Mr Bob Russell (Colchester, Liberal Democrat)

I beg to move amendment No. 40, in page 6, line 8, after `yard', insert `or other premises'.

Mr Bill O'Brien (Normanton, Labour)

With this we may discuss the following amendments: No. 43, in clause 15, page 7, line 41, after `yard', insert `or other premises'.

No. 47, in page 8, line 42, after `yard', insert `or other premises'.

No. 48, in page 8, line 43, after `yard', insert `or other premises'.

No. 49, in page 9, line 1, after `yard', insert `or other premises'.

No. 50, in page 9, line 8, after `yard', insert `or other premises'.

Mr Bob Russell (Colchester, Liberal Democrat)

The amendment addresses a small point. I cannot understand why the phrase ``motor salvage yard'' is used in every case. To most people, the term ``yard'' conveys the idea of an open area. It is generally understood that a motor salvage business can, and does, occupy physical buildings. Those can be warehouse-type structures or roofed buildings, such as Dutch barns. It could be argued some of those large containers can hide a good deal of illegal activity. The Bill fails to take account of the idea that the business of a breaking dealer can be conducted in a range of premises. In order to remove any doubt, the term ``motor salvage business'' rather than ``motor salvage yard'' would cover all the points of possible concern and confusion without altering the thrust of the clause.

Mr Charles Clarke (Norwich South, Labour)

The hon. Member for Colchester, by the clear and blunt language in which he puts his point, makes a consistent and coherent assault on the prize awarded to the common-sense member of the Committee. However, I think that I can help him. Clause 15(1) defines the meaning of ``motor salvage yard''. It means:

any premises where any motor vehicles are received or kept in the course of the carrying on of business as a motor salvage operator so far as the business consists of any of the activities mentioned in section 1(2) (excluding any premises where only salvageable parts of motor vehicles are so received or kept).

That comprehensive definition clearly sets out the position for anyone who wants to read the Bill. We have chosen to use that particular phrase because it specifically incorporates all other premises. The addition of the phrase ``or other premises'' is therefore unnecessary, and I urge the hon. Gentleman to withdraw his amendment.

Mr Bob Russell (Colchester, Liberal Democrat)

I will seek to withdraw the amendment, but I have not yet been told why the word ``yard'' has been used, given that it is necessary to explain what a yard is. If we were to use instead the phrase ``motor salvage business'', such an explanation would not be necessary. The business is the activity, and the yard is the place.

Mr Charles Clarke (Norwich South, Labour)

Even if we used the phrase ``motor salvage premises'', which might be clearer than ``motor salvage yard'', it would still be necessary to define such a key term. Every Bill has to define key terms so that they can be set out in law. Whatever phrase we use, clause 15(1) would have to clarify it, so that people could be clear about its meaning. In my view, the phrase ``motor salvage yard'' is readily understandable and fully explained, so I hope that the hon. Gentleman will consider withdrawing the amendment.

Mr Bob Russell (Colchester, Liberal Democrat)

I still feel that mine is the more valid of the two points. However, 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 will be convenient to discuss the following: New clause 6—Right to enter and inspect premises (No. 1)—

`(1) A justice of the peace may issue a warrant authorising a constable or (as the case may be) an authorised person to enter and inspect premises, provided that admission to the premises is reasonably required to secure compliance with the provisions of this Part, or to ascertain whether these provisions are being complied with.

(2) A constable or an authorised person may, if necessary, use reasonable force in the exercise of his powers under a warrant issued under subsection (1).

(3) A constable or an authorised person may at any reasonable time—

(a) require production of, and inspect, any registration plates kept at the premises; and

(b) require production of, inspect and take copies of or extracts from any records which the person carrying on business as a registration plate supplier is required to keep at such premises by virtue of this Part.

(4) A constable or an authorised person is seeking to enter any premises in the exercise of his powers under a warrant issued under subsection (1) shall, if required by or on behalf of the owner or occupier or person in charge of the premises, produce evidence of his identity, and of his authority for entering before doing so.

(5) Any person who obstructs an authorised person in the exercise of his duties under a warrant issued under subsection (1) shall be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 2 on the standard scale.'.

New clause 7—Right to enter and inspect premises (No. 2)—

`.(1) A constable or (as the case may be) an authorised person may at any reasonable time enter and inspect premises, provided that admission to the premises is reasonably required to ascertain whether the provisions of this Part are being complied with and, if necessary to secure compliance with the provisions of this Part.

(2) A constable or an authorised person may, if necessary, use reasonable force in the exercise of his powers under subsection (1).

(3) A constable or an authorised person may at any reasonable time—

(a) require production of, and inspect, any registration plates kept at the premises; and

(b) require production of, inspect and take copies of or extracts from any records which the person carrying on business as a registration plate supplier is required to keep at such premises by virtue of this Part.

(4) A constable or an authorised person in seeking to enter any premises in the exercise of his powers under subsection (1) shall, if required by or on behalf of the owner or occupier or person in charge of the premises, produce evidence of his identity, and of his authority for entering before doing so.

(5) Any person who obstructs an authorised person in the exercise of his duties under a warrant issued under subsection (1) shall be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 2 on the standard scale.'.

Mr John Bercow (Buckingham, Conservative)

I am grateful to you, Mr. O'Brien, and on this occasion I am even more grateful to the gentleman on your left, who must not be identified.

You are rightly enthusiastic, Mr. O'Brien, about the hectic rate of knots at which our consideration of the Bill is advancing. However, as I said in another context, we must not proceed too quickly, because matters need to be discussed. The central thrust of new clauses 6 and 7 is to try to tease from the Government whether they will consider—and if not, why not—the pursuit of a uniform and consistent approach to registered and unregistered motor salvage operators.

I do not intend to develop the argument at length, because I made it last week on registration plate suppliers, but the central point still applies. As observers who are attendant on our proceedings will be aware, the Government propose that, where a constable or other authorised person wishes to enter and inspect the premises of a registered motor salvage operator, he or she will not require a warrant. On the other hand, where such a person proposes to enter and inspect the premises of someone who is not a registered motor salvage operator, a warrant will be required. Our view in relation to plate suppliers, which applies with equal force in the context of motor salvage operators, is that that inconsistency is unjustified.

I recall the Minister saying previously—by his own high standards, he seemed to be flailing somewhat—that someone who is registered will have signed up to the regime. That implies that such a person is approving of, game for, or content with whatever enforcement or inspection might be visited upon him—a somewhat dangerous doctrine. By contrast, the Minister implied that an unregistered person would be treated, in relative terms, with kid gloves.

The Minister said that the difficulty with unregistered people is that there is no entry in the register for them and that it is impossible to ascertain whether illegal activity has taken place until the premises have been inspected—all there is to go on is a tip-off, and it is therefore appropriate that a warrant should be required. I did not find that argument persuasive. I still maintain that it is sensible and defensible either to require a warrant for the inspection of the premises of registered and unregistered salvage operators or to argue that a warrant should not be required in either case. This may be a case of an irresistible force meeting an immovable object, but it is worth airing the point.

As the Minister is aware, I wrote to him on 5 January in advance of the commencement of our proceedings to explain that I would table amendments on this subject that might seem too be—and, in a sense, are—contradictory, in order to tease out the Government's intentions and rationale and to allow the issues to be discussed. However, I feel no need to dwell further on the points that I made on registration plate suppliers.

I vouchsafe to members of the Committee that I err on the side of being libertarian in such matters. I recognise and respect the role of legitimate authority, including our great police force, but power should be exercised with responsibility. If an individual's premises, whether his private dwelling or his commercial outlet, are to be subject to entry and investigation—possibly without notice or at an uncertain time—it is not unreasonable that a warrant should be required.

I am aware that many hon. Members would argue the opposite, and I point out that this is not a party matter. My amendments were tabled in the names of official Opposition Members and on behalf of the official Opposition, but members of all parties have different views on the subject, as is the case with regard to identity cards. I believe that identity cards are profoundly un-British and I am deeply opposed to them because they offend my libertarian instincts, but I know that many Conservative Members feel differently—as does the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours), for example. This debate should be conducted with mutual respect. I am not suspicious of the Government's motives, but their reasoning is a little off-cue or awry.

I rest my case, and I shall be interested to hear the Minister. I also look forward to any contributions that my hon. Friends the Members for Vale of York and for Lichfield make.

Mrs Anne McIntosh (Vale of York, Conservative)

I support the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham, with the exception that I am in the category of hon. Members who would like to see the introduction of identity cards, albeit on a voluntary basis. In France, the system is entirely voluntary, but citizens cannot open a bank account or rent or buy property without possessing such a card. Perhaps registration through voluntary cards should be considered.

Mr John Bercow (Buckingham, Conservative)

This has been a revealing moment in our proceedings. Nothing could dim the high esteem in which I hold my hon. Friend—

Mrs Anne McIntosh (Vale of York, Conservative)

And affection.

Mr John Bercow (Buckingham, Conservative)

And affection, as my hon. Friend helpfully points out from a sedentary position. However, I am bound to say that my sensibilities have been somewhat offended by what she has just disclosed. I can only ask whether she is aware that I never knew that she was so strict. [Laughter.]

Mrs Anne McIntosh (Vale of York, Conservative)

I give way to the Minister.

Mr Charles Clarke (Norwich South, Labour)

That was territory on which I do not intend to tread. I am well aware of the tensions and difficulties in the parliamentary Conservative party, but I did not expect them to be so openly displayed today.

I want to be clear about what the hon. Lady was saying. Was she commenting on registration in the context of a national identity card system, or was she saying that registration ought to be voluntary under the Bill? Voluntary registration would completely undermine the purpose of the Bill.

Mrs Anne McIntosh (Vale of York, Conservative)

I am grateful to the Minister for assisting me in that regard. I am suggesting that official registration could be accompanied by the voluntary carrying of a card that could act as proof of registration.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham said, I am extremely strict. I had an extremely strict upbringing, and it did me no harm. I remember with great fondness the months that I spent as a Member of the European Parliament, steering through what was purported to be—I realise that I am treading on dangerous ground now—an embryonic voluntary card. I refer to the new driving licence, which includes a barcode, a photograph of the holder and useful information such as the holder's blood group and any diseases or allergies from which he or she suffers. In the unfortunate event that you or any other hon. Member were involved in a road accident, Mr. O'Brien, such a voluntary card would be extremely useful. Its barcode could provide helpful information.

Mr Charles Clarke (Norwich South, Labour)

Does that relate to clause 9?

Mrs Anne McIntosh (Vale of York, Conservative)

Yes. However, I shall move on to safer ground that might cause less offence or concern to my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham.

Why have the Government made no provision for the registration of premises, thereby leaving a big lacuna in the Bill? In asking that question, I endorse the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham. New clauses 6 and 7 may appear, prima facie, to be contradictory, but are intended to tease out the information that my hon. Friend has forcefully and eloquently sought from the Minister. Was omission of the provision intentional, or do the Government intend to return to the matter before we conclude our proceedings? Registration of the premises would surely have been helpful, not only for those who ply the motor salvage trade, but to make the Bill as watertight as possible.

Clause 9 provides that a constable

may at any reasonable time enter and inspect premises for the time being entered in the register of a local authority

for reasons that the clause proceeds to set out. Our new clauses 6 and 7 make a similar provision. As you, Mr. O'Brien, will appreciate, from the expert knowledge gained during our work together on the Select Committee on Environment, Transport and the Regions, my constituency is in North Yorkshire. I have difficulty with the clause as drafted and with new clauses 6 and 7 because North Yorkshire is currently 37 constables down on the figure for the total number of police officers who policed North Yorkshire on 1 May 1997. Sometimes, especially in the evenings, only two police officers are on duty to cover an area of 300 square miles.

Mr Bill O'Brien (Normanton, Labour)

Order. I was listening carefully, but the hon. Lady is moving away from the question of inspections. I hope that she will return to the clause.

Mrs Anne McIntosh (Vale of York, Conservative)

I give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham.

Mr John Bercow (Buckingham, Conservative)

I am grateful to my hon. Friend who has depicted a worrying scenario in the Vale of York. I understand her extreme anxiety. However, will she confirm that she is saying that the requirement in both cases for a police constable to have a warrant before entering and inspecting premises—which would, as I suggested, be my preference—would impose a burden on the depleted force about which she is worried? Is that the thrust of her anxiety?

Miss McIntosh rose—

Mr Bill O'Brien (Normanton, Labour)

Order. I appreciate what the hon. Member for Buckingham has said, but we are discussing the inspection of premises, and whether constables are available is another matter. I ask hon. Members to keep to the clause and the new clauses.

Mrs Anne McIntosh (Vale of York, Conservative)

The thrust of my argument is, as my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham suggested, how, if the police simply are not available, a warrant can be requested and a constable asked to inspect the premises. That goes to the heart of the clause and is the subject of new clauses 6 and 7. Are the Government suggesting that police forces will have to use resources that are currently available, which have, as my hon. Friend and I have said, been severely depleted since 1997, or will the Government miraculously provide new funds for additional officers?

Mr Charles Clarke (Norwich South, Labour)

We debated that matter at length, and my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, the Member for Streatham (Mr. Hill), responded in detail. I do not believe that there would be any value in my simply repeating what my hon. Friend said about the increase in police numbers for north Yorkshire, and, since it is all that I can do, I do not intend to do so. I hear what the hon. Lady says, but I have nothing further to say beyond what has been said, which adds up to a strong and positive record.

Mrs Anne McIntosh (Vale of York, Conservative)

I am sure that the Minister was trying to help me with his remarks, but the facts speak for themselves. We are currently 37 police officers down, and we have no prospect, even by the end of March 2002, of simply reverting to the position in 1997. It is hugely unfair to ask police officers to take on additional responsibilities.

Mr Michael Fabricant (Lichfield, Conservative)

I share my hon. Friends' views, but I shall certainly not discuss the lamentable lack of policing in Lichfield, as I did so this morning. The clause contains echoes of the Kent County Council and Medway Council Bills and the North Yorkshire County Council Act 1991, which concerns, among other things, the registration of second-hand car dealers. The Act also requires registration. The hon. Member for Hall Green and I said at the time of the passage of that Bill that it was extraordinary that people who were law-abiding and chose to register were not protected by the usual conditions of the law that states that a constable cannot enter premises without a warrant, while the very people who had not registered and, by virtue of that, might be breaking the law were protected by magistrates courts and the common law. [Interruption.] I apologise to the Committee. I was distracted by a photograph of my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of York being passed to and fro.

Given that when the Kent County Council Bill and the Medway Council Bill were being discussed, arguments were advanced about the situation whereby a police officer can enter premises without his needing a warrant, there seems to be a breach of natural justice in the Vehicles (Crime) Bill. Does the Minister accept that it is extraordinary that, if a trader is carrying out his business legitimately and registers, he no longer has the protection of a magistrates court, while those who are not registered and who may be carrying out their business in conflict with the law and the Bill, if it is enacted, have the protection of the law because a magistrates warrant is required? Will the hon. Gentleman deal with that point, instead of saying that such people signed up to such conditions?

Mr Charles Clarke (Norwich South, Labour)

I wish first to deal with the point of substance made by the hon. Member for Vale of York. I know that she has had some difficulty in Committee after the various exchanges that have been made, but I want to be helpful to her. Clause 2(3) makes it possible for the regulations to prescribe the details on the register.

Mr John Bercow (Buckingham, Conservative)

I am sorry to intervene. I do not want to lower the tone of the Committee, because it is good at present. However, the Minister is being cheeky by making remarks about my hon. Friend experiencing difficulties. I want to put it on the record for the avoidance of doubt and in the knowledge that she will not contradict me, that she and I are good personal friends. Indeed, we have been sitting next to each other in the Chamber for more than two years.

Mr Charles Clarke (Norwich South, Labour)

Given my hitherto high regard for the hon. Member for Vale of York, I can only congratulate the hon. Member for Buckingham on his taste. However, I am sorry for the hon. Lady.

Clause 2(3) enables regulations to prescribe the details on the register. That will include all premises that the applicant says are used for the business. They will thus, in effect, be registered premises subject to clause 9. Although the registration is of the organisation, the specifics of registration will include the premises where the work is done, thus meeting the point raised by the hon. Member for Vale of York.

Mrs Anne McIntosh (Vale of York, Conservative)

I wish simply to endorse the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham that we are firm personal friends. We enjoy each other's company on the third Bench and destroying the credibility of the Labour Government at Question time.

As for the point raised by the Minister, clause 2(3) actually states:

Each person's entry in the register shall contain such particulars as may be prescribed.

I am probably missing something, but where is the prescription of the description?

Mr Charles Clarke (Norwich South, Labour)

The word ``prescribed'' under clause 2(3) is defined in clause 15 as

``prescribed'' means prescribed by regulations made by the Secretary of State.

As with all the regulations that we discuss in this Committee, they are being developed in consultation with the industry concerned, to make sure that they are accessible in the fullest possible way.

The clause sets out the rights of police to enter and inspect premises that they know or suspect are being used for the purposes of a motor salvage business. However, there are three perfectly legitimate alternatives. I agree with what the hon. Member for Buckingham said—one can take the line of new clause 6, which provides a warrant in all circumstances, one can take the line of new clause 7, under which no warrant is necessary in any circumstance or one can take the line of clause 9, which strikes a sensible balance, for reasons set out previously by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary. The clause distinguishes between registered and unregistered premises, allowing entry and inspection of registered premises without a warrant, and of unregistered premises with a warrant.

I do not want to repeat the Committee's extensive debate, but it is right that a registered business should be open to routine inspection by the enforcement authorities to ensure compliance with the requirements of the Bill. Operators will have consented to such inspection when they applied for registration, and it would make no sense to require warrants to be obtained for such routine inspection. That is why there is a qualitative distinction between those premises that are registered, as consent has been given by the process of registration, and those that are not registered, as no such consent has been given, and it is appropriate that a warrant should operate. That is the reason for the distinction.

Mr Andrew Miller (Ellesmere Port & Neston, Labour)

Will my hon. Friend confirm that, under new clause 6, a police officer undertaking an investigation into, say, a motor crash, and wanting to inspect a vehicle for evidential purposes, would, bizarrely, require a warrant?

Mr Charles Clarke (Norwich South, Labour)

That is my understanding. I return to what the hon. Member for Buckingham said—an argument can be made for that approach. An argument can also be made for the approach of new clause 7, under which no warrants are needed by police. It is far better to distinguish between registered premises, where people have made their choice and their judgment, and unregistered premises, where they have not. That is the approach of clause 9.

I want to emphasise that, in arriving at this middle way, we have not been led by a blind desire to follow the third way at all times. It is entirely sustainable and correct to distinguish between organisations that have made an agreement through the register and those that have not.

Mr John Bercow (Buckingham, Conservative)

I disagree with the Government's stance, but I understand and respect it. However, I am keen to establish clearly that it is simply a matter of the judgment that the Government have decided to make. Will the hon. Gentleman therefore confirm that, to his knowledge, no part of the criminal law forbids the police to enter unregistered premises without a warrant?

Mr Charles Clarke (Norwich South, Labour)

I can confirm that to the best of my knowledge, but that is not a very great confirmation, as my knowledge of the matter is very limited. However, I shall write to the hon. Gentleman if what I have said is incorrect.

I have made the case for the distinction, which echoes the arguments used by my hon. Friend Under-Secretary when he was dealing with the issue of number plates. I urge the hon. Gentleman not to press new clauses 6 and 7 to a vote. I commend the clause to the Committee.

Mr John Bercow (Buckingham, Conservative)

I am grateful to the Minister for his explanation. I do not wish to press the new clauses to a vote. We have rehearsed the issues, to which we may return. We have certainly had a good canter round the course.

Clause 9 ordered to stand part of the Bill.