VEHICLE EXCISE DUTY

HC Deb 04 July 2002 vol 388 cc437-9

Mr. Bercow

I beg to move amendment No. 25, in page 13, leave out lines 41 and 42.

Madam Deputy Speaker

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 26, in schedule 5, page 135, leave out from beginning of line 38 to end of line 2 on page 136.

No. 27, in page 136, line 4, leave out from "vehicle" to end of line 6.

No. 28, in page 136, line 8, leave out "or (1A)(a)".

No. 29, in page 136, line 14, leave out "or (1A)(b)".

No. 30, in page 136, line 20, leave out "or (1A)(b)".

No. 31, in page 136, line 25, leave out "or (1A)(a)".

No. 32, in page 136, line 28, leave out "or (1A)(b)".

No. 33, in page 136, line 31, leave out "or (1A)(a)".

No. 34, in page 136, line 35, leave out "or (1A)(a)".

Mr. Bercow

I am in the mood for brevity, Madam Deputy Speaker, as you have become aware over the past 24 hours. Other right hon. and hon. Members may wish to contribute to the debate. I should like to remind the Economic Secretary of the interest taken in this subject in Committee by my hon. Friends the Members for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) and for Arundel and South Downs (Mr. Flight). That interest was reflected in speeches from other political parties.

Our concern all along has been about the ambiguity, if not impenetrability, of clause 19 in its unamended form and of schedule 5. Specifically, we wish to see in the Bill, as my hon. Friends previously indicated, a declaration of a nil rate vehicle excise duty for vehicles that are neither used nor kept on the public highway. We do not dispute the need to charge back VED on things that may have been vehicles if, and only if, it can be proved that they were used or kept unlicensed at one time on a public road. The terms "unregistered" and "unlicensed" could be used to clarify what the Government are aiming at. Unless there is a specific declaration in terms in the Bill that people who are manifestly innocent cannot end up copping it simply because there is no one else able to foot the bill, the concern of reputable organisations will persist that there could be unintended consequences and financial penalty resulting from the way in which, no doubt inadvertently, the clause is drafted.

I am also aware, as no doubt other hon. Members are, that the Government have provided themselves with their old and favourite facility: the statutory instrument. If memory serves me correctly, they are in a position to proceed on this matter through their preferred route, the negative—as distinct from the affirmative—resolution procedure. While on the subject of ambiguity and impenetrability, I am conscious of a certain irony and I owe it to the House and, more important perhaps, to people outside the House, to underline the significance of the difference between the two.

3.15 pm

If there is an affirmative resolution procedure and the regulations, which in due course are forthcoming, are subject to debate on the Floor of the House, however inadequate and truncated that debate might be, we shall at least have the opportunity to see whether the spirit to which we think the Government during the Committee and Report stages have committed themselves, is reflected in the terms of the regulations. If, however, we are to be fobbed off—I hesitate to use that term in relation to the Economic Secretary, because he is a decent cove—with the negative resolution procedure, there will not be another opportunity to debate this matter and we have to take the Government purely at their word—the Government purely at their word in terms of what they say and of their capacity to ensure the equity as well as the intelligibility of the regulations.

Once again I therefore ask the Minister whether he recognises that there is a case for ensuring that only people who are guilty will face a charge and that those who have not possessed a vehicle for a long time and are thus in no sense liable for its current whereabouts will be faced with a VED charge back. That is what we want to know. It seems a reasonable request. It is not necessary to go to the wall on it, but I am not persuaded that my hon. Friends' efforts have met with the fair result that they wanted and that the Automobile Association and other organisations have a right to expect.

John Healey

The amendments would stop the registered keepers of vehicles which ceased to be mechanically propelled from being liable for their vehicle. That would not help to tackle the abandoned vehicles problem, but it would undermine the integrity of the vehicle database that we are seeking to reinforce, and the whole thrust of our policy that those who abandon their cars are more easily called to account and made to pay would be undermined.

The purpose of clause 19 and schedule 5 is to reduce the number of abandoned cars and to deal with VED evasion by improving the quality and integrity of the vehicle records that we keep through ensuring that the registered keepers retain liability for their vehicles until they notify the DVLA of a change in circumstances. Were the amendments successful, the registered keeper could abandon their vehicle and avoid their fiscal responsibilities for the vehicle simply by disabling it. That would not help us tackle the problem of abandoned vehicles but would undermine the thrust of our policy.

The hon. Gentleman was concerned, as he said in rather colourful language, about innocent people "copping it". The schedule already contains clear exemptions from the new offence of being the keeper of an unlicensed vehicle. These include circumstances in which the vehicle has been stolen, the DVLA has been notified of its disposal or that it has been scrapped, and the vehicle has been taken off the road and a statutory off-road notification has been made.

The schedule also allows for new exemptions to be made through secondary legislation if necessary. The hon. Gentleman might see this as a strength, rather than a weakness. It could be the outcome of the discussions and consultations that the Government are conducting with stakeholders, including the AA, on the best way to implement the provisions.

Let me again give the assurance that clause 19 and schedule 5 will not affect the current exemptions for pre-1973 vehicles and that the current system of statutory off-road notification will remain in place. On that basis, I ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the amendment.

Mr. Bercow

I fear that the Minister has said his final word on the matter. I do not dispute the fact that the regulations could provide an opportunity to give reassurance to the AA, the DVLA and other organisations that may not be convinced that the clause is as fair, or will prove to be as judicious, as Ministers suppose.

The Minister and the Paymaster General will be aware of my deep attachment to the affirmative procedure. I am very suspicious of the negative procedure. It is always supremely ineffective for Ministers to say, "Ah, but it happened when your lot were in power." I always reply, "I wasn't here, I didn't know, I'm not responsible, I couldn't care less, I won't be held to account. I will deal with that for which we are responsible now, rather than that which was ostensibly done in our name at some time in the past when I was busily completing my A-level studies." If there were to be a proper debate on the Floor of the House at a later date, we would have the chance to put to the test what the Minister is inviting us to accept on trust.

I know that hon. Members will want to move on to consideration of the amendments relating to controlled foreign companies and a number of other important matters, so, in my usual genteel and understated fashion, I will accept the Minister's assurances and not press the matter any further. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.