Mr John Bercow (Buckingham, Conservative)

I beg to move amendment No. 69, in clause 4, page 3, line 31, leave out `28' and insert `60'.

Mr Bill O'Brien (Normanton, Labour)

With this it will be convenient to take the following amendments: No. 70, in page 3, line 31, at end insert

`without good cause or reason'.

No. 74, in clause 10, page 6, line 41, leave out `28' and insert `14'.

Mr John Bercow (Buckingham, Conservative)

Clause 4 relates to cancellation of registration and, some points made about other parts of the Bill will tend to assert themselves. Principles that relate to the procedure for the registration of registration plates suppliers, similarly relate to the motor salvage sector. I would like briefly to take the Committee through the three amendments.

On Second Reading, I expressed concern about the existing provision in relation to the salvage industry and registration plate suppliers. I was intrigued as to why a 28-day period was chosen by Ministers. I understood that it was a brainwave of those who advise them, though it appeared to me to have been plucked arbitrarily from the air and that there was no specific reason for specifying 28 days. I recall that that was also the view taken by the House of Commons Library.

Mr Michael Fabricant (Lichfield, Conservative)

Has it occurred to my hon. Friend , that if a similar Bill existed regarding the activities of Members of Parliament, we would all be struckoff after the summer recess?

Mr John Bercow (Buckingham, Conservative)

That is a very helpful observation and, despite some sedentary chuntering from the hon. Gentleman the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston, it must be said that even disregarding the summer recess or other interruptions to the parliamentary timetable, de-registration could well apply to an alarmingly large proportion of Government Back Benchers, at any time during the year. Many Government Back Benchers cease to trade for periods considerably in excess of 28 days.

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

Is the hon. Gentleman confirming that on his side, Members tend to conduct themselves as businesses for trading purposes, while my side is simply interested in representing its constituents?

Mr John Bercow (Buckingham, Conservative)

Mr Michael Fabricant (Lichfield, Conservative)

My hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham has so eloquently, cogently and powerfully presented his case, that I hardly wonder why I rise, but if he has provided the cake, I am merely here to offer the icing. My hon. Friend has pointed out previously that salvage operators tend to be small companies. That was reinforced by the Minister's helpful answer when he said that the vast majority of salvage operators have only one site operating within one business. That, too, would imply that they are small companies. While I think it unlikely that any business can be so luxuriant in its wealth that it would take holidays for four weeks or more, I can see circumstances in which a small business might not trade for a period of longer than 28 days. A director or partner in that business might, for example, leave the area temporarily to seek other sites in which to expand the business. Perhaps he is travelling around the country or indeed abroad, even to other countries within the European Union, to which we have alluded earlier today, to see whether he can make arrangements with other salvage operators to consolidate his trade. Whatever speculative example we might give for why or where a business might close, I can well imagine that it might not trade for a consecutive period of longer than 28 days.

Mr John Bercow (Buckingham, Conservative)

I think that I made a mistake a moment ago, which I am keen to correct. At present the effects of not changing the information is treated in the same manner as failing to inform the authority that a business is no longer operating. Our point is that that is wrong, because failure to change information is, or should be, on a par with not registering at all. I am sorry to interrupt the flow and intellectual force of my hon. Friend's argument, but I feel sure that both flow and force will speedily be resumed.

Mr Michael Fabricant (Lichfield, Conservative)

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention and putting the matter straight. That helpful intervention from my hon. Friend makes our argument even more powerful for including these amendments in the Bill. I believe that 28 days is an inadequate period for a small company.

I spoke earlier about a company that might employ an accountant or company secretary to fill in forms, and I argued how important it was that forms should be consistent throughout the United Kingdom. Now I am arguing on behalf of perhaps the sole trader, who might not trade during a 28-day period. I can well imagine, perhaps in August, the business might close down. We all know that in France businesses, indeed the whole country, closes down throughout August. That certainly is longer than 28 days—it is 31 days. To me, 28 days seems inadequate and unfair for a small business, particularly if the amendment No. 70 provision on good cause or reason is not included.

The whole purpose of the Bill is to control the activities of the criminal few. It is not the purpose of the Bill to put an unnecessary burden on businesses that operate lawfully. I am not even sure what the Government's motive is in saying that the business should be struck off the register after 28 days. It is not illegal not to operate or trade for 28 days. Perhaps the Minister would like to address that point in his response, but before that, I should like to hear more of the more intellectual approach taken by my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham.

Mr John Bercow (Buckingham, Conservative)

My hon. Friend sadly missed last week's proceedings and I think it would be optimistic and unreasonable to expect that he will yet have read the verbatim account. Perhaps he will take it from me that although I listened intently, interestedly and respectfully to the Minister responding on what might be called the 28-day point, it did not bring about understanding, and still less did it result in our support. What was said merely induced a certain fuzziness in the mind because no compelling argument appeared to be provided.

Mr Michael Fabricant (Lichfield, Conservative)

The Minister has already attempted to give me the URL of his website, although I am not sure if he was wholly successful in that. Remaining in a technological vein, I appreciate now that a new area of scientific endeavour is in fuzzy logic and perhaps that is what the Minister was presenting last week to my hon. Friend. Perhaps he can provide greater clarity this time; it is certainly needed for my benefit. I did not mean to be rude to the Minister when I made that earlier remark about the intellectual approach. I was merely trying to compliment my hon. Friend, although I may have inadvertently been rude to the Minister. I was rude enough to him earlier, and am determined to be nice from now on.

Mr John Bercow (Buckingham, Conservative)

We should not, of course, communicate by code and I apologise for my ignorance, but I think my hon. Friend referred to URL. Would he enlighten me on that?

Mr Michael Fabricant (Lichfield, Conservative)

As much as I would like to, I have to confess that while URL is the address line that one types to get to a website, such as , I do not know what it stands for. I wish that Ministers would also on occasion stand up and simply say, ``I don't know the answer but I will find out later and report it to the Committee or the House''. If you, Mr O'Brien, will allow me, I will inform the Committee this afternoon of exactly what URL stands for—but it is, in effect, the address line.

My point is that we have already established that many of these firms are small businesses. I can easily envisage situations in which a business may not trade for a consecutive period of 28 days. That is perfectly lawful—indeed, it is quite lawful for a business not to trade for 60 days. It is unreasonable if the Bill is going to penalise lawfully operating businesses by striking them off the register, simply because they are not present for 28 days. Without the exception provided for in amendment No. 70, the Government cannot even give a good cause or reason for that, which would seem draconian.

I also support amendment No. 74, for the very reason that my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham has already pointed out. We have argued successfully, and the Minister has accepted the point, that there needs to be a penalty. If the application details that will appear on the register are made incorrectly, it surely stands to reason that any changes to the details on the register must be reported quickly. Any change to the register will arise from a change in the business. It stands to reason, therefore, that the business is trading and that the people are not away. There is, then, no conflict with the arguments that I have already given for extending the period from 28 to 60 days. The business is trading, and there are people present to make information known to the district. I believe that 14 days—two weeks—

It being One o'clock, the chairman adjourned the Committee without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned till this day at half past Four o'clock.