Clause 18 - Applications for registration.
Vehicles (Crime) Bill
4:45 pm
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.