Vehicles (Crime) Bill

HL Deb 05 March 2001 vol 623 cc71-87

6.32 p.m.

Lord Bassam of Brighton

My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.

Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Bassam of Brighton.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

House in Committee accordingly.

[The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (Viscount Allenby of Megiddo) in the Chair.]

Clause 1 [Requirement of registration for motor salvage operators]:

Viscount Simon moved Amendment No. 1: Page 1, line 15, after "vehicles" insert "or any trailer or caravan".

The noble Viscount said: I wish to speak to Amendment No. 1 standing in my name and that of the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Needham Market. It is my intention to be very brief because I raised the subject matter of this amendment at Second Reading, as did the noble Baroness.

While it is right and proper to deal with the illegal acquisition and disposal of motor vehicles and their parts, there is a very lucrative trade in trailers and caravans and, as I said at Second Reading, some of the component parts of these trailers are very expensive and sophisticated. Consequently, I think that both trailers and caravans should added to the general description of motor vehicles.

Before coming to your Lordships' House this morning, I happened to watch a small portion of "Crimewatch Daily", a fairly new television programme concentrating on various criminal offences. In today's episode, there was a haulage contractor who had had one of his extremely valuable trailers stolen. The director being interviewed acknowledged that the value was substantial and that the very large trailer could be dismantled in two to three hours by those who stole the trailer. This is a perfect example of the scenario which my amendment seeks to address. I beg to move.

Baroness Scott of Needham Market

I put my name to the amendment on the basis that this is a vehicle crime Bill. However, from my reading of it, the Bill appears to concentrate on the theft of motor cars. Motor cycles and trailers are not properly covered, a point to which I shall return later. I support the noble Viscount.

Viscount Astor

I am rather worried about the amendment. I quite understand the concern of the noble Viscount, Lord Simon, about large trailers that are pulled by large trucks and are worth large sums of money. They are valuable and if they are stolen it is a considerable problem. However, I do not believe that the provision should be extended to any trailer or caravan, as suggested by the amendment.

I have a trailer at home that I use to take rubbish to the local council tip. If someone offered me £20 for it, I would probably sell it on the spot. It is worth nothing.

Viscount Simon

In the noble Viscount's example, the trailer is not being stolen. He is offering it for sale.

Viscount Astor

But if such trailers were included in the Bill, all the rules and regulations under Clause 1(2) would apply. It is patently silly for such trailers to be included in the Bill. It is patently silly that old caravans should be included. They do not have identifiable numbers. How would you know where one has come from? I imagine that large trailers pulled by trucks have on them the maker's number, but that is probably not a nationally recognised number. The trailer may have been made in this country or it may have been made on the Continent, whether inside or outside the EU. While I sympathise with the noble Viscount about large trucks, to extend the Bill in the way suggested would be wrong and would not make sense.

At Second Reading, my noble friend Lord Cope raised the issue of number plates on caravans and trailers which the Minister did not address when he replied to the debate. I ask him to address it today, as we are discussing trailers. As we know, number plates fall off the back of trailers. If Members of the Committee are as bad as I am at backing up their trailer, they will usually back it into something and one of the letters of the number plate will fall off. Trailers need lights, indicators and a legible number plate.

At Second Reading, my noble friend Lord Cope was concerned that there should be no restriction on number plates so that if one owned a trailer one could go into a garage or shop selling number plates and buy a number plate for one's trailer. One would not want to be in the position of being unable to use the trailer. The Minister did not address that point. It would be helpful if he could use this opportunity to do so. However, I cannot support the amendment as what it proposes goes far too wide.

Lord Bassam of Brighton

Amendment No. 1 would bring trailers and caravans within the scope of Part I of the Bill. Part I is primarily concerned with preventing ringing, where the identity of a stolen vehicle is disguised with that of a written-off vehicle and an insurance fraud takes place. We have had representations from the police to suggest that there are serious problems, but they are ones which mainly apply to motor vehicles. We have not had the same representations from the police to suggest that the same problem applies to trailers and caravans.

As Members of the Committee will know, this part of the Bill introduces regulations. We feel that the regulations are more than adequate to tackle the problem of ringing and insurance fraud. However, we do not wish to impose an undue burden on business by widening the scope of the Bill to areas where, frankly, there does not appear to be a problem, or certainly not a problem of a significant size or order. We have not consulted the police or industry about the inclusion of trailers and caravans and we would not wish to introduce regulations until we had undertaken a full consultation exercise.

The noble Viscount, Lord Astor, asked about number plates on trailers. I apologise for the fact that my noble friend Lord Whitty did not cover the point at Second Reading. What I can say to the noble Viscount is that legislation on motor vehicles as regards the regulations will also apply to trailers. I recognise that this may disappoint the noble Viscount, but that is how the legislation will work.

Viscount Astor

I rise to speak briefly in order to enable the Minister to gather a little more information. It would be helpful if he could explain what would happen if I had a trailer which needed a new number plate. What steps would I have to take? Would I need to show the registration documents relating to my car? How is this to work?

Lord Bassam of Brighton

I am not sure that I can answer that point. Primary legislation is already in place to enable registration to extend to trailers. In this Bill we shall make some adjustments to ensure that the new provisions regarding vehicle registration plates can be extended to trailer registration plates. That probably means that the noble Viscount might well have to follow procedures similar to those followed in regard to motor vehicles.

I should like to reflect on the point put by the noble Viscount. I am not sure that I have been able to provide him with an adequate response this evening. Perhaps he will allow me to take the point away and return at a later stage.

Viscount Simon

Unlike the Minister, who said that he had not consulted the police, I have consulted the police. It was on their advice that I have put forward the proposal that trailers should be included. Furthermore, I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, that caravans should be included here.

The noble Viscount, Lord Astor, said that no identification numbers are used on the component parts. A considerable number of large trailers now have microscopic identity numbers painted on to various component parts, along the lines of a VIN number. If they are retrieved, they can be identified as having come from a certain truck. The noble Viscount also said that his £20 trailer is fairly irrelevant. However, how does one separate small trailers from large trailers? The law cannot cover one type of trailer, but ignore other types. Furthermore, for a number of people, if even a small trailer towed on the back of their car was stolen, they would be very unhappy, as would the owners of caravans.

I thank my noble friend for his response. I shall study what he has said and I hope that we shall be able to have further discussions to see whether this matter should be pursued at a later stage. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 1 agreed to.

Clause 2 [Registers of motor salvage operators]:

Viscount Astor moved Amendment No. 2: Page 2, line 7, leave out subsection (2) and insert— (2) The register shall be in such form as any requirements may prescribe.

The noble Viscount said: This short and simple amendment seeks to remove the local authority's discretion to add to the contents of the register for its area. The register will therefore be produced in a centrally prescribed format. We believe this to be important in order to prevent over-zealous local authorities from increasing the burdens on small businesses. Furthermore, it will avoid confusion in the interchange of data between local authorities and other agencies, including the police and central government.

This will be an entirely new area of regulation. It seems sensible to provide that, throughout the country, the same rules will be applied. I beg to move.

Lord Bassam of Brighton

The effect of this amendment would be to impose a common format for the register for all local authorities. We do not think that that will be necessary. Local authorities keep many records and it may be that they would like to make this register consistent with others so that they will be easily recognised and understood by their employees. In addition, they may be able to make use of information being kept for other purposes and include a reference to that in the register, rather than repeating the content.

It is true that we may feel that it would be useful for all local authorities to keep some parts of the register in the same format, in particular if those parts contain information which would be shared with other agencies. That is why we have included a provision to allow the Secretary of State to prescribe certain requirements. We shall discuss the format of the registers with local authorities and, in conjunction with the Local Government Association, we shall provide joint guidance. We feel that this will help to ensure that the format of the registers will not vary widely between local authorities.

I hope that this meets the intention behind the noble Viscount's amendment and that he will feel able to withdraw it. We have in place provisions to enable us to get to grips with any variations that might otherwise occur.

Viscount Astor

I am grateful to the noble Lord for that reply. I shall consider carefully what he has said. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

6.45 p.m.

Viscount Astor moved Amendment No. 3: Page 2, leave out line 34 and insert— fees as are necessary to recover the costs of inspection only

The noble Viscount said: In moving Amendment No. 3, perhaps I may speak also to Amendments Nos. 4, 6, 7, 34, 36 and 37. All these amendments relate to fees and what is "reasonable". We all know that what is reasonable for one person might not be reasonable for another. Amendment No. 3 seeks to tighten the legislation here by stating: fees as are necessary to recover the costs of inspection only". Unless such a form of words is included, the opportunity for other costs to be added would be too great. All of us know that in these stringent times, local authorities tend to charge what they can. What they regard as "reasonable" may on occasion be what will satisfy their budgets. The amendment seeks to introduce an element of transparency which is not present in the Bill. Amendment No. 4 seeks to achieve the same end in subsection (10).

Amendments Nos. 6 and 7 introduce the same form of tightening of the language in Clause 3(1)(b) and (2)(a) by introducing where relevant the words, necessary to recover the costs of processing … the application". Similar to Amendments Nos. 3 and 4, these amendments seek to ring-fence the fees so that they remain reasonable.

Amendments Nos. 34, 36 and 37 relate to Clauses 18 and 19 of the Bill concerning the imposition of requirements as regards registration plates. Again, the amendments seek to narrow down the definition to ensure that the costs recovered relate only to the request.

All the amendments pursue the general principle of ensuring that charges are restricted to cover exactly what they are supposed to cover and are not extended to other areas. Furthermore, they should remain "reasonable" and reflect the amount of work undertaken. We believe that the test of reasonableness is not merely to state that aim, but to define much more clearly what the charges will be for. I beg to move.

Lord Brougham and Vaux

I have much sympathy with my noble friend's amendments. I cannot add anything to what my noble friend has said. I shall be interested to hear the Minister's reply.

Lord Bassam of Brighton

Amendments Nos. 3 and 4 would require the local authority to charge for inspection and copies of the register, but only a sum equivalent to the cost of meeting the request for inspection or copies. The fee could not be less, nor could it be waived, and the amendments would remove all flexibility—perhaps an unintended consequence of the noble Viscount's desire for transparency.

Clause 2 as drafted provides that the fee, if charged, cannot be set at a level higher than would be "reasonable". The ultra vires rule prevents government from raising more than costs through fees. In practice, the clause will allow the local authority the flexibility to vary or waive fees according to the circumstances of the applicant and its own circumstances.

Amendment No. 6 would require the local authority to charge for registration the amount necessary, if any, to recover the costs of processing applications only. No recovery of the costs of reviewing or cancelling registrations would be made, which could leave the authority severely out of pocket.

Amendment No. 7 would have the effect of requiring the authority to set any charge at the level necessary to recover the costs of cancelling registrations and maintaining the register. Clause 3 as drafted provides that the fee cannot be more than the "reasonable" costs incurred for administering the registration scheme, but could be less. It therefore creates greater flexibility and is more appropriate than either Amendment No. 6 or Amendment No. 7.

Amendments Nos. 34, 36 and 37 would have a similar effect on Clauses 18 and 19, which relate to number plate suppliers. As they stand, the clauses allow the Secretary of State to prescribe a fee for the disclosure of information from the register and the registration of a supplier. The level set must cover the cost of the request or application. However, the clauses do not make it mandatory that a fee must be charged. A power to charge a fee does not provide the Secretary of State with the power to trade—a very important point upon which the noble Viscount may care to reflect. Therefore it would be ultra vires to charge a fee which exceeds the cost of administering the request or application. This means that the prescribed fee will be set at a level to recover reasonable administrative costs only. It can go no further.

Although no detailed calculations have yet been made on the level of the registration fee, it is anticipated that the costs of registration may differ according to the size of the business. For example, a national chain store with multiple retail outlets necessarily would have a larger and more complex entry on the register than a small business operating from a single outlet. Further consultation with the industry is needed before making final decisions. We take the view that it would be a mistake to remove the flexibility afforded by the fee-charging power in advance of those consultations.

Amendments Nos. 34 and 36 are not necessary as the clauses already allow the Secretary of State to prescribe a fee to recover the reasonable costs incurred by the Secretary of State in connection with the administration of this part of the Bill. For the reasons already stated, Amendment No. 37 is not necessary and subsection (2) should stand to require the payment of the prescribed fee at the time of registration. With those explanations, I trust that the noble Viscount will feel able to withdraw his amendments.

Viscount Astor

The Minister's answers were helpful, particularly in regard to the latter amendments, and have put my mind at rest. I shall of course study carefully what he said. I noted with interest that he said my amendments would prevent local authorities from charging less. The chances of a local authority charging less are pretty remote; I doubt whether the flexibility goes that way. It may be, of course, that, in his experience of local government, the Minister found that authorities did charge less for certain services. I thank the Minister for responding to the amendments; I shall study his reply carefully. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendment No. 4 not moved.]

Clause 2 agreed to.

Clause 3 [Applications for registration and renewal of registration]:

Viscount Astor moved Amendment No. 5: Page 2, line 44, after "prescribed;" insert— ( ) shall be accompanied by a notification of the outcome of any application for registration by that person in that particular area, or in any other area of a local authority, in the preceding six years;

The noble Viscount said: Amendment No. 5 is a probing amendment which deals with applications for registration and renewal of registration. It is designed to ensure that a person seeking registration provides the local authority with the outcome of any previous application.

As I understand it, Clause 10 provides sanctions for the making of false statements but, at the moment, without seeing the prescribed form, we do not know whether applicants will be required to provide information of previous applications. It may be that my amendment is unnecessary but, until we receive some indication or confirmation from the Government of what applicants will be asked, the situation is unclear. The six-year period was chosen to cover two three-year periods. I should be grateful for an explanation, which may put my mind at rest. I beg to move.

Lord Bassam of Brighton

Amendment No. 5 would require applications for registration to be accompanied by notification of the outcome of any earlier such applications over the previous six years. In our view, it is unnecessary for the Bill to be amended in this way; it would make for inflexibility if that were the case. The noble Viscount has assured the Committee that this is a probing amendment and I am sure that he is not trying to inflict inflexibility upon us. Clause 3(1)(a) already provides for applications to be made in accordance with any such requirements that may be prescribed.

I am happy to confirm that there will be full consultation over the content of any regulations before they are made. We are more than happy to take on board the noble Viscount's point. Matters of detail such as those to which he has drawn attention in moving the amendment will be addressed at that point. We shall pick up the issue and I am confident that we can bring forward suggestions to cover his understandable concern.

Lord Brougham and Vaux

The Minister mentioned a period of six years. If it is a new registration, how can evidence from six years back be given when it has not even started?

Lord Bassam of Brighton

It is not my amendment; it is the noble Viscount's amendment. Perhaps the noble Lord should ask his noble friend that question.

Viscount Astor

Perish the thought that I should answer. I shall leave the answers to the Government. I am grateful for the Minister's explanation. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendments Nos. 6 and 7 not moved.]

Baroness Scott of Needham Market moved Amendment No. 8: Page 3, line 9, after "area" insert— ( ) notify the police and receive any representations that they may have occasion to make; and

The noble Baroness said: At Second Reading, I referred to some of our worries in regard to increasing the regulatory burden. I also explained that because of the rising tide of vehicle crime we were happy to accept some degree of regulation in the Bill. However, I am worried that, while bringing in a new regulatory regime and the associated bureaucracy, Part I of the Bill is rather weak in some respects. We may end up with the worst of both worlds; that is, some new regulation, but regulation which is not tough enough to do the job. It is against that background that I have tabled a number of amendments to Part I of the Bill and put my name to others.

As it stands, Clause 3 simply requires the local authority to create and keep a register. It makes a presumption quite rightly that an applicant will be registered unless the local authority decides that he or she is not a fit and proper person. However, it is not at all clear from the Bill how the local authority is to arrive at that judgment. While I am usually in favour of a high degree of local autonomy, I am rather concerned that in this case there ought to be consistency right across the country. In that regard I have some sympathy with the point made by the noble Viscount, Lord Astor.

It is also important that information is available across local authority boundaries. It strikes me that police records are probably the best way to achieve that. My Amendment No. 8, and Amendment No. 14 which follows on from it, seek to strengthen the Bill by ensuring that when a local authority is compiling the register it will notify the police of any applications it has received and will also take note of any comments the police have made on an applicant.

I am sure that it usually is the case that local authorities and local police work closely together and would consult. However, I should be happier in this case to see something on the face of the Bill. That approach would be entirely consistent with other kinds of local authority registers where it is common to conduct police checks before someone is placed on a register. I beg to move.

7 p.m.

Viscount Falkland

On behalf of the motor cycle industry, I support my noble friend Lady Scott. The noble Viscount, Lord Simon, mentioned caravans and trailers. However, under the Bill as drafted motor cycles in particular have been somewhat diminished in importance. Some criminals make a good living from stealing motor cycles. I declare an interest in that I was for 10 years the chairman of the MotorCycle Industry Theft Action Group. Over that period we have seen the rise and fall of the statistics of motor cycle theft. At the moment they are rising. We have not only the traditional kinds of motor cycles which are so popular in this country—sports bikes mainly—but we also now have many scooters and small machines which are popular as a means of commuting.

Recently criminals have had a field day with the smaller vehicles due to their owners' ignorance of the necessity properly to protect them. The police, and in particular the Metropolitan Police stolen vehicles squad, with whom I have had a close association over the years, have done a great deal of detailed and important work in this whole area. They have liaised with local police vehicle squads and also with Interpol.

As criminals make such a good living from stealing motor bikes and are relatively immune from prosecution because of the technicalities involved, they are anxious to keep ahead of the game. They do so in a sophisticated manner, even to the point of infiltrating companies developing new technology.

I support the point made by my noble friend Lady Scott; namely, that local authorities may not be aware—as, indeed, many motor cyclists are not aware—of the important work that the police have done and the amount of technology that has been brought to bear in this area. The help of the police will be invaluable to local authorities when they are making these decisions. I support absolutely what my noble friend has said. It is vitally important that local authorities take note of the expertise which has been built up by the police and that that should be recognised on the face of the Bill.

Viscount Astor

I make one brief point. There is, of course, a major difference between a motor cycle and a trailer in that a motor cycle has number plates and it is licensed. The point that the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, made about motor cycles deserves careful consideration on the part of the Government. However, it is an entirely different matter from trailers which are not licensed and do not have number plates.

Lord Brougham and Vaux

I may be entirely wrong but having listened to the Private Security Industry Bill from another place from where I am standing at the moment there seemed to be some relationship between the police and local authorities in that Bill. I wonder whether that could be reflected in this Bill.

Lord Bassam of Brighton

I congratulate the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, on his persistent representations on behalf of the leather-clad variant of commuting transport. He is certainly to be congratulated on the imaginative way in which he always introduces these matters at important stages of legislative consideration.

I pick up a point that is not immediately obvious; namely, that since the passing of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 there has been much closer cooperation at a local level between the police and local authorities. They work closely together. This legislation in part is designed to encourage that and to ensure that we have a war of attrition against vehicle crime. That is the background to the situation.

Amendment No. 8 as drafted reduces the flexibility of the Bill. It would require a local authority to notify the police of all applications for registration and renewal of registration of motor salvage operators. When considering applications we would expect local authorities to consult the police as a matter of routine as stakeholders, as it were, in the exercise of rooting out criminality in this area. It is our intention to have discussions with the Local Government Association so that we can include this measure in jointly agreed guidance on implementing the provisions of the Bill. As we see it, there is no justification for a statutory requirement.

Amendment No. 14 is not needed. It is not necessary to specify who should make representations. The local authority can receive representations from the police under the clause as it presently stands. Therefore, I think that the point is already covered. As we see it, there is no need to make further provision in that respect.

In response to another point which I believe the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, raised, I can tell him that motor cycles are covered under the definition of a motor vehicle under Clause 16(1). I think that that is probably understood. NCIS has a large project designed to tackle motor cycle crime which is an indication of how seriously we in the Government take the issue of motor cycle crime in general. In response to the point about the content of regulations, we shall be happy to place the regulations in draft on the Internet. We shall consult fully with businesses and other stakeholders. We shall be delighted to receive comments and in particular comments from the important lobby which the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, represents.

Baroness Scott of Needham Market

I am a little disappointed but not surprised. It seems to me that if local authorities are to consult the police as a matter of routine, it would not do any harm to make that clear on the face of the Bill. However, I shall not press the point this evening. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Baroness Scott of Needham Market moved Amendment No. 9: Page 3, line 14, after "applicant" insert ", or any person employed by him in the business or associated with him in the conduct of the business,

The noble Baroness said: In line with my earlier comments about strengthening Part 1 of the Bill, I have tabled Amendments Nos. 9 and 11. I refer to a situation where some kind of conviction might lead a local authority not to register an applicant. I believe that at the moment someone in that position could use an associate to make the application on his or her behalf. It is a case of people being "rung" rather than vehicles. I seek to prevent that.

My Amendment No. 13, which is grouped with the amendments to which I speak, seeks to ensure that particular categories of offence will be considered a bar to registration. The term "fit and proper" on the face of the Bill is rather vague and ill-defined. I understand that it will be left to the Secretary of State to define at a future date. I would prefer to be a little more specific on the face of the Bill and include a provision for people associated with an applicant to be included in the measure. I beg to move.

Lord Berkeley

I support the general tone of Amendments Nos. 9 to 13. Amendments Nos. 9 and 10, and Amendments Nos. 11 and 12, are very different. It is good to note that the Opposition parties cannot agree on the right wording. It is important to make the category of an applicant and any person employed as wide as possible to assist local authorities in their discussions with the police.

Should reference to work on motor vehicles, including bicycles, include the parts? It is important to include the parts in the definition. The noble Baroness, Lady Scott, refers to "parts" in the second but not the first part of Amendment No. 13. I am not sure why. My noble friend will no doubt explain that the provision is unnecessary or the matter is covered elsewhere. However, it is important to make the powers as wide as possible to assist local authorities in their tasks.

Viscount Astor

The noble Lord said that it was surprising to have two such different amendments put forward by the Opposition. What is surprising is that the amendments have been grouped together; they are somewhat different provisions.

The issue was discussed in great detail in the Commons Standing Committee. No doubt the Minister has studied the debate carefully. It will not help us to repeat the arguments. We are talking about the best way to achieve the principle underlying the amendments. The central point of our amendment is that the Bill allows employers to evade the new law by employing unsuitable people even though the employers may be judged suitable for registration by the authority. The Government need to take account of the issue.

During debates in Standing Committee, the Government did not satisfy our concerns. I am sure that the Minister has considered the issue during the passage of the Bill to this House. I look forward to the noble Lord's response.

Lord Bassam of Brighton

My Lords, accepting this group of amendments would mean that local authorities would have to determine not only whether directors of companies or members of limited liability partnerships were fit and proper to operate in the motor salvage industry but also all their employees and business associates—an extensive exercise which we feel would be an almost impossible administrative task. If a fit and proper test had to be carried out on all employees and associates, it would create a huge burden on local authorities and businesses. For instance, what would happen when employees leave a company and new people start? Would it mean that local authorities would continually update their information?

We believe that it is necessary for directors of motor salvage companies and members of motor salvage limited liability partnerships to have a "fit and proper" test. There is evidence of criminal activity within this industry. That is why local authorities with local knowledge will set standards for the industry by operating a "fit and proper" test. But directors are responsible for the companies within their industry and not their employees or associates. The same applies to members of limited liability partnerships. The effect of the amendments would be to add criteria to which the local authority must have regard when applying the "fit and proper" test when deciding whether to register an applicant. We do not feel that this is necessary. Local authorities will not be operating alone when deciding whether someone is fit and proper. More importantly, we shall be developing joint guidance with the Local Government Association to help local authorities to decide what should be taken into account before registering an applicant.

Under normal administrative law principles they should already take into account all relevant offences and matters, whether or not expressly specified in the Bill. In addition, if during the consultation period following its enactment, it is decided that some particular offences should be taken into account in every case—that is, it is decided that they will always be relevant for the "fit and proper test"—we have the power to do so through regulations by virtue of Clause 3(4)(b).

We do not feel that it is essential. We believe that the burden would be administratively excessive. In any event, it is possible for us to add specific offences at a later stage through regulation.

Viscount Astor

Before the noble Baroness decides what to do in relation to Amendment No. 9, perhaps I may respond briefly on Amendment No. 10. I am grateful to the Minister for clarifying the position. I shall study carefully what he said. I shall not move my amendments in this group.

7.15 p.m.

Baroness Scott of Needham Market

The purpose of the amendment was not to impose on local authorities the burden of having to check every employee, down to the person who makes the tea. If a local authority has information about one of the employees, my amendment seeks to provide that it should be able to take that into account when applying the "fit and proper" test.

The Minister has not accepted my other amendments. The amendments would be important with regard to working more closely with the police. If the police were aware that employees of a company had a record for vehicle theft, the local authority would then be able to take that into account. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendments Nos. 10 to 13 not moved.]

Clause 3 agreed to.

Clause 4 [Cancellation of registration]:

[Amendment No. 14 not moved.]

Lord Cope of Berkeley moved Amendment No. 15: Page 3, line 36, leave out "28 days" and insert "56 days without good cause or reason

The noble Lord said: Clause 4 relates to the cancellation by a local authority of a person's registration. That can occur if a person has not carried on business for 28 days. That seemed a rather short period. A person involved in such a business might be ill and away for a month. Business may be slack; he may not have been active in business for 28 days. To have his registration cancelled automatically at that time seems harsh. The amendment proposes: 56 days without good cause or reason". Sometimes there will be a good reason, in which case the local authority does not need to cancel the registration.

It is suggested that we should discuss Amendment No. 40 with this amendment. On page 12 of the Bill there is a similar provision with respect to registration plate suppliers. Again, after 28 days the registration is to be cancelled. There is no magic in 56 days but 28 days seems to us somewhat short. I beg to move.

Baroness Scott of Needham Market

I put my name to Amendment No. 40, although I also agree with many of the sentiments expressed about motor salvage. I was particularly concerned about the short period of 28 days for those issuing registration plates. Apart from the fact that that period could easily be accounted for by holidays or sickness, in rural areas it is entirely possible that a garage may not issue a registration plate over 28 days.

To show that our contacts on these Benches extend beyond those wearing leather, I have also had discussions with the caravaning fraternity, who tell me that during the quiet winter months many outlets do not sell a caravan and therefore fall outside the 28 days for supplying a registration plate. If they lost their registration, someone who bought a caravan the following month and wanted to register it might have to go a long distance to do so.

I do not understand why such a short period has been specified, how it will work in practice or what bureaucracy will be required to chase up the issue. Will people be sent a 15-page form on day 29 that they then have to fill in? I shall be interested to hear the Minister's reply to understand the issue better.

Lord Brougham and Vaux

I, too, support the amendments, mainly for the reasons given by the noble Baroness, Lady Scott. Caravans are very seasonal and cars are not sold all year round in rural areas, unlike in towns. There could be long periods when someone in the north of Scotland, for example, is not producing any number plates because nobody is buying any cars.

Lord Bassam of Brighton

Clause 4 provides that a local authority may cancel a registration if it is satisfied that a business has ceased trading as a motor salvage operator for at least 28 days. Amendment No. 15 would extend that period to 56 days. Clause 21 has a similar effect for number plate suppliers and allows the Secretary of State to cancel a registration if he is satisfied that the business has ceased trading as a number plate supplier for at least 28 days. Amendment No. 40 would extend that period to 56 days.

We consider 28 days to be a sufficient period. This is not a punitive measure. I do not understand where that view comes from. It is only a means of ensuring that the register is kept up to date. The provision is permissive. That is another important consideration. If a person had good reason for not trading for 28 days, the local authority or the Secretary of State would be likely to take that into account and would not exercise the power of cancellation. The Secretary of State must be satisfied that the business has ceased to trade. Before cancelling the registration, the Secretary of State must also serve notice on the person concerned and give him the opportunity to make representations. That will guard against cancellations based on misinformation.

As an additional safeguard, there is an appeal procedure under Clauses 6 and 23. In most cases, the Secretary of State or the local authority will learn of a cessation of business from the suppliers themselves. Suppliers are required to give notice of a cessation of business under Clauses 11 and 27. Furthermore, the use of 28 days is entirely consistent with the period for notification in Clauses 11 and 27.

Having heard those observations, the noble Lord ought to feel confident in withdrawing the amendment.

Lord Cope of Berkeley

I appreciate that there are some relieving provisions, if I can so describe them. The measure is permissive and there is an appeal mechanism. I am not sure that the Government have justified the choice of 28 days. That seems a short period, particularly for registration plate suppliers. However, I am not prepared to press the issue at this point. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 4 agreed to.

Clause 5 [Right to make representations]:

Lord Cope of Berkeley moved Amendment No. 16: Page 4, line 16, leave out "14" and insert "28 days nor more than 42

The noble Lord said: It will be sensible to consider Amendments Nos. 17 to 19 with this amendment. They all relate to what happens when a local authority refuses to grant someone a licence. It has to serve a notice saying that it is not going to grant the licence and giving its reasons. It then has to give the individual concerned time to make representations before the final decision is taken. I have summarised the provisions, but I think that that is broadly accurate.

The Bill provides 14 days for a person to make representations in favour of being given a licence. Amendment No. 16 would change that to not less than 28 days from the day on which the notice is served.

Amendment No. 17 concerns a slightly later stage in the process, when the local authority has to allow what is vaguely described as "a reasonable period" for representations. We have tried to tighten up the timetable by specifying the same period as in Amendment No. 16—not less than 28 days and not more than 42. If the local authority subsequently proceeds with its proposed refusal or cancellation, it must serve a notice on the person concerned informing him of its decision.

The local authority should not have an infinite time to make up its mind. This is quite late in the process, after the representations have already gone backwards and forwards several times. Amendment No. 18 would limit that period to seven days, to give the local authority a spur to make its decision promptly and put the chap out of his misery if it is going to insist on cancelling his registration.

Cancellation is particularly important, because it is an axe hanging over the chap's whole business. Cancelling his registration will put him out of business. It is slightly different from not granting registration in the first place. In the case of a cancellation, the local authority will be closing down a continuing business. It should not be allowed to keep him hanging on too long while it makes its final decision.

Amendment No. 19 relates to how long someone whose registration has been refused or cancelled should have to appeal. The Bill suggests 21 days, which seems very short. We have proposed 28 days for representations, so we believe that the same period should be available in which to decide whether to appeal. There could be legal matters involved. The person concerned could need to take advice before deciding. I beg to move.

7.30 p.m.

Lord Bassam of Brighton

The noble Lord, Lord Cope, has summarised accurately the effects of Clauses 5 and 6. Clause 5 deals with refusals and cancellations. Clause 6 deals with appeals. Amendments Nos. 16 and 17 aim to extend the period in which a motor salvage operator may make representations from 14 days to between 28 and 42 days. Amendment No. 18 aims to ensure that local authorities notify the salvage operator of their intent to continue with their decision to refuse or cancel registration as a motor salvage operator within seven days of their decision. Amendment No. 19 seeks to extend from 21 to 28 days the period within which an appeal may be brought to a magistrates' court against a refusal to register or renew registration or a decision to cancel registration.

With regard to the time limits set out in subsections (2) and (4) of Clause 5, we believe that 14 days is sufficient. It must be borne in mind that this is not a punitive measure but simply a means of ensuring that the register is kept up to date. However, if a representation is not made during that period, it is possible to make appeals under Clause 6.

The Government do not consider it necessary to impose a time-scale for service of notice of a decision to proceed with a proposed refusal or cancellation. We expect local authorities to be prompt with their decision and notification, and certainly we expect them to do so within a reasonable period of time. In addition, if notification is delayed, it must be taken into account that salvage operators will have a chance to appeal under Clause 6.

We consider that in all those circumstances 21 days is a reasonable period in which to bring an appeal. Before refusing or cancelling, a local authority is required under Clause 5 to serve notice of its intention on the person concerned and to allow him at least 14 days to indicate whether or not he wishes to make representations. If he indicates that he does, the authority must then allow him a reasonable period in which to do so.

In practice, at least 35 days will have elapsed between the notification of intention to refuse or cancel and the expiry of the period permitted for an appeal. In those circumstances, I believe that the time limits that we propose are entirely reasonable and more or less in line with other similar processes and procedures. For those reasons, I trust that the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment.

Lord Cope of Berkeley

I did not detect much in the way of argument in that reply; merely a statement that the Government consider that the time limits in the Bill are reasonable. However, that is the nature of the discussion on this matter. There is no way in which to decide objectively what is the right period of time. We shall reflect on what the Minister said. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendments Nos. 17 and 18 not moved.]

Clause 5 agreed to.

Clause 6 [Appeals]:

[Amendment No. 19 not moved.]

Clause 6 agreed to.

Lord Carter

I beg to move that the House do now resume. I suggest that the Committee stage should not begin again before 8.30 p.m. Perhaps I may also remind noble Lords who are to take part in the debate on the Motion in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, that we have allocated the dinner hour for this debate—that is, one hour. It would be for the convenience of noble Lords who are to take part in the Vehicles (Crime) Bill if that debate could be concluded within the hour.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

House resumed.