HL Deb 05 March 2001 vol 623 cc109-22

8.57 p.m.

House again in Committee.

Clause 7 [Keeping of records]:

Lord Cope of Berkeley moved Amendment No. 20: Page 5, line 36, after "keeping" insert ", and submission to the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency,".

The noble Lord said: We come now to the question of the keeping of records by those individuals who will be licensed under the Bill as motor salvage operators. Clause 7 allows the Secretary of State to make regulations for the keeping of records by registered persons of the vehicles that they handle. Clause 8 allows the Secretary of State to make regulations to insist on registered persons notifying the DVLA of the destruction of motor vehicles.

There is sometimes a long period between a vehicle being taken off the road—either following an accident or when it has broken down—and the vehicle being destroyed. It is not always a quick process. Outside more or less any sizeable town, somewhere or other there is a breaker's yard with large numbers of old vehicles piled up. They are there for a reason; they are cannibalised and, over time, different parts are reused as opportunities arise. However, those cars, or parts of them, can also be used as the basis for creating illegal vehicles, which is the main concern of the Bill.

In those circumstances, we thought it wise to suggest that the regulations might provide for submission to the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency of vehicle records by the keepers. Often those records will be in electronic form and thus submitting them should be extremely easy. If they were submitted to the DVLA, then should the police want to check on a particular vehicle which has been involved in a crash and has been taken off the road but had not yet been destroyed, it would not be difficult for them to trace in which salvage yard the vehicle was supposed to be. As things stand, unless those records are submitted to the DVLA, then other than by visiting every salvage yard in their vicinity, it will be impossible for the police to trace the vehicle.

That covers the sole purpose of this suggestion. I beg to move.

9 p.m.

Lord Brougham and Vaux

I rise to support my noble friend on this amendment. The main benefit to be derived from this proposal would be to allow a police investigation of a suspect vehicle to identify that it had entered the salvage chain of supply and, if so where.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Lord Whitty)

The effect of this amendment would be to allow the Secretary of State to make regulations requiring all salvage operators to send their records to the DVLA. However, under the Bill, it will be the local authorities that will have the responsibility for maintaining registers of motor salvage operators, not the DVLA. As the noble Lord pointed out, the central objective of the Bill is to prevent the crime of ringing, whereby the identity of a stolen car is disguised with that of a legitimate vehicle. It is clear from the police and other bodies that ringing is a serious problem and that a significant level of crime is involved. Because of that criminal element, we have opted for a scheme that will be monitored and enforced locally.

Local authorities are in the best position to operate the scheme. If we adopted the amendment and the records had to be sent to the DVLA, that would in itself impose on both local authorities and the DVLA an administrative burden which we do not believe is necessary, since it would not help significantly to reduce crime. In order to combat ringing, the DVLA needs to know only about vehicles which have been destroyed. The other information—that which will be collected under Part 1—is of no direct assistance in that process. While it might be appropriate to inform the DVLA if the information would assist in fighting this crime, it is not appropriate to impose the requirement on local authorities and salvage operators.

I should also point out that at no point in our consultation did we consult business, local authorities or the DVLA on the prospect of the additional burden of supplying to the DVLA all the records kept by registered persons. I feel that this would bring in a new element which has not been discussed with the industry or the local authorities. I hope, therefore, that the noble Lord will not pursue the amendment.

Lord Brougham and Vaux

Before my noble friend responds, the HPI has said that a small benefit would be that the DVLA could then pass this information to organisations such as HPI so that the public can be put on notice about the possible condition and ringing implications should they subsequently be offered an exchange vehicle for sale.

Lord Cope of Berkeley

Towards the end of his remarks, the Minister used one argument which is totally unacceptable. He stated that the Government have not consulted on this proposal and therefore it should not be pursued. With respect, that is not an acceptable argument in your Lordships' House, because practically every amendment put forward concerns a matter on which the Government have not consulted. If the amendment were accepted, it would only permit the Secretary of State to make regulations. Ample time would be available in which to consult on the content of those regulations. If, at the end of the consultation period, the Secretary of State felt that a great deal of objection had been registered, at that point he would be able to decide not to proceed with the proposal. On this occasion, therefore, I do not feel that the Minister has put forward an acceptable argument.

However, the Minister's early remarks in response to the amendment went to the nub of the argument. In the light of his remarks, although I shall think a little further on it, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Brougham and Vaux

I declared my interest at Second Reading so I shall not declare it again tonight. However, I should tell the Committee that, in the 30 years that I have been in your Lordships' House, this is the first time that I have taken part in the Committee stage of a Bill. Furthermore, I have never proposed a Bill. I hope that the Committee will forgive me if I make a boo-boo on my amendments.

In moving Amendment No. 21, I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 23, 53 and 55. I can assure noble Lords that these are purely probing amendments. The reason for tabling this group of amendments is to invite the Government to offer guidelines to all the agencies that will be associated with the enforcement of the Bill. I doubt whether they will understand the text of the entire Bill. Indeed, I suspect that I, along with other noble Lords, am in the same position.

In Parts 1 and 2 of the Bill, offences are recognised and the scale of penalties recorded, but it is not, in my view, always clear who should be prosecuted. Will it be the company itself, the directors of the company or individuals who can be clearly implicated in a particular offence? By my reckoning, offences are recorded in 15 clauses. In all cases it would be helpful if the Government could respond to address my concern as outlined.

I sat on the Woolsack during the proceedings of the Private Security Industry Bill. I noticed that Clause 21 addresses the criminal liability of directors as follows: Where an offence under any provision of this Act is committed by a body corporate and is proved to have been committed with the consent or connivance of, or to be attributable to any neglect on the part of— (a) a director, manager, secretary or other similar officer of the body corporate,", and so on—I will not go on. Would it be possible to put something like that into the Bill to make it clear to people outside who, like myself, cannot read Bills properly or find them difficult? I beg to move.

Lord Cope of Berkeley

My Lords, I have sympathy with the amendment. There is confusion in the Bill between what happens when an individual, a sole trader, a partnership or a group of individuals are to be registered under the Bill and when a company is to be registered. This point runs through several clauses, including Clause 13, on which we intended to raise similar concerns later. It is difficult to know who will be held responsible within a company for carrying out the obligations which will have to be carried out by individual traders, a partnership or a sole trader. In particular, who will be held liable and who will have committed an offence if something is not done in a proper manner? Similar considerations arise with Clause 13.

As to this clause, after dredging up what little legal education I had in the course of gaining my qualification as an accountant, I can say that in those days "person" clearly included "body corporate". I do not think that it is the precise amendment moved by my noble friend that is required but an explanation of how on earth one will deal with bodies corporate if they are thought to have committed an offence. Who will get into trouble?

Lord Whitty

The point raised by the noble Lords, Lord Cope and Lord Brougham and Vaux, goes somewhat wider than the amendment. As the noble Lord, Lord Cope, said, the amendment simply explains that "person" includes "a body corporate". As the accountancy training of the noble Lord, Lord Cope, clearly taught him, "a body corporate" is included within the term "person". Were we to spell that out in the Bill, a different implication would be placed on a whole body of English law where "a person" actually subsumes the term "a body corporate".

As to the issue of directors' responsibilities when the body corporate is the "person" in question, under these clauses we would prosecute the company. In addition, Clause 39 allows for the prosecution of directors and officers of that company. The amendment relating to the spelling out of "including a body corporate" is contrary to legislative practice. It may be incomprehensible to lay persons—and even to such followers of legislation as the noble Lord, Lord Brougham and Vaux—but, nevertheless, that is the position. I suspect that the education in accountancy of the noble Lord, Lord Cope, pre-dated the Interpretation Act 1978, but Schedule 1 to that Act consolidates that position in legislation as guidance for us all. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Brougham and Vaux, will not pursue his amendment.

Lord Brougham and Vaux

I said that it was a probing amendment and I shall not pursue it. However, I should like to thank my noble friend Lord Cope for his remarks. I should also like to thank the Minister for putting on record what the term means so that people as ignorant as myself can understand it. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 7 agreed to.

Clause 8 [Notification of destruction of motor vehicles]:

Viscount Astor moved Amendment No. 22: Page 6, line 3, at end insert "or trailers

The noble Viscount said: In moving Amendment No. 22, I realise that I could be accused of being bizarre, as it were. On the face of it, the Minister could accuse me of putting forward a contradictory view on this amendment after listening to my argument on Amendment No. 1, where I argued against trailers.

However, while I disagree with the noble Viscount, Lord Simon, about his wide definition of "trailers", he made a reasonable point in relation to large trailers as opposed to small trailers, caravans and so on. The amendment allows the Secretary of State to make regulations with regard to the notification by registered persons of the destruction of trailers. The Government might consider that process. If they found a way of defining and identifying large trailers—which the noble Viscount, Lord Simon, was concerned about—they could make regulations at a future date with regard to the notification by registered persons of the destruction of trailers. I hope that the Minister will consider that. I beg to move.

9.15 p.m.

Lord Bassam of Brighton

In replying to this debate I could use the same speaking notes as I used earlier. They look remarkably similar and therefore I shall not use them. The noble Viscount referred to registration plates and towing vehicles. The present arrangements are that the towed vehicle has the same registration plate as the vehicle that is towing it.

The point that the noble Viscount made does not come within the scope of the legislation. It is a matter to which we are giving careful consideration. There are plans to register testable—that is, large—trailers. This is currently being discussed. We shall not have the opportunity to deal with the matter under this legislation. However, the noble Viscount makes a good point. There are trailers and there are trailers. We are confident that by dealing with the issue in terms of weight we may come up with a workable solution. We may have to address that matter by introducing a register. My reply does not precisely meet the issue which the noble Viscount seeks to address but I believe that it meets it in most respects. I hope that he will accept that and feel able to withdraw his amendment.

Viscount Astor

The Minister and I are moving in the same direction and perhaps towards the same goal. Clause 8 states: The Secretary of State may by regulations provide for the notification by registered persons of the destruction of motor vehicles". The amendment seeks to add the words "or trailers". If one adds the words "or trailers" or perhaps "and/or trailers", that gives the Secretary of State the opportunity to include them in the future if he so desires if there is a sensible way of categorising them by weight or by some other factor. Presumably we have to come up with some mechanism in the Bill so that if in the future the Secretary of State wishes to include trailers he could do so. I believe I am right in saying that one would have to amend Clause 8 to include the words "and/or trailers" to allow the Secretary of State to do that. I do not want to press the point now but I hope that the Minister might consider it between now and Report and that we can debate the issue again.

Lord Bassam of Brighton

We shall consider the issue. I believe that it is covered. However, I shall certainly consider the issue. If I can help the noble Viscount before we reach Report I shall write to him.

Viscount Astor

I am grateful to the Minister. We are thinking along the same lines and between us I believe that we have gone halfway to address the concerns raised by the noble Viscount, Lord Simon, and the noble Baroness. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendment No. 23 not moved.]

Clause 8 agreed to.

Clause 9 [Rights to enter and inspect premises]:

Viscount Simon moved Amendment No. 24: Page 6, line 17, at end insert "; or

  1. (c) any other premises that a constable has, with reasonable cause, to suspect to be used by a motor salvage operator in connection with motor salvage"

The noble Viscount said: It is perhaps pertinent to point out that the Bill as formulated deals with legally operated premises and allows a constable to enter and inspect registered premises. However, the Bill fails to deal with premises that, for whatever reason, are outside the system but still carry on the business of a motor salvage operator. It must be recognised that there will be those who choose to ignore the requirement to register. Yes, they can be reported for the offence, but why bother to register in the knowledge that any prosecution will take at least six months to be processed and that, in that time, the CPS can be convinced that the company has registered and will drop the case?

Therefore, all premises that are believed to be used for motor salvage must be subject to the same scrutiny, whether registered or not. Why should a police officer bother to visit the lawful premises when he cannot, with reasonable cause to suspect, visit the unlawful? This amendment therefore seeks to correct this anomaly. I beg to move.

Lord Brougham and Vaux

The noble Viscount, Lord Simon, makes a good point. I am content with his arguments.

Lord Bassam of Brighton

The proposed amendment is already covered under subsections (3) and (4) of Clause 9. The subsections enable a constable, after obtaining a warrant, to enter premises suspected of carrying on business as a salvage operator. To confer the right of entry in order to carry out inspections without a warrant at premises suspected of carrying out business as a motor salvage operator would be heavy-handed and unacceptable.

To uncover evidence of involvement in the motor salvage trade may well involve a search of the premises. Unregistered or suspected businesses are entitled to the same protection as businesses in general. A general search of this nature should be undertaken only with the authority of a magistrate.

We do not need the provision. We think that we are covered. We believe that the course proposed in the noble Viscount's amendment is unnecessarily savage. For those reasons, I hope that the noble Viscount will feel able to withdraw the amendment.

Lord Brougham and Vaux

While I am sure that many salvage companies are respectable, will there not be one or two rogues who might need a heavy hand? Are we still covered?

Lord Bassam of Brighton

The degree of roguery is hardly the issue. I have argued that we are covered in these circumstances.

Viscount Simon

I question one word used by the Minister. Why is the provision "heavy handed". What does my noble friend propose as an alternative?

Lord Bassam of Brighton

The clause already enables a constable to enter premises where there is a suspicion. We think that the noble Viscount's proposed course could well be described as heavy handed. However, the important point is that we are covered. That is the critical issue.

Viscount Simon

I am delighted to hear that. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 9 agreed to.

Clause 10 [Offence of making false statements]:

Viscount Astor moved Amendment No. 25: Page 7, line 1, after "recklessly" insert "or negligently

The noble Viscount said: The Minister knows that I am not a lawyer. However, I understand that there has been a considerable amount of litigation over the years on the definitions of "recklessly" and "negligently". The amendment is designed to promote a discussion about what the Government want to do with the legislation. "Recklessness" is usually defined in relation to a statement as, a state of mind which does not care whether the statement is true or false". I am advised that in Supply Stores v. Cloote and Regina v. Staines—I am sure that those cases will roll off the tip of the Minister's tongue—it was held that a deception, in order to be reckless within the meaning of the Theft Act 1968, had to be more than merely careless or negligent. There had to be indifference as to whether a statement was true or false. A negligent misstatement of fact is by comparison one made honestly but carelessly. "Negligence" means generally the breach of an obligation imposed by law to take reasonable care or exercise a reasonable degree of skill, but not any stricter duty, in carrying out any particular task.

I believe that the proposed amendment would increase the scope of the legislation. Its purpose is to promote a debate on the legislation. It is a probing amendment. It is an area where there has been difficulty as regards interpretation. The Minister's comments during the passage of the Bill could help the courts to interpret it when it becomes law.

I hope that that is not too convoluted an explanation of my amendment. Neither the Minister nor I is a lawyer and we have struggled to understand all the aspects of the Bill, but the definition of "recklessly" is important. I shall listen closely to his response. I beg to move.

Lord Bassam of Brighton

I recognise that I made an error this morning. Over tea and toast with my partner, who is a lawyer, I should have exchanged some observations about the meaning of "recklessly" as an alternative to "negligently". Next time I shall make sure that I bring Archbold or some other such legal volume.

The amendments would make it a criminal offence for a person negligently to make a statement that was false in a material particular when he applied for registration or renewal of registration as a motor salvage operator or as a registration plate supplier. That would be heavy-handed and inappropriate. That is why the provision applies only to knowingly or recklessly making a false statement.

The offence is aimed at deterring those applicants who deliberately or recklessly provide false information, not those who do so innocently, although negligently. That is the distinction. It is a question of an applicant being slightly wild in the way in which he provides information rather than doing so innocently but tending towards negligence.

I am not a lawyer and I have tried not to give a lawyer's explanation. Perhaps I should have sought legal advice earlier in the day.

Viscount Astor

I am grateful to the Minister for his response. He has answered half the question. There was slightly more to the difference between negligence and recklessness, but I am sure that he might get his legal advisers to consider the issue. If there is something that he and I have missed out in our short exchange, perhaps they will be kind enough to write to me before Report. That would at least clear up the issue in my mind. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 10 agreed to.

Clause 11 [Notification requirements]:

Viscount Simon moved Amendment No. 26: Page 7, line 27, leave out "level 3" and insert "the statutory maximum

The noble Viscount said: This is purely a tidying amendment. I do not see why the penalty for false statements should be different from that in other statutes. In recent statutes, false statements have attracted a statutory maximum penalty. This Bill should be in line with other statutes and should not set the penalty at level 3. I beg to move.

Lord Brougham and Vaux

The Explanatory Notes say: Clause 11 requires the person registered or applying to be registered to notify the local authority of any changes affecting the accuracy of information provided. Failure to do so will be an offence, although there is a due diligence defence". That seems to be in line with what the noble Viscount is asking.

9.30 p.m.

Lord Bassam of Brighton

The level is quite important. On the standard scale, the statutory maximum would be a fine of level 5 or £5,000. We believe that that is too draconian for failing to notify changes. Such a fine would put the offence on the same level as carrying on a business as a salvage operator while being unregistered. We believe that operating an unregistered business is the most serious offence. If we were not to tackle it, that would allow a person to carry on operating regardless of any regulations. That is why we have allocated such a high fine.

This amendment would also create an inconsistency in notification of changes under Part II of the Bill. Therefore, we need a proportionate response in order to induce and encourage and not one which we believe would be excessive. I invite my noble friend to consider that in those circumstances a fine of £5,000 would be excessive. I trust that he will feel able to withdraw the amendment.

Viscount Simon

I can understand my noble friend's response and, to a certain extent, I agree with it. However, I am trying to say that in a similar situation in all other statutes such an offence attracts the maximum fine. However, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 11 agreed to.

Clauses 12 to 15 agreed to.

Clause 16 [Interpretation of Part I]:

Earl Attlee moved Amendment No. 27:

Page 8, line 22, at end insert—

The noble Earl said: The Bill refers to the destruction of a vehicle. However, I believe that perhaps the destruction of a vehicle's identity is more important than the destruction of the vehicle itself. Members of the Committee may not be aware that in some cases vehicles stand in a vehicle salvage yard for many years while components are removed from them. Eventually, no salvageable parts are left. The body in the case of a car or van, and the chassis in the case of a lorry, is then sent away as scrap metal.

I believe that it is important to make provision in the Bill with regard to the destruction of the identity. I refer in principle to the vehicle identification marked on the chassis or the body; that is, the stamping of the vehicle identification number and, most importantly, the VIN plate riveted to the body. Of course, the number plate is irrelevant because, although it is useful for keeping records, it is easy to manufacture. We shall come to that point in later clauses.

Can the Minister say how the Bill affects the destruction of the identity of a vehicle? In the Home Office consultation paper, that seemed to be an important issue. I beg to move.

Lord Bassam of Brighton

Amendment No. 27 seeks to insert a definition of "destruction" in the interpretation section of Part 1. That relates to Clause 8, which empowers the Secretary of State to make regulations providing for notification by registered persons of the destruction of motor vehicles.

We consider "destruction" to be an ordinary term with a clear meaning. As such, it requires no further or additional definition. Defining it in the way that is proposed could cause confusion; for example, would removing the wheels of a car, perhaps taking off a wing mirror, removing hub caps or any such similar action fall within this definition? The amendment refers to changes which might make a vehicle unroadworthy in the future.

That definition will probably cause confusion—at first sight it could certainly do so. We do not want vehicles that are not literally destroyed to be notified to the DVLA. I begin to see the issue with which the noble Earl is concerned but the amendment does not come anywhere near grappling with it. The problem with which he is concerned and to which the amendment is directed is probably—I am speculating here—best dealt with in other ways. I shall think about the matter further. I do not think that the amendment's definition of "destruction" takes us towards a solution. I am grateful to the noble Earl for moving the amendment, which could touch on some important issues.

Lord Brougham and Vaux

The Minister is being kind this evening; this is a non-controversial Bill and we are trying to get it right. However, he referred to the removal of four wheels from a car. If that is not destruction, I do not know what is.

Earl Attlee

I am grateful to the Minister for his reply. The term "destruction" has an obvious meaning. Although it might not be helpful to include that in the Bill, does the Minister accept that the destruction of a vehicle's identity is more important than the destruction of a vehicle? He seemed to be content about the possibility that a vehicle in a vehicle salvage yard with a complete identity could be bought by another person. It is important to remember that some vehicles have come to grief as a result of a vehicle accident and have been notified as a total write off. DVLA will have a record of that; we will know that it is a problem vehicle. Equally, however, although some vehicles have been written off, perhaps as a result of a fire, there is nothing in the DVLA's records confirming that. We need to be extremely careful and ensure that the identity of a written-off vehicle about which no records exist is destroyed at the earliest possible opportunity. Does the Minister accept the need to destroy the identity of a vehicle in a scrapyard at the earliest possible opportunity?

Lord Bassam of Brighton

I certainly accept the noble Earl's point. However—I am trying to be helpful here—the amendment's definition of "destruction" does not grapple with the problem that he has identified. We can probably grapple with that problem in other ways. As I said earlier, I am grateful to the noble Earl for raising the matter. Clearly, there are difficulties in this regard. However, I do not think that the amendment solves the problem.

Earl Attlee

I have tabled quite a few amendments and I accept that this amendment does not precisely do what I had intended. I shall return to this matter—the destruction of a vehicle's identity—at a later stage of the Bill's passage through the House. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Baroness Scott of Needham Market moved Amendment No. 28: Page 8, line 26, leave out from "1(2)" to end of line 27.

The noble Baroness said: The amendment relates to the phrase, "motor salvage yard" and its interpretation in the Bill. The Bill specifically excludes any premises in which only parts of vehicles are kept. I am worried about that exclusion. The theft of cars in order to break them up into spares is not a significant contributor to vehicle crime, although it is significant with regard to the theft of motorcycles, because breakers buy parts from vehicles that have been stolen or because people buy whole stolen vehicles and break them up. That is not a theoretical problem. Only 14 per cent of the 25,000 motorcycles that are stolen each year are recovered, compared with 56 per cent of stolen cars. That graphically demonstrates the fact that the fate of most stolen powered two-wheelers is to be broken up.

I understand that the Government have specifically excluded spare parts because they have not consulted on that measure as part of the preliminaries to the Bill. On that, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Cope, that the fact that something has not been specifically consulted on does not mean that we should not consider it here. That would be significantly infringing our rights as a House.

I should appreciate some clarification from the Government as to why they have made that exclusion. I beg to move.

Earl Attlee

The noble Baroness has raised an important point, although I am not sure that she has gone about it in the best possible way. It seems to me that the word "salvageable" is suspect. It may be more accurate to use the words "salvaged components" because "salvageable" components could cover a whole range of things with no intention, necessarily, to resell them. "Salvaged" could relate to a dealer who deals in recovered engines. I believe that the noble Baroness is barking up the right tree and I support the way that she is going but it may be better to use the word "salvaged".

Lord Bassam of Brighton

I was thinking that we might move towards "savaged" components! The effect of the definition of "motor salvage yard" as drafted is plainly to require motor salvage operators to register premises where they carry on their business and to give the police a right of access without a warrant.

Where a parts store is located in a different local authority area from the one where the motor salvage business is registered, the Bill does not require the motor salvage business to register the parts store and consequently pay a fee and the police have no right of access without a warrant.

We do not consider this amendment to be justified. The police already have the power to enter parts stores which are located in the same local authority area as the registered business by virtue of Clause 9(1)(b). If the police have concerns that a parts store in another local authority area where the business is not registered is being used as cover for dismantling vehicles, it is open to them to seek a warrant in the usual way to gain entry and make investigations.

The noble Baroness, Lady Scott, raised the issue of matters on which there had been no consultation and which were being brought forward for discussion at this stage of the Bill. Of course, we are all at liberty to raise and discuss those issues in your Lordships' House. But with this piece of legislation, we are trying to establish regulation by consent. Thus far, we have published our plans and consulted on them. If we start to bring forward extraneous measures on which we have not sought to establish consensus, we are in some difficulties. But that does not preclude us from discussing those issues. Therefore, I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.

Baroness Scott of Needham Market

I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. I am rather disappointed and I am sure that my noble friend Lord Falkland will share that disappointment, as will his leather-clad friends, some of whom ride bicycles. I may return to this issue and I am grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, for his support. Although I fully accept that the Government have not consulted on this proposal, the motorcycle fraternity is very concerned and has made representations about it. I believe that those views should be taken into account.

We may return to this matter at a later stage and I should be very grateful for the help of those Members of the Committee on the Benches alongside me. But in the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

9.45 p.m.

Viscount Simon moved Amendment No. 29:

Page 8, line 38, after "access;" insert—

The noble Viscount said: In moving Amendment No. 29 I shall speak also to Amendment No. 30 standing in my name. The amendments are somewhat similar to Amendment No. 1, on which I was shouted down by my noble friend on the Front Bench. That drew attention to the financial gains to be made from the salvage of trailers and caravans. Amendment No. 29 seeks to define the word "trailer" and Amendment No. 30 seeks to add the words "trailer or caravan" to Clause 16.

As I said when speaking to Amendment No. 1, there is a lucrative trade in the parts of trailers and caravans. For that reason I want to include these provisions on the face of the Bill, notwithstanding the fact that I know what the Minister's reply will be in advance. I beg to move.

Viscount Astor

I seem to have become the trailer expert on this side of the House for this stage of the Bill. There may be a requirement for a definition of the word "trailer", but Amendment No. 29 appears to be entirely in the wrong place. It refers to the part dealing with roads, and trailers do not really have anything to do with roads. I do not understand how that would work. It does not appear to make any sense at all, but maybe I have misunderstood.

However, I believe that Amendment No. 30 raises an issue on which I have one question for the Minister. Should the Secretary of State decide to add trailers, as we discussed on an earlier amendment, it seems to me that there would have to be a change to Clause 8(1), which would need to refer to the destruction of motor vehicles or trailers. If it were to be inserted there, would we require a definition of "trailers"? If so, would Clause 16, where the noble Viscount, Lord Simon, has, in my view, rightly inserted it, be the place for such a definition? However, I do not believe that this is the right definition. Perhaps the Minister will consider that between now and Report stage.

Lord Bassam of Brighton

I was going to try to consider the matter between now and the time at which a response is provided, but I shall do my best with what I have.

The effect of these amendments will be to define trailers and to bring trailers and caravans within the description of "written-off vehicle". As the noble Viscount, Lord Simon, said, this is similar to the amendment discussed earlier that will bring trailers and caravans within the scope of Part 1 of the Bill. Let us remind ourselves what this part is trying to achieve. Part 1 is concerned with preventing "ringing", where the identity of a stolen vehicle is disguised with that of a written-off vehicle, and consequently an insurance fraud is committed. We have had representations from the police to suggest that these are serious problems, as I said earlier, but ones that mainly apply to motor vehicles. We have not had the same representations that suggest that this problem exists in relation to trailers and caravans.

We do not want to impose an undue burden on business by widening the scope of the Bill to areas where we do not believe that the problem is as significant. This is not something on which we have consulted the police or industry. For that reason, I do not believe that we want to introduce legislation of this sort and certainly we would not want to introduce it until we had some detailed consultation.

The noble Viscount, Lord Astor, raises an issue to which I shall not be able to provide a response this evening but I shall try to do so before we reach Report stage.

I trust that my noble friend Lord Simon will be able to withdraw his amendment.

Viscount Simon

I thank my noble friend for his explanation. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendment No. 30 not moved.]

Clause 16 agreed to.

Lord Burlison

My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resume.

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

House resumed.

House adjourned at ten minutes before ten o'clock.