| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Bassam of Brighton: I can understand the spirit and intention behind the amendment, which is to save owners from costs incurred by arbitrary seizure or disposal of a vehicle when nothing of a criminal nature is proved against them.
We argue that the amendment is unnecessary. The removal, retention, release and disposal of vehicles will, as I said in a previous debate, be subject to regulation. We will want to ensure that the regulations take full account of the considerations and circumstances to which the noble Viscount has given some thought. There is proper compliance with the human rights legislation, to which the noble Lord, Lord Monson, drew attention, and provision to avoid embroiling the police in unnecessary civil proceedings.
We will give the regulations careful thought. We argue that it is inappropriate to constrain them by putting such a provision on the face of the Bill. We intend to protect the wholly innocent owners who were not using a vehicle when it was seized, did not know of or consent to its use and could not have stopped it being used. Clause 53(2) provides that the regulations must waive any charges that such owners might otherwise incur.
I hope that that explanation offers reassurance to Members opposite. The regulations will clarify the circumstances in which the police will be able to dispose of a vehicle which is not claimed by its owner. We will make matters plain when we have published the regulations and no doubt there will be an opportunity to view them. There will be consultation on their detailed content, which will cover some of the concerns that have understandably been raised today.
Viscount Bridgeman: I am grateful to the Minister for the reassurance that the regulations will meet our requirements. In those circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Viscount Bridgeman moved Amendment No. 292:
- Page 47, line 46, leave out "may" and insert "shall"
The noble Viscount said: I rise to speak to Amendments Nos. 292, 294, 295 and 297. Other amendments in the group stand in the name of the noble Viscount, Lord Simon. Amendment No. 297 refers to,
- "The burden of proof in any proceedings [lying] on the party who has seized or detained the vehicle, and not on the owner or person with a right to possession of and interest in the same".
Viscount Simon: I want to speak to Amendments Nos. 293 and 296 standing in my name. Amendment No. 293 is aimed at those people who have had their vehicle confiscated under an anti-social behaviour order. The amendment is explanatory in that in order for someone to recover their vehicle after it has been confiscated under such an order, it will be necessary for that person to prove that he already has the necessary certificate of insurance for it. In other words, he will not be able to drive away uninsured.
Amendment No. 296, which is almost a continuation of the amendment to which I have just spoken, also concerns vehicles confiscated under anti-social behaviour orders. It seeks to make allowance for a vehicle to be destroyed when it has no value and will never be claimed. It seems incongruous to leave a local council or police pound having to store lots of vehicles for ever when there is no residual value in any of them.
Lord Rooker: The clause as drafted allows the Secretary of State to make regulations in respect of various issues. I realise that the points Members of the Committee have raised are important, but they are
more appropriate for the regulations. We need flexibility in drafting the regulations and expressing the issues. Amendment No. 292 would curb our freedom of action. Clause 52(8) contains an important safeguard in that the new police powers relating to the seizure will be exercisable only after the regulations have come into force.As regards Amendment No. 297, the removal and storage of the vehicles would impose a cost on the police. The amendment would make it more difficult for them to recover that cost and therefore it would impose an extra burden on the police. It should not be too difficult for a person to prove that he was not involved in the misuse of his vehicle because normally he would not have been present when it was being misused. It would be more difficult for the police to show that he had some involvement if he denied it.
We do not see a need for Amendment No. 296. The regulations will prescribe the circumstances under which the seized vehicle can be disposed of. That would include, for instance, cases in which the seized vehicle was, in the opinion of a competent authority, in such a condition that it ought to be destroyed.
In respect of Amendments Nos. 293 and 294, the regulations will be able to specify what proof of ownership must be produced before the vehicle can be released. We must be careful about that. We need to examine the documentation that will be acceptable as proof of ownership. We ought to be concerned about the principle of releasing a vehicle to someone other than the owner, which could lead to further arguments. We accept that the owner and the registered keeper are not necessarily the same person, but that is a matter of detail which we shall address in the regulations.
Viscount Bridgeman: Will the Minister assure us of the procedure under which the regulations will be put into effect?
Lord Rooker: I was about to say, "As laid down in the clause", but that is not a satisfactory answer. I cannot see whether it is the negative or affirmative procedure. Perhaps I may put it this way: it fully conforms with the recommendations of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Select Committee of this House because we have accepted all its recommendations.
Viscount Bridgeman: I am grateful to the Minister. I am sure that he will write to us on this point. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 293 to 297 not moved.]
Viscount Bridgeman moved Amendment No. 298:
- Page 48, line 34, at end insert—
The noble Viscount said: The amendment refers to the powers in Clause 53 in regard to the removal and retention of vehicles which have been seized under Clause 52. As they affect the owner of a vehicle, the proposals are very draconian and we suggest that they should be matters for a tribunal rather than for the Secretary of State. The amendment seeks to design an appellate procedure for those who feel that they have been wronged by a local authority in circumstances where either the Secretary of State or the local authority is unlikely to create such an appellate procedure. This is similar to the provisions in the private security Bill as regards appeals against the grant of private security licences. I beg to move.
Lord Monson: Again, I support the amendment of the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman. This is a well thought out and balanced amendment which introduces a much needed element of fairness into the clause. As I said before, I strongly support the principles of Clauses 52 and 53, but certain safeguards, such as this one, need to be incorporated into them.
Lord Borrie: I intervene on this occasion only because we did not have amendments dealing with particular aspects of Clause 52 and therefore we never discussed—we never had occasion to discuss—the warnings that have to be given by a police constable before he may seize vehicles. That warning—and a repetition of the offence—is necessary for the seizure to take place and is preparatory to using, in the words of the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, this "draconian power".
Lord Rooker: It would be quite unfair—indeed, unjust—for the police to retain indefinitely vehicles that they had seized, but we do not consider that the procedures provided for in this detailed amendment, which would enable an aggrieved owner to have access to a court in the event of a dispute with the police, are necessary.
In such circumstances the vehicle owner could make use of existing civil procedures to gain access to the county court. Indeed, the civil courts have already determined similar disputes arising out of the removal, retention and disposal of vehicles seized by the police under their current powers under the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984. One example is the case of Service Motor Policies v City Recovery Limited 1997, which reached the Court of Appeal. So there is already a satisfactory procedure.
If the owner of the vehicle is subject to a criminal charge arising out of the circumstances in which the vehicle was seized, then an application under the Police Property Act may also be open to him. That procedure is often used by those who are subject to criminal charges to recover their property.
"( ) A person whose vehicle has been seized under section 52 may apply to a magistrates' court within the relevant jurisdiction within 28 days for an order that the vehicle be released by the relevant authority.
( ) Upon such an application, it shall be for the relevant authority to show on the balance of probabilities that the relevant police constable did have reasonable grounds to seize the vehicle.
( ) Failure to satisfy the court will result in the vehicle being returned immediately to the applicant and the applicant's costs being paid by the relevant authority.
( ) If a court is satisfied that there were good reasons, it may order that the vehicle be returned but also that the relevant authority's reasonable costs be met for the seizure and storage of the vehicle.
( ) If a court is satisfied that it is in the public interest that a vehicle remain seized, it may so order but only for a total period of 6 months."
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page