The Minister said in response to the debate on Clause 3 that the power was discretionary. I assume he will confirm that that applies to the powers in this clause, too, and that consideration relates to why the Bill is necessary. It is taking a substantial amount of parliamentary time, there was a lengthy consultation process, and many councils that follow best practice are already implementing its provisions. Has the Department estimated how many are doing that? If the clause is to mean anything, the enforcement procedures are extremely important. Will the power be discretionary? Many concerns have been raised with us, especially by motoring organisations. How will a person be deemed to be carrying out the restricted works referred to in subsection (1)? What will be the test of evidence? Someone could be repairing a motor vehicle with a view to resale, which is completely different from a breakdown service repairing a vehicle.

My understanding is that the clause will prohibit businesses from repairing and servicing vehicles on the street. While it is possibly a well-intentioned measure, will the Minister confirm that great care will be taken to ensure that the clause targets illegal operations, allowing legitimate mobile mechanics and private individuals to undertake necessary car repairs? The measure proposes exemptions, but how will they be interpreted? Will the enforcement be straightforward and uncomplicated?

Subsection (2) states:

''For the purposes of this section 'restricted works' means—

(a) works for the repair, maintenance, servicing, improvement or dismantling of a motor vehicle''. 

The word ''improvement'' could indicate that a car was being improved not just to make it serviceable and roadworthy after an accident but for an eventual sale, so it could be deemed to fall foul of the clause. In many parts of the country, especially in rural areas, vehicles are stolen to order and in some cases dismantled for spare parts. How will the terms ''improvement'' or ''dismantling'' of a vehicle be applied?

Subsection (3) states:

''A person is not to be convicted of an offence under this section in relation to any works if he proves to the satisfaction of the court that the works were not carried out . . . for gain or reward.''

Would it not be better to try to resolve such cases, and, as far as possible, keep them out of court?

There is an interesting term in subsection (4) that I have seen mentioned in other Government legislation. It is the reference to the

''annoyance to persons in the vicinity.''

Does ''in the vicinity'' mean those passing by? Does it mean those who live in the properties adjacent to the works or in front of which the vehicles might be parked? Could it be landowners? I appreciate that we are talking about nuisance vehicles and not about abandoned vehicles. However, the phrase ''in the vicinity'' is loose and could give rise to a number of problems, both in bringing a prosecution for an offence under clause 4 and in this part of the Bill. The courts could waste much time trying to elucidate the meaning of the phrase ''in the vicinity''.

For the sake of clarification, for our own information and, especially, for the sake of the motoring organisations and breakdown associations, how will subsection (5) be interpreted? Will the Minister publish further explanatory regulations on that subsection?

Under subsection (7),

'''road' has the same meaning as in the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984''.

The Library note helpfully tells us that, in section 142 of the Act, a road is defined as

''any length of highway or any other road to which the public has access''.

I understand that the main feature of a road is that the general public has a right to use it as a means of getting from A to B. That definition covers all highways, including unadopted roads, access roads through estates that are owned by organisations such as housing organisations or residents who live there, carriageways and footpaths. A car park would not normally fall in the definition of a road, as its function is to enable people to leave their vehicles.

Obviously the Minister is satisfied with that definition. Has he received representations from outside organisations—third parties—that it is a sufficiently lucid explanation? Although I am non-practising, I started my professional career as a member of the Faculty of Advocates. We were called on to do some distressing road accident cases. It will not be such cases that follow from the provision, but it is extremely important to get the definition right.