Clause 16 - Requirement of Registration forRegistration Plate Suppliers
Vehicles (Crime) Bill
11:45 am
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.