---

Lord Rooker: That is absolutely bang to rights. My noble friend Lord McIntosh questioned whether anyone would ever have thought that on both sides of the House we have experts in moving abnormal loads. One never ceases to be amazed about this place. We heard thoroughly professional speeches, also drawing on experience.

I repeat what I have said. However, the most important consideration is that the amendment would not be helpful to constrain the detailed consideration of all the issues that is currently taking place.

Earl Attlee: I am extremely grateful for the Minister's comments. I shall not be returning to this issue. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Earl Attlee moved Amendment No. 335:

After Clause 72, insert the following new clause—

"REMOVAL OF VEHICLES BY POLICE CONTRACTED RECOVERY SCHEMES
In section 99 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 (c. 27) (removal of vehicles etc.), after subsection (2)(c) there shall be inserted—
"(d) may, subject to paragraphs (e) and (f) provide for Police Contracted Recovery Schemes;
(e) any regulations for a scheme under subsection (2)(d) shall provide that— (i) all appointed recovery operators are accredited to an International Standards Organisation standard; (ii) a person whose vehicle falls within subsection (1) is, subject to sub-paragraph (iii) or (iv), given the opportunity to arrange removal himself;

12 Mar 2002 : Column 795

(iii) sub-paragraph (ii) shall not apply if a constable believes safety of other road users would be compromised and the customer is unlikely to be able to arrange for the vehicle's removal before the appointed recovery operator; (iv) sub-paragraph (ii) shall not apply if the road on which the vehicle is permitted to rest is a special road and the customer is unlikely to be able to arrange for the vehicle's removal within a time specified in the regulations or one hour, whichever is the greater; (v) if a person whose vehicle falls within subsection (1) arranges removal of the vehicle himself and his choice of recovery operator arrives before the appointed recovery operator, he shall be under no obligation to the appointed recovery operator or the authority; (vi) neither the authority, the chief police officer or the police authority may benefit from a preferential scale of charges or free services from an appointed recovery operator; (vii) when a vehicle has been abandoned by the owner or registered keeper the authority shall pay the appointed recovery operator the charges prescribed under section 102 of this Act; (viii) an appointed recovery operator shall not be required to give any financial or other consideration for being appointed; (ix) the police authority may make a financial charge, as prescribed, against the person whose vehicle falls within subsection (1), for despatching the appointed recovery operator, and such a charge may be collected by the appointed recovery operator; (x) any scheme must allow for competition, new operators joining the scheme, and aim to have operators no further than a prescribed distance from each other; (xi) no person shall be appointed under a police contracted recovery scheme if he is not of good repute as defined in sub-paragraph (xii); (xii) a person is of good repute if he meets similar requirements to paragraphs 1 to 6 of Schedule 3 to the Goods Vehicle (Licensing of Operators) Act 1995 (c. 23); (xiii) appointed recovery operators shall not charge more than the amount prescribed under section 102 for removing a vehicle weighing no more than 3500 kilograms unless approved by the chief officer of police on each occasion;

12 Mar 2002 : Column 796

(xiv) appointed recovery operators shall not charge more than the amount prescribed under section 102 for removing a vehicle weighing more than 3500 kilograms unless there are unusual difficulties requiring extra facilities, but rates shall not exceed those published under sub-paragraph (xv); and (xv) appointed recovery operators shall publish their scale of charges in such form as may be prescribed in one or more local papers;
(f) before making any regulations under subsection (2)(d) the Secretary of State shall consult such organisations as he considers necessary and in particular the authorities empowered by regulations under section 99(1).""

The noble Earl said: The hour is late and I do not intend to give a detailed explanation of my amendment. The reason for tabling it is that there is considerable concern about police vehicle recovery schemes.

There have been court cases challenging their legality. In South Wales the nominated police recovery operator was charging extortionate rates to captive customers. In several areas the police have been telling motorists that they must use the police contractor when they have no power to do so. In other cases the customer's choice of recovery operator turned up before the police contractor but was turned away by the police using questionable procedures.

The Committee may be interested to hear that operators have to pay the police authority as much as £6,000 to buy a "patch". In addition, they are obliged to provide free—I repeat, free—storage and recovery services to the police. If it is necessary to return to this issue at Report I shall have to consider whether the word "corruption" is too strong. Ordinary motorists will be paying for these free services given to the police on the back of the recovery schemes.

Turning to the amendment itself, paragraph (e) is largely self-explanatory as it deals with all the concerns of motorists and trade associations. I do not intend to weary the Committee by going through it in detail tonight. However, I believe that the Minister will have to say whether he believes the principles in paragraph (e) are right or wrong. Does he believe there to be a general problem and, if so, what is he doing about it? I beg to move.

Lord Rooker: There is a serious issue here which has to be addressed. That is not easy to do. I did not say this in my original speech because it would have been wrong to link all three amendments together. This matter is part of an issue that we are currently looking at as well as those concerning other amendments which the noble Earl proposed. People may believe that they can make their own arrangements more cheaply. The Freight Transport Association and the Road Haulage Association would like guidelines. There is concern that currently owners of stolen vehicles recovered by the police have to pay police removal and storage costs. We are looking at these issues. I am not making a commitment that we shall return to them at Report stage, but they are under active discussion in government at present. Whether

12 Mar 2002 : Column 797

we can bring anything forward as regards this Bill in this House or in another place remains to be seen. There may even be another Bill. I am not making any commitment. I can assure the noble Earl that various government departments, and not just the Home Office, are actively discussing these issues.

Earl Attlee: I am extremely grateful to the Minister for regarding it as a serious problem and not simply telling me why my amendment was unworkable. I was surprised that he did not raise the issue of the need to move broken down vehicles from certain roads very quickly. That is an issue which concerns the police. We know that the hard shoulder is an extremely dangerous place on the motorway. I am grateful for the noble Lord's response. I would like to use the normal caveat, but in the meantime I beg leave to withdraw the amendment

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

9.30 p.m.

Clause 73 [Liability for wrongful acts of constables etc.]:

Lord Rooker moved Amendment No. 335A:

Page 66, leave out lines 21 to 24 and insert "Each of the enactments specified in subsection (1A) shall be amended as follows—"

The noble Lord said: At this stage of the Bill, and at this time of night, I hope that noble Lords will take my word when I say that the amendments in this group are, essentially, technical amendments to Clause 73. I could make lengthy speeches on each amendment, if required. However, as I said, they are technical and not substantive policy amendments. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Rooker moved Amendments Nos. 335B to 335D:

Page 66, line 28, at end insert—

"(1A) The enactments are—
(a) section 88(1) of the 1996 Act (liability of chief officers);
(b) section 97(9) of that Act (liability of the Secretary of State);
(c) section 42(1) of the 1997 Act (liability of the Director General of NCIS);
(d) section 86(1) of that Act (liability of the Director General of the National Crime Squad);
(e) section 27(8) of the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 1998 (c.32) (liability of the Secretary of State);
(f) section 29(1) of that Act (liability of the chief constable of the Police Service of Northern Ireland);
(g) paragraph 7(3) of Schedule 3 to that Act (liability of the Police Ombudsman); and
(h) paragraph 14(1) of Schedule 3 to the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001 (c.16) (liability of the Central Police Training and Development Authority).
(1B) In paragraph 7(1) of Schedule 8 to the 1997 Act (liability of Police Information Technology Organisation)—
(a) for "a tort committed by" there shall be substituted "any unlawful conduct of";
(b) for "torts committed by" there shall be substituted "any unlawful conduct of"; and

12 Mar 2002 : Column 798

(c) for "in respect of any such tort" there shall be substituted ", in the case of a tort,"."
Page 66, line 29, leave out from beginning to second "for" in line 31 and insert "In each of the enactments specified in subsection (3), "

Page 66, line 32, at end insert—

---