Mr David Chidgey (Eastleigh, Liberal Democrat)

I beg to move amendment No. 13, in page 16, line 28, after `identity', insert `and safety'.

Mr Bowen Wells (Hertford & Stortford, Conservative)

With this it will be convenient the following amendments: No. 14, in page 16, line 33, at end insert

`or that the vehicle is roadworthy'.

No. 15, in page 16, line 40, at end insert

`and that they are roadworthy'.

No. 16, in page 16, line 45, at end insert

`and that they are roadworthy'.

I call Mr. Bercow. I am sorry; I mean to call Mr. Chidgey.

Mr David Chidgey (Eastleigh, Liberal Democrat)

It is not often that I am mistaken for the hon. Member for Buckingham. I shall savour the experience throughout the long hours of the Committee's sittings. If nothing else keeps me awake, that prospect surely will.

Although the amendments are probing ones, they deal with a genuine worry. Several organisations, not least the AA, have expressed concern about the safety and roadworthiness of vehicles that go through the trade after having been badly damaged or written off—vehicles that go in on one side of the railway arch a wreck and come out the other side a shiny motor car. What one sees of the polished exterior tells very little, if anything, about the safety, roadworthiness and mechanical integrity of the vehicle that one is about to purchase.

A good argument can be made for the introduction of a roadworthiness or safety check on vehicles. In the amendments, we suggest that such a check should become part of the vehicle identification check. I appreciate that that would add another perhaps onerous dimension to the work of the vehicle inspectorate, which is one of the reasons why the amendments are merely probing. However, if we are serious about road safety, it would be wrong for the Bill and the subsequent regulations to ignore the problem, which is directly connected with the second-hand car trade and the repair and rebuilding of vehicles that have been written off and then re-registered.

I suggest that the documentation to be provided under the Bill to confirm a vehicle's identity—the vehicle identity check, or VIC—could make clear also that it does not guarantee that the vehicle is roadworthy. When the Minister starts work on the regulations that deal with the issuing of certificates, it should not be difficult to include a statement to that effect. It will remain the purchaser's obligation to be sure that the vehicle is safe and roadworthy.

I have explained the main construct of the amendments. However, I should like to touch upon a further aspect of the clause—which is meant to deal with the many vehicles written off by insurance companies as being uneconomic to repair, despite the fact that, eventually, many of them are repaired and put back on sale.

The clause is about dealing correctly with the issuance of new registration documents and vehicle identity checks. That is straightforward. However, I draw to the Under-Secretary's attention the fact that probably one third of motor cars on the road are insured not comprehensively, but on a third-party basis. The insurance companies are not interested in those cases. As there is no claim against the insurance companies for repair of those vehicles, they never calculate whether it is economical to repair them. Those vehicles can easily slip through the net, as they are insurance write-offs yet also repaired.

Mr John Bercow (Buckingham, Conservative)

On a point of order, Mr. Wells. I apologise profusely for interrupting the hon. Gentleman, to whose flow I was attentively listening. If I am at fault, I shall immediately apologise, but it seems that there is an error in the amendment. Line 28 of page 16 does not contain the word ``identity'', so I am not sure that the proposed insertion of ``and safety'' after it is in an any way meaningful. I am not quibbling; I want to see where the insertion proposed by the hon. Gentleman would be, as it would aid my understanding.

Mr Bowen Wells (Hertford & Stortford, Conservative)

Line 28 contains the title of the proposed new section, which is ``Vehicle identity checks''. Therefore, the hon. Member for Eastleigh is in order.

Mr David Chidgey (Eastleigh, Liberal Democrat)

Thank you, Mr. Wells. I was about to draw to the attention of the hon. Member for Buckingham the marginal notes of the Bill, to which the amendment referred. I do not want in any way to marginalise his thoughts, but that is where he will find the relevant word.

I shall complete my remarks in the spirit in which we have debated the amendments. Will the Under-Secretary tackle the concerns felt in the industry about vehicles insured on a third-party basis, which therefore do not come into the category of insurance write-offs and so will not be registered, slipping through the net of the requirements that we are trying to establish in the Bill? I would be grateful for the continuance of the debate and for his comments.

Mr Keith Hill (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions; Streatham, Labour)

Let me deal immediately with the last issue raised by the hon. Member for Eastleigh, which was about third-party insurance. One third of all cars are subject to third-party insurance, but comprehensively insured cars are not likely to be subject to ringing crime, a fact that relates to our intentions behind the measure. That is because they are of low value, and so of no interest to thieves for that purpose.

Mr David Chidgey (Eastleigh, Liberal Democrat)

High-value cars are usually those subject to ringing, but we are also talking about the breaking of cars and selling on of spares from stolen vehicles. Will the Under-Secretary consider that aspect?

Mr Keith Hill (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions; Streatham, Labour)

I will certainly consider that aspect, although I think that my general proposition—that the sorts of vehicles likely to be subject to ringing activity—means that it would be unlikely that parts of an old Ford Escort, for example, would be broken up and used for a ringed, brand-new Porsche. However, I shall consider the hon. Gentleman's suggestions. As I said, the whole point of Committees such as this one is that we should consider all the points that are made.

I revert now to the main burden of the hon. Gentleman's speech—the amendments. They are intended to extend the scope of vehicle identity checks to include a check on vehicle roadworthiness. I will deal first with the general issues raised, and then respond to some of the hon. Gentleman's specific points. The intention of the amendments is wholly commendable in principle. They are clearly designed to enhance road safety by requiring checks on the condition of the vehicle before it is returned to the road after repair. We understand their perfectly proper purpose, although there is an issue of scope with a Bill that is specifically concerned with vehicle crime.

Mr David Chidgey (Eastleigh, Liberal Democrat)

I rather expected that that would be part of the Under-Secretary's response. I draw his attention to the fact that the Bill, which is concerned with vehicle crime, also contains a clause providing for funding for increased numbers of speed cameras. That leads me to believe that the scope of the Bill is flexible.

Mr Keith Hill (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions; Streatham, Labour)

The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point, which is why I said that I did not intend to dwell on the issue of scope. However, extending the scope of the check would be expensive. An appropriate safety examination would cost roughly 10 times as much as the simple identity examination that we propose—roughly £200, as opposed to £25. I was interested in the way in which the hon. Gentleman put his case, because he suggested that his proposal involved no more than a statement that the vehicle was roadworthy. That raises serious issues related to the level of evidence. We could provide for a test that would stand up to serious scrutiny and possible judicial action only by explicitly inscribing the requirement for such a test in the Bill.

Mr David Chidgey (Eastleigh, Liberal Democrat)

The Under-Secretary may have misheard my opening remarks. Selling a bodged-up, repaired car is not an illegal act, so the concern comes within the Bill. I said that I recognised the difficulties of issuing a roadworthiness certificate with the VIC, and asked if it could not be made clear in the paperwork accompanying that certificate that it was not a certificate of roadworthiness, and that it was up to the purchasers to reassure themselves that the vehicle was roadworthy. That was the essence of my point.

Mr Keith Hill (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions; Streatham, Labour)

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that further explanation. We will make it clear in VIC documentation that VIC does not cover roadworthiness. Applicants will be given an advisory sheet warning of that. In addition, we will be taking steps to encourage the drawing of the purchaser's attention to the issue of proper guarantees of roadworthiness. I hope to carry the hon. Gentleman with me on that.

The hon. Gentleman made a good point about roadworthiness and seat belts. Seat belts relate to speeding, which is a vehicle crime.

Mr John Bercow (Buckingham, Conservative)

My question is very simple, and I hope not offensive. Does the Under-Secretary have a personal interest to declare?

Mr Keith Hill (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions; Streatham, Labour)

Yes. I declare a personal interest—my total impartiality on this subject. It is well known to the Committee that I am neither a car driver nor a car owner. Therefore, I look at these matters with an entirely objective eye and, I can see the eminent virtue of the Government's recommendations.

The extra cost to which I referred would clearly jeopardise substantially the marginal profits made by repairers of damaged vehicles, and would also tend to put lower cost of repaired second-hand cars out of the reach of some members of the community, which is undesirable for those who wish to drive a car.

The question is whether such a measure is needed, bearing in mind that our principal objective is to tackle car crime. Before the Bill was drafted, we thought long and hard about that question, and we consulted a large number of interested parties. The overall conclusion was that it would not be justified to include a safety examination in the identity check. There were several reasons for that, the most important being that there is no evidence to show that repaired vehicles represent a threat to road safety. On that basis, we concluded that it would be unnecessarily burdensome to extend the scope of the clause in that way.

We will make it clear to applicants that the vehicle identity check covers only what it says, and we will be recommending that they have the vehicle independently inspected by expert advisers if there is any doubt as to its condition. I have attempted to deal with some of the points made by the hon. Member for Eastleigh. He may have more and I am here to listen, to learn and to respond.

Mr David Chidgey (Eastleigh, Liberal Democrat)

The Under-Secretary has, in his usual generous way, tried to take us within his inner thoughts, which is always a remarkable experience. I am delighted to hear that he is dispassionate about these matters, not being a car owner, although his remarks regarding speeding and seat belts were a little tenuous, and I wonder whether he was merely trying to tell us to belt up. In general, his remarks were helpful and because clarification of the information that will be given alongside the VICs was what I was seeking, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr John Bercow (Buckingham, Conservative)

I beg to move amendment No. 54, in page 17, line 1, leave out `may' and insert `shall'.

The amendment is what might be called a minnow—because it suggests the deletion of one word and the insertion of another—but I was fearful that if the amendment were left out, it would seem unkind to the proposed substitution. The amendment suggests that we delete ``may'' and substitute ``shall''. That does not require much explanation as far as our thinking is concerned, but I will try, briefly, to encapsulate it.

Mrs Anne McIntosh (Vale of York, Conservative)

It is important to appreciate the legal significance over and above the difference in the general language uses of ``shall'' and ``may''.

Mr John Bercow (Buckingham, Conservative)

I am much obliged to my hon. Friend for that remark, which serves further to underline what might be described as the educational disparity between us. I have only an honours degree from the University of Essex, although I think that it is a respectable one.

Mrs Anne McIntosh (Vale of York, Conservative)

First class.

Mr John Bercow (Buckingham, Conservative)

From a sedentary position, my hon. Friend generously volunteers a remark about the class of the degree that I struggled to acquire, and I am grateful to her for that. Being fair, that does not compare to her own educational record, which includes a qualification as an advocate, who practised briefly at the Scottish Bar. She has the advantage over me in that regard, and notwithstanding the fact that I am not a lawyer—I always make that point as a matter of pride—I respect my hon. Friend's background, experience and education. She is of course right about the legal significance of the words ``shall'' and ``may'' and the difference between them. The point about the regulations is that it would seem that, for them to be effective in all cases, their application in a particular set of circumstances should be assumed to happen, and if it is to be assumed to happen, it must be required to happen. Therefore, in a sense the issue is whether the regulations should be permissive or prescriptive.

I may be wrong; I am conscious that we humble members of the Committee are trying to come to terms with the issues involved, and we are of course aware that Ministers are advised by some pretty highbrow characters. Some intellectual eggheads are working feverishly behind the scenes the better to equip Ministers for the Bill. They may all be sitting there, thinking, ``Oh no, this isn't necessary. He's got it wrong. We know exactly what we mean, and it's absolutely hunky dory.'' If that is so, and the Minister can persuade me this afternoon that that is so, so be it.

As the Minister is aware, subsection (2) refers to regulations relating to the power to

refuse to issue a new registration document in respect of a registered vehicle if he—

``he'' being the Secretary of State—

is not satisfied that the vehicle for which the document is being sought is the registered vehicle.

It goes on to explain—the kernel of my argument—

Such regulations may, in particular, provide for—

as I said, I am slightly worried about the word ``may''—

the examination (whether by the Secretary of State or by persons authorised by him) of all vehicles for which new registration documents are being sought, or such vehicles of a particular description, for the purpose of ascertaining whether they are the registered vehicles concerned.

Proposed new paragraph (b) refers to

the provision of other evidence.

In cases in which the Secretary of State or those appointed by him are not

satisfied that the vehicle for which the document is being sought is the registered vehicle

they must follow a particular course of action. Rightly, proposed new subsection (3) refers in detail to the sort of information and examination that would be necessary, including:

notification of examinations...the issue of duplicates...the correction of errors...the payment of fees...the making of appeals...the carrying out of examinations...the authorisation of examiners...the manner in which, conditions under which and apparatus with which examinations are carried out by authorised examiners

and so on. As your beady eye will readily have spotted, Mr. Wells, reference is also made to the charges to be paid. Surely all that is to be taken as read? That is what is to happen in circumstances in which the Secretary of State is not satisfied.

For that reason, I do not understand why the clause states:

Regulations made by virtue of subsection (2) may, in particular, provide for—

and then lists what the regulations may provide for. The clause relates only to such circumstances. Surely in such circumstances the regulations ``shall'' in particular provide for those matters?

It might be possible to make a speech of one hour's duration on that point, although it would be entirely futile to do so, just as no doubt the Under-Secretary could make a highly entertaining one-hour speech on the merits of climbing a spiral staircase and then descending it. However, I intend to develop the arguments as I and my hon. Friends have done hitherto—constructively.

Miss McIntosh rose—

Mr John Bercow (Buckingham, Conservative)

The point is pretty clear, and subject to the intervention of my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of York and my response to it, I am minded pretty soon to rest my case. However, before I do so, because I await eagerly the hovering presence of my hon. Friend, I shall give way to her.

Mrs Anne McIntosh (Vale of York, Conservative)

I am most grateful to my hon. Friend. I hope that he will not be too modest about his formidable talents: one hour seems a short time to make a speech on the matter. Would he not pray in aid one of the reasons for drafting the amendment, which is that it removes an element of doubt that was raised in representations made to us in relation to the party that is subject to such charges?

Mr John Bercow (Buckingham, Conservative)

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I have been consistent in flagging up a concern and awaiting a response. I am not going to die in a ditch on the matter—to the considerable disappointment of several Labour Members, I have no plans to die at all.

Mr Keith Hill (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions; Streatham, Labour)

There is no such desire.

Mr John Bercow (Buckingham, Conservative)

I am grateful for that.

My hon. Friend the Member for Vale of York is, of course, right—we are making our points briefly, which is why the Committee is making good progress. I feel sure that I would be severely chastised for the brevity of our proceedings if we were graced with the presence of my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), but we are not. So I need not unduly trouble myself with that thought. The question is ``shall'' versus ``may''. My hon. Friend the Member for Vale of York and I, and our absent hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Norfolk (Mr. Simpson) and my bitten hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant), are on the side of ``shall''. Let the Under-Secretary accept ``shall'' or deploy all his intellectual rigour and personal eloquence in support of ``may''.

Mr Keith Hill (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions; Streatham, Labour)

I very much appreciate the spirit in which the hon. Member for Buckingham moved the amendment and, especially, his brevity in doing so. I hope to respond in a similarly brief vein, but I will give as full an answer as is appropriate in the circumstances, which is what he seeks. We fully understand the good intentions behind the amendment, but I want to argue in the politest way possible that the amendment is impractical and unnecessary. I think that he will find my explanation for that extremely interesting and, possibly, encouraging.

In a nutshell, the reason why the amendment is unnecessary is that some of the provisions in the clause will be implemented immediately, subject to appropriate consultation, on which I offer the hon. Gentleman guarantees. Other provisions however, cannot be implemented immediately, which is why we think that the amendment is impractical.

Why do we think that not all the provisions will be required immediately? For example, the Secretary of State will not need to make regulations about the authorisation of examiners—as provided for under proposed new section 22A(3)(h)—until or unless he decided that private sector examiners should undertake vehicle identity checks. As has been made clear elsewhere, however, all such checks are initially to be carried out exclusively by the Vehicle Inspectorate, which is an agency of the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions. Equally, there will be no need to make regulations under proposed new section 22A(3)(g), (i) or (j), until or unless private sector examiners are authorised to undertake vehicle identity checks.

I am aware that the issue of private sector examiners has not so far been adumbrated in this Committee. However, let me make a small observation on the matter, to which consideration was given in the consultation processes that led to the Bill. Most people who have an interest in the Bill—vehicle insurers, salvage dealers and so on—have already made it clear that they would not necessarily be comfortable with private sector examiners carrying out such checks. They have indicated that they would consider the scheme more secure if it were implemented only by the Secretary of State or, to be precise, the vehicle inspectorate. However, we want to keep an open mind for the future. It is a new scheme and we want to keep fairly tight control of it until we are sure about how it is working and what problems, if any, arise. Eventually, it might be worthwhile exploring the options for checks to be carried out by private sector examiners and the current drafting of the provisions allows us to retain that option. I rather think that the hon. Member for Buckingham might find that an interesting insight into the intentions behind the Bill, and a matter of some encouragement.

Mr John Bercow (Buckingham, Conservative)

What the hon. Gentleman has told the Committee is helpful and definitely influences my thinking. However, it also provokes another thought which is that, on the face of it, it seems slightly curious that for the time being the Government intend that the inspectorate alone should conduct checks and that, therefore, until any change in the arrangement is made, there will effectively be a monopoly. Will the Under-Secretary confirm that, subject to any policy change whereby others would be invited to tender, there has been no market test or tender?

Mr Keith Hill (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions; Streatham, Labour)

There certainly has been no market test or tender, but for all the reasons that I gave, which were based on the soundings that we took in preparation for this Bill, we consider this to be the appropriate step. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman has total confidence in the integrity and propriety of the vehicle inspectorate which, as he well knows, is an agency of Government established by the previous Administration. That is why it is impractical to move to the immediate implementation of these measures.

The amendment is unnecessary because the Secretary of State will exercise his discretion to ensure that appropriate regulations are made at the appropriate time. Part of the reason why we have not yet carried out a market test is that we feel that it would not be possible to charge less than the vehicle inspectorate's £20 to £25. Of course, the inspectorate makes no profit. Having drawn that to the hon. Gentleman's attention, I ask him to withdraw his amendment.

Mr John Bercow (Buckingham, Conservative)

On the strength of what the Under-Secretary has said, I am happy to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 32 ordered to stand part of the Bill.