Mr Bob Russell (Colchester, Liberal Democrat)

I beg to move amendment No. 33, in page 1, line 22, at end insert—

`(2A) For the purposes of this Part a person carries on business as a car park operator if he carries on a business which consists of—

(a) wholly or partly in the provision of parking spaces for motor vehicles in areas and premises reserved for that purpose and for which he makes a charge.'.

Mr Bill O'Brien (Normanton, Labour)

With this it will be convenient to take the following amendments: No. 41, in clause 11, page 7, line 9, after `vehicle', insert

`or part of a motor vehicle'.

No. 42, in clause 11, page 7, line 10, leave out from `operator' to `gives' in line 11.

No. 44, in clause 15, page 7, line 41, after `vehicles', insert

`or parts of motor vehicles'.

No. 45, in clause 15, page 8, line 1, leave out from `operator' to end of line 3, and insert

`within the meaning of section 1(2)'.

Mr Bob Russell (Colchester, Liberal Democrat)

I apologise on behalf of my hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh (Mr. Chidgey) for his absence. There was strong competition to secure places on the Committee to discuss such flagship legislation but, unfortunately, my hon. Friend is on a trip with the Foreign Affairs Committee.

Mr John Bercow (Buckingham, Conservative)

A trip?

Mr Bob Russell (Colchester, Liberal Democrat)

A fact-finding visit! My hon. Friend will be returning to the Committee as soon as those endeavours are completed. It is a great joy to have the opportunity to speak to the amendments.

Mr John Bercow (Buckingham, Conservative)

I note what the hon. Gentleman said, somewhat elliptically, about the hon. Member for Eastleigh, but before he develops his arguments in support of the important amendments, will he welcome warmly to the bosom of the Committee its previously lamented member, my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant), who has recovered from being ferociously attacked by a spider?

Mr Bob Russell (Colchester, Liberal Democrat)

I do indeed welcome the hon. Member for Lichfield to our deliberations. [Interruption.]

Mr Michael Fabricant (Lichfield, Conservative)

I heard a member of the Committee ask from a sedentary position where I was bitten. It was in a sensitive part—in Kimberley.

Mr Bill O'Brien (Normanton, Labour)

I hope that the Committee will not involve itself in any more dialogue about the hon. Gentleman's bite. God help the spider.

Mr Bob Russell (Colchester, Liberal Democrat)

At the Committee's first sitting, the hon. Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh) referred to the omission from the Bill of motor cycles. As a lifelong wordsmith, I hope that we shall receive a ruling on whether ``motor cycle'' is one word, two words or hyphenated.

The amendments are designed to assist the thrust of the clause, which deals with the sale of stolen vehicles. There is more to such matters than just the sale of a complete vehicle because, on many occasions, it can be broken up and the parts then sold. I accept that the Committee wants sensible contributions to the debate which are to the point; it can be sure that mine will be short. The amendments deal with parts of motor vehicles rather than complete vehicles. They apply particularly to motor cycles because they are smaller and therefore easier to break up. We must bear in mind illegitimate trading and the opportunities for thieves to break up cars or motor cycles and take the parts to their local scrap dealers to be disposed of. I hope that the Minister will take the amendments in the spirit in which it was intended.

Mr John Bercow (Buckingham, Conservative)

It is a pleasure to welcome you again to the Chair, Mr. O'Brien. In the spirit of the opening remarks of the hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Russell), I too will be brief.

The hon. Gentleman made the central point on behalf of the British Motorcyclists Federation, which, I believe, has attended closely to the Bill and supports the measure in general, but has concerns about errors or weaknesses of omission. For that reason, my hon. Friends and I support the amendment—and jousted in competition with the Liberal Democrats to be first to do so.

As we see it—and as, I think, the Liberal Democrats and certainly the British Motorcyclists Federation see it—the problem is that part I is incomplete. As far as we can tell, it does not contemplate the breaker whose legitimate business is a cover for the purchase of stolen parts from thieves who have broken a motor cycle or cycles. The object of our attention is the dealer who buys stolen motor cycles alongside legitimate second-hand motor cycles in order to strip parts off them to ring or repair other motor cycles. As far as we and the Liberal Democrats are concerned, the solution is to agree our amendments in order to include those who deal in parts of vehicles.

There is no reason why crime should not be as easy to commit when dealing in parts of vehicles as when dealing with the entirety. The purpose of the amendments is not to detract from but to add greater force and credibility to the Bill. On that basis, and—if I say so myself—with remarkably brief introductory remarks, I commend the amendments to the Committee.

Mr Michael Fabricant (Lichfield, Conservative)

It is a pleasure to join the Committee, albeit belatedly. I rise in support of the amendment, in a sort of Lib-Lab-Con alliance—something which I would not normally wish to support but because I am a member of the all-party motorcycling group. In the past, I have ridden across Europe on a Yamaha FJ1200, but early in 1993, as our majority was slim and getting increasingly smaller, the Whips suggested that I should adopt four-wheeled transport instead.

Mr John Bercow (Buckingham, Conservative)

I am much enlightened by what my hon. Friend said about his predilection for riding motor cycles. It is a commonplace and a truism that he is a rarity on the Opposition Benches—indeed, on any Benches. If it is of any comfort or succour to him, he is not entirely unique amongst Conservative Members in that predilection, because he is joined in his youthful enthusiasm by my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis).

Mr Michael Fabricant (Lichfield, Conservative)

I think that he has a pedal cycle, or ``push bike'', as they call it in the United States, rather than a motor cycle. My hon. Friend will know that Michael Jopling, a former Chief Whip and colleague of ours in the House, was and still is a keen motor cyclist—but if I pursue that avenue, I may be ruled out of order.

I do not think that people generally understand that motor cycles are not cheap. Riding a motor cycle is not cheaper than driving a four-wheel vehicle—a Yamaha motorbike costs approximately £15,000 to £20,000, and one can buy a car for a lot less than that. I commend the hon. Member for Colchester for moving the amendment, because it recognises not only an omission but that a motor cycle is of considerable value both in its entirety and as spare parts.

My Yamaha FJ1200 once slipped from between my legs as I was driving along the port of Piraeus, and fell over. Some Greek port workers helped us pull it up, as motorbikes can be heavy when loaded with panniers, tents and so forth. Considerable damage was done. A mere fall incurred a cost of about £5,000 in spare parts. I can therefore well understand that a black market in spare parts may exist. I need not remind the Committee that spare parts that have been damaged can endanger the rider. Spare parts that are available on the black market and not properly tested should be illegal. The adoption of the proposed provision would deal with that omission.

Mr Bob Russell (Colchester, Liberal Democrat)

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the phrase that he uses is no longer acceptable? He should have referred to a ``grey economy''.

Mr Michael Fabricant (Lichfield, Conservative)

There is a difference between a grey economy and a black economy. Grey products on the grey market are out of date and are not supported by the manufacturer who originally produced them. Although the products involved were originally produced by a manufacturer, they could have been broken up inexpertly and might have been damaged. That is not a grey market. In the broad spectrum of safety, security and great danger, and of that which is legal and illegal, that is not grey. In those spectrums, it is black. Before the hon. Gentleman intervenes on me again to say that there are but seven colours in the spectrum and that none of them are black—

Mr John Bercow (Buckingham, Conservative)

Is.

Mr Michael Fabricant (Lichfield, Conservative)

None of them are black. At least I have not split an infinitive—which I often do in speech, although not in writing—because I know that my hon. Friend would correct me for doing so. Spare parts for motor cycles are expensive, so a market for them exists, and it is right and proper for the provision to be included in the Bill.

I should like to ask the Minister whether the term ``motor vehicle'' includes motor cycles of the two-wheeled variety—or, indeed, the three-wheeled variety; we have not even discussed Reliant Robins, which are made in my constituency. They used to be made in Tamworth, but they are now made in Burntwood—I suppose that I should buy one and drive it to and from the House from and to my constituency.

The hon. Member for Colchester asked whether ``motor cycle'' is one word or two. I rather think that it is one word, because when I typed ``motorcycle'' in Microsoft Word, the spell check did not pick it up. That is according to Microsoft, if not Dr. Johnson, who wrote the first dictionary—and who was, of course, born in my constituency. Although I think that ``motor cycle'' is one word, I wonder whether ``motor vehicle'', which is plainly two words, encompasses motor cycles as well as three-wheeled vehicles. Perhaps that is why the term was not included in the Bill. If the Minister cannot say assuredly that that is so, it is vital for the safety of motor cyclists that the provision be included in the Bill.

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

I join my colleagues in welcoming you to our proceedings, Mr. O'Brien. I know that you presided over the first sitting, which, unfortunately, I was unable to attend. I am delighted to serve under your excellent chairmanship.

I add to those of my colleagues my word of welcome to the hon. Member for Lichfield, too. Much concern has been expressed about the reasons for his absence, so we are delighted to have his reassurance about the precise location of the famous bite, and to see him in excellent fettle.

The amendments, to which the hon. Member for Colchester spoke so succinctly, would significantly widen the scope of the Bill. They would include businesses not involved in the dismantling of vehicles which buy, use or sell on used vehicle parts, and those which buy vehicles and use or sell the parts while keeping the shell of the vehicle rather than selling or scrapping it.

Let me take a step back and remind the Committee that the purpose of this part of the Bill is to tackle the criminal element that takes advantage of the salvage industry to ring cars—in other words, to disguise the identity of stolen cars with that of written-off vehicles or to break up stolen cars for their parts. That is why we are targeting those who receive whole vehicles to sell on or dismantle.

Mr Bob Russell (Colchester, Liberal Democrat)

At what point does a whole car become an incomplete car? Is it the removal of a windscreen, or is it more than that?

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

That is a perfectly reasonable question, which I hope to answer in the course of my response.

If we accepted the amendments, we would bring within the scope of the Bill most garages in the country, retail shops and vintage car clubs, which often circulate used specialist parts for repair purposes. That would unnecessarily burden those businesses, which have not been consulted about that matter, and we have not received any representations that such amendments should be made. The amendments are inappropriate; we have not been advised of a significant crime problem within the industry that uses or sells on second-hand parts.

I am aware that the British Motorcyclists Federation is concerned that those who break up parts of bikes and pass them on are not caught by the Bill. However, salvage operators will have to record the parts received, so those who break up the bike for parts are covered by the legislation.

Mrs Anne McIntosh (Vale of York, Conservative)

Will the Under-Secretary give way?

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

Motor cycles are covered by the definition of vehicles in clause 15(1), on line 4 of page 8. It might be more appropriate for us to debate motor cycle theft when we reach that part of the Bill. The amendments have been drafted in such a way as to have a wider effect, which would be unhelpful.

Mrs Anne McIntosh (Vale of York, Conservative)

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

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

Of course I will give way. The hon. Lady should be firmer in her interventions. If she whispers, it is not clear at which point the intervention is being made.

Mrs Anne McIntosh (Vale of York, Conservative)

I am most grateful to the Under-Secretary for allowing me to make these points. To put the record straight, I am not normally a shy and retiring person.

Have the Under-Secretary and his Department had a chance to consider how they will deal with the counterfeiting of parts? Is it appropriate to consider that matter in the context of the Bill?

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

I believe that it is appropriate, and shall explain why that is the case.

The Bill will tackle the problems of stolen parts at their source. The police will have the necessary powers to drive the criminal element out of the motor salvage industry.

I have explained why we think it inappropriate to target businesses that are simply involved in the purchase, use or resale of parts, as suggested in paragraph (e) of amendment No. 33. Paragraph (f) would include those businesses that buy cars and then use or sell the parts. Most such businesses are covered by clause 1(1) (a). Those businesses that are not covered keep the remains of a car rather than selling or scrapping it. There cannot be many businesses that buy cars, recover parts and then do not sell or scrap the remains, so that part of the amendment is unnecessary.

Mr Bob Russell (Colchester, Liberal Democrat)

The Minister again refers to motor cars. Opposition Members are concentrating on motor cycles, as it is easier for those who steal motor cycles to break them into parts and introduce them to the second-hand chain than to do so in relation to cars. If I may return to my previous point, when does a car cease to be whole?

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

I suppose that it is when that car is broken up. I hope that I have reassured the hon. Gentleman that the Bill includes motor cycles. Vehicles are cars and motor bikes, and all my references to cars include motor bikes. I hope that that will be sufficient reassurance. Clearly, however, I must deal with the amendments as they appear on the amendment paper.

Amendment No. 42 would omit some of the words in clause 11. It is essential that those words are retained. Some businesses might be both a normal garage and a motor salvage operator. We want to catch only people who give false details to the motor salvage part of the business. If the proposed words were omitted from the Bill, a person who gives false details on selling a second-hand car or vehicle to a garage for resale would, when that business is mixed, also commit a criminal offence. Although we would not encourage anyone to give false details when selling a second-hand car, we do not wish to create new criminal offences if there is not a significant problem and without having consulted on the matter.

Mr John Bercow (Buckingham, Conservative)

If the amendment were accepted, approximately how many companies would be excluded from the purview of the Bill? Can the hon. Gentleman offer details on which companies they might be?

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

I think that I have indicated that, if the amendments were accepted, they would extend the Bill's coverage to a range of businesses. Those businesses would include garages, some of which engage in some of the activities concerned, retail shops and vintage car specialists. The Bill would therefore reach further into the car trade and the sale and resale of vehicles and parts of vehicles, even though we are not aware of significant criminal activity in those parts of the industry. We therefore have no desire for those parts to be caught by the provisions of the Bill. It would be ludicrous if the Bill were redrafted so that every garage in the country were caught. I hope that I have responded to the broad thrust of the hon. Gentleman's question, although I am not able to provide specific numbers. If he wants to press that point, I dare say that I could respond in writing in due course.

We do not intend to apply the effects of the registration scheme—for example, record-keeping requirements and powers of entry and inspection—to the parts of mixed businesses that are not concerned with motor salvage, as a significant criminal element does not operate in that part of the industry. To apply a criminal offence to a part of a business that will not otherwise be covered by the Bill would simply not make sense.

I now turn to amendment No. 45. Clause 15 defines a motor salvage yard. At the top of page 8, we included the words

so far as the business consists of any of the activities mentioned in section 1(2)

to allow for businesses that operate as part motor salvage dealer and part other business.

Their inclusion becomes important when read with clause 15(5), the result being that where there is a mixed business falling within two local authority areas, the operator need register with both local authorities only if the motor salvage part of his business is carried on in both areas. If, alternatively, he carries on his non-motor salvage business only in local authority area A and his motor salvage business in local business area B, he needs to register only with local authority B. That is because we are targeting the motor salvage industry, where we believe that a significant criminal element is operating, and we want to keep the burden on other non-salvage parts of a business down to a minimum. We do not have evidence to suggest that criminals are making the same use of other parts of the business.

Mr Bob Russell (Colchester, Liberal Democrat)

Is the Minister stating that the illegitimate motor trade that the amendment would cover can be dealt with by other provisions in the Bill and by existing legislation?

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

The answer to that, succinctly and in the hon. Gentleman's spirit of brevity, is yes.

The Government are committed to tackling the criminal element within the motor salvage industry. That criminal element is significant within the ringing or breaking up of stolen cars for their parts. Part I of the Bill introduces regulation. The Government are in favour of better regulation, but do not wish to impose unnecessary regulation. Regulation of outlets which buy and use or sell used vehicle parts is unnecessary: it would bring a large number of additional businesses within the scope of the Bill and create an unnecessary burden on them. For all those reasons, I resist the amendment, and in the light of my arguments, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will seek to withdraw it.

Mr Bob Russell (Colchester, Liberal Democrat)

In view of the assurances that have been given and in the hope that the Minister and his team will consider the spirit of the amendments—and perhaps revisit them—I beg to ask to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill.