| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Hardy of Wath: I wish to refer to the points I made during consideration of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000. Two or three years ago I watched young children being allowed to ride motorcycles—and, sometimes, people old enough to have more sense and doing so in a dangerous manner—on the public highway as well as open country at great risk to themselves and to others as they were not insured.
I took the view then that the law did not provide the authorities with an adequate response to the problem. Several children in Yorkshire have died during the past few years through this activity. It is essential to send out a suitable message, which I believe is in the Bill. I suspect that the noble Viscount's amendment would be seen as weakening the Bill's intention. I am pleased that the Government have put effort into dealing with the problem, and I would not wish to see the effect in any way diminished by such an amendment.
Viscount Bridgeman: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, for pointing out that I did not speak to Amendments Nos. 287 and 288, which refer to the power to enter private property. We consider that these powers should be drawn as narrowly as possible. The new wording would require the constable to hold an objectively reasonable belief as to the whereabouts of the vehicle before entering private
property to search for it. That is particularly important where the private property may not be that of the vehicle owner. The aim of Amendment No. 288 is simply to avoid an argument as to whether the part of a property where the vehicle is thought to be situated falls within the statutory power.
Lord Borrie: My noble friend Lord Hardy of Wath has made an important point which bears on a controversy in which I have previously been involved with the noble Viscount. When he seeks to insert phrases like "reasonable cause to believe" and "make an objective test", he is hobbling the police officer involved. It is quite unnecessary. This is not some major interference with civil liberties; it is a very sensible power. If the constable believes that the car is in a particular place, why should he not exercise the power either to "seize" it, according to the Bill, or "take possession" of it, which is the preferred wording of the noble Viscount?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: The noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, has been helpful in his description of what he seeks to achieve by way of these amendments. I shall try to be equally helpful in my response, especially on Amendment No. 287. We are not convinced that Amendment No. 286 would add anything to the Bill or that it would provide additional clarification. The amendment would replace "seize" with the words "take possession of". It may be mere semantics, but we are not convinced that it would make the point of the clause any sharper. We believe that the clause is perfectly fit as it stands and that it adequately describes the new police powers. I welcome the support from my noble friend Lord Hardy of Wath, whose campaigning on these issues is well known. It is a nuisance that we urgently need to tackle, and I am pleased that we are now able to do so.
We believe that it is right for the clause to say no more than that the police should have the power to remove the vehicle in question. How the police arrange for that removal and where the vehicle is taken are, arguably, matters of detail. We shall set out such detail in supporting regulations, which is where the noble Viscount needs to turn his attention.
The regulations will be made under the provisions of Clause 53. They will cover detailed issues, such as the power of a constable to seize vehicles, the method of removing/seizing vehicles, the provision of secure storage arrangements for vehicles, the time periods before which and within which various actions can and must be taken, the identification of the vehicle owner, the manner of serving notice on the owner/keeper of the vehicle, the conditions (including means of identification) for reclaiming the vehicle, the fees to be charged to reclaim the vehicle, and, at some stage—perhaps when it is right and appropriate—the disposal of unclaimed vehicles. We need to look closely at the regulations. I invite the Committee to do likewise.
Amendment No. 287 relates to the police power to enter premises for the purpose of seizing a vehicle that has been misused in a manner that would be caught by Clause 52. It is right that the police officer would need
to have reasonable grounds for believing the motor vehicle to be on the premises in question—the purpose of the amendment—but that is not how the clause is presently drafted. We accept the principle behind the amendment. It must be right that the officer acts, at all times, on a belief that is reasonable.Parliamentary counsel wishes to draft more precise wording to reflect what I believe the noble Viscount seeks to achieve in his amendment. Therefore, with the assurance that we shall seek to offer a government amendment at a later stage, I hope that the noble Viscount will feel able to withdraw his amendment. I believe that that would be helpful to everyone. We promise to bring forward such an amendment before Report.
Amendment No. 288 would, ostensibly, extend the police powers to enter premises provided by the clause. As presently drafted, the power to enter is related to the premises where the vehicle is known, or believed, to be. The amendment seeks to allow the officer to enter the premises, or, "any part thereof". The term "premises" includes "any part thereof". It follows, therefore, that the amendment is unnecessary. Having explained our intentions, I hope that the noble Viscount will realise that we have already covered what he seeks to achieve.
Lord Swinfen: It seems to me that the Minister indicated that it is not the intention that the owner of the vehicle should be permanently deprived of it. However, when the noble Lord uses the word "seize", it brings to mind Customs and Excise officers seizing goods they believe to the contraband, with no intention of those goods being returned to the person who brought them into the country. I am not a lawyer, but I wonder whether the word "seize" actually means that the goods—in this case, the vehicle—will be permanently removed from the owner. Will the noble Lord reconsider the use of that word in the Bill?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My noble friend Lord Rooker has provided me with the answer to the noble Lord's query. It is a question of two different uses of the same word. I am sure that the noble Lord followed my response. I said earlier that there will be circumstances in which the vehicle is returned. Regulations will cover that situation, and a fee may well be charged to reclaim the vehicle. Therefore, we envisage that there will be occasions when the vehicle is returned. After all, as the noble Lord said, it is the rightful property of the owner—the person who is the keeper.
Viscount Bridgeman: I am most grateful to the noble Lord for his most helpful reply. I look forward to studying the amendments that will be brought forward. I am also grateful for his clarification that reference to "premises" does include "any part thereof". I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 287 to 290 not moved.]
5 p.m.
Clause 53 [Retention etc of vehicles seized under section 52]:
Viscount Bridgeman moved Amendment No. 291:
- Page 47, line 41, at end insert—
The noble Viscount said: This is a probing amendment. Presumably the new provision has its greatest impact on the person who works, pays taxes and owns a motor car outright. The clause appears to impose a power to forfeit the vehicle without compensation, irrespective of its value and the seriousness of the offence which led to its seizure.
Before such a power can be used, the taxpaying citizen, who is most likely to be affected by it, should at the very least have been convicted of a criminal offence in respect of the use of the vehicle, hence the amendment. Before the Secretary of State can start promulgating regulations to deprive a law-abiding and tax paying citizen of his property, the regulations should establish that the citizen in question has been properly convicted of a criminal offence. I beg to move.
Lord Monson: I strongly support the amendment. Although I warmly support the principle of Clauses 52 and 53, I believe that we must be careful not to go so far as to deprive individuals of their human rights—or what most people would consider to be human rights. After all, we are talking about vehicles whose value may range from a couple of hundred pounds up to £10,000-plus. I venture to suggest that to be deprived of such a possession permanently would be disproportionate in almost all cases. The financial loss involved would be well in excess of any fine that might be levied.
Even to be deprived of the vehicle temporarily could cause considerable financial distress if the period in question were too long. However, the noble Viscount spoke of permanent dispossession and I support what he has said.
"( ) The powers of disposal of vehicles under this Act shall not apply or arise unless and until the owner of the relevant vehicle has been convicted of a criminal offence in respect of the use of the vehicle which led to the seizure."
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page