Mr David Chidgey (Eastleigh, Liberal Democrat)

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

I now turn to something completely different, as a well-known television show used to say. New clause 3 deals with the relief for small motor salvage operators from excessive expense. It arises from concerns that have arisen in clauses 1 to 15. We wish to discover how the Government propose to treat the type of salvage operators whom new clause 3 describes.

Mr John Bercow (Buckingham, Conservative)

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way so early in his presentation. He said what had motivated him. May I inquire through you, Mr. O'Brien, about the genesis of the clause in terms of advance consultation on it? The hon. Gentleman and I have listened with interest and respect to the representations made by outside organisations. Has the hon. Gentleman discussed the new clause with representatives of the motor salvage sector?

Mr David Chidgey (Eastleigh, Liberal Democrat)

I give due credit to the help and advice that we have received from outside organisations. In particular, the British Motorcyclists Federation has been very helpful in advising me and my colleagues on the concerns that exist within this sector of the motor salvage operations industry. I was more than happy to introduce the new clause to see whether the Minister could respond to those concerns.

The reason for introducing the new clause is the concern that the Bill threatens to kill off a particular market of second-hand parts for old models of motor cycles and cars by imposing excessive paperwork and expense. As many hon. Members know, between the 1950s and 1970s, almost all British manufacturers of motor cycles ceased production, to our everlasting shame and concern. Parts for older models are therefore no longer produced and that has left many devoted owners of older vehicles in a very difficult situation.

Against that background, a number of small companies, or even individuals, took up the manufacture or reconditioning of parts for the models in question. Famously, some national one-make clubs, such as the Vincent owners club, set up companies to supply spare parts. More recently, that demand for parts has caused a large increase in the number and spread of auto-jumbles. Auto-jumbles are similar to jumble sales or car boot sales.

Mr Bob Russell (Colchester, Liberal Democrat)

Excuse the pun.

Mr David Chidgey (Eastleigh, Liberal Democrat)

Indeed.

At auto-jumbles people either exchange spare parts that they no longer need or sell spare parts as a commercial activity at pitches and stalls. The events can be independent, but they are usually part of larger motor cycle rallies or shows. A good example is the British Motorcyclists' Federation's annual show, which takes place at the east of England showground at Peterborough. No doubt, my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester finds time to inspect the wares at that show, which cannot be far from his home. He looks askance. I have always imagined my hon. Friend to be a keen enthusiast of two-wheeled transport, but perhaps of the bicycle rather than the motor cycle.

The original auto-jumbles were thought to be associated mainly with classic or vintage motorcycle events and so they featured only the spare parts of older models. Now, auto-jumbles are associated with almost every sort of motorcycle rally, so they feature a wider range of parts for many different models.

A similar network of small companies and individuals who sell spare parts for older models at auto-jumbles now also exists for motor cars. In Britain, there is now a range of suppliers of spare parts for old motor cycles and cars. The suppliers span the spectrum, from the private individual who sells spare parts that are surplus to his requirements, to the ordinary commercial operation.

That is the nub of the new clause. The Bill currently focuses on the commercial operations of motor salvage operators. That is right because it deals with vehicle crime within organised commercial activities. However, it is wrong that the flourishing activity of individuals who began exchanging parts that could no longer be bought from recognised suppliers and, through enthusiasm for their old motor bikes, invested energy and resources in creating companies to manufacture parts that would keep their machines on the road, should also be subject to the bureaucracy of clauses 1 to 15. It seems wrong that those at the lower end of the spectrum should be subject to legislation that is aimed at controlling illegal commercial activity. Many of the people in question run their business activities from home. Do the Government really intend that such people should be faced with the prospect of a policeman without a warrant knocking on the door of their home to search their back bedrooms for spare parts that have, allegedly, been criminally obtained?

The new clause has been drafted with the advice of the British Motorcyclists Federation in order to bring to Ministers' attention the danger that small suppliers of spare parts for old models of motor cycles and cars will be subject to disproportionate expense and bureaucracy. At this late stage, I ask the Ministers to give guidance about how this unique but small sector of the motor vehicle fraternity might be afforded appropriate relief.

Mr Michael Fabricant (Lichfield, Conservative)

I broadly support new clause 3, although I disagree with subsection (4), and I shall explain my reasons for that shortly.

I have already mentioned that I am a former motor cyclist. I used to own a Yamaha FJ 1200 that took me all around Europe, but in 1992, when my party had a diminishing majority in the House, I was advised by the Whips that it would be more responsible of me to revert to four wheels. That is what I have done ever since, although I think that, in my dotage, I might go back to two wheels.

Mr John Bercow (Buckingham, Conservative)

I was not aware of my hon. Friend's previous possession of a Yamaha, but it is relevant. The motor cycling community often imagines that Parliament does not have much close personal experience of, or empathy with, its concerns. In that context, is my hon. Friend aware that our hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis) is the proud owner of a powerful motor cycle and that he was the only person in recorded history to be provided with a company motor bike while he was employed at 32 Smith square.

Mr Michael Fabricant (Lichfield, Conservative)

I certainly was not aware of that, but I do not have to remind the Committee that Michael Jopling, who is now in another—[Interruption.]

Mr Bill O'Brien (Normanton, Labour)

Order. I will not allow a conversation about which members of the Tory party own motor cycles. Please will hon. Members keep to new clause 3.

Mr. Fabricant: Mr. O'Brien, the mention of the former Chief Whip ensures that I will certainly keep to your recommendation that a history of the Conservative party and motor cycles is not appropriate.

I do not understand the motive for including subsection (4), which states:

Where a person carries on the business of a motor salvage operator in whole or part on domestic premises, the right of a constable to enter and inspect premises under section 9(1) shall not extend to the domestic premises.

It is wholly wrong to include that subsection. Although I am sure that many people working from domestic premises, under the conditions foreseen by new clause 3, will be doing so lawfully—indeed, most salvage operators and licence plate manufacturers carry on their businesses lawfully—the point of the Bill is to limit crimes to those who are conducting their business unlawfully.

Mr David Chidgey (Eastleigh, Liberal Democrat)

Is the hon. Gentleman comfortable with the prospect of police officers entering domestic premises without warrants?

Mr Michael Fabricant (Lichfield, Conservative)

The hon. Gentleman was not present last week when we discussed the issue at length. You were in the Chair, Mr. O'Brien, when we discussed

the North Yorkshire County Council Bill, the Kent County Council Bill and the Medway Council Bill, which contain similar provisions. Under those Bills, although constables would not need a warrant to enter registered premises, they would need a warrant to enter unregistered premises, where people were almost certainly committing crimes. I share that concern about entering premises.

Whether logically the argument should apply more to domestic premises is a moot point. I simply make the point that, if an offence is committed on domestic premises, the same provisions for a police officer to enter should apply to those premises as to business premises.

Mr David Chidgey (Eastleigh, Liberal Democrat)

I am intrigued to hear that the hon. Gentleman has such a dispassionate view on the sanctity of domestic premises. Does he believe that police officers should have the same rights of entry to his home in Lichfield—without a warrant, for any reason—as they would to commercial premises as defined in the Bill?

Mr Michael Fabricant (Lichfield, Conservative)

First, I am not dispassionate. If the hon. Gentleman reads the Hansard report of last week's Committee sitting, he will know that I have strong opinions about the issue.

The answer to his main and substantive question is, yes, if I am carrying out commercial work at my home in Lichfield, police officers should have the same rights of entry as they would if I were carrying on business at some other premises. It would be illogical for a constable not to have those rights of entry. Of course, if I were not carrying out business at my home, constables would not have a right of entry. The Bill does not suggest that they would.

I appreciated the comments of the hon. Member for Eastleigh about vintage, veteran and older motor cycles. As he rightly pointed out in his introduction to the new clause, Britain has a fine history of motor cycle manufacture. Perhaps history is no longer history: Triumph is now successfully marketing its motor cycles, not just in the United Kingdom. Triumph motor bikes, which are made near Coventry, are exported to the United States, Australia and other countries.

People who own BSAs, older Triumph bikes, Bantams—if I knew enough about motor cycle history I could go on ad nauseam through a long list of manufacturers—have difficulty obtaining spare parts. They are certainly not available under normal commercial conditions. We previously discussed e-mail and other electronic communications. One can find on the internet websites of people who provide spare parts for older bikes in a semi-commercial, semi-hobby way. Those people should not be overly burdened by the Bill's registration provisions.

I welcome the broad principle of a sliding scale of charges. However, I would not welcome a complete exemption because illegal salvage work may still be done, although that would be unlikely in the case that I have described.

Mr John Bercow (Buckingham, Conservative)

Will my hon. Friend confirm that he is arguing for a more relaxed regime for salesmen of older parts because the use of such parts in the commission of vehicle crime is relatively infrequent, compared with that of newer and arguably more robust parts?

Mr. Fabricant: Yes, and I am arguing for it for another reason. I suspect that it is mainly hobbyists who undertake such activity—the Minister may be able to advise the Committee on that. I am sure that it is not the Bill's intention that they should be squeezed out of the activity through high charges.

Mr John Bercow (Buckingham, Conservative)

My hon. Friend is making an interesting point. Such people may be part-time operators who are engaged in other businesses, and the business in older parts—perhaps through the internet—may be only a small proportion of their total business turnover. If that is what my hon. Friend is saying, will he accept that such individual operators would have to be registered in order to comply with the general terms of the Bill, even if they make only a small part of their income from the activity?

Mr Michael Fabricant (Lichfield, Conservative)

As ever, my hon. Friend raises an interesting and perceptive point. I sometimes think that he can read my mind.

I have a friend from university who read medicine and is a GP. He visits his patients on a motor bike and also has a hobby of providing such parts. His long-suffering wife has to put up with spare parts in their home, as well as his medical kit, and she has said to me that she sees an incompatibility between the greasy components and the cleanliness that a GP must maintain.

Would my friend, the GP who collects spare parts as a hobby, and passes them on to other BSA owners—not for a profit but to cover his costs—be prevented from continuing his hobby because of high charges? The point of the earlier part of new clause 3 is that there should be a sliding scale.

As has almost become a tradition in the Committee, I invite the hon. Member for Eastleigh to intervene. He has set a number of price and income criteria. New clause 3 states that for operators with an income of

less than £1,000,000 per annum, the maximum fee that a local authority may determine under section 3(1)(b) shall be calculated on a sliding scale.

Does the hon. Gentleman accept that, far from introducing a blank cheque, he has created too much inflexibility? Does he agree that if the new clause were incorporated in the Bill—I suspect that it will not be—there should be an additional subsection that would allow a multiplier that took account of inflation, or even deflation?

Mr David Chidgey (Eastleigh, Liberal Democrat)

I do not want to eat into time at the end of the debate. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, when setting out new areas to be considered in the Bill, there must be a starting point, and that the appropriate costs at that time should be set out? It would not be inflexible as, if the Government responded to the new clause positively, we would expect to see detailed legislation, through regulations, to make it work in the long term. Does he agree that the main issue is to ensure that the Government consider the matter?

Mr Michael Fabricant (Lichfield, Conservative)

Yes. The Minister might be sympathetic to the broad principle. He has mentioned several times in this Committee that he is unwilling to put unreasonable burdens on businesses. By extension, I suspect that he is also unwilling to put unreasonable burdens on hobbyists, particularly when they provide a valuable service in offering spare parts—legitimately—to those who run motor cycles and cars for which spare parts are not normally commercially available. I hope that he will say that a sliding scale of charges will apply to people who operate businesses at a low level.

Mr John Bercow (Buckingham, Conservative)

I fear that my hon. Friend is correct in predicting that the Government will not accept the new clause. The Minister has said that he does not want to tell us in advance the form that the draft regulations will take because he feels that doing so would compromise the consultation process. Does my hon. Friend agree that it would be a useful earnest of the Minister's intentions if he were to let us know whether he thinks that the ballpark figures mentioned by the hon. Member for Eastleigh in the new clause are broadly right, or whether he has substantially different figures in mind for differential application?

Mr Michael Fabricant (Lichfield, Conservative)

Yes, and I would go further. It would be helpful to know what guidelines the Government might give to registrars for the fees that should be charged generally, and whether they will encourage a sliding scale. Subsection (2) (a) and (b) states:

Where a person who carries on the business of a motor salvage operator purchases a part of a motor vehicle for less than £20, or five or more parts together for less than £100, he shall not be obliged by such regulations as may be made under section 7(1) to keep a record—

I do not wish to try your patience, Mr. O'Brien, but I am reminded of the Committee stages of the Kent County Council Bill and the Medway Council Bill. The police in Kent felt that, below a certain level of purchase price, it was not necessary to include information on a register to comply with the provisions of the Bill. Although it was agreed that there should be a register of sales and purchases of second-hand goods by second-hand dealers—by the nature of new clause 3 these would be second-hand goods—the Kent police recognised that it was an excessive burden on business to keep a register of small transactions, because it would be unlikely that anyone would commit a crime involving such small sums; it would not be worth while. I share the view of the Kent police and would like to apply it to the Bill.

Does the Minister agree that it would be unnecessarily onerous to keep records for such low-value items? If so, does he agree that the exemption level should be £20 or the aggregate of five items for less than £100? If he does not agree, has he a view about the age of the spare parts? What if a part were over 10 or 20 years old because it was for an ``historic'' vehicle—that is not an unreasonable adjective to use when talking about old Bantams and BSAs? Should only price come into it? Should there not also be an exemption to register based on the age of the spare part?

Mr David Chidgey (Eastleigh, Liberal Democrat)

Will the hon. Gentleman clarify his statement? Should he not refer to spare parts for vehicles of an age of more than 20 years, rather than the spare part itself? The spare part may have been professionally manufactured by one of the owners clubs' organisations. The issue is about vehicles of an age of 20 years or more, not about spare parts of such an age.

Mr Michael Fabricant (Lichfield, Conservative)

Yes, that definition would be a good one. However, I am slightly mindful of vehicles that have not changed—Land Rovers might be one example, but I could be slandering the Land Rover company, so I am cautious. I do not wish a commercial operation that might be open to crime to be exempt from the clause. The only circumstances in which that might happen is in relation to a vehicle that is available new but has continued to be produced, with some parts virtually unchanged, for 20 or more years. With that particular caveat, I agree to the hon. Gentleman's suggestion.

However, I suspect that the debate is somewhat hypothetical because, as my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham said, new clause 3 probably will not be included in the Bill. Nevertheless, it is worth discussing because the Minister should respond to the point.

Mr John Bercow (Buckingham, Conservative)

I agree that the new clause is unlikely to be accepted because Ministers have not yet accepted any new clauses or amendments. That does not reduce or remove our responsibility to consider the merits of new clauses and amendments. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is important to establish from the hon. Member for Eastleigh whether his figures, for example in subsection (2) (a) and (b), are purely illustrative and for the purpose of engendering debate, or whether they are based on his consultations with the sector and reflect the volume of sales of given parts that are, ordinarily, not caught up in the commission of crime?

Mr Michael Fabricant (Lichfield, Conservative)

I suspect that the figures were suggested by the British Motorcyclists Federation.

Mr David Chidgey (Eastleigh, Liberal Democrat)

Does the hon. Gentleman accept that, as I stated earlier, advice was taken from the British Motorcyclists Federation, and that it is to be expected that the figures were suggested on the basis of their knowledge of the sector?

Mr Michael Fabricant (Lichfield, Conservative)

Yes, of course I accept that. However, I believe that the figures were included more for debate, as was the case with new clause 2, than with the intention of being included in the Bill. Nevertheless, the Minister said that he does not want an unnecessary burden to be placed on business and I hope that he will confirm that he does not want such a burden to be put on hobbyists either. I wonder whether it would be possible to ensure, through secondary legislation—the sort to which I object so much—that guidelines are given to local authorities, not only on using a sliding scale of charges, based on turnover and age, as the hon. Member for Eastleigh suggested in subsection (3) of the new clause, but on whether there can be complete exemptions based on transaction size.

Finally, does the Minister agree that subsection (4) is wholly undesirable?

Mr John Bercow (Buckingham, Conservative)

I hope that I did not misunderstand or mishear what my hon. Friend said. One thing that is clear is that there is no provision for total exemption in the proposed new clause. I do not think that that possibility arises at all.

Mr Michael Fabricant (Lichfield, Conservative)

I must read further to find out whether that is the case, during the intervening period before we meet again at 4.30 pm.

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.