Mr John Bercow (Buckingham, Conservative)

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

New clause 9 is the last of the new clauses and the last of the issues for the Committee to consider. I move new clause 9—

Mr Greg Pope (Assistant Whip (funded by HM Treasury); Hyndburn, Labour)

Formally?

Mr John Bercow (Buckingham, Conservative)

No, not formally, but I will try to be brief. So that our proceedings are meaningful to outside observers and intelligible to those members of the Committee who, unaccountably, do not have in their possession copies of the relevant sections of the Refuse Disposal (Amenity) Act 1978, I should emphasise that subsection (2)(1)(a) and section 3(1) are contained in that Act. Specifically, subsection (2)(1)(a) relates to penalties for unauthorised dumping, where vehicles are abandoned

on land in the open air, or on any other land forming part of a highway.

Section 3(1) refers to the removal of abandoned vehicles. I hope that that puts the matter in context.

The Bill deals with motor salvage operators, but not with what happens before the vehicles get to the salvage operator. The new clause would add to the Bill, bolster it and give effect to a Conservative party policy. We are concerned that abandoned cars are left to clutter up the countryside because they do not have enough value as scrap. There is widespread concern about that. The evidence suggests a growing problem. A recent RAC survey found that some 150 to 250 cars are abandoned every month in Islington alone. The price of scrap metal is so low that increasingly old cars are being left on the streets, not scrapped.

Mr. Bob Russell (Colchester) indicated assent—

Mr John Bercow (Buckingham, Conservative)

I appreciate the assent of the hon. Member for Colchester to that proposition. He may have local experience that he will want to share with the Committee.

Cars often fetch as little as £3 as scrap, yet it often costs more than that to take them away. That imbalance is a disincentive to good conduct and an incentive to bad conduct. Scrap metal prices are unlikely to rise, given the effects of the end-of-life vehicles directive on increasing the amount of scrap metal.

Mr Bob Russell (Colchester, Liberal Democrat)

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that while it is bad enough that people abandon cars, the fact that the cars often still have petrol in the tank is a safety hazard?

Mr John Bercow (Buckingham, Conservative)

I agree with the hon. Gentleman, although I would not want to go into the specifics of the matter.

We have all seen examples that are causes for concern. Fairly recently, not far from my Westminster flat, I saw a vehicle that had been burned out and abandoned, and was emitting an unpleasant odour. I do not know whether there was petrol in it. After a while, a sticker saying ``Police Aware'' was attached to it, and soon after that—although not as soon as I would have liked—it was removed.

Under section 2 of the Refuse Disposal (Amenity) Act 1978 it is an offence—for which a fine of up to £2,500 can be levied—to abandon a vehicle at any place in the open air. Under section 3 of the Act, councils have a duty to remove any abandoned vehicle. However, that is expensive, and local authorities often feel unable properly to fulfil the duty when they have many others to discharge. Whether or not a motor vehicle has been abandoned must be deduced from all the circumstances of the case. Section 2 appears to cover permanent, not temporary, abandonment. Section 2(2) states that

a person who leaves any thing on any land in such circumstances or for such a period that he may reasonably be assumed to have abandoned it

has contravened that part of the Act.

The offence may be prosecuted by anyone—for example, an aggrieved landowner.

This point, relating as it does to the disposal of vehicles and to offences in relation to vehicles, will be of the closest possible interest, concern and, indeed, potential anxiety, to the Under-Secretary.

I should appreciate it if the Minister would attend for a few moments—

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

Talk to the point, then.

Mr John Bercow (Buckingham, Conservative)

I am talking closely to the point. This is an important issue relating to a piece of legislation that was passed 22 years ago.

There appears to be no more precise definition of ``abandoned'' than that which I just volunteered—which I am sure that the Under-Secretary could repeat off the top of his head, verbatim and without fault, were I to give him the opportunity to do so.

A House of Commons Library paper dated 26 June 2000 refers to ``Wilkinson's Road Traffic Offences''—a much-thumbed tome—which cites the dictionary definition of ``to give up'' or ``forsake'' and states that a vehicle will normally be considered to be abandoned if it is not properly taxed. Although the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 allows for the removal of untaxed vehicles, section 3 of the Refuse Disposal (Amenity) Act 1978 still applies.

Abandoned vehicles must be removed from the streets in accordance with the law. The new clause would allow that to happen and should, if it works aright, ensure that it does.

Mrs Anne McIntosh (Vale of York, Conservative)

My hon. Friend will be reassured to know that the tome to which he referred is well known to me, as it applies in both England and Scotland. During my short practice at the Scottish bar, we relied on it heavily.

Has my hon. Friend considered the implications of the possibility that a car may be deemed to be abandoned if it is no longer taxed in England, but may not be deemed to be abandoned in similar circumstances in Scotland?

Mr John Bercow (Buckingham, Conservative)

I should have thought that a great deal more removal activity would take place south of the border than north, and that enforcement issues would be involved. However, I have not reflected closely on my hon. Friend's point, and perhaps she will want to develop it in a thoughtful, eloquent and enticing contribution of her own, once my effort has concluded.

Conservatives believe that abandoned cars should be treated like litter, and that local authorities should be more efficient at towing them away. Given that councils have no problem towing away cars that are illegally parked, it is unclear why they should have difficulty with abandoned ones. We are therefore seeking to introduce a legal means by which councils would be able to keep the revenue generated by enforcing fines for abandoning cars. That policy, which would help to clean up our streets, was also announced by the Conservative and Unionist party in our war on litter document, which was published in September 2000.

Sitting suspended for a Division in the House.

On resuming—

Mrs Anne McIntosh (Vale of York, Conservative)

Drawing on my short intervention in the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow), I wonder whether the Minister will take this opportunity to put my mind at rest by confirming that circumstances north of the border will not differ from those in England. If the new clause were accepted, that problem could probably be avoided. My understanding is that the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 applies uniformly in England and Scotland, so it would concern me greatly if the original provisions were applied in different ways in the two countries. That is my argument in a nutshell, and I shall not rehearse the points made in my intervention on my hon. Friend.

Mr Jonathan R Shaw (Chatham & Aylesford, Labour)

Although I welcome the new clause, it is sadly flawed in that it would not provide the revenue stream that the Conservatives claim. As the hon. Member for Buckingham said, under the Refuse Disposal (Amenity) Act 1978—the Labour party's finest year in terms of rubbish collection—the maximum fine for abandoning a vehicle is £2,500, and abandoned cars are treated the same as any other litter. However, according to officers of Kent county council and Medway council—one is Conservative-run and the other is a minority administration, so I am not voicing a partisan perspective—more than 90 per cent. of abandoned cars are untraceable. People act irresponsibly by failing to send the logbook and accompanying paperwork to the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency, so finding those concerned and imposing the necessary fines is an enormous task that bears little fruit.

The new clause would prove extremely costly, place an extra burden on local authorities and prove unworkable in terms of the revenue stream. The hon. Member for Buckingham is nodding—

Mr John Bercow (Buckingham, Conservative)

I was shaking my head.

Mr Jonathan R Shaw (Chatham & Aylesford, Labour)

Well, perhaps he will be nodding his head by the time I have finished my contribution.

Mr John Bercow (Buckingham, Conservative)

That is optimism.

Mr Jonathan R Shaw (Chatham & Aylesford, Labour)

Socialists are always optimists. [Hon. Members: ``Oh!''] I and many of my colleagues have always been very comfortable with that word. [Interruption.] If the hon. Member for Colchester breathes in any more deeply, he will swallow his teeth.

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

Is my hon. Friend aware of the phrase ``optimism of the soul, pessimism of the intellect,'' which Antonio Gramsci used to describe the way in which socialists should address such issues? That phrase fits precisely with my hon. Friend's description.

Mr John Bercow (Buckingham, Conservative)

Does it appear in the ``Prison Notebooks''?

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

No, it is from a speech and it should guide us all.

Mr Bill O'Brien (Normanton, Labour)

Order. Could we return to new clause 9?

Mr Jonathan R Shaw (Chatham & Aylesford, Labour)

I am grateful to you, Mr. O'Brien, for bringing my hon. Friend the Minister to order. To answer his question, I was not aware of that quotation, but I shall take a reference from him and look it up.

The new clause would not provide the necessary revenue stream for local authorities and it would sap other services and resources. As the hon. Member for Buckingham said, this is a serious problem that is getting increasingly worse. As he eloquently pointed out, the scrap value of cars has gone down, along with their retail value. They are not the commodity that they were in 1978, when the abandoning of cars was regarded as an important matter and there was an onus on local authorities to find the owner. The Refuse Disposal (Amenity) Act 1978 requires local authority officers to place a seven-day notice on abandoned cars, but in 2001 such notices are an invitation to burn the cars and smash their windows. If we were starting with a blank sheet of paper, we would not want the laws that we have today, because they make matters worse.

Mr Michael Fabricant (Lichfield, Conservative)

The hon. Gentleman argues—quite convincingly—that the proposal might not work because the owners of abandoned vehicles are difficult to trace and therefore to fine. However, does he agree that we need mechanisms to ensure that such matters are reported to the DVLA, so that its database can be maintained accurately, and how would he ensure that such rules are adhered to?

Mr Jonathan R Shaw (Chatham & Aylesford, Labour)

The problem is that the system was designed many years ago and does not meet today's needs. There are inherent structural problems. My local authority and I discussed the matter with the DVLA, the Home Office and the Department of Trade and Industry, but we went round in circles. We would not set up today the system that we have.

Euro-sceptic Opposition Members might find uncomfortable the fact that, in France, people who pass a driving test at 17 or 18 purchase a number plate for their car that is then transferred to any new vehicle that they may buy. A number plate in France is therefore personal, rather like a national insurance number, so there is little problem with abandoned vehicles. Such a system would be my solution to the problem in this country, but it would require primary legislation.

We have heard about the Kent County Council Bill and the Medway Council Bill; once again the Medway is proving a trailblazer. A pilot scheme has just begun that brings together the powers of DVLA officers, local authority officers and the police. As the hon. Member for Buckingham said, road traffic legislation allows the DVLA to clamp and remove untaxed vehicles quickly. Officers do not have to place a seven-day notice. If all the agencies worked together and had special arrangement with the contractor to remove the cars, big inroads could well be made into the number of abandoned vehicles in Medway, and, if the pilot proves successful, throughout Kent. We hope that it will fan out across the county.

The costs are enormous. As I said on Second Reading, Kent county council spent £650,000 removing cars, and an officer told me that that figure will soon top a million. The new clause, however, will raise costs further without sorting out the structural problems. The officers of Kent county council, Medway council and the police advised me that they have no recollection of anyone ever being prosecuted for abandoning a vehicle.

I agree with the sentiments of the hon. Member for Buckingham on an issue that is close to my heart. We must resolve the problem; otherwise it will get worse. The new clause, however, is not the solution. We should await the outcome of the Medway pilot. The Home Office and the DETR are watching it closely. One solution could be to unite the powers of the two agencies, perhaps by having a local authority officer operate as an agent for the DVLA.

We must cut the time of seven-day notices, which are a disaster—particularly in urban areas and on private land. It is a honey pot for vandals. The hon. Member for Lichfield spoke about the dangers created for individuals when cars are abandoned. Uniting the powers and speeding up the time in which vehicles are removed and stored may provide a better solution. As I said, we should carefully study the outcomes of the pilot before deciding whether primary legislation is necessary. The new clause will simply impose further burdens on local authorities and would not resolve the problems that all our communities face.

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

I commend the new clause and agree that it was put constructively. Abandoned vehicles are a serious problem. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Mr. Shaw), who has been an assiduous campaigner on this matter. The problem is that an individual event—an abandoned car—requires a multi-agency solution. It requires the local authority, the police, DVLA and often the fire authorities to work together. We may have failed in the past because the partnership was not close enough to deal with the problem effectively. Apart from Kent's scheme, some in the north-east have seen effective partnership between the fire service and others in dealing with abandoned vehicles.

One of my most fascinating experiences as a Minister was to hear a presentation by the chief constable of Kent, Sir David Phillips, on abandoned cars and the issues that led to the project in Medway to which the my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford referred. We do need the co-ordinated action of that approach.

The pilot scheme has at its core that abandoned vehicles, which are usually untaxed, will be wheel-clamped by a DVLA contractor—in Medway it is one called Sureway. If the vehicles are not taxed within 24 hours they will be removed to one of two car pounds and disposed of after 35 days, so the seven-day problem simply does not arise. Summary action is taken to deal with the situation immediately because the law has been broken by the car not being taxed.

The pilot is a multi-agency approach to the problem and could be used effectively and positively elsewhere. Earlier today, one of the Government Whips asked me whether it could be done in the county that he represents, as it is a beneficial general practice. The aim is to deliver a shock to the owners of unlicensed vehicles and force them to relicense and we believe that a number of abandoned vehicles will be caught in the net.

We are evaluating the scheme very carefully, and we hope it will provide us with solutions that we can introduce nationally. I should emphasise that some of them may require legislative changes, because of questions in respect of the legal relationships between the various agencies that we need to get right.

The reason why we resist the new clause is first because it does not seem to be multi-agency in its approach. That is not designed as a grade-one criticism, but it seems to us that the provision needs to be multi-agency as it is proper and right to look at all the legislative changes that would be needed in a combined way.

On the horizon is the famous end of life vehicle directive, which seeks to make provision for the collection and environmentally sound destruction or recovery and re-use of vehicles that have outlived their usefulness. We are currently looking at how best to implement the directive, which we hope would tackle the problem that the new clause seeks to address.

I hope that, on consideration, the hon. Member for Buckingham will consider withdrawing the new clause. I can give him the assurance that it is a matter of high concern to the Government, and what might be of more interest and concern to him is that we do not see this as a party political matter, as my hon. Friend has indicated and that particular ideas, either from the hon. Member for Buckingham or from his party would be looked at positively.

As we are not proposing the acceptance of this new clause, the interesting and learned points from the hon. Member for the Vale of York (Miss McIntosh) about the relationship between Scotland and England do not apply.

Mr John Bercow (Buckingham, Conservative)

I listened closely to the hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford and I know that he has a long-standing interest in the subject. Notwithstanding that, I feel that he errs on the side of pessimism and I am not sure that his pessimism as to the prospects of success via this clause is justified. Frankly, he was very defeatist about it. I note what said about the pilot scheme and I accept that all eyes should be focused upon that and that one can learn from it. I do not intend to dilate further on the arguments, although we might do so on Report.

My only criticism of what the Minister has offered is that the Bill as it stands, even without the new clause, provides for exchanges of information and therefore it contains the scope for multi-agency approaches. Although the onus and responsibility in the new clause is on local authorities, it is not to be supposed that local authorities would be acting entirely without access to information and assistance from other authorities. I am not sure that it is entirely the stand-alone offering that the Minister is suggesting.

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

My point is that we wish to learn from the Medway experience before deciding on what is exactly the right legislative form of those multi-agency relationships.

Mr John Bercow (Buckingham, Conservative)

I am interested in what the Minister says, as it follows from his argument that a new piece of legislation would be required to give effect either to the specific form of the pilot scheme or to a variant thereof. We are saying is that our proposal could be effective and could be tacked on to the Bill. It seems there is a difference between us there, but I shall not labour the point, as we have had a good rehearsal of the arguments on this and a great many other matters today.

I am happy to withdraw my new clause, which is the last new clause and matter of substantive debate. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause by leave, withdrawn.

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

On a point of order, Mr. O'Brien. With your permission, I should like to thank you and your fellow Chairmen for the way in which you have conducted our business, which has been admirably even-handed throughout. It was occasionally peppery, but that was no doubt deserved because of the various diversions from order, particularly by the Opposition.

I thank the Clerks for the work that they have done to ensure that we consider everything in good order, as we need to. As always, the Hansard staff enabled us to read what we said—often at great length—very rapidly afterwards. I thank the Badge Messengers for their advice, which kept us going.

I should very much like to thank my Bill team. On behalf of the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, my hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Mr. Hill), I thank his colleagues for the work that they did to ensure that we considered the Bill in good order. As always, I thank the Whips on both sides of the Committee for their admirable understanding and all members of the Committee for the way in which business has been conducted.

We have listened to the debates carefully and will table amendments later in the light of amendments that have been moved by Members on both sides of the Committee. I hope that we can go forward in that spirit.

Mr John Bercow (Buckingham, Conservative)

Further to that point of order, Mr. O'Brien. I echo the tributes that the Minister has rightly and graciously paid to you and your fellow Chairmen, and to the Clerks, who have done a truly outstanding job in your support and ours. I also pay tribute to the Hansard writers, the Badge Messengers and, indeed, to all members of the Committee. In the past, I served on three or four Bill Committees from the Back Benches, and this has been as good-natured a Committee as I have had the privilege to witness.

The Minister's temper varied a little during the two weeks of our considerations, but he has on the whole been pretty amicable and has given fair wind to the various points that my hon. Friends and I made. It is right to place it on the record that his standing—Mr. John Kampfner described him as a prospective leader of the Labour party—has not been damaged or compromised by the Committee's deliberations. Among the other runners and riders, the Minister is still in quite a strong position.

I thank and pay tribute to the Under-Secretary for his robust contributions, courtesy and good humour, which were much appreciated. I also thank the Whips on both sides of the Committee, whose presence has been worth while. They are usually silent, but not invariably so, and we acknowledge that they have a role to play.

I thank my hon. Friends the Members for Mid-Norfolk (Mr. Simpson), for Vale of York and for Lichfield for their contributions and for stoically putting up with my first attempt at leadership from the Front Bench in a Standing Committee.

I should like to compliment all members of the Committee who actively contributed. There were occasionally peppery exchanges between Conservatives and Liberal Democrat Members, but they have been active in the Committee. On the whole, there has been a good interchange of arguments both among hon. Members on the Opposition Benches and between Opposition and Government Members.

I note what the Minister has said about prospective new amendments and possibly new clauses at a later stage. We will consider them with interest and decide how to debate them accordingly. We reiterate that the central purpose of the Bill is valid; the argument is about how to make it effective. I hope that the Committee has profited from our consideration of the Bill, which I very much enjoyed.

Mr David Chidgey (Eastleigh, Liberal Democrat)

Further to that point of order, Mr. O'Brien. I echo the sentiments expressed by the Minister and the hon. Member for Buckingham in thanking all those who took part in the proceedings, especially the officials, your good self, Mr. O'Brien, and your co-Chairman, who steered the Committee with deftness, clarity and purpose. You always made sure that we kept more or less to the straight and narrow.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Mr. Russell) who so robustly stood in for me and advanced the Liberal Democrats' arguments during my enforced absence last week in a frozen part of northern Europe. I was sad to have missed my hon. Friend's contribution, although the record makes delightful reading.

I have been Front Bench spokesman for the Liberal Democrats in Committee in four or five Bills in this Parliament and this Committee has been the most constructive on which I have been privileged to serve. The debate was levelled at the issues in the Bill and rarely strayed into point-scoring or petty competition. That was most refreshing; I was glad the Minister said that Members' efforts would be reflected in the Bill's modification and amendment.

There are differences between the Government and Opposition parties on some issues in the Bill; the Minister said that he would table amendments and I therefore make a final plea that he does so quickly so that we have time to consider them before the Bill is considered on Report next Tuesday; that is only two parliamentary days hence, as the House is not sitting on Friday.

I look forward to seeing the Bill in its reshaped, modified and improved form and to engaging in debate with the Government and the other Opposition parties at a later stage. The Bill will be an important and welcome addition to the statute book.

Mr Bill O'Brien (Normanton, Labour)

On behalf of my co-Chairman and myself, I thank those on the platform and others who have worked to make the Committee a success; I also thank the hon. Gentleman for his kind remarks.

I thank all members of the Committee for their help and co-operation; the debates make interesting reading. I take great pleasure in listening to the arguments and in keeping Members in check, which is the job of the Chairman. On behalf of my co-Chairman and others, I thank hon. Members for their kind remarks and for their co-operation and help throughout the proceedings.

Bill to be reported, without amendment.

Committee rose at eight minutes past Six o'clock.