Orders of the Day — Vehicles (Crime) Bill

House of Commons, 30 January 2001.

OFFENCE OF MAKING FALSE STATEMENTS

Keith Hill (Labour, Streatham)

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Alan Haselhurst (Deputy Speaker, Saffron Walden)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Amendment No. 37, in clause 3, page 3, line 21, at end insert— '( ) Any person who knowingly makes a false application under this section shall be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale.'. Government amendments Nos. 1 and 4 to 6. Amendment No. 40, in clause 18, page 10, line 25, at end insert— '( ) Any person who knowingly makes a false application under this section shall be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale.'. Government amendments Nos. 7 to 14. Amendment No. 41, in clause 26, page 14, line 16, leave out "3" and insert "5". Government amendments Nos. 15 to 17. Amendment No. 42, in clause 27, page 14, line 34, leave out "4" and insert "5".

Keith Hill (Labour, Streatham)

Discussion in Committee—prompted primarily by the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow)—showed that there was a gap in the range of offences created by clauses 10 and 18, and I agreed to consider the matter further. I am happy to designate new clause 1 and the associated amendments as "the Buckingham amendments". Clauses 10 and 18 created offences of failing to notify the local authority or the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency of various changes, but they did not make it an offence to make a false statement in an application for registration, or for renewal of registration. New clause 1 plugs the gap for salvage operators by making it an offence to make a false statement that is material to the application.

Patrick McLoughlin (Conservative, West Derbyshire)

How was it that civil servants in the Minister's Department, when they scrutinised the Bill before it reached the House, failed to spot something that my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) managed to spot? Should not the Minister make an apology to my hon. Friend?

Keith Hill (Labour, Streatham)

I hardly think that an apology is in order. I fully recognise that there was an oversight in the drafting. We are extremely grateful to the Opposition, and to the hon. Member for Buckingham specifically, for drawing our attention to the lacuna in the Bill that the new clause is intended to fill.

Michael Fabricant (Conservative, Lichfield)

I thank the Minister for his generosity in calling the new clause the Buckingham amendment. However, does not he agree that, more scrutiny, with other lacunae might have been spotted? Can he guarantee that there are no other lacunae that might have been spotted had more scrutiny time been made available?

Alan Haselhurst (Deputy Speaker, Saffron Walden)

Order. I suggest to the House that, in the context of this debate, we should stick to the lacuna that is before us.

Keith Hill (Labour, Streatham)

I am delighted to deal with this particular lacuna, which we debated at some length in Committee. We dealt with a wide range of matters in Committee. We debated all the amendments that had been tabled, and in fact finished early. All the issues that Conservative and Liberal Democrat Members wanted to raise were covered more than adequately in Committee, and the time provided was more than adequate for the purpose. The offence that I described is punishable by a fine at level 3—that is, £1,000—in line with the penalties for the other clause 10 offences. However, we believe that a higher penalty is appropriate for those who make false statements when they have previously had an application refused—or registration cancelled—on the grounds that they were not "fit and proper" persons. Such people have been through the procedures before and know what is required. They know that if they applied in their own right, their application would not be successful. We must not allow them to think that an attempt to deceive the local authority is less risky than trading while unregistered. The penalty for trading while unregistered is set at level 5—that is, £5,000-and new clause 1 provides for the same penalty to apply to those caught by subsection (2). Government amendment No. 1 qualifies the offence in clause 10(1), so that any change affecting the accuracy of the information submitted with an application must be "material". That makes it consistent with new clause 1. It is likely that a wide range of information will be submitted with applications, and we do not want the offence to apply to inaccuracies that will not weigh in the balance when local authorities are making decisions. Such inaccuracies might include, for example, mistakes in the spelling of names or addresses. A similar amendment, Government amendment No. 14, has been proposed for the number plate scheme. Government amendments Nos. 4 to 9 and Government amendment No. 12, which relate to clause 18, on the application for registration for registration plate suppliers, have a similar effect to the changes proposed for salvage operators. We propose to introduce a new offence, with a level 3 fine, of either knowingly or recklessly making a false statement when applying for registration. A business convicted of making a false statement might not be considered in some cases to have made a valid registration, so the option of suspension from the register might not be open to the court. We therefore propose to give the court the power to impose a period of up to five years during which such a business will be barred from making a false application. We also want to address the situation in which a business that has been suspended from the register or debarred from making a further application attempts to reapply before the relevant period has elapsed.

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, not least for his kind remarks of a few moments ago. I do not want to be pedantic, but I do want to be precise. The hon. Gentleman said that it would be possible under the new arrangements to prevent someone from making a false application for a period of five years. I think that the hon. Gentleman meant to say a further false application.

Keith Hill (Labour, Streatham)

To the extent that the applicant has already been barred or suspended from the register, an offence has been committed. I certainly accept the rephrasing of the expression along the lines suggested by the hon. Gentleman. However, this is a somewhat convoluted way of dealing with the issue. We have tussled hard to find an appropriate way forward on the matter. It is a convoluted form; nevertheless, it serves to achieve the desired effect. As I was saying, this may involve a deliberate attempt to deceive the registration authority by providing false details. In line with the proposals for salvage operators, we are proposing a level 5 fine. This offence is more serious than simply providing false information, and ranks alongside the offence of trading while unregistered. Government amendments Nos. 10, 11 and 13 relate to clause 19, which provides that a suspension from the register of number plate suppliers imposed by a magistrates court should not have effect until the time for appealing to the Crown court runs out. This is a sensible provision, because suspension from the register means that it will no longer be possible for someone to trade legally as a number plate supplier and that should not occur while there is still the possibility of a successful appeal. There are two ways of dealing with an adverse decision of the magistrates court. One is to appeal to the Crown court; the other is to state a case on a point of law to the High Court. This is done when the magistrates court has exceeded its powers or seriously erred in law. The procedure should be used only in exceptional circumstances; it is, indeed, seldom used. Nevertheless, the legislation must allow for such circumstances. Amendments Nos. 10 and 13 apply the same provision as on appeals to circumstances where a case is stated to the High Court. Amendment No. 11 places a statutory duty on the courts to notify the DVLA when a registration is suspended or a business is ordered not to make another application for a specified period following a conviction for making a false statement. Unless the amendment is made, there will be no mechanism in law for notification from the courts. It is essential that the courts provide the DVLA with this information so that the register can be amended accordingly. The purpose of amendments Nos. 15 to 17 is to describe the new offence relating to the sale of counterfeit plates more accurately, and to introduce a defence. The amendments relate to clause 27, which sets out to address two scenarios. The first is when defective number plates are sold to an unwitting customer. The second deals with the problem of customising number plates to a customer's specifications. It is already an offence under the Vehicle Excise and Registration Act 1994 to display such a number plate, but many suppliers are happy to sell such plates and let the motorist take the risk of being caught. We want to deter that practice. It is right, however, that the defence should be available to cover any genuine cases in which the defect was slight and the supplier could prove he did not know of the defect and was not reckless with regard to the defect. In the light of those observations, I commend the Government amendments to the House. I fear that I must resist Opposition amendments Nos. 37, 40, 41 and 42,. Let me explain why. Amendments Nos. 37 and 40 would make it an offence, punishable by a fine of up to £5,000, knowingly to make a false application for entry in the register of motor salvage operators or number plate suppliers. The Bill requires a motor salvage operator to make an application for registration. It does not, however, address the situation in which someone makes a false declaration as part of that application. We appreciate the motivation behind the amendments. Indeed, the same proposals in Committee prompted us to table new clause 1, the related amendments to part I, amendment No. 4 and the related amendments to clause 18.

Oliver Heald (Conservative, North East Hertfordshire)

The crucial difference between the Opposition's amendments and the Government's new clause is that, whereas under the Government's proposals the offence occurs when someone either knowingly or recklessly makes a false statement, under the Opposition's proposals, the offence is committed when it is done knowingly, but not in circumstances of recklessness. Why does the Minister believe that recklessness should be included in the offence? What sort of circumstances does he think would be covered? How would he deal with the point made by the Minister of State, Home Office, the hon. Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Clarke), when I proposed that recklessness should be imported into the offence under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000? He said that to import recklessness would introduce great complexity, legal technicalities and difficulties to the situation. How would the Under-Secretary deal with that point in this context?

Keith Hill (Labour, Streatham)

I hope to come on to those points and set out the Government's objections in the course of my remarks. We prefer the Government amendments chiefly because, unlike the others, they draw a worthwhile distinction between a false application per se and deception attempted by an applicant whose previous registration has been cancelled or refused. We consider the latter more serious, and deserving of a higher maximum penalty. Amendment No. 41 relates to the registration of number plate suppliers. It seeks to increase the level of the fine for failure to notify a change of particulars from a level 4 fine of £2,500 to a level 5 fine of £5,000. We believe that that lacks a sense of proportion. One must compare the various offences in the Bill and give each its due weight. Is a failure to notify the DVLA of a change of address as serious as failure to register altogether? We do not think so. Our view is that the two cannot be treated in the same way. To carry on a business while unregistered is to flout the core purpose of the legislation. It cannot be compared with a failure to keep the DVLA updated in every material detail.

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

I suggest to the hon. Gentleman that he is, no doubt inadvertently, giving the impression that the offence of failing to communicate a new address to the DVLA is somehow trifling. Will he, by contrast, accept that it would not be at all trifling if a change of business premises was not notified to the DVLA, so that, as far as that central authority was concerned, the registered salvage operator or registration plate supplier might just as well not be registered at all?

Keith Hill (Labour, Streatham)

I understand the point that the hon. Gentleman makes, but an element of intention must be taken into account in this context. A bona fide supplier has obviously gone through the registration process, thereby demonstrating his integrity and acceptability as a supplier, but he may inadvertently fall into the trap of failing to convey a change of address in due course. That is a problem—but although it is an offence, it is not deeply serious and certainly falls into the category of possible accident rather than malevolence. On those grounds, we think that a worthwhile distinction can be made in the degree of seriousness of the offence. I am sure that we can return to those matters in due course. Like amendment No. 41, amendment No. 42 treats an offence more gravely than is warranted. The offence under clause 27 is designed to deal with the practice of selling number plates where the characters are so arranged as to make them resemble a personal name or other word that might mean something to the owner. The Government want to stop that practice, as it can make it difficult for cameras and witnesses to read number plates. That is already an offence, punishable by a level 3 fine of £1,000. However, we do not believe that selling a plate with the numbers "1" and "3" placed close together to look like a "B" is as serious as failure to register as a registration plate supplier, which, of course, attracts a level 5 fine. In the light of those reasonable objections, I hope that the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) will feel able to withdraw the amendments.

Oliver Heald (Conservative, North East Hertfordshire)

My question was obviously quite difficult as the Under-Secretary completely failed to address it, despite saying that he would do so. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) on the way in which he has taken up the issue and brought it to a conclusion—which, even if it is not not an entirely satisfactory one, is miles better than what preceded it. My hon. Friend identified the serious risk of people working illegally as motor salvage operators trying to obtain registration by giving false details. In almost every walk of crime, whenever there is an opportunity to make money by using false particulars to obtain the imprimatur of the state—the necessary licences or documentation—there are always cases of false representation. That is true in every field of crime; for example, the use of false identities to claim benefits or for the abuse of credit cards. It is surprising that the Government failed to identify that risk. If the offence had not been created, gangs would have tried to obtain several registrations using false materials and representations. They would have been able to enter the system; they would have been seen as clean operators and would have been able to salvage vehicles, break them up and sell the parts. My hon. Friend has done an invaluable service; the amendments should indeed be known as the Buckingham amendments. The whole House owes my hon. Friend a debt, and I was pleased that the Government were able to acknowledge that. In Committee, the Under-Secretary was rather shocked when that point was made. He said: Although I shall resist the new clause, I shall resist it in an extremely qualified fashion."—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 9 January 2001; c. 66.] He was obviously in retreat before the logic of my hon. Friend. However, that is no bad thing; it is good for Ministers to retreat when good points are made. They can then make better proposals on Report. The Minister of State, Home Office will be doing a good deal of that when we consider the Criminal Justice and Police Bill in Committee next week. The creation of an offence of knowingly or recklessly making a false statement in registering as a motor salvage operator, instead of the provision that we proposed—that it should be an offence when a false application is made knowingly—begs the question: why do the Government believe that the words "knowingly or recklessly" are the way to go? There is a problem with the use of the word "recklessness", as the Minister of State pointed out to me during our discussions on the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Bill, which included an offence of unlawfully intercepting a communication. Such an offence could only be committed by the authorities—or was most likely to be. I suggested that, if the authorities were to use their powers and facilities to intercept the communications of private citizens, it was wrong if the offence was only that they did so knowingly because, as servants of the state, they should be guilty if they acted recklessly. 6.15 pm The forces of the state—the authorities—in this country do an excellent job, but we do not want them to be able to act recklessly without redress. The Minister replied that we could not make such a provision because the law on recklessness is so complex that no one really understands it, and the Court of Appeal had made contradictory decisions on it. I ventured to suggest that the definition of "recklessness" was a simple matter. If there is a clearly identifiable risk that damage would result from particular conduct and if, having recognised that risk, people engage in that conduct, they are reckless. However, the Minister said that that was not the only definition and cited various cases. I was so concerned at the Minister's reply that I asked that the Attorney-General attend our Committee to give us a proper legal definition. I did not agree with the Minister. What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. People who may be brought before the courts for making a false statement "recklessly" to register as motor salvage operators may simply be innocent business men who made their statement in ignorance. They may not have understood what was needed on the form. They may be very good at salvaging cars, but not much good at paperwork. If there is a problem with the law on recklessness, it is wrong that we cannot have recklessness in an offence that applies to the state and its servants—the authorities—because it is far too difficult and complicated and nobody will understand it, but that it can apply to a man running a small business. Such businesses may involve breaking up vehicles—occasionally for spare parts. The hon. Member for Eltham (Mr. Efford) knows such small businesses only too well from his days in Southwark—I do not suggest that he ever took his taxi to them. Is it right that an ordinary business man, with a small business, should be put at risk of being found guilty of acting recklessly, when the real mischief that we want to attack is committed by the fraudster? We want to go after people who knowingly make false statements when registering as motor salvage operators. It was worrying that the Under-Secretary could not give me a ready reply to my question, because he drafted the provisions. There is clearly a significant difference between our suggestions in Committee and his proposals: it is the word "recklessness". If that word has been inserted without the hon. Gentleman's knowledge—or if he has not even thought about it—that really is a poor do. I hope that he will reflect on the matter. Perhaps during the debate he will recall why he thought that the word "recklessness" offered the way forward. Our amendment No. 37 provides for an offence of "knowingly" making a false application. That is the basis on which we should proceed. Government amendment No. 4 provides for the offence of recklessly or knowingly making a false statement as to the registration of a number plate supplier. Again, I make the same point that I made about the earlier provision: there is an offence not merely in respect of "knowingly" but in respect of "recklessly" making a false statement. Government amendment No. 4 includes proposed new subsection (2B), under which no application can be made for up to five years if the person has been banned from registering as a result of a conviction for making a false statement to apply. That is sensible; it is right that fraudsters should be banned, but is it fair to ban someone who has acted recklessly? Clearly, such a ban is fair enough if someone has behaved dishonestly, and knowingly so, but recklessness is a borderline issue and the Minister may feel that the provision presents dangers for small business men. Government amendment No. 5 is technical and Government amendment No. 6 is consequential. Government amendment No. 7 provides that if a person has been convicted of making a false application, he can be removed from the register and a prohibition will apply. We have no problem with that. Amendment No. 40, which we tabled, would make it an offence to submit a false application to register as a number plate supplier. Again, it includes the word "knowingly". We suggest that a level 5 fine should be imposed for the offence of failing to notify changes in information on the register. The Under-Secretary dismissed that suggestion, saying that there is a great difference between not notifying a change in circumstances and making a false statement at the outset. However, my experience, as a Minister with responsibility for benefit fraud, was that people would often make a genuine claim initially, but their circumstances would change and they would not tell the authorities. That was a big problem. In a sense, such fraud was almost a crime of omission, although dishonesty and guilt were involved. People often find it easier to mislead the authorities by not doing what they have a duty to do than by deliberately setting out to lie. The same applies to these provisions. If a motor salvage operator begins perfectly satisfactorily, tells no lies and has a good business, but that business goes badly wrong, he may be tempted to make changes to the business that may lead it into the black market and to become involved in the activities that the Government want to curtail. In those circumstances, not giving notification of a change of address could be a crucial indicator of the fact that that operator is operating dishonestly and is misleading the authorities. It is often easier to detect crimes in which people have to tell the authorities something and lie than those in which they do not have to tell them anything. It is therefore important to impose a fairly tough penalty in such cases to dissuade those who may be tempted to fail to give the information to which the authorities are entitled. I ask the Under-Secretary to respond to that important issue. Government amendment No. 15 will add the concept of guilty knowledge to the offence of selling a counterfeit registration plate. Again, it states that someone must know, or be reckless about the fact that, something is not a true plate. It is good that that will no longer be an absolute offence and that the Minister is prepared to introduce the mental element or the golden thread to which I have referred—but not too often because the Minister of State hates lawyers and does not like to be reminded too much about the country's legal history. I am not sure why that is so, because if the Minister of State ever becomes Prime Minister, he will look with delight on the country's history and think himself part of a great chain of historical events. He might think that our legal system is rather good; it is one of the things for which this country is most prized. Our common law is recognised internationally as one of the things that we have given to the world and our system of justice is well respected across the Commonwealth and half the world. Perhaps it is not the law but the lawyers at which he aims his attack. It is good that the golden thread of knowledge and the mental element of crime will be introduced under Government amendment No. 15, but the Under-Secretary should explain the use of the term "recklessness". Why has that complicated concept been introduced, given that the Minister of State has told us that it is almost impossible to understand? Amendment No. 42 would increase from level 4 to level 5 the penalty for selling a counterfeit plate. Such matters depend on whether people believe that selling a counterfeit plate is a serious crime. On Second Reading, we were told that it was important, that it fuelled crime and that it should be stamped out. I agree with that; everyone who hears media reports of criminals who steal cars and fit counterfeit plates to them knows that it is a way in which they mask their identity. If that is crucial to the commission of crime, surely selling such a plate is an important matter for which a substantial sentence should be imposed. With the best will in the world, we have to recognise that those who commit such an offence do so for money. It is a commercial offence, so a £2,000 fine is surely too low. If this is a commercial exercise designed to stop people committing the offence, it seems wrong to set the penalty at such a low level. I hope that the Under-Secretary is prepared to reply to those points. Perhaps he will tell us his detailed views on the law of recklessness. If not, perhaps the Attorney-General will tell us what he thinks later.

Michael Fabricant (Conservative, Lichfield)

I, too, rise to support amendments Nos. 37, 40, 41 and 42, tabled by my hon. Friends. As I said during the debate on the programme motion, I find it extraordinary that the provisions contained in new clause 1 were left out of the Bill. Many hon. Members know that I am pro-American. Being so pro-American, I think that they should be called not the Buckingham amendments but the Bercow amendments because that is what they would be called in the United States and it would be in recognition of the fact that my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) discovered this lacuna in the Bill. It is a truly amazing gap. The Bill is primarily intended to enable the registration of licence plate suppliers and motor salvage operators, but there was no provision imposing sanctions on those who deliberately provide false information when registering. That extraordinary omission clearly demonstrates the need for scrutiny—and, indeed, the need for the House—so it ill behoves the Government deliberately to limit the time available for such scrutiny. In the previous Session, the Utilities Bill was cut in half, but the Government propose additions to this Bill. I suppose that we could argue that we at least have a listening Government because, now that the Opposition have had time to identify gaps in the legislation, they now suggest the inclusion of the missing provisions. I am not convinced that the Bill does not contain other, similar lacunae. Of course, the Under-Secretary cannot guarantee us that no other lacunae exist because there has been insufficient time to deal with such issues. I want to speak to Government amendment No. 15. The Under-Secretary wondered whether it was trivial for the numbers 1 and 3 to be put together to make the letter B. My hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) has already asked whether the £2,000 fine is sufficient to deter criminals from altering number plates, given that such crimes often involve large sums. This morning I met Sir John Stevens, the London police commissioner, who said that people under the age of 17 commit about 70 per cent. of crime in London—a sobering statistic. Nevertheless major crime is committed to obtain big money. I hardly think that a fine of £2,000 is an adequate deterrent.

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

Does my hon. Friend agree that his proposition is supported by the Government's own advocacy for the Bill on Second Reading? They made it clear that the measures were designed to tackle car crime in and of itself, not only because of the damage that it does and the emotional scars that it can cause but because it is the gateway to the commission of more serious offences, including drug trafficking and terrorism.

Michael Fabricant (Conservative, Lichfield)

As ever, my hon. Friend is completely correct. He leads me on to a fresh point. The police are beginning to use interesting new technology in their fight against crime. I welcome the use of the automatic licence plate recognition equipment, which is already used at some of our ports. I hope that it will also be introduced on major trunk roads. The equipment is made up of television cameras that are linked to computers that can recognise and read the licence plates of cars as they move by. If a car is stolen or if the police need to survey it for any reason, the computer will immediately flag up its existence and draw it to the attention of the relevant authorities. I was about to intervene on the Under-Secretary when he concluded his remarks. I believe that he said he did not think it was too serious a crime to alter a licence plate by putting a "1" and a "3" together to look like a "B" or to use italic instead of standard script, even though to do so would contravene existing road traffic and other Acts. What would be the effect on the new equipment if plates were altered in that way? Surely, if a police officer were trying to detect the whereabouts of a stolen vehicle or, as my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham suggests, one containing drugs and a "1" and a "3" were together on its licence plate, is it not possible that the equipment might see that as a "B" and not highlight to the relevant authorities the fact that the vehicle had just moved by or entered the country? At present, the equipment just recognises UK licence plates, but it will shortly recognise those from other countries.

Bob Russell (Liberal Democrat, Colchester)

Does the hon. Gentleman approve or disapprove of people who amend their licence plates in the way that he has described?

Michael Fabricant (Conservative, Lichfield)

I hope that I made myself clear. However, if I have not done so, I make it absolutely clear now that I disapprove of such conduct. I regret the fact that the Under-Secretary finished his speech before I could intervene, but I got the impression that he was making light of the fact that people could amend their licence plates to make them more attractive. I am sure that he will clarify that when he winds up this debate. For example, if I had the licence plate "FA 13", would I be tempted to change it to "FAB"? I think not. Unlike the late lamented Gerald Nabarro, I have no desire to have a series of vehicles with the licence plates, "NAB 1", "NAB 2" and "NAB 3", or even "FAB 1", "FAB 2" and "FAB 3".

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

Or "FAB FM".

Michael Fabricant (Conservative, Lichfield)

Or "FAB FM", as the Minister suggests, referring to a non-existent radio station with which he thinks I was involved some years ago. This is a serious matter. If one changes a licence plate to such a degree that a police officer cannot recognise it either with the naked eye or automatic equipment and thus is unable to follow the vehicle or stop it if it is stolen, surely that negates the whole point of having plates in the first place. Does the Under-Secretary not think that he was being reckless in suggesting that such an offence would not be as serious as some of the others in the Bill?

Graham Brady (Conservative, Altrincham and Sale West)

Before my hon. Friend moves on from the issue of automatic licence plate recognition, will he tell us whether he shares the concerns that I and other hon. Members have about the misuse of such technology and the civil liberties implications? Does he not consider it possible that the existence of such technology might make it more likely that people will wish to change their licence plate numbers even if they are not guilty of a crime?

Michael Fabricant (Conservative, Lichfield)

If people were to change their licence plates, they would be guilty of a crime. I shall not go into great detail on that question, because that would be out of order, but I merely say that I do not regard the use of the equipment as an invasion of civil liberties. However, I accept that some people will argue that it is another example of big brother. However, one could argue that if one had a police officer on every street corner—oh, I dream about that nightly for Lichfield, but it will not come about.

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Michael Fabricant (Conservative, Lichfield)

I shall give way to the Minister, who tried engagingly to intervene on me in the debate on the ten-minute Bill. I realise that he is a relatively new boy and did not know that one cannot intervene in such a debate. I promised that I would give way to him at a suitable juncture; I suspect this is the point.

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

I was almost out of order earlier, but the hon. Gentleman helped me. However, I wish to point out that there was a useful Adjournment debate this morning with the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) on the issue of police numbers in Staffordshire. We were all disappointed that the hon. Member for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant) could not attend to discuss his views in detail in the appropriate forum.

Michael Fabricant (Conservative, Lichfield)

I am glad that the Minister has raised that point, because I can now put on record where I was this morning.

Michael Lord (Deputy Speaker, Central Suffolk and North Ipswich)

Order. The House is mainly concerned by the fact that the hon. Gentleman is here now, and should be addressing the new clause that is before us.

Michael Fabricant (Conservative, Lichfield)

Of course I will abide by your instructions, Mr. Deputy Speaker. However, if I had been able to attend the debate, I would have been there. I was with the Staffordshire Regiment, but I cannot say any more because that would be out of order. It was an equally important event to do with my constituency of Lichfield, but I was torn because I wanted to attend that debate. To answer the question of my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady), I do not believe that the use of the equipment is an invasion of civil liberties. I regard the use of extra police officers or new technology to apprehend criminals as protection for all law-abiding people. It helps to protect innocent, decent, honourable people—and, by definition, we are all honourable in this House—so it is a good thing. My hon. Friend is a philosopher. Like Topol in "Fiddler on the Roof", he always see two sides to an argument. He has an Hasidic viewpoint—on the one hand this, on the other hand that—and he is right because he is truly a statesman. On balance, I would prefer it for the new technology to be rolled out. I accept that the civil liberties lobby will say that it is an example of big brother but, if big brother is there to protect me, I am happy. Big brother will be a good brother provided that the Bill is properly scrutinised by the House. That is why I get so upset when Bills are rushed through under timetable motions.

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way, because it enables me to pick him up on an important theme in the debate. Does he not agree that one of the reasons—a reason on which I did not dilate in the debate on the programme motion—for us to have more time thoroughly to consider the contents of the Bill is that several of its key provisions, amendments and new clauses are not ultimately a matter of party politics? They involve matters of discretion and judgment by individual Members in different parties. There is no uniformity of view on some of the issues, so does my hon. Friend accept that we need a—

Michael Lord (Deputy Speaker, Central Suffolk and North Ipswich)

Order. We cannot rehearse the arguments that we heard in the debate on the programme motion. There are many groups of amendments to cover and other hon. Members may want to contribute to the debate. I should be grateful if that were borne in mind.

Michael Fabricant (Conservative, Lichfield)

My final point relates to recklessness. My hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hertfordshire said that what was sauce for the goose should be sauce for the gander when we compare the Bill with other legislation. However, I have a specific issue to raise. New clause 1(1)(b) states that someone who recklessly makes a statement which is false in a material particular, shall be guilty of an offence". How will it be possible to prove in a court of law that a statement was made recklessly? The principle of English common law, about which my hon. Friend waxed so lyrically and accurately, is the gift that we have given the world. Under common law, it is necessary to prove a guilty mind—there must be mens rea. How will we be able to get a conviction under new clause 1(1)(b)? How will people be able to prove that a statement was made recklessly rather than by pure accident or out of innocence? How can we get into the mind of the individual? That is my criticism of the word "recklessly". I suspect that the Minister used the same argument when we discussed the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000, to which my hon. Friend referred.

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

The word "reckless" was not mentioned in the Standing Committee's deliberations. Will my hon. Friend confirm that he is describing the distinction between inadvertent neglect and wilful contempt? It is important that that be clarified.

Michael Fabricant (Conservative, Lichfield)

As ever, my hon. Friend uses words carefully. The courts would try to differentiate in that way, but it would be difficult for them to do so because English law is about evidence. If a crime has been committed, the evidence has to be provided in court so that a magistrate or jury believes that the person has committed the crime. There must be a guilty mind; there must be mens rea. How will we get into the mind of the individual to show that he was reckless rather than in contempt of the law? It will be impossible to prove that. The Bill was hastily presented, which gave rise to the massive lacuna that the Government are attempting to fill with new clause 1. I suspect that the new clause has also been hastily tabled. It contains a series of lacunae, or at least loopholes, that will keep lawyers, who are so hated by the Minister, in business for many a year. It is sad that, since 1997, Bills have been hastily prepared and, although they have been filled with good intentions, they have also been filled with giant loopholes. Either they contain loopholes that keep lawyers in business for years or, as happened with the Utilities Act 2000, great chunks are removed before they reach the statute book. Can the Under-Secretary assure me that the new clause has not been recklessly compiled? Can he assure me that there will be convictions under new clause 1(1)(b)? Can he assure me that, if licence plates are changed—for example, when the numbers 1 and 3 are put together to make the letter B—so that police officers and the vehicle licence plate recognition equipment cannot read them correctly, that is not an unimportant matter? If so, why will a level 5 penalty not be applied?

Keith Hill (Labour, Streatham)

The exchanges to which we have just been treated demonstrate that there is not much difference between the Government and the official Opposition. I shall attempt to deal with the points that have been raised. The hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) mentioned the level of fines if a person fails to notify a change of address. The Government are responding to most people's perception that such a failure, which is more likely to be an unwitting action, is not as serious as providing false information.

Oliver Heald (Conservative, North East Hertfordshire)

If the Under-Secretary wants to table a manuscript amendment that contains the word "knowingly", I shall be more than happy to consider it.

Keith Hill (Labour, Streatham)

It is with great enthusiasm that I address the vexed issue of recklessness and knowingness. I shall have several stabs at answering the questions. Let me set out my stall. It is vital that the application process generates true and accurate information. No doubt we would all agree on that. Clause 10 deals with accuracy; the new clause deals with true information. Why should people who are reckless and do not care whether the information that they submit is true be allowed to escape? That must be discouraged. The conscientious who make a mistake are unlikely to be reckless.

Oliver Heald (Conservative, North East Hertfordshire)

Will the Minister give way?

Keith Hill (Labour, Streatham)

No, I am sure the hon. Gentleman will have another opportunity to return to the issue of recklessness. The hon. Member for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant) asked how we can get a conviction on the grounds of recklessness. Bearing in mind the amount of time that he took to make his point, I am extremely glad that he is not my lawyer. It is for the judicial process—the courts—to decide whether an act was reckless. It is incumbent on the prosecution to show that the accused took no steps to verify the information. The prosecution would have to ask whether a reasonable person knew that his statement was false. The fact is that there are many reckless offences in statute. The Criminal Damage Act 1971 contains such offences and successful prosecutions take place under it.

Oliver Heald (Conservative, North East Hertfordshire)

I made those arguments when we discussed unlawful interceptions by the state authorities in our debates on the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000. When we dealt with the important matter of the state committing offences, the Minister told me that it was impossible to have the offence of recklessness when the arrogant use of power was the issue. He said that the subject was so complicated that the courts could not understand it and that there were different interpretations of the law. Now, why should the poor old garagiste in Peckham, Southwark, Eltham or north Hertfordshire have to wrestle with the concept of recklessness if it is not good enough for the Secret Intelligence Service and the authorities in Britain?

Keith Hill (Labour, Streatham)

It is a matter of eternal regret to me that I was not a member of the Committee that considered that Bill and was therefore unable to listen to the hon. Gentleman at even greater length. We are dealing now with an entirely different Bill, and there is no comparison between the two measures. I return to the issues of recklessness and knowingness, on which I was seeking to help the Opposition. At present, a person accused of knowingly committing an offence will escape conviction if he shows that he does not know because he does not care. The introduction of the concept of recklessness fills that gap, as it does in other legislation, and it differs from knowingness in that "knowingly" means that someone has subjective knowledge—he knows that he is making a false statement, rather than just not caring. That is a pretty clear distinction between concepts. I shall have a final stab at explaining that difference to the Opposition. "Reckless" means not taking pains to ensure whether what is said is true. We want to deter that in the application process, where it is important to be accurate, and that is consistent with clause 10, where reckless failure to notify will also be an offence. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] It is perfectly clear to me from the acclaim that I am receiving from my hon. Friends that I have explained that distinction to the satisfaction of the majority party. I propose then to proceed to the last issue of minor substance, the question of offences in connection with the supply of number plates, which was raised by the Opposition in their response to my opening remarks. As we have explained repeatedly during our many fascinating discussions on the subject, the issue that the Government are seeking to tackle is the abuse of the number plates supplied, which is the most serious problem. It is not our purpose to criminalise the number plate supply industry. However, we wish to deter the practice of selling number plates with characters so arranged as to make them resemble a person's name. As I have said before, we think that a level 3 fine is just about appropriate in those circumstances, and we are pretty sure that the majority of the great British public—25 million of whom are motorists—would agree.

UNIFIED POWER FOR SECRETARY OF STATE TO FUND SPEED CAMERAS ETC

Keith Hill (Labour, Streatham)

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Keith Hill (Labour, Streatham)

Amendment No. 43 would remove clause 37. That will satisfy Opposition Members who tabled an amendment to remove the clause. I welcome their intention to withdraw that amendment. New clause 7 would take the place of clause 37, and I shall explain our reasons for tabling it. Clause 37 establishes a power for the Lord Chancellor to make payments to the authorities responsible for funding magistrates courts to meet the full costs of administering speed and traffic light offences. However, the provision does not enable the Lord Chancellor to make payments to other bodies such as local authorities and the police, which can form partnerships to carry out the enforcement activities. The other bodies involved in the partnerships formed to fund camera placement and operation already have established financial arrangements with other Departments; for example, the police are of course funded principally from the Home Office. When the Treasury took the decision to allow payments to be made directly from netted-off fine revenue in certain circumstances, it quite rightly placed on any proposals to do so several important criteria that had to be met before approval would be given to proceed. One of the criteria was to ensure that any scheme put in place did not result in increased bureaucracy. As a new Labour libertarian, I fully endorse that sentiment. We are therefore left with a clear choice either to fund the various partners through several separate funding routes or to link them all up for these purposes by channelling the netted-off revenue through one Department. That is exactly how the current safety camera pilots are operating. The funds are channelled through the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions for distribution to lead authorities in each partnership, which in these cases is a local authority. That arrangement is allowed for the time being under the provisions of the Appropriation Acts, but that can only be a temporary measure. It clearly follows that to meet the Treasury criterion of keeping bureaucracy to a minimum, we must seek to continue the system that is working so effectively in the pilots.

Bob Russell (Liberal Democrat, Colchester)

Will the Minister state categorically whether the new clause is a road safety, crash reduction measure or a revenue generator?

Keith Hill (Labour, Streatham)

It goes without saying that this is a measure concerned with road safety and the prevention of road accidents. It could not be for any other purpose, and it would be grossly irresponsible and unfair of the hon. Gentleman to suggest otherwise.

Bob Russell (Liberal Democrat, Colchester)

rose—

Keith Hill (Labour, Streatham)

I am very fond of the hon. Gentleman, so of course I will give way again.

Bob Russell (Liberal Democrat, Colchester)

I welcome that clarification and reassurance. I was just observing that so far the words "road safety" and "accident reduction" have not passed the Minister's lips.

Keith Hill (Labour, Streatham)

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for securing that clarification. I know very well of his excellent work in RoadPeace, along with my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller). The hon. Gentleman is right to be concerned about these matters. We had hoped to be able to sustain the pilot scheme arrangements within existing law, rules and conventions by allowing DETR to act as a paying agent for other Departments, but that has not proved to be possible.

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

The Under-Secretary assures the House that in no sense is this a revenue-raising measure, but so far as my hon. Friends and I are concerned, this seems to be a case of "methinks he doth protest too much". Will the hon. Gentleman therefore confirm that in no one year would the receipts to the public fund exceed the expenditure on road safety that those funds would afford?

Keith Hill (Labour, Streatham)

It would certainly be the Government's purpose to ensure that there was an appropriate balance of receipt and expenditure, but if the hon. Gentleman thinks about it, he will realise that it is not possible for any Minister, any Department or any Government to ensure that that is invariably the case. There is an intention that is fulfilled over time and in general terms, but it would be unrealistic for a Minister to offer the precise guarantee that the hon. Gentleman seeks.

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

The hon. Gentleman really is digging himself in deep. For the delectation and edification of the House I must repeat what he just said. He referred to an appropriate balance. That does not mean an equal balance. He referred to its achievement over time in general terms. I suggest that as a harbinger of good intent, it would be helpful if he could confirm that the equality between receipts and expenditure on road safety should have to be achieved within five years. Will he, as a junior but rising Minister, at least sign up to that commitment?

Keith Hill (Labour, Streatham)

Notwithstanding the hon. Gentleman's slightly improbable blandishments, I will not make the commitment that he is seeking—as with the foreign policy issues on which he tempted me earlier in our proceedings. I repeat the assurance that I gave to the distinguished hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Russell). The purpose of the provisions before us is entirely to improve road safety and to reduce accidents. The Government's objective will be to ensure that there is a balance of expenditure with revenue, and these matters are subject to the auditing process. They are for the public record and for public demonstration.

David Chidgey (Liberal Democrat, Eastleigh)

I fully accept what the Minister is saying about balancing budgets over time. That is an acceptable and sensible way forward. However, I am interested to know whether the hon. Gentleman can give us any idea from discussions in his Department of what is expected in terms of revenues from fines arising from the use of speed cameras being channelled into road safety measures. What is the Department's perception of the increased funding from the use of speed cameras being used to increase road safety measures? Does the hon. Gentleman have a programme in mind? By how much will we be able to extend the use of speed cameras from the pilot schemes, which have clearly been successful?

Keith Hill (Labour, Streatham)

The purpose of the proposed legislation is to enable the programme to be rolled out nationally on the basis of eight successful pilot schemes. In due course, we are anticipating a significant increase in the resource that will be available to introduce speed cameras. I hope that that is of some assurance to the hon. Gentleman.

Andrew Miller (Labour, Ellesmere Port and Neston)

Given the intervention of the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow), I wish there to be no misunderstanding. My hon. Friend has made it clear that the money is for road safety purposes. It is therefore axiomatic that the money must be spent on road safety purposes. It would be clear to any auditor and to any highway authority that the use of the money for any other purpose would be against the will of the House.

Keith Hill (Labour, Streatham)

My hon. Friend is right. He puts the matter most succinctly, and I am grateful for his help.

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. It is always a pleasure to joust with him. We do not quite know the purpose of the intervention of the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller), because his purpose is rarely clear. However, the effect of his rather foolish intervention, whether he intended it or not, was to tie the Minister down. Will the Minister confirm that the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston said that the money must effectively be ring-fenced—[Interruption.] Yes, the hon. Gentleman did. If the Minister agrees that the money can be spent only on road safety measures, which means in practice that it will be ring fenced, why is he not prepared to commit himself to the proposition that that is exactly and exclusively how it will be spent, measured over a five-year period? It is a simple challenge. Why can he not rise to it?

Keith Hill (Labour, Streatham)

The hon. Gentleman is not making an unreasonable proposition. On balance, over a five-year period, one would expect these matters to even out. I accept the general thrust of his observation but I am not in a position to say that there will be precise equality between revenue and expenditure at the end of a five-year period.

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

Why?

Keith Hill (Labour, Streatham)

However, that would be a desirable outcome to which the Government are certainly working. I heard the hon. Gentleman, from a sedentary position, ask, "Why?" On the whole, the Government like to approach these matters in a slightly more considered way than responding to flashes of inspiration from Opposition Members. The hon. Gentleman has had not a bad idea, and I have tried to be responsive to the broad thrust of his observation. However, he cannot expect me to make policy on the hoof, even though we are impressed by the ideas that flow from him in such a fecund fashion. I return to the point that I was evidently so laboriously trying to make. I was saying that we had hoped to make the provision within existing conventions by allowing the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions to act as a paying agent for other Government Departments. That has not proved to be possible. Therefore, to establish a clear power for DETR to make payments on a permanent basis, new clause 7 introduces a different arrangement from that set out in clause 37. New clause 7 is purely a mechanism to allow the funds to be channelled efficiently to any future partnerships through the one Department. In so doing, it allows the funding mechanism for speed limit and traffic signal enforcement to be established as simply and effectively as possible. I stress that the scope of the clause is limited entirely to funding enforcement activity that is associated only with speed limit and traffic signal violations.

David Chidgey (Liberal Democrat, Eastleigh)

Further to my previous intervention, the Minister will accept that I am generally supportive of the ambitions of the clause. However, I should be grateful if the hon. Gentleman provided a little more detail in relation to the national programme that will be funded as he has described. What specific difference will it make to existing plans within the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions to extend the programme of speed cameras? Will the hon. Gentleman indicate what amount of revenue—or funding, if he so wishes—will be raised in addition to what would otherwise have been budgeted for in the Department's capital programme? What impact does the Minister think the scheme will have?

Keith Hill (Labour, Streatham)

First, the Government take these matters step by step. We implement experimental or pilot schemes to ascertain whether ideas are sustainable. In this instance, given the success of the pilot schemes they evidently are. Secondly, we roll out the legislation so that the measures can be applied nationally, recognising that that is likely to produce desirable results. Within the framework that we are debating, we shall proceed in conjunction with local authorities to work out a detailed scheme of support and allocation of resource so that there can be a significant change in local arrangements. I hope that that satisfies the hon. Gentleman. It seems it does, given his assent from a sedentary position. If clause 37 is to be replaced, there need to be some minor amendments to the schedule to reflect that. These can be seen in amendments Nos. 46 to 54. We have debated both on Second Reading and in Committee the principle of the netting-off procedure for safety camera operation. I believe I am right in saying that there is a consensus that it is right and sensible, in the context of improving road safety and reducing the risk of accidents, to press ahead to make netting-off for speed and traffic signal enforcement available nationally. Indeed, in tabling amendment No. 26 to expand the netting-off procedure to cover careless, dangerous and drink or drug driving, the hon. Members for Lichfield, for Eastleigh (Mr. Chidgey) and for Colchester clearly demonstrate that general support for this road safety measure is evident in the House. I fully recognise that the proposed Opposition amendment is well intentioned, but in this context it is not appropriate, for reasons that I shall set out. The netting-off process is to be applied only to specific fixed-penalty offences. It was decided at the outset that the scheme would be limited to fixed-penalty offences, and the pilot schemes are proceeding on that basis. Some of the receipts from the penalties will be invested in greater enforcement activity, which will continue to put road safety first. However, more complex cases outside the fixed-penalty procedure are punishable by fine or imprisonment, or both. We maintain strongly that those cases are not to be included because courts may appear vulnerable to the charge that penalties were set in individual cases for reasons of wider monetary pressures, rather than in the interests of justice and the income of the individual. The amendment includes some serious offences that can be dealt with only by court appearance and, following conviction, would result in mandatory disqualification and perhaps even a custodial sentence. Fixed penalties are certainly not appropriate for those offences. The House will be aware that the Government are currently addressing the wider issue by conducting a review of penalties for the main road traffic offences, including drink and drug-driving, careless driving and dangerous driving. Its purpose is to consider whether the current maximum penalties remain appropriate, and to ensure that any proposed changes to penalties that we may wish to make are consistent within the whole sentencing framework. For the reasons that I have given, it is right that the clause should be limited to netting off fixed-penalty revenue to fund speed and traffic light violation enforcement and is not suitable for expansion into other areas. I hope, therefore, that the hon. Member for Lichfield will be prepared to withdraw his amendment. I now turn to new clause 5, which was tabled by the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) and others, which is legally defective. It is headed, Abandoned Vehicles: payments to local authorities and its references to sections are unsourced and make no sense in the context of the Bill, clause 2 of which refers only to the registration of salvage operators. There is no "section 2(1)(a) above" as the amendment states. It is possible that those who tabled the amendment had in mind the Refuse Disposal (Amenity) Act 1978, which makes it an offence to abandon a vehicle in a public place and obliges the local authority to remove such vehicles in certain circumstances. The amendment seeks to allow the Secretary of State to make payments to local authorities for the purpose of removing abandoned vehicles, provided that the payments do not exceed the value of fines imposed for abandoning them. That would be an additional resource for the collection of abandoned vehicles. Of course, we understand the extent of concern about abandoned vehicles, and agree that the problem must be tackled. In fact, it was raised on Second Reading and in Committee by my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Mr. Shaw). However, we do not agree that the amendment would provide the practical solution that it seeks. In particular, it does not take account of the work of the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency and the police.

Bob Russell (Liberal Democrat, Colchester)

If that is not a practical way forward, will the Minister indicate what measures the Government have in mind to take action against that growing problem?

Keith Hill (Labour, Streatham)

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I was coming on to set out those precise measures. As I have said, we are keen to tackle the problem of abandoned vehicles, which are an eyesore and cause considerable concern to the public. They are also dangerous. I well remember a pupil at a Glasgow school at which my wife once taught who died after playing with an abandoned vehicle and dropping a lighted match into the petrol tank. There was an explosion and the child was killed. It is because of such cases that it is important to deal with the issue. 7.15 pm We are watching closely a pilot scheme in Medway, with which my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford is involved and which is partly funded by the DVLA. The scheme was due to begin on 22 January, and I understand from my hon. Friend that it has already made a promising start. I rather think that we will hear more from him, should he catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker. In the mean time, I want to put on the record my tribute to my hon. Friend for his personal contribution to initiating that important scheme. Abandoned vehicles are usually untaxed and, under the scheme, untaxed vehicles will be wheel-clamped by one of DVLA's contractors—Sureway—and, if they are not taxed within 24 hours, will be removed to one of two car pounds and disposed of after 35 days. The pilot is a multi-agency approach to the problem and, if successful, could be used in other areas. There will be no advance publicity associated with the scheme: the aim is to deliver a short, sharp shock to the owners of unlicensed vehicles and force them to relicense. A number of abandoned vehicles will also be caught in the net.

Clive Efford (Labour, Eltham)

Will my hon. Friend clarify whether that scheme involves recouping the costs of disposing of those vehicles? The experience in my local authority, which is spending about £160,000 a year on the disposal of abandoned vehicles, is that, when the owners are approached, they say that they have sold the vehicle to a person in the pub or somewhere, but that he or she has not come to pick it up. They are literally discarding their vehicles on the roadside and leaving it to others, through their council tax, to pay for their disposal. Unless a penalty is involved, that practice will continue.

Keith Hill (Labour, Streatham)

My hon. Friend is right: the disposal of abandoned vehicles is enormously costly to local authorities—both those like my own authority of Lambeth which is almost adjacent to my hon. Friend's authority, and others nationally. The problem is enormously expensive and the Government are certainly looking at costs as we review the issue of abandoned vehicles—a matter in which I personally take a close interest as a Minister. My hon. Friend's observation is therefore taken very seriously. To return briefly to the Medway pilot scheme, we hope its evaluation will provide us with solutions that we can introduce nationally, some of which may require legislative changes in their own right. In the light of his observation, may I tell my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Mr. Efford) that it seems more sensible to consider all possible legislative changes as a whole in due course? In addition, on the horizon is the vehicles (end-of-life) directive which seeks to make provision for the collection and environmentally sound destruction, or recovery and re-use, of vehicles that have outlived their usefulness. We are currently looking at how best to implement the directive which will, we hope, tackle the problem that the amendment seeks to address. In the meantime, for the extremely cogent reasons that I have advanced, I trust that the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) will agree not to press his new clause.

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

There has been a remarkable change of heart on the part of the Government. Of itself, that is not necessarily to be regretted or deplored, but the extent to which, at this relatively late stage in the consideration of the Bill, Ministers seem uncertain about the means by which to achieve their objective is scant reassurance to the rest of the House, the affected industries and, indeed, the wider public. Despite the fact that the Minister must have been considerably embarrassed about that about-turn, he did his best to camouflage it and presented a difficult case with his usual vigour and alacrity. However, there is a big change on the Government's part. Previously, they thought that the arrangement was fine and, only 10 days or so ago, they were commending their planned intentions to the Standing Committee. Now, it seems, there has been a turf war, from which the Home Office—the lead Department dealing with the Bill—has, not surprisingly, emerged victorious. Nevertheless, there are genuine concerns about the Government's position on the proposal to finance a wide-scale roll-out of additional speed cameras. The main concern that my hon. Friends and I have, which we explained in Committee and which was not convincingly answered, is that the proposal is far less a road safety measure than it is a tax-raising device. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller) takes a different view. Not surprisingly, in view of past experience, he ended up a few moments ago disagreeing with himself, though he was probably unaware of it. That is a curious state of affairs. Hon. Members often disagree with each other across the House, and it is not entirely unprecedented for members of the same party to disagree with each other, but it is very strange for a Member of Parliament to disagree with himself, and it is even more curious—I dare go so far as to suggest that it is unprecedented—for an hon. Member unknowingly to disagree with himself. That, unfortunately, is the situation in which the hon. Gentleman finds himself.

Bob Russell (Liberal Democrat, Colchester)

I seek clarification from the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow). Will he support new clause 7 or will he divide the House?

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

There are other matters on which there might be Divisions, and the hon. Gentleman, who has a natural and well-developed inquisitiveness, must await developments. I am not prepared to tell him now when we might have a vote. [Interruption.] No, I am not disagreeing with myself. I am simply telling the hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Russell) that I understand his curiosity, but I assure the hon. Member for Shipley (Mr. Leslie) that I am not yet ready to satisfy the hon. Gentleman's curiosity. As will become clear to hon. Members, my hon. Friends and I do not approve of new clause 7. We approve of new clause 5—not surprisingly, as it is ours. Let me be specific. The hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston had something of a tantrum a moment ago when I accused him of disagreeing with himself, and started insulting me from a sedentary position. I know that he has considerable knowledge of much legislation, and I respect that knowledge. However, people who are very knowledgeable can often be wrong-headed, and the hon. Gentleman is wrong-headed. I shall explain why I accuse the hon. Gentleman of internal inconsistency and disagreement with himself. He asked the Minister in an intervention to confirm that all the proceeds of fines would have to be spent on road safety measures, for if that were not done, it would effectively defy the will of the House. In other words, any moneys raised would have to be spent on road safety measures. I assume that the hon. Gentleman was not being cynical. Whatever his other failings and merits, I have not accused him of being cynical. I assume that he was saying not just that money raised from fines would be spent only on road safety measures, but that all money raised from fines would be spent on road safety measures, and that it would not be appropriate, for example, to use the money to reduce interest charges that the Government might face. Not only could the money not be spent on another public policy, such as purchasing hospital equipment, but it could not be spent to satisfy another obligation, such as reducing a debt. All of it would have to be spent on road safety measures. The hon. Gentleman seemed to be suggesting to the Minister—it was so clear that none could doubt or gainsay it—that the Government would ring-fence the funds. The Minister speedily responded and accepted that. He said yes, he thought that that was the intention. Thus the hon. Gentleman suggested ring-fencing, and the Minister took him up on it and said yes. I challenge the Minister to confirm that the ring-fencing would apply, if not in every year without fail—errors occur, and there can be a mismatch in one year or another—at least over the five-year period of a Parliament or, in view of the way in which the Government apparently intend to cut and run, over the expected four-year term of a Parliament. At that point, the predictable confidence and remarkable assurance that the Minister usually displays in the delivery of his arguments immediately deserted him. All of a sudden, he retreated into a combination of the evasive and the coy. Now, I am very fond of the Minister. After all, he was my constituent when I was a young councillor in the London borough of Lambeth some years ago. We used to chat on the bus on which he travelled home, so we have always had good relations. I have the highest regard both for his integrity and for his debating skills. However, when he gets into difficulty, he waffles. When he does not know the answer, he becomes evasive. When he is severely under pressure, he says to the House, "Oh, but I am just a junior Minister. This is not a matter for me. I obviously cannot commit my senior, distinguished and highly respected right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I will get into frightful difficulty if I do." All that I was challenging the Minister to do was to confirm that, if the funds are to be ring-fenced, they will all be spent on road safety measures over a five-year period. All that I required from him was an answer in the affirmative or the negative. Instead, I got a circumlocutory evasion. That was not good enough.

Andrew Miller (Labour, Ellesmere Port and Neston)

rose—

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

The hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston thinks that he is about to enlighten the House, so of course I give way to him.

Andrew Miller (Labour, Ellesmere Port and Neston)

I want to ask the hon. Gentleman a question. Will he put on record how much he estimates needs to be spent on road safety schemes in his constituency, and what the shortfall is between that and current Government expenditure plans?

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

That is a fascinating challenge, but I shall be honest and tell the hon. Gentleman that off the top of my head I do not have the square root of a clue. If he would find it a stimulating and enjoyable experience to correspond on the subject, because there is a genuine public interest at stake or he wants to pursue an important debating point with me, I should be happy to correspond with him. I accept that the hon. Gentleman makes a fair challenge. He is right that, off the top of my head, I do not know the answer. Like all right hon. and hon. Members, I receive regular requests for support for particular schemes, and I lobby vigorously on behalf of those that I think are in the public interest. I do not know what the figures are, but seriously, I would be happy to correspond with the hon. Gentleman. Moreover, I accept the thinking underlying his intervention: that much work needs to be done to improve road safety. What I found in Committee, as my hon. Friends the Members for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant) and—if she were present, which sadly she is not—for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh) would testify, was one of those rare but striking occasions on which not only did Government and Opposition Members disagree about speed cameras, but there was almost blank incomprehension of each other's position. It is certainly fair to say that of the Government's attitude to us. The Government seemed to think that using fines for the purpose of the massive roll-out of speed cameras would be a thoroughly good thing, that it would obviously be effective, and that only the most bizarre specimen could possible oppose it. The hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston nods to confirm that. [Interruption.] He rather impolitely spoils his point by saying from a sedentary position that the odd individual whom he has in mind is none other than yours truly. The trouble with that point is that it would apply if I were speaking only for myself, but, as 1 hope he will accept, I am speaking on behalf of the Opposition. We believe that there is a degree of disingenuousness in the Government's plans, because they are not prepared to pledge that all the funds will be spent on road safety measures, and that the Government are in error in distorting by over-emphasis. They exaggerate the significance of speed, important consideration though it is, and the cost-effectiveness of a large-scale roll-out of additional speed cameras, as against various other causes of road accidents and possible means by which to address those problems.

Bob Russell (Liberal Democrat, Colchester)

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, as road safety is in need of major investment across the country, any revenues generated by speed camera fines should be in addition to what is provided by the Exchequer, not a replacement for it?

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

Liberal-Conservative alliances are rare in this Parliament, but I agree with the hon. Gentleman. I am grateful to him for providing ballast to my argument. He is right to make that point, and he probably would not have to do so if the Government had confirmed more explicitly that all the money would be spent on road safety, and that that money would be in addition to, not instead of, other moneys. I think that the hon. Gentleman is hinting, in his understated and polite fashion—and, in my slightly less understated and polite fashion, I am happy to take up the hint—that the Government have an appalling record on so-called additionality. 7.30 pm I know that you are familiar with the concept of additionality, Mr. Deputy Speaker, as I have heard you expatiate on it in relation to Suffolk matters. The concept relates to whether Government spending is additional to, or a substitute for, what would otherwise be spent. Ordinarily, such argument arises in the context of lottery funding, but I shall not animadvert on that subject now, Mr. Deputy Speaker, as you would probably get cross if I did so. I would not want that to happen as we approach the dinner hour of some hon. Members. None the less, the hon. Member for Colchester made a fair point. Will the Under-Secretary confirm that the funds are additional to any other funds that might be spent? That is a fair challenge. [Interruption.] I wish that I could have heard the sedentary observation made by the Minister of State, Home Office, as I might have been tempted to reply.

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary made an observation about dinner, and I remarked that the presence of only one Back-Bench Conservative Member suggested that the Opposition were more keen to eat dinner than to participate in the debate in the manner that the hon. Gentleman described during consideration of the programme motion.

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

I am grateful to the Minister, who can never resist an opportunity to point score—something that I never do, as he well knows. All that I can say in response is that I have no intention of going to dinner, although he would probably prefer me to do so. Apart from anything else, I am anxious to retain whatever element of a trim figure I currently possess. I am much more interested in discharging my obligations on Report and Third Reading than I am in consuming whatever the estimable House of Commons Refreshment Department has to offer. As I have tried to emphasise, the Opposition are anxious that the Government are attaching a disproportionate significance to speed and that they are not attaching enough importance to other forms of dangerous driving. I know that the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston disagrees with that argument. His views will doubtless be informed or reinforced by his constituency experience, so I assure him that I am speaking not off the top of my head, but on the basis of representations made to me by my own constituents. I say in all sincerity that such representations have been made to a number of Opposition Members. I find it inconceivable that they have not been made to Labour Members also. Perhaps the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston does not agree with the validity of my point. He might think that the only people who make such observations spend their time driving around at extraordinary speeds. However, a lot of people feel that many accidents are caused by dangerous and inconsiderate driving. It is not true to argue that such driving consists exclusively of excessive speed.

Andrew Miller (Labour, Ellesmere Port and Neston)

Does the hon. Gentleman accept the clear evidence to show that decreasing car speed from 30 mph to 20 mph reduces by 60 per cent. the injuries caused in crashes involving children?

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

Yes. I have heard that point before and I know that it is correct. The hon. Gentleman's comments support the view that we should try to clamp down on speeding. I accept that view, but it does not mean that tackling speeding is the only method by which one should seek to improve road safety and reduce the number of accidents.

Andrew Miller (Labour, Ellesmere Port and Neston)

I agree.

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

The hon. Gentleman and I agree on that point and accept that speeding is not the only form of dangerous driving. We must therefore make a judgment on whether it is wise to use all the proceeds of fines for the exclusive purpose of extending dramatically the number of speed cameras throughout the United Kingdom. Although the spending of some money on that purpose might be justified, I am politely suggesting to the hon. Gentleman that I do not think it proportionate or wise to devote all of it—if, indeed, that is what the Government will do in practice.

Michael Fabricant (Conservative, Lichfield)

On speeding, is my hon. Friend aware of the good work done by the hon. Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) on bull bars? That work has my wholehearted support. The hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston spoke about statistics on the killing of children at speeds of 30 mph and 20 mph, but is my hon. Friend aware that a child who is hit at head level by a bull bar—we should bear in mind that bull bars are usually fitted for cosmetic purposes—can be killed by a vehicle travelling at only 4 mph?

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that observation. I was aware of the potential damage that bull bars can do, although I did not know about the important work done by the hon. Member for Newport, West. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for enlightening me on that point. Conservative and Labour Members must agree to differ, both on the rationale for proposals to use fines for the funding of speed cameras and on their likely implementation. I refer to likely implementation as it is not clear whether the Government intend to stick in practice to the principles of ring fencing and total expenditure of fine proceeds on speed cameras, even though those are the principles that they appear to avow to the House. We disagree not only about that point, but about payments to local authorities in respect of the obligation to secure the removal of abandoned vehicles. I should like to deal briefly with this matter, as the Minister of State and I disagreed about it in Committee. Indeed, the hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Mr. Shaw) also disagreed with me. I listened with respect to the hon. Gentleman's remarks, as I know that he is attending closely to the pilot scheme in his area, but I was fairly unfazed by his comments on a multi-agency approach. Although I always listen to him with interest. I thought that the frequent restating of the need for a multi-agency approach was a substitute for a policy rather than proof of one.

Oliver Heald (Conservative, North East Hertfordshire)

In due course.

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

My hon. Friend rightly indicates that the approach is still for the future. We are not even getting multi-agency co-operation now; it is to occur in the far-distant yonder. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford seems excited, so I shall give way to him.

Jonathan R Shaw (Labour, Chatham and Aylesford)

I am not that excited, but I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. If he wants facts rather than proposals—that is my interpretation of his remarks—he should know about the pilot that has started in the Medway towns. It brings together the DVLA, the police, the fire brigade and the local authority. The Medway towns now have a minority Conservative-led administration, so no partisan point is at stake for me. However, he might like to know that, before the pilot began, on average, four abandoned and untaxed vehicles were removed each week from the streets of the Medway towns. Within the first week of the pilot, however, between 50 and 60 vehicles were removed. If he is talking about the proof of the pudding, he should know that the pilots are certainly working. They are bringing together the powers of all the agencies by introducing the proposal that I described in Committee. I think that that proposal will work.

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his remarks. He speaks as a constituency Member of Parliament and I do not seek to gainsay him, but I point out that it would not be right to prejudge the outcome at this early stage. He will accept that it is only on the conclusion of a pilot, when all the evidence has been considered and submitted—this applies also to the public and other inquiries of which we currently hear so much—that one can draw a conclusion about likely effects.

Jonathan R Shaw (Labour, Chatham and Aylesford)

rose—

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

I am sorry, but I shall not give way to the hon. Gentleman again. He knows that I am usually happy to do so, but I want to make progress. I was a little disappointed that the Minister of State cavilled at our references. As he knows perfectly well from Standing Committee debates, the Opposition grounded our proposal on the requirements of the Refuse Disposal (Amenity) Act 1978. Under that Act, it is already an offence to abandon a vehicle in any place in the open air, and fines of up to £2,500 can be levied for such an offence. A recent Royal Automobile Club survey found that between 150 and 200 cars were being abandoned each month in Islington alone. We must do something to tackle that problem. Although the hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford was enthusiastic about how to deal with it in Medway or Chatham and Aylesford, he seemed baleful—nay, doleful—about the prospects of achieving progress elsewhere. Indeed, he suggested that pessimism was his middle name. He said that nothing could be done, that it was too much to expect, that the funds could not be provided, that local authorities would not deliver and that it was all very unfair. He suggested that we had to reconcile ourselves to huge numbers of abandoned vehicles while the Government engaged in a feeble display of collective hand-wringing.

Jonathan R Shaw (Labour, Chatham and Aylesford)

It is gracious of the hon. Gentleman to give way. He mentioned the Medway scheme earlier, and said that it was wrong to prejudge a pilot. Do not his proposals prejudge what local authorities will be able to collect? As I advised him in Committee, officers from Kent county council and Medway council, which are both Conservative authorities, advised me that 90 per cent. of abandoned vehicles were untraceable.

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

The hon. Gentleman underestimates the significance of financial constraint as a means of halting or retarding the progress of local authorities in tackling abandoned vehicles. Our proposal is based on our belief that assistance is required. The hon. Gentleman accuses me and the Opposition of anticipating or second-guessing the pilot scheme. I disagree, because the approach that he commends—the final results of which we will be made aware of—need not be incompatible with the simultaneous pursuit of the national policy that the Conservative Opposition recommend. Let a thousand lights burn; let a variety of approaches be adopted, and let the availability of resources that we recommend be a staple feature of the policy. Councils will then have the resources to discharge their obligations. We developed the arguments clearly in Committee. I was sorry that the Minister and the hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford were so unenthusiastic, because I believe that many people who live in areas where abandoned vehicles multiply by the day look to the Government to take decisive action. We recommend such action, but the Government resist it. We believe that we are right and that they are wrong.

Andrew Miller (Labour, Ellesmere Port and Neston)

New clause 7 grants a clear set of powers. They are welcome, especially to hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Russell), who have had the unfortunate responsibility of dealing with constituents who have lost a loved one through a road crash. I have persistently and consistently nagged the Minister of State, Home Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Clarke) and the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, my hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Mr. Hill) on the matters that we are discussing. They therefore know that I believe strongly that we need to do much more about road safety. I agree with the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) that much wider measures are required. I want local authorities to use more widely their powers to reduce speed limits in urban estates. I support better driver education and more rigorous enforcement of the regulations that govern the substances that people may have consumed. I have discussed with the British Medical Association a range of ethical matters that relate to drivers who are hospitalised after causing a crash. Many issues need to be tackled. I am especially pleased that my hon. Friends on the Front Bench are present. They accept that Parliament and the Government have a responsibility for dealing with those matters, even though some aspects are not popular with the public. That is shown by the failure of the hon. Member for Buckingham to support new clause 7 although he supports the removal of clause 37. Of course, people who believe themselves to be good drivers—we all do when we are behind the wheel of a tonne of steel—are frustrated if they come across too many lights. However, they are there for the good reason that speed kills. The evidence is unequivocal; a reduction in speed causes a reduction in deaths and serious injury. 7.45 pm As a result of much work, some of which I have mentioned, I want us to reach a position whereby the new clause becomes defunct. In an ideal world, we would educate our drivers, develop vehicle safety, road design and other aspects to the point where such technology became unnecessary. The hon. Member for Buckingham asked about the figures in five years and whether they would be balanced. I should like us to reach a point, through a wide range of measures, where the Government of the day—I am sure that my hon. Friends will remain on the Front Bench—can decide that the provision has achieved its objective and begin to devise other methods of using the resources. The new clause has revenue implications, and I agree with the hon. Member for Buckingham that the provision should not create a revenue-raising power. That is why I probed my hon. Friend the Minister through an amendment to ascertain whether any revenue would be used for road safety measures. My hon. Friend confirmed that in Committee and today.

David Chidgey (Liberal Democrat, Eastleigh)

The hon. Gentleman spoke of an ideal world in which road safety measures would be so successful that awful accidents would not happen. Has the hon. Gentleman considered that if the national programme for speed cameras is so successful that the number of offences is significantly reduced, the revenue will also be reduced? There is a law of diminishing returns. I am seriously worried about the ability to continue supporting the programme.

Andrew Miller (Labour, Ellesmere Port and Neston)

If we considered that argument in isolation, the hon. Gentleman would be right. However, when we take all aspects of death on the road into account he is wrong. It has been estimated that every death costs approximately £1 million. The hon. Member for Colchester agrees with that. We must consider the overall figure. The hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mr. Chidgey) presents an intellectual challenge, but he must consider the issue in the round. A point made by the hon. Member for Buckingham sums up the difference between the Government and the official Opposition on the issues that we are considering. In debates on previous clauses, the hon. Gentleman described victims of vehicle crimes as potentially suffering emotional scars. I do not disagree with his view, but I should like him to say that he understands and commits himself to dealing with those who suffer more serious emotional scars after losing loved ones.

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

indicated assent.

Andrew Miller (Labour, Ellesmere Port and Neston)

I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman accepts that. It is vital for the House to take a lead with policies that are unpopular with the wider public. People do not like speed cameras, but when they consider the full facts, they take a different view. The Government have got the new clause exactly right. It will provide another opportunity for the relevant authorities to maintain the pressure on road safety. I hope that, with the many other matters that the House must continue to tackle, the provision will contribute to a reduction in the approximately 3,000 deaths that occur on our roads every year.

Bob Russell (Liberal Democrat, Colchester)

It is an honour for me to follow the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller), whose record on tackling the question of road deaths and crashes I admire. I concur with the points that he made. I am disappointed that Conservative Members do not intend to force a Division on the new clause. Their language suggested that they were opposed to the new clause—or at least parts of it—yet they will not oppose it. In a way, I ought to be pleased that they will not, but there is nevertheless a conflict between their language and the lack of a Division. I am also disappointed with the Government for not making it clear that all the moneys generated by the fines will be spent on road safety in the broadest sense. They are missing the opportunity to deal with road safety in the round by narrowing the proposal down to include only speed cameras. I suggest that speed bumps in the vicinity of a school are a more effective road safety device than speed cameras. The Government could have done more to spell out whether the money generated by the provisions of the new clause will be available in addition to what is currently spent. That was not said, and when something is not said, a degree of uncertainty can emerge concerning the Government's intentions. Will the Minister give us a definition of a speed camera? Two kinds of camera could be described as income generators, in that their use can result in a fine—fixed cameras, and hand-held radar equipment. Recently, in a village in Cambridgeshire, I saw a different type of speed camera, whose use does not result in an offending motorist being fined. About two years ago, on the M25 in Kent, I saw a speed camera which flashed up a sign to inform drivers that they were breaking the speed limit. In the case of the camera in Cambridgeshire, if a car—or any other vehicle—exceeded the 30 mph speed limit, a sign flashed up "30 mph". I understand, however, that the downside to those devices is that some motorists have been tempted to drive at speed to activate them. I suggest that we need a hybrid speed camera. If the object of the exercise is to reduce road deaths and improve road safety, rather than to generate income, we should ensure that vehicles do not speed in the first place. We need speed cameras that warn drivers that they are exceeding the speed limit. If they continued to do so, they would deserve a hefty fine, because they would have progressed from a yellow card to a red card, to use football terminology. I urge the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions and those who are gifted in the design and development of such technology to ascertain whether it would be possible to develop a speed camera that was both a warning device and a means of imposing a penalty.

David Chidgey (Liberal Democrat, Eastleigh)

My hon. Friend stirs the imagination with his concepts of developing the technology of speed cameras. Has it occurred to him that making speed cameras more visible might provide a greater deterrent? Perhaps they might attract attention more readily—and instil some caution into the motorists approaching them—if they were bright, fluorescent yellow, to continue my hon. Friend's football analogy.

Bob Russell (Liberal Democrat, Colchester)

I am grateful for my hon. Friend's suggestion. Speed cameras are at present a nice grey, which blends into the street scene. There is no excuse for motorists speeding. The object of the exercise must be to reduce the speed of vehicles and the number of accidents. We know that 3,500 people are killed on our roads each year, and that the number of people injured runs to hundreds of thousands. We also know the cost to the public purse of all those road accidents. Surely it makes sense to prevent the speeding and the accidents from happening in the first place. I agree with hon. Members who said that there must be a culture change. I was not helped when I received a letter from an organisation called the Association of British Drivers bearing the sub-heading "Promoting effective road safety instead of the criminalisation of safe driving", which states: Unfortunately, the Speed Kills dogma … has the exact opposite effect". I wonder what the Minister has to say about that. I draw the House's attention to a worthy publication called Essex Safety Cameras, which contains the latest news about the Essex partnership and pilot schemes. If any hon. Members have not yet received a copy, I am sure that Essex county council, the Essex police or the Essex magistrates will be happy to provide them with one. The publication spells out the success of the pilot scheme, and if anyone needs to be convinced, they should read it. The Association of British Drivers has a different view, however. It tells me: Councils such as Essex have a deliberate policy of preventing both drivers and professional highway engineers from deciding what is a safe speed to travel at. Instead, completely unqualified local residents can choose, based on nothing but their own prejudices. I find such comments regrettable in the extreme. Speed is a contributory factor in many road deaths and road accidents. We do not know precise figures. If the Bill results in just one death being prevented, it will be worth while. However, I believe that it will result in many deaths and serious accidents being prevented. I therefore urge the House to support it. I also ask the Minister to consider incorporating a proposal that every penny generated by the new system should be spent on road safety in the broadest sense, in addition to moneys already earmarked for the purpose.

Clive Efford (Labour, Eltham)

I want briefly to raise one or two points with my hon. Friend the Minister. I accept all the arguments about road safety, but I want to concentrate on the issue of abandoned vehicles, which is dealt with in this group of clauses. I accept my hon. Friend's point about the flaws that may exist in new clause 5, but I want to raise the point about the cost to local authorities of dealing with abandoned vehicles. My hon. Friend said that the Bill would restrict its focus to fixed penalties. Abandoned vehicles attract fixed penalties. While we are dealing with issues such as vehicle registration, it would not require a giant leap to add not only the issue of speeding but that of abandoning vehicles by the roadside. 8 pm The scrap value of such vehicles has disappeared, which is why we are experiencing this problem. Disposing of a vehicle properly costs money so perhaps we should ask vehicle manufacturers to cover the cost of disposal. Furthermore, the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency cannot pursue an individual who has disposed of a vehicle on the roadside. It may ask, "Is this your vehicle? You are the last registered owner," but that person may reply, "No, I have sold it to somebody else—it is no longer mine." Even though the vehicle may be parked outside that person's house, the DVLA can do nothing about it. I have pursued the issue with my local authority, which assures me that that is the case, but it is surprising that the DVLA has no power to pursue the last registered owner if that person states that he no longer owns the vehicle, even though he may not have returned the log book with a new owner's name on it or taken some such step. There are regulations in place that would allow the DVLA to pursue such individuals, but we must place the responsibility to deregister a vehicle on the person disposing of it. We must impose strictures on the last owner, who should remain responsible for the vehicle—and, therefore, responsible for its disposal—until another person is registered as the owner. Up and down the country, and in London in particular, council tax payers and local authorities face the huge expense involved in disposing of vehicles abandoned on the kerbside, and there are no comebacks on those who deny that they own such vehicles. There are more powers to deal with someone who disposes of litter on the street than with someone who disposes of a vehicle. Abandoned vehicles can be extremely dangerous as well as inconvenient and costly to the public purse. I want to put my views on record and stress to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary that there is an urgent need to take action. Abandoned vehicles represent a huge cost to the taxpayer and an enormous problem that will not go away unless we give powers to impose a cost on those who dispose of their vehicles in such a way.

Michael Fabricant (Conservative, Lichfield)

Certain expressions come to mind when one thinks of the new Labour Government—hit the ground running, the people's Parliament, the people's dome and joined-up government, for example—but the new clause reveals not joined-up government, but turf wars between Ministers. Government amendment No. 43 will delete clause 37; it will be replaced by new clause 7. However, I shall speak to amendment No. 26, which stands in my name and, I am delighted and slightly embarrassed to say, that of the Liberal Democrats in the form of the hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Russell), who served with us in Committee, and the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mr. Chidgey), who, like me, is one of the seven chartered engineers who are Members of the House. It is always worth plugging that issue. I listened to the argument presented by the Under-Secretary as to why the Government would not support my amendment, which and I must confess is a probing amendment that highlights certain issues that the British Motorcyclists Federation and I want to be known. As my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) said, under clause 37 and new clause 7, income derived from speed and traffic light cameras will be ring-fenced for road safety. We approve of that. However, we have tabled our amendment for a simple reason. Under proposed new subsection (5) clause 37, speed and traffic light cameras will deal with the speed of vehicles, contraventions of restrictions on the speed of vehicles, temporary minimum speed limits, speeding offences generally and traffic light signals; but perhaps that sends the wrong message as to the cause of road traffic accidents, and I shall refer to analysis carried out by a number of institutions.

David Chidgey (Liberal Democrat, Eastleigh)

The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that time is short because of the programme motion. I shall not be making a speech so I am grateful to him for accepting my intervention. Does he recall that the Minister said that extending the offences relating to the amendment beyond speeding would introduce a distortion of justice in terms of the penalties inflicted? When he argues that moneys raised should be spread wider in terms of road safety, will he address the point on which I sadly did not receive a satisfactory answer from the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port (Mr. Miller)?

Steve Pound (Labour, Ealing North)

Ellesmere Port and Neston.

David Chidgey (Liberal Democrat, Eastleigh)

Somebody from somewhere, from a sedentary position, reminds me not to forget Neston. Does the hon. Member for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant) accept that, notwithstanding the overall cost of accidents to the economy, as such schemes become more effective and motorists become more law abiding in respect of speed, revenues, by definition, will fall? Consequently, there will be less money for such schemes.

Michael Fabricant (Conservative, Lichfield)

The hon. Gentleman shows an engineer's logic, if I may say so. [Interruption.] A chartered engineer's logic, absolutely.

David Chidgey (Liberal Democrat, Eastleigh)

A fellow, even.

Michael Fabricant (Conservative, Lichfield)

A fellow of the Institution of Civil Engineers, I believe. Anyway, the hon. Gentleman displays sound logic. If the implementation of speed cameras is effective, there will be fewer offences and, therefore, less income. That makes one wonder whether there will be sufficient money for road safety programmes. One could go on with the argument and say that if there were no accidents one would not need a road safety programme, because the roads would be safe. I guess that everyone would like to achieve that. To bring the House back to the amendment, I point out that considerable analysis has been undertaken of the characteristics of urban motor cycle accidents. They rarely have anything to do with speed. Keith Booth, of Modern Analytical Studies, Rochford, Essex, has done an analysis showing that 62 per cent. of accidents involving motor cycles, mopeds and scooters were primarily caused by other road user groups.

Bob Russell (Liberal Democrat, Colchester)

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Michael Fabricant (Conservative, Lichfield)

No, simply because we have to move on. There will be a vote at 8.30—

Oliver Heald (Conservative, North East Hertfordshire)

Oh!

Michael Fabricant (Conservative, Lichfield)

I suspect that there will be a vote. We must at least end consideration on Report at 8.30 because of the draconian conditions laid down by the Government. I want to move on quickly to say that 50 per cent. of accidents involving motor cycles were caused by car drivers, 10 per cent. by pedestrians and fewer than 1 per cent. each by pedal cyclists, buses and coaches and heavy goods vehicles. Other causes—for example, animals running into the road—accounted for 3 per cent. while 35 per cent. were caused by motor cyclists, of whom 30 per cent. were on motor cycles and 5 per cent. on mopeds and scooters. Any motor cyclist will say that motor cyclists have to drive carefully. A driver of a four-wheel vehicle will barely notice the small bounce as he goes over a pothole. However, the rider of a motor cycle would be likely to fall off, causing considerable injury and considerable expense to the rider. It is often the car driver who causes the accident. He may be executing a quick turn from the left or right, and, not looking in the rear-view mirror, he may not notice the motor cyclist. Motor cyclists tend to be rather safe on the roads, and the fact that a large percentage of them are involved in road accidents should not lead people to believe that they are causing accidents. In fact, car drivers are the main cause of motor cycle accidents. According to Whitaker, Hurt and others, and according to "Transport Statistics Great Britain 1998", motor cyclists emerge badly, by comparison with other drivers, from the DETR's annual survey of drivers' observance of speed limits. However, Whitaker estimated that the speed of impact of the motor cycle in 93 per cent. of the 425 accidents in his British sample was under 40 mph, and that in 75 per cent. it was under 30 mph. My point is that accidents involving motor cyclists do not necessarily involve speed.

Bob Russell (Liberal Democrat, Colchester)

Some do.

Michael Fabricant (Conservative, Lichfield)

That is true.

Steve Pound (Labour, Ealing North)

And most do not.

Michael Fabricant (Conservative, Lichfield)

Indeed, most do not. I am not sure of the statistic that the hon. Gentleman is using, but we should not belittle him for saying that. An obsession with speed on its own is a distortion of reality—a distortion of the truth. Perhaps the most interesting findings were those of Carsten and others in 1989 with regard to careless driving. They were that At the top-high level, major driver/rider factors were 'failure to anticipate'… or unable to anticipate…and 'failure to yield at junctions'". That is plain bad driving; it has nothing to do with speeding. As I pointed out in an earlier intervention, and as was pointed out by the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller), the speed of a vehicle can of course kill, but the design of the vehicle will also affect its ability to kill. When a bull bar is fitted to a car or a four-wheel drive vehicle merely as a cosmetic device, that too can be a major contributory factor in the creation of a killing machine. I am very conscious of the time. I am also very conscious of the draconian timetable set by the Government, and of the many other groups of new clauses and amendments that we wish to discuss. I shall therefore not press amendment No. 26 to a vote. I accept the Minister's point that if the issues raised in the amendment were included in the clause, pressure might be put on magistrates and juries to apply fines rather than disqualification or imprisonment. I hope, however, that the House has noted that speed is not the only issue, and that motor cyclists get rather a raw deal.

Keith Hill (Labour, Streatham)

I am grateful to the hon. Member for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant) for not pressing his amendment to a vote. He made a well-informed speech, as did my hon. Friends the Members for Eltham (Mr. Efford) and for Chatham and Aylesford (Mr. Shaw). I am sure the House will agree, however, that we heard especially serious, expert and indeed creative contributions from my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller) and the hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Russell), both of whom are distinguished members of RoadPeace. I am extremely glad that we have now heard the speech from the hon. Member for Colchester of which he was cheated in Committee. 8.15 pm In our earlier exchanges, I remarked with a degree of awe on the fecundity and fertility of the mind of the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow). I fear, however, that fecundity and fertility have now fallen into fantasy. It is preposterous to describe the provisions that we propose as a tax. New clause 7 provides for the money raised by fines to be used by local authorities for traffic matters. There is no taxation here. After all, the fines go into the coffers of central Government now. The provision is not a tax, but a penalty for an offence. Drivers who keep to the speed limits will not be affected; only those who break the law will be penalised. As with so many road traffic measures—for instance, those to enforce bus lanes—we are dealing with the encouragement of compliance. We expect the number of fixed-penalty offences to fall as more drivers reduce their speed and observe traffic light directions: the Eastleigh proposition, in other words. We believe that fewer fixed-penalty notices will be issued, with a corresponding decrease in the amount of receipts. Increased compliance will also reduce the number of casualties. This will mean lower costs for the motoring community, and safer roads.

Sylvia Heal (Deputy Speaker, Halesowen and Rowley Regis)

The Question is, that all remaining—I am sorry; we now come to new clause 2.

IDENTIFYING MARKS ON VEHICLES

David Chidgey (Liberal Democrat, Eastleigh)

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time. I thought for a moment that I was about to be airbrushed out of the debate, cut off in my prime—and what a prime to be cut off in! New clause 2 deals with the problem of identification of motor vehicles. Specifically, it proposes that it should be an offence for any person to be in possession of a motor vehicle or motorcycle which does not show a valid identifying mark", or to deface, remove or otherwise alter or attempt to alter a valid vehicle identifying mark". A key issue throughout the Bill's perambulations has been the traceability of stolen vehicles. Concern about that has been shared by members of all parties. In Committee, we had a number of detailed debates about how the Bill would help to strengthen the audit trail of vehicles and their parts, especially in the case of vehicles that were stolen and broken up so that their spare parts could be sold illegally. The new clause is intended to strengthen that audit trail by improving identification of vehicles: the onus would be placed on the purchaser of a vehicle to ensure that it bore an appropriate identification mark. The new clause is particularly relevant to motor cycles. I am sure that Ministers will be familiar with—indeed, will have read avidly—a 1998 Home Office publication entitled "Nought to Nowhere in five Seconds—a guide to motorcycle security". It is not an election manifesto from any party that I would wish to name. [Interruption.] That publication—with which, as he has acknowledged from a sedentary position, the Minister is intimately familiar—stated that in the past three years, meaning from 1995 to 1998—

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that the title of the work—"Nought to Nowhere in Five Seconds"—is an abbreviated history of the Liberal Democrats?

David Chidgey (Liberal Democrat, Eastleigh)

I really should not have given the Minister that opportunity, but my generosity clearly knows no bounds. He will know that when I quoted that title, in my own mind I was thinking of the official Opposition. However, unlike the Minister, I thought it better not to make such a low, churlish and cheap political point. Clearly the Minister does not share my good nature, or perhaps my politeness towards other hon. Members. That now notorious document, which I am sure will be mentioned in other contexts in future, shows that, in the past three years, 54,800 motor cycles—worth £55 million—were stolen and not recovered. However, the Motorcycle Industry Association's statistics tell a different story. They show that 25,000 powered two-wheelers are stolen annually, which is considerably more than is indicated in the statistics that the Home Office seems to think are correct. Moreover, of those 25,000 vehicles, only 14 per cent. are recovered. It is a very revealing statistic when one compares it with the stolen car recovery rate, which is 60 per cent. Clearly, motor cycle theft is a growing and disproportionately serious problem. Information would therefore seem to be far more important in that context, to identify motor cycles, than it is in identifying stolen cars. I am pleased to say that, although motor cycle theft is increasing, there is phenomenal growth in motor cycle sales, which demonstrates that powered two-wheelers are considered a very attractive alternative to car. All of us who have an interest in transport policy and in reducing pollution and congestion should welcome that growth. Last year, 175,000 new powered two-wheelers were sold in the United Kingdom, which was the highest motor cycle and powered moped annual sales figures for 18 years. Moreover, since 1999, sales of those vehicles have increased by 10 per cent; and they are more than four times greater than they were only five years ago. The huge growth in motor cycle ownership demonstrates just how important it is to tackle that sphere of vehicle crime. Unfortunately, however, the issue has so far been neglected in our debates on the Bill. As such vehicles become more popular and more numerous on our roads, and as opportunities to steal them off our roads increase, their theft, illegal possession or illegal disposal must be a growing concern. As the Home Office recognised in its now infamous document "Nought to Nowhere in Five Seconds", it takes no more than five seconds to steal a motorcycle—to load it into the back of a van or to drive it away. Motor cycles are highly vulnerable to theft. Moreover, because there is no left or right-hand bias on a motor cycle, they are very attractive throughout the world market.

Bob Russell (Liberal Democrat, Colchester)

Just like us.

David Chidgey (Liberal Democrat, Eastleigh)

The Minister may like to reflect on the fact that left or right does not encompass the third way, and that the middle of the road is a recipe for a rather serious accident but, perhaps that is a different story. Organised criminals are responsible for stealing motor cycles to order, removing their registration plates, obliterating identifying marks and rendering them almost untraceable. Although police have the power to seize suspected goods, current legislation—such as the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984—is insufficient if vehicle ownership cannot be proven. If it cannot be proven, the suspect goods have to be returned to the probably illegal owner. New clause 2 would combat such crime directly by creating a new offence of possessing a vehicle without a valid identifying mark. It would place the onus on the legitimate purchaser of a motor car or a motor cycle to ensure that the vehicle carries the appropriate mark. Additionally, the mark conforms with the detail shown on the V5 form. The new clause would also put the force of law behind current advice from trading standards officers and the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency. New clause 2 would underline the need for caution by any person acquiring motor vehicles of any description.

Keith Hill (Labour, Streatham)

The offence that the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mr. Chidgey) has proposed in his well-intentioned amendment is already catered for in legislation. Section 173(d) of the Road Traffic Act 1988 makes it an offence for any person who—with intent to deceive—forges, alters or uses any plate containing particulars required to be marked on a vehicle that, in this instance, relate to the vehicle identification number, which is already required on motor cycles by statute. The point that the hon. Gentleman makes is very well taken. However, for the reason that I have given, I very much hope that I can persuade him to withdraw his motion.

David Chidgey (Liberal Democrat, Eastleigh)

I can see that the Minister is in some haste, for purposes not connected with debating my new clause. However, as I do not wish to play unpleasant games with the House, I shall take note of what he said and take a future legislative opportunity to check whether the facts that he elucidated are indeed correct—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Pound) questions my doubting the Minister, but that is life. I have listened to the Minister's comments, and in the spirit of those comments, I am happy to beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

INSPECTION OF PREMISES: PART II

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Sylvia Heal (Deputy Speaker, Halesowen and Rowley Regis)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: New clause 6—Inspection of premises: Part I— '( )—(1) A justice of the peace may issue a warrant authorising a constable or (as the case may be) an authorised person to enter and inspect premises, provided that admission to the premises is reasonably required to secure compliance with the provisions of this Part, or to ascertain whether these provisions are being complied with. (2) A constable or an authorised person may, if necessary, use reasonable force in the exercise of his powers under a warrant issued under subsection (1). (3) A constable or an authorised person may at any reasonable time— (a) require production of, and inspect, any motor vehicles or salvageable parts kept at the premises; and (b) require production of, inspect and take copies of or extracts from any records which the person carrying on business as a motor salvage operator is required to keep at such premises by virtue of this Part. (4) A constable or an authorised person in seeking to enter any premises in the exercise of his powers under a warrant issued under subsection (1) shall, if required by or on behalf of the owner or occupier or person in charge of the premises, produce evidence of his identity, and of his authority for entering before doing so. (5) Any person who obstructs an authorised person in the exercise of his duties under a warrant issued under subsection (1) shall be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 2 on the standard scale.'. Amendment No. 30, in clause 9, page 6, line 5, leave out clause 9. Amendment No. 31, in clause 25, page 13, line 14, leave out clause 25.

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

As hon. Members who served in Committee are aware, the arguments on the subject of the right of entry to and inspection of premises were well rehearsed in Committee, so there is no need to develop them now. Suffice it to say that, as far as we are concerned, the overweening power of the state to enter and inspect is already very great indeed. We are concerned about that. We believe that warrants should be required. It is not acceptable that entry should occur without them.

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

I commend the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) on the exceptional brevity and clarity of his speech. Had we only experienced that in Committee and in all our proceedings on the Bill, we would be in a different position today. As the hon. Gentleman said, we debated the matter exhaustively in Committee. I do not think there is any need to go through the discussions again. Deciding the circumstances in which warrants are needed and the circumstances in which they are not is simply a matter of balance of judgment. In our view, the introduction of the new clauses in this group is inappropriate as they require warrants to be obtained even in the case of registered premises. The Government consider it to be right that a registered business should be open to routine inspection by the enforcement authorities to ensure compliance with the requirements of the House. Operators will have agreed to comply with the obligations imposed on them under the registration scheme, and it would make no sense to require warrants to be obtained for routine inspections to ensure that the scheme is in fact being adhered to. The Bill already contains a limitation on the power of entry and inspection to such times as are reasonable. As I said, we have debated the matter at length. I am confident that the power of my rhetoric will have persuaded the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the motion, and I hope that he will do so. If not, I urge my colleagues to vote down the Opposition.

NOTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS

REQUIREMENT OF REGISTRATION FOR REGISTRATION PLATE SUPPLIERS

APPLICATIONS FOR REGISTRATION

SUSPENSION OF REGISTRATION BY A COURT

NOTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS: PART II

OFFENCE RELATING TO COUNTERPART REGISTRATION PLATES

OFFENCE OF SUPPLYING PLATES ETC. TO UNREGISTERED PERSONS

INTERPRETATION OF PART II

ACCESS TO CERTAIN MOTOR INSURANCE INFORMATION

FUNDING OF CERTAIN MAGISTRATES' COURTS' COSTS RELATING TO VEHICLE CRIME

EXTENT

CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS

Title

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time. I shall repeat some of the points that I made earlier when we discussed the programme motion. The Bill has been subjected to thorough scrutiny in Committee. I express my appreciation to the Conservative and Liberal Democrat Members who led that debate and to my colleagues who made constructive contributions throughout. As I said earlier, some aspects were less than constructive, but the overwhelming majority of contributions were positive in tone. The Bill has emerged the better for its time in Committee. Helpful suggestions were made to improve it, and on Report we discussed some of the proposed changes, but its essential principles remain unaltered. I shall assess the issues that arose over the guillotining and programming of the Bill. We moved a programme motion on the meetings of the Committee itself. It is generally acknowledged that a full debate was held in Committee; Members had the chance to make their case in the time available and the arguments were fully and substantially made. That was less true for the programmed debate on Report, which we have just concluded, because four groups of amendments could not be discussed. The new clause on specifications of registration plates, tabled by the Opposition, had no relation to the Bill. The matter arose from the euro-fanaticism of the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) who wanted to raise a marginal issue. The second group related to the scope of activities and persons covered in parts I and II. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be generous enough to acknowledge that the debate—like that on inspection of premises—would have been a reprise of the Committee debate, when we discussed the issues in great detail. The third group related to fees for registration; again, we discussed that matter in detail and at great length in Committee.

Eric Forth (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)

Some of us were not in the Committee. Will the Minister give way?

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

I will give way, but first I will reply to the right hon. Gentleman's sedentary remark. During the debate on the programme motion, the hon. Member for Buckingham made the point that the purpose of the Report stage was to allow hon. Members who might not have been members of the Standing Committee, such as the right hon. Gentleman, to participate in the debate. Throughout the whole debate on Report, there was no participation from Conservative Members, apart from the Conservative Front-Bench spokesmen, who were in constant attendance and participated fully in the debate; the hon. Member for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant), who was a member of the Committee, and also participated fully in this debate; and an intervention from another Opposition Member. Although it is true that, in theory, hon. Members should be able to discuss the measure—I acknowledge that—in practice, no other Members wanted to discuss the issues.

Eric Forth (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)

I am grateful to the Minister, who daily demonstrates his lack of parliamentary experience, but I suppose he will learn—if he is spared to spend a bit more time in this place. The reality is that Report gives an opportunity to those Members who are not on the Committee to participate, if they choose so to do. I suspect that one reason why so few Members chose to participate is that the Government are not allowing a proper opportunity for proper debates on Report. The Government cannot have it both ways—they cannot crush all debate and then complain that hon. Members do not turn up to participate.

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for making his points, which are pretty familiar to the House. As I said in the debate on the programme motion, the difficulty, which is reflected in the exchanges that occurred just before I spoke, involves those on the Conservative Front Bench ensuring that hon. Members, such as the right hon. Gentleman, can operate through the usual channels. That is one of the key issues in the House. The right hon. Gentleman also makes some offensive remarks, which he is entitled to do, but I have attended fully throughout all the debates—perhaps ad nauseam—and have dealt with the issues raised by my hon. Friends, if not all those raised by Opposition Members. The final group of amendments contained several technical amendments and a point of substance on the affirmative procedure, on which the hon. Member for Buckingham might have divided the House, but, as he will acknowledge, that matter was debated fully in Committee. I make those points, which are perhaps not fully relevant to Third Reading, because I am aware of the arguments made by Members such as the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), and want to place on record my belief that the debates in Committee and on Report have been constructive and positive. The debates in Committee took place within the time constraints of the programme resolution and were finished in a way that allowed all hon. Members to make their points.

Bob Russell (Liberal Democrat, Colchester)

Almost all.

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

We addressed that matter earlier. Although we did not debate certain amendments on Report, my assessment is that the various points represent a reprise of the debates in Committee. Notably, few Opposition Members participated, other than those on the Front Benches and the hon. Member for Lichfield, to whom I give due credit. The Bill is necessary because the public are greatly concerned about vehicle crime. It is a serious matter, and the statistics speak for themselves. Some 350,000 vehicles are stolen annually, of which more than two fifths are not recovered. We are on target to reduce vehicle crime by 30 per cent. over five years. It has already fallen by 20 per cent. since we took office. The Bill will help significantly to reduce it further and shows that partnership is a central precept of the Government's approach to reducing crime. We established the vehicle crime reduction action team, whose membership included a broad cross-section of the vehicle industry, the police, motorists, local government and insurers. The team proposed a series of important recommendations, which the Government have sought to honour. One set of recommendations dealt with changes in the law, which is why we introduced the Bill. It is not simply a clever Government idea; it is the result of a considered and proper process—the model for developing such proposals. The Bill will fill the gaps in the existing law. At present, stolen vehicles may find their way into a salvage trade that is quite unregulated, as may vehicles that are fraudulently reported to have been stolen. Criminals can all too easily get hold of false number plates to disguise such vehicles that come into their hands and others that they have stolen themselves. Vehicles that have been written off may be repaired and put back on the road. They are not required to undergo any check as to their true identity. Some of those vehicles are of course stolen. Those problems are addressed in the Bill, which will cut the scope for profit from vehicle crime, so diminishing its appeal. As a result, we hope that there will be at least 39,000 fewer vehicle thefts and 6,000 fewer fraudulent insurance claims—so-called theft claims—each year. The Bill will also extend the time limit for prosecuting the crime of unauthorised vehicle taking. It will assist the detection of uninsured driving, by giving the police the right of general access to the motor insurance database. It will make it possible for the money collected from fixed-penalty fines for speeding and jumping red lights to be directly applied to road safety in the ways that have been discussed. Part I deals with the regulation of motor salvage dealers. More than 40 per cent. of stolen vehicles are not recovered. Criminals in the salvage industry can disguise stolen vehicles or break them up and sell them as parts. Vehicles may be reported stolen when they have been sold to the salvage trade. That is insurance fraud. Part I will require motor salvage operators to register with their local authority and to renew their registration at intervals. Concern was expressed in Committee about whether applications to register could be made on a standard form. It would be possible to prescribe such a form in secondary legislation, and we acknowledge the suggestions that were made in Committee. We will consult local authorities and the industry fully on the regulations to be made, and standardisation will be discussed. The Committee also said that it might be necessary to have slightly different information-collecting methods for different types of business. It discussed that issue fully. In Committee, the hon. Member for Buckingham and other Conservative Members suggested making it an offence to supply false information when applying to be registered. The House will have heard from the discussions on Report that we have taken that point on board. The hon. Gentleman acknowledged that and I acknowledged publicly the role that he played in drawing our attention so clearly to this issue. The suggestion has become a helpful addition to our measures to regulate the salvage industry. Part I also enables us to make sure that registered dealers keep proper records. The police will have powers to enter and inspect their premises without a warrant. That will make it difficult to dispose of stolen vehicles, and it will deter insurance fraud. Part II regulates the supply and issue of number plates. Many people are surprised to discover that there are no controls over this trade, and vehicle thieves naturally take advantage of that. However, the consequences of the current lack of regulation are by no means confined to vehicle theft. Burglars and terrorists use false plates; others use them just to deceive speed cameras. Under part II, number plate suppliers will have to register with the DVLA.

Michael Fabricant (Conservative, Lichfield)

The Minister has raised an important point, but how easy is it to forge a number plate? Although many in the House may recognise the importance of controlling the manufacturers of number plates, if the plates can be forged easily by someone in his own home, that will negate the whole effectiveness of part II.

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

The hon. Gentleman raised that point fully and positively in Committee. I reinforce the point that regulations can be made under the Bill to specify further information to be held on number plates. That will make it difficult to forge plates or to disguise the identity of a vehicle. There will be a link between the information on the number plate and the vehicle for which the plate is intended. The specific purpose of the provision is to enable the Government to specify, after wide consultation, the form of the number plate, so that it is clear that every number plate meets certain criteria. I accept that forgery can never be outlawed, but it will be made a great deal more difficult. The identification that results from that will enable us to deal with vehicle crime more effectively. The Bill also provides powers to make suppliers keep records, which should deter the purchase of plates for criminal purposes. Record keeping will provide an audit trail for the police, who will be able to enter and inspect registered premises without a warrant. It will be an offence to provide plates or materials to an unregistered supplier or to sell counterfeit plates. The Committee persuaded us that it should also be an offence to supply false information to the DVLA in an application to register. We have introduced proposals to that effect. Part III deals with vehicle licensing and registration. There will be a compulsory identity check before the issue of a new registration document for a vehicle that has previously been written off. That should help tackle illegal tampering. Part III also targets uninsured driving, which can be associated with dangerous driving and other illegal activity, but is all too often undetected. To deal with the problem, the motor insurance industry has proposed, and the Bill provides, that the police should have bulk access to insurance information. We expect this access to be available from 2003. Clause 36 lengthens the time limit for prosecuting so-called joyriders. Those who take vehicles without authority cause immense distress and may even become involved in accidents. Joyriding sometimes leads to yet more serious crime. However, as the law stands, no charges may be brought for this offence more than six months after it was committed. We want the Crown Prosecution Service to be able to bring charges so as to signal that joyriding is not an offence that will be treated lightly.

Oliver Heald (Conservative, North East Hertfordshire)

We have just voted on a proposal to allow the Minister to determine that certain activities do not constitute the sale of registration plates. The Committee discussed whether manufacturers who do not sell directly to the public would be exempted. Does the Minister have that possibility in mind?

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

The hon. Gentleman asks a reasonable question, although I think that we covered it in Committee. The purpose of the proposals is to ensure that the Bill is targeted on the right people. We had a long discussion about people who deal in parts. The vintage bike industry was mentioned. The Committee tried to respect the needs of hobbyists by ensuring that the Bill did not become a sledgehammer that hit the legitimate activities of such people. That is why we wanted the sensitivity with which the Government always exercise their Executive powers to be enshrined in legislation. Clause 36 will extend the time limit to three years and enable proceedings for taking a vehicle without authority to be brought at any time within six months from the date when sufficient knowledge came to the attention of the prosecutor. A more widespread threat to public safety is speeding, which we debated at length on Report. Rolling out speed cameras nationally is a vital part of our road safety strategy. New clause 7 will allow the money that magistrates courts receive from fixed penalties for speeding or jumping red lights to be used to fund road safety. The funds will be ploughed directly back into the fight against road crime and our efforts to improve road safety. That will ensure that funding is available to increase the number and geographical spread of safety cameras, for example, which will aid the prevention and detection of speeding and red traffic light offences. As speeding drivers may be guilty of other offences, there will also be a wider crime reduction benefit.

Jonathan R Shaw (Labour, Chatham and Aylesford)

Will my hon. Friend's hypothecation pertain to motorways? Some 33,000 vehicles were found to be breaking the speed limit on the M2, which runs through my constituency.

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

I saw the press coverage of the M2 speed cameras. Our proposal does apply to motorways. However, I must emphasise, as the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, my hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Mr. Hill) did, that the process is about promoting road safety, and road safety alone. Some of the press coverage of the M2 cameras suggested that there might be a financial motive. That is not the case.

Bob Russell (Liberal Democrat, Colchester)

The Minister said that the revenue from the fines would be used for road safety measures. How broad is the definition of road safety in that sense?

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

I think that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary fully explained the situation on Report Road safety will primarily focus on increasing the number and geographical spread of safety cameras. That is the principal consideration. I do not want to hide that fact from the House, but it does not exclude taking a wider look at road safety implications. Safety cameras make an important contribution to road safety and our proposals will extend to motorways.

Graham Brady (Conservative, Altrincham and Sale West)

The Minister told the hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Mr. Shaw) that the cameras' primary purpose is to promote road safety. Is he clear that motorway cameras will focus on stretches where there are roadworks and lower speed restrictions, instead of being rolled out generally across all the network?

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

I can confirm that the police identified and focused on accident black spots in the pilot schemes. It is intended that that practice should be followed across the country. The cameras might be related to roadworks and other restrictions, which might be temporary in nature. However, most police forces have a detailed mapping of where road accidents occur most frequently. They naturally want to put cameras at those locations, both to act as a deterrent, which the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mr. Chidgey) mentioned on Report, slowing drivers down at the key points of danger, and to record the drivers who break the law.

Graham Brady (Conservative, Altrincham and Sale West)

I thank the Minister for his full reply. Given that we would all wish to maximise the deterrent effect, can he confirm that it is the Government's policy, where possible, to ensure that signs to warn of the presence of speed cameras are in place on motorways?

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary and his colleagues in the DETR are considering carefully how we can improve the signage of road speed limits. The need for improvement has been forcefully pointed out by the AA and the RAC, and it is necessary to work harder to ensure that motorists are fully aware of the speed limit wherever they are. That is an important aspect of the road safety proposals that the Government are considering. The operation of those proposals will be a matter for each local authority. My own county, Norfolk, has published a good road safety document, which is in my constituency file. I was reading it earlier because I want to respond to the authority's proposals for improving signage and policies. Road safety is the general thrust of local government policies, and they have been much encouraged by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary and his colleagues in the DETR.

Michael Fabricant (Conservative, Lichfield)

My hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady) was asking about the signs warning of speed cameras rather than of the speed limit itself.

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

I am sorry if my answer was unclear. I was trying to refer to the specific signage for speed cameras and the more general signage for speed limits. When I drive, I find it frustrating to see a picture of a speed camera without a speed limit attached. Putting those signs together is important. It is a matter not for me but for my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary, and I know that DETR is working hard on that.

Michael Fabricant (Conservative, Lichfield)

Do the Minister and the Under-Secretary agree that if there is to be more widespread distribution of speed cameras, there needs also to be a wholesale review of speed limits? In some cases, limits might need to be lower, but in others they may need to be higher.

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

I was just consulting the oracle on this matter—my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary.

Michael Fabricant (Conservative, Lichfield)

Does the Under-Secretary drive?

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

I do not know whether my hon. Friend drives. He is an outstanding Transport Minister, and the people of the country are fortunate to have him. The hon. Member for Buckingham made it clear that he did not use computers, but I do not think that that disqualifies him from being a Member of the House, even though in the modern information age, one might think that he would want to know what was going on around him in the world. Perhaps that is reflected in his contributions.

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

The Under-Secretary is unassailable.

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

I never use the word "unassailable". Unlike the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst, I have a lot of experience outside the House, if not in it, and I know that the word "unassailable", especially when uttered by Conservative politicians, should not be used in circumstances that pertain to any significant development. In answer to the question of the hon. Member for Lichfield, the Government are developing our road safety strategy, which includes signage. Those matters are also being considered by individual local highways authorities. In my county, for example, the authority is specifically considering, among other things, a 20 mph speed limit in specific areas such as those surrounding schools. I emphasise again that the focus of the approach is on improving road safety. As part of the national roll-out of the programme, the Government will issue guidance to local partnerships on signage for speed cameras. I can therefore make a stronger commitment than I did in my off-the-cuff response to the hon. Gentleman that the guidance on signage for speed cameras will include precisely the points that he raised. It is the Government's intention to cut vehicle crime at the roots. That means reducing the market for stolen vehicles. We will do that by regulating the motor salvage trade and the supply of number plates, which is the Bill's main purpose. Vehicle identity checks and new requirements for documentation by the DVLA will reinforce the system of regulation. The Bill has three ancillary purposes: first, to extend the time limit for prosecuting so-called joyriders; secondly, to make it easier for the police to detect uninsured driving; and thirdly, to enable magistrates courts receipts to be directly applied to road safety. The Bill has been closely examined in Committee and has been strengthened as a result. Its consideration by the House means that it will go to the other place in good shape. We shall continue throughout its passage in Parliament to listen to constructive criticism, as we have tried to do in this House, and to consider changes if they will help to deliver the sound legislation to which we are committed. I commend the Bill to the House.

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

The Minister of State, Home Office had the temerity to criticise the Opposition for a poor attendance this evening. He demonstrated not only temerity but unwisdom, given the fact, to which I must refer at the outset, that the hon. Members for Plymouth, Sutton (Mrs. Gilroy), for Warrington, North (Helen Jones), for Birmingham, Hall Green (Mr. McCabe), for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller) and for Harrow, West (Mr. Thomas), who were all members of the Committee that examined the Bill, have toddled out of the Chamber and have not been present to hear the Minister of State make the case for the Third Reading. It ill behoves the Minister to chide us, to suggest indifference and to accuse us of being part-timers when his hon. Friends, who might have been expected gleefully to listen to his honeyed words, have absented themselves from the Chamber and possibly from the Palace.

Bob Russell (Liberal Democrat, Colchester)

For the sake of accuracy, will the hon. Gentleman tell us what has happened to about 50 per cent. of Conservative Members who served in Committee, who are not with us this evening?

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

Yes. I regret to say that to the best of my knowledge, my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh) is indisposed. That is why she is not present. What is important is that my hon. Friend has demonstrated on Second Reading, in Committee and on other occasions the closest possible interest in the Bill. I am sure that the Minister—

Sylvia Heal (Deputy Speaker, Halesowen and Rowley Regis)

Order. We must now get on with Third Reading rather than talk about the attendance or non-attendance of members of the Committee that considered the Bill.

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

We were considering the level of interest on Third Reading. That would be fairly clear. I am developing the argument, and that is precisely what I intend to continue to do, as was my initial intention. The Minister's recollection of proceedings in Committee does not entirely square with mine. It is true that the Government were guilty of the most extraordinary Horlicks in failing to determine that false applications to register as a salvage operator or registration plate supplier should be a criminal offence. We pointed that out to the Government, and to their credit they have belatedly accepted the point. I am grateful to the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions for the tribute that he paid. Beyond that, I do not agree with much that the Minister of State, Home Office said about our proceedings in Committee. I accept that we made some progress. However, we were hurried and heavily circumscribed. There was inadequate time and we got through the proceedings only because the vast majority of Labour Members either had nothing to say or had something to say but were instructed in no uncertain terms by the powers that be not to say it. I much regret that we are embarking on Third Reading after the most derisory and cursory consideration of the amendments and new clauses that were tabled on Report. There were eight groups and no fewer than 61 new clauses and amendments. By my recollection, we got through four groups. We really only considered three groups, although we voted on the fourth as well. Even if we include matters relating to the inspection of premises, we have covered in a desultory fashion only 38 of the new clauses and amendments, leaving a remaining 23 still to be debated, some of which were new clauses and amendments tabled by the Government. In the circumstances, it is preposterous for the Minister to claim that there has been adequate debate on the Bill. I must emphasise, as the Government are seeking a Third Reading, that we think it profoundly unsatisfactory that there was such minimal consideration on Report. One of the reasons for that—I have made the point before and I have had no effective rejoinder to it—is that the Government, in their arrogant, imperious and inconsiderate fashion chose a timetable on Report. They did not consult, there was no discussion and we had no debate. We are being invited to give a Third Reading to a Bill the consideration of which on Report was scanty, to put it mildly. We did not properly get through even half of the groups of new clauses and amendments.

Eric Forth (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)

Can I try to lift my hon. Friend into a more optimistic frame of mind? Does he not agree that, as a result of the process that he accurately described, it is imperative that the House of Lords should give the matter the detailed consideration that the Government have not allowed it in this House? At the very least, a compensatory factor might then enter our parliamentary proceedings, so that for every occasion on which the Government denied the Commons the opportunity to examine a Bill properly the Lords had to do so in the utmost detail.

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

My right hon. Friend is right. I have referred before, without embarrassment—and I do so again—to the symbiotic political relationship between us. What my right hon. Friend says is pertinent and I hope that it will be heard in another place. Our consideration of the Bill has been inadequate, although marginally less so as the result of deliberations in Committee—[Interruption.] I am bound to tell the Under-Secretary, who is chuntering from a sedentary position and not paying proper attention to what I am saying, that the Bill is better in spite of the Ministers and not because of them. Frankly, they were Tweedledum and Tweedledee in Committee, and did not achieve very much. I was grateful for their tribute to Conservative efforts, but we have seen only a modest improvement in the Bill and it is pitiful that we have made so little progress today. I emphasise the fact that, traditionally, Members on both sides of the House have seen it as their responsibility to scrutinise, probe, inquire, test and seek improvement. In this case—and this is an important point in support of our claim that inadequate time has been dedicated to the subject—Conservative Members alone have played any significant part in the proceedings, together with a little input of variable quality and irregular frequency from Liberal Democrat Members. The only Labour Members to have contributed on any significant scale were those who themselves wanted to table new clauses and amendments. The fact is that there have been few of them. The vast majority sat doing other things, were not engaged and did not take an interest. Their minds were elsewhere, to use a term that is common parlance in relation to other matters at the moment.

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

Yes, briefly, but I must warn the Minister that many points need to be made on Third Reading, and I intend to make them in detail and at whatever length is necessary.

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

I wish to place on record the fact that the hon. Gentleman's remarks on the participation of Labour Members in Committee were simply untrue.

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

I am grateful to the Minister. He is accusing me of telling an untruth, which is dangerous, especially as he is a senior, respected, important and ambitious Member with a full diary. He has great claims and hopes for the future, and it would be unwise for him to traduce me. 1 do not know what he knows but, by now, he ought to be aware that I have a fairly good recollection of who spoke at earlier stages of the Bill's consideration and who did not. I simply make the point that far more Government Members did not speak regularly in Committee than did. That is a matter not of dubiety or speculation but of recorded fact. If the Minister wants to have a wager with me about it, I shall be only too delighted.

Michael Fabricant (Conservative, Lichfield)

My hon. Friend talked about the contribution of Conservative Members in Committee. The Minister himself said that it was a useful and important contribution. Does my hon. Friend share my unease at the continuing lack of scrutiny? By introducing a new clause, we filled a gaping hole in the Bill. The Bill was incomplete when it came to Committee. Does my hon. Friend share my unease about the fact that, because of lack of scrutiny, there may well be other giant loopholes through which criminals and lawyers will be able to pass?

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

I am worried about that. I am even more worried when a rising Minister—or would-be rising Minister—complains to the House that had we had this or that debate, it would probably only have been a re-run of what took place in Committee. I made the point before and, for the avoidance of doubt, I remind the Minister now that the purpose of the exercise is for those who served on Committee to report to the House as a whole so that its wider membership can engage in the debate—as I know my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), to name but one, is ever keen to do. It will not do for the Government to behave in such a navel-gazing, inward-looking, selfish fashion by seeking to dismiss the claims of those who were not fortunate enough to serve on the Committee, but who wish to contribute to the consideration of the Bill. However, I am not to be diverted for a moment longer from focusing on the purpose of the Bill. The purpose of the Bill—to cut car crime—is valid. It is the Bill's effectiveness in achieving that purpose which is uncertain, to put it mildly. The Minister of State, Home Office, knows perfectly well that between March 1998 and March 1999, 1,482,889 car crimes were committed. In the ensuing year, from March 1999 to March 2000, there was, if I remember correctly, a reduction of exactly 7,000 car crimes, so the incidence of car crime fell by 0.5 per cent. in that period. The Minister of State and his hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions are committed to the goal of a 30 per cent. cut in car crime between now and 2004. I am ordinarily an understated fellow, as you know from your own experience, Madam Deputy Speaker. I tend to beat about the bush. I am not very good at putting my points strongly. I sometimes think that if only I spoke up and made the argument a little more forcefully, I might have a greater impact. [Interruption.] My right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst rather unkindly accuses me of being wet and weedy, but he is probably justified in this case. I put it on the record that I wish the Government well in achieving the 30 per cent. reduction in car crime by 2004, but do I believe that it will happen? I am bound to ask the Minister of State, who may have trotted off elsewhere by 2004, "What are those pigs that I see flying in front of my very eyes?" I do not believe that that target will be achieved. The notion that the Bill will be instrumental in achieving that purpose strikes many of us as a triumph of optimism over reality. The Minister drew attention to the incidence and cost of car crime. That is germane to the consideration of the Bill. There is an annual cost of £3.5 billion arising from car crime. The hon. Gentleman speaks glibly of the intention to ensure that there are 39,000 fewer vehicle thefts as a result of the provisions of the Bill, but he failed at any stage—on Second Reading, in Committee, on Report or on Third Reading—to explain how that objective is compatible with or delivered by the reduction of at least 2,500 in the number of policemen. It is extraordinary that the Government expect more with less: fewer people must satisfy higher targets, but there is no indication how those are to be achieved. Another problem in relation to the Government's target, and a lacuna in the Bill, if I may satisfy my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield, is that it does nothing about thefts from vehicles, concerning itself exclusively and perhaps narrowly with the theft of vehicles. If the Minister of State wants to trumpet the Bill as a flagship measure for the greater good not only of the community, but of his rising ministerial reputation, it is a pity that the terms of the Bill have been so narrowly drawn. The Minister is getting itchy. Although there are many other points and other lacunae to which I want to draw attention, I give way to him.

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

It would be helpful to the House if the hon. Gentleman set out the legislative changes that he would recommend to deal with thefts from vehicles. Our overall strategy deals with thefts from vehicles, but the Bill deals with one aspect of that strategy. What are the hon. Gentleman's proposals for legislative change?

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

The hon. Gentleman tempts me into a potentially lengthy lecture on the subject. If I embarked upon it, he would be the first to complain. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman chunters from a sedentary position. A useful signal that we could send to those who engage in car crime of the kind to which I have just referred would be immediately to scrap the home detention curfew scheme or the early release scheme—that ludicrous policy that entitles anyone serving a sentence of more than three months but less than four years to be released from jail on a tag, typically having served less than half of his or her sentence. I sense that you are getting itchy, Madam Deputy Speaker. That is an undesirable prospect for you, as well as for hon. Members who think that you may be about to pounce upon them, if I may put it that way. I shall not dilate further, as you would not want me to do so. I was led astray by the Minister of State and I must not pursue the point, although I must say that it is unwise of the hon. Gentleman to make interventions that invite further and legitimate criticism of other aspects of Home Office penal and sentencing policy.

Graham Brady (Conservative, Altrincham and Sale West)

Has it occurred to my hon. Friend that one of this Government's characteristics is their tendency to announce policies or to take legislative measures when they believe that the results will be achieved regardless of their actions? May they not have decided that vehicle theft will decrease because of technological improvements, not least in the security devices built into cars? May they not have concluded that results would accrue on theft of vehicles without their intervention? On the other hand, they have no meaningful policy to address the problem of thefts from vehicles.

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

My hon. Friend makes a sound point, to which I suspect the Minister of State cannot respond.

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

Well, I shall give the hon. Gentleman one last chance. Perhaps not. He now appears to have had second thoughts.

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

rose—

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

He now has third thoughts. As he is an ambitious chap, I warn him that such indecisiveness is inconsistent with the tributes that have so far been paid to him.

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

With all respect, I point out that the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady) was confusing thefts from vehicles with thefts of vehicles. Technology makes a difference with regard to both sorts of crime. With regard to thefts from vehicles, the most important changes have occurred in vehicle security, in respect of which we are encouraging manufacturers and have introduced various other changes. As the hon. Gentleman said, those changes will reduce vehicle crime as the motor fleet becomes larger.

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

I am grateful to the Minister, who has clarified his position in so far as he judged it necessary to do so. I shall not get into a debate about prepositions at this stage, not least because a number of my hon. Friends want to contribute. Suffice it to say that the Opposition are anxious about a serious issue that relates to the integrity—or otherwise—of the Bill. That issue is, of course, the use of the proceeds of fines to finance a widespread roll-out of speed cameras throughout the country. An interesting exchange about that subject occurred earlier between the Under-Secretary and the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston, who has sadly departed the Chamber. Knowingly or otherwise—a term that I use advisedly—the latter seemed to be pressurising the Minister. He asked him to confirm that all fine proceeds must be used for road safety measures, as doing otherwise would be defying the will of the House. Rather too quickly, and with too great an enthusiasm, the Under-Secretary rushed to agree. I then challenged him to confirm that it was Government policy to ring-fence. I sought a commitment that there would be an exact equivalence between the money raised and the money spent. I did not ask for a commitment in respect of every year, but for the five-year term of a Parliament, although I acknowledged that it would last for only four years if the Government cut and run. I demanded an assurance that all the proceeds of the fines would be spent on road safety measures alone. That was when the Under-Secretary's usual self-confidence and unfailing fluency collapsed and he started to use a combination of the obfuscatory and the coy. He was obfuscatory as he sought to get away from the issue, and coy in the charming manner with which we are now familiar. In effect, he said "Oh, I am but a junior Minister and it is not a matter for me. Hon. Members cannot expect me, as a mere junior Minister, to commit to what might happen in future, although I can speak in general terms about what we want to do."

Oliver Heald (Conservative, North East Hertfordshire)

In due course.

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

My hon. Friend observes that things will occur in due course. Indeed, it was on that point that the Under-Secretary's previously silky advocacy became nothing more than a celebration of motherhood and apple pie. That issue has not been properly considered. My hon. Friends and I do not intend to divide the House on Third Reading. I have already been subjected to verbal flagellation by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst, who is disappointed and strongly opposes the Bill and who believes that we should take a more oppositional line. However, I am fair minded, and prepared even now to give the Government the benefit of the doubt. Given the Bill's risible consideration in Committee, the other place will want to scrutinise the provisions in great detail. There is therefore at least an argument for keeping an open mind. Speed cameras and the Government's integrity or lack of it on that subject are important. Their attitude to local authorities' responsibility for disposing of abandoned vehicles shows them indulging in an orgy of complacency—a complacency displayed not least by Back-Bench Labour Members. Let us consider inspection of premises, which the Bill covers. I am a right-wing libertarian, sometimes known as a Conservative libertarian. I am alarmed by the constant arrogation of powers to the state. I do not like the fact that so many officers of the state, public agencies and other officials can, without warrants, enter and inspect commercial premises, domestic property or both in pursuit of their claims. That is unsatisfactory. I generally support the view that, when police or other authorities want to inspect and consider evidence to ascertain whether criminal acts have been committed, they should first be obliged to obtain a warrant. The Government's position is that warrants neither should nor should not be required. They have an extraordinary attitude, which is neurotic, difficult to justify in theory and impossible to substantiate in practice. Under the Bill, registered motor salvage operators or registration plates suppliers have somehow signed up to a more rigorous regime, and are able to have their premises entered by a police constable or other authorised person without a warrant. Those who are not registered and are suspected of unlawful or perhaps even criminal activity can have their premises entered and inspected only if the constable or other representative of authority has first acquired a warrant. The registered person therefore gets a worse deal than the unregistered person. That is the logic of new Labour in 2001. No amount of vacuous half-hearted attempts at explanation by the two highbrow characters who represent the Government on the Treasury Bench could alleviate our anxieties about the provisions on inspection of premises. The Government's performance on the specifications for registration plates was even more pitiful. Many of us are worried that the current drafting of clause 33, especially proposed new section 27A(1)(a) and (b), could allow for the mandatory display of a European Union flag on the registration plate of a car. We debated that matter at reasonable length in Committee. I enjoyed the exchange with the Under-Secretary, my former constituent when I was a Lambeth borough councillor. However, the same technique was employed as on previous clauses. The Under-Secretary tried to brush our argument aside; he dismissed it with a good deal of rhetorical tomfoolery. However, when I challenged him to guarantee that the British Government would oppose any proposal to require the display of the EU flag, he retreated into obfuscation and coyness. He said that I was paranoid and that I was getting too excited. He then used the modesty defence, claiming to be only a humble servant, a mere Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, a son of toil who could not question the judgment of the Secretary of State, still less that of the Prime Minister. The Under-Secretary also had the brass neck to say that I could not commit the Conservative party to opposing such a proposal. The hon. Gentleman then conjured up an absurd scenario in which my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) was suddenly the leader of the Conservative party. I said that, although I did not anticipate such a scenario, it was conceivable that if such a scenario arose, my right hon. and learned Friend might—though I doubt it—be so unwise as to agree to such a proposal. I also made it clear to the hon. Gentleman that no such proposal would be advanced with my support from the Conservative Front Bench, from which I would immediately feel it necessary to depart in such circumstances. The hon. Gentleman made no such clarion call, and no such obvious declaration. The risk is that, in future, a proposal could be introduced and the purpose of clause 33 would be to facilitate the ready transposition into British law of the provisions that the hon. Gentleman's European masters intended. The hon. Gentleman argued that any fees to be levied would cover only administration costs. However, when we tabled amendments that would tie the Government down more precisely, so that no stealth taxes could be levied, the hon. Gentleman resisted them. He engaged in the merest casuistry to try to justify his position and argued that the wording in the Government's existing, unamended clause was preferable to ours. I therefore asked the hon. Gentleman to confirm that the charges levied would never be greater than the level of the administration costs, at which point we had the normal retreat into obfuscation and coyness. I received no answer, no satisfaction and no reassurance. That was not good enough.

Michael Fabricant (Conservative, Lichfield)

My hon. Friend reminds me—although this was not my reason for intervening—that, on Second Reading, the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Mrs. Gilroy) boasted about such stealth taxes being used to build car parks in her constituency. Why is my hon. Friend so surprised at the Minister's refusing to guarantee that the European Union flag would not be put on to licence plates? Does he not recall that, although the Labour party in opposition said that it would object to having the European Union flag put on to the credit card-type driving licences, all driving licences now bear the European Union flag?

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for pointing out the tergiversation of the Government on matters European. They have changed their mind seven times on the issue of whether the United Kingdom should be a member of the European Union. It is not, therefore, surprising that the Government are as inconsistent in this important but secondary matter as they have shown themselves to be in the past. The Government's position on this issue is unsatisfactory. The hon. Gentleman was invited to provide reassurance, and he conspicuously and repeatedly failed to do so. I fear the worst. I do not suspect the hon. Gentleman's integrity, but he is—as he has already suggested—but a puppet on a string. The puppet-master is elsewhere, and we have good reason to fear an obnoxious proposal being introduced in the future which it would not be feasible for us effectively to resist. One of the most unattractive features of the Bill is that nine of its clauses provide effectively for government by regulation. I am a strong supporter of the affirmative resolution procedure, and highly resistant to the over-zealous use of the negative resolution procedure. To elucidate that point for those who may be listening to our proceedings elsewhere, the issue is whether we debate the regulations or whether they go through on the nod. The hon. Gentleman sought to justify the fact that the Government did not intend to debate these matters by saying that they were not big enough, and that such debate would not be a proper use of parliamentary time. I responded that the Government have often made a mess of regulations that have not been debated in the House, and, as a consequence, have had to return to the House to improve the regulations and seek the House's approval for that redrafting. The Government could save themselves a future headache if they were more tolerant of present debate. It is most unfortunate that they are taking this dismissive, imperious and arrogant attitude towards the House. My right hon. and hon. Friends may ask, "What's new?" That attitude is not new, but it is unsatisfactory, worrying and indicative of the Government's disdain, indifference and contempt for the legislature's right to act as a check on the Executive. That right and responsibility is of the greatest importance to me and my right hon. Friends, even if it is not important to high-flying, very ambitious and, if I may say so, somewhat indifferent Ministers. The Bill involves substantial costs and the Government have estimated them, though their estimates usually turn out to be on the low side. I have been very generous—

Eric Forth (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)

Too generous.

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

From a sedentary position, my right hon. Friend chunters that I have been too generous. He does not think that I have been robust enough and believes that we should divide the House on Third Reading. I am resisting his exhortation to do so. My hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) and I have made the judgment that we shall look to the other place properly to scrutinise all the provisions with a view to their further and dramatic improvement. I am happy to await the outcome of the deliberations of the other place. Nevertheless, although the Bill is slightly improved, it has many defects. It is the cause of real concern. It is not satisfactory. [Interruption.] The Minister of State can chunter dismissively from a sedentary position, but he cannot disregard the fact that many things were wrong with the Bill, that it still has defects and that substantial progress still has to be made.

David Chidgey (Liberal Democrat, Eastleigh)

I shall draw myself back to the topics that I would hope to discuss on Third Reading, although that is quite an effort following such an interlude. I must place on record my disappointment with the debate. Considering the number of amendments and new clauses that were tabled, we barely scratched the surface of much of the agenda. The Minister, in his winding-up speech on Report, made an effort to explain the substance of the various amendments that were not covered, but that is no substitute for proper examination and the ability to reassure the House about the meaning of Government amendments. We have been denied an opportunity properly to scrutinise many amendments tabled not only by the Government but by the two Opposition parties. I am particularly disappointed not to have debated amendments Nos. 27, 28 and 29, which stood in my name. I know that the British Motorcyclists Federation was interested in those proposals because they covered theft, which is a theme throughout. However, although the Bill concentrates on motor vehicle theft, there are few references to the theft and illegal resale of spare parts, which is a matter of great concern in many quarters that would have appreciated a proper discussion of the issues. I am quick to say that, in the main, the Bill is welcome. It is clearly intended to have an effect on vehicle crime, and I believe that it will do so. I agree with the Minister and the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow), who spoke for the Conservatives, that the Bill is better than it was on Second Reading. However, we should put its effect in context. The Minister mentioned the number of cars that are stolen and rightly said that the measure will stop the ringing of cars. However, one must remember that even though the Bill may reduce vehicle thefts by 36,000, a total of 350,000 vehicles are stolen in this country every year, and such a reduction represents a mere 10 per cent. of that. Although we should welcome this brief Bill, which will have some effect, we must bear in mind the context. It is not a panacea nor the answer to vehicle theft and vehicle crime. For example, it will make no impact on the 130,000 vehicles that are stolen, recovered and recorded as recovered. Of course, those vehicles are often wrecked beyond repair and of no use. Nor will it make an impact on the 700,000 thefts from vehicles every year, which the hon. Member for Buckingham touched on. Those 700,000 thefts are, of course, only recorded thefts. Other sources claim that the total number, unrecorded and recorded, is about four times that figure—close to 3 million. The Bill will have no impact on spiralling motor cycle theft: the current rate is 25,000 a year, and increasing rapidly. Nor will it have an impact on the organised criminal trade in car and motor cycle spare parts, which is estimated to cost the economy five times as much as vehicle theft. Much more needs to be done to prevent the theft of vehicles and parts. As the Minister said in response to an intervention, we need to do far more to make vehicles more secure and more readily traceable, but we also need to do far more to change the culture. As I think was said on Second Reading, we must recognise that there are areas in which communities are disruptive, crime rates are high and, consequently, the rates of vehicle thefts and thefts from vehicles are also high. It is not enough to encourage vehicle manufacturers to make their vehicles more secure; better policing must be provided in the areas that are most prone to theft.

Michael Fabricant (Conservative, Lichfield)

I have just noted a statistic. Is the hon. Gentleman aware that between 6 million and 7 million plates are issued every year? Can he imagine how a diminishing police force could possibly regulate that area, in practice?

David Chidgey (Liberal Democrat, Eastleigh)

I generally welcome interventions from the hon. Gentleman. Because we share a profession, I always feel that it would be churlish not to listen to his contributions, whatever their worth may be. Perhaps he should refer to the debate on Second Reading, when I drew attention to the manufacture of between 6 million and 7 million plates every year. [Interruption.] If the hon. Gentleman would listen for a minute, he might get the benefit of my explanation. I speak from memory, but I think that some 2 million new plates are manufactured every year, and some 2 million are used for transfers in the trade. On Second Reading, I asked what happened to the other 2 million. I found it incredible that as many plates were damaged as were distributed for new cars and transferred in the trade. That is, of course, the whole purpose of the new legislation on the regulation of manufacture and distribution of registration plates. It is a welcome feature of the Bill, but it can only be aimed at preventing the ringing of cars, which involves a mere 36,000 of the 375,000 vehicles that are stolen each year. There are still fears in the motor cycle industry that the Bill does not address the vulnerability of motor cycles to theft. The Motorcycle Action Group, the British Motorcyclists Federation and the Motor Cycle Industry Association have all expressed strong, well-thought-out and genuine concerns about the lack of protection for motor cycle owners. They are dismayed that the Bill's aspirations are so limited. While car theft is falling—although at a far lower rate than the Prime Minister would wish, judging by his projections relating to targeted vehicle crime—the theft of motor cycles, and the trade in stolen parts from them, is rising dramatically. According to the RAC Foundation, it rose by some 25 per cent. in the last 12 months alone. The Association of Chief Police Officers has estimated that the value of stolen spares from motor cycles in circulation is about £400 million. That is a significant measure of the seriousness of motor cycle theft and the theft and circulation of spares. The Bill is very limited in its aspirations. However, so far as it goes and in what it aims to achieve, it is welcome. As the Minister explained, part I will extend statutory regulation to motor salvage, reduce the opportunities to dispose of stolen motor vehicles and assist police in their investigation of vehicle thefts. Those are necessary and welcome provisions. Part II has highlighted throughout our debates the shambles of vehicle registration plate manufacture and distribution. There are 27,000 outlets supplying up to 7 million plates annually. Clearly that needs regulation.

Michael Fabricant (Conservative, Lichfield)

It is a shambles?

David Chidgey (Liberal Democrat, Eastleigh)

Yes.

Michael Fabricant (Conservative, Lichfield)

Why?

David Chidgey (Liberal Democrat, Eastleigh)

I do not think that I will bother with that type of sedentary comment. The hon. Gentleman must be a little tired. He has been in the Chamber for most of the debate, unlike many of his colleagues. I think that we should make allowances for that. We hope that, as amended, part II will go some way towards bringing order out of that particular chaos. As for part III, the new laws on vehicle licensing and registration and on raising standards should provide a more effective way of tackling vehicle crime, particularly—as the Minister said on many occasions—in eliminating the ringing of stolen cars. New clause 7, which is now clause 37, deals with a matter of great debate, concern and, sometimes, contention. Allowing fines from speed camera offences to fund the costs of extending the system and improving road safety is of course welcome. There is also clear evidence that reducing speed, particularly in dangerous locations, improves road safety. There is, however, a caveat. That funding should not be used as a way of proliferating speed cameras regardless of the need for, and benefit of, more cameras. If that happens, the effectiveness of speed cameras and their impact on improving safety will be reduced. The Ministers will recall that, in Committee, various issues were raised to which they offered to return, with amendments, on Report. I have not heard replies to those points in the Government's amendments, perhaps because we have had so little time for today's debates. I shall therefore mention two of them again, to which the Ministers can reply either now or later. I am sure that the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, the hon. Member for Streatham (Mr. Hill), will remember our discussion on what happens when salvage operators cease to trade. What happens to their records? Who is responsible for collecting and storing them? Those records are necessary if we are to maintain an audit trail, which is so important in tracing vehicles. In Committee, we accepted that it was unfair to expect the Minister to have an immediate reply on that point. However, he will remember that he recognised that it was an important point and said that he would return to it. I do not think the point has been dealt with in any of the amendments that we have debated today, although we have not debated all of them. The Minister may also recall that, in Committee, we raised the issue of stolen cars that are covered only by third-party insurance. As such cars are not covered for theft and no claim is made when they are stolen, they do not become a part of the insurance companies' written-off trail and simply disappear. In Committee, I expressed very strong concerns about how we can close that loop and catch those who steal the vehicles. As I understand it, about one third of all damaged vehicles fall into that category. Perhaps the Government's amendment No. 22 has addressed the issue. However, as hon. Members will know, we have not had the opportunity to debate that amendment. I look forward to the Minister's response.

Eric Forth (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)

This measure tells us a lot more about Front Benchers in the House than it does necessarily about its specific provisions. It is a typical Labour response to a problem. The arrangement of clauses at the beginning of the Bill includes the tired litany of words and phrases such as "registration", "keeping of records", "right to enter and inspect premises", and so on. Unbelievably, the Bill suggests that local authorities should judge whether a company is fit and proper to conduct its business. That is bad enough, but clause 32 says all that needs to be said about Labour's approach to a problem. In that one clause, 10 stages of bureaucracy, intervention and regulation can be identified. They are what the Government seem to believe will solve all the problems in this area. The clause mentions "notification", "issue of duplicates", "correction of errors", "payment of fees", "making of appeals", "carrying out of examinations", "courses of instruction"—

David Taylor (Labour/Co-operative, North West Leicestershire)

Is the right hon. Gentleman leading up to advocating the well-known Conservative approach of market testing? Under that regime, private firms could bid to provide the registration service that he describes. Perhaps Arthur Daley would be an appropriate person.

Eric Forth (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)

That is a very attractive suggestion. I welcome the hon. Gentleman to the great world of market economics, but my point is this: although I would expect from the Government the bureaucratic, regulatory and interventionist response to problems that this Bill contains, I am very disappointed to find that it has the support of hon. Members on my own party's Front Bench. I thought that I belonged to a party that believed in the operation of the market, in enterprise, in small businesses, and which was against the nanny state. The Bill is a monument to the nanny state, if I ever saw one, and I find it unbelievable and inexcusable that my hon. Friends have been prepared to accept it. It appears that the official Opposition are increasingly prepared to accept measures such as this, for reasons that are unclear to me. Perhaps I shall have a word with my hon. Friends after the debate to see whether I can find out what on earth is going on. Presumably, we shall have a chance to start opposing the Government's approach—perhaps not in connection with this Bill, but with some other. It is interesting that those who toiled through the Committee stage and who sat through Report spent a lot of time identifying weaknesses that remained in the Bill and in the Government's approach. The Government assert over and again that they want to support and encourage small business, but this measure, through the mountain of regulation that it proposes, can only damage new, small and struggling enterprises. The Government have not yet been able to resolve that apparent dilemma. The Bill poses a challenge to the Government and to the Opposition. Have either thought through all the implications of the measures for which they so readily reach? The tired ideas of registration, endless record-keeping, inspections, examinations, tests, expenses, fees, charges and all the rest may or may not go some way towards resolving the problem that has been identified. However, I have heard nothing in our debates of the adverse and negative effects that the Bill is likely to have. Bureaucracy will not suffer—the Bill will be yet another of the Government's job-creation schemes, creating even more bureaucrats, officials and inspectors. Whether there will be enough police officers to implement the Bill effectively is another matter, but it will certainly provide more bureaucrats. The one growth area that can be identified is officialdom—the Bill will fail in its adverse effect on small businesses. This is a matter of regret to me. I wish that I could divide the House to oppose the Bill. Regrettably, on this occasion, I can only give vocal expression to my opposition to the Bill and hope that next time my right hon. and hon. Friends will do better.

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

With the leave of the House, Mr. Speaker, I should like to respond to a couple of points. First, I note that all Members who wished to speak in the time allocated to the Bill have been able to do so, thus fulfilling the proposition in the programme motion. Secondly, my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary will write to the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mr. Chidgey) on the points he has raised, because I do not have time to reply to them now. Thirdly, I simply make the observation that the deep division in the ranks of the official Opposition on whether to oppose the Bill shows their position.