Mr Michael Fabricant (Lichfield, Conservative)

I must confess that I had forgotten precisely where I was in my speech, but I shall resist the temptation to recap all that I said this morning.

Subsection (4) is inappropriate. I believe that it is quite proper for a police officer to have the right to enter and inspect domestic premises if business is carried on there. I have some sympathy with hobbyists and those who provide spare parts that have a low value, and I was comparing that provision with a similar provision in the Medway Council Bill; the Kent police took the view that it might be too burdensome for business to have to record every transaction, particularly those transactions with a low value. Does the Minister believe that it might be worth introducing such an amendment on Report?

What is the Minister's view on the sliding scale? Does he plan to table an amendment on Report—or even now, as we have had a few hours to consider the matter since this morning's Sitting—on what the limits should be and whether those proposed in subsection (1) are appropriate?

Mr John Bercow (Buckingham, Conservative)

I welcome your return to the Chair, Mr. O'Brien. I said this morning that I was misty eyed, leaden footed and sad at the thought of the conclusion of our proceedings. We really are now approaching their end, this being our last sitting. My hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant) has eloquently dealt with several of the issues that were helpfully raised by the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mr. Chidgey). However, I should like to say a few words on the new clause.

It was helpful of the hon. Member for Eastleigh to make it clear that the genesis of his new clause was a discussion that he had with the British Motorcyclists Federation. I see some merit in the new clause, but there are some problems with it. I am sorry to have to disagree with the hon. Gentleman over subsection (4). I could tell from his expression during the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield that the hon. Gentleman was taken aback that other hon. Members disagreed with him about the right of a constable to enter and inspect domestic premises.

As became clear earlier in the Committee's proceedings, I take a relatively libertarian line on such matters, and on the whole I am inclined to the view that if a police constable or other representative of authority is to enter and inspect a private citizen's premises, whether that citizen is in the role of a business practitioner or is at home, he should be obliged to carry a warrant. My bona fides on that subject are fairly clear. What I found curious about the hon. Gentleman's stance—I was anticipated in making this point by my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield—was that he seemed to rest his case entirely on the nature of the premises, whereas it would seem sensible to focus on the nature of the activity taking place on the premises. If that activity is, or is reasonably suspected to be, unlawful or, indeed, criminal, it is not clear why it would be unreasonable for a police constable to enter and inspect the premises. I am engaging in some exegesis, to discover the hon. Gentleman's thinking, but I think that he had in mind the notion that an Englishman's, or an Englishwoman's, home is his or her castle. However, that cannot be an absolute. I see that the hon. Gentleman is teetering on the brink, so I give way.

Mr David Chidgey (Eastleigh, Liberal Democrat)

Not teetering, Mr. O'Brien. The hon. Gentleman makes a serious point. In what circumstances is he aware at present of police officers entering domestic dwellings without a warrant? Does he recognise a distinction between, for example, a back bedroom containing recycled, second-hand vintage motor cycle parts and one containing a laboratory for prohibited drugs?

Mr Michael Fabricant (Lichfield, Conservative)

The North Yorkshire County Council Act 1991.

Mr John Bercow (Buckingham, Conservative)

My hon. Friend, in what was intended as a helpful interjection from a sedentary position, referred, almost as though it were his mantra—some might suspect that it is—to the North Yorkshire County Council Act 1991. The hon. Gentleman will be pleased to know that I do not intend to expatiate on its contents, let alone its merits or demerits. [Interruption.] My hon. Friend tries to tempt me along a path that would not meet with the Committee's approval—I am grateful for the Minister's confirmation of that—and might even incur the wrath of the Chairman.

The hon. Gentleman is right. I cannot readily think of a circumstance in which a police constable has entered and inspected an individual's home without a warrant. Doubtless, there are cases where the extremity of the alleged offence and the urgency of investigation justify such action, but I cannot think of one.

I should like the hon. Gentleman to understand—even if we are to disagree—that I do not disagree with him on the desirability, indeed necessity, of the constable having a warrant. I agree that, in the context of the offences that we are discussing, it would be inappropriate for a police constable, or other accredited representative of the law—as Sherlock Holmes would have described them—to enter and inspect premises without a warrant. However, the hon. Gentleman takes that one step further. He is guilty of an extreme liberalism that he cannot expect me or other sober and sensible members of the Committee to sign up for. The hon. Gentleman seems to argue that—[Interruption.]The Minister chunters something about The Daily Telegraph, which I did not hear. If he wants to make an intervention, I will be happy to take it.

The hon. Member for Eastleigh seems to argue that, not only is it wrong for a constable to enter and inspect premises without a warrant, but that it is wrong in principle—without exception—for a constable, or other representative of authority, to enter and inspect the domestic premises of a motor salvage operator even when in possession of a warrant, which is extraordinary.

Mr. Chidgey indicated dissent.

Mr John Bercow (Buckingham, Conservative)

The hon. Gentleman now dissents from that. I give way because it is an important point.

Mr David Chidgey (Eastleigh, Liberal Democrat)

Does the hon. Gentleman interpret that from the clause or from the debate; if the latter, he may have misheard? My understanding of the clause is that it applies only where a constable wishes to inspect the premises without a warrant. It may not be clear in the phrasing and, if that is a drafting error, I will accept it. However, my interpretation is that he or she should have a warrant.

Mr John Bercow (Buckingham, Conservative)

That is a remarkably helpful clarification. I speedily avert my eye from the hallowed words of the hon. Gentleman's proposed new clause to clause 9(1), page 6, lines 5 to 34. If within those lines, the point that the hon. Gentleman now seeks to make is accounted for and clearly addressed, I—in the spirit of amity that is now engulfing the Committee—am happy to apologise to him.

I would just pray in aid, however, the fact of the wording of the clause, and—without seeming to rub in the point—amplify what the hon. Gentleman has just said. The wording is not clear. The burden of my criticism of new clause 3(4) is that it seems to assume that it is wrong in principle for a constable to enter and inspect even with a warrant. If the hon. Gentleman says that is not his point, and that it is only where there is no warrant, he and I will be in agreement.

Mr Michael Fabricant (Lichfield, Conservative)

I do not wish to give the Committee the impression that there is any dissent on our Benches. However, I believe that my hon. Friend accepts that we have agreed that a constable can enter the premises of a registered trader without a warrant. New clause 3(4) states,

the right of a constable to enter and inspect premises—

those are domestic premises—

shall not extend to the domestic premises,

where the business of a motor salvage operator is located. If my hon. Friend accepts that a registered business can be inspected by a chief constable without a warrant, why should a business that extends to domestic premises be exempted?

Mr John Bercow (Buckingham, Conservative)

I agree with my hon. Friend. In fairness to Ministers, who have not participated so far, but will have a chance to shortly, the burden of our criticism does not rest upon them. The Minister would say, ``So what? This is not our point. We are having a discussion with the Liberal Democrats''. That discussion is an interesting and important one, but I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield.

Has the hon. Member for Eastleigh considered the curious and untidy contradiction between the treatment of a registered salvage operator practising from his commercial premises and the treatment that is to be accorded to an undoubtedly registered operator practising from his domestic premises? I agree with my hon. Friend. The issue should surely be the nature of the activities and the grounds that the constable or representative of authority has for believing that those activities may be in breach of the law. Those should be the material considerations in determining the appropriateness of entry and inspection. It seems strange that a registered salvage operator, operating from his commercial premises should be susceptible to and, to use the Minister's phrase, ``up for'' an inspection by a constable without a warrant, but if he is operating at home he should be granted the apparently extra protection of a visit only after grant of a warrant.

I may have misheard my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield, who is almost invariably right, but we did not agree to inspection without warrants for registered practitioners operating from their commercial premises. We did not want to divide the Committee on the point but I think that the record will show that throughout those discussions I made it clear that I was quite happy to entertain the different options, but for my part—I was not speaking for colleagues—I felt that a warrant should be required for both categories. The Minister will recall that I tabled amendments that would have allowed equal treatment either in the sense of a requirement for a warrant in both cases, or of the non-requirement of a warrant. My own view is that a warrant should be required in all cases.

Mr Michael Fabricant (Lichfield, Conservative)

I think that we have unanimity of purpose on this, at least on the Opposition Benches. My hon. Friend will recall that I said that it seemed strange in the extreme that someone who was registered and therefore presumably law abiding, would not have the protection of a warrant, whereas someone who might be trading unlawfully and deliberately not going on to the register, would have the protection of a warrant.

Mr John Bercow (Buckingham, Conservative)

I agree. The point has now been forcefully made. We are all clear now where we stand. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Eastleigh for what I might describe as clarification via intervention. We are all much clearer as a result. We should pay tribute to him for tabling the new clause.

My second point is that the new clause applies only to motor salvage operators. That was omitted from the multifaceted oration that my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield skilfully delivered before lunch. I am not entirely clear, given the similarity between motor salvage operators and registration plate suppliers, why the hon. Member for Eastleigh thinks that it is appropriate to have this protection and this burden minimisation for motor salvage operators, but not for registration plate suppliers. It may just have been a test case and, having tested the water and discovered that it is warm, he may intend to apply it more widely on Report.

Mr Michael Fabricant (Lichfield, Conservative)

My hon. Friend may be a little confused about this issue. I am confused. The hon. Member for Eastleigh, in an intervention in my speech, spoke about parts that had been specially made for second-hand or vintage and veteran cars. If they are specially manufactured, I cannot understand how they could be salvaged.

Mr John Bercow (Buckingham, Conservative)

I thank my hon. Friend, but unfortunately I cannot respond to his intervention because it relates to the thought processes of the hon. Member for Eastleigh, which I cannot possibly be expected to detect and on which it would not be proper for me to speculate. A moment ago the Minister, either out of weariness, a desire to be helpful or a combination of the two, said from a sedentary position that the significance of the clause was that it was about spare parts. I fully accept and understand that. With the greatest respect to the Minister, I was able to read the clause and I appreciate that point.

My point is slightly different. Without using absolutely the same wording and replicating the precise contents of the clause, save for the substitution of the title ``registration plate supplier'', the general principle which is at stake, namely the attempt to minimise the burden on small businesses and to distinguish between the costs imposed upon them and those which might be borne by larger companies, could apply in the registration plate supply business just as much as it applies in the motor salvage business. It is for the hon. Member for Eastleigh, either now or at a later date, to explain whether one of the tricks that he has got up his sleeve is to spring a similar new clause in relation to registration plate suppliers on Report. I am all agog to discover the parliamentary tactics of the Liberal Democrats. I rest that point.

Mr Michael Fabricant (Lichfield, Conservative)

Has my hon. Friend noticed subsection (3), which I missed in my peroration this morning? It says:

Where a person who carries on the business of a motor salvage operator purchases for less than £100 a motor vehicle whose engine and chassis or frame are over 10 years old, he shall not be obliged...to notify the destruction of the motor vehicle.

Does he not agree that there is a danger in that provision? If the destruction of a vehicle is not notified to the registrar, is there not a danger that spare parts from such a vehicle—the fact that it is being sold for less than £100 implies that it cannot be in a very good state of repair—might be put on the market? Those parts may be damaged and may put the purchaser at risk if they are used in his own vehicle.

Mr John Bercow (Buckingham, Conservative)

That is possible. I am not an authority on spare parts or indeed on vehicles and I am not sure whether my hon. Friend is right. Again I am trying to interpret the thinking of the hon. Member for Eastleigh without his having told me what it is, but I presume that his motivation in tabling the new clause, and that particular part of it, is that the age and minimal utility of the parts concerned are such that they would have a nugatory commercial value and would be unlikely to be used in the commission of crime.

Mr. Chidgey indicated assent.

Mr John Bercow (Buckingham, Conservative)

I am getting a helpful indication from the hon. Gentleman, that that is what he has in mind. However, I do not know whether that satisfies my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield.

My final point relates to the sliding scale. In fairness, the hon. Member for Eastleigh has a point. One thing that the Liberal Democrat and Conservative Members have had in common throughout the Committee stage of this Bill is an interest in minimising the burden on small companies and recognising that regulation must be as light as is compatible with effectiveness.

What I am not certain about is the wisdom of what I would describe as the permissive provision in subsection (1) of the new clause. The hon. Member for Eastleigh provides the opportunity, but not the obligation, for a local authority to define and apply a sliding scale. My impression, unless I have misread the clause, and I do not think I have, is that such a sliding scale could vary from one local authority to another. Given that, at least in part, it is supposed to reflect costs, we should agree that administrative costs need not and should not vary between one authority and another.

Mr David Chidgey (Eastleigh, Liberal Democrat)

I draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to the fact that under subsection (1)

the maximum fee that a local authority may determine under section 3 (1) (b) shall be calculated on a sliding scale.

So the clause proposes a maximum fee, which I would have thought would have relieved some of the hon. Gentleman's concerns.

Mr John Bercow (Buckingham, Conservative)

It does, but not entirely. There are two problems. First, it is not clear whether there would be a minimum, although I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his assurance on the maximum. Secondly, the point about the turnover limits is central. I referred to variable schemes—different sliding scale schemes applying to different local authorities. What I do not know is whether these are just illustrative figures that the hon. Gentleman is using and whether they could be varied between one part of the country and another. It seems to me a point worth making.

This new clause has been of great interest to both Conservative and Liberal Democrat Members of Parliament. I know that no Labour Members of Parliament have had any interest in the clause whatsoever, but I appreciate what the hon. Gentleman has done and I think that the British Motorcyclist Federation will welcome the fact that Opposition Members have at least been prepared to air the arguments and then await the response of the Minister. That, with enthusiasm and close attention, I shall now do.

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

There is no lack of readiness on our part to debate the issues. In my opinion, however, there is only one point of substance that has been made in the foregoing debate. That is the whole issue that I thought was raised very articulately and clearly by the hon. Member for Eastleigh in relation to vintage clubs and the whole range of expertise there. Where the hon. Gentleman has an important point, one which I shall address, and the reason why I was ``chuntering'', in the phrase of the hon. Member for Buckingham, is in the obvious difference between the significance of number plates and that of parts in a business and industry activity. That hobby was in fact the core of the speech made by the hon. Member for Eastleigh.

I thought that the hon. Member for Buckingham was being slightly unfair on himself in saying that he had no familiarity with spare parts. Some might say that he was the world leader of spare parts when it came to looking at the way debate in this place occurs. Alternatively, the hon. Member for Lichfield gave me a list of all the radio and television stations that he had constructed, refurbished and trained in the 1980s and 1990s. When I saw Radio Echo Moscow on the list, I thought that that perfectly summed up a description of the speeches of the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow)—simply an echo of what was going on.

There are four important points why we oppose this new clause and will oppose it, even if it is put to a vote. The first deals with the question of thieves, subsection (1) of his new clause. The reason why I am slightly weary with the hon. Member for Lichfield is that we have already debated at great length—I think when he was being bitten or recovering from his bite—the importance of sliding scales to address the issues effectively. We want to consult properly. I know that there have been those who are cynical about consultation, but we acknowledge that it may be necessary to have a sliding scale and for different approaches to be taken, and we want to reach agreement in a proper way. That is why I cannot give ball park figures, as requested by the hon. Member for Lichfield this morning, but we want to make the fee setting process transparent and give industry the assurance that it needs that the fees have been set at a level solely to recover administration costs and nothing else. That is the issue that we debated at some length in Committee earlier on. I do not want to repeat that debate, except to say that that is why we do not go along with subsection (1) of the new clause.

I will give the hon. Gentleman one assurance, however, as I do not think that the Government gave sufficient attention to this before his speech, and that is that when we consult with the Local Government Association of the industry, we will take particular account of the interests of the motorcycle hobbyist—or the vintage motor bike trade—in drawing up the guidelines for that sliding scale. There are people who engage in this kind of activity as their hobby and the view is legitimate in the way that it is addressed. It is perfectly appropriate for us to take account of that interest in the guidelines and I assure the hon. Gentleman that we will do so. That is a product of his raising the new clause in the way that he has.

Secondly, we believe that subsection (2) offers a serious loophole for criminals to exploit. I know that that is not the hon. Gentleman's intention in any way, but it would exempt business in the circumstances described from keeping records of parts. This would break the audit trail, which is extremely important for the police in their investigations. Maintaining that audit trail is an important way for them to establish what the networks are and how the business operates. For that reason, we are against low-level exemptions like this. I understand that bureaucratic issues arise from this and we will try and deal with that on the fee level in the guidelines. We are concerned that criminals would seek to exploit an exemption by gradually disposing of small quantities of small stolen parts. I know that that was not the intention of the British Motorcyclists Federation or of the hon. Gentleman, but we are concerned about that possibility.

Mr Michael Fabricant (Lichfield, Conservative)

I know that the Minister is sympathetic to the intelligence-led policing of the Kent constabulary, with which he is familiar. Given what applies to the audit trail, why do the Kent police take the view that it is not necessary to record transactions of small items?

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

As the hon. Gentleman knows, I am not permitted to express a clear view in a debate on a private Member's Bill. The issues of the secondary market in the legislation to which the hon. Gentleman refers are complex—it is easier to identify parts of a motor bike than it is to identify the kinds of business that the Kent County Council Bill and the Medway Council Bill seek to regulate. That is why I take that view although, again, it is a fair point for the hon. Gentleman to make.

The third subsection of the new clause would exempt motor salvage operators from having to notify the DVLA of the destruction of a motor vehicle more than 10 years old if it was purchased for less than £100. We cannot support that; the DVLA vehicle register must be as accurate as possible because it is the foundation of a great deal of police work to prevent and detect crime.

Mr John Bercow (Buckingham, Conservative)

I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. His response to my hon. Friend is clear. Does his argument apply only to the precautionary principle—I would not cavil at it if it did—or has the Minister been advised of examples of crime that would be impossible to detect if the new clause were accepted?

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

We are basically advised by the precautionary principle. We expect that the powers in the Bill will be used only in relation to a small minority of the vehicles destroyed every year because the bulk will be notified to the DVLA by means of the certificate of destruction that will be implemented under the provisions of the EU end-of-life vehicles directive.

We oppose the fourth subsection of the new clause on the grounds set out by the hon. Member for Lichfield. The provisions of the Bill will extend only to domestic premises if they meet the definitions in subsection (2)—in other words, only to registered motor salvage dealers. We see no reason why any premises used for business, domestic or other purposes of registered motor salvage dealers should be exempted from the police powers, for the reasons that have already been argued. To exempt registered domestic premises from the powers to enter and inspect premises would be to blunt the Bill's effectiveness, making its objectives harder for the police to implement. We do not wish to provide any loopholes. We, therefore, disagree with each of the four subsections of the new clause although I am in the contradictory position of disagreeing with them without in any way criticising the motivation of the hon. Gentleman or of the BMF.

I make it absolutely clear that those who are engaged only in buying and selling parts—part of the business that we are talking about—do not come within the activities described in subsection (2). People come within the purview of the Bill only if they dismantle a vehicle for its parts; simply trading in parts does not in itself bring people within the purview of the Bill. In urging the hon. Member for Eastleigh to withdraw the motion, I assure him that, in regard particularly to fee structure and guidance but also to other areas of guidance, we will look more carefully than we would otherwise have done at the specific interests of the vintage trade—the hobbyist—because we do not wish to inhibit that reasonable activity.

Mr David Chidgey (Eastleigh, Liberal Democrat)

I thank the Minister for his gracious and helpful response. I am glad that the Government understand that hobbyists—motor enthusiasts—are a different category of people. It was helpful of the Minister to say that those who trade solely in parts of motor cycles are outwith the purview of the Bill. That is a helpful clarification.

I understand the Minister's point about registered salvage operators. The most important fact is that they, rather than the premises from which they work, are registered as such. Far be it from me, as the member of the Committee who throughout has argued for a robust audit trail, to introduce an element that would break such a trail. Therefore, for the sake of consistency and out of gratitude to the Minister for his clarification, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr Bill O'Brien (Normanton, Labour)

New clause 4 is not moved.

Mr Michael Fabricant (Lichfield, Conservative)

On a point of order, Mr. O'Brien. I am disturbed that the hon. Member for Birmingham, Hall Green is not here to move new clause 4. The subject would have been interesting. Has the curse of Standing Committee A struck again? Is he unwell?

Mr Bill O'Brien (Normanton, Labour)

Order. That is not a point of order for the Chair. The hon. Member is being naughty. New Clause 9 Revenue