Mr Bill O'Brien (Normanton, Labour)

With this it will be convenient to take amendment No. 18, in page 9, line 34, at end insert—

`(2A) The particulars shall be supported by relevant documentary evidence'.

Mr John Bercow (Buckingham, Conservative)

This is the first clause that Opposition Members seek to amend; we do so on the strength of our conviction that clause 17 is ambiguous.

I emphasise at the outset that it is not certain that the clause is unsatisfactory. I tried to give an earnest of good intent when considering clause 16 by saying to the Minister that Opposition Members are here to engage with him and his hon. Friends. We do not have a hard-and-fast rule, in advance, that Ministers are wrong about every clause. Even where we seek to amend a clause, we sometimes table probing amendments. If the Minister can assure me that our amendments are unnecessary, my hon. Friends and I will be happy to withdraw them. Alternatively, if we remain uncertain, we may decide not to press them to a vote, but to raise them at a subsequent stage. It is equally conceivable that we shall feel obliged to press them.

I should like to emphasise the purport of amendments Nos. 17 and 18. Amendment No. 17 would require each entry made by a registration plate supplier to be based on a standard form which would be returned to the central authority, the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency. The Minister will be aware that clause 17(2) states:

Each person's entry in the register shall contain such particulars as may be prescribed.

It is one thing to have different charges for applications to be registered, depending on the size of a business and what reasonable people may be inclined to estimate as the capacity of a business to pay, but another to require different information from different operators, depending on their size or the assessment in advance that a member of the central authority may make. That would be potentially invidious. I hope that the Committee agrees that the information that the registration plate supplier is expected to provide to the central authority about itself is based on a standard requirement. It should be expected to say who the supplier is and from where it trades and to name the directors. It might be obliged to provide information about its turnover or its clients, subject to requirements of commercial confidentiality. I assume that it is intended that the information should be standard.

The difficulty is that that is not in the clause. It states:

Each person's entry in the register shall contain such particulars as may be prescribed.

From that, we are expected to deduce that the particulars to be prescribed will be prescribed in regulations, but I am not sure. The Minister and those who guide him will detect that my brow is furrowed on the point. There are genuine beads of sweat on it, in eager anticipation of a satisfactory and reassuring response from the Minister and those who guide him. I am uncertain whether the matter is to be subject to regulation.

The Minister will be aware—although he was spared the experience of attending Second Reading—that in that debate I flagged up, as did a number of right. and hon. Members, the fact that many clauses provide effectively for legislation via regulations. I think that I said that nine or 10 clauses—or perhaps even 17—referred to and provided for legislation via regulations. Clause 17 does not say that the particulars should be prescribed in regulations, but presumably that is what the Government intend. It would be helpful if the Minister explained the intention and, in particular, confirmed that the information expected from the would-be registered registration plate supplier would be a uniform set of particulars, as between one business and another?

Mr Stephen McCabe (Birmingham, Hall Green, Labour)

I understand the hon. Gentleman's point about the way in which the regulations may be determined. However, might not there be an argument for different ways of collection and presentation in respect of small businesses and national business organisations with regional outlets? Quite different information might be required from the two types of enterprise. The amendment might impose an undue volume of regulation and onerous obligation on small businesses.

Mr John Bercow (Buckingham, Conservative)

The hon. Gentleman knows me well enough as a deregulator and a believer in free enterprise capitalism, as minimally fettered by the burgeoning growth of government as possible, to recognise that that would not be my intention. I readily concede, because I am a modest fellow, that it might be an inadvertent consequence of what I have proposed. The Minister knows that I am groping in an honest search for truth. A requirement for a uniform format might perhaps adversely affect small businesses, although I do not think that that would be the consequence.

I point out to the hon. Gentleman, to whom I listened with rapt attention and considerable respect on Second Reading, that our discussion is necessarily becoming—not because of what he or I have said, but because of the vagueness of the clause—somewhat opaque. We lack certainty because of the glorious lack of specificity in what the Government have presented to the Committee. I do not know, because we have not been told, the particulars in question. No doubt the Minister has a fairly good idea. The exceptionally dexterous minds of officials in the Home Office, one of the most significant Departments of State in the United Kingdom, will know what is contemplated. The trouble is that those people sometimes tend to reckon that because they know most, if not all, of what it is important to know, everyone else will be able to follow it. Unfortunately, the MENSA intellects at the Home Office are not always matched by the intellects of those subject to its ministrations. I am in the dark and would be grateful for details of the form that the particulars might take.

On the point that the hon. Member for Hall Green just made, perhaps the Minister could explain whether he agrees with the idea of uniformity of provision, even if he does not agree with the wording of the amendment. Alternatively, does he agree with the hon. Member for Hall Green that different particulars would be required from a smaller business? Would more information be needed from a larger business with subsidiaries, to identify it and be able to hold the directors to account? I accept that that is open to discussion.

Although a greater volume of information might be required from a larger business than a small business, it seems unlikely that the character of the information would be different. I doubt whether different categories would be needed on the form, but more space might be needed for a larger business. One might draw an analogy, without wanting to be too introspective or to navel-gaze, with the requirements for Members of this House to provide declarations of interests. Someone with relatively few pecuniary interests to declare can fill in the entry in the Register in much less space than someone with a large number of consultancies, directorships, shareholdings or other commercial or pecuniary interests. However, the nature of the information required from us all is the same, and the nature of the information required from large-scale registration plate suppliers would be no different, I would have thought, from that expected and required from small-scale registration plate suppliers. I should be grateful for the Minister's help on that.

I hope that the Minister understands that I have a twofold purpose on behalf of the official Opposition. The first objective is to ensure that we have helpful information that is minimally burdensome for businesses. We must comply with the requirements and the spirit of clause 16 in requiring a register without imposing over-onerous obligations on companies. My second motive is to ensure that we do not find unfairnesses developing as a result of the possibly lax wording of the clause. We do not want there to be scope for capricious behaviour by officials. Moreover, although I have the highest regard for the DVLA—and it is probably a good idea to keep it on side—in fulfilling its obligations under the clause, individual agents might even think that they ought to exercise more discretion and greater zeal than a properly worded clause 17 would require of them. That is the essence of my concern. The Minister was rather rude about some of my earlier interventions, but I hope that he will concede that, as explaining amendments is not always easy to do, I have explained mine as briefly as the number of interventions, and my need to develop the case, have permitted.

Amendment No. 18 is to be taken together with amendment No. 17. It proposes that in clause 17 between subsections (2) and (3), a paragraph be inserted to specify that the particulars shall be supported by relevant documentary evidence. In other words, material should be required, certificates should need to be provided, and so on, so that we are dependent not entirely on word of mouth but on bona fides.

Obviously, the Minister will accept that the purpose of the amendment is fair and sensible. Clearly, we cannot accept that because people say, We are good boys and good girls; we behave ourselves; we should be registered plate suppliers, because we are the goodies in the business, as opposed to the baddies,'' that information should be simply taken as read. One requires some confirmatory evidence. Otherwise one would be providing a green light for the commission of offences by those who would hoodwink the DVLA into believing that they are honest operators, when they are not. If illegitimate or criminally engaged would-be registered plate suppliers are engaged in serious criminal activity—a number of them are, which is one justification for the introduction of the Bill—they will not regard it as remotely troubling to their consciences to provide factually incorrect, or even downright dishonest, information when seeking to register with the authority. In other words, we cannot take people at face value; we have to ensure that the wording of the clause is what I might describe as maximally exacting.

I emphasise what seems to be the problem. The Bill is vague in many aspects, despite its good intentions, and this seems to be one of them. Clause 17 requires that

The Secretary of State shall establish and maintain a register

of licence plate suppliers. The details kept on the register may be disclosed to other individuals and organisations on request. If that information is to be supplied on request—the gist of the clause and the subsequent clauses seems to suggest that it will ordinarily, as a matter of course, be provided—it is essential that what is provided to outside organisations is correct. If it is not, both the DVLA and other interested parties who seek to establish what the information is, will be provided with incorrect or even downright dishonest information. It is therefore not only for the DVLA that accurate information is necessary, although that is the prime requirement, but for other interested parties, too.

Subsection (5) states that certified copies of the register may be given out and will be

evidence of the matters mentioned in it.

The amendments are designed to ensure the security of the operation. If copies are to be provided as evidence, where will accountability lie if the information is incorrect? Will blame be attached entirely to the person who filled in the form, or will an element of blame be attached to the DVLA itself? Does the DVLA have a responsibility to check through a third party or the police whether the information that it has been given is likely to be correct? Or is it simply expected that the DVLA will take as accurate a form signed by a would-be registered plate supplier? Is the simple fact of the form's having been submitted and signed sufficient to oblige the DVLA to register the would-be plate supplier? I am not saying that it would be wrong for that to be the extent of the obligation, but people who are engaged in criminal activity will not for a moment hesitate, amid all the other, rather more serious offences that they are committing or propose to commit, to mislead and hoodwink the DVLA and other interested parties about their identities.

We need to know the extent of the security of the operation, rather than simply its purpose. As far as we can tell, at present no one seems to be responsible exclusively or comprehensively for the accuracy of the information. Therefore, if someone uses it for any purpose, it is not clear whether that person may seek redress if the information is proved to be incorrect. Will people who are incorrectly informed, whether by a bogus or dishonest would-be registered plate supplier or the DVLA, have redress? Someone might request the information for a commercial purpose, and might incur expense as a result of being wrongly informed. In such circumstances, who will carry the can? Will it be only the person who volunteered the incorrect information? Will it be the DVLA? Will it be a combination of the two? Will someone who has been incorrectly informed have redress, and if so, what form will it take? The Minister will accept that the clause as drafted does not guide us.

Perhaps the Minister, who is a formidable fellow with a most dextrous mind, can guide us. Perhaps he will tell us, The hon. Member for Buckingham has got it wrong. He should realise that I and my distinguished officials have thought all this through, because we are usually several steps ahead, and we can reassure him that he can go to bed tonight with his cup of Horlicks, unperturbed by the thought that clause 17 is deficient or inadequate.''

We argue not that there should not be a registration process, for which we recognise that a good case can be made, but that the process should be tightened up so that it is maximally effective. We suggest that, without placing any extra burdens on business, applications should be accepted through a standardised process and supported by evidence to prove their veracity. False applications will, as we know, be punishable through a new offence.

To return to the question of total responsibility, will all responsibility be placed on the person providing the information, or will some responsibility be placed on the DVLA? What is the scope for redress for innocent, misled individuals or companies? Including such provisions in the Bill would ensure that any inaccurate information is clearly traceable either to the business that provided it, or to the application procedure, in which case a clear line of redress can be followed.

Under the Bill as drafted, the Secretary of State would theoretically be responsible for any inaccurate information held on the register, although it is unlikely that he would accept responsibility if things were to go wrong. I can well understand that the Minister, although constitutionally responsible, would be peculiarly reluctant to accept responsibility for what might be described as an operational error. I say that in no disobliging sense to this Minister, who is a formidable man, has made great progress in a short time and is expected to make a great deal more progress. He may feel that his upward progression should not be halted, still less reversed, because of an operational error for which constitutionally he will be responsible but for which in practice it would be wholly unreasonable to expect him to prevent.

There are good public policy and business reasons for ensuring that the clause is tight and effective. However, I appeal to the lurking and so far unseen but, I suspect, real and legitimate self-interest of the Minister. We do not know how long he will remain the Minister of State, but his fingerprints are on the clause as the Minister responsible for its progress, and his advocacy and support will be open to subsequent inspection. I am a kindly and generous fellow and would not like to think that the Minister might subsequently be stopped in his promotional tracks because someone says, The clause was not properly amended and insufficiently robust and, frankly, that is the Minister's fault.'' I am sure that none of us would want that.

With those few remarks in support of the amendment, I rest our case. I look forward to hearing what other hon. Members say on the matter and, especially, to the cogent response of the person who might be described as my ministerial friend—the rising star.

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

The hon. Gentleman asked me to judge the skill with which he made his arguments, so I will give him marks out of 10—as I may do for every speech made during our proceedings. I give him nine out of 10 for being to the point; unfortunately, I can give him only one out of 10 for brevity. However, as we go on, we may be able to push that number up. I am sure that all members of the Committee will be keen to have an improvement in that respect.

Mr Andrew Miller (Ellesmere Port & Neston, Labour)

We should have cards.

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

I would not go as far as my hon. Friend suggests. However, as the hon. Member for Buckingham has invited it, I will respond in that tone.

Amendment No. 17 would impose a requirement on the registration authority to produce a standard form on which applicants would enter registration details. That is the way in which a Government Department would operate in any case. Subsection (2), to which the amendment refers, states:

Each person's entry in the register shall contain such particulars as may be prescribed.

Clause 30, line 17, states that

prescribed'' means prescribed by regulations made by the Secretary of State.

Regulations will be drafted to establish and to set out the position clearly. That is what the Bill states.

We believe that it is necessary to have a standard form, but I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Hall Green that that standard form and those regulations must be considered. We will fully consult the industry, to reflect the trading patterns of different enterprises. The central information that we will seek from all organisations will be broadly similar, but we need to recognise, in the precise form in which we operate, that we are dealing with different types of institutions.

Mr John Bercow (Buckingham, Conservative)

I do not want to say this too early in the proceedings, but, frankly, my cup runneth over. I think that I have got the nearest that I am likely to get to an acknowledgement of the central validity of our concern. The Minister is keeping his options open, and he is right to do so, but will he confirm that we have a reasonable point? I am not simply bothered about having the approval of the Minister, rising star though he is—and it is not that I have a tender conscience or am terribly sensitive. However, I would like to have it on record that we are being legitimate and constructive in pursuing this point. Will the Minister return to it on Report in the form either of an amendment or of further and better particulars about the extent of the consultation?

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

I am prepared to concede on amendment No. 17 that the information that the hon. Gentleman seeks—that the register should be based on the return of a standard form—is correct. However, the amendment is unnecessary for that purpose because it is already included within the process. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that it is right that there should be a standard or uniform approach across the industry, although I also agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Hall Green that it may vary according to the structure about which we are talking.

Amendment No. 18 is more substantial. It would make it mandatory to require documentary evidence to accompany applications for registration. It does not specify what that documentary evidence should be, or give the power to prescribe what the evidence should be by regulation. We are concerned by what would be meant and implied by the amendment. For example, what is acceptable documentary evidence of a business address is a non-trivial point, which is addressed by Departments right across the range. Does the amendment require a proprietor to submit his birth certificate through the post as proof of identity? Those are difficult questions and we believe that this would be burdensome for businesses. The hon. Member for Buckingham makes it clear that he does not want that to happen.

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

What scope does my hon. Friend see for the electronic handling of this process? What he is saying is relevant to that.

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

My hon. Friend is right. I was about to address that point. The requirement to submit documentary evidence would complicate the development of a system of application in electronic form, which the Government are trying to introduce through their e-government programme in their dealings with individuals, institutions and organisations. It is much easier to transmit such basic data electronically than to send documents. We resist amendment No. 18 because we believe that it would be too burdensome on businesses and would not allow us the flexibility to update the way in which the Government approach such matters, for precisely the reason that my hon. Friend gave.

On the final point made by the hon. Member for Buckingham about accountability, the current intention is simply to accept the information provided by the organisations concerned. We are placing a legal obligation on all those who trade in number plates to give that information. Nobody can evade a legal obligation: it will be the law of the land. However, we believe that we should work on the assumption that people are providing that information with bona fides unless proved otherwise. We do not believe that we should establish a rigorous regime for checking each of those 27,000 suppliers, other than what emerges in the normal course of events through the activities of the police, trading standards and others who will make their observations. We are not in favour of establishing a separate weapon of government to address each of those 27,000 suppliers. The accountability for what is published will be with the DVLA, but, in turn, it will be for the individual organisation to supply the information required by law, in the system which is prescribed.

On that basis, I hope that the hon. Member for Buckingham will be prepared to withdraw the amendment. I have tried to answer him as fully as possible.

Mr John Bercow (Buckingham, Conservative)

I thank the Minister. The tone and content of his remarks were constructive and, to a degree, reassuring. We shall need to learn more about exactly what the Government intend on the provision of information. I hope that the Minister does not cavil at my making that point. He himself says that discussions are taking place and further consultations will take place. Simultaneously, he accepted the thrust of the Opposition's point about the requirement for the information to be uniform between large and small businesses and nodded in the direction of his hon. Friend the Member for Hall Green, who had in fact suggested the opposite.

I am not suggesting that the Minister was facing both ways. The thrust of what he was saying was pretty well in accord with the Opposition's view, that the character of the information provided, if not its quantity, should be uniform between large and small companies. To some degree, I believe that he was accepting that his hon. Friend the Member for Hall Green had a valid point in extreme circumstances. He probably did not want to upset his hon. Friend, who is a rather vigorous supporter of his. However, we do need to know more: exactly what information is required; how many categories will be on the form; how much scope there will be for additional information to be provided, outwith the form or on additional pages; and so on. These are very detailed particulars, Mr. O'Brien, but in Committee it is incumbent on legislators to give due weight to the outcome of their good intentions.

As for the plate suppliers and other agencies, it is the modalities of the Bill with which they will be concerned in practice. They have not been privileged to witness the Minister speaking today or listened to other contributions. They have also not taken account of the proposed amendments. They know only that in the end there will be a format. Constituents of mine writing from Buckingham will not say to me that in the first sitting of the Standing Committee at column 34, for the sake of argument, The Minister said,'' or alternatively, You, Mr. Bercow, as my Member of Parliament, said.'' What they will know is that, if they wish to be in the business of registration plates supply, these are the rules that they will have to follow. So they will say subsequently, Ah, the form is too long,'' The form is too short,'' The questions on the form are insufficiently clear,'' or, As somebody who is not legally trained, I did not know that the meaning of that part of the form was as follows. I did not know that x, y or z information was what the legislation intended me to provide.''

I am sure that the Minister, who has been a Member of Parliament for longer than I have, will know that we often encounter that. I beg his pardon; he has not been a Member of Parliament for longer than I have. We came in together in 1997. He will know that in many areas of public policy our constituents have genuine concerns about filling in forms, with good reason. We are happy to require them to do so, with the best of intentions, but they are often anxious about the burden imposed. Just because someone is potentially a good business person, it does not mean that that individual is dexterous in filling in forms. We do need to be clear about what is required.

I think that I received some indication from the Minister about the level of responsibility. In essence, he seemed to suggest that the main responsibility for the veracity of the information provided lay with the person providing it. That is entirely reasonable. However, there was a sort of overarching constitutional responsibility for the DVLA to do its best to abide by its explicit duty of care. That is reasonably helpful, but the Minister will know that, in relation to other parts of the Bill not dissimilar to this in character, the Opposition have concerns. In particular, we are concerned that the seriousness of a false application should be properly reflected in the Bill. I will not animadvert further to that; if I were to do so, Mr. O'Brien, I might incur your displeasure as it relates to subsequent clauses. I would not want to do that because you have been an exceptionally tolerant, good-natured and, if I may say so, to date kindly Chairman of our—

Mr Andrew Miller (Ellesmere Port & Neston, Labour)

Always.

Mr John Bercow (Buckingham, Conservative)

To date, I said. The hon. Gentleman observes from a sedentary position, Always.'' Far be it from me to suggest that the order of the brown nose'' should be presented to the hon. Gentleman, but I fear that he is veering in that direction. I am grateful to the Minister—[Interruption.] No, I am genuinely grateful to the Minister for what he said.

I do not intend to the press the amendments at this stage. I said at the start—unlike some people, I do not change my mind between the start of a speech and the end of it—that we were not certain that the Bill needed to be amended. I am still not sure that this clause does not need to be amended, but, equally, I am not certain that it does. As I am a warm-hearted and generous fellow, I am prepared to give the Minister the benefit of the doubt. Let us see how the debate progresses.

I am glad to put it on record that, if there are further discussions, and consultation with business, I and my hon. Friends the Members for Vale of York, Mid-Norfolk and for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant—

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

Who has not turned up.

Mr John Bercow (Buckingham, Conservative)

We would appreciate it if the Minister would advise us in detail—where possible, in writing—of the progress that is made, even while the Committee is sitting.

The Minister courteously referred to the absence of the Under-Secretary, his hon. Friend the Member for Streatham, who is attending a private family funeral, as the hon. Gentleman kindly told me on the telephone yesterday. I commiserated with him, and we look forward to his presence at subsequent sittings. I have just referred to my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield, who is assiduous in attending the Chamber and in the performance of his duties in the Committee. I am sure that the Minister did not intend to be flippant, but when I mentioned my hon. Friend, he said, from a sedentary position, Who has not turned up.'' I should explain that there is a good reason why my hon. Friend is not here, although he intends—and hopes—to attend subsequent sittings. He has suffered a considerable misfortune during the Christmas recess, and it is not a light or trifling matter.

Mrs Anne McIntosh (Vale of York, Conservative)

A severe misfortune would appear to have befallen my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield, which my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham may want to disclose.

Mr John Bercow (Buckingham, Conservative)

I do. Unfortunately, while in the far east, my hon. Friend was bitten. I feel sure that it was not a lethal bite—and I hope that it was not serious—but it prevents him from attending the proceedings today. I am a great friend of his and I was genuinely saddened to be told that he would not be here. I believe that I speak for all members of the Committee in commiserating with him; as they can see, I am crying about it.

Mrs Anne McIntosh (Vale of York, Conservative)

While my hon. Friend composes himself, that is the second misfortune that has befallen our hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield. He also had the misfortune of having part of his house severely damaged in a recent fire.

Mr John Bercow (Buckingham, Conservative)

I was not aware of that. The situation seems to have become progressively serious, and I am sorry. To have one's property invaded is a serious matter. Part of the purpose of the Bill is to prevent people's property not only from being invaded but from being stolen. It is alarming that my hon. Friend suffered damage to his property, but the fact—[Interruption.] This is a serious matter; ill health and injury are serious matters. The fact that my hon. Friend was bitten in the far east is of considerable concern. I hope that the bite was not severe; I do not know the details. I genuinely regard my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield as one of the most industrious, committed and conscientious Members of the House of Commons and of this Committee. We are sorry that he is not here. [Interruption.]

It is no good the hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford inquiring from a sedentary position about the exact nature of the bite or where it was inflicted; I am not in a position to advise him. Suffice it to say that my hon. Friend is an outstanding Member of the House of Commons and a superb member of the Committee. We greatly regret his absence and eagerly look forward to his presence.

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr David Chidgey (Eastleigh, Liberal Democrat)

On a point of order, Mr. O'Brien. Having risen, I realise that I cannot feel my feet. If I could see the thermometer on the wall from this distance, I suspect that we should be in breach of the Factories Act 1971 and the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act 1974. May I suggest that, when we meet later, when it will be colder, something should be done about the heating or the Room?

Mr Bill O'Brien (Normanton, Labour)

Can a note be taken of that? Otherwise other members of the Committee will be absent from the proceedings.

Mr David Chidgey (Eastleigh, Liberal Democrat)

I beg to move amendment No. 4, in page 9, line 35, leave out

`and such fee (if any) as may be prescribed,'.

Mr Bill O'Brien (Normanton, Labour)

With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 5, in page 9, line 40, leave out

`and such fee (if any) as may be prescribed,'.

Mr David Chidgey (Eastleigh, Liberal Democrat)

Thank you, Mr. O'Brien, for your speedy attention to my good health. I would not want to be frostbitten.

The amendments, in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester, draw attention to the singular lack of detail about how much the fee would be and to whom it would be payable. I am reluctant that the Bill should include such wording. It would be an open cheque book, allowing the establishment to charge the taxpayer for services provided by the state—allowing Departments to charge whatever they saw fit.

The aim of the legislation is clearly to reduce vehicle crime, but I believe that the Bill should also help members of the public to take action to reduce crime. In essence, we should encourage people to seek out information on registration plates so that they can assure themselves that plates are not illegal or stolen, not borrowed or changed. Charging an unspecified fee for gaining information about number plate suppliers will put the public off taking such action.

Mr Andrew Miller (Ellesmere Port & Neston, Labour)

Initially, I thought that the hon. Gentleman was on to a good point. However, I came to the conclusion that he was wrong, because I presume that the Government will do as they have done in many other areas and put the register on the internet. It would then be available throughout the country, with no inconvenience and at no cost. My public library can access the internet freely, and more people now have access to the internet at home. If I am right, the hon. Gentleman ought to concede the argument for a fee being charged for hard copy, which would presumably be needed for record purposes by businesses rather than by private individuals.

Mr David Chidgey (Eastleigh, Liberal Democrat)

The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point. Ready access to that information on the internet would be welcomed. It would obviously assist the many members of the public who have access to the internet, whose numbers grow daily. I concur with the hon. Gentleman's view. However, he suggests that only businesses would require hard copies of that information. I am not sure that he is correct—perhaps the Minister will enlighten us. Proving that one's car is properly registered is a complex business; if one is buying a second-hand car—it depends on the circumstances of the sale—one may need to make sure that one has the proper registration records. That would apply not only to businesses but to individuals. I seek clarification of that.

I have already said we do not know what the fee will be. I place on record that it should be no greater than the cost of producing the information, and that it should not be left in the hands of the establishment. Some monitoring and checking of the cost is essential. Although it would be easy for the DVLA or anyone else to decide that it could be done for a particular sum of money, that is hardly efficient or cost effective. Some control is needed.

Most important, however, is that the Bill does not make clear who would have to pay the fee. I have already said that I envisage worries being expressed by members of the public, but will the police in the exercise of their duties and responsibilities to reduce vehicle crime under the Bill be charged for access to the register?

Mr John Bercow (Buckingham, Conservative)

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, apart from the fact that charging the police or other public agencies for access to the information would be burdensome, it would be absurd? It would mean that one part of an agency of the state was charging another part of the state—and that would be transparently ridiculous.

Mr David Chidgey (Eastleigh, Liberal Democrat)

That is precisely the point.

Mr Stephen McCabe (Birmingham, Hall Green, Labour)

Has the hon. Member for Buckingham never heard of the internal market? [Interruption.]

Mr David Chidgey (Eastleigh, Liberal Democrat)

I have just heard the hon. Member for Buckingham say from a sedentary position, New Labour, new internal market.'' He pointed out the ridiculousness of internal charging between Departments. I am worried that such action may also be masking the actual cost of the regulations, a point that may have come to mind if the hon. Gentleman had thought a little longer about the matter. The explanatory notes give information about costs, but those costs will clearly be offset by the money that is collected by charging a fee for such a process—a matter that is lost in the overall analysis.

The purpose of my amendments is to probe the Minister on certain issues. First, does he agree that we do not want to discourage the public from taking proper, sensible and mature action to help in the process of reducing vehicle crime by charging them unnecessary and exorbitant fees that are uncontrolled, unlimited and unaudited? Secondly and most importantly, will the hon. Gentleman confirm that it is not expected that the police will be charged in the pursuance of their duties to reduce vehicle crime under the Bill? Will he also confirm that the clause may well have been instigated by the DVLA because clearly it would want to make the register self-supporting? I can understand that. It would be the wish of any department if it were able to do so. However, I am reluctant to allow such measures to go forward in a way that is unfettered, uncontrolled and basically unfair.

Mr John Bercow (Buckingham, Conservative)

The hon. Gentleman's amendments specify the deletion of the words

and such fee (if any) as may be prescribed.

I understand the thrust of his argument. It is an important point. Is it at least conceivable that he might favour a no-fee situation?

Mr David Chidgey (Eastleigh, Liberal Democrat)

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman because that is certainly one of the options that I regard as a method of encouraging the public to be a part of the crime prevention exercise. I do not have to hand the statistics to tell me how much the public involvement would be effective in achieving that ambition, but I hope that the Departments concerned would have taken it into account and that one of the options that they would consider, when dealing with the public, is the benefits of no fee being charged at all. I should be happy to hear the Minister's response to the amendments.

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

In the light of the time available, I shall be brief. There are two points to bear in mind: process and substance. For process, we use the word prescribed'' and, as was said earlier, clause 30, line 17 suggests that we prescribe by regulation, so that any fee could be charged and set up by regulation and that the whole process would be subject to parliamentary discussion.

Mr John Bercow (Buckingham, Conservative)

Will the Minister give way on that point?

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

No, I am conscious of the time.

It is our intention to consult widely with the industry about the matter before reaching a final decision. We do not want to remove the flexibility of being able to charge a fee because, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller) said, it is likely that the details that we publish on the internet will be freely available more generally. Two questions arise from that: will we publish on the internet all the information that is in the register or only some of the information? We want to establish that with the industry. In the event that inquiries were made for information that was not on the internet, it would be reasonable to consider making a charge in those circumstances.

Secondly, as my hon. Friend said, if people were seeking more information or detail about the administrative costs that were involved beyond what was on the internet, we should like to consider the possibility of charging a fee in such circumstances. We do not intend to charge the police a fee, but I hope that a fee would be charged to the person who requests the information, as set out in the Bill. I hope that I have clarified matters.

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

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