Mr Charles Clarke (Minister of State, Home Office; Norwich South, Labour)

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

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

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

Mr John Bercow (Buckingham, Conservative)

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

Mr Charles Clarke (Minister of State, Home Office; Norwich South, Labour)

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

Mrs Anne McIntosh (Vale of York, Conservative)

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

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

Mr John Bercow (Buckingham, Conservative)

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

Mrs Anne McIntosh (Vale of York, Conservative)

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

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

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

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

Mr John Bercow (Buckingham, Conservative)

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

Mr Bill O'Brien (Normanton, Labour)

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

Mrs Anne McIntosh (Vale of York, Conservative)

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

Mr Stephen McCabe (Birmingham, Hall Green, Labour)

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

Mr Bill O'Brien (Normanton, Labour)

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

Mrs Anne McIntosh (Vale of York, Conservative)

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

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

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

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

Mr John Bercow (Buckingham, Conservative)

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

Mrs Anne McIntosh (Vale of York, Conservative)

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

Mr Jonathan R Shaw (Chatham & Aylesford, Labour)

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

Mrs Anne McIntosh (Vale of York, Conservative)

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

Paragraph 13 of the explanatory notes states:

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

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

Mr John Bercow (Buckingham, Conservative)

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

Mrs Anne McIntosh (Vale of York, Conservative)

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

Mr David Kidney (Stafford, Labour)

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

Mrs Anne McIntosh (Vale of York, Conservative)

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

Mr John Bercow (Buckingham, Conservative)

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

Mr Bill O'Brien (Normanton, Labour)

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

Mrs Anne McIntosh (Vale of York, Conservative)

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

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

Mr David Chidgey (Eastleigh, Liberal Democrat)

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

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

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

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

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

Mr John Bercow (Buckingham, Conservative)

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

Mr David Chidgey (Eastleigh, Liberal Democrat)

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

Mr John Bercow (Buckingham, Conservative)

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

Mr David Chidgey (Eastleigh, Liberal Democrat)

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

Mr John Bercow (Buckingham, Conservative)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ms Helen Jones (Warrington North, Labour)

Sad.

Mr John Bercow (Buckingham, Conservative)

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

Mrs Anne McIntosh (Vale of York, Conservative)

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

Mr Bill O'Brien (Normanton, Labour)

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

Mr John Bercow (Buckingham, Conservative)

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

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

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

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

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

Mr David Chidgey (Eastleigh, Liberal Democrat)

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

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

Mr John Bercow (Buckingham, Conservative)

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

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

Mr David Chidgey (Eastleigh, Liberal Democrat)

Per annum.

Mr John Bercow (Buckingham, Conservative)

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

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

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

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

not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale.

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

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

Mr Charles Clarke (Minister of State, Home Office; Norwich South, Labour)

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

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

Mr Bob Russell (Colchester, Liberal Democrat)

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

Mr Charles Clarke (Minister of State, Home Office; Norwich South, Labour)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr John Bercow (Buckingham, Conservative)

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

Mr Charles Clarke (Minister of State, Home Office; Norwich South, Labour)

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

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

Mr David Chidgey (Eastleigh, Liberal Democrat)

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

Mr Charles Clarke (Minister of State, Home Office; Norwich South, Labour)

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

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

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

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

Mr John Bercow (Buckingham, Conservative)

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

Mr Charles Clarke (Minister of State, Home Office; Norwich South, Labour)

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

Mr John Bercow (Buckingham, Conservative)

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

Mr Charles Clarke (Minister of State, Home Office; Norwich South, Labour)

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

Mr John Bercow (Buckingham, Conservative)

Despite the Minister's best efforts.

Mr Charles Clarke (Minister of State, Home Office; Norwich South, Labour)

No, contrary to my best efforts.

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

Mrs Anne McIntosh (Vale of York, Conservative)

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

Mr Charles Clarke (Minister of State, Home Office; Norwich South, Labour)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr David Chidgey (Eastleigh, Liberal Democrat)

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

Mr Charles Clarke (Minister of State, Home Office; Norwich South, Labour)

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

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

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

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

Mr John Bercow (Buckingham, Conservative)

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

Mr Charles Clarke (Minister of State, Home Office; Norwich South, Labour)

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

Mrs Anne McIntosh (Vale of York, Conservative)

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

Mr Charles Clarke (Minister of State, Home Office; Norwich South, Labour)

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

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

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 16 ordered to stand part of the Bill.