Mr John Bercow (Buckingham, Conservative)

I beg to move amendment No. 72, in page 4, line 9, leave out `and'.

Mr Bill O'Brien (Normanton, Labour)

With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 71, in page 4, line 15, at end insert

`and; (d) the procedure for re-registration'.

Mr John Bercow (Buckingham, Conservative)

Clause 5 relates to the right to make representations and follows logically from clause 4, which provides for the cancellation of registration. I shall not use a French expression, Mr. O'Brien; were I to do so, you would chide me. However, we have been down this track before in relation to another part of the Bill. It was a matter of some concern to my hon. Friends and me that the clauses appeared to provide no specific procedure for re-registration. That led us to fear that the Government might be thinking that once someone had been de-registered, the opportunity for him or her to re-register would not arise.

I was assuaged at the time by the Minister who replied, but given the other provisions in the Bill, I am still uncomfortable with the idea that it is sensible not to provide for the option and possibility of re-registration. The problem can be simply stated. The Secretary of State should not be able to assume that a de-registered person will never be allowed or inclined to reapply for the register. The circumstances in which someone might be so inclined are readily imaginable.

Even if our amendments were accepted, the de-registration process would still make it possible for legitimate companies to be removed from the register. There is no question of preventing a person from being de-registered where and when appropriate, but the Bill should provide the opportunity for that person to be re-registered when circumstances change. We want to alter the de-registration process to allow genuine businesses to reapply when circumstances have changed in such a way that they wish to reapply.

The de-registration process should also include sufficient information on being added to the register once more. After all, the register is an enabling rather than disabling device. Access to it should be made as easy as possible for legitimate businesses. At present, that does not seem to be the case. I am still not entirely clear why that is so, and I confess to being—if it is not an incorrect, inappropriate or trite term to use in this week of the parliamentary calendar—somewhat foxed as to why the Government are resisting what seems a fairly reasonable proposal.

I hope that the Ministers and the Whip have come to realise that, consistently throughout our deliberations, my hon. Friends and I have tried to make our points in a reasonable way, and not at inordinate length. I have advanced the basic argument before, so I see no reason to reinvent the wheel. The point is made and I am genuinely interested to hear comments from other members of the Committee, but I am particularly interested in the authoritative view of the Government.

Mr Michael Fabricant (Lichfield, Conservative)

I agree with my hon. Friend that this clause follows logically from clause 4. Similarly, the points that I wish to make follow logically from my question to the Minister about the possibility of a person's removal from the register when there is no criminal reason to do so. However, it was reassuring and useful to hear that simply not trading for 28 days will not necessarily mean that one is deemed not to be in business for that time.

Mr John Bercow (Buckingham, Conservative)

Far be it from me to deflect my hon. Friend from pursuing his argument, but although he has made a good point about the distinction between ceasing to trade and ceasing to be in business, it has unfortunately eluded me thus far. I should therefore be grateful for his clarification.

Mr Michael Fabricant (Lichfield, Conservative)

In that direction I look to the Minister, who said—I hope that he will intervene if I misrepresent him—that where someone is away on business or on holiday and no transactions take place, the business will not necessarily be deemed to have ceased trading per se. Therefore, the authority would not necessarily issue a notice to say that the company has ceased trading for 28 days and will be taken off the register. Given that the Government have decided that this 28-day rule will still stand, I can understand the concern of people in the salvage industry that they might, inadvertently, be taken off the register. For that reason, the amendments—which would add the words ``the procedure for re-registration'' as information that would be provided to the person being taken off the register—are important.

The Minister, for all sorts of different reasons, may say that he is not prepared to accept the amendments. He gave an undertaking to the Committee this morning that, after consultation with local authorities and the salvage industry, there would be a plan to introduce a standardised form throughout England and Wales. In addition to the standardised form and its questions, there should be either a booklet or notes attached to the form, including information about how those who are de-registered can re-register.

Mr John Bercow (Buckingham, Conservative)

Does my hon. Friend agree that it would be useful, in that context, if any advisory material from the central authority made it clear whether a person seeking to re-register would be obliged to state the fact of his or her former de-registration and the circumstances and reasons for it?

Mr Michael Fabricant (Lichfield, Conservative)

I did not quite follow what my hon. Friend was asking. Was he saying that the person applying for registration should make that statement or that the authority managing the register should make that information known to the applicant?

Mr John Bercow (Buckingham, Conservative)

It is rare indeed for my hon. Friend and I to misunderstand each other in any way, but it appears that there is some uncertainty on this occasion. I am describing a situation in which somebody who has, at some stage, been de-registered seeks to re-register. Given that the personnel of the authority will change and that there may be a limited period in which records are kept, does my hon. Friend think that any guidance should be provided on the re-registration process to indicate that the individual seeking to re-register should have to declare the fact the he or she was once de-registered and the reason for it?

Mr Michael Fabricant (Lichfield, Conservative)

I assume that records would be kept by the authority concerned, even though the numbers of personnel in the authority might change. My hon. Friend has made an interesting point on which I dare say the Minister will comment. It may be more useful if it were obligatory for it to be made clear why the person was taken off the register in the first place, although I believe that there is provision for that in clause 5. I shall go further, Mr. O'Brien; I am going to get off the shelf—or fence—and disagree with my hon. Friend. It is not necessary for the applicant to have to remind the authority—which took him off in the first place—that he was taken off.

Mr John Bercow (Buckingham, Conservative)

I am a little concerned. My hon. Friend's self-effacing quality is universally understood and revered in the House, but I hope that he will not over-egg the pudding. Although it was probably an infelicitous use of terminology, there is no question of my hon. Friend being on the shelf. He is dynamic, exuberant, one of the great men of the present and one of the leading lights, I feel sure, of the future.

Mr Michael Fabricant (Lichfield, Conservative)

My hon. Friend is an expert on the matter, as he could be a future Prime Minister—

Mr Bill O'Brien (Normanton, Labour)

Order. The accolades are good, but the amendments are narrow. Hon. Members should stick to them.

Mr Michael Fabricant (Lichfield, Conservative)

The Minister may want to intervene; if so, I give way.

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

We would certainly celebrate in the event that the hon. Gentlemen and his hon. Friend were to be leading lights in their party. We would feel that that was a positive step. Given the major split and disagreement that has emerged, will he clarify which is the common-sense solution? Is it his solution or that of the hon. Member for Buckingham?

Mr Michael Fabricant (Lichfield, Conservative)

The Minister is demonstrating his incisiveness. Clearly, I feel that I have the more common-sense view. I, of course, always listen to my Front Bench. I listen even more to the Whip, my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Norfolk (Mr. Simpson), who, I am relieved to see, is not in the Committee at present. My serious point, which I hope that the Minister will address, is that there should be not only a standardised form—which the Minister has conceded would be a good idea—but standardised explanatory notes, including instructions on how to re-register and guidelines to local authorities on how quickly such a re-registration might take place. I accept that an initial registration might take time, as inquiries have to be made of the police and other relevant authorities. However, a re-registration arising from someone being struck off—perhaps because of inadvertent non-compliance with the regulations, and not because of an illegal act—would merit being dealt with more quickly. The Minister might also consider setting time guidelines as targets for local authorities, with regard to registration and re-registration.

Mrs Anne McIntosh (Vale of York, Conservative)

I am feeling a little left out, as I seem to be the only lady-in-waiting. Hon. Members should not be misled by the fact that I am sitting on the Front Bench—I am only covering for an hon. Friend who is not present.

I want to support the amendments, to which my hon. Friends the Members for Buckingham and for Lichfield have so eloquently spoken. I am concerned about clause 4(5), which stipulates that, when a person's application for registration has been refused, that person's registration need not be reconsidered for a full three years from the date at which the cancellation took effect. For that reason, the amendments, which are consequential on each other, are especially important.

With the greatest respect to the Minister, I ask him to clarify the Government's thinking in relation to the cancellation of someone's registration. It is extremely important to understand what would be the procedure for re-registration. Three full years is an arbitrary period, after which, in my experience, it would be extremely difficult for someone to re-enter the market and seek registration. Will the Minister explain why the period of three years was chosen? In addition, is he minded to set out the procedure for re-registration?

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

The fundamental reason for asking the hon. Member for Buckingham to withdraw the amendments is that we consider them redundant. Clause 5(2) provides that, when a local authority proposes to refuse registration—to refuse to renew registration or cancel registration—it should first give notice of its reasons, and provide an opportunity for representations. At that stage, no decision will have been taken by the local authority, and it would not therefore be appropriate to set out the procedure for re-registration. However, when a registration is cancelled, the local authority will tell the person of his right of appeal.

In relation to the standard form, guidance and procedures, the hon. Member for Lichfield made a fair and correct point, and I am prepared to give him the assurance that he seeks—we will include, in the information to be given to salvage operators, information about how to apply to re-register. Following negotiation and discussion with the Local Government Association, police authorities and so on, after the passage of the Bill—if it is passed—the guidelines issued should cover those points in a way that is clear and understandable to all potential applicants. I also want to make it clear that we do not want to impose an obligation on everyone to make it plain that they have previously been de-registered. In those circumstances, one will simply apply, or not apply.

Mr John Bercow (Buckingham, Conservative)

I am grateful to the Minister for clarifying that he does not anticipate making it obligatory to declare a previous de-registration. However, he will have noted—as, I feel sure, will you, Mr. O'Brien—that I mentioned a few moments ago that there may be a period after which the central authority ceases to keep records on such matters. I was simply speculating aloud on that point—it may be that records are kept. Will the Minister confirm how long they will be kept? In doing so, will he say whether a requirement for disclosure would be entirely redundant? That is for the simple reason that the central authority would know of the de-registration and, doubtless, of the reasons for it.

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

I shall come back to the point about the period for which records will be required to be kept.

The re-registration procedure will be the same as that for the original registration. If business as a motor salvage operator is recommenced, it will be necessary to register under clause 3 in the exactly the same way as the organisation would have done before. When a person re-registers, the registration process will be set out clearly in the local authority's requirements.

Mr Michael Fabricant (Lichfield, Conservative)

The Minister will recall that I suggested that there should be a quicker process of deliberation by the local authority in the case of a re-registration. First, will the Minister comment on that? Secondly, will he answer my other question about whether the central authority or the Government will set guidelines as to how long the registration process will take?

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

The hon. Gentleman has already asked about time scales, and I shall answer his question as rapidly as he permits me to do so.

The hon. Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh) asked about the three-year period. Just for clarification, let me say that, if the registration is cancelled because trading has ceased, the business can reapply for registration immediately. There is not a three-year gap.The three-year embargo on reapplying under clause 4(5), to which the hon. Lady referred, is when an organisation is struck off for failing the ``fit and proper'' test, but that does not apply to cancellations under clause 4(3).

The purpose of the three-year period is to drive the criminals out of business. If a person has been found to be unfit to run a motor salvage business, he should not be able to re-enter the business straight away. That is why we have distinguished between people who were struck off because they were found not to be ``fit and proper'' on the various tests, and those who were struck off because they ceased to trade. In the case of ceasing to trade, a person can immediately reapply, while the three-year gap targets those who are not ``fit and proper''—we are targeting different circumstances.

Mr Bob Russell (Colchester, Liberal Democrat)

Does the Minister agree that there is a world of difference between being struck off for some wrongdoing and having a registration cancelled for legitimate business reasons? The use of the term ``struck off'' is both contexts is unfortunate. Surely, when there will be so few occasions when salvage operators wish to re-register there can be a question on the application form about the circumstances of their being previously struck off.

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

If my use of the phrase ``struck off'' in two different circumstances offends—I do not mean offends in a personal way—I shall try reconsider my language. The fundamental point that the hon. Gentleman makes is right: there is a difference between being found not to be a ``fit and proper'' person and ceasing to trade.

Mr John Bercow (Buckingham, Conservative)

Will the Minister allow me to intervene?

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

Not at the moment. I am still sweeping up a number of points. When I have finished doing so, I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman.

To clarify the point raised by the hon. Member for the Vale of York, let me say that the Bill makes it clear that the three-year gap is not mandatory. A local authority can re-register a motor salvage business earlier if it so chooses. As for putting the information about previous de-registration on the application form—a point raised by the hon. Member for Colchester—I will re-examine the matter and discuss it with other organisations. My initial instinct is that it would be neither necessary nor desirable to take such action, and drag up the past in those circumstances. That is why it is not in the Bill, but his point is fair and I shall reflect on it.

I now turn to the time scale point, raised by the hon. Member for Lichfield. The specification on data is much less clear. The data protection legislation requires personal data to be held only for such time as is reasonably necessary, so it depends on the circumstances, and it is a matter on which we will seek to give guidance in the process that we have described. I do not expect local authorities to keep records for more than a few years in such circumstances. We want to consult closely with the industry and local government about the amount of time that it takes to be registered. I acknowledge that it is beneficial to have some guidance on time scale, providing that it is not too rigidly drawn, so that people can reasonably know in what time they might expect to have their application heard and adjudicated.

Mr John Bercow (Buckingham, Conservative)

I have some sympathy with the argument of the hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Russell). Without wishing to pursue ad nauseam a semantic point, may I ask the Minster whether he accepts that the essential distinction is between being struck off a register and finding that, because of changed circumstances, a person's registration naturally lapses? Might not the distinction between struck off and naturally lapsing be useful?

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

The hon. Gentleman's linguistic point has helped to make the matter clear. Thus far, at any rate, I agree that he has focused on the points under discussion throughout our proceedings, and not at inordinate length. I was not certain that that would be the case, but it has been, and I am sure that the Committee, especially Oppositions Members, welcome that. I ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the amendment, given that I have tried to clarify as best I can the reasons for the original text under the Bill.

Mr John Bercow (Buckingham, Conservative)

As I believe that the Minister readily understood, I was mainly concerned that someone who was de-registered should have the chance to re-register and should be aware that he or she had that chance. As soon as it is available, I shall take the opportunity to study the Official Report of our proceedings but, as far as I can recall what the Minister said—I have been attending closely to his remarks—he offered sufficient reassurance to cause me to say with alacrity that I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 5 ordered to stand part of the Bill.