Clause 18 - Applications for registration.
Vehicles (Crime) Bill
4:30 pm
Mr John Bercow (Buckingham, Conservative)
I beg to move amendment No. 19, in page 10, line 18, leave out `may be set with a view to recovering'
and insert
`shall be set only in order to recover'.
The purport of the amendment will be readily evident to you, Mr. Sayeed, the Minister and other members of the Committee. Before I develop my argument, I want to say what a pleasure it is to welcome to the Committee the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, the hon. Member for Streatham (Mr. Hill), who is one of the more august Members of Parliament, and certainly one of the more enthusiastic debaters on the Floor of the House, and, invariably, in Committee. I am conscious that he had a sad reason for his absence this morning, for which we have respect and sympathy. I was especially grateful to him for his courtesy in telephoning to notify me yesterday. I said then that I looked forward to jousting with him in Committee, and I meant it. It is a pleasure to see him here this afternoon.
The thrust and kernel of our anxiety about the clause and amendment relate to the scope for over-burdensome charges. I imagine that all Labour Members on the Committee are spending each and every sitting doing nothing other than studying intently the Bill's proceedings. It should not be suggested that any hon. Member is indulging in other activity—reading letters, books or anything of that sort—because that would be out of order and not acceptable to you, Mr. Sayeed, and we must be wary of your strictures. Hon. Members will therefore be aware that subsection (2) states:
The level of fees so prescribed may be set with a view to recovering the reasonable costs incurred by the Secretary of State in connection with the administration of this Part.
That leads immediately to two thoughts. First, there is the old objection and query in relation to the term ``reasonable''. What is reasonable? One person's reasonable conduct is another person's utterly unreasonable conduct. We know, because we are always peppered with that point—which I say while looking askance at my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh), who is a member of the profession—by lawyers. They are wont to patronise us—although I am sure that my hon. Friend would not do so—by saying, in a slightly imperious, and, occasionally, even sanctimonious tone, ``The term `reasonable' is well understood in the legal profession. The hon. Gentleman really ought to understand that this is known in law. There is potential for it to be justiciable. It can be adjudicated in a court, everybody understands what we are talking about, and therefore nobody would exceed what is reasonable.'' Of course, that does not remove the potential for disagreement about what constitutes reasonable conduct.
However, to illustrate precisely how reasonable my hon. Friends and I are being, which will not come as a surprise to you, Mr. Sayeed, but might cause eyebrows to be raised on the Government Benches, I say at the outset—as will be clear from the wording of the amendment—that cavilling at the use of the term ``reasonable'' is not our principal purpose in tabling it. We could argue the toss about what constituted reasonable conduct, and I would be interested to hear thoughts from Ministers about what they have in mind.
Those listening to our proceedings now who were not listening this morning would not have heard a nugget from the Minister, which they should therefore veritably treasure. If they had heard the Minister saying this morning that the Government were already thinking in terms of a sliding scale of charges, depending on whether the business was large or small, it is not unreasonable to consider that, when pontificating about the merits of such a scale, he may have given some thought to the various elements on it. It almost beggars belief that a keen, intelligent, forward-thinking and, indeed, mightily ambitious Minister like the hon. Gentleman would fail to have given any thought—
Mr John Bercow (Buckingham, Conservative)
I was referring to the hon. Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Clarke), although it would have been reasonable of me to have been referring to the hon. Member for Streatham (Mr. Hill). However, the latter was not referred to in The Guardian yesterday as a future leader of the Labour party. The hon. Member for Norwich, South has been, and that could be the cause of internal tension or friction. I hope that it is not. [Interruption.] The Ministers shaking hands is not very reassuring. I recall the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and his immediate predecessor not merely shaking hands in public, but kissing each other. However, that did not mean that they were not knifing each other mightily in the back behind the scenes. The fact that we have witnessed a public shaking of hands in front of your august chairmanship, Mr. Sayeed, is not revealing or inconclusive.
Surely the Minister of State would have given some thought to such charges. If we are to be sure that the proposed fee levels will be reasonable, it is not unreasonable to ask him to insert in the Bill the catch-all safeguard constituted by the word ``only''. That might be the only point in this afternoon's consideration of the amendment. We want the clause to state:
The level of fees shall be set only in order to recover the reasonable costs incurred by the Secretary of State in connection with the administration of this Part.
There is good reason to be concerned about such a point and to flag up the desirability, if not the necessity, of that all-encompassing protection that our amendment would confer. I say that, not least because I hope that I shall be in order in so doing, but because I have previously flagged up such worries about levies, charges and fees in Standing Committees, and on the Floor of the House in a ten-minute Bill on taxation and the right to know on 6 June last year, when I referred to the phenomenon of stealth taxes. In short, too much tax is taken from too many people who are told too little about it. That is a burgeoning phenomenon under this Administration.
I shall not burden the Committee with details because you, Mr. Sayeed, would not approve if I were to dilate on the subject, but we know that the typical family is paying an extra £670 a year in taxation under this Government. The Chancellor of the Exchequer refuses to publish the figures that show the impact of direct and indirect taxes on the typical family and on households in other income deciles. We know that he was rightly excoriated in paragraphs 90 and 35 of the Treasury Committee report of April 2000 for his refusal to provide such information to the House on which proper judgments could be made about the fee-raising, charge-levying and tax-hiking policies of this Administration.
The problem that led us to table such an early amendment is that the Bill provides many opportunities—I put it no more strongly than that—for the Government to raise additional funds for the Treasury. That is only one of many areas in which we are dependent on and subject to the tender mercies of new Labour's aspirant Prime Minister, if I may so describe the Minister of State. I may be embarrassing him today by praising him repeatedly, but he deserves that accolade. He has done a lot of good work. He is a talented, highly important, extremely influential, greatly respected man, who has many commitments and a full diary. It is right that I should highlight his significance. He would not want to court extensive and growing unpopularity, either in Norwich, South—even if he feels that he is secure there, although we certainly would not accept that he is—or in the country at large. He has a wider initiative, which might be described as the Clarke game plan, and it would be unfortunate if anything got in the way of it.
The Minister has considerable political antennae, so he would not want deliberately to impose charges that would upset large numbers of small businesses. Most businesses in the sector are small, and some are micro businesses. However, although he is a powerful, assiduous and ambitious Minister, he is only a Home Office Minister. I say that in no discourteous or pejorative sense—but he is not a Treasury Minister.
Our concern is that, if there is a provision for charges to be levied, fees to be imposed and stealth taxes to be raised, and the Government get into a difficult situation, the Minister will as likely as not—in fact, it is as sure as the passage of the seasons—be approached by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He would not be approached by a mere junior Treasury Minister; only the most senior Minister could approach him. The Chancellor will say, ``'Ere, you remember clause 18 of that Vehicles (Crime) Bill? You did manage to hold the line and keep clause 18 as it stood, didn't you? I hope that you did not allow those beastly Conservatives, the hon. Members for Buckingham, for Mid-Norfolk (Mr. Simpson) and for Vale of York to insist on the insertion of the amendment `shall be set only in order to recover'.''
The Minister may be able to say, ``No, Chancellor, I withstood the tide and held back the flood. I fobbed them off and told them that I fully intended to be reasonable. But of course that was a couple of years ago and the situation is different now—some people will have forgotten.'' Fortunately, however, not everyone will have forgotten, and verbatim accounts of the proceedings will be available, as they are not for yesterday afternoon's defective proceedings of the Programming Sub-Committee. I want the Minister to put on record an absolute commitment, as reflected in a willingness to accept our amendment, that the fees will be set only so as to recover reasonable costs.
On Second Reading, we expressed our desire that the Bill should tackle crime effectively but not be over-burdensome to businesses. I said on that occasion:
There are real grievances about the Bill.
If memory serves me correctly, I said that in response to an uncharacteristically rude and abrupt sedentary intervention from the Under-Secretary. The Home Secretary's attention was momentarily distracted—he was engaged in a conversation—and I exhorted him to listen to the point that I was making. The Under-Secretary yelled out, in a most undignified manner, ``Why should he listen?'' I do not have the text of the debate in front of me, but if the Under-Secretary checks, he will find that that is correct. I replied that the Home Secretary should listen because
There are real grievances about the Bill. There are anxieties about cost. There are concerns about over-regulation. There is a desire that it should achieve the purpose that has been established for it.—[Official Report, 18 December 2000; Vol. 360, c. 50.]
Mr Keith Hill (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions; Streatham, Labour)
Rather good.
Mr John Bercow (Buckingham, Conservative)
The Under-Secretary chunters ``rather good''. I can only assume that he is not making a self-reference, for no man should be judging his own cause, but generously and gratuitously volunteering praise for my instinctive response on that occasion. The Government's record is not good. Under Labour, the average family is paying out about £670 a year more in tax, as I said. Much of that rise comes in the form of stealth taxes. That is important. They are not taxes publicly stated, levied and defended by Ministers in the honourable traditions of this House. That is a source of anxiety.
The Confederation of British Industry, which Ministers are happy to pray in aid periodically when it suits them, has stated that businesses are paying an extra £5 billion a year in taxation under Labour. I am sorry to repeat the point, but I must refer to it again in the context of the amendments. We are concerned particularly about small businesses. I do not want to give the impression for a moment that I am insouciant about the costs and burdens imposed on larger companies—a good many of which, though by no means all, are represented by the CBI. I am not in any way relaxed about the burdens that they face. They are substantial engines of growth, productivity, export performance, wealth generation, and improvement of individual living standards. Nevertheless, it is fair to say that the very big companies can often take care of themselves. If I may say so, Mr. Sayeed, this is not an occasion for you to declare any interest but you have considerable experience of large-scale business activity. Costs can be passed on and to some degree absorbed. We on the Opposition Benches are worried about the position of small companies.
The hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston, who is furiously scrutinising a document of uncertain provenance on the Bench in front of him, is wont from time to time in debate to claim that he is an authentic representative of the interests of small businesses, though on what authority he feels able to declare that I do not know. Perhaps he believes that they are represented in substantial numbers or impressive form in the Ellesmere Port and Neston division; I do not know. What I do know—and this is very significant—is that 99.6 per cent. of British businesses employ fewer than 100 people, that they account for approximately 57 per cent. of the private sector work force and that they generate about two fifths of national output. The interests and concerns of that sector of British commerce, therefore, are of the highest importance.
Moreover, small businesses are disproportionately represented. The Minister of State is not only a distinguished, ambitious and rising Minister but an extremely upmarket mathematician—with whom I could not possibly hope to compete—and he will tell me if I am wrong. I believe that small businesses are disproportionately represented in the would-be registration plate supplier sector and, for that matter, in the motor salvage operator sector. A large proportion of such companies are relatively small businesses. Some are already parts of trade associations and a great many are not. Many of them have in common the fact that they are rather small companies, so we are concerned about their interests.
The Bill and the clause should be dedicated to the overarching and honourable goal of tackling crime. The Government cannot be trusted with the clause as it stands—unless we receive an explicit reassurance from the Minister. We require clarification, reassurance, an undertaking that is not just an early promise but an unshakable commitment.
I make the distinction because we in opposition know the difference between an early promise or pledge and an unshakable commitment. An early pledge is one made early, which will therefore soon be forgotten and may be readily ditched. An unshakable commitment, even in the parlance of new Labour, constitutes a commitment from which one cannot escape. We are seeking to ensure that the costs—[Interruption.] There is chuntering from the hon. Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Mr. McCabe). If he would like to intervene, I am ready to give way to him. Does he wish to contribute? He does not. He is holding forth but only in private. We look forward to his contribution later.
We seek to ensure that the costs will be used only to cover the necessary administration expenses of the scheme. ``Reasonable costs'' is suitably vague: it requires to be explained and tightened. I hope that the Minister will oblige us in that regard. Above all, I emphasise that what matters is reassuring not Opposition Members but the sector. I hope that the Minister will bear in mind the overriding goal to cut crime, deter the criminal, help to apprehend those who commit offences and cover the reasonable costs that are incurred in establishing the scheme. Will he please be sure to avoid errors of omission or commission, the effect of which would be to damage legitimate operators, undermine an important sector and threaten to reduce employment in it?
These are sensible proposals. The Minister suggested earlier that one of our proposals might have the unintended—but undesirable—consequence of increasing the burden on business. I cavilled at that, and still do. I hope that the Minister will accept that the desire for specificity and the charge to be limited to that necessary to recover, but not exceed, costs is the clearest indication that the Conservative party is the friend of business.
The concern about the effect of the costs on small businesses, which we debated in an earlier sitting, is raised again by the wording in the Bill that allows those costs to be set at the whim of the Government or their advisers at a later date. I am sure that the Minister who is currently responsible for the Bill has no intention of placing a burden on business, but who is to say that a future Government, of whatever complexion, might take the opportunity to make the costs unreasonable? That may seem pedantic, but in many parts of the United Kingdom small communities rely on a local, small garage for all their services, one of which is replacement number plates. Those garages may be sole traders, scratching a living, as most small businesses have to these days. The point is relevant and important. I should not wish to see such a service become extinct in small communities because the costs of registration made it uneconomic for small enterprises to continue providing it.
I have sympathy with the amendment. The only saving grace that I can find in the terms in which the Bill is drafted is that it may be in the Government's mind that the charge envisaged for the service should be less than the cost. I will allow the Minister to respond to the proposed amendment, but first I give way to the hon. Member for Buckingham.
Mr John Bercow (Buckingham, Conservative)
A good nature and a charitable instinct are worth while in our deliberations, especially as we have two weeks of them ahead. I am happy to concede that there is a plentiful supply of both qualities in the hon. Gentleman, but I urge him not to overegg the pudding. On almost any reading, I suspect that it is a triumph of optimism over reality to suppose that the Government could have it in mind to raise in fees less than the reasonable costs. Clause 18 does not state that it will meet the reasonable costs, but that
The level of fees so prescribed may be set with a view to recovering the reasonable costs,
which, in the language of new Labour seems to amount to much the same thing.
Mr David Chidgey (Eastleigh, Liberal Democrat)
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his kind remarks and his accuracy in defending the wording of the Bill. However, I wanted to make the point that the looseness and opaqueness of the wording is such that that is the impression that the Government could, perhaps unwittingly, be giving us in allowing this wording to become part of the legislation. I am happy to conclude now and await responses from the Minister and other members.
Mrs Anne McIntosh (Vale of York, Conservative)
It is a great pleasure to serve under your Chairmanship, Mr. Sayeed, and welcome you to this Committee. I am also delighted to see here the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions. May I express my personal condolences for the reason why he was prevented from being here this morning and offer him my deepest sympathy.
I declared an interest this morning, Mr. Sayeed. I am a member of the RAC Foundation public policy committee, which brings certain benefits. You will be apprised of the fact that I am a non-practising Scottish advocate from references that my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham made to lawyers, which I hope have brought his discreditable remarks about my profession to an end. Avid readers of The House Magazine will also know that I am the offspring of a Scottish-Danish alliance and so I rise to my feet in this Room in some trepidation, realising that the painting alludes to Alfred inciting the Saxons to prevent the landing of the Danes.
Mr John Bercow (Buckingham, Conservative)
Does my hon. Friend accept that, without in any sense casting aspersions that would be disrespectful to admirable Scots, the Danish part of the equation, especially in the light of the recent referendum, is especially commendable?
Mrs Anne McIntosh (Vale of York, Conservative)
I thank my hon. Friend. Obviously, stubbornness and patience are perhaps two of the best-known qualities of the Danish character. I rest my case there.
May I draw the Minister's attention, and ask him to direct his well-known assiduous qualities, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham referred, to clause 18 and our amendment No. 19. Speaking as a motorist, I am concerned that clause 18 could be perceived as taxation by stealth were the Minister minded not to support our amendment. Our wording is preferable to the Government's original wording for the simple reason that it sets out that the charges and costs incurred
shall be set only in order to recover
the actual costs raised. The costs are not insubstantial. We are told, most helpfully, on page 13 of the explanatory notes that the first year's cost alone of registration, record systems and administration will amount to almost £6 million. We are told that thereafter the continuing and recurrent annual cost will be almost another £1.5 million for record systems and almost another £2 million for administration costs, leading to an overall total of annual recurrent costs of more than £3 million. That is not an insubstantial cost.
We are told that these costs will be distributed. The Minister referred earlier to some 27,000 businesses and a registration fee of £50. The average cost for business is deemed to be a set-up cost of £219 and an annual ongoing cost to each business of £121. I just wonder whether the purpose of the Government proposals is to close down some of these 27,000 businesses by stealth.
Mr John Bercow (Buckingham, Conservative)
Is my hon. Friend aware that as subsection (2) of the clause stands, it threatens to breach the commitment made by the Chancellor in April 1997 when he said in the foreword to Labour's business manifesto:
We will not impose burdensome regulations on business, because we understand that successful businesses must keep costs down.
Is my hon. Friend aware that, as it stands, it also violates the commitment made on 25 November 1998 by the then Secretary of State for Trade and Industry who, speaking in the House, said:
we have no intention of introducing any legislation that presents a burden on business and reduces the competitiveness of British firms.—[Official Report, 25 November 1998; Vol. 321, c. 214.]
Is not that game, set and match?
Mrs Anne McIntosh (Vale of York, Conservative)
I am most grateful to my hon. Friend, especially for drawing attention to the Chancellor's remarks. I cannot fault the Chancellor's education, as he and I both had the good fortune to go to the University of Edinburgh. He was the first-ever student rector to be elected; he was already a budding politician at that time. He would be fearful of the compliments paid to the Minister by my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham. Why would the Chancellor say, on the record, that the present Government—possibly soon to be the past Government—are committed to keeping costs down when what is proposed will be an additional cost? I should be most grateful if the Minister would put my mind at rest and say that he has decided against a national monopoly. This morning, he referred to the Swedish position and, wearing another hat as a new member of the European Scrutiny Committee, I hope—
Mr Stephen McCabe (Birmingham, Hall Green, Labour)
I appreciate the hon. Lady's genuine concern about costs. Does she accept that an effect of the proposed registration is that it will separate legal from illegal businesses? Legal businesses will benefit as a direct result of taking illegal competitors out of the market. Does she further accept, bearing in mind her comments about her parents' car, that the predicted saving of £112 million per annum in vehicle value as a result of these measures must also be borne in mind when considering any question of cost?
Mrs Anne McIntosh (Vale of York, Conservative)
The hon. Gentleman's second point pre-empts what I intend to say in a moment.
On his first point, we do not want too make this too much of a Scottish monopoly—
Mrs Anne McIntosh (Vale of York, Conservative)
Perhaps we do.
I hope that the Government's ambition in this respect is realised; it would be regrettable if the illegal businesses were the only ones that could afford the start-up costs and the high recurrent annual running costs, meaning that the legal businesses could not compete.
We hope to make a one-day visit to Stockholm and I shall take that opportunity to be briefed on how the national monopoly works there.
Mrs Anne McIntosh (Vale of York, Conservative)
I put it on record that the Minister applauded that initiative, which is most welcome. If I had a vote, I would increase his leadership potential.
The initial set-up costs of registering number plate suppliers have not been quantified, but they are not expected to be substantial. The explanatory notes state that insurance companies would benefit from a reduction in vehicle crime, a point to which the hon. Member for Hall Green alluded. The Government may be privy to information that we are not aware of, but what conclusive evidence is there that the insurance industry will pass the savings on to the businesses that will incur registration costs? I shall certainly refer to that matter in subsequent clauses. There is alarm in the motor industry about the matter, especially in the RAC; when the Government consider hypothecation in clause 37, insurance savings—the Government envisage that fewer vehicles will be stolen as a result of the measure—or income received through speed cameras should be passed on to defray the costs of registration. Otherwise, like many Opposition Members, I fear that there will be an increase by stealth in the cost of motoring. I cannot believe that that is what the Government envisage. I hope that the Minister will accept that our wording is much more precise and would tighten the Bill.
Mr. Hill rose—
Mr Jonathan Sayeed (Mid Bedfordshire, Conservative)
Order. Before I call the Under-Secretary, I remind hon. Members that during this sitting we must cover clauses 16 to 30, and at this rate, we shall not do so.
Mr Greg Pope (Assistant Whip (funded by HM Treasury); Hyndburn, Labour)
On a point of order, Mr. Sayeed. We must conclude our consideration of clauses 16 to 30 by 11.25 am on Thursday.
Mr Jonathan Sayeed (Mid Bedfordshire, Conservative)
I beg the Committee's pardon, but the point remains that at this rate of progress we shall not be able to have a full debate on all the clauses.
Mr John Bercow (Buckingham, Conservative)
On a point of order, Mr. Sayeed. I should like to establish the basis for the decision that we must reach clause 30 by the conclusion of the third sitting. As the matter was debated at considerable length yesterday, and as I read the draft resolution, I am of course aware of the end date of 23 January and that we have been allotted only 23 hours' debate for consideration of all 45 clauses and any number of amendments submitted thereto. However, I was not aware that it was obligatory for us to conclude our consideration of clause 30 by the end of the third sitting.
Mr Jonathan Sayeed (Mid Bedfordshire, Conservative)
It was a resolution of the Programming Sub-Committee that consideration of clauses 16 to 30 should be completed between the second and third sittings. If insufficient time remains for debate at the end of the third sitting, the Questions will still be put, but no debate will have ensued.
Mr Keith Hill (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions; Streatham, Labour)
I am grateful for your elucidation, Mr. Sayeed, of that point. I take on board your rejoinders to proceed with all brevity, which is exactly what I intend to do. First, however, I associate myself with the general rejoicing at your presence in the Committee. I am delighted to be serving under your impartial, even-handed and enlightened chairmanship, which I hope will give me a fair wind for the rest of the Committee.
I should also like to express my unqualified gratitude to the hon. Members for Buckingham and for Vale of York for their warm welcome to me to the Committee and for their kind expressions of sympathy. When the hon. Member for Buckingham began his speech, and said that he looked forward to our future jousting, I responded with some zeal, which rather dissipated more than half an hour later, when he chose to sit down. I rather resented his suggestion that I had not appeared in The Guardian. As a former resident of my constituency, he will be keenly aware of the Streatham, Clapham and Dulwich Guardian. I am rarely absent from the pages of that august and excellent journal, which is so avidly read by my constituents.
Mr Keith Hill (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions; Streatham, Labour)
In response to the sedentary intervention of the hon. Member for Mid-Norfolk, there are no vacancies in Streatham.
Mr John Bercow (Buckingham, Conservative)
Notwithstanding some rather pernicious and unfounded rumours to the contrary, will the Under-Secretary take it from me that the fact that I ceased to live in Streatham—not in anticipation of the Vehicles (Crime) Bill—in November 1993 was unrelated to the fact that 19 months previously he had been elected the constituency's representative?
Mr Keith Hill (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions; Streatham, Labour)
I am most grateful for that reassurance. It was for me an unqualified pleasure to be able to represent the hon. Gentleman in Parliament. However, although it may sound a little churlish, I cannot say that it was an unqualified pleasure for me to be represented by the hon. Gentleman on Lambeth council.
The hon. Member for Buckingham asked for an insight into the Government's thinking about the level of fees. With your indulgence, Mr. Sayeed, I shall engage in a mini tour d'horizon on the matter. Although no detailed calculations have yet been made on the level of fees, it is not anticipated that the administrative costs will be onerous. A register with about 25,000 entries would be far simpler for the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency to administer than the vehicle register, which is its major responsibility and which has about 28 million entries.
The costs of registration may differ according to the size of the business. For example, a national chain store with multiple retail outlets will have a larger and more complex entry on the register than a small business operating from a single outlet. The registration fee may be varied, therefore, to reflect that: in practice the fee would be lower for small businesses. I will revert to that point in due course.
May I also scotch the canard which I hoped that we had managed to scotch in the Second Reading debate. I emphasise for the benefit of the hon. Member for Buckingham that this is not a tax; it is a fee to meet the reasonable costs of administration. There will be no surplus from the fee. In addition, it is a charge to business. Business has been consulted, and will be consulted further, about the level of fees.
I see that the hon. Member for Buckingham is eager to intervene, but let me turn briefly to the point made by the hon. Member for Eastleigh. The setting of the fees will not be, as he suggested, at the whim of Government because it is a matter of consultation. It has been, and will continue to be a matter of consultation. I understand his concern about small businesses. He talked about garages in rural areas operating at the margin. I hope to be able to reassure him yet further about the level of fees in relation to businesses of that description.
Does the hon. Member for Buckingham wish to intervene? I want to deal with other points raised in the debate.
Mr John Bercow (Buckingham, Conservative)
In that case, I ought to come in now, if the Minister will forgive me. He has just said—I think that the verbatim report will confirm what I say—that there will be no surplus from the fee. The hon. Gentleman is intellectually formidable, so I am sure that he can anticipate what I am about to say. If that is so, and the intention is only to recover the administrative costs, why are the Government not prepared to insert that catch-all, all-encompassing, protective, what might be described as a legislative condom—the word ``only''. [Laughter.]
Mr Keith Hill (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions; Streatham, Labour)
I certainly will not rise to that, but I am coming precisely to that point. The hon. Member for the beautiful Vale of York made two points.
Mr Keith Hill (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions; Streatham, Labour)
Well, there you go. She talked about the economic impact assessment. I reiterate that the registration fee is a one-off. The other costs to which she alluded relate to the cost to businesses of the keeping of records and checks prior to a sale. I emphasise that those costs were discussed with and provided by business as part of the consultation process in preparation for the Bill and that the businesses consulted supported the provisions of the Bill. So we feel reasonably confident, about the likely costs of the measure.
The hon. Lady also raised the issue of insurance companies. It is perfectly true that there is no guarantee that they will pass on savings accrued as a result of a reduction in vehicle crime. However, as she and I both know, and as the Committee knows, it is a very competitive industry which needs to keep charges to a minimum. We hope that those costs will not be passed on, but we are certainly not in a position—I am sure that the Opposition will agree—to legislate on such a matter.
I turn to the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Buckingham. I shall resist it because it would not have the effect that the hon. Gentleman intends, which is to reduce the burden on businesses, especially small businesses. The effect of the amendment would be that the fee had to meet the administrative costs incurred—in other words, the fee could not be less than that. The clause provides that the fee cannot be more than the ``reasonable costs incurred'' in administration, but it could be less. I hope that that reassures the hon. Member for Eastleigh, even if it is a source of consternation to the hon. Member for Buckingham.
Mr David Chidgey (Eastleigh, Liberal Democrat)
I agree with the Under-Secretary on both points, but in passing he raised an issue that I raised earlier. Although, with the best intent, the charges may be no more than the administration costs of the scheme, I have yet to see anything in the Bill that would control, monitor or audit those costs. Departments are not particularly adept at keeping costs down. Perhaps I have missed the point, but I would like to be reassured that the costs of the registration scheme on which the fees are to be based will be monitored to ensure that they are not excessive and are no higher than one would expect in normal commercial practice.
Mr Keith Hill (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions; Streatham, Labour)
I understand the hon. Gentleman's concern about the monitoring of departmental costs at every level of the public sector—and, for that matter, in the private sector. He knows that it is not normal practice to include such a provision in legislation. He knows also that innumerable agencies are in the business of bearing down on costs in the public sector, not least the National Audit Office. It is the Government's absolute commitment to ensure that the work of Government Departments, whose accounts are published annually, is carried out with the highest level of economy. I am sure that we shall continue to bear down strongly on that.
I might add that, in general, the fee will be set by regulation. I come back to the point that, because the level will be enshrined in regulation, it will not be possible for a Government Department to change it on a whim. I hope that the hon. Member for Eastleigh has been reassured by the general thrust of my observations.
Mr John Bercow (Buckingham, Conservative)
I remain convinced, even if, at least within the triumvirate, I am in a minority of one—it is the result of a typical majority alliance between Liberal and Labour Members—that my textual exegesis is correct and that of the Minister and the hon. Member for Eastleigh is not. The only scope for ambiguity—and therefore the only glimmer of hope that the cost might be lower than the cost incurred by the authority—is the rather ambiguous phrase ``with a view''. Inserting the word ``only'' is undoubtedly a protective mechanism; the inclusion of ``with a view'' seems suitably vague, particularly in the absence of the protection of the word ``only''.
Mr Keith Hill (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions; Streatham, Labour)
We may have to disagree on this point, but it seems pretty obvious that the Bill allows for the possibility of the fee being less than the administrative cost. The amendment would certainly not permit a lower fee level in certain circumstances.
The present draft provides greater flexibility than that proposed in the amendment. In the light of the evidence of the Government's open-mindedness and flexibility, I hope that the hon. Member for Buckingham will judge it right to withdraw his amendment.
Mr John Bercow (Buckingham, Conservative)
I was happy to make the argument, and I remain unconvinced despite the soothing bromides of the Under-Secretary. One could argue the toss about the wording. I am not a lawyer—something that I say as a matter of pride—so I do not claim that the wording of the amendment is perfect. I think that I heard the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston chunter from a sedentary position something about our amendment being less desirable than the original wording of the clause due to the deletion of ``may'', which implies ``perhaps'', and the insertion, among other words, of ``shall''. That is to say that there is a prescriptive rather than permissive character to our amendment, and that the permissive rather than prescriptive character of the clause might admit a lower fee to be charged than that required to cover costs.
Even if that were true—a generous concession that I am disinclined to make—we would have to be guided to some degree by past practice and available evidence. One does not need to look into the crystal ball so far as this Government are concerned when one can, perhaps at leisure, read the book.
Mr Andrew Miller (Ellesmere Port and Neston, Labour)
I do not want the hon. Gentleman to look into the crystal ball—I want him to read the words of the clause. It uses the words ``prescribed'', as in clause 30, ``may be set''—not ``shall be set''—and ``reasonable costs''. Although he is not a lawyer, as I am, he will understand that ``reasonable'' means reasonable in the circumstances. The clause standing part of the Bill would be much better in terms of the burden on business than his suggestion.
Mr John Bercow (Buckingham, Conservative)
The hon. Gentleman is bidding strenuously for recognition from his colleagues for his good efforts, but he is stretching a point.
Mr John Bercow (Buckingham, Conservative)
No. The hon. Gentleman is wrong. He is an assiduous contributor to our proceedings and in the House, so I am sorry to say that he is usually wrong. Given the law of averages, he is occasionally right. He sometimes stumbles on the truth by accident rather than design, but this is not such an occasion. He is wrong, as our amendment specifies that the charge
shall be set only in order to recover.
It would not permit anything beyond the recovery, and it specifies that recovery be involved. That is not what is said by the clause.
I am bound to say to the hon. Gentleman and the Under-Secretary that no amount of pedantry on their part will suffice to make their case, when the case that they seek to make, or at least assiduously to propagate without any fixed commitments, is in contravention of their Government's record over the past three and a half years. Unexpected charges have been consistently levied, hidden taxes have been imposed and burdens have been increased in defiance and violation of earlier undertakings to the contrary.
It would be a reassurance if the Under-Secretary were to say, categorically and in terms, that on no account would the unamended clause be used to cover a larger sum than that required to meet the cost. It is unsatisfactory for him to dance on the head of a pin in a rather undignified and unpersuasive fashion, simply saying that his clause would permit, in certain circumstances gloriously undefined, a lower charge than that required to meet the cost, without any serious indication that that is what the Government intend to do. It is especially unsatisfactory in the light of the fact that he is not even prepared—let us be clear about the scale of the disingenuousness—to make a pledge that there will not be a larger sum raised than that necessary to meet costs.
Not only is the Under-Secretary not prepared, if I may indelicately observe, to put his money where his mouth is by saying in what specific circumstances the charge would be lower than that necessary to meet costs—which would be an earnest of his good intention—but he is not even prepared to pledge that the sum raised will never exceed the sum required to meet the costs. I remind the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston that the amendment absolutely commits the legislation on that point. It makes it clear that no more money could be raised than that which is necessary to meet costs. The Government are not prepared to make that commitment.
Mr Keith Hill (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions; Streatham, Labour)
Let me make one last effort to offer all necessary reassurances on the matter. Let me remind the hon. Gentleman that the power to raise fees must be granted by Parliament and therefore it is not possible, as he seems to be suggesting, to infer a greater power. The power to exceed the sum required to meet costs is not there. That is the ultra vires rule, which means that legally we cannot raise more than costs through fees. That is a general legal rule, and I hope that that will sufficiently reassure the hon. Gentleman.
Mr John Bercow (Buckingham, Conservative)
I am not easily reassured, and I am not remotely persuaded by what the hon. Gentleman has said. Let me be clear. I regard the Under-Secretary as a decent cove. He is a perfectly respectable representative of new Labour and I accept that he does not have it in mind to impose a larger burden. Nor do I think that the Minister of State intends to impose a larger burden. However, with respect to the hon. Gentlemen, they are not judges in their own cause. [Interruption.]
The Minister of State is chuntering, from a sedentary position, that I did not listen to what the Under-Secretary said. I listened to it and fully understood it. I happen to dissent from his view that it would be ultra vires to charge more than the sum necessary to meet costs, for the simple reason of the absence of ``only'' from the wording of the clause. It is the continuing and remorseless resistance by the hon. Gentleman to the inclusion of a protective wording that worries me. I am not convinced. There is no guarantee, on the basis on which the clause will proceed, that substantial unnecessary costs will not be incurred through the inefficiency of the operations of the central authority, resulting in a desire on the part of Ministers to impose an increased charge. That increased charge might not be necessary, desirable or defensible.
The simple fact is that we do not know what the future holds. It may be, in the end, that the charges are not extortionate or, so far as businesses are concerned, unbearable. However, it is eminently sensible for members of the Committee to flag up the concern and to propose to do something about it. With the greatest respect to the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston, let me say that it is his habitual refrain that the Government are right, that the clause should stand unamended, that nothing needs to be done, that everything is hunky-dory and that anybody who takes a different view is mad, bad or dangerous to know. I am bound to say that such epithets would more reasonably be applied, on most occasions, to the hon. Gentleman, than to me or any of my hon. Friends. I repeat that I think that the Under-Secretary is a good chap and that the Minister of State is, if anything, a better chap. We know, of course, that he is the expected future leader of the Labour party, and I do not want to be discourteous to him.
The fact is that I am not reassured. I do not intend to put the matter to a vote, but my hon. Friends and I might well wish to return to it at a later date. Let it be clear that, if Labour Members think that we are relenting or that there will not be further discussion on these points, I am bound to warn them that they are lulling themselves into a false sense of security, because we intend to expatiate on them as forcefully and as often as necessary to fulfil the customary and proud role of the Conservative Opposition, which is to champion the interests of legitimate businesses, small and large, with a particular concern that the interests of small business should not be damaged by the vexatious, burdensome and capricious policies of the Labour party, new and old.
In the meantime, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill
Mr Jonathan Sayeed (Mid Bedfordshire, Conservative)
With this it will be convenient to take new clause 1—False applications—
'. Any person who knowingly makes a false application under section 18 shall be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale.'.
Mr Stephen McCabe (Birmingham, Hall Green, Labour)
I want to concentrate on clause 18 rather than the new clause. For the record, I want to declare a non-pecuniary interest. I am the vice-chairman of the European Secure Vehicle Alliance, which is an all-party and multi-agency group set up with the express purpose of combating vehicle crime.
I ask my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary to look again at clause 18(4). What consideration will be given to an application by the Secretary of State or individuals acting on behalf of the Secretary of State? I considered tabling an amendment on the matter, but it seemed to me that it might be dealt with more readily if I raised it on clause stand part.
Clause 12, which deals with the salvage industry, includes a fit and proper person test. However, there does not appear to be a similar test for clause 18. I am especially concerned about someone who might register, breach the regulations and therefore be de-registered, but who may seek to register again through a wife's name or someone else's name. I seek an assurance that, to make clause 18 meaningful and exclude people who have a vested interest in breaching the law and furthering the potential for vehicle crime, applications for registration will be subject to a fit and proper person test. I am not terribly worried about whether a Government amendment is introduced or the Minister simply assures the Committee that such a provision will be made. What I am concerned about is that the Bill achieves its purpose and that those who apply to register are subject to a proper test.
Mr Keith Hill (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions; Streatham, Labour)
I take seriously the remarks made by my hon. Friend the Member for Hall Green, given his distinguished role in the European Secure Vehicle Alliance. I remember his speech on Second Reading, in which he brought to bear all of the knowledge that is appropriate to his involvement in that movement.
The Government feel that the fit and proper person test is a matter of proportionality. The difference between number plate suppliers and the salvage industry—which, as my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hall Green said, is dealt with in clause 12—is that a significant criminal element is believed to work within the salvage industry. The salvage regulation scheme is designed specifically to deal with such matters, which is why local authorities with local knowledge will set standards for the industry by operating a fit and proper person test. By contrast, the regulation of registration plate supplies is concerned mainly with preventing criminals from taking advantage of an unregulated system of supply. The Government have concluded that the issue is not criminality within the number plate supply industry but abuse by outside parties of the industry, and that is why we have chosen not to proceed with a fit and proper person test.
Mr Stephen McCabe (Birmingham, Hall Green, Labour)
I accept my hon. Friend's point, but does he not accept that any attempt to constrain the supply of number plates will mean that the criminal element will look for another way in which to make a gain? In those circumstances, the criminal element—only a small proportion of the 27,000 suppliers, I accept—may be tempted to look for people who are willing to provide illegal number plates. It is important therefore that we make sure that those who are registered to provide number plates are of the right character. Otherwise, we shall close one area of the criminal market, but leave an opening for a new area to develop.
Mr Keith Hill (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions; Streatham, Labour)
I take my hon. Friend's observations tremendously seriously. As for his worries about registration, we shall have the opportunity to examine the procedures on registration and, indeed, re-registration as we examine the Bill. I know that he is worried specifically about counterfeit plates and at a later stage in our deliberations we shall have the opportunity to discuss precautionary measures in that regard.
I revert to my observation about proportionality. Registration by DVLA will reduce the burden on businesses and provide the police with a single point of contact. As my hon. Friend knows, there are 27,000 registration plate suppliers compared with 3,700 salvage dealers. A fit and proper person scheme would create a large burden on the industry as well as on the DVLA and, given that our perception is that the criminality lies not with suppliers but with those who abuse suppliers, it would be inappropriate to introduce a fit and proper person test, even though we shall be introducing precautionary measures to test the authenticity of applicants in other parts of the Bill.
Mr John Bercow (Buckingham, Conservative)
I wish to speak to new clause 1. As members of the Committee will be aware, the Bill provides for three new offences. We can see the logic of what the Government have in mind. They wish to create offences of selling false registration plates, knowingly supplying registration plates to those sell fake plates and supplying plates or their components to unregistered persons. There is a lacuna in the Bill, however, which is the absence of a provision along the lines of new clause 1. It would specify that
Any person who knowingly makes a false application under section 18 shall be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale.
To put it simply, it is obviously wrong for a person to seek to register when he has no justification for so doing, or to submit false particulars on the standard form, the merits of which I was commending to the Committee earlier, or on some other form.
Misleading the central authority and thereby becoming an established and registered supplier cannot be justified. However, the Bill does not appear to contain an offence of knowingly making a false application.
In other respects, the Government have taken a robust line on the need for substantial fines. The Minister said, in an earlier reference to the courts, that there would be the normal discretion as regards fines, and that he wanted to give a signal that the Government regarded the matter seriously. I believe that I interpreted him correctly as saying that he expected the maximum fine to be imposed in many cases. After all, the Government have an ambitious target, courtesy of the vehicle crime reduction action team, of a 30 per cent. cut in vehicle crime by 2004. They have made relatively modest—one might almost say snail's pace—progress towards that target in the past year or so. Therefore, it would make sense to create an offence in the Bill that would send a clear signal that it is unacceptable to submit a false application. Such an offence, and the potential imposition of a level 5 fine on the standard scale, would be consistent with the seriousness of purpose that the Government have rightly attached to the Bill.
I said earlier that we were anxious to ensure the security and robustness of the new regulation. The Minister said that ultimate responsibility for the provision of false information would lie with the person who knowingly provided that information. However, he said that a residual responsibility would be conferred on the DVLA to use its best endeavours to hold, and provide to other interested parties on request, the correct information. Nevertheless, the Minister and I agreed—and I think that other members of the Committee will conclude—that the responsibility for false information should mainly lie with the person who provided it. The DVLA will do its best, but it cannot be expected to get it right in every particular. Therefore, someone who makes a false application should surely be considered guilty of an offence and liable to conviction and subject to a fine. It does not seem unreasonable to propose that that fine should not exceed level 5 on the standard scale.
I hope that the Minister is comfortable with that idea. I am not sure why such a provision is not in the Bill, and I do not intend to pursue the point any further, but we must be consistent about the Bill's purpose and intended effect. Some hon. Members who support the Bill have occasionally criticised the Opposition for not being as committed to its objective as they are. I utterly reject that, because there is an essential concurrence between us about its purpose—there is merely some disagreement or uncertainty about its effect. As the Opposition, we are entitled to propose ways in which the Bill might be made more effective and its deficiencies or lacunae filled. That is what the new clause would do.
Mr Keith Hill (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions; Streatham, Labour)
Although I shall resist the new clause, I shall resist it in an extremely qualified fashion. I appreciate the way in which the hon. Member for Buckingham moved the new clause.
The Bill requires a registration plate supplier to apply for registration. The hon. Gentleman is right in saying that that does not deal with the possibility that someone might make a false declaration as part of that application. We accept that if a person were suspended from the register and then attempted to register while suspended under a false identity, there would be no sanction against him under the present draft. Naturally, we would hope that any false information on an application would be noticed and would be grounds for not accepting the registration. Let me say clearly that we need to look further at this matter. I agree to look at it before Third Reading. I hope that with that nod and a wink, the hon. Gentleman will not press the new clause.
Mr John Bercow (Buckingham, Conservative)
I am very much encouraged by what the Minister has said. The Official Report tells us what words were uttered, but not how they were spoken. I see grounds for optimism in both the content and tone of what he said. The Minister at his best is an immensely reasonable fellow. This afternoon, on this point at least, he has been at his best. I hope that he is not seeking to hoodwink me or the Committee. He knows that I will belabour him for ever and a day if I feel that I have been subject to an actual or a perceived cop. That will not be acceptable. I intend to be in this House for a considerable time and I will berate him on a regular basis. But I do not think that that is the case.
If I interpret the Minister correctly, he is saying that the Government are not sure at this stage that they need to accept the terms that I am proposing. It might not be the most effective way of tackling the problem, but they can see that it is an element that could perhaps usefully, in whole or in part, in one form or another, be included in the Bill at a later stage. Ministers are right to talk to their advisers—those experts whom we see unfailingly before us—and to representatives of the industry to come to a judgment about what would be practicable and effective. We are not interested in gestures. We have often criticised the Government on this. Sometimes they have criticised us for proposing particular policies with an eye to publicity or the appearance of robustness rather than effectiveness. Of course there should be time for reflection and consideration.
I am grateful to the Minister. He has given an explicit and unbreakable undertaking that we will hear further on this point before Third Reading. I hope that it is not beyond the bounds of possibility that we will hear further on Report. I presume that when we come to Report, if there is to be movement on this we will hear about it. I will not press the Minister on that. I accept that he has not made an explicit commitment. He has said that we will hear further before Third Reading. I greatly appreciate that and I will not press my new clause.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 18 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 19 ordered to stand part of the Bill.