Kitty
Ussher: I find those questions and comments very useful
and I shall start as the hon. Member for Putney requested by outlining
the purpose behind the Government amendments, which are technical in
nature. I will then address her amendment and the broader points she
raised. Amendment No. 313 is intended to put beyond doubt the
Government’s intention that the schedule should not apply to any
place within the curtilage of not only a dwelling house, but also a
mobile home or houseboat. That is because the word “it”
would be unequivocally inclusive of all those types of dwelling place,
whereas there is a risk that the existing drafting of “the
dwelling” could be incorrectly taken to mean only a dwelling
house. We hope that the hon. Lady will be able to support
that.
Amendment No.
314 simply corrects a drafting error—it is regrettable that we
have one, but a good idea to correct it. When a vehicle has been
incorrectly immobilised where a SORN is in force for it, the vehicle
will be released, but there is a discretionary condition under which
enforcement personnel can ask an individual to attest that SORN is in
effect for the vehicle. If there is a circumstance where this testimony
is sought and given, there should not be a need for the individual to
produce a testimony that they have already made, so the amendment
removes that requirement. I hope that that is
uncontroversial. 3.15
pm
Justine
Greening: Can the Minister tell the Committee how many
vehicles have been incorrectly immobilised in the past 12 months by
enforcement
officials?
Kitty
Ussher: I hope to be able to tell her shortly.
The hon. Lady
is right to say that amendment No. 315 is the most substantive of our
amendments. If it were not agreed to, the clause would give enforcement
personnel disjointed powers. They would have the power to immobilise a
vehicle, but they would not have the power to remove the vehicle if
immobilisation had failed to induce a response. Without the amendment,
the DVLA would be unable to deliver the policy intention as it relies
on a well established two-stage process of vehicle immobilisation and,
if required, subsequent removal, which is already practised on public
roads. It is not a change of policy but it should have been in the
original drafting.
On the hon.
Lady’s amendment No. 352, the clause offers protection against
vehicle excise duty enforcement in places that are intrinsically part
of a private dwelling. The amendment does not further define
“privately owned” and we feel that there are categories
of publicly accessible places that are privately owned. If the
amendment were permitted, we would not, for example, be able to enforce
on housing association roads or open land, including waste land, parks,
greens, retail facility car parks, municipal car parks and so on, which
are all privately owned yet publicly accessible. We feel that if a car
is left in a municipal car park, for example, it should be enforceable.
That is why we do not feel that the hon. Lady’s amendment works.
It would not help us to achieve our aim. It would also be extremely
burdensome for the authorities and, therefore, ultimately for the
taxpayer by requiring the ownership of the land to be checked in every
eventuality when a car that does not have a tax disc is found in an odd
place.
Mr.
Field: This is another example of the notion that it is
extremely burdensome for the authorities to make these checks in
advance. Surely the Government are looking at this in entirely the
wrong way. Citizens of this country have the right not to have a
privately owned motor car on private land immobilised, removed or
disposed of at the state’s behest without certain safeguards.
The state should ensure that such a car should not be immobilised for a
range of different reasons or for behaving in a particular way.
Individuals should be entitled to the freedom of owning a motor car
without a set of arbitrary provisions being applied by the Revenue or
other instruments of the state according to a range of vague guidelines
and safeguards.
Kitty
Ussher: The hon. Gentleman is trying to make a moral point
but he is rather missing the point under discussion. We are discussing
the Government’s policy—I am sure that it is welcomed by
Opposition members—that if a car is not used, no tax disc is
needed. The process for declaring whether a car is being used depends
on whether it is on or off the road. We are trying to define more
precisely how that policy is enforced. The hon. Member for Putney asked
some questions about our precise definition of
“curtilage” and about privately owned areas on which one
can park a car and consider it off-road. I am simply pointing out that
there is private land that is probably construed by any sensible person
as being on the road. It would not be sensible therefore to have
“private land” as our definition. We are using the word
“curtilage”, which I will define
shortly. It
is perfectly reasonable that we should seek to enforce if a car is left
on land that happens to be privately owned by, for example, a company,
such as a car park. That is different from a yard outside
someone’s house. That was my point.
Justine
Greening: This is getting to the heart of the issue. None
of us has an issue about dealing with road tax evasion, but the Bill
says nothing about the duties on enforcers to request access to a
private car park, perhaps from the owner, before going on to that car
park.
The Minister
may see that as burdensome, but, given that there will be other cars
and other people’s property in the car park, it does not seem
too much to ask for contact to be made before entry. I am sure that
most bona fide car park operators would be happy to co-operate in
bearing down on road tax
evasion.
Kitty
Ussher: I would be interested to know how companies such
as NCP would respond to the hon. Lady’s suggestion. Such car
parks are publicly accessible. Other examples of privately owned land
that is publicly accessible include housing association land, waste
land, parks, greens and shopping centre car parks. If the hon. Lady is
suggesting that tax disc enforcement personnel should seek agreement
from the company before stepping on to such land, she is not displaying
her party’s usual desire to reduce regulatory
burdens.
Mr.
Bone: This is a serious issue. I want to mention a
constituency case where someone went on holiday for about three months
and parked his car off-road on private land. Unfortunately, the
authorities took his car away and mashed into a metal box. He was
somewhat upset when he came back. He was more concerned about the tools
that were in the vehicle than the vehicle itself, but that is not the
point. There must be good safeguards against such things
happening.
Kitty
Ussher: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising a
case on behalf of his constituent. I do not know whether he has raised
it with me in writing or with the Exchequer Secretary, but obviously we
will be happy to assist if we can. However, it is not quite the point
under discussion.
I was asked
how many vehicles currently evade vehicle excise duty by parking
off-road. The most recent figure is approximately 150,000. That is from
2005 when local
authorities conducted a survey of unlicensed vehicles in local authority
car parks. In addition, DVLA frequently receives notification from
wheel-clamping partners informing it that unlicensed vehicles are being
parked off-road. When enforcement teams spot unlicensed vehicles in
public places they are currently unable to take action and the number
of vehicles is not recorded. I hope that
the hon. Member for Putney will realise that this is something worth
considering.
Justine
Greening: I understand the Minister’s point about
public car parks. Can she clarify what she means by public areas? We
all understand the point about going into a shopping centre car park to
have a wander round and check car tax discs. That certainly happens in
my part of London as part of a public duty to ensure that untaxed
vehicles are removed and do not take up parking spaces. Is that what
she has in mind? Or does she have in mind that these powers should also
extend, for example, to officers going on to private land, perhaps farm
land, fields and all sorts of land that does not have public access per
se, in order to detect road tax evasion? Is the concept of it being
publicly accessible the key part of the schedule that gives protection
to those who have private land and might not think that it is
acceptable for other people simply to come on to their land without
permission?
Kitty
Ussher: We have got to the nub of the issue now. The
amendment suggests the inclusion of land that is “privately
owned”. I am simply pointing out that I do not think that that
would be workable because it would include private land that happens to
be owned by a private entity or company—car parks are a good
example, and there are others. It does not follow from my rejection of
the hon. Lady’s amendment that I think that law enforcement
officers should be able to trespass on private land. I hope that that
offers clarification. We feel that we can deal with evasion on large
rural estates, for example, in other ways, and there are also
exemptions for agricultural vehicles, which I will address
later. The
hon. Lady asked what is meant by curtilage? The definition of curtilage
is quite narrow, so I want to make a number of points about large
private estates, which I hope will clarify our intention. Some of this
might also end up being tested through case law, but our intention is
to try to make it as clear as possible. The intention is that curtilage
should apply to places that are intrinsically part of a private
dwelling, and operational guidance for enforcement personnel will
reflect that. The places should be intrinsically part of a private
dwelling, which I think answers her point. Obviously, a garage or
parking bay might be considered part of a dwelling if it is near it and
was bought and sold with the dwelling. That partially answers the point
about a garage that is owned and is part of the estate of a property
but is not completely next door to it, even if they are separated by
land or buildings not owned by the householder. I hope that that will
provide some clarity for city and town dwellers. As I said, it would
ultimately be for the courts.
Curtilage
around flats that lie beyond the public road would be treated as
follows: the approach roads will be subject to enforcement as they
would if they were part of the public road network, but parking areas
and spaces around a block of flats, for example, will be
treated as being within curtilage and therefore beyond enforcement
reach. I will be happy to consider any other specific
examples. With regard to
the effect on the agricultural community and the question of whether it
would be possible to wheel clamp a vehicle on farm land without
permission, the measure will affect unlicensed vehicles that are parked
on agricultural land. The exception to that would be the land lying
within the cartilage or vicinity of a private dwelling that is not
normally used within that dwelling. Of course, there is already a 1.5
km distance-based nil rate for vehicles used on the land, and that
applies to any vehicle used in that way. That can include a Land Rover,
a quad bike and a four-wheel drive, light utility truck, such as a
Unimog—I am learning all sorts of new things, although I do not
have one myself.
Justine
Greening: I thought that it perhaps might have been a cat
with only one leg, but I am assured otherwise by that
clarification.
Kitty
Ussher: I think that the hon. Lady’s comment speaks
for
itself. Other
agricultural and horticultural vehicles that have specific nil-rate
eligibility in existing legislation include all tractors and other
motorised agricultural implements such as mobile crop sprayers—I
am going into detail to show that we are trying to draw this clearly.
Of course, vehicle keepers in the agricultural community who use their
vehicles on the land and only traverse a public road for a short
distance, as is the case when their fields are on both sides of a road,
are eligible to license their vehicles at a nil rate. I have probably
addressed the main points, so unless the hon. Lady feels that I have
missed something, perhaps I have reassured her on the points she
raised. 3.30
pm
Justine
Greening: The Economic Secretary has provided some
reassurance on some of my concerns, and I take her point about the
distinction between public and private. I understand her concerns about
my amendment. She has gone some way to allaying my fears by clarifying
the access issues, particularly with regard to farm and agricultural
property. I beg to ask leave to withdraw amendment No.
352.
The
Chairman: The hon. Lady does not need to, as it has not
been moved, although we have discussed it. I accept that she will not
be seeking a Division on that
amendment. Amendment
agreed to.
Amendments
made: No. 314, in schedule 45, page 417, line 12, leave
out ‘is so
produced’. No.
315, in
schedule 45, page 417, line 41, at
end insert— ‘(2A) In
sub-paragraph (2), after “direction, may” insert
“enter the place and”.’.—[Kitty
Ussher.] Schedule
45, as amended, ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Clause
140Rates
for new lower-emission
vans Question
proposed, That the clause stand part of the
Bill. 3.30
pm
Justine
Greening: Clause 140 relates to rates for new
lower-emission vans. It essentially accommodates the fact that it is
now mandatory for lower-emission vans to be in the Euro 4 class and,
therefore, will no longer get a lower VED rate. However, my
understanding is that if they were registered between 1 March 2003 and
31 December 2006 and are Euro 4-compliant, they will continue to get
the reduced rate of vehicle excise duty. Vans purchased after 2009 will
not, hence my question. From the start of 2009, Euro 5 and Euro
6-compliant vehicles will get the reduced vehicle excise duty rate
until the start of 2010. Then, Euro 5 and Euro 6 standards, like Euro
4, will themselves become mandatory.
My question is
about vans that have been bought since 2007 and in 2008. Euro 4 vans
bought after 13 December 2006 will not, apparently, get the reduced
rate of £120. It is not clear to me why the Government have
taken that approach. I understand the policy on vans bought after 2009
and onwards and the policy on low-emission vans bought before 2007, but
can the Minister clarify the rate for people who bought Euro
4-compliant vans that were or will be registered between 1 January 2007
and 31 December 2008. Will they be paying the full rate of vehicle
excise duty for light goods vehicles or will they be getting the
reduced
rate?
Kitty
Ussher: That might have seemed mysterious to members of
the Committee who did not understand the context. For their benefit I
will explain briefly, and then come to the hon. Lady’s
question. The
clause concerns rates for new low-emission vans. It provides for the
introduction of a reduced rate of VED from 1 January 2009 for diesel
vans that comply with the Euro 5 emissions standard. Although that
standard is in force, it is not yet mandatory. Consumers therefore have
a choice when selecting a new van, between models that have been built
in conformity with the current mandatory standard Euro 4 and those
built to comply with the more stringent Euro 5 emissions standard,
which had been established through an EU regulation. That regulation
gives member states the scope to use incentives to encourage early
take-up, ahead of the standard’s mandatory
introduction. To
meet the Euro 5 emissions standard, comparatively larger emission
reductions are demanded from diesel vans than from petrol vans. That
provides the Government with the grounds for an incentive to help
deliver air quality gains—compared with earlier technology
diesel vans—from reduced omissions of nitrous oxides and
particulate matter. The reduced rate of VED is therefore intended to
encourage early take-up of Euro 5 compliant diesel vans, ahead of Euro
5’s mandatory introduction in 2011. The reduced rate will be
£120 on introduction, and will remain for the lifetime of the
van. EU
law does not allow the Euro 4 incentive after 2007, and DVLA cannot
bring in an incentive for Euro 5 before 2011. The standard only came
into force in late
2007, so we could not give any incentive for Euro 5 before that. I hope
that that answers the hon. Lady’s
question. | 
