tenor of the observation made by the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire on Second Reading. We must not allow the measure to be perceived as a simple mechanism that local authorities can identify as a nice little earner. That would be intolerable, because it would not command the support of the motorist. I am sure that the hon. Member for Vale of York would agree with that, as that was the spirit of her intervention.

The amendments have been drafted so that we can explore, with the Minister, whether we can strengthen the clause and get the balance right, so that authorities receiving moneys through the process do not see it as a nice little earner. We do not want them simply to use the moneys refunded to them or from other resources to scatter speed cameras liberally in places that they think will be the best earners. The cameras must be located in hot spots—to use another phrase employed by the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire. They must be put in places that have been identified as a risk to the community—by which I mean all road users, including pedestrians and cyclists.

Significant areas of all our constituencies could benefit from such a policy. I have done a lot of work on the A540, where a significant number of deaths have taken place, and which my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington, North (Helen Jones) knows well. There is a clear piece of dual carriageway with a gentle curve, but it has a hot spot at a point where oncoming traffic crosses into a side road. Such circumstances require the traffic to slow down. We can effect that by all sorts of mechanisms, some of which are more expensive than others. Major refurbishment of the road design is one approach; we could introduce a roundabout, or traffic lights, or simply reduce the speed limit from 60 mph.

All those mechanisms are worthy—as are speed cameras. I would expect a local authority to target that kind of location in response to the spirit of the clause, not to create a nice little earner but to reduce death and serious injury on the road. The legislation must be drafted in clear language that ensures that it is a road safety measure, as the Minister described it, not a tax-raising measure, as some Members of the Opposition believe it to be. The fact that it is a road safety measure needs reinforcing loudly. Because of the technical deficiencies of my drafting skills, the Minister may not be minded to accept the amendments as they are. However, I hope that he will put it on record, in disseminating information about the Bill, that the provisions must be used in the context of road safety, to reduce the number of awful tragedies that happen every year.

David Kidney (Labour, Stafford)

I speak in support of my amendment No. 53, which is grouped with my hon. Friend's amendments. I support his amendments, too, and his purpose, which is to find the right way within the scope of the Bill to reassure the House and the public at large that the proposals are a road safety measure, not a revenue-raising device. I declare a non-pecuniary interest: I co-chair PACTS, the Parliamentary Advisory Council on Transport Safety, an all-party parliamentary group and a registered charity, whose purpose is to seek research-based solutions to obstacles to transport safety.

The purpose of amendment No. 53 is to tack on to the end of clause 37 a requirement for the Lord Chancellor to make a report to Parliament. I will deal in a moment with why it should be the Lord Chancellor, when we have had two Ministers from two other Departments here throughout our deliberations.

This is the Vehicles (Crime) Bill, and the crimes that are addressed in clause 37 are speeding and also, although nobody has mentioned it, passing a red traffic light. It should be clear to people that no one will have to pay a fine because of any provision in clause 37, if they do not break the speed limit or disobey a red traffic light.

My final introductory point is that, as the hon. Member for Vale of York pointed out, police authorities do not always have as much money as they would like for local priorities. They would like more, and clause 37 is an attempt to wrest money from the Exchequer and give to police authorities to spend on local priorities. At present, all fines paid by all the lawbreakers covered by clause 37 go to the Exchequer. The Lord Chancellor has no discretion and no choice but to hand over the cash. The purpose of the clause is to allow him to give back some of the money to police and highway authorities to spend on local priorities.

To emphasise that it is a road safety issue, PACTS will be happy to give to anyone who would like them, details of research that someone called Hooke completed for the Home Office in 1996 about the early effects of the use of speed cameras in reducing speeds, and therefore casualties, on the roads. The report stated that over the period when the research was conducted there was a 28 per cent. reduction in deaths and serious injuries in road collisions as a result of speed cameras reducing the speeds of vehicles passing through the areas concerned.

On Second Reading, I spoke of my experience in Staffordshire, where speed cameras have been used for three years, as a result of which there has been a 30 per cent reduction in deaths and serious injuries on the road. On some roads there have been spectacular reductions of up to 60 and 70 per cent. Bearing in mind that nationally, some 3,400 people die every year at present in road crashes, the possibility of shaving off more than 1,000 of those deaths every year is alluring. It would be a good day's work if what we did today brought about that result.

In Staffordshire, the local authority and the police have faced the allegation that they are only trying to raise more money, rather than trying to reduce casualties from road accidents. It has published openly the criteria according to which it decides where to locate speed cameras, so that the public see why cameras are put in one place rather than another. The criteria deal only with how to reduce casualties. In a recent assessment of that policy, and its success in being acceptable to the public, the local authority and the police found that the public accepted it in general, but had some quibbles about it not always being clear that they were breaking a speed limit, because road signs were not as clear as they should be, or it was not plain that there was a speed camera ahead, because it was hidden at the side of the road, where foliage had grown out and partly hidden it, or the markings on the road that the camera used to determine speed might have faded. Even now the authority is amending the criteria to make it clear that they want the cameras to be visible and the speed limit to be clearly shown. They want it to be obvious that there is a place where a speed camera will catch people who exceed the speed limit. It is adjusting the criteria to meet the genuine concerns of the public. That is commendable.

The Lord Chancellor is the means for passing over the money and should therefore be the person who is responsible for telling Parliament what happens to it. My amendment proposes that the Lord Chancellor should lay a report before Parliament, consulting with the Secretary of State, who is responsible for the whole scheme, stating what happens to the money in terms of what safety cameras—that is, speed cameras and cameras at red traffic lights—have been bought, the results of putting them by the side of the road and the effect on casualties. In that way, the House and the public at large would be reassured that the money had been used for the right purpose and had had an impact on casualties. That would have been a good way of reassuring the public. I imagine the Lord Chancellor saying, ``It's a touch unfair, Kidney, for you to do this, because all I'm doing is passing over the money to the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, who is responsible for road safety, and the Home Secretary, who is responsible for policing. Why lumber me with this responsibility?'' My answer is that the clause states that it is the Lord Chancellor's responsibility to dole out the money. Therefore, it is the Lord Chancellor's responsibility to tell us what he has done with it.

I would be happy to consider a better way if my hon. Friend the Minister is able to suggest one. I know that the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions has already issued guidance to local authorities and the police about the location of speed cameras. I commend the practice in Staffordshire and suggest that national guidance should follow that example. I hope that my amendment finds favour with the Minister.

Jonathan Sayeed (Conservative, Mid Bedfordshire)

Before we continue, may I remind colleagues that we must complete our consideration of this group of amendments by 4 o'clock. I am anxious to allow time for the clause stand part debate. I should be grateful if remarks could be brief.

Bob Russell (Liberal Democrat, Colchester)

That is precisely the point that I wish to make, Mr. Sayeed. I want to speak on clause stand part when we have finished with the amendments.

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

I shall try to be brief in the light of the comments made by the hon. Member for Colchester. My hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston raised the subject of the famous stealth tax. This is not a tax but a penalty for an offence. Drivers who keep to the speed limit will not be affected. Only those who break the law will be fined. It is important to distinguish between this and the general arguments about charges and taxes. This is a penalty for a criminal offence.

Amendment No. 53 seeks to provide regular information. I fully support the intention behind the amendment—it is well made—and I have corresponded with my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford about the points concerned. He referred in his speech to the guidance that the DETR is producing on the appropriate siting of safety cameras and the fact that it will be updated as part of the implementation of the national roll-out. A comprehensive handbook is being produced for the police, local authorities and others who wish to form partnerships as part of the national roll-out.

Cameras have already been shown to have significant road safety benefits—I will not go through those arguments again—but an important part of the pilot scheme is to monitor their performance. When the results of the monitoring become available, they will be made available to the House. The final report on how the pilots have fared will be produced after March 2002, when they are due to end, and they will then be made publicly available. Even if national roll-out starts later this year, it is unlikely to be completed within 12 to 18 months. A report required by Parliament in 2003 will not give us a great deal of information.

We believe that there are enough systems in place to demonstrate the effectiveness of the scheme, and I ask my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford to consider withdrawing his amendment, because it would be burdensome to extend the scope of the clause in the way that he suggests. I can give him some undertakings. First, we will publish a report on the results of the pilots when we have them. Secondly, when national roll-out is substantially complete and has been working for a while, we will publish a further report to Parliament. Thirdly, I will discuss with my colleagues in the DETR and the Lord Chancellor's Department what form of regular reporting regime, whether through Select Committees or whatever other means, might be a good way of getting to the facts on the matter.

I cannot go all the way that my hon. Friend suggests in his amendment, but I can go some of the way. I hope that he will take that into account when he considers how to proceed with his amendment.

On amendments Nos. 77 to 79, moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston, we strongly support the intention behind the amendments, because it is vital that speed cameras are placed where they are likely to have the most benefit in terms of reducing collisions and the severity of collisions. Roads circular 1/92 states:

In developing strategies for deployment and in identifying individual sites, authorities will need to bear in mind that the ultimate objective is to maximise the road safety benefits which can be achieved in any given area.

I will reinforce that point later. As I said, we intend to update the guidance, based on experience of camera operation, but it would be a mistake to be too prescriptive in legislation. There is a great deal of experience in local authorities and police forces of how best to deploy cameras, and it is important that a local judgment is made about where those cameras might be of most benefit to road safety. Local authorities and the police have at their fingertips all the data on casualties, which allows targeting of collision hot spots of the type described. That is why we should provide guidance and support, but not be overly prescriptive.

One example from one of the pilot areas—Northamptonshire—is of a head teacher requesting the police to enforce the speed limit outside the school by deploying a mobile camera unit for an hour when pupils are entering or leaving the premises. That is a perfectly legitimate use of cameras to relieve road safety anxiety and prevent accidents and casualties among a group of road users who are especially at risk.

On that basis, I hope that my hon. Friends will not press their amendments. I want to state categorically that, in all respects, the motivation behind the proposed legislation is road safety and the benefits that that brings to society.

Andrew Miller (Labour, Ellesmere Port and Neston)

In view of your observations, Mr. Sayeed, I shall be brief. There is undoubtedly evidence that speed cameras, cameras at junctions, and better warning signals about cameras cause people to reduce their speed. My hon. Friend the Minister has put it on the record that placement of cameras under the scheme must benefit road safety. That is the important point, which must be made loudly. I am sure that it will receive the support of most motorists, who realise that they are driving a tonne of steel, which is an extremely dangerous weapon if misused. 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)

My hon. Friends and I tabled amendment No. 88, which was not selected for debate. We therefore take the opportunity of this stand part debate to air our concerns. I shall not advise my hon. Friends to press the matter to a vote, although, depending on the response and reflections on the matter in the interim, we may be inclined to develop our arguments further on Report. We take a genuinely different and directly contrary view on the matter from that of the hon. Members for Ellesmere Port and Neston and for Stafford (Mr. Kidney).

There are serious concerns, which we share, about a massive and indiscriminate increase in speed and traffic enforcement cameras around the country. It has been debated extensively in the media, among other places, and hon. Members will be aware that several campaigning newspapers—if I may deploy that term—have taken up the cudgels in opposition to what they regard as an undesirable development. The official Opposition oppose the widespread roll-out of speed cameras on all of our roads. Speed cameras should be sited sensibly to deter speeding on dangerous roads or on roads that encourage, by their construction, speed in excess of the limit. They should not be used as another source of stealth taxation.

Michael Fabricant (Conservative, Lichfield)

Does my hon. Friend agree that not only should there not be a widespread roll-out of speed cameras but that there should be a wholesale review of speed limits, which in certain areas are too high or too low? Does he not find it strange that there is perhaps a tacit agreement by the Government that the speed limits on motorways are inappropriate, by virtue of the fact that there are no speed cameras on motorways, except where there are roadworks?

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

There are certainly arguments about speed limits and the case for a review thereof, and the extent to which, in practice as opposed to theory, the actual speed limit is not the guideline on the strength of which prosecutions are made. In practice, if a person is a few miles over the speed limit—I do not, of course, travel over the speed limit—he is relatively unlikely to be fined or prosecuted. If a person is many miles over the limit, he is more likely to be prosecuted. There is a degree of arbitrariness.

In the United Kingdom there is, on average, one automatic speed camera for every 30 miles of road. Under the new proposals, they will be more frequent, and the police will be allowed to keep the profits from speed camera fines. We place safety at the heart of our transport policy, but whereas others take a different view, we do not believe in needless regulation of speed.

Helen Jones (Labour, Warrington North)

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

No I shall not, because there is little time left.

Speed cameras were intended not to be a source of tax—we can re-examine the issue, perhaps on Report—but to prevent accidents and control excessive speed. A stretch of road may be safe, but also be particularly wide or straight. That may encourage people to speed and should be prevented by visible warnings of cameras. Drivers should be alerted to the presence of speed cameras, which should not be unduly hidden. [Laughter.] Certainly, speed cameras should not be used simply as a revenue collector. In some countries speed cameras are painted in bright colours or are highlighted by warning signs—a fact of which the hon. Members who are laughing are apparently ignorant.

There is a balance to be struck. There should be awareness of speed cameras, but they should not be unduly intrusive into the local life of the community. In recent years, there has been a proliferation of speed cameras. The number of random speeding convictions increased by 712,000 between 1985 and 1998. Of that, the main increase—about 443,000 convictions; on average about 89,000 a year—took place over five years from 1993 to 1998.

Helen Jones rose—

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

The British Motorcyclists Federation has argued for the deletion of the clause. We, being very moderate and reasonable, are not going that far today. The federation says that the clause is based on the assumption that speed is the main cause of accidents. It believes that too much emphasis is placed on speeding as opposed to dangerous driving, and that the clause militates against improving standards.

Helen Jones rose—

Mr. Bercow: It also argues that the police are over-zealous in prosecuting speeding offences because they are easier to take to court than offences of dangerous driving, and that the clause would reinforce that trend.

Now, as the hon. Member for Warrington, North is so anxious to favour us with her wisdom—I have the highest regard for the intelligent contributions that she normally offers in the House—I happily give way to her.

Helen Jones (Labour, Warrington North)

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way—eventually. His whole argument rests on the premise that people have something to fear from speed cameras, but law-abiding people have nothing to fear from them. How does he reconcile his attitude to speed cameras with the constant demand from the Opposition for more closed circuit television cameras?

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

There are other arguments relating to driving, which are of greater significance. Dangerous driving, as opposed to driving in excess of the speed limit, should not be ignored or downgraded by the general focus of the debate.

There is also a real issue of cost and it would be massively expensive to have a universal or even a large-scale rollout of speed cameras throughout the country, despite the enthusiasm of some Labour Members. That is not a realistic proposition, even if it were a desirable one. For them to, deliberately or inadvertently, raise the expectation of such a prospect—when it is about as unrealisable as all the high-falutin' declarations and wild promises of Ministers— is supremely unwise. That is why we raised our concern. We are perfectly entitled to do so, and I make no apology for it.

Bob Russell (Liberal Democrat, Colchester)

It seems hardly worth while starting. Given that the sitting is ending at 4 o'clock, I shall reserve my comments for when the Bill returns to the Floor of the House. I must put on the record how much I deplore the fact that some members of the Committee have hogged the time available and prevented others from speaking and that the hon. Member for Lichfield made a speech, left the Room, returned and started intervening. We are discussing a serious subject. We have not been given enough time to debate it. I have been given less than 60 seconds to make my point. I shall not even attempt to start to make it; I shall save my arguments for another time.

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

I shall explain why the clause should stand part of the Bill. We do not agree with the British Motorcyclists Federation. It is important to fight speeding. We do not accept that the measure is a stealth tax. It is a penalty for those who behave illegally and cause danger to the rest of society.

It being Four o'clock, The Chairman put the Question necessary under the terms of the programme resolution to complete the business.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 37 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Adjourned till Tuesday 23 January at half-past Ten o'clock.