---

Viscount Bridgeman: I thank the Minister for his reply. We shall read it carefully. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendments Nos. 275 to 277 not moved.]

Clause 49 agreed to.

Clause 50 agreed to.

Clause 51 [Equivalent provision for offences connected with transport systems]:

[Amendments Nos. 278 to 281 not moved.]

Clause 51 agreed to.

Clause 52 [Vehicles used in manner causing alarm, distress or annoyance]:

Viscount Simon moved Amendment No. 282:

Page 46, line 31, at beginning insert "Subject to subsection (8A) below,"

The noble Viscount said: Before the House was formed into a Committee I advised my noble friend the Minister that I did not intend to move this amendment. That is because those who asked me to table it asked me at 1.30 p.m. not to speak to it. However, I shall speak to Amendment No. 290 standing in my name. Clause 52 addresses the problem of the unsocial use of vehicles. We are all aware of the doctored noise exhaust systems and the entertainment systems, if I may use that word, going "boom, boom boom". In these enlightened times there are those who might well regard emergency vehicles as a source of annoyance, especially those living on main routes to or from a fire station, hospital or police station. Amendment No. 290 seeks to exclude emergency vehicles from the clause. I beg to move.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: Perhaps it would help if I explained the purpose of Clause 52. The clause gives the police the powers they need to tackle the anti-social use of motor vehicles to which the noble Viscount referred. Each decision by the police to exercise those powers will obviously turn on the facts they find when confronted with that situation. We take the view that rather than laying down blanket exemptions on the face of the legislation, we should trust the police to exercise their discretion operationally as to when seizing a vehicle would be appropriate.

As a consequence we do not expect the police to exercise their powers to stop and search in respect of emergency vehicles being used for legitimate purposes or others who may be using their vehicles to deal with

12 Mar 2002 : Column 713

a genuine emergency. We believe that we have the matter right as it is and we do not see any particular need for the amendment, although clearly the noble Viscount has moved it in an attempt to be helpful.

Viscount Simon: I thank my noble friend for his reply. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Viscount Bridgeman moved Amendment No. 283:

Page 46, line 33, leave out "or 34" and insert "4, 5, 34 or 103(1)(b)"

The noble Viscount said: In moving this amendment I shall also speak to Amendment No. 285. As currently drawn, the new provision gives a power to seize in respect of the acts falling within Section 1, to which the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, has referred, whenever they may have been committed after the Act came into force.

One asks why the question is so wide. If the new provision, which will have a real impact only on the owner of a car that is free from hire purchase obligations, has to be included, what is the possible justification for the provision of no time limit for prior acts grounding the right to seize? It has to be limited in some way and we suggest that four weeks is a reasonable period. I beg to move.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: We have some sympathy with these amendments. We concede that they would usefully add to the circumstances in which a police officer would be able to stop and to seize a motor vehicle. But Clause 52 is about strengthening police powers to tackle the problem of motor vehicles, particularly cars and motorbikes, being used in a manner which causes nuisance or distress to others. It is for that reason that we intend to limit the powers to situations where a police officer believes that an offence under Section 3 of the Road Traffic Act is being committed, which is where a vehicle is being driven on a public road without due care and attention or proper consideration for others or where it seems that there is an offence under Section 34 of the Act, which is where the vehicle is being driven illegally off-road—for example, on private land— without the landowner's permission.

The sort of mischief that we are aiming to get at is the use of public roads around housing estates as illegal race tracks or the riding of motorbikes across public parks, village greens or the countryside. That is exactly the kind of mischief with which many of us in public life, particularly in local authorities, have been desperate to deal for a long time. It has given me pain and concern in the past as no doubt it has to the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, as a representative of the local government world, in the past.

Drink and drugs driving, driving contrary to a disqualification and uninsured driving are altogether more serious matters and go well beyond the nuisance that we are concerned with here. We believe that the police already have the powers that they need to tackle these offences. It is already the case that where a driver

12 Mar 2002 : Column 714

is suspected of being over the drink-drive limit—for example, after failing a roadside breathalyser test—or being suspected of driving while disqualified, then the police will take the necessary steps to ensure that the person does not continue to drive on a public road.

The motor insurers recently established a database, which the Government fully supported. We believe that it will lead to a significant reduction in uninsured driving as the police are now able to query insurance details immediately from the roadside. Police inquiries to the database are currently running at about 22,000 per day. That is a staggering statistic. We believe that Amendments Nos. 283 and 284 confuse these quite separate matters.

I turn to Amendment No. 285. We are not convinced about the wisdom of setting an arbitrary time limit to the application of the police powers provided by subsection (2) of the clause. Subsection (2) allows the police officer to exercise the power to stop and, where appropriate, to seize a vehicle where it is not, at that time, being driven in a manner that subsection (1) is intended to catch. That is because the powers in subsection (1) are what one might describe as being of an immediate nature. The officer must have reasonable grounds for believing that the vehicle is being used in the offending manner.

Inevitably, there will be circumstances where the police officer cannot exercise the powers at the time that the mischief is being done; for example, where the officer is on foot and the vehicle simply roars away from him at high speed. In such circumstances, the officer must be able to exercise the power at a later stage when the person concerned has been apprehended. We believe that that is important in achieving the purpose of the clause and in ensuring that the new powers act as a real and effective deterrent.

What is the purpose of setting a time limit for this? We would of course expect that the powers in subsection (2) should be exercised as soon as possible after the event in question. That is a reasonable assumption to draw. But that may not always be possible. To ensure that we do not add anything here which may subsequently amount to unforeseen or unnecessary barriers to the effective and sensible practical operation of these important new police powers, we consider it right to leave open-ended the question of time limits for the exercise of the powers in subsection (2), rather than to set some arbitrary time limit which would be the effect of this amendment. We want to get at the offence and the time limit could prevent effective police action in achieving that objective. I am sure that the noble Viscount sees the good sense of that argument.

Viscount Bridgeman: I wish that I could agree unconditionally with the noble Lord, Lord Bassam. Noble Lords on all sides of the Committee share his concerns about the nuisance that vehicles can cause. However, we are not convinced about the removal of the time limit. We shall study very carefully the noble Lord's remarks in Hansard. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

12 Mar 2002 : Column 715

[Amendments Nos. 284 and 285 not moved.]

Viscount Bridgeman moved Amendment No. 286:

Page 46, line 44, leave out paragraph (b) and insert—

"( ) power to take possession of the motor vehicle and remove it to a police property centre or car pound;"

The noble Viscount said: This amendment seeks to clarify whether the Government are seeking to acquire too much power in respect of the removal of vehicles. Surely that only needs to be confined to removing the vehicle pro tem. On the face of it, the provision seems to suggest that there is something akin to a power to seize and to sell the asset. I presume that that is not the Government's intention. I would welcome the Minister's reassurance. I beg to move.

Lord Borrie: The noble Viscount has not referred to the other amendments with which this is grouped, so, I, too, shall confine my remarks to Amendment No. 286. The noble Viscount has not explained why he wishes to substitute for the word "seize" the phrase "take possession of"; indeed, they may have the same meaning. If the word is altered, then, consequentially, the words in subsection (4) will also need to be changed. The noble Viscount seeks to confine the removal of a vehicle to,

"a police property centre or car pound".

I suppose that the latter are the most obvious places to take such vehicles, unless they are full. I am not sure whether we can really deal with this amendment on its own when there are others with which it has been grouped.

---