Mr John Bercow (Buckingham, Conservative)

I beg to move amendment No. 66, in page 2, line 40, leave out from `concerned' to end of line 41 and insert

`on a standard form; and'.

Mr Bill O'Brien (Normanton, Labour)

With this we may discuss amendment No. 67, in page 2, line 43, at end insert—

`(c) shall be supported by relevant documentary evidence'.

Mr John Bercow (Buckingham, Conservative)

The Minister will understand that several of the previous arguments recur on these amendments, so I will not labour the point. Amendment No. 66 relates to the issue of whether a standard form is provided and required to be completed. My hon. Friends and I are a little unhappy about the reference to

such requirements as may be prescribed.

We maintain that that presents an opportunity for officials within the same department of a local authority to interpret the requirement differently, and for businesses to have different experiences, depending on the official with whom they happen to deal. I do not in any sense seek to impugn the integrity or motives of local authority officials, who do their duty as they think fit; I merely acknowledge and express concern that, unless clear procedures are set out, it is as sure as night follows day that some variability will creep into the process. After all, the local authority officials to whom I refer are not automatons—they are human beings.

Mr Michael Fabricant (Lichfield, Conservative)

Is my hon. Friend concerned primarily with the possibility of different forms within one authority or different forms in different authorities? If the latter were the case, a salvage operator with plants in different authorities would not be able to work with a standard form. I believe that that is more of a worry.

Mr John Bercow (Buckingham, Conservative)

My hon. Friend makes a compelling point. As he will have heard me explain a few moments ago, I have set a modest ambition for the Opposition. It may be that he is, in his characteristically courteous and understated fashion, chiding me on my modesty and suggesting that I should be more concerned with pressing Ministers to establish a uniform form for all local authorities. He is right that a trader established in several local authorities could face a panoply of different forms of greater or lesser complexity and robustness, as a result of which a problem could arise. However, at this stage all I am arguing for is that within one local authority area a standard procedure should be applied to each applicant.

Mr Michael Fabricant (Lichfield, Conservative)

Does my hon. Friend agree that, while we and, I am sure, the Government want to limit legislation as much as possible, when a Bill covers England and Wales, it would make sense to have one standard form? It is not just an issue of robustness and complexity, but the order of questions. For example, although the salvage operator may operate in different districts, there may be only one person who fills in such forms for the entire organisation. That person's job will be much more difficult if he has to deal with a series of forms with questions set out in different orders and drafted in different levels of complexity.

Mr John Bercow (Buckingham, Conservative)

My hon. Friend powerfully underlines the argument. As an experienced member of Standing Committees, he will remember that unless we press an issue to a Division, nothing prevents us from raising it at a later stage in our deliberations. I am gaining the impression that he might be encouraging my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of York and I to do just that and perhaps to draft a further amendment. However, given the slightly—I shall not describe it as ``tricky''— unenthusiastic response from the Minister to the fairly modest amendment that I proposed to the previous clause, it does not seem likely that he will enthusiastically receive the broader amendment that my hon. Friend is commending, but that is no reason why we should not try to persuade him to accept it.

Burdens are not a matter of theory or of the abstract. We are talking not about wallowing in the realms of metaphysical abstraction, as Burke would have put it, but about the concrete, the specific, the everyday and the unavoidable. My hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield, who is a champion of businesses in general and of small businesses in particular, will be aware from his close knowledge of such matters that the proportion of small businesses in the motor salvage sector is strikingly large. We must be aware of that, given that we are talking about small companies that will for the first time be confronted with a regulatory regime for which there is a justification and which could prove effective in reducing vehicle crime. But we do not want to over-egg the pudding.

I wish gently and good-naturedly to pick the Minister up on his partisan observation when he referred to the great debate between centralised government and local authority discretion. He referred—somewhat piously, I thought—to the record of previous Governments and suggested that it was that of a centralising Administration, whereas he and his hon. Friends were committed to the cause of decentralisation. I have two points to make. First, I do not think that that is supported by the record, although we will not debate that at any length, because to do so would not commend itself to you, Mr. O'Brien. Secondly, I appeal to the Minister not to cloak a regulatory burden for business in the language of freedom and autonomy for local councils. It is no great freedom or worthwhile autonomy for different local authorities to be able to use different standard forms. They would have to be a bunch of pretty sad anoraks if they derived any pleasure from the capacity to apply different procedures throughout the country. They would have to be even sadder anoraks, which I am sure that they are not, to derive any pleasure from applying different requirements or differently composed forms to different businesses in the same area. That has nothing to do with local authority discretion. That is over-zealous, thoroughly burdensome and deeply unjustified regulation of businesses. What is more, as I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield will agree, even in local authority terms, that is rank inefficiency, and there is no reason why we should have to put up with it.

Mr Bob Russell (Colchester, Liberal Democrat)

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the simple, common-sense way forward is a uniform form throughout the country? The best way to develop that is for the Government to hold discussions with the Local Government Association.

Mr John Bercow (Buckingham, Conservative)

I am grateful for that intervention. There is much in what the hon. Gentleman says. The only additional point that I make in response is that that discussion should not be confined to the Government and local government associations; it might usefully involve those parties whom it will affect. The thrust of what he says is entirely sensible, and I endorse it.

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

Will it assist the hon. Member for Buckingham if I say that there is real merit in his argument? I am prepared to look at the matter again in the light of his comments and those of the hon. Member for Colchester. We will not support the amendments, and I will ask him to withdraw them. However, although it is difficult to specify the exact form in the regulations because we want flexibility, some of the principles that he has put forward about uniformity are strong and worth while, and we are prepared to look at the matter again at a later stage in the progress of the Bill.

Mr John Bercow (Buckingham, Conservative)

I am delighted by the Minister's comments. That is just the sort of reasonable and open-minded approach that we on the Opposition Benches seek, but do not frequently encounter. It is not entirely unexpected and it is in keeping with what I would like to be able to expect from a future leader of the Labour party. I am grateful to the Minister, and on the strength of that and in the spirit in which he made his remarks, I will not dilate further—unless provoked—on that particular amendment. I have proposed it in relation to two clauses, and the argument is clear. I appreciate what the Minister had to say.

Amendment No. 67, which is grouped with amendment No. 66, requires that an application for registration

shall be supported by relevant documentary evidence.

Once more, the argument does not need to be made at length, because the Committee has been previously favoured with it in relation to a different part of the Bill. It seems to my hon. Friends and me that, as the requirement properly applies to the procedure in relation to applications for registration plate suppliers, it could usefully apply to motor salvage operators. As we see it, the problem is simply stated. Copies of the register shall be provided as evidence of the information contained in it. However, if copies are to be provided as evidence, where does the accountability lie if the information provided is incorrect? I am happy to stand corrected if I am mistaken, but at present it seems that no one is responsible in the legal sense—the only sense that matters to us as legislators—for the accuracy of the information. So—I feel sure, Mr. O'Brien, that you are following intently the logic of the argument as, in my plodding fashion, I develop it—if someone uses the information for any purpose, he cannot seek redress if it is proved incorrect.

What is the solution? My hon. Friends and I are arguing for the registration process to be tightened. Without placing extra burdens on business—I emphasise that point with all the force that I can muster—we suggest that applications should be supported by evidence to prove its veracity. False applications would be punishable by a new offence.

Such provision would ensure that inaccurate information was clearly traceable, either back to the business that provided it or to the application procedure that produced the error. In the latter case, a clear line of redress could be followed by an aggrieved party. As the Bill stands, the Secretary of State would—theoretically—be responsible for any inaccurate information held on the register, although it would be unlikely in practice that he would accept personal responsibility if matters went wrong.

I hope that the argument is clear. If memory of earlier parts of our proceedings serves me correctly, the case was given a fair hearing and an encouraging signal was given by the Under-Secretary. I look forward to the Minister's response.

Mr Michael Fabricant (Lichfield, Conservative)

I, too, was delighted with the Minister's intervention on my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham to the effect that he would consider the standardisation of forms. You will recall, Mr. O'Brien, that I suggested to my hon. Friend that amendment No. 66 could go further, to achieve standardisation not only in a district but throughout England and Wales. I know that the Minister is taking that on board. Perhaps he can obtain the following information before he replies. Having argued strongly with my hon. Friend for standardisation, because an operator may find it difficult to deal with different forms if he has several plants in different parts of England and Wales, I wondered about the estimated percentage of salvage operators who have plants in more than one district. Perhaps the Minister can provide that information.

Mrs Anne McIntosh (Vale of York, Conservative)

The Minister said that he was minded to consider a standard form. I heard a Government Member on the Front Bench say from a sedentary position said that the form should be harmonised throughout the European Union. I took that in the light-hearted manner in which it was raised in this our first sitting of the second week after the recess. Are the Government also minded to introduce a standard fee, or are they cognisant of the difficulties that that might cause for people living in less well-off areas such as the north of England?

Mr Michael Fabricant (Lichfield, Conservative)

My hon. Friend mentioned the less wealthy north of England. May I remind her that there are more Porsches and Rolls-Royces per head of population in the north-east than in the south-east?

Mr Bob Russell (Colchester, Liberal Democrat)

They are all motor salvage operators.

Mrs Anne McIntosh (Vale of York, Conservative)

I could not possibly comment. That is a matter for the hon. Member for Colchester.

To make a comparison, there are two villages by the name of Hewby. One is in the Vale of York constituency and the other in Leeds, North-West. The village in the latter has more millionaires per head of population than the quaint village of Huby, which is at the centre of Vale of York.

The comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield underline the point. I might not be as wary as many of the salvage operators to which the hon. Member for Colchester referred in a sedentary intervention, but parts of the north-east would find it difficult to meet the fee, bearing in mind the likely costs detailed in the explanatory notes. I should like to probe the Minister to ascertain whether the Government have thought ahead and considered a standard fee or whether they will make arrangements for different parts of the country.

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

I begin my response by drawing the attention of members of the Committee to clause 3(1)(a), which states that the registration

shall be made to the local authority concerned in accordance with such requirements as may be prescribed.

As you will recall, Mr. O'Brien, ``prescribed'' is defined in clause 15(1) as meaning

prescribed by regulations made by the Secretary of State.

The Secretary of State may introduce regulations to deal with the matter, and it was in consciousness of that that I responded as I did to the points made by the hon. Member for Buckingham. We shall consider the matter more closely with a view to achieving the uniformity and standard approach for which he argued strongly, and we shall respond in due course.

The same applies to amendment No. 67, which deals with relevant documentary evidence. That matter can be dealt with by regulations in the established way, as we intended. However, as the hon. Member for Buckingham will recall, having discussed the matter last week with my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary, we believe that in considering documentary evidence it is important to take account of the fact that we are trying to move towards electronic systems of delivery of such services. There is therefore a real burden in some aspects of the documentary requirement. That may conflict with the electronic delivery of Government services, which the Government are keen to promote and which is, I believe, supported by hon. Members from all parties. The matter can be considered as part of clause 3(1)(a), and we shall consider it in that context.

On the point made by the hon. Member for Lichfield, I am advised that industry sources, on which we have based much of our evidence, suggest that fewer than 100 of 3,000 salvage businesses have outlets in more than one area. That does not weaken the force of his point, but it is not a major problem. Nevertheless, even for those 100, it is desirable to have a standard form that they can understand. That is why I responded positively to his point.

As we have detailed in clause 3(1)(b), we believe that the fee should be determined by the local authority, for two reasons—to take account of the local circumstances that the hon. Member for Vale of York describes and the different levels of efficiency of different authorities. We believe that local authorities should resolve that matter directly.

Mr. Bob Russell rose—

Mr. Bercow rose—

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

I shall give way in a moment.

As we do throughout government, we shall provide guidance on the standard principles to be applied and possibly on a proposed limit, but that will depend on the number of operators in each area, and we believe that the matter should be for the local authority to resolve.

Mr Bob Russell (Colchester, Liberal Democrat)

The Minister has dealt with the point that I was about to make—that parameters must be provided or the inefficient will start milking the system.

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

I agree, which is why we shall provide guidance. The hon. Member for Buckingham suggests that he, too, is happy with that.

The hon. Member for Vale of York mentioned Europe. My hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller) suggested that the document might be published in 12 European Union languages, which we may specify—

Mrs Anne McIntosh (Vale of York, Conservative)

Nine.

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

Twelve, because my hon. Friend is positive about such matters in trying to widen their application.

I assure the Committee that the more romantic pro-Europeanism of my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston, although I agree with him politically, is not a route that we intend to go down. I know that he will be disappointed. With that, I hope that the hon. Member for Buckingham will consider withdrawing the amendment in light of my comments about the arguments that he advanced.

Mr John Bercow (Buckingham, Conservative)

I am happy with what the Minister has said, which has been, to a considerable degree, reassuring. I therefore beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr John Bercow (Buckingham, Conservative)

I beg to move amendment No. 65, in page 2, line 42, leave out from `as' to end of line 43 and insert

`are necessary to recoup the costs of processing the application only'.

Mr Bill O'Brien (Normanton, Labour)

With this it will be convenient to consider amendment No. 68, in page 2, line 46, leave out `the reasonable' and insert `only the'.

Mr John Bercow (Buckingham, Conservative)

I have a sense that I am travelling down memory lane, accompanied, I hope, by my hon. Friends. My h Fs will recall that the broad issues were discussed in relation to another part of the Bill last week. My hon. Friends the Members for the Vale of York and for Mid-Norfolk (Mr. Simpson)—

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

The unbitten ones.

Mr John Bercow (Buckingham, Conservative)

Indeed. My bitten hon. Friend—he was bitten in the far east, and further and better particulars are still not fully available—[Interruption.] He is now saying that he was bitten in Australia. I did not know that. Originally, we received other information on the matter. Nevertheless, my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield was indisposed and not available to attend the debate or hear the arguments, and nor did he enjoy the Minister's response.

We are anxious that fees charged in relation to the registration procedure should be only such as would be necessary to ensure that costs are recouped. For that reason, amendment No. 65 would insert the words

necessary to recoup the costs of processing the application only.

The problem is that the Bill allows the local authority to set the fee that it wishes to charge for processing the application. As with the processing of registration plate applications, that means that local authorities are free to set any charge imaginable.

Opposition Members are committed to reducing the burden on businesses as far as possible. It is therefore necessary to tighten up the provision and prevent local authorities using such businesses as milch cows to allow them to spend money on their other pet projects. Some hon. Members may look askance at that suggestion, but they should not. There is a history of it happening in local authorities—I am sorry to have to introduce a partisan note, but, ordinarily, it has occurred in Labour local authorities when they have struggled to find the resources to finance their pet projects and pursue their beloved politically correct fetishes. They have recognised that, as far as the domestic ratepayer, community charge payer or—to update the point—council tax payer is concerned, there is limited scope to charge without incurring enormous political unpopularity and the risk of removal from office. Therefore, an alternative avenue has traditionally been available to them.

Mr Bob Russell (Colchester, Liberal Democrat)

Is the hon. Gentleman advocating a different form of local government taxation?

Mr Bill O'Brien (Normanton, Labour)

I hope not.

Mr John Bercow (Buckingham, Conservative)

I was not advocating a different form of local government taxation.

Mr Bill O'Brien (Normanton, Labour)

At this point.

Mr John Bercow (Buckingham, Conservative)

As you helpfully point out, Mr. O'Brien, the objection is not, on the strength of a detailed study of local government finance, to any alternative arrangement but to the constitutional impropriety of dilating on such a point in this Committee. I immediately follow your exhortation. I shall not recommend any change in local government finance. I want the hon. Member for Colchester to understand that I am not making a value judgment on the local government finance system. My concern is that, within any local authority, irrespective of the finance system that applies, a council has the opportunity to supplement the income that it raises from the domestic council tax payer with funds that it can raise from businesses.

It is common ground between the hon. Member for Colchester—the sole but powerful Liberal Democrat in Committee—and my hon. Friends that, to give effect to the Bill, such fees might need occasionally to be charged. I hope that he agrees that it is important that those charges should be such as are necessary to recoup—only to recoup—the costs of the process to the local authority. Of course, it is right that the local authority should not be out of pocket for giving effect to procedures that will benefit commercial operators. Equally, however, there is no reason why a commercial operator should effectively be held to ransom by a local authority, which is vexatiously and in a draconian fashion charging fees that help to finance its other expenditure programmes, when those fees are grossly disproportionate either to the cost that the local authority incurs or, indeed, to the capacity of the business—many such businesses being small—to pay that fee.

Mr Michael Fabricant (Lichfield, Conservative)

Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government may be sympathetic to his powerful argument? They have been considering the introduction of toll charges on roads and motorways, but justifying that by saying that such charges—I oppose them as an additional tax—would be ring-fenced for the improvement of roads? Is he not arguing in favour of ring-fencing any charges for such provisions so that they are used only to fund the provisions and not other pet plans of local authorities?

Mr John Bercow (Buckingham, Conservative)

My hon. Friend is correct. He is intellectually elastic. Perhaps I should describe him as dextrous.

Mr Keith Simpson (Mid Norfolk, Conservative)

Our flexible friend.

Mr John Bercow (Buckingham, Conservative)

He is, indeed. My hon. Friend is the political and legislative equivalent of the Access card.

I am not sure that it is right to use the term ``ring-fenced'' in the context outlined by my h F, however, nor am I sure that the principle of hypothecation, as such, applies. The point that I am anxious to develop and to which I seek the Minister's assent is that the charge should be a reflection of the burden on the local authority. It should not be a stealth tax. I shall not develop arguments about such tax, Mr. O'Brien, because you are patient, good-natured, accommodating, helpful and kind towards new Members of Parliament and I do not want to try your patience. The charges should not be overly burdensome. I emphasise that we seek to specify that the costs should be only those

necessary to recoup the costs of processing the application.

That would mean that an authority that levies an excessive cost could be held accountable or made to justify the cost that it sets. It would be obliged to show that the charge that it had levied was the financial or manpower cost that it had incurred.

Mr Michael Fabricant (Lichfield, Conservative)

Does my hon. Friend realise that if amendment No. 68 were agreed to, it would give considerable power to the auditor, who would be able to ensure that its provisions were met? If the word ``reasonable'' were retained, no powers would be given to the external auditor to the town, city or district council.

Mr. Bercow: My hon. Friend is usually correct in his interventions, and I am pleased to say that that interjection was no exception. What he said was right, and I vouchsafe to my hon. Friend and to the Committee that I am slightly worried that Ministers seem set—I hope that they will prove me wrong—to resist the amdts. I have the distinct impression that they want to do so. The amendments are so transparently reasonable that only an extraordinarily unreasonable person would object to them.

My hon. Friend rightly referred to the potential involvement—especially if our amendments are accepted—of the auditor. I would welcome that involvement on the basis that a local authority that has behaved properly and levied a charge that reflected the cost that it had incurred would have nothing to fear from the auditor. On the other hand, a local authority that had imposed a burdensome charge that reflected not its actual costs but its desire to obtain revenue to expend on multifarious purposes, would indeed have something to fear from the auditor, and rightly so. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston is getting restive.

Mr Andrew Miller (Ellesmere Port & Neston, Labour)

I am not getting restive. The hon. Gentleman's concerns are absorbed within the Bill, as were those that he expressed in our discussion of ``reasonable'' earlier. What does he mean by ``processing'' in amendment No. 65? Processing is an administrative operation, yet local authorities—especially rural ones—will incur costs in investigating the suitability of some operators that would be excluded if amendment No. 65 were accepted.

Mr John Bercow (Buckingham, Conservative)

I am sorry to say that the hon. Gentleman is wrong. With the best will in the world, I cannot convert his error into something that is correct. I want to let the hon. Gentleman down as gently as I can, without an undue bump. The reason why he is wrong is that to any reasonable person the processing procedure embraces both the technical fact of processing—such as photocopying or passing documents through a machine—and the investigations that might be required to satisfy the local authority of the veracity of the information with which it has been furnished.

Mr Andrew Miller (Ellesmere Port & Neston, Labour)

It does not say that.

Mr John Bercow (Buckingham, Conservative)

The hon. Gentleman chunters from a sedentary position, rather like someone on a bus whom Englishmen affect to ignore, ``It doesn't say so. It doesn't say so.'' I want to let the hon. Gentleman down gently. He thinks that he has a good point, but in fact he has a bad one. When it suits him, he is happy enthusiastically to support the unamended clauses of the Bill by saying to Conservative Members, ``Ah, but so-and-so is implicit; the amendment is redundant'', and he is warmly applauded by his hon. Friends on the Government Front Bench when he does so. On the occasions when the hon. Gentleman has made that case, he has been mistaken. It is interesting to observe what might be described as the changed position or tergiversation that the hon. Gentleman undertakes in relation to Conservative amendments. The different types of processing that I have described are covered and implied by the wording of our amendment. The hon. Gentleman is, all of a sudden, for no good reason and without explanation, cavilling at my proposition.

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

My hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston was right in what he said. To clarify the matter for the Committee, will the hon. Gentleman say whether the wording includes the functions of setting up the register, maintaining the register and considering cancellations to the register? If it does include them, what is the reason for his wording? If it does not, why does he wish to exclude them?

Mr John Bercow (Buckingham, Conservative)

I will happily deal with the point, but I can see that my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield is anxious to intervene.

Mr Michael Fabricant (Lichfield, Conservative)

Although I do not wish to prolong the ``turgidisation'' on which my hon. Friend remarked earlier—it is a splendid word to be included, and I shall now feel free to split my infinitives ad nauseam—it might be helpful to point out to my hon. Friend and the Minister that, just as ``reasonability'' has a meaning in law, ``process'' also has a meaning in law. Process—including due process—means the process from beginning to end. The answer to the Minister's intervention is therefore yes. The meaning of the word ``process'' is the whole process from beginning to end, and not merely the mechanical process of dealing with a form per se.

Mr John Bercow (Buckingham, Conservative)

My hon. Friend is entirely correct, and I rest my case. In passing, I should put it on record, which will be a challenge for those who keep and update the Official Report, that the word that I used was tergiversation, not turgidisation. The dictionary definition of the word is something along the lines of changed principles or conflicting statements. That was the charge that I was levelling against the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston, which will resonate with the constituents whom he seeks to impress.

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

I fear that the hon. Gentleman, in his great rush of kind words for you, Mr. O'Brien—with which I associate myself completely—may have forgotten, or perhaps he never learned, that you are one of a small group of local government finance experts in this House, and that you understand the subject better than many people, including, I dare say, the hon. Gentleman, knowledgeable as he is.

We have had most of the debate on the amendment. The amendment is too narrow, and would mean that the fees that local authorities received from people who applied could cover the cost of processing applications only—the word ``applications'' was left out of the remarks made by the hon. Member for Lichfield. There would therefore be a shortfall in relation to the costs that they would undoubtedly incur in relation to setting up and maintaining the register and considering cancellations. I make no criticism of the hon. Gentleman in relation to that point about wording, because I know that he was not taking aim at it with a precise legal arrow. Everyone would agree, however, that the fees that local authorities are entitled to charge should cover all their costs in maintaining the register in the proper way. We have discussed the matter with the industry, and have agreed that fees will be limited to administration costs. We shall consult further on how local authorities should calculate the level of fees before issuing joint guidance with the Local Government Association to ensure full transparency.

It is not the case, as the hon. Gentleman claimed, that a local authority will be able to levy whatever charge it wants, so amendment No. 68 is not necessary. Clause 3(2) provides that the fee cannot be more than the reasonable costs incurred from administration. As the hon. Member for Lichfield rightly says, the district auditor will consider that issue in his annual review. He or she will make a judgment and report, in accordance with statute, on his or her findings about any charges that are more or less than they should be. Local government is prevented from raising more than costs through fees. The current drafting therefore provides greater flexibility.

Mr John Bercow (Buckingham, Conservative)

Is subsection (2)(b) indicative of the Government's wish for a sliding scale?

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

No, it is not specifically, but rather it responds to the points made by the hon. Member for Vale of York—it acknowledges that different fees can be payable in different circumstances.

Following the earlier debate about different scales of operation, the hon. Gentleman is right to say that one could imagine a different charging regime. The issue is not as acute for the salvage industry as it is for number plate suppliers. The hon. Gentleman will recall that there are approximately 27,000 number plate suppliers covering a much wider range of type of enterprise, if I can put it like that. Although there is a range in relation to the 3,000 salvage operators, it is not as great, so the issues are not quite as sharp.

Mr John Bercow (Buckingham, Conservative)

As far as possible, I am anxious to tie the Minister down on the meaning and practical significance of the phrase ``different circumstances'' in subsection (2)(b). If he is hinting that different circumstances will, on the whole, not mean different circumstances in terms of the size of business, and, therefore, of ability to pay, will he offer us some indication of what this set of ``different circumstances'' might typically be?

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

The phrase ``different circumstances'' is deliberately widely drawn to allow the situation to be properly addressed within, as the hon. Member for Colchester said, the general framework established by guidance agreed between the Government and the LGA. It is up to local authorities to decide how to do that. The different circumstances that we had in mind are the physical location of the local authority; the scale of the salvage business, since one local authority might have a large range of salvage businesses; the administrative simplicity of the local authority's exercises; and the charging of smaller fees for smaller businesses on a sliding scale. The latter is one issue that has arisen, and I am not trying to exclude it. I am simply suggesting that it is not such a major point in the salvage industry as it is in the number plates industry, with which my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary dealt in the debate on the matter last week. With that, I hope that the hon. Member for Buckingham will withdraw his amendment.

Mr John Bercow (Buckingham, Conservative)

I have listened to the Minister. I will reflect on his comments, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr Bill O'Brien (Normanton, Labour)

I have a small announcement to make. As the Committee will be adjourning one hour early on Thursday, I suggest that the Programming Sub-Committee meet immediately after this sitting and that we extend tonight's business for an hour to compensate for the time that we will lose.

Mr Bob Russell (Colchester, Liberal Democrat)

I beg to move amendment No. 35, in page 3, line 3, after `area', insert—

`(a) notify the police and receive any representations that they may have occasion to make; and

(b)'.

Mr Bill O'Brien (Normanton, Labour)

With this it will be convenient to take amendment No. 39, in page 3, line 23, after `satisfied', insert

`on the representations of the police to them or otherwise'.

Mr Bob Russell (Colchester, Liberal Democrat)

One success that the Government can legitimately claim— although I do not recall seeing it on any pledge card—is the bringing together in communities of the police, local authorities and other agencies to provide a better, more comprehensive service for those communities. I welcome that, and suggest that the amendments follow the spirit of the Minister's comments about effective partnerships between the police and local authorities.

As I understand it, the Bill neither requires local authorities to make inquiries into an applicant's fitness nor supplies them with funds to do so. Equally, there is no statutory reason why prevention of motor vehicle theft should rank high in local authorities' priorities. Clearly, that would be of interest to the partnerships to which I referred. It does not matter to communities whether the police or local authorities deal with the question. If we are to have effective partnerships, the police and local authorities should be linked formally, so that the police can make certain that the applicant is a fit and proper person.

Together, the amendments would provide the police with a useful channel, as of right, to the local authority, so that they can express any concerns about the conduct of a registered motor salvage operator in that local authority's area. They are commonsense amendments that would improve the Bill for the benefit of the communities where police and local authorities are, rightly, encouraged to work together increasingly.

Mr John Bercow (Buckingham, Conservative)

I rise to support amendments Nos. 35 and 39. The hon. Member for Colchester will have received representations from appropriate quarters, as have members of the official Opposition. We have reached the same conclusion; there is good sense in the amendments.

I am delighted that, for the second time, the hon. Gentleman has invoked the mantra ``common sense''; he is on something of a roll in that respect. However, he should be careful because he has a vexed history. As the late Mr. Churchill would have said, he has ``ratted'' from Labour to the Liberal Democrats—and as Churchill famously said, one can rat but one cannot ``re-rat''. That did not stop Churchill from doing so when the mood took him, of course. I do not suggest that the hon. Gentleman will re-rat in his former direction, but he may rat in our direction, which is a striking thought.

In general terms, I would welcome him doing that, but not in Colchester. We are well served by the excellent Conservative parliamentary candidate for the Colchester constituency, Mr. Kevin Bentley, who will, after the general election, replace the hon. Gentleman as Member of Parliament. That aside, I will briefly lay out my support for the amendments.

The Bill does not provide for the police to be involved in the application process. As the police are the public face of the law, it is an unusual and, thus far, inexplicable omission. The amendments would involve the police in the process and oblige local authorities to take on board their views. The key words are to be found in paragraph (a) of amendment No. 35, through which the authorities would be obliged not only to notify but to receive representations from the police. The Government have an exacting target of a 30 per cent. cut in crime, and a pressing timetable of five years in which to fulfil it. If they are serious about cutting vehicle crime, they must agree that a system that excludes the views of the police is worthless. Arguably, it is worse than useless; it could prove to be counter-productive.

The amendments make good sense to us. The Minister will have been advised by clever people working behind the scenes, who seek no public recognition of their intellectual rigour and prowess—the fruits of which will now be made known to us.

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

I understand the sentiments behind the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Colchester, and I commend them. I agree that the spirit of partnership to which he referred should be at the core of the matter. However, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will reconsider the amendments, because I do not believe that it is necessary to set out in statute all the forms of relationships.

For example, we are publishing today toolkits on vehicle crime. [Laughter.] That may sound trivial, but the purpose of such action is to put information in one place on the web for everyone who is interested in fighting vehicle crime—whether the police, those in local authorities or whoever. The toolkits will contain, first, the guidance that is set out for departments on such matters, secondly, what resources can be devoted if necessary, and, thirdly, examples of best practice—there are some good partnerships in the area—in relation to secured car parks, and so on, to encourage people to build on them.

We are publishing such toolkits on all areas of crime precisely to encourage and build partnerships between different agencies. That will be more effective than large chunks of paper flying about the country between different departments. We at the Home Office and those in the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, such as my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary, push out various types of guidance, and we believe that it is better to do so jointly, if possible.

Mr Michael Fabricant (Lichfield, Conservative)

I welcome the Minister's announcement. It makes practical and good common sense. It means that I can rush back to my computer at 1 o'clock after the sitting ends and look at that website. Those reading the Hansard of our debate can do likewise. What is the website's URL—address?

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

The information is on the Home Office website and can be accessed through the crime page of the UK on-line Government portal, which is yet another major departure in British e-government that we introduced after succeeding the Government whom he supported.

Mr Michael Fabricant (Lichfield, Conservative)

I am still not clear about the website address—www., then what?

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

ukonline. When the hon. Gentleman accesses it, he will see a crime-life episode in which he will find the pages that I have described.

Mr John Bercow (Buckingham, Conservative)

I hope that it is not the medium or long-term intention of Ministers to register such information only on a website. I am sure that the Minister

was drinking his Ovaltine or doing his Red Boxes last night and will not have heard the debate in the Chamber, but I have to protect those of my hon. Friends who are either not familiar with, uninterested in or turned off by a website. Is he aware that a distinguished and fairly long-serving Member of the House, my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), admitted last night that he would not recognise a website if it jumped out of his breakfast cereal?

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

The right hon. Gentleman has many virtues, at least in the eyes of the hon. Member for Buckingham, if not the rest of us. The idea that he is 25 years off the pace does not surprise me. I pay credit to Conservative Members. When we discussed in our previous Session the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Bill and others, many hon. Members, including the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean), who is one of the right. hon. Gentleman's allies in general destructive activities towards parliamentary democracy, were revealed as serious e-mailers and well informed people. The right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst is a long way away from modern reality.

The purpose of the measure to which the hon. Member for Colchester has tabled amendments is to enable flexible updating and development of partnerships. The laying down of statute at each juncture can inhibit people working together. I acknowledge that we expect local authorities to consult the police as a matter of routine when considering applications. In fact, the police are probably one of the main sources of information to local government. As I have said in previous sittings, we intend to discuss matters with the LGA, including the jointly agreed guidance on implementation. We do not believe that it is necessary to specify the requirement in statute. That also applies to amendment No. 39.

The hon. Member for Colchester may disagree, and might want to press the amendment to a Division. I appreciate the spirit of his earlier remarks, but in building genuine, flexible partnerships, it is best to be as flexible as possible, to allow the relationships between the various bodies to work by mutual agreement under guidance, rather than sticking to a form of words that have had their moment in history. I hope that, on the basis of those assurances, he will consider withdrawing the amendments.

Mr Bob Russell (Colchester, Liberal Democrat)

The debate is on the record, so the spirit of the amendment and the Minister's response will be there to be referred to should there be any breakdown in relationships between a local authority and the police, which we hope does not happen.

I wonder whether it has yet dawned on the hon. Member for Buckingham that in less than two hours this morning I have achieved more constructive rephrasing and remodelling of the Bill than he has in three days. There may be a message in my approach as opposed to his.

Mr John Bercow (Buckingham, Conservative)

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr Bob Russell (Colchester, Liberal Democrat)

No. I am also grateful to him for referring to a certain gentleman in Colchester, whose name is not well known in my constituency, because that will be the only time that his name will appear in Hansard. With that, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr Bob Russell (Colchester, Liberal Democrat)

I beg to move amendment No. 36, in page 3, line 9, after `applicant', insert

`or any person employed by him in the business, or associated with him in the conduct of the business,'.

Mr Bill O'Brien (Normanton, Labour)

With this it will be convenient to take the following amendments: No. 37, in page 3, line 11, after `applicant', insert

`or any person employed by him in the business, or associated with him in the conduct of the business,'.

No. 38, in page 3, line 12, at end insert—

`(c) whether the applicant, or any person employed by him in the business, or associated with him in the conduct of the business, has been convicted of theft or handling of motor vehicles; and

(d) whether stolen vehicles or parts have been recovered from any premises occupied by the applicant, or any person employed by him in the business, or associated with him in the conduct of the business.'.

Mr Bob Russell (Colchester, Liberal Democrat)

These are very important amendments; indeed, any amendment tabled by the Liberal Democrat Benches is important as opposed to frivolous.

A loophole in the law on off-licence premise sales was found: a servant of the employer was not embraced by legislation on selling alcohol to under-age drinkers. It was necessary for the loophole to be closed by a private Member's Bill, which I think I am right in saying is now on the statute book. Similarly, the amendments would ensure that no applicant could find a loophole in the legislation when one of his or her employees—servants, or whatever legal phrase—is blamed for anything that goes wrong. It is important that the whole undertaking is watertight, so that no applicant can distance himself or herself from something that has gone wrong. I dare not use the term ``common sense'' again, suffice it to say that the rational, sensible and logical proposal is to agree the amendments.

Mr John Bercow (Buckingham, Conservative)

I am pleased to follow the hon. Gentleman. I am sorry that he is starting to spoil the record. He has done so unfortunately in two respects. First, he was obviously ill at ease with the material that he has just presented. I presume that he saw it only at short notice once he realised that his hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh would not be present and that he would have to move the amendment instead. Secondly, it is a shame that the hon. Member for Colchester, who has been trying hard in Committee—and I have been grateful for his efforts—should claim a credit that is not his due.

I have a high regard for the hon. Member for Colchester—he works hard—but I hope that he will not take it amiss when I say that, on the whole, I prefer my approach and do not want to subordinate it to or exchange it for his. If he wants, in his prosaic fashion, to pursue his own course, he may carry on doing so. Although I am grateful for his offer of wisdom—and I note his suggestion of superiority—it was not entirely persuasive.

The hon. Member for Colchester was probably told by the hon. Member for Eastleigh when he had to hand the business on to him today that the provenance of the amendments was not the imaginative mind of the hon. Member for Eastleigh. I emphasise that he has an imaginative mind, but, for the elucidation of the hon. Member for Colchester, who seems blissfully unaware of the fact, I inform the Committee that the provenance of the amendments is an outside organisation, which had good ideas and commended those ideas to the hon. Member for Eastleigh and to my hon. Friends and me. Therefore, all that nonsense about good Liberal Democrat ideas achieving great success, about wisdom and about how thoroughly laudable they all are is just the sort of stuff and nonsense that we habitually encounter in Liberal Democrat ``Focus'' leaflets, which literally litter most communities throughout the country. Under the Trade Descriptions Act 1968 the hon. Gentleman's argument would get absolutely nowhere.

I put that on the record because I am an accommodating fellow, and in the Committee I have tried to be as inclusive as possible.

Mr Bob Russell (Colchester, Liberal Democrat)

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr John Bercow (Buckingham, Conservative)

In a moment.

I have practised the politics of the big tent. I have sought consensus and have been accommodating to the hon. Member for Warrington, North (Helen Jones), a very intelligent member of the Committee. However, if the hon. Gentleman wants to pick an argument with the official Opposition, we shall join that argument, and, in the politest possible sense—that is, in a parliamentary, not a physical, sense—he will be well and truly roughed up.

Mr Bob Russell (Colchester, Liberal Democrat)

The hon. Gentleman is clearly riled. Is he saying that it is wrong for Members of Parliament, from whichever party, to ask for outside briefings and guidance? Is he saying that all the amendments that he has tabled and that have been dismissed are his own work, and that it is only with the outside assistance that those—

Mr Bill O'Brien (Normanton, Labour)

Order. We are moving away from the Bill. Hon. Members should return to the amendments.

Mr John Bercow (Buckingham, Conservative)

It was probably an act of kindness on your part, Mr. O'Brien, to rescue the hon. Gentleman from the mess into which he was falling. He will improve in future, and I hope that that will be a helpful lesson for him.

Of course we take note of arguments advanced by outside organisations. I shall not dilate on the point, as you have exhorted us not to do so, Mr. O'Brien. It is spectacularly stupid to suggest that we should not take representations from, and to an extent be guided by, what outside organisations say. For hon. Members, and especially the hon. Member for Colchester, to stumble over such a poor point was unfortunate.

Let us see whether we can raise our game, Mr. O'Brien, as you effectively invited us to do. I do not believe that there is much prospect of the hon. Member for Colchester doing that, but my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield and I will endeavour to take matters forward beneficially for the Committee and the sector, which is what matters.

The problem is, as the hon. Member for Colchester rightly emphasised, that the Bill allows scope for people to evade the new law by employing people who are unsuitable even though they themselves may be judged suitable for registration by the authorities.

Mr Michael Fabricant (Lichfield, Conservative)

Does my hon. Friend agree that the law might be circumvented in an alternative way—by someone who is not suitable employing someone who is suitable, who can then make the application on that person's behalf?

Mr John Bercow (Buckingham, Conservative)

That is a classic example of the ingenious lateral thinking for which my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield is renowned. He is absolutely right. We should be prepared to consider the argument both ways. My hon. Friend's comments in no way detract from the amendments originally proposed by the hon. Member for Colchester; rather, it serves to reinforce them. A business may have several constituent parts, including an owner, a director and an employee or several employees. Each part of the business should be judged suitable for registration before the local authority grants the business a licence.

To that end, we propose that people employed in the business and people associated with the business, such as directors, should be suitable. The provision that relates to stolen parts would enforce the fact that the business must be fully legitimate before it is registered with the local authority. The amendments seem to make good sense, and I would be genuinely interested both in what other hon. Members have to say—several have not yet made their maidens—and, above all, in the Minister's response.

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

I was slightly bemused by that phrase for a second.

Mr Andrew Miller (Ellesmere Port & Neston, Labour)

Don't tempt him.

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

No, I shall let it stand.

Under the amendments, local authorities would have to have regard not only to whether directors of companies or members of limited liability partnerships were fit and proper to operate in the motor salvage industry but to whether all of their employees and business associates were, too. We rejected that for the salvage industry, as we have done with regard to number plates, because it would be administratively impossible. It would create a huge burden on local authorities and businesses if a fit and proper person test had to be carried out on all employees and associates. What would happen when employees leave a company and new people start? Would local authorities continually have to update their information, which would be a substantial process?

It is necessary for directors of motor salvage companies and members of motor salvage limited liability partnerships to be subject to a fit and proper person test. Evidence exists of criminal activity within the industry, which is why local authorities with local knowledge will set standards for the industry by operating a test. It is right that directors, but not their employees and associates, should be responsible for the companies within their industry. The same applies for members of limited liability partnerships. That is the basic reason why we shall resist the amendment.

Mr Michael Fabricant (Lichfield, Conservative)

The Minister said in a helpful answer during an earlier debate that local authorities would liase with the police on the matter. The police might say to a local authority, ``Okay, the directors are fine, but that is how the company is structured. The employees are crooked, and the firm is going to operate in an unlawful manner. We advise you not to register the firm.'' If the amendments are not added to the Bill, will not the authority be powerless in those circumstances? It will be forced to put the company on the register because the applicant, himself or herself, does not contravene the Bill?

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

The hon. Gentleman referred to the structure of the company. The directors of the company are responsible for the structure of the company. The hon. Gentleman grimaces, but I do not mean that nastily. Directors are responsible for the companies of which they are directors, and partners responsible for the partnerships that they run. Were the police to tell directors of a company that they had structured their company in such a way that there was an element of criminality in a part of it, or that certain individuals were working in a particular way, and the directors took no action in the light of that, one would have to ask whether such people were fit and proper. To try to evade the responsibility of directors for their company—I am not suggesting that that is the intention of the hon. Member for Lichfield—is a mistake. The structure of the corporate framework in this country rightly makes directors key in terms of responsibility for companies. That is why the Bill focuses on the role and responsibility of directors in such circumstances.

I acknowledge that the circumstances to which the hon. Member for Lichfield refers may arise. The police may draw attention to an individual, a way of operating or a partnership that is dodgy in some respect. If directors were not to take account of what they were advised by the police in those circumstances, the local authority would have the right and the duty to consider whether the directors were behaving in a fit and proper manner. We shall see how that evolves in law, but that is why we are focusing on those who have responsibility for the company. I understand the spirit in which the hon. Member for Colchester raised the issue, but extending the test to every employee and business associate of the 3,000 companies involved would be excessive.

Amendment No. 38 specifies what the local authority would have to take into account before registering a motor salvage operator. We want to avoid that. It is important that local authorities are able to take into account relevant convictions when considering the fit and proper test, and the offences mentioned in the amendment would come under that heading. However, there is no reason to specify in law at this stage. If, however, in the light of experience, we find that local authorities are not taking into account offences that we consider relevant, we will have the power, under subsection (4)(b), to specify those offences by regulation. If we were to discover offences that were serious and were not taken into account, we could regulate that under the powers of the Bill. We will discuss with the Local Government Association the criteria that it might use when making a decision, and will publish joint guidance before introducing the regulations.

I hope that I have clarified why we would ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the amendment. We understand the points that he has made, but we do not think that it would be effective in reaching the end that we share.

Mr Bob Russell (Colchester, Liberal Democrat)

The Committee has been told that the point raised in amendment No. 38 can be covered when the Bill is enacted, in the light of experience, and I am content with that. However, I urge the Minister to give serious thought to amendments Nos. 36 and 37. The numbers involved are not significant when compared with the numbers that were brought into off-licence legislation when a loophole needed to be closed. This Bill has a built-in loophole, as the debate on the amendment has illustrated. The hon. Member for Lichfield referred to another aspect of the loophole. The matter should be considered—although not today.

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

Before the hon. Gentleman concludes, I give him the commitment that we will consider carefully the loophole that he mentions in relation to similar case of off-licence legislation.

Mr Bob Russell (Colchester, Liberal Democrat)

I am most grateful for that further reassurance. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Mr Bill O'Brien (Normanton, Labour)

With this it is convenient to take new clause 8—False application—

`( ) Any person who knowingly makes a false application under section 1 shall be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale.'.

Mr. Bercow rose—

Mr Bill O'Brien (Normanton, Labour)

Mr. Bercow, you must rise more quickly.

Mr John Bercow (Buckingham, Conservative)

I am sorry, Mr. O'Brien. I thought that you would invite the Minister to speak. I apologise for being slow to get to my feet.

I would like to focus my remarks, briefly, less on the issue of whether the clause should stand part than on new clause 8. Members of the Committee will recall that, in relation to the provisions for registration of registration plate suppliers, I argued that there should be an offence, punishable by a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale, of making a false application to register. I received an encouraging response at the time from the Under-Secretary. Without wishing to compromise private exchanges, I must say that I have been given reasonable grounds for optimism in relation to the purpose and broad content of the new clause to which I am speaking.

The same principle applies as before: the line of redress for the provision of inaccurate information must be clear. The seriousness that the Committee attaches to the registration process and the importance of its fairness and accuracy would be underlined if we made it an offence for anyone knowingly to make

a false application under section 3.

That person

should be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale.

I do not think that I need to support my point at greater length, although other hon. Members may wish to contribute. I am especially interested in the Minister's response.

Mr Michael Fabricant (Lichfield, Conservative)

I rise to speak briefly in support of the new clause. It seems an extraordinary omission that an application can be made by someone who will not be prosecuted and fined if they deliberately provide false information. I may not have read the Bill thoroughly enough; there may be provisions elsewhere, under which that person can be fined. After all, the Bill, which has the support of Members on both sides, has been introduced because of the continual treatment by salvage operators that is contrary to the law. Those unlawful operators are the ones that we want to control.

I raised earlier the spectre of people putting in place applicants who may be lawful but act on behalf of those who are unlawful. Those people may well put in an application that is knowingly false. I do not know whether level 5 provides the appropriate fine—I look forward to the Minister's remarks on the matter—but it is extraordinary that there is no provision to punish someone for putting in a false application.

The point legislation is to control the sector of the industry that operates unlawfully, because those who operate unlawfully are crooks. Are they not the very people who might put in a false application to confuse local authorities, which may put them on the register when, clearly, they should not be included? My hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham clearly agrees with me.

Mrs Anne McIntosh (Vale of York, Conservative)

I join my hon. Friends the Members for Buckingham and for Lichfield in supporting the amendment.

Perhaps the Minister could put my mind at rest. I am a non-practising Scottish advocate—it is several years since I practised—so I have some knowledge of these matters. Is the Minister saying that the matter is dealt with somewhere else in common law? Should there not be a statutory responsibility under the Bill? Does he not agree with my hon. Friends and me that only by adopting new clause 8 and creating this offence will the Government make a success of the Bill? It would make a mockery of the Bill if registered owners of the company or those employed by such people made false applications. Is there a common law duty elsewhere to that effect?

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

The amendment has a real point and substance. It would make it an offence punishable by a fine of up to £5,000 knowingly to make a false application for entry into the register of motor salvage dealers. The Bill requires a motor salvage dealer to make an application for registration; it does not, however, address the possibility of someone making a false declaration as part of that application. To answer the point made by the hon. Member for Vale of York, that situation is not addressed elsewhere.

We accept that if a person whose registration had been cancelled subsequently reapplied under a false identity, there would be no sanction against him under the Bill. Of course, we hope that an application containing false information would be detected, which would give grounds for rejecting the applications in its own terms. We will consult the industry and local authorities about the form in which applications should be made; there is power to prescribe that in regulations. The application process should be as resistant as possible to falsification.

I am prepared, however, to consider further the possibility of creating an additional criminal offence. I agree to do so and to bring the matter back before Third Reading, in response to the points set out in the new clause. However, I cannot accept the new clause as drafted, as what constitutes making ``a false application'' is far from absolutely clear, and I want to look at that very carefully to ensure that we draft the legislation in the right way. With that assurance, I hope that the Opposition will not press the new clause, and that the clause can stand part of the Bill.

Mr John Bercow (Buckingham, Conservative)

On the basis of that assurance, and in recognition that the new clause is by no means perfect and could be improved, I am happy not to press the new clause. I await further and better particulars from the Minister before Third Reading.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill.